9 ms·

Biodistribution of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in human breast milk

61 points by shaicoleman 3y ago

vnchr 3y ago
> Our findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is not confined to the injection site but spreads systemically and is packaged into BM EVs. I thought Pfizer tested the vaccine and said this wouldn’t happen.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- zolbrek 3y ago
  That's what was claimed, yes.
  - thehappypm 3y ago
    Source? I don’t recall this being a claim, at least not in the strongest claim of “100% stays in the muscle for all patients.”
- reanimus 3y ago
  Where did you see them claim this?
- astrange 3y ago
  > However, as only trace quantities are present and a clear translational activity is absent, we believe breastfeeding post-vaccination is safe, especially 48 h after vaccination.
  - salad-tycoon 3y ago
    “I’m doing this for baby” ads turned out to be true. Or maybe it should have been “I’m doing this to baby.” With the amount of backtracking any of this “we believe we totally did nothing wrong and you shouldn’t look too closely at us, ok?” Just really doesn’t sit well with me. What about the same “we believe” claims on transmission? Efficacy? Safety? Lots of modifying after the fact and “oops, sorry!” Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    - astrange 3y ago
      If drinking mRNA did anything, we wouldn't need needles for the vaccine, and we also wouldn't be able to eat meat. > Lots of modifying after the fact and “oops, sorry!” Nah, none of that happened and when it did it was natural and didn't imply any mistakes. If you're going to misunderstand research, it's better not to think about it in the first place. (Example: efficacy of a vaccine always appears highest when noone's gotten the vaccine yet. This is a base rate effect.) Of course, there were some other less effective vaccines in poor deprived countries like China and England, but we can't do much about that.
      - junofan 3y ago
        I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand. Check out An oral vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 RBD mRNA-bovine milk-derived exosomes induces a neutralizing antibody response in vivo [1]. [1]: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.19.517879v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.19.517879v1
        NullifyNAN 3y ago
        That's a completely different architecture than current lipid nanoparticle mRNA vaccines. It would be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of knowledge that the linked paper is not relevant.
- wesapien 3y ago
  Let's say it's true that it stayed locally, why do we them expect it to create immunity for the body and not just that area?
  - minifridge 3y ago
    Immunity does not mean mRNA molecules diffused across the body. The mRNAs are supposed to be translated and degrated yielding the antigen protein. This antigens cause inflammation at the area of injection and in theory only the protein antigen will be circulated by the immune cells to generate immunity.
    - wesapien 3y ago
      I'm recalling from a podcast that intramuscular shots doesn't really isolate but rather slows down the actual spread within the body. There's still capillaries and the lymphatic system where the shots can travel. How else do we explain what is happening?
notnot 3y ago
When I eat a raw vegetable or a piece of sashimi I'm consuming many pieces of mRNA. Does it matter what these molecules encode for? Doesn't my stomach just chop everything up? Would it matter if a baby ate COVID vaccine mRNA?
- StephenAmar 3y ago
  Basically. It’s very unlikely any mRNA would survive intact in the stomach.
- cbeach 3y ago
  While it’s slightly concerning that the baby ingests genetically engineered mRNA that has been untested for infant consumption, the more pressing concern is that mRNA proliferated further than expected in mothers’ bodies. We were originally told that mRNA vaccines did not spread around the body. An mRNA vaccine that spreads around the body is problematic, because the body’s own cytotoxic T cells and NK (natural killer) cells will destroy some of our own cells if they express the spike protein (as prompted by the mRNA vaccine). This is particularly problematic in heart cells, where permanent scarring of tissue can occur, weakening the heart and shortening the life of the patient.
  - SturgeonsLaw 3y ago
    > We were originally told that mRNA vaccines did not spread around the body. It's injected into the bloodstream, how can it not?
    - cbeach 3y ago
      Vaccines like this are not meant to be injected into the bloodstream. They’re meant to be injected into muscle tissue. There is an injection technique called “aspiration” that is specifically intended to avoid vaccines being inadvertently injected into the bloodstream. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intramuscular_injection https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intramuscular_injection Unfortunately many countries have stopped performing this safety technique as it causes the injection to be more painful.
thenerdhead 3y ago
Why is this important? Because two years ago the claim was the opposite in preprint. We also don’t know if it is safe for this amount to be passed to newborn/infants which is why they urge caution of no BM for two days until further researched. Newborns especially have fresh microbiomes and are being exposed to new things everyday and especially through BM. The first major time they are exposed to microbes is through delivery. Things like C-section and formula feeding prevent this rich exposure. Usually why we wait until the 6 month mark for certain vaccines, as the microbiome and immune system will be strong enough to fight.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- junofan 3y ago
  Could be misremembering, but I believe Pfizer turned in no data on breastfeeding in their initial assessment for the EU. If so, a curious omission.
  - thenerdhead 3y ago
    I think that's what the authors in this paper are saying. To resource maternal health data.

61 points by shaicoleman 3y ago

> Our findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is not confined to the injection site but spreads systemically and is packaged into BM EVs. I thought Pfizer tested the vaccine and said this wouldn’t happen.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
zolbrek 3y ago
That's what was claimed, yes.
- thehappypm 3y ago
  Source? I don’t recall this being a claim, at least not in the strongest claim of “100% stays in the muscle for all patients.”
reanimus 3y ago
Where did you see them claim this?
astrange 3y ago
> However, as only trace quantities are present and a clear translational activity is absent, we believe breastfeeding post-vaccination is safe, especially 48 h after vaccination.
- salad-tycoon 3y ago
  “I’m doing this for baby” ads turned out to be true. Or maybe it should have been “I’m doing this to baby.” With the amount of backtracking any of this “we believe we totally did nothing wrong and you shouldn’t look too closely at us, ok?” Just really doesn’t sit well with me. What about the same “we believe” claims on transmission? Efficacy? Safety? Lots of modifying after the fact and “oops, sorry!” Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
  - astrange 3y ago
    If drinking mRNA did anything, we wouldn't need needles for the vaccine, and we also wouldn't be able to eat meat. > Lots of modifying after the fact and “oops, sorry!” Nah, none of that happened and when it did it was natural and didn't imply any mistakes. If you're going to misunderstand research, it's better not to think about it in the first place. (Example: efficacy of a vaccine always appears highest when noone's gotten the vaccine yet. This is a base rate effect.) Of course, there were some other less effective vaccines in poor deprived countries like China and England, but we can't do much about that.
    - junofan 3y ago
      I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand. Check out An oral vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 RBD mRNA-bovine milk-derived exosomes induces a neutralizing antibody response in vivo [1]. [1]: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.19.517879v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.19.517879v1
      - NullifyNAN 3y ago
        That's a completely different architecture than current lipid nanoparticle mRNA vaccines. It would be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of knowledge that the linked paper is not relevant.
wesapien 3y ago
Let's say it's true that it stayed locally, why do we them expect it to create immunity for the body and not just that area?
- minifridge 3y ago
  Immunity does not mean mRNA molecules diffused across the body. The mRNAs are supposed to be translated and degrated yielding the antigen protein. This antigens cause inflammation at the area of injection and in theory only the protein antigen will be circulated by the immune cells to generate immunity.
  - wesapien 3y ago
    I'm recalling from a podcast that intramuscular shots doesn't really isolate but rather slows down the actual spread within the body. There's still capillaries and the lymphatic system where the shots can travel. How else do we explain what is happening?

notnot 3y ago

When I eat a raw vegetable or a piece of sashimi I'm consuming many pieces of mRNA. Does it matter what these molecules encode for? Doesn't my stomach just chop everything up? Would it matter if a baby ate COVID vaccine mRNA?

StephenAmar 3y ago
Basically. It’s very unlikely any mRNA would survive intact in the stomach.
cbeach 3y ago
While it’s slightly concerning that the baby ingests genetically engineered mRNA that has been untested for infant consumption, the more pressing concern is that mRNA proliferated further than expected in mothers’ bodies. We were originally told that mRNA vaccines did not spread around the body. An mRNA vaccine that spreads around the body is problematic, because the body’s own cytotoxic T cells and NK (natural killer) cells will destroy some of our own cells if they express the spike protein (as prompted by the mRNA vaccine). This is particularly problematic in heart cells, where permanent scarring of tissue can occur, weakening the heart and shortening the life of the patient.
- SturgeonsLaw 3y ago
  > We were originally told that mRNA vaccines did not spread around the body. It's injected into the bloodstream, how can it not?
  - cbeach 3y ago
    Vaccines like this are not meant to be injected into the bloodstream. They’re meant to be injected into muscle tissue. There is an injection technique called “aspiration” that is specifically intended to avoid vaccines being inadvertently injected into the bloodstream. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intramuscular_injection https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intramuscular_injection Unfortunately many countries have stopped performing this safety technique as it causes the injection to be more painful.

thenerdhead 3y ago

Why is this important? Because two years ago the claim was the opposite in preprint. We also don’t know if it is safe for this amount to be passed to newborn/infants which is why they urge caution of no BM for two days until further researched. Newborns especially have fresh microbiomes and are being exposed to new things everyday and especially through BM. The first major time they are exposed to microbes is through delivery. Things like C-section and formula feeding prevent this rich exposure. Usually why we wait until the 6 month mark for certain vaccines, as the microbiome and immune system will be strong enough to fight.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
junofan 3y ago
Could be misremembering, but I believe Pfizer turned in no data on breastfeeding in their initial assessment for the EU. If so, a curious omission.
- thenerdhead 3y ago
  I think that's what the authors in this paper are saying. To resource maternal health data.