6 ms·

DNA fragments detected in Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA Covid-19 vaccines

33 points by g42gregory 3y ago

deadlinermusic 3y ago
[flagged]
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Perhaps. But it would help if you clarified a bit more.
tabtab 3y ago
I don't yet understand the implications or risk of this, but I'm positive the anti-vaxers will use it to spread their cause.
- g42gregory 3y ago
  If you are not allowed to talk about vaccine's problems, how do you expect to fix them? It's all fun and games until it hits you or someone you know. Yes, anti-vaxers will use it, but so what? We are not supposed to research vaccine safety because of that?
  - frognumber 3y ago
    I think you might be reading a subtext that's not there. I agree with OP's comment. I don't see how anyone sane would agree with what you believe it implies. Ironically, if we can't talk about how an article like this one will be used by anti-vaxers, we can't meaningfully address how to minimize that harm either. In either case, what I'd most like to see is a TL;DR / ELI5-level explanation of the article.
    - wddkcs 3y ago
      The best and only way to counter anti-truth is with truth, usually meaning transparency. There are always going to be non-conforming groups, you shouldn't be worried about countering their views explicitly if you're worried about general human wellness. Focus on transparency, and the natural scientific process will do the rest.
      - clipsy 3y ago
        > The best and only way to counter anti-truth is with truth, usually meaning transparency. Is that based on empirical research, or is it a statement of faith?
        pigeons 3y ago
        It depends on your definition of "best".
        clipsy 3y ago
        I'd settle for empirical research demonstrating it to be a successful strategy.
        wddkcs 3y ago
        You could call it a statement of faith, but I would be very interested in any study showing that suppression of information leads to more factually correct opinions. But of course, if such studies existed, they should be suppressed, in order to lead to the correct opinion regarding the subject. The logic is self defeating. Transparency is required so information can be processed completely. You ask for transparency of sourcing, because the statement 'truth counters anti-truth' is foundational.
        frognumber 3y ago
        It depends on the definition of "best." Countering anti-truth with truth is clearly the highest-integrity way of operating. My personal experience is that it's also the most effective. I see a lot of countering anti-truth with anti-truth, and people can smell the BS there. At that point, they become distrustful and defensive. For example, before someone lies to an anti-vaxer, it's easy to counter and convince with science and fact. Once someone lies to an anti-vaxer it becomes basically impossible to cross that hump.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  I don't understand how you can admit you don't understand and then immediately square off against X. X being the people asking for transparency, honesty, etc. Put another way, anti-vax is wrong but anti-you-and-rest-of-us is ok? One word for you: FollowTheMoney
  - hinkley 3y ago
    Shouting conspiracy isn’t seeking truth. It’s throwing a tantrum to get out of doing something you don’t want to do.
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      And calling something a conspiracy theory doesn't make it so simply because someone else told you to do so and you assimilated to that norm simply because you are too intellectually lazy to think thoughts that might make you uncomfortable. Here's an example: "...But so far private companies Pfizer and Moderna are the only ones that have succeeded in making them. And both companies have refused to share their patents and their manufacturing know-how..." https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/07/13/1111137152/these-brazilian-besties-are-inventing-an-mrna-vaccine-as-a-gift-to-the-world https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/07/13/1111137... Now let that sink in...we were told time and again. It's a pandemic (i.e., worldwide) and that a variation in Country X has the potential to kill *everywhere*. But share the technology? To save lives?? Technology the US taxpayer paid for?? No way! Yeah, no big deal. There weren't that many people living in Brazil anyway. Or what about the fact long term safety was promised...based on what? A time machine? Or what about the fact that it was revealed mid-pandemic that those disposable blue masks weren't capable of filtering out things the size of a virus? (Read: They were effectively *useless*) When out of left field Faucci tried to push wearing two masks? Simple question: How could the CDC and a world renown "expert" *not* know that?? I get it. They've manipulated your scarcity brain and its biases and you can't help but to keep blowing the horn for them. But that doesn't make anything outside the dictacted narrative a conspiracy theory. It never has. It never will. Again: follow the money. p.s. Cardiovascular disease *continues* to kill and maim (i.e., stroke) more than Covid did and does but *no one* from NIH, CDC, WHO, etc. is in the media every other day saying,"Put down the Coke and fries and go for a long walk...". But now that there's a jab for weight reduction maybe that'll happen. Funny how that is. Coincidentally, those with excess weight (and associated medical conditions) fared worse against Covid. At yet the weight/cardiovascular pandemic doesn't get a spotlight? Why?
- stormfather 3y ago
  The blanket term anti-vaxxer is extremely problematic. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for intelligent people to question the risk-benefit of the coronavirus vaccines without being anti-vaccine in general. They're novel, no long term testing, powerful vested interests, rushed out when society was hysterical, did little to stop transmission, etc. Please stop turning this into more tribal, politicized us vs. them bs.
  - isitmadeofglass 3y ago
    [dead]
  - hinkley 3y ago
    And do you expect those people to use this information as fodder? Or the idiots?
    - indigo0086 3y ago
      Is the information correct,because of it is a concern to the scientific community it says something about blind trust "pro-vaxxers" have if long term harm is even higher
    - stormfather 3y ago
      I expect different people to use the fact to the limits of their cognitive abilities. And I wouldn't call them all idiots. To me personally, the idiots are the people who don't realize how much propaganda they're being exposed to, and don't realize they've been intentionally trained to conflate doubting one vaccine with doubting all vaccines or science in general.
- soultrees 3y ago
  You’re honestly doing yourself a disservice by using terminology like that. At the time it was a way to generalize a hysterical population in a hysterical time but nowadays, after science has had its time to do it’s thing, multiple studies have come out that have shown there were additional risks with the vaccine itself, also showing it wasn’t everything they had hyped it up to be, and the fact that it was basically forced upon the population as a doomsday cure - people were right to question what was happening. Now that the dust has settled, people are more willing to come out and say they didn’t take the vaccine or are more honest in their opinions about what happened then, and you would be surprised at the amount of well educated, well respected individuals who decided to wait, or decided to avoid the vaccine but follow all other protocols but were afraid to speak up because of the absolute outrage coming from people who were generalizing everyone as crazy anti-vaxxers. A functioning democracy needs people who question the official line, even just to stir the conversation. A healthy functioning democracy needs the freedom for people to speak up against, or at least question the official line and during COVID times, we didn’t have that. Just remember, this us vs them mentality you have in your mind is all fabricated and depending on which “channel” you were tuned in to, all the news was pointed towards hating the other side more. We could all use a reminder to appreciate our many commonalities and not our few differences of our fellow humans.
  - hedora 3y ago
    > multiple studies have come out that have shown there were additional risks with the vaccine itself Citation?
    - pbjtime 3y ago
      You're honestly doing yourself a disservice expecting citations for such obvious helpful information gosh
  - brnt 3y ago
    > A functioning democracy needs people who question the official line But that's not what's going on. What's going on is people questioning logic itself. At the time, we just had no better options, based on the knowledge so far. This being uncomfortable is a far cry from questioning the 'official line', it's just choosing to respond to feeling rather than logic, which is problematic. Nobodg felt good about Covid and any of it's solutions. They were merely the least worst. Antivaxxers would do well to understand how logical reasoning works, and stop attributing choice, emotion, officialdom, whatnot, where there is none. It's a classic case of projection: because they think so, doesn't mean it's how everyone thinks. Not doing the logical thing is always inferior thinking and should be recognised as such.
rasengan0 3y ago
Some of the authors other content: https://osf.io/en6sh/ https://osf.io/en6sh/ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHu0ppdYJfk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHu0ppdYJfk https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=a31d3714-7edb-4403-9cba-273f4be671af https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=a31d3714-7edb-4403-... https://osf.io/v8af3/ https://osf.io/v8af3/ - https://www.webmd.com/david-wiseman https://www.webmd.com/david-wiseman https://osf.io/627nc/ https://osf.io/627nc/ - https://medicinalgenomics.com/team/kevin-mckernan/ https://medicinalgenomics.com/team/kevin-mckernan/
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Yikes. Even as an amateur I can see the problems with the approach taken in the Science Open paper. They tried to do statistical analysis on VAERS entries? The system of self-reporting? And did nothing that I can observe to try to control for the memetic passage of the "covid vaccination causes myocardititis" belief ripping through the international community? That's like claiming that October causes people to be more scared of the dark and completely ignoring the fact that the horror movie marathons run around Halloween.
bluSCALE4 3y ago
Everyone here doesn't know the effects or fragment DNA but the vaccines had 188-509 fold the acceptable amount set by the FDA and WHO which can't be good.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  > which can't be good Your body deals with free floating DNA in intercellular fluids every time a cell ruptures. To first approximation, the right assumption to make is that free floating vaccine DNA would trigger more immune response as the body reacts to unencapsulated DNA fragments by cleaning them up and their presence triggers the immune system as if cells were damaged. The wrong assumption to make is " that DNA gets consumed by cells and processed." There are multiple layers of protection against that. If it were that easy to introduce novel DNA into a cell's machinery, the biosphere in which we live would be taking us apart continuously.
FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
What is this trying to say? That the actual "blueprint" plasmid DNA -- from which the vaccine RNA is generated -- leaks into the vaccine during the manufacturing process? Or is it saying that other DNA from the bacterial vector (Escherichia coli) gets into the vaccine? Ok, say that happened. What would the consequences be? AIUI, both vaccines use a special lipid "bubble" around the RNA (and I suppose this accidental DNA) to get it through cell walls. Once in the cell, the RNA then gets to work, instructing the cell to start manufacturing various proteins from the COVID-19 virus -- most notably the spike protein. But suppose that some DNA also makes it inside. What happens to it? Hypothetically, can it encounter DNA polymerase there and start replicating? Would it be transcribed to RNA and would it start making proteins? I understand that extrachromosomal DNA (mostly mitochondrial DNA) does exist and is heritable, almost only from the mother. Would this get into oocytes? But presumably DNA from viruses is not hugely different, and we constantly encounter viruses. And yes there's some gene transfer that happens occasionally but somehow this isn't generally a big deal? (I guess sometimes it results in cancer? I'm assuming that's the mechanism behind, say, HPV?) So maybe some kind of long term consequences are conceivable, but, probably not, thanks to our immune systems? So maybe this would cause some inflammation until the immune system mopped it up, and that'd be all? I'm just trying to think this through. I'd like to hear spelled out exactly what the implications supposedly are. I don't just want to hear "Booo! Scary DNA!", I want to hear a plausible explanation for why it might matter.
- fasteo 3y ago
  >>> I'd like to hear spelled out exactly what the implications supposedly are We do not know, and that's precisely the problem
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Foreign DNA that gets into your cells can be integrated into your own DNA, meaning indefinite spike protein production and consequent immuno-tolerance. This is likely the explanation for the (not media reported) cases where people who got vaccinated start testing PCR positive indefinitely, or who still test positive for spike weeks after the shot when it's supposed to dissipate within days. It may also explain many of the nasty side effects and injuries. > presumably DNA from viruses is not hugely different It's pretty different yeah. The RNA/DNA in the vaccines is hyper-optimized to produce spike relative to anything nature would produce, and the pseudouridine stops the immune system detecting and destroying it as it normally would with viral RNA. So the immune system isn't going to find it easy to mop this up, the vaccine is specifically engineered to avoid that (otherwise the mRNA wouldn't reach your cells at all).
workfromspace 3y ago
https://archive.ph/yVHQL https://archive.ph/yVHQL
tibbydudeza 3y ago
Well we do need a major depopulation event - it will be good for the planet. Not more global warming. PS I am double jabbed Pfizer :)

33 points by g42gregory 3y ago

deadlinermusic 3y ago

[flagged]

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Perhaps. But it would help if you clarified a bit more.

tabtab 3y ago

I don't yet understand the implications or risk of this, but I'm positive the anti-vaxers will use it to spread their cause.

g42gregory 3y ago
If you are not allowed to talk about vaccine's problems, how do you expect to fix them? It's all fun and games until it hits you or someone you know. Yes, anti-vaxers will use it, but so what? We are not supposed to research vaccine safety because of that?
- frognumber 3y ago
  I think you might be reading a subtext that's not there. I agree with OP's comment. I don't see how anyone sane would agree with what you believe it implies. Ironically, if we can't talk about how an article like this one will be used by anti-vaxers, we can't meaningfully address how to minimize that harm either. In either case, what I'd most like to see is a TL;DR / ELI5-level explanation of the article.
  - wddkcs 3y ago
    The best and only way to counter anti-truth is with truth, usually meaning transparency. There are always going to be non-conforming groups, you shouldn't be worried about countering their views explicitly if you're worried about general human wellness. Focus on transparency, and the natural scientific process will do the rest.
    - clipsy 3y ago
      > The best and only way to counter anti-truth is with truth, usually meaning transparency. Is that based on empirical research, or is it a statement of faith?
      - pigeons 3y ago
        It depends on your definition of "best".
        clipsy 3y ago
        I'd settle for empirical research demonstrating it to be a successful strategy.
        wddkcs 3y ago
        You could call it a statement of faith, but I would be very interested in any study showing that suppression of information leads to more factually correct opinions. But of course, if such studies existed, they should be suppressed, in order to lead to the correct opinion regarding the subject. The logic is self defeating. Transparency is required so information can be processed completely. You ask for transparency of sourcing, because the statement 'truth counters anti-truth' is foundational.
      - frognumber 3y ago
        It depends on the definition of "best." Countering anti-truth with truth is clearly the highest-integrity way of operating. My personal experience is that it's also the most effective. I see a lot of countering anti-truth with anti-truth, and people can smell the BS there. At that point, they become distrustful and defensive. For example, before someone lies to an anti-vaxer, it's easy to counter and convince with science and fact. Once someone lies to an anti-vaxer it becomes basically impossible to cross that hump.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
I don't understand how you can admit you don't understand and then immediately square off against X. X being the people asking for transparency, honesty, etc. Put another way, anti-vax is wrong but anti-you-and-rest-of-us is ok? One word for you: FollowTheMoney
- hinkley 3y ago
  Shouting conspiracy isn’t seeking truth. It’s throwing a tantrum to get out of doing something you don’t want to do.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    And calling something a conspiracy theory doesn't make it so simply because someone else told you to do so and you assimilated to that norm simply because you are too intellectually lazy to think thoughts that might make you uncomfortable. Here's an example: "...But so far private companies Pfizer and Moderna are the only ones that have succeeded in making them. And both companies have refused to share their patents and their manufacturing know-how..." https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/07/13/1111137152/these-brazilian-besties-are-inventing-an-mrna-vaccine-as-a-gift-to-the-world https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/07/13/1111137... Now let that sink in...we were told time and again. It's a pandemic (i.e., worldwide) and that a variation in Country X has the potential to kill *everywhere*. But share the technology? To save lives?? Technology the US taxpayer paid for?? No way! Yeah, no big deal. There weren't that many people living in Brazil anyway. Or what about the fact long term safety was promised...based on what? A time machine? Or what about the fact that it was revealed mid-pandemic that those disposable blue masks weren't capable of filtering out things the size of a virus? (Read: They were effectively *useless*) When out of left field Faucci tried to push wearing two masks? Simple question: How could the CDC and a world renown "expert" *not* know that?? I get it. They've manipulated your scarcity brain and its biases and you can't help but to keep blowing the horn for them. But that doesn't make anything outside the dictacted narrative a conspiracy theory. It never has. It never will. Again: follow the money. p.s. Cardiovascular disease *continues* to kill and maim (i.e., stroke) more than Covid did and does but *no one* from NIH, CDC, WHO, etc. is in the media every other day saying,"Put down the Coke and fries and go for a long walk...". But now that there's a jab for weight reduction maybe that'll happen. Funny how that is. Coincidentally, those with excess weight (and associated medical conditions) fared worse against Covid. At yet the weight/cardiovascular pandemic doesn't get a spotlight? Why?
stormfather 3y ago
The blanket term anti-vaxxer is extremely problematic. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for intelligent people to question the risk-benefit of the coronavirus vaccines without being anti-vaccine in general. They're novel, no long term testing, powerful vested interests, rushed out when society was hysterical, did little to stop transmission, etc. Please stop turning this into more tribal, politicized us vs. them bs.
- isitmadeofglass 3y ago
  [dead]
- hinkley 3y ago
  And do you expect those people to use this information as fodder? Or the idiots?
  - indigo0086 3y ago
    Is the information correct,because of it is a concern to the scientific community it says something about blind trust "pro-vaxxers" have if long term harm is even higher
  - stormfather 3y ago
    I expect different people to use the fact to the limits of their cognitive abilities. And I wouldn't call them all idiots. To me personally, the idiots are the people who don't realize how much propaganda they're being exposed to, and don't realize they've been intentionally trained to conflate doubting one vaccine with doubting all vaccines or science in general.
soultrees 3y ago
You’re honestly doing yourself a disservice by using terminology like that. At the time it was a way to generalize a hysterical population in a hysterical time but nowadays, after science has had its time to do it’s thing, multiple studies have come out that have shown there were additional risks with the vaccine itself, also showing it wasn’t everything they had hyped it up to be, and the fact that it was basically forced upon the population as a doomsday cure - people were right to question what was happening. Now that the dust has settled, people are more willing to come out and say they didn’t take the vaccine or are more honest in their opinions about what happened then, and you would be surprised at the amount of well educated, well respected individuals who decided to wait, or decided to avoid the vaccine but follow all other protocols but were afraid to speak up because of the absolute outrage coming from people who were generalizing everyone as crazy anti-vaxxers. A functioning democracy needs people who question the official line, even just to stir the conversation. A healthy functioning democracy needs the freedom for people to speak up against, or at least question the official line and during COVID times, we didn’t have that. Just remember, this us vs them mentality you have in your mind is all fabricated and depending on which “channel” you were tuned in to, all the news was pointed towards hating the other side more. We could all use a reminder to appreciate our many commonalities and not our few differences of our fellow humans.
- hedora 3y ago
  > multiple studies have come out that have shown there were additional risks with the vaccine itself Citation?
  - pbjtime 3y ago
    You're honestly doing yourself a disservice expecting citations for such obvious helpful information gosh
- brnt 3y ago
  > A functioning democracy needs people who question the official line But that's not what's going on. What's going on is people questioning logic itself. At the time, we just had no better options, based on the knowledge so far. This being uncomfortable is a far cry from questioning the 'official line', it's just choosing to respond to feeling rather than logic, which is problematic. Nobodg felt good about Covid and any of it's solutions. They were merely the least worst. Antivaxxers would do well to understand how logical reasoning works, and stop attributing choice, emotion, officialdom, whatnot, where there is none. It's a classic case of projection: because they think so, doesn't mean it's how everyone thinks. Not doing the logical thing is always inferior thinking and should be recognised as such.

rasengan0 3y ago

Some of the authors other content: https://osf.io/en6sh/ https://osf.io/en6sh/ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHu0ppdYJfk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHu0ppdYJfk https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=a31d3714-7edb-4403-9cba-273f4be671af https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=a31d3714-7edb-4403-... https://osf.io/v8af3/ https://osf.io/v8af3/ - https://www.webmd.com/david-wiseman https://www.webmd.com/david-wiseman https://osf.io/627nc/ https://osf.io/627nc/ - https://medicinalgenomics.com/team/kevin-mckernan/ https://medicinalgenomics.com/team/kevin-mckernan/

shadowgovt 3y ago
Yikes. Even as an amateur I can see the problems with the approach taken in the Science Open paper. They tried to do statistical analysis on VAERS entries? The system of self-reporting? And did nothing that I can observe to try to control for the memetic passage of the "covid vaccination causes myocardititis" belief ripping through the international community? That's like claiming that October causes people to be more scared of the dark and completely ignoring the fact that the horror movie marathons run around Halloween.

bluSCALE4 3y ago

Everyone here doesn't know the effects or fragment DNA but the vaccines had 188-509 fold the acceptable amount set by the FDA and WHO which can't be good.

shadowgovt 3y ago
> which can't be good Your body deals with free floating DNA in intercellular fluids every time a cell ruptures. To first approximation, the right assumption to make is that free floating vaccine DNA would trigger more immune response as the body reacts to unencapsulated DNA fragments by cleaning them up and their presence triggers the immune system as if cells were damaged. The wrong assumption to make is " that DNA gets consumed by cells and processed." There are multiple layers of protection against that. If it were that easy to introduce novel DNA into a cell's machinery, the biosphere in which we live would be taking us apart continuously.

FooBarBizBazz 3y ago

What is this trying to say? That the actual "blueprint" plasmid DNA -- from which the vaccine RNA is generated -- leaks into the vaccine during the manufacturing process? Or is it saying that other DNA from the bacterial vector (Escherichia coli) gets into the vaccine? Ok, say that happened. What would the consequences be? AIUI, both vaccines use a special lipid "bubble" around the RNA (and I suppose this accidental DNA) to get it through cell walls. Once in the cell, the RNA then gets to work, instructing the cell to start manufacturing various proteins from the COVID-19 virus -- most notably the spike protein. But suppose that some DNA also makes it inside. What happens to it? Hypothetically, can it encounter DNA polymerase there and start replicating? Would it be transcribed to RNA and would it start making proteins? I understand that extrachromosomal DNA (mostly mitochondrial DNA) does exist and is heritable, almost only from the mother. Would this get into oocytes? But presumably DNA from viruses is not hugely different, and we constantly encounter viruses. And yes there's some gene transfer that happens occasionally but somehow this isn't generally a big deal? (I guess sometimes it results in cancer? I'm assuming that's the mechanism behind, say, HPV?) So maybe some kind of long term consequences are conceivable, but, probably not, thanks to our immune systems? So maybe this would cause some inflammation until the immune system mopped it up, and that'd be all? I'm just trying to think this through. I'd like to hear spelled out exactly what the implications supposedly are. I don't just want to hear "Booo! Scary DNA!", I want to hear a plausible explanation for why it might matter.

fasteo 3y ago
>>> I'd like to hear spelled out exactly what the implications supposedly are We do not know, and that's precisely the problem
nvm0n2 3y ago
Foreign DNA that gets into your cells can be integrated into your own DNA, meaning indefinite spike protein production and consequent immuno-tolerance. This is likely the explanation for the (not media reported) cases where people who got vaccinated start testing PCR positive indefinitely, or who still test positive for spike weeks after the shot when it's supposed to dissipate within days. It may also explain many of the nasty side effects and injuries. > presumably DNA from viruses is not hugely different It's pretty different yeah. The RNA/DNA in the vaccines is hyper-optimized to produce spike relative to anything nature would produce, and the pseudouridine stops the immune system detecting and destroying it as it normally would with viral RNA. So the immune system isn't going to find it easy to mop this up, the vaccine is specifically engineered to avoid that (otherwise the mRNA wouldn't reach your cells at all).

workfromspace 3y ago

https://archive.ph/yVHQL https://archive.ph/yVHQL

tibbydudeza 3y ago

Well we do need a major depopulation event - it will be good for the planet. Not more global warming. PS I am double jabbed Pfizer :)