[HN Gopher] SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Functio...
___________________________________________________________________
SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via
Downregulation of ACE2
Author : fortran77
Score : 145 points
Date : 2021-05-02 14:30 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ahajournals.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ahajournals.org)
| russfink wrote:
| Would someone please dumb this down for me?
| podgaj wrote:
| So if ACE2 is downregulated, and ACE2 uses zinc as a cofactor,
| why are they not looking at high doses of zinc as a treatment?
|
| https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/Q9BYF1
| nradov wrote:
| Zinc supplements are part of the recommended prevention and
| treatment protocol. There is some research to indicate that
| Quercetin facilities zinc uptake.
|
| https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-pl...
| jm4 wrote:
| When I was hospitalized for covid, they were giving me zinc
| (among other things) every day.
| podgaj wrote:
| Yes, I've already known about that. I'm just wondering why
| they're not checking peoples zinc levels or why they're not
| recommending people supplement with zinc.
|
| The rate of zinc deficiency in India is near 50%!
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3702335/
| fortran77 wrote:
| Link to full PDF:
| https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2020/12/04/202...
| stevemk14ebr wrote:
| Can someone ELI5 please? My field is low level computer systems,
| and unfortunately that knowledge does not extend to low level
| physiological processes!
| 908087 wrote:
| Don't let that stop you from pretending to be an expert in
| other fields. It doesn't stop anyone else here.
| unanswered wrote:
| If this is a function of the spike protein, doesn't that mean the
| mRNA vaccines cause this effect as well?
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| The spike protein from the virus bands to ACE2 receptor,
| messing them up. The vaccine primes our bodies to attack the
| spike protein, preventing it from binding to ACE2 and thus
| preventing it from messing up ACE2 receptors.
| ronri19 wrote:
| But the vaccine causes the body to produce spike protein. The
| CDC emphasizes the spike protein is harmless, but this new
| research finds that the spike protein itself can cause
| damage. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/di
| fferent...
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| The vaccine instructs cells to produce a piece of protein
| from the spike. There's no such thing as "a" spike protein,
| the spike is a structure of proteins that enable a lot of
| functions for the virus. They choose a piece of protein
| from the structure that's antigenic then encode the mRNA to
| produce that. The mRNA is delivered into the cell by the
| lipid transport and the cell picks up the instruction and
| produces the antigenic protein fragment. Your immune system
| responds as expected and attacks the antigen carrying
| things - existing cells included. The inoculated mRNA is
| quickly broken down because mRNA is a standard process in
| cell function.
|
| Unless the effect observed is due to the antigen the
| vaccine produces then you wouldn't expect to see the same
| behavior in vaccinated humans as they saw experimentally
| with a full virus, even if some part or the full assembly
| of the spike is a cause for cellular damage.
| wpasc wrote:
| From the wikipedia for Pfizer, the vaccine supposedly
| produces a full length spike protein [1]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COV
| ID-...
| yborg wrote:
| No.
|
| From that link "...two proline substitutions (K986P and
| V987P, designated "2P") that cause the spike to adopt a
| prefusion-stabilized conformation reducing the membrane
| fusion ability, increasing expression and stimulating
| neutralizing antibodies..."
|
| It's a modified version of the spike protein designed as
| an antibody target, not to identically replicate the
| spike protein function.
| karmicthreat wrote:
| Your body is non-stop taking damage every day. Its when the
| body can't compensate fast enough that its a problem.
|
| The load from an mRNA vaccine is miniscule compared to
| severe, or moderate covid.
| lamontcg wrote:
| The vaccine causes a relatively tiny amount of spike to be
| produced compared with a raging infection.
|
| A little bit of spike trains your body to identify it and
| neutralize it.
|
| A whole lot of spike is toxic to your organs and damages
| them.
|
| To downregulate ACE2 you need a whole lot of receptor
| activation and a lot of ligands floating around in your
| system binding to it to cause that. The dose of spike
| protein matters.
| podgaj wrote:
| To downregulate ACE2 all you need is a bad enough zinc
| deficiency.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| This has been the clever guy hot take for a few days now.
| Yet millions of people are walking around vaccinated
| without damage, so....
| platz wrote:
| It's a question hacker mindset would ask. What follows
| from first principles given the headline; it's not an
| unreasonable question, even if there is no empirical
| evidence the vaccines are unsafe
| ronri19 wrote:
| We also have 150+ million people around the world who've
| had the virus walking around without damage.
|
| The point is how should we change our recommendations?
| Are older people or others with certain medical
| conditions more susceptible to damage?
|
| I don't see how shrugging off this new information is
| reasonable or scientific.
| podgaj wrote:
| Start by telling people to take more zinc.
| podgaj wrote:
| People downvoting nutrition...I don't get it...or maybe I
| do.
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240545
| 772...
|
| Vitamin D levels had a significant difference between the
| case and control groups (p = 0.008). Serum calcium and
| serum zinc levels also had statistically significant
| differences between the two groups (p < 0.001).
| tediousdemise wrote:
| Or walking around damaged, and they don't know it yet.
|
| Didn't it take us thousands of years to realize lead was
| poisonous?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It didn't. Western medicine new lead was poisonous dating
| back at least to the second century BCE. What changed was
| the belief that only acute lead exposure could cause
| poisoning... We came to understand the mechanisms by
| which chronic exposure causes buildup and poisoning over
| a long term.
| briefcomment wrote:
| This makes the analogy even more appropriate. We know the
| spike protein is harmful in some amount, but we think a
| small enough amount produced forever should be safe.
| Maybe we'll learn otherwise.
| rrss wrote:
| > small enough amount produced forever should be safe
|
| does 'forever' modify 'produced' or 'should be safe'? if
| the former, what produces a small amount of the spike
| protein forever (continuing, not just a small amount one
| time)?
| yborg wrote:
| Why do you think it is produced forever? The mRNA quickly
| degrades in the body and the injected cells will stop
| producing the spike protein. That's why there has to be a
| second injection.
| rzz3 wrote:
| Is there a source? 100% believe you, but due to the
| conflicting posts I'd love to read the source (and I
| don't know what to Google). Thanks!
| Kubuxu wrote:
| (m)RNA is inherently unstable in our body:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA#Degradation
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > this new research finds that the spike protein itself can
| cause damage.
|
| Downregulation of ACE-2 causes damage, not the spike
| protein. The spike protein itself causes downregulation,
| but not enough to cause damage.
| retrac wrote:
| It causes the body to produce it in a limited, fixed
| quantity in proportion to the number of viable RNA strands
| that make it into a cell, largely localized at the
| injection site. Just a guess but this probably means its
| risk is extremely limited.
|
| The wild virus causes this protein to be produced without
| check.
|
| It wouldn't just be the mRNA vaccines, anyway. The viral
| vector ones, as well as the inactivated virus, and the
| spike protein unit extract ones, all involve getting some
| of the spike protein either made in the cells, or introduce
| it directly.
| beagle3 wrote:
| Indeed. But it's a nontrivial question of numbers.
|
| The vaccine has to be orders of magnitude safer than the
| virus, because (essentially) everyone will get the
| vaccine, but only some will get the disease. E.g. it
| might be harmful to vaccinate people in New Zealand and
| Australia at this point, because for now they cannot get
| the virus.
|
| What these papers (there are 3 independent ones showing
| very similar results, all coming out in the last month)
| show is that the vaccine outcome (specific proteins) that
| were assumed to be inert and _only_ prime the immune
| system against the virus, are actually active and
| damaging. That 's a big difference -- and the question of
| whether it makes sense to vaccinate needs to rely on
| actual science, not "it's a vaccine so must be good and
| safe" ideology. It also depends on specific attributes
| (e.g. age, obesity, etc.)
|
| There's an Israeli study showing myocarditis at a rate of
| 1:20,000 for the 16-30 age bracket, with 1:100,000
| overall (all pfizer)[0] ; the US Army stats are 1:250,000
| (for a mix of JNJ,Pfizer.Moderna) but I didn't find age
| distribution - and these are exceptionally lean and fit
| individuals, compared to the general population.[1]
|
| That's just myocarditis ; it it related to what's
| described in this paper? I don't know. Are there any
| other issues? I don't know. And generally speaking, no
| one else does either. But because _everyone_ gets
| vaccinated, we require exceptional proofs of safety. Or
| at least, did before 2020.
|
| [0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-probing-
| link-betwe...
|
| [1] https://www.military.com/daily-
| news/2021/04/26/pentagon-trac...
| maxerickson wrote:
| We are getting close to 2% of the planet having a
| confirmed case.
|
| New influenza vaccines (using cell lines) were approved
| after use in 15,000 people, ~10 years ago:
| https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/novartis-receives-
| fda-...
|
| Are you overestimating the safety testing done on other
| vaccines?
|
| Of course these are the first widely used vaccines for
| corona viruses and use new technologies to boot, so
| there's a lot more to it, but I wonder how you've gone
| about assessing previous safety proofs.
| krona wrote:
| Cell culture technology has been in use for decades
| around the world for many other vaccines, going back 35
| years at least (e.g. rabies/polio).
|
| Genetic/DNA vaccines are new.
| beagle3 wrote:
| > New influenza vaccines (using cell lines) were approved
| after use in 15,000 people
|
| The are several important differences: (1) it took 4
| years of data, not 6 months of data like Pfizer, (2)
| using mature, well known technology.
|
| Now, let's compare to a flu vaccine approved with an EUA
| after 6 months, shall we?
|
| https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948
|
| https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-
| sho...
|
| (Both articles describe the same vaccine, pandemrix)
|
| It caused narcolepsy, a few hundred cases of it. That's a
| debilitating, life changing disease; by all estimates I
| know, much worse than the flu it was supposed to prevent.
| It's not the only case (though there aren't maney - 1976
| flu vaccine causing guillan-barre, dengvax worsening
| dengue, israeli anthrax vaccine causing harm, probably a
| couple more I'm unaware of; the vast majority of vaccines
| -- all that I'm aware of that got full approval rather
| than an EUA - have a 1:1,000,000 or better adverse event
| profile).
|
| And it isn't even perfectly clear _why_. The science
| article says it 's likely because there's a similarity
| between some viral protein and some brain protein -- but
| that's not clear that's the reason. According to the BMJ
| article, basically the same vaccine but with a different
| adjuvant caused none of the issues.
|
| How long did it take to figure this out? Approximately
| one year of data.
|
| I urge you to read the BMJ article - it eerily describes
| exactly what's happening now, 11 years ago - some of the
| names (e.g. Fauci) haven't changed; some have.
|
| > Are you overestimating the safety testing done on other
| vaccines?
|
| I don't think I am. That's why we have VAERS and a
| European equivalent. You might notice that a lot of the
| touted efficiency and safety data is coming from Israel.
| Well, Israel has no VAERS equivalent, hardly tracks any
| adverse events for this vaccine (likely on purpose), and
| decreed that vaccinated people are not to be PCR tested
| unless they show obvious COVID symptoms, whereas
| unvaccinated are required to have negative test from the
| last 48 hours for many activities -- which means the data
| will show it's working even if it doesn't. Israeli data
| is rubbish, other data is hardly available. (I currently
| live in Israel and track this; It's been politicised in
| Israel to the point that no data coming out of Israel is
| trustworthy)
|
| So, regardless of safety of other vaccines, we have very
| little reliable data about the new guys.
|
| > but I wonder how you've gone about assessing previous
| safety proofs.
|
| By waiting enough time to get data accumulated.
|
| You know why we ddin't have any corona virus vaccine
| before 2020? It's not for lack of trying. They all failed
| at various stages, all of which were skipped for the
| SARS-Cov-2 vaccines.
| maxerickson wrote:
| _You know why we ddin 't have any corona virus vaccine
| before 2020? It's not for lack of trying. They all failed
| at various stages, all of which were skipped for the
| SARS-Cov-2 vaccines._
|
| You can't run a trial if there aren't any people getting
| infected.
|
| _By waiting enough time to get data accumulated._
|
| This isn't a mechanistic explanation of how you've
| arrived at a stronger level of comfort with earlier
| safety trials, unless your evaluation criteria is
| literally just that they took longer.
| beagle3 wrote:
| > You can't run a trial if there aren't any people
| getting infected.
|
| Corona viruses have been with us for a few thousand
| (millions?) of years. It is estimated 25% or so of colds
| are caused by corona viruses. And not surprisingly, they
| can also cause really, really bad outcomes in the sick
| and elderly -- in fact, there is some speculation that
| before they became endemic, they were as virulent as
| sars-cov-2.
|
| And there definitely have been attempts; not as focused,
| of course, but nevertheless over many years. The most
| focused attempts were at SARS-Cov-1 and MERS - and both
| burned out quickly - but also all failed spectacularly at
| the animal testing stage.
|
| > This isn't a mechanistic explanation of how you've
| arrived at a stronger level of comfort with earlier
| safety trials, unless your evaluation criteria is
| literally just that they took longer.
|
| (a) animal testing (skipped entirely in this case, which
| would have shown perhaps that targeting the spike protein
| may be an issue, and
|
| (b) yes, more time. some signals take time to surface -
| do read the pandermix papers I linked to. Whatever is
| happening now is just too close for comfort, and I
| sincerely hope it will end better.
|
| What more can you ask for, when I show you a horrible
| experiment from 2009, which matches in almost every
| possible way except we're now using now technology? With
| articles from science and the BMJ? Is there anything that
| can satisfy your request for reasonable doubt?
| maxerickson wrote:
| There were animal studies:
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7449230/
|
| I was just asking to understand your reasoning, I wasn't
| asking you to convince me it was correct, and I'm not
| trying to convince you it isn't correct.
| beagle3 wrote:
| Thank you, I failed to find this one in my previous
| literature search.
|
| I don't have it handy now, but for at least one SARS-
| Cov-1 vaccine candidate everything seemed fine, and good
| immediate antibody response (as in this paper), but
| another challenge 3 months later had an ADE response with
| worse outcomes than a naive infection. IIRC it was done
| in felines, not in primates.
| Izkata wrote:
| > Basel, November 20, 2012 - Novartis announced today
| that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved
| the use of Flucelvax(r) (Influenza Virus Vaccine), the
| first cell-culture-derived vaccine, for individuals 18
| years of age and older3.
|
| > A multinational, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-
| controlled trial was performed to assess clinical
| efficacy and safety of Flucelvax during the 2007- 2008
| influenza season in adults aged 18 to 49 years in the US,
| Finland and Poland3.
|
| They took ~4 years to approve it, sounds like they were
| more cautious for Flucelvax.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| Myocarditis is significantly under-diagnosed in young
| adults, but is believed to be on the order of 10 cases
| per 100,00 per year in the population.
| beagle3 wrote:
| Perhaps, I couldn't find reliable data, and apparently
| neither do the people doing the Israeli study (that much
| is stated in the copy of it that was leaked ; it's in
| hebrew).
|
| However, their metric was IIRC "within 3 days of first or
| second dose"; so 6 days worth of myocarditis compared to
| your full year number, so a factor of 60 (assuming
| uniform distribution over the year) to put on same scale.
| Pyramus wrote:
| Not disagreeing with your general message regarding
| individual risk assessment based on age, sex, health etc.
| What I will say though is that you seem to be comparing
| to the baseline scenario "Covid stops spreading".
|
| After one year of Covid (and its mutations) that baseline
| simply doesn't exist (any more). Instead we are in a no-
| win situation:
|
| (a) We keep lockdowns/non-pharmacological measures and
| border closures,
|
| (b) We let Covid spread slowly,
|
| (c) We vaccinate.
|
| Each scenario has associated cost. Now back to your
| point:
|
| > But because everyone gets vaccinated, we require
| exceptional proofs of safety.
|
| Safety is neither binary (exceptional/not exceptional)
| nor absolute and _always_ relative to Covid. Each and
| every vaccine up to now is orders of magnitude safer than
| Covid for the vast majority of people (YMMV!).
|
| Not an expert, but what's even more interesting is that
| among the already very few severe side effects, even
| fewer are due to the 'vaccine ingredients' (e.g. allergic
| reactions incl. blood clots) and many are conjectured to
| be due to the 'SARS-Cov-2 ingredients' (e.g.
| myocarditis). Heuristically speaking you can choose
| between Covid or a very very very mild version of Covid.
| beagle3 wrote:
| No, I'm not comparing to "covid stops spreading", but I'm
| also not assuming (as you seem to be) "everyone will
| eventually get it in the way whoever got it so far got
| it".
|
| > Each scenario has associated cost.
|
| There are other scenarios, e.g.
| https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-09-common-asthma-
| treatment... shows a cheap widely available steroid
| inhaler has comparable efficiency to vaccines in the KPIs
| studied by the Pfizer trial. I'm not saying it should be
| used _instead_ of a vaccine; but it 's also not true that
| your list is close to exhaustive. We keep finding out new
| stuff. In the first 2-3 months, the
| intubation+ventilation regime was counterproductive; it
| took a while to realize, but now we know that. We also
| know (e.g. from Florida and Texas) that the NPI are much
| less effective than they were assumed to be.
|
| > Each and every vaccine up to now is orders of magnitude
| safer than Covid for the vast majority of people (YMMV!).
|
| That's ... not been shown. The Israeli study I linked to
| above (a report of it) says this assertion might be wrong
| for Pfizer for the sizable group of 16-30 ; The British
| think that's not true for AZ under age 30 ; many
| countries in the EU think that's not true for AZ under
| the age of 50 ; Norway thinks that's not true for frail
| elderly.
|
| And basically, we only have short term safety data
| (pfizer: less than a year for 20K people, less than 6
| months for the rest), so even if it is true that "every
| one will eventually get it", it does NOT follow that it
| makes sense to vaccinate everyone right now -- if it
| takes 20 years until "everyone eventually gets it", and
| severe side effects appear 2 years later, then, no, it
| doesn't make sense.
|
| I linked a BMJ+Science article that showed for a
| similarly EUAd vaccine, "Pandemrix" in 2009 that it took
| over a year to figure out that it was causing narcolepsy
| and worse than the flu it was supposed to stop. It's not
| just a theoretic possibility - it happened in a very
| similar setting just 11 years ago, and the causes are NOT
| perfectly understood to the point that you can guarantee
| it won't happen again.
|
| > many are conjectured to be due to the 'SARS-Cov-2
| ingredients' (e.g. myocarditis). Heuristically speaking
| you can choose between Covid or a very very very mild
| version of Covid.
|
| You could be right, but that's not at all clear. This
| paper from Nature Immunology
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-020-00808-x.pdf
| shows that 80% of unexposed people have a T-cell response
| to SARS-Cov-2 - that is, they have cross-immunity.
|
| It could be that for those 80%, that response would be
| enough to stop the virus before it can get systemic
| traction, whereas the vaccine is essentially guaranteed
| to generate systemic effect. I asked an immunologist, who
| said he doesn't know the answer and does not believe
| anyone does without measuring.
| lamontcg wrote:
| The rate of MIS-C in children is on the order of 1 in
| 20,000. So acute myocarditis (which goes away and does
| not produce lasting damage) at that level is entirely an
| acceptable risk.
|
| You're under the impression that either the vaccine must
| be perfectly safe and/or that the disease is perfectly
| safe for young people. Both of which are false.
| beagle3 wrote:
| I don't know how you read that into what I wrote.
|
| It doesn't have to be perfectly safe; but it has to be
| significantly safer if you get it, than the disease if
| you get it -- which is, in fact, the case for all
| regularly administered vaccines (MMR, polio, tetanus,
| etc.), and comes with a warning and explanation for those
| that aren't (our pediatrician made sure we understand the
| rotavirus vaccine before we gave it to our child (we did)
| especially _because_ it 's safety profile, while still
| good, is not as good as the MMR and polio ones.
|
| MIS-C is a big discussion that I don't have enough time
| for, but according to https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-
| perspective/2021/04/new-find..., incidence in the US is
| 1:50,000. Acute myocarditis often goes away with no
| damage but not always. MIS-C does too.
|
| And it's not even clear yet if any vaccine will stop
| MIS-C, so -- no, it's not an entirely acceptable risk.
| busyant wrote:
| This is a legitimate question, so I don't know why it's being
| downvoted. Especially given the statement in the abstract of
| the paper that says, "We show here that S protein alone can
| damage vascular endothelial cells (ECs) in vitro and in
| vivo...."
|
| That being said, other people on this thread have provided
| reasonable mechanistic explanations as to why the vaccines
| would not have this effect, but I will also add we have
| _empirical_ evidence that the vaccine does not impair
| endothelial function (or at least it is extremely rare) because
| we have millions of people who have received the vaccine
| without impaired endothelial function.
| dcow wrote:
| My partner developed inflammation (resembling gottron
| papules) on her knuckles a few weeks after receiving the
| first moderna dose. She now (few days later) has developed a
| shoulder rash where the vaccine was injected. It's very
| curious.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| Someone I work with (female, 25 years old) had inflammation
| on her knuckles that is similar to what you describe. This
| was after her second shot - not sure if it was Moderna or
| Pfizer, but it was MRNA. She's fine and it eventually went
| away, but it's certainly interesting. She doesn't have any
| autoimmune disorders that she knows of.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| The vaccine appeared to piss off the RSI in my right arm
| for about two weeks. I would have gotten the shot in my
| left arm if I knew that was going to happen.
| christkv wrote:
| I've also not seen any studies about side effects in people
| who already had the virus before getting the first dose.
| lc9er wrote:
| My spouse, who suffers from an autoimmune disorder,
| suffered similar symptoms. Severe enough that she won't be
| able to get the second dose. My understanding (from her
| doc) is that this is a known, but uncommon side effect for
| people with autoimmune conditions.
| podgaj wrote:
| Just sayin'
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793296/
|
| The data presented in our work, although very
| heterogeneous in the manner of collecting and
| investigating samples, have proved to be extremely
| consistent in witnessing a deficiency of zinc in serum
| and plasma of patients compared to controls.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Does get the uncommon side effects of medication much?
|
| Have an autoimmune, and I get most of the rare side
| effects of medications.
| lc9er wrote:
| Constantly. Her list of banned medications is huge. Each
| time she's prescribed a medication, she has to decide if
| the "rare side effects" are worth risking or are worse
| than going untreated.
| sroussey wrote:
| I had a red area after the second shot on my shoulder, and
| so did my family members including cousins in other states.
| sebmellen wrote:
| Quite strange. I've had almost the exact same skin-level
| reactions, only I received the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine.
| rolph wrote:
| this is a relevent question, the difference between the two
| cases, is that the virus is mobile and has opportunity to
| travel through the entire endothelial tissue structure,
| interacting with many molecular types and situations
|
| the vaccine causes a small volume of stationary cells in the
| muscle mass of the shoulder to express the S protien on the
| surface, staying in place but providing signal to the immune
| system
|
| [adndm] keep in mind the virus replicates, inside you, the
| vaccine doesnt, and the vaccine stays where you put it, it
| doesnt spread out everywhere that has a receptor
| _greim_ wrote:
| Interesting. Is there a significant difference in total
| number of viral particles versus vaccine particles your cells
| are exposed to, over the course of the infection/vaccination?
| rolph wrote:
| in general terms yes, there is no real hard number on
| minimal number of viral particles required to result in
| infection, its most likely a small number compared to the
| number of vaccine particles in a dosage. assuming 30
| micrograms dosage in a volume of 300 microliters that is a
| very large number of particles in one place. this is not a
| lot of vaccine, but this [30micrograms] would be quite a
| lot of viral particles.
|
| something to keep in mind is the fuzz of biological
| systems. molecular processes can have more than one outcome
| but there is a general bias toward an overall stability, so
| when a vaccine is produced, there is a certain amount of
| fuzz to it in the form of particles that dont assemble
| correctly or ar otherwise non desireable, processing the
| vaccine keeps these characters to a minimum.
|
| the same thing happens to the virus, the fuzz portion being
| in someway unable to replicate or enter a cell, just out of
| the way the fuzzy dice roll.
|
| so its hard to pin down a number of minimally effective
| dose for either case, however virus amplifies past the
| original dose, and spreads to mutiple locations, signaling
| any molecular system that can be bound to, in this case
| vast preference being given to ACE-2, resulting in
| perturbation of the RAS system and the now stereotypic
| covid symptoms
|
| so viral particles amplify over time, and over a spatial
| distribution, vaccine particles stay in site and dont
| replicate and dont migrate to interact with other cells in
| the tissue or throughout the body.
| hourislate wrote:
| Disclaimer: I am not qualified to interpret this study and have
| no experience in this field.
|
| So the study indicates that the Spike Protein binds to ACE2
| that is found in the membranes of cells located in the lungs,
| arteries, heart, kidney, and intestines, and down regulates
| them to the point where it damages your mitochondria in those
| organs. So according to the research they did, it's not just
| the virus that can hurt you but the mechanism (Spike Protein)
| the virus uses to attach to your cells and replicate that can
| cause this damage.
|
| It is likely that the vaccine itself which holds the mRNA and
| not the actual Spike Protein or Virus (just the instructions on
| how to make the Spike Protein) is administered in a
| intramuscular area of the body (Shoulder Area), never able to
| live long enough (mRNA dies off quickly) to enter these areas
| where ACE2 is found (Heart, Lungs, Kidneys, etc). The muscle
| tissue/cells in the upper arm create some Spike Protein and
| your immune system basically say WTF is that and kills it long
| before it can ever reach these organs or areas of the body.
|
| The real Virus typically enters the body through the nose and
| mouth and heads directly into the sinuses and can spread very
| quickly to lungs and then move on from there into other organs.
| If you're someone who is one of the folks (Metabolic Disease,
| severe autoimmune dysfunction) who might be susceptible to what
| this study suggests, the vaccine is the way to go since it
| might give you a better chance to avoid the negative outcome
| from the Spike Protein affecting ACE2 and then damaging the
| mitochondria in your Organs cells.
| molticrystal wrote:
| >is administered in a intramuscular area of the body
| (Shoulder Area), never able to live long enough (mRNA dies
| off quickly) to enter these areas where ACE2 is found (Heart,
| Lungs, Kidneys, etc)
|
| We know to where it typically tends to go now, "the muscle
| tissue at the site of injection, the lymphatic tissue
| downstream in your armpit on that side, your spleen, and (for
| the first day or two) your liver. " [0]
|
| [0]https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/01/21/
| mr...
| tmabraham wrote:
| A good question, one of the paper's authors had the following
| responses on Twitter:
|
| https://twitter.com/manorlaboratory/status/13887170085444198...
| https://twitter.com/manorlaboratory/status/13887291512893153...
| karaterobot wrote:
| First tweet: i'm going to give a full
| response asap. but quickly for the record: 1) the
| (relatively) small amount of spike protein produced by the
| mRNA vaccine would not be nearly enough to do any damage
| 2) i happily got the mRNA vaccine, FWIW 3) i
| encourage everyone to get it
|
| Second tweet: a couple prelim responses to
| anti-vaxxers misrepresenting these findings (here: https://tw
| itter.com/manorlaboratory/status/1388717008544419843?s=21).
| tl;dr: mRNA vaccine is waaaaay safer than COVID19 and
| everyone should get it - I did and everyone in my family did
| as well! Our paper just shows this disease really sucks.
| morsch wrote:
| "Endotheliitis is an immune response within the endothelium in
| blood vessels, in which they become inflamed. The condition can
| cause oedema of the surrounding tissue, including the stroma, and
| can cause irritation and pain. If it is within the cornea, it can
| result in permanent loss of vision. The condition can be caused
| by a number of factors, such as mumps and cytomegalovirus under
| certain circumstances." (Wikipedia)
|
| And, as to the first question that came to my mind, from the
| paper: "Collectively, our results suggest that the S protein-
| exerted EC damage overrides the decreased virus infectivity. This
| conclusion suggests that vaccination-generated antibody and/or
| exogenous antibody against S protein not only protects the host
| from SARS-CoV-2 infectivity but also inhibits S protein-imposed
| endothelial injury and ultimately decrease cardiovascular
| complication-associated mortality in COVID-19 patients."
| [deleted]
| treeman79 wrote:
| My blood vessels get inflamed now and then. In Sjogrens world
| it's known as a "flare"
|
| It's horrifically painful. There is no sympathy from anyone
| since you look normal.
| dathinab wrote:
| You have our sympathy, I think there are enough of us here
| which known that looking fine doesn't mean being fine.
| Sudophysics wrote:
| :(
| Alex3917 wrote:
| Yeah we've known this for over 10 years, zero surprise here.
| There were literally popular books written saying that this would
| be the mechanism of action for novel coronavirus pandemics (and
| how to treat them) years before the current pandemic even
| started, e.g.:
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Herbal-Antivirals-Remedies-Resistant-...
|
| Here is the direct quote from the book, published in 2013:
|
| "Once receptors on these cells are compromised there is enhanced
| vascular permeability, increased lung edema, neutrophil
| accumulation, and worsened lung function. In essence, once the
| virus begins attaching to ACE-2, ACE-2 function begins to be
| destroyed. ACE-2 function also tends to be less dynamic as people
| grow older, hence the more negative the effects of SARS infection
| on the elderly. [...] ACE (in contrast with ACE-2) inhibitors
| increase the presence of ACE-2 and help protect the lungs from
| injury."
| Blackthorn wrote:
| Yes, that's why they went looking to verify that hypothesis and
| lay out the mechanism that the virus acts...
| darkhorn wrote:
| So, some people were studying new kinds of viruses?
|
| Oh, okay, yeah, here
| https://www.wired.com/2013/05/h5n1-h1n1-reassortment/
| justicezyx wrote:
| Is this Amazon book on herbal effects real? I am pretty
| familiar with Chinese traditional medicine, but their
| effectiveness is very dubious.
|
| The author does not look like a medical professional either.
| jpxw wrote:
| It's unscientific nonsense, don't waste your time.
| dctoedt wrote:
| Not my field (I _can_ spell DNA) but this recent piece seemed
| of interest. FTA: "A large meta-analysis provides yet more
| evidence that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers
| (ARBs) pose no harm to patients with COVID-19 and may even be
| associated with protective benefits, particularly in patients
| with hypertension."
|
| https://www.tctmd.com/news/continue-ace-inhibitorsarbs-covid...
| Alex3917 wrote:
| Also women and smokers are underrepresented among
| hospitalized patients, which was the first confirmatory
| evidence from over a year ago.
| piva00 wrote:
| I know nothing about physiology (apart from up to high
| school level, so... Nothing), could you expand on how
| smokers and women relate to ACE-2?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-02 23:02 UTC)