Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair – Inhibits V(D)J Recombination in Vitro

mdpi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair – Inhibits V(D)J Recombination in Vitro

#61

Post by [deleted] »

blip54321 wrote: post #3
TravisDick wrote: post #2

I didn't read the article, but my very basic understanding of mRNA vaccines is that they cause your own cells to produce the spike protein so that your immune system can learn to attack it without actually having the virus present. Does this finding imply that the vaccine would also inhibit DNA damage repair? Or is it more like, in combination with the virus, the spike protein inhibits DNA repair?

It does imply that the vaccine would also inhibit DNA damage repair. I think the key question is timescale. I suspect this would be a short-term side effect, with no real impact. If not -- if it's longitudinal -- it could be scary. I can't imagine how that would happen, though. Virus would have the same effect, so this isn't an anti-vax argument.

[deleted]

Re: CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair – Inhibits V(D)J Recombination in Vitro

#62

Post by GhettoComputers »

m0zg wrote: post #52

Methinks we won't really know about the consequences of mRNA (or COVID itself for that matter) until many years later. And currently we're flying blind, and a lot of people are driven by heavily politicized, semi-religious fervor, to the point of giving this stuff to healthy 5 year olds who are not in danger of severe disease at all.

The mRNA isn’t the issue, the delivery methods are the problem. The toxicity of the adjuvants is the problem, mRNA is so fragile it needs extreme cold to store, a unique carrier and redosing with boosters to upkeep strong immunity. It’s very safe, but the externalities that are required are the issue. mRNA is not the issue nor is it unsafe, if they could do it without the current adjuvants there would be no issues.

Re: CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair – Inhibits V(D)J Recombination in Vitro

#63

Post by revolvingocelot »

modzu wrote: post #59
hlieberman wrote: post #34

This is published by a predatory publisher ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversial_articles ). According to homozygoat ( https://www.twitch.tv/homozygoat ), it doesn't use real virus (rather, it uses other cells transfected to express some covid proteins), and uses the wrong cell type for the conclusions they try to draw.

your first reference doesn't support your claim

I think the grandparent comment meant to link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversies , which is the heading under which the erroneous link falls.

More to the point that MDPI is a "predatory publisher", however, is this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Inclusion_in_Beall's_list .

The eagle-eyed might point out that Beall removed MDPI from his list of predatory publishers before canning the list entirely, but he singles out MDPI, suggesting that they "tried to be as annoying as possible to the university so that the officials would get so tired of the emails that they would silence me just to make them stop."

I'm not sure we should be engaging so readily with this article.

Re: CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair – Inhibits V(D)J Recombination in Vitro

#65

Post by josh_today »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #62
m0zg wrote: post #52

Methinks we won't really know about the consequences of mRNA (or COVID itself for that matter) until many years later. And currently we're flying blind, and a lot of people are driven by heavily politicized, semi-religious fervor, to the point of giving this stuff to healthy 5 year olds who are not in danger of severe disease at all.

The mRNA isn’t the issue, the delivery methods are the problem. The toxicity of the adjuvants is the problem, mRNA is so fragile it needs extreme cold to store, a unique carrier and redosing with boosters to upkeep strong immunity. It’s very safe, but the externalities that are required are the issue. mRNA is not the issue nor is it unsafe, if they could do it without the current adjuvants there would be no issues.

You have no way of proving mRNA is safe long term. People need to stop with that blanket statement.

Re: CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair – Inhibits V(D)J Recombination in Vitro

#66

Post by GhettoComputers »

josh_today wrote: post #65
GhettoComputers wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mRNA isn’t the issue, the delivery methods are the problem. The toxicity of the adjuvants is the problem, mRNA is so fragile it needs extreme cold to store, a unique carrier and redosing with boosters to upkeep strong immunity. It’s very safe, but the externalities that are required are the issue. mRNA is not the issue nor is it unsafe, if they could do it without the current adjuvants there would be no issues.

You have no way of proving mRNA is safe long term. People need to stop with that blanket statement.

mRNA is naturally occurring and all the issues are from the adjuvants. It’s like complaining about amino acids, plasma or cells. The vaccine efficiency rate drops by about half in 5 months, it’s not a sturdy permanence. If you are so worried about mRNA, why are you not concerned about its natural occurance in your body since mRNA isn't provent to be safe?

Re: CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair – Inhibits V(D)J Recombination in Vitro

#67

Post by senectus1 »

sethammons wrote: post #42
Commodore63 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The spike protein from the vaccine is injected into your muscle and does not circulate through your system.

How does that explain the cases of myocarditis?

Dr.John Campbell made a very good case about "injection aspiration".

https://www.youtube.com/c/Campbellteaching

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuyAtvwP2H4

I personally feel its fairly compelling and I see no harm in performing this extra step to ensure its not being injected directly into a vein.

Not sure why the suggestion was turned down.

Re: CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair – Inhibits V(D)J Recombination in Vitro

#68

Post by lend000 »

This is one of the more accessible and straightforward microbiology papers I've read. There's no fluff; it tells you how to reproduce and where to buy the materials, and it seems to balance terms in the jargon-heavy field with short explanations, requiring minimal googling to get an overview if you are topically familiar cell biology and chemistry (not to mention VDJ recombination, a fascinating bio-algorithm which should inspire any computer scientist [0]). Compare this to a typical paper where there is an off-putting amount of fluff and then straight into dense unreadable jargon for the rest of the paper.

The key takeaway seems to be that not all antibodies are equal, and there are probably on the order of 10^X antibodies that might work well enough to be cured for a specific coronavirus, but these antibody molecules can interact strongly or weakly with other systems in the body. You want one that is a very strong antagonist of the target site on the virus while being as unreactive as possible with everything else. Getting the very best protein on the first try (either via infection or vaccine production) is never guaranteed, but the hope is that it would be good enough and not cause other problems. Also note that you can produce problematic antibodies and T/B cell surface receptors in response to either a vaccine or a virus (see long covid).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V(D)J_recombination

Re: CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair – Inhibits V(D)J Recombination in Vitro

#69

Post by GhettoComputers »

haimez wrote: post #57
GhettoComputers wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mRNA vaccines's mRNA has never been the problem its the adjuvant properties such as the PEG allergies and lipid nanoparticles that have been been causing all the issues. I am sure it will be improved, and they're exploring better adjuvants. When were you vaccinated? If its been a while get your booster. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Effectiveness against infections declined from…

Would anything you’ve learned since your first vaccination make you consider “mixing and matching” for reasons other than supply availability?

I did not get vaccinated, I was infected and have antibodies. Pfizer has the least amount of foreign bodies, 30ng vs 100ng from Moderna, the JJ can only be used once, so as long as you are upkeeping boosters you will be fine, but the Moderna vaccine with give a stronger immune response.

I was waiting for Novavax but they kept delaying it constantly (they said summer, then autumn and now 2022), so I am keeping an eye on Medicago as well, since I think the protein subunit ones are hardier than the mRNA ones. Because the studies keep changing (moderna used to be the best, then they said pfizer was just as protective, then during delta they said JJ was good) its hard to predict what problems and which of the vaccines will be best suited to that environment. The best immunity seems to be from a natural infection so a mild infection that creates antibodies has been said to be the best protective (many self reported infections weren't covid, but the ones that had testing showed very protective long lasting effects), although I don't think that its worth it to risk long covid for this effect.

Despite all this, the monoclonal antibody treatment is very good. It is userful post infection or when you are worried about being exposed, its thousands of dollars per treatment (gov paid for it already and it won't cost you), but its something to keep in mind about its usage. The US is buying a lot of them for treatment you may want to make a note of it around you with this site. https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/therapeutics-distributi...

Re: CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair – Inhibits V(D)J Recombination in Vitro

#70

Post by m0zg »

mc32 wrote: post #58
m0zg wrote: post #52

Methinks we won't really know about the consequences of mRNA (or COVID itself for that matter) until many years later. And currently we're flying blind, and a lot of people are driven by heavily politicized, semi-religious fervor, to the point of giving this stuff to healthy 5 year olds who are not in danger of severe disease at all.

I think it makes sense to vaccinate vulnerable populations. Elderly, and those with comorbidities, however, pre-adolescents I don’t think need it, especially as we don’t know long term effects on the young. For old folks, the reward is well worth any risk. For youngsters given their risk profile, I’m not so sure as we lack information given the trials on youngsters were short and we don’t have long term data.

Exactly my thinking as well. Mandates (and other forms of "encouragement") should be by BMI, age, and comorbidities. I'd be covered by a mandate myself, if one existed: high BMI, (treated) high blood pressure, haven't had COVID (yet, that I know of). That's why I chose to vaccinate myself and that's also why my wife chose to vaccinate. I don't have to do it, I'm self employed, I've done it voluntarily. Moreover, if it were required at the time, in early May, I would not do it at all. Instead we've chosen the most idiotic criteria available - whether or not you work for (or with) the federal government, or whether your employer is woke enough. Google, for example, is woke enough: it even requires vax for _remote_ employees.

Another utterly idiotic thing is that we're not considering 190 million people who are already immune by having had COVID.

For kids or healthy younger adults, looking at the stats, I just don't see the need at all. Feel free to persuade me otherwise, but with data, not sermons or "mandates".

My 17 y/o son who is healthy, and has no comorbidities, won't be getting the vaccine unless he himself decides to get it. I told him we will support him whichever way he chooses, but if he is harmed by vaccintation, he will have no legal recourse, which is true. I'm not sure he understands what that means. For us that could mean up to several hundred thousand dollars in hospital costs, and potentially the loss of the only child.

I just don't think a little over 2800 kids in the 5-11 y/o trial, _none of which got severe disease_ is a sufficient indication of anything, let alone long term safety. Sounds to me like the only person who abstained from the FDA vote [1] concurs, and the rest just don't have the balls to say what needs to be said. They literally said "we won't know if it's safe until we start giving it". I'm sorry, I'm not willing to take that chance. That's for kids 5-11, but I think the reasoning holds for young adults as well. I didn't raise him for 17 years just so someone at Pfizer could make 30 bucks by giving him myocarditis with zero legal consequences.

[1] https://twitter.com/emilyakopp/status/1453136997309198345

Post reply on HN