24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
-->
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
D
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
This post is in response to a question by bowmanh about the COVID spike protein (S-protein), which was posted on another thread, and goes as follows:

Originally Posted by bowmanh

You might want to look at the Bret Weinstein podcast when you have time. Bret Weinstein and Robert Malone discuss Pfizer data obtained via a FOIA request to the Japanese Government that indicate the spike proteins are not contained in the membranes of the cells producing them, but get into the blood and later migrate to the ovaries and bone marrow. ...

If this is true, it sounds somewhat alarming to me. I've had both doses of the Moderna vaccine so I'm not an anti-vaxxer but I do look at dissenting positions from credible people and Weinstein and Malone seem credible to me.

You might want to look at the Bret Weinstein podcast when you have time. Bret Weinstein and Robert Malone discuss Pfizer data obtained via a FOIA request to the Japanese Government that indicate the spike proteins are not contained in the membranes of the cells producing them, but get into the blood and later migrate to the ovaries and bone marrow. So that's very different than your description. I'm not a medical biologist and don't have a position on this, but they present very different data and conclusions. If this is true, it sounds somewhat alarming to me. I've had both doses of the Moderna vaccine so I'm not an anti-vaxxer but I do look at dissenting positions from credible people and Weinstein and Malone seem credible to me.


First thing: as much as I admire Bret Weinstein, I find his podcasts interminably dull. He's interesting as a guest on Rogan's podcast, but he puts me to sleep on his own. Second thing, podcasts are a lousy source of information. I listen to podcasts to open lines of inquiry, to cause me to search for information, but there is rarely any solid factual evidence of anything in a podcast. So I decline your invitation to spend 2 hours trying to stay awake for that Weinstein podcast.

Instead, I have done what I do (read and search literature, which I have a lot of experince at) and have chosen to respond in a new thread for several reasons, not the least of which is that the noise-to-signal ration in the previous thread makes intelligent discussion hard to carry on. I am not posting this in an effort to convince anyone that the SARS-CoV2 vaccines--individually or in toto--are safe or unsafe, or that you should/shouldn't get a vaccine. The choice is entirely yours.

I am posting this answer because I promised to do so before the prior thread became a complete name-calling s h i t s h o w, and I try to keep my promises.

I will not be following this thread and I will not be answering any further questions nor arguing with any of you one way or another.

The purpose of Science is to formulate and test hypotheses, in an effort to find truths about physical phenomena. Definitive answers are rare, conflicting information is common, and the truth only emerges over time. This is unsatisfying to the short attention span types who frequent these pages, so those of you who demand free and easy information that is beyond question will be unhappy with it. But if you are willing to invest some time and effort into reading and thinking about it, you should be able to use this information to enlighten yourself.

Now, I am not your unpaid research assistant. You can look these reports up yourself with a modest effort. Whether you can glean sufficient information from them without a research science background I can't say, but if you feel you aren't quite up to speed, I suggest you start with the following videos to get yourself in a position to understand more clearly. It will save you having to read a lot of dull, dry textual material and covers the groundwork pretty decently. And let me suggest that if you find any of these videos confusing, look at some of the linked videos on YouTube that are attached to each of them. There is a tremendous amount of good, solid science on YouTube, and these selections I'm giving you will give you a few decent places to start learning about it if you care to.

1. Difference between DNA and RNA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruUf7ntRCk8
2. How does messenger RNA work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dsTvBaUMvw, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKIpDtJdK8Q
3. Can mRNA alter a host organism's DNA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGKg9rj9W1s
4. How does the DNA-RNA-protein synthesis process work in cells: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gUY5NoX1Lk
5. How mRNA vaccines work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOvvyqJ-vwo
6.How did the mRNA vaccines develop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6aBJ1wYZ0M (this is #6 in a good 6-part series) ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPeeCyJReZw (this is a bit more technical and goes into more of the history of mRNA vaccine science)
7. How do antibodies come into being: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_GRI3fxUWw, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9jl9QpVz10
8. Humoral vs Cell-mediated immunity: ​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vh24StylNo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXB7M_GIf-g
9. How do T-cells create immunity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWhDOR3ZsTE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i536vS3z3e8 (ignore the pandemic statistics in the intro to the video)
10. How does the S-protein bind to the ACE2 receptor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJwHZKHpKTM
11. Receptor binding pharmacodynamics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZzOg3IzjUE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=011Bj5USal8, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXOXZ-kaSVI (This topic was integral to my Master's Degree research, which was in the study of one particular receptor-ligand interaction and which I spent about 2 years working on in the lab and the library. I'm pretty much up to speed on this topic even today. It has quite a lot of bearing on the topic of the question I'm answering here.)

If you don't want to bother learning the information in the above videos, you probably won't be able to get sufficient information from the following references to make an informed opinion. But hey, that's how most of the folks on these pages operate in any case, so don't let that hold you back.

So, do S-proteins accumulate in human ovaries?

1. Probably not, from studies in cell cultures of CoV2 infection, S-proteins don't accumulate and don't have a toxic effect. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7205710/ (this is only one representative article; there are several other studies that look at other aspects of the question, and came up with more or less the same result).

2. However: enough people are interested in this to look into it some more (https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/11/2/e045524.full.pdf). Basically, they're saying that since the S-protein attaches to Angtiotensin-II receptors, and ovarian tissue is rich in ACE2 receptors, maybe CoV2 will affect female fertility because the virus will bind to ovaries preferentially versus tissues that aren't as rich in ACE2's. But nobody knows if this will have any longterm effect on fertility, which is why they are proposing these studies. It will take a long time to get answers, because female fertility is extremely complex and highly difficult to study, despite the fact that human trailer-trash females who have more tattoos than teeth and can barely spell their own names are able to reproduce with apparent great fecundity.

3. But notwithstanding #2, the fact that lab scientists have shown that S-proteins don't accumulate in ovarian cells in tissue culture despite the abundance of ACE2 receptors on these cells, suggests that what happens to the S-proteins that have bound to the ACE2 receptors is exactly as I explained to you previously, and which is explained in part in the YouTube video in #11, above:
a) the S-protein (which is a ligand) is a "fake" ligand on the surface of the CoV2 virus that binds to the ACE2 receptor; the ACE2 receptor is supposed to
bind to Angiotensin, a hormone that has numerous regulatory effects on human cells;
b) in the normal case, ligand-receptor binding causes certain enzymes in the target human cell to be activated. This
causes particular cellular chemical reactions to take place that otherwise would be dormant. After a specified time period, the ligand is released from
the receptor and is chewed up by enzymes on the cell surface or inside it. This is the process that prevents a hormone release from having an
indefinite or prolonged effect.
c) the S-protein's binding to the ACE2 receptor may or may not trigger the cell's enzymes, but its REAL purpose is to "jam the mechanism"... it binds to
the ACE2 receptor irreversibly, rendering it useless.
d) the cell recognizes the now-defunct ACE2-ligand complex as defunct, so it pulls it back into the cell to be broken down into component parts
that can be reused.
e) the CoV2 virus, which is attached to the ACE2-ligand complex, thus gains entry into the host cell, where it releases its RNA core, and this takes over
the host cell's protein synthesis systems to manufacture multiple new copies of the virus.
f) in the case of the "free" S-proteins produced by an mRNA vaccine, the defunct receptor-ligand complex is drawn into the cell, but since there is no
virus attached to it, there is no infection of the cell; the S-protein is now nothing more than a component of a large "broken" molecular structure that
the cell breaks down into its amino acid building blocks, to be reused to make new proteins as part of the cell's ongoing life.

Now, I cannot PROVE to you that this is what happens to the S-proteins produced by one of the mRNA vaccines. All I can tell you is that this is what happens to every other receptor-ligand complex known to biomedical science, every time, in every cell of every species. For the S-protein to somehow have a completely DIFFERENT ending than every other ligand that binds to cell receptors is theoretically possible, but the fact that no one has found accumulation of S-proteins in ovarian cell cultures (see point #1 above) suggests that this is in fact what happens to S-proteins, just as it does in every single other case of receptor-ligand complexes known to science.

Now, that is as plainly as I can explain it. I hope this serves as a reasonable answer to your question. If I have failed to answer it to your satisfaction, go ask somebody else.


"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
GB1

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,906
Likes: 8
P
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
P
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,906
Likes: 8
As always, thanks for your reasoned input, hopefully some will take the time to educate themselves.


"The 375HH is the greatest level of power you can get for the investment in recoil." (JJHack)
79s and losttrail, biggest waste of air.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,411
O
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
O
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,411
Many thanks for your taking the time to do this for all of us here at The Campfire.

Much appreciated, Doc.
Stay well.


The degree of my privacy is no business of yours.

What we've learned from history is that we haven't learned from it.
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 10,011
Likes: 4
L
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
L
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 10,011
Likes: 4
Thanks Doc.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,892
Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,892
Likes: 5
Thanks, Doc, it's appreciated.

Don't be a stranger.


Sic Semper Tyrannis
IC B2

Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,817
O
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
O
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,817
Originally Posted by DocRocket

So, do S-proteins accumulate in human ovaries?

I have Testes and my wife is an old lady so we have not worried to much about Ovaries. My concerns have been and are more about the nucleic acids in the vaccines.

You obviously understand cell biology so I'll get right to the point.

1) The mRNA vaccines are bound to LNPs precisly because naked mRNA does not last very long in the cell. The lysosomes make short work of them.
Question 1: How long do the mRNA-LNP complexes last in the cell.

2) The Tropism of a virus is defined by the mechanism (S-Protien/ACE II) you described above. It seems the target cells for a mRNA vaccine is not defined by the same mechanism. It is defined by the LNPs ability to penetrate the membrane.
Question 2: After a person has been inoculated by both doses what cells in the body contain the mRNA?

3) With a viral vector vaccine the vector virus carries a DNA payload instead of a mRNA payload. I assume the vector virus Tropism defines what cells will be "injected" by the DNA plasmid. (My understanding is that the DNA is carried via a plasmid and does not integrate with the hosts chromosome genetic material)
Question 3: How long does the foreign DNA remain in the host nucleus?

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,036
Likes: 4
B
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
B
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,036
Likes: 4
Thanks Doc, for posting this information. The items at the beginning seem to be basic cell biology, similar to material one gets in first year college biology. It's a good review for me since my Biology M.S. is decades old and my focus was evolutionary biology and terrestrial ecology, not cell biology.

The articles you reference about spike proteins and concentrations in the ovaries etc. are for the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus. My understanding is that the spike proteins that are created when a person gets the vaccine are different and lack the binding ability of Covid spike proteins.

What I'm seeing is disagreement between a number of professional biologists about what some of the data means. Much of what is discussed by Weinstein and Malone seems based on work and conclusions from Canadian biologist Byrom Bridle. I've read a number of articles about this with different view points. I think we are seeing increasing politicization of science to the point that it is difficult to figure out what is accurate.

And I agree with you that Bret Weinstein gets pretty long winded in his podcasts.

Here are a few links for those interested:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...malone-inventor-mrna-vaccine-technology/
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...ravels-from-injection-site-organ-damage/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-020-00771-8
https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...fective-at-preventing-illness-and-death/

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,441
Likes: 28
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,441
Likes: 28
Originally Posted by Dutch
Thanks, Doc, it's appreciated.

Don't be a stranger.


Ditto.

Easily understood stuff by a dude with a background in..........................fish.


The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men.
In it is contentment
In it is death and all you seek
(Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)

member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,817
O
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
O
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,817
Originally Posted by bowmanh

The articles you reference about spike proteins and concentrations in the ovaries etc. are for the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus. My understanding is that the spike proteins that are created when a person gets the vaccine are different and lack the binding ability of Covid spike proteins.

I think the OPs reasoning at the end of his post is that the difference does not matter as long as the S1 Protein binds to the ACE2 binding site. Once there it is handled by the normal cellular mechanism and disposed of.


There seems to be a lot of confusion on the difference between the S1 Protein (an antigen) and the mRNA-LNP complex(the vaccine injected). The mRNA coops our cells and forces them to produce the S1 Protein. The S1 Protein is not injected. It is manufactured by our cells.

I can't read the bio-distribution paper because it is in Japanese. You would think someone would have translated it by now. Strange. But the article above is showing that the biodistribution article is talking about the LNP distribution. Not the S1 protein and not the mRNA. I guess the assumption in the study is that LNP concentration correlates with mRNA concentration. Notice that the virus enters cells differently than the vaccine. I still don't understand why no one talks about this as a possible issue.


What bothers me the MOST is why no one seems to be doing any research into why some people have heart inflammation after a vaccination, for example. Why? Is it related? Why don't we know by now.

Personally, I want more answers. I have very large trust issues when it comes to this whole hyper politicized subject.


Last edited by OldHat; 07/26/21.
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,286
Likes: 9
T
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
T
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,286
Likes: 9
tag

IC B3

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
D
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
bowmanh, thanks for posting the Weinstein links... I'll give 'em a listen. It usually takes me 3-4 trips into town to finish listening to one of his podcasts in my truck, but that way I don't fall asleep or lose track of what he's saying.

Anyway... yeah, I figured the basic science stuff I put in there was below your pay grade, but I know there's a lotta folks here who genuinely want to know how to grasp this stuff, so I put it in there for them.

As for politicization of the science by political types, they can try all they want, but it's like an infinite-progression version of Whack-A-Mole for them... they can try to suppress certain things by denying funding, but they can't suppress EVERYthing. The tissue culture study I cited is only one of many such examples. It's a simple study, and it reaches a pretty clear endpoint that gives us a pretty good answer.

Bottom line, all nucleotides and all foreign proteins/peptides in a host organism have very short half-lives. We don't have the whole story on the effects of free S-proteins (if any), but the trend isn't looking all that dire to me.


"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
D
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
Originally Posted by OldHat


What bothers me the MOST is why no one seems to be doing any research into why some people have heart inflammation after a vaccination, for example. Why? Is it related? Why don't we know by now.

Personally, I want more answers. I have very large trust issues when it comes to this whole hyper politicized subject.



First thing, your supposition that no research is being done on the myocarditis/pericarditis question is patently absurd.

I just went on the Google search engine and typed in "mechanism cardiomyopathy vaccine" and got 100,000+ hits, the first of which was this one: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781600

The next 3 pages of search results all allude to research being done on this very question. Do you see why I used an inflammatory term like "patently absurd"? If I can find a complete contradiction of your assertion in 15 seconds, it means your assertion is patently absurd. Put in some actual effort before making statements like this, please.

There are dozens of labs looking at this already, if not hundreds. But you don't get answers to such questions in one nice, neat package. It will take months for the cumulative results of many different lines of inquiry to find the answers we all want here.

Your personal trust issues are irrelevant. Science happens at its own pace in hundreds of thousands if not millions of labs all over the world, none of which is concerned with what YOU or I think is relevant. Science is gloriously chaotic, completely unpredictable, and advancing at a phenomenal pace with respect to this pandemic and the fecking Chinese lab virus that caused it all.

Last edited by DocRocket; 07/26/21.

"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
D
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
Originally Posted by Valsdad
Originally Posted by Dutch
Thanks, Doc, it's appreciated.

Don't be a stranger.


Ditto.

Easily understood stuff by a dude with a background in..........................fish.


I like.... fish....
laugh


"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,817
O
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
O
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,817
Originally Posted by DocRocket

Bottom line, all nucleotides and all foreign proteins/peptides in a host organism have very short half-lives. We don't have the whole story on the effects of free S-proteins (if any), but the trend isn't looking all that dire to me.

None of your links dealt with free nucleic acids.

I would not be surprised if what you say is true for mRNA because we know for sure naked mRNA is consumed rather quickly. As I said I would like to see some studies that dealt with the LNP bound mRNA, and the Plasmid DNA in the Nucleus. For example, how are the LNP eliminated from the body.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
D
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
Originally Posted by bowmanh


The articles you reference about spike proteins and concentrations in the ovaries etc. are for the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus. My understanding is that the spike proteins that are created when a person gets the vaccine are different and lack the binding ability of Covid spike proteins.



Sorry I missed this important point in my previous reply. The S-protein complex coded for in the mRNA vaccines DO bind to ACE2.

I can't copy the link for some reason, but do a search on: SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Elicits Cell Signaling in Human
Host Cells: Implications for Possible Consequences of COVID-19 Vaccines


"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
D
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
Originally Posted by OldHat
Originally Posted by DocRocket

Bottom line, all nucleotides and all foreign proteins/peptides in a host organism have very short half-lives. We don't have the whole story on the effects of free S-proteins (if any), but the trend isn't looking all that dire to me.

None of your links dealt with free nucleic acids.

I would not be surprised if what you say is true for mRNA because we know for sure naked mRNA is consumed rather quickly. As I said I would like to see some studies that dealt with the LNP bound mRNA, and the Plasmid DNA in the Nucleus. For example, how are the LNP eliminated from the body.


Well, I think we are in agreement here. The half-life of free nucleic acids in cytoplasm is extremely short, and in plasma it's probably only slightly longer. Any inactive ligand-receptor complex will be similarly short-lived.

Our bodies' recycling systems don't tolerate "spare parts" floating around uselessly for long.


"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,817
O
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
O
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,817
Originally Posted by DocRocket
Originally Posted by OldHat


What bothers me the MOST is why no one seems to be doing any research into why some people have heart inflammation after a vaccination, for example. Why? Is it related? Why don't we know by now.

Personally, I want more answers. I have very large trust issues when it comes to this whole hyper politicized subject.



First thing, your supposition that no research is being done on the myocarditis/pericarditis question is patently absurd.

I just went on the Google search engine and typed in "mechanism cardiomyopathy vaccine" and got 100,000+ hits, the first of which was this one: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781600

The next 3 pages of search results all allude to research being done on this very question. Do you see why I used an inflammatory term like "patently absurd"? If I can find a complete contradiction of your assertion in 15 seconds, it means your assertion is patently absurd. Put in some actual effort before making statements like this, please.

There are dozens of labs looking at this already, if not hundreds. But you don't get answers to such questions in one nice, neat package. It will take months for the cumulative results of many different lines of inquiry to find the answers we all want here.

Your personal trust issues are irrelevant. Science happens at its own pace in hundreds of thousands if not millions of labs all over the world, none of which is concerned with what YOU or I think is relevant. Science is gloriously chaotic, completely unpredictable, and advancing at a phenomenal pace with respect to this pandemic and the fecking Chinese lab virus that caused it all.

Honestly, I don't care about your "inflammatory language". It's the campfire. That is the only kind of language used here. I have a very thick skin.

I did say "seemed". Poor choice of words on my part. I guess my surprise is why we don't see anyone reporting results on these events which go beyond heart related effects, like blood pressure drops. Seems we should know something about the reported side effects beside the routine "soreness at injection site, etc" considering how long the vaccines have been in circulation

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 14,073
N
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
N
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 14,073
Originally Posted by DocRocket
This post is in response to a question by bowmanh about the COVID spike protein (S-protein), which was posted on another thread, and goes as follows:

Originally Posted by bowmanh

You might want to look at the Bret Weinstein podcast when you have time. Bret Weinstein and Robert Malone discuss Pfizer data obtained via a FOIA request to the Japanese Government that indicate the spike proteins are not contained in the membranes of the cells producing them, but get into the blood and later migrate to the ovaries and bone marrow. ...

If this is true, it sounds somewhat alarming to me. I've had both doses of the Moderna vaccine so I'm not an anti-vaxxer but I do look at dissenting positions from credible people and Weinstein and Malone seem credible to me.

You might want to look at the Bret Weinstein podcast when you have time. Bret Weinstein and Robert Malone discuss Pfizer data obtained via a FOIA request to the Japanese Government that indicate the spike proteins are not contained in the membranes of the cells producing them, but get into the blood and later migrate to the ovaries and bone marrow. So that's very different than your description. I'm not a medical biologist and don't have a position on this, but they present very different data and conclusions. If this is true, it sounds somewhat alarming to me. I've had both doses of the Moderna vaccine so I'm not an anti-vaxxer but I do look at dissenting positions from credible people and Weinstein and Malone seem credible to me.


First thing: as much as I admire Bret Weinstein, I find his podcasts interminably dull. He's interesting as a guest on Rogan's podcast, but he puts me to sleep on his own. Second thing, podcasts are a lousy source of information. I listen to podcasts to open lines of inquiry, to cause me to search for information, but there is rarely any solid factual evidence of anything in a podcast. So I decline your invitation to spend 2 hours trying to stay awake for that Weinstein podcast.

Instead, I have done what I do (read and search literature, which I have a lot of experince at) and have chosen to respond in a new thread for several reasons, not the least of which is that the noise-to-signal ration in the previous thread makes intelligent discussion hard to carry on. I am not posting this in an effort to convince anyone that the SARS-CoV2 vaccines--individually or in toto--are safe or unsafe, or that you should/shouldn't get a vaccine. The choice is entirely yours.

I am posting this answer because I promised to do so before the prior thread became a complete name-calling s h i t s h o w, and I try to keep my promises.

I will not be following this thread and I will not be answering any further questions nor arguing with any of you one way or another.

The purpose of Science is to formulate and test hypotheses, in an effort to find truths about physical phenomena. Definitive answers are rare, conflicting information is common, and the truth only emerges over time. This is unsatisfying to the short attention span types who frequent these pages, so those of you who demand free and easy information that is beyond question will be unhappy with it. But if you are willing to invest some time and effort into reading and thinking about it, you should be able to use this information to enlighten yourself.

Now, I am not your unpaid research assistant. You can look these reports up yourself with a modest effort. Whether you can glean sufficient information from them without a research science background I can't say, but if you feel you aren't quite up to speed, I suggest you start with the following videos to get yourself in a position to understand more clearly. It will save you having to read a lot of dull, dry textual material and covers the groundwork pretty decently. And let me suggest that if you find any of these videos confusing, look at some of the linked videos on YouTube that are attached to each of them. There is a tremendous amount of good, solid science on YouTube, and these selections I'm giving you will give you a few decent places to start learning about it if you care to.

1. Difference between DNA and RNA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruUf7ntRCk8
2. How does messenger RNA work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dsTvBaUMvw, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKIpDtJdK8Q
3. Can mRNA alter a host organism's DNA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGKg9rj9W1s
4. How does the DNA-RNA-protein synthesis process work in cells: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gUY5NoX1Lk
5. How mRNA vaccines work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOvvyqJ-vwo
6.How did the mRNA vaccines develop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6aBJ1wYZ0M (this is #6 in a good 6-part series) ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPeeCyJReZw (this is a bit more technical and goes into more of the history of mRNA vaccine science)
7. How do antibodies come into being: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_GRI3fxUWw, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9jl9QpVz10
8. Humoral vs Cell-mediated immunity: ​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vh24StylNo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXB7M_GIf-g
9. How do T-cells create immunity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWhDOR3ZsTE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i536vS3z3e8 (ignore the pandemic statistics in the intro to the video)
10. How does the S-protein bind to the ACE2 receptor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJwHZKHpKTM
11. Receptor binding pharmacodynamics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZzOg3IzjUE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=011Bj5USal8, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXOXZ-kaSVI (This topic was integral to my Master's Degree research, which was in the study of one particular receptor-ligand interaction and which I spent about 2 years working on in the lab and the library. I'm pretty much up to speed on this topic even today. It has quite a lot of bearing on the topic of the question I'm answering here.)

If you don't want to bother learning the information in the above videos, you probably won't be able to get sufficient information from the following references to make an informed opinion. But hey, that's how most of the folks on these pages operate in any case, so don't let that hold you back.

So, do S-proteins accumulate in human ovaries?

1. Probably not, from studies in cell cultures of CoV2 infection, S-proteins don't accumulate and don't have a toxic effect. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7205710/ (this is only one representative article; there are several other studies that look at other aspects of the question, and came up with more or less the same result).

2. However: enough people are interested in this to look into it some more (https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/11/2/e045524.full.pdf). Basically, they're saying that since the S-protein attaches to Angtiotensin-II receptors, and ovarian tissue is rich in ACE2 receptors, maybe CoV2 will affect female fertility because the virus will bind to ovaries preferentially versus tissues that aren't as rich in ACE2's. But nobody knows if this will have any longterm effect on fertility, which is why they are proposing these studies. It will take a long time to get answers, because female fertility is extremely complex and highly difficult to study, despite the fact that human trailer-trash females who have more tattoos than teeth and can barely spell their own names are able to reproduce with apparent great fecundity.

3. But notwithstanding #2, the fact that lab scientists have shown that S-proteins don't accumulate in ovarian cells in tissue culture despite the abundance of ACE2 receptors on these cells, suggests that what happens to the S-proteins that have bound to the ACE2 receptors is exactly as I explained to you previously, and which is explained in part in the YouTube video in #11, above:
a) the S-protein (which is a ligand) is a "fake" ligand on the surface of the CoV2 virus that binds to the ACE2 receptor; the ACE2 receptor is supposed to
bind to Angiotensin, a hormone that has numerous regulatory effects on human cells;
b) in the normal case, ligand-receptor binding causes certain enzymes in the target human cell to be activated. This
causes particular cellular chemical reactions to take place that otherwise would be dormant. After a specified time period, the ligand is released from
the receptor and is chewed up by enzymes on the cell surface or inside it. This is the process that prevents a hormone release from having an
indefinite or prolonged effect.
c) the S-protein's binding to the ACE2 receptor may or may not trigger the cell's enzymes, but its REAL purpose is to "jam the mechanism"... it binds to
the ACE2 receptor irreversibly, rendering it useless.
d) the cell recognizes the now-defunct ACE2-ligand complex as defunct, so it pulls it back into the cell to be broken down into component parts
that can be reused.
e) the CoV2 virus, which is attached to the ACE2-ligand complex, thus gains entry into the host cell, where it releases its RNA core, and this takes over
the host cell's protein synthesis systems to manufacture multiple new copies of the virus.
f) in the case of the "free" S-proteins produced by an mRNA vaccine, the defunct receptor-ligand complex is drawn into the cell, but since there is no
virus attached to it, there is no infection of the cell; the S-protein is now nothing more than a component of a large "broken" molecular structure that
the cell breaks down into its amino acid building blocks, to be reused to make new proteins as part of the cell's ongoing life.

Now, I cannot PROVE to you that this is what happens to the S-proteins produced by one of the mRNA vaccines. All I can tell you is that this is what happens to every other receptor-ligand complex known to biomedical science, every time, in every cell of every species. For the S-protein to somehow have a completely DIFFERENT ending than every other ligand that binds to cell receptors is theoretically possible, but the fact that no one has found accumulation of S-proteins in ovarian cell cultures (see point #1 above) suggests that this is in fact what happens to S-proteins, just as it does in every single other case of receptor-ligand complexes known to science.

Now, that is as plainly as I can explain it. I hope this serves as a reasonable answer to your question. If I have failed to answer it to your satisfaction, go ask somebody else.


Thanks for taking the time to post this info. While not a requirement for most threads, it's still refreshing to hear such a logical and systematic response to a question here on the campfire.


Biden's most truthful quote ever came during his first press conference, 03/25/21.
Drum roll please...... "I don't know, to be clear." and THAT is one promise he's kept!!!
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
D
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
OldHat, I take your points. And believe me, my "inflammatory language" is not directed as a jab at you, it's just the lingua franca of the Campfire, as you say.

I too would like to see more information on the mechanisms of these side effects. I have a personal stake in it, because my son developed severe weakness and fatigue after the 2nd Pfizer vaccine that lasted more than 3 months, which I suspect was due to vaccine-related cardiomyopathy. He is just now "coming out of it". He saw his doctor and had an EKG and lab tests done (all normal), in addition to a thorough physical exam (which did show borderline low BP).

There were confounding factors: he has moderately severe multiple sclerosis, which makes him pretty weak and exercise intolerant anyway, and which has unpredictable ups and downs... so maybe his prolonged weakness wasn't due to vaccine-mediated cardiomyopathy, maybe it was something else. But as he looks at it, his MS makes him a high risk of dying from a lot of illnesses that healthy people would recover from easily... so he says he can accept the side effect he had because of the protection from full-blown COVID infection the vaccine has given him. (That's his reasoning, not mine. I did not encourage him to take the vaccine, I told him to do his own research and make a decision based on that. )

But the reality is that a lot of people just "tough it out" when they have side effects from treatments, and don't bother reporting it because it's too much bother for them, and they have busy lives to get on with. Professionally speaking, I agree with a lot of my colleagues in thinking that the number of adverse effects is likely quite a bit higher than the reported numbers, but because people are able to pick up and carry on, we never hear about them.


"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,817
O
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
O
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,817
Originally Posted by DocRocket
Originally Posted by OldHat
Originally Posted by DocRocket

Bottom line, all nucleotides and all foreign proteins/peptides in a host organism have very short half-lives. We don't have the whole story on the effects of free S-proteins (if any), but the trend isn't looking all that dire to me.

None of your links dealt with free nucleic acids.

I would not be surprised if what you say is true for mRNA because we know for sure naked mRNA is consumed rather quickly. As I said I would like to see some studies that dealt with the LNP bound mRNA, and the Plasmid DNA in the Nucleus. For example, how are the LNP eliminated from the body.


Well, I think we are in agreement here. The half-life of free nucleic acids in cytoplasm is extremely short, and in plasma it's probably only slightly longer. Any inactive ligand-receptor complex will be similarly short-lived.

Our bodies' recycling systems don't tolerate "spare parts" floating around uselessly for long.

The LNP is introduced for the very reason of prolonging the lifetime of the mRNA in the body. I guess I would feel better if there were papers describing the process.

A DNA plasmid is not a ligand receptor complex. It gets into the nucleus using the ligands of the host virus. That's my understanding anyway. I'm open to correction. I'm confident the host virus is dispatched butI would like to know the life cycle of the plasmid.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
AX24

89 members (7887mm08, 44mc, Amos63, 3dtestify, 35, 8MMX57JS, 7 invisible), 974 guests, and 842 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,194,207
Posts18,524,265
Members74,031
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 


Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.173s Queries: 55 (0.002s) Memory: 0.9564 MB (Peak: 1.1125 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-05-20 09:23:59 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS