Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Covid Spike Protein Disrupts Human Cardiac Pericytes Function [pdf] (biorxiv.org)
26 points by qwertyuiop_ 11 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 26 comments

The Pericytes Function is still an evolving subject and I can only expect more scientists and does creating ultimately better devices and drugs for our bodies. Unfortunately this time it is taking way too many lives


> Unfortunately this time it is taking way too many lives

Could you elaborate more?

"Covid spike protein", would that be the one which is coded for by the mRNA we're injecting into people's bodies? But that wouldn't make sense because that would be unethical, so they must be talking about a different one.

This is only partially true. The mRNA vaccines don’t generate the full protein:

> mRNA vaccines tell our cells to make a piece of the “spike protein” that is found on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Since only part of the protein is made, it does not harm the vaccine recipient, but it is antigenic and thus stimulates the immune system to make antibodies.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna.html

Additionally, one of the studies referenced in the linked paper also states that negative thromboembolic events are observed in vector-based vaccines but are absent in mRNA vaccines:

> Here, we present first molecular evidence that vector-based vaccines encoding the Spike protein exhibit a problem that is completely absent in mRNA-based vaccines. This is due to the fact that during the vaccination step, the adenoviral DNA enters the nucleus and use the host machinery to transcribe its (trans)genes inside the nucleus.

Source: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-558954/v1

This is really interesting info; I appreciate the contribution to the discussion!

Its been more than 2 weeks and after bloodwork, ecgs and nearly going to the ER my heart and chest still haven’t recovered from the second Pfizer shot.

Even though I dont have the expertise to decipher this scientific paper, from my negative experience your concerns are absolutely valid.

I don’t understand why people are so quick to downvote

seing this kind of reaction (downvoting), on HN, on a comment that is completely relevant to a published paper makes me loose faith in human kind. People absolutely should stop trying to second guess political opinions and "side", and rather focus on actual meaning. Otherwise we're lost, and this comment section will soon look like twitter.

Sorry to hear bout this, I'm curious what your symptoms are?

I had Pfizer and it still doesn't trouble me that much, I will catch Covid19 anyway, I'm just less likely to end up with a serious case of it or die.

Why people would just immediately attack the vaccine and not discuss the fact that hundreds of millions, eventually billions of will be exposed to way higher levels of spike protein through actual infection is beyond me.

I agree that it's not ideal, but what was the alternatives?

Let it go wild, destroy the economy, let hospitals collapse?

Why is there a false dichotomy that it's the vaccine or nothing?

Why can't there just be a better vaccine. What incentive do pharma companies even have to make a better vaccine, rather than one that is just "good enough" to be shipped as a product to a ready, desperate market.

Let's put it into context: the current batch of covid vaccines are spectacularly effective and compare favourably to vaccines we have for other diseases that are the result of decades of research. It really is hard to overstate how shockingly effecttive these covid vaccines are for being 'gen1' ones. They were genuinely a shock to the scientific community when their efficacy results were first announced, especially considering that other attempts at coronavirus vaccines had been relatively ineffective.

For example, Varicella is 85% effective against any infecttion and approx 100% against severe infection. [1]. Polio is about 90% with 2 doses. [2] Influenza vaccines sit at about 40-60%. [3]

Of course, it's also important to point out that they are improving them. Work is already underway to produce vaccines targetting the Delta strain more directly, in an effort to resolve some of the effectiveness loss that gen1 vaccines have against it. Indeed, this is one of the major advantages of mRNA vaccines - the iteration time from new design to new drug is a matter of weeks, so overall iteration for boosters is similarly shortened. This is extremely attractive for use against influenza and coronavirus which mutate fairly rapidly.

The incentive for pharma groups to do this is twofold: 1) the US/UK and other similarly vaccinated populations will want boosters and will pay for them, and 2) that the vaccine status outside of the US/UK is radically different, with most countries barely scraping 10-20% of their population vaccinated. There's still a lot of people needing vaccines.

[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/varicella/hcp-effective... [2]: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-dur... [3]: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm

Thankyou for replying, but I feel you are reinforcing the dichotomy I described: you are saying because it is effective in one dimension (eg. reducing deaths), we should live with any inadequacies.

There is certainly an incentive to make a mostly safe and effective vaccine, but what incentive is there to make the best one possible? Especially when they are given complete indemnity for their decisions, and walking through preopened gates of government approvals. I feel there is a big moral hazard here that we just hand-wave away.

"The mRNA Vaccines Are Extraordinary, but Novavax Is Even Better"


Because it is what we have now?

A better vaccine is currently not a reality, it doesn't exist, it's not readily available.

Why the false dichotomy that only big pharma can do research and produce something?

Do you have any information as to what number of spike proteins will be generated by the vaccine on a healthy young individual, compared to an asymptomatic infection ?

I was under the impression that mrna vaccines relied on the fact that spike was the harmless key. As such wouldn't it make sense if the doses were designed to be quite high ?

Another question ( in case any specialist read this) : wouldn't it be possible that the S protein alone, being smaller than the whole virus, and being generated from unusual locations, is able to reach cells that would usually be protected in case of a regular airborne infection ?

The mRNA vaccines don't multiply. From the moment they enter the body, their total volume can and does go down, but not up. Compare that to the virus, which clones itself and tries to evade immune defenses. Even contrasting the two vaccines is not straightforward: Moderna uses 3x the amount of mRNA as Pfizer, but then their storage requirements are also less stringent.

Regarding location, it's more of an issue in the opposite direction: the fact that it is delivered through intramuscular injection gives a slower and poorer immune response in the mucosa, the first line of defense, compared to hypothetical, equivalent vaccines administered orally or nasally. Currently you have to rely on antibodies getting to the mucosa through your blood. We know that the virus can reach the brain, the GI system, etc., so there doesn't seem to be "total" protection. Of course, across different people and different immune responses, there's going to be a variable amount of viral proteins hitting throughout one's body.

Let's say they're high in both cases, which infection is potentially more harmful ?

The current mRNA vaccines are injected into an upper arm muscle, not the heart. The mRNA is taken up by cells near the injection rather than circulating throughout the body. The spike protein made by the that mRNA presents on the surface of those cells where the immune system responds to it.

i thought i've read multiple times vaccines went to places it wasn't supposed to, far away from the injection site (i don't have any source to share atm). Is it wrong ?

Yes it is the same spike protein, but in a limited dose.

I guess the prevailing wisdom is that the dose makes the poison and a little bit of spike protein damage is acceptable compared to a much bigger amount from actual infection and disease.

It’s not a match to the human receptor. Not an issue.

Why the downvote? Can someone explain if this is true or not? Would be a good chance to clear this misconception up if so.

I downvoted the parent comment because (a) it was smarmy and sarcastic and (b) it makes baseless ethical allegations.

I don't know man. I had the exact same question.

Share and enjoy!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact