Whatever cells it ends up in, the mRNA has them make the spike protein. That spike protein ends up attached to the outside surface of the cell that made it and it stays there [1].
If you injected spike protein directly, it could end up anywhere. I don't know if this has been tested in humans yet, but there has been research in mice where spike protein injected damaged their lungs [2].
[1] https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/05/04/sp...
[2] https://www.contagionlive.com/view/spike-protein-of-sars-cov...
(errors in the transcription process end up preventing it from properly attaching to the cell)
Would it be worthwhile to get the first shot in the left shoulder and the second in the right shouder (or vice versa) so you have lymph node immune response from both sides of the upper body?
E: curious why downvotes, am I misinformed?
For a backgrounder of what actually happens, see Derek Lowe's recent blog[1]. Most of the lipid nanoparticles end up in the liver, which is exactly what you expect. There's a detailed debunk of the ovaries issue in [2].
Thanks for being curious about your part in spreading covid misinfo. I suspect most people aren't aware of what they're doing, just repeating stuff they heard from people they trust but probably shouldn't.
[1]: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/05/04/sp...
Specifically, the reasoning your articles give for spike proteins being harmless is that they stay in the local injection site and lymphatic system. But we now know this is not the case and that these spike proteins do travel around the blood stream and concentrate in the ovaries.
The claims that guy made on the radio a while back were wrong but there is new information coming out about this and we specifically do not know the ramifications yet. Phizer is looking at the new data package right now.
At least, that is the argument currently being put forward, I don't know how much of it is fact based and how much is conjecture but it has me concerned at least somewhat.
Calling everyone an antivaxer really doesn't help anything. This shit is a moving target.
Thank you for the links but please keep the arrogant tone down.
He linked to a meta analysis that links to many other studies to carefully support each statement. That is not the same as making claims that are not based in current data or statistics.
Efficacy of post-vaccine follow-up and reporting may change with time, and hopefully will. The problem is that there is no meticulous data gathering from all vaccinated persons. Reports of issues are voluntary in most cases and in some cases institutions are not even notified by the vaccinated persons.
According to one study of VAERS frmo 2020, a passive reporting system, the real amount of issues is underreported; depending on the effect, the reporting efficacy is somewhere between 12-76% [1]. This is not a great system and because of that data gathering is not as fast as could be.
So not to beat a dead horse, but there is no meticulous data gathering from unvaccinated people either, and we know that also suffers from vast underreporting. The one data set (being unvaccinated) simply also has a very strong signal of known serious health issues, while the other data set (getting almost any current vaccination) has a very weak signal of very rare, usually minor issues.
Isn't that what the Novavax vaccine does? I'm not a medicine expert by any means, but my understanding from press reports was that they inject the spike protein directly (possibly attached to some substrate protein to carry it along).
To manufacture a protein you need to create a genetically modified bacteria that contains the DNA for that protein, grow a large batch of this bacteria (which can be difficult at scale), and then break open the bacteria filter out all the other proteins and just keep the one you want.
This is why the mRNA is so elegant, it gives your body the instructions to manufacture the protein itself.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/health/pfizer-coron...
I imagine it's a quality control thing.
The problem with expressing your protein in some animal cell is that often times there are sugars that cells add to proteins and they differ by lifeform type. So the protein will end up shaped different in a yeast than in a animal cell. Additionally, growing in a third party host lifeform often leads to situations where you can't get it to grow in the host anymore because the virus changes.
For everything else, you are never sure if the biotech tricks, with all their intricacies, will work in that individual case.
The problem with inactivated viral particles is the inactivation process, neccessarily, breaks the proteins and cause them to be liable to take up non-realistic shapes. When your immune system trains on the non-realistic shape the antibodies don't neutralize as well. See the sinovac inactivated sars-cov-2 vaccine for an example of this type of vaccine not working out (ie, <50% efficient).
Conversely, getting a protein at scale requires the engineering of an organism to synthesise the protein of interest. This results in increased delay in manufacture.
There are attempts to use peptides. They are much shorter chains of amino acids , they are easy to produce, but it’s difficult to find peptides that reproduce the external structure of the virus. There is an experimental Russian vaccine based on peptides, but the results haven’t been published yet.
Not so easy to make enough, and handle it just like every isolated biological molecule?