Hacker News Reader

Comment by nluken | Hacker News Reader

"Interestingly, we recorded inflammatory foci predominantly in the right heart, which may suggest a gradual blood-stream derived dilution effect and based on this finding it is at least tempting to speculate that inadvertent intravascular vaccine injection may be contributive."

Does this indicate that the authors believe aspirating the vaccine during administration would reduce the risk of myocarditis? I don't have a biological background so I would be interested in hearing someone else's take on this but that sentence seems to indicate that the authors think ensuring correct administration would lower the risk of post-vaccine complications (which from what I've seen, remains low but non-zero). If that's the case, then perhaps the issue isn't as much with the vaccine itself as how it's being administered.

View on HN

Yes. Complication from jab administration is something that has been widely discussed (not widely reported though). The clinical trials were supposed to show that the jab (and therefore the mRNA, and the resultant spike protein generated, which is known to be toxic) stayed in the muscle local to the injection site.

What is widely speculated is that on some not-insubstantial portion of injections, the jab makes it into the bloodstream. This would explain why we see spike protein collecting in the heart, reproductive organs and other parts of the body.

And because of how the jab works - inducing spike protein genesis as well as an immune response - when the immune system finds spike protein on the cells that are creating it (supposed to be just your arm muscle but ends up being your heart and other things), it starts attacking those cells. Which leads to inflammation, blood clots, etc.

A nurse friend of mine raised this as a concern. The protocol for intramuscular injections used to be (and in some places still is) to draw the plunger back a bit first to verify that you're in muscle, and haven't hit a small vein. If you pull blood, you find new spot.

In practice this doesn't happen for covid vaccines, and her personal hypothesis was that many of the adverse reactions (myocarditis, or just being hit hard) were due to the vaccine partially being administered into a vein.

> The clinical trials were supposed to show that the jab (and therefore the mRNA, and the resultant spike protein generated, which is known to be toxic) stayed in the muscle local to the injection site.

They didn't. The data Pfizer released to the Japanese government showed that the lipid nanoparticle could be found all over the bodies of the test rats in hours. It's a small proportion of the overall shot, but the data only goes to 48 hours and in most areas (particularly the ovaries, which is what people kept calling out from this) it was still increasing.

This is extremely fascinating to me as a layperson. Can you explain how this effect would be unique to mRNA? Like, could you get a flu shot and end up with some of the inactivated flu virus spreading around the body and sticking to other organs? Or is the spike protein collecting in other organs solely because the mRNA is telling those cells to produce it, whereas with a typical vaccine the dead virus could get into the bloodstream but it would simply float around the body without piling up anywhere til it's taken out by the immune system?

The difference between the covid jab and the flu vax has to do with the combination of a) mRNA turns your body into a "factory" to pump out a somewhat-unknowable and individually variable quantity of spike protein, and b) the spike protein "sticks to organs" as you put it (or more generally, is harmful), which is not something that e.g. a deactivated virion does

Thank you, I didn't really understand the distinction there re: the spike protein!

I wonder if a similar mechanism is responsible for the blood clotting risk with the J&J shot, which uses a viral delivery mechanism.

I wonder if having larger arm muscles reduces this risk. Great workout motivation if so.

Or, maybe that leads to more vasculature and more chance of hitting a vein? It's interesting that it was more prevalent in young men than other demographics.

For a long time this theory always made the most sense to me, and frankly I assume I must just be missing something since it’s so obviously criminal if there was a chance this was true that it wasn’t blasted from the rooftops from the CDC (for the public to help correct it when they got their vaccine.)

One mouse study found that not aspirating when injecting the vaccine did increase the risk of myocarditis.

https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab707

That research hasn't been reproduced in humans but it's worth further study. Currently the CDC recommends against aspiration, primarily due to pain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com