Hacker News Reader

Comment by vnchr | Hacker News Reader

> Our findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is not confined to the injection site but spreads systemically and is packaged into BM EVs.

I thought Pfizer tested the vaccine and said this wouldn’t happen.

View on HN

> However, as only trace quantities are present and a clear translational activity is absent, we believe breastfeeding post-vaccination is safe, especially 48 h after vaccination.

“I’m doing this for baby” ads turned out to be true. Or maybe it should have been “I’m doing this to baby.”

With the amount of backtracking any of this “we believe we totally did nothing wrong and you shouldn’t look too closely at us, ok?” Just really doesn’t sit well with me. What about the same “we believe” claims on transmission? Efficacy? Safety? Lots of modifying after the fact and “oops, sorry!”

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

If drinking mRNA did anything, we wouldn't need needles for the vaccine, and we also wouldn't be able to eat meat.

> Lots of modifying after the fact and “oops, sorry!”

Nah, none of that happened and when it did it was natural and didn't imply any mistakes. If you're going to misunderstand research, it's better not to think about it in the first place.

(Example: efficacy of a vaccine always appears highest when noone's gotten the vaccine yet. This is a base rate effect.)

Of course, there were some other less effective vaccines in poor deprived countries like China and England, but we can't do much about that.

I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand. Check out An oral vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 RBD mRNA-bovine milk-derived exosomes induces a neutralizing antibody response in vivo [1].

[1]: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.19.517879v1

That's a completely different architecture than current lipid nanoparticle mRNA vaccines. It would be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of knowledge that the linked paper is not relevant.

That's what was claimed, yes.

Source? I don’t recall this being a claim, at least not in the strongest claim of “100% stays in the muscle for all patients.”

Let's say it's true that it stayed locally, why do we them expect it to create immunity for the body and not just that area?

Immunity does not mean mRNA molecules diffused across the body. The mRNAs are supposed to be translated and degrated yielding the antigen protein. This antigens cause inflammation at the area of injection and in theory only the protein antigen will be circulated by the immune cells to generate immunity.

I'm recalling from a podcast that intramuscular shots doesn't really isolate but rather slows down the actual spread within the body. There's still capillaries and the lymphatic system where the shots can travel. How else do we explain what is happening?

Where did you see them claim this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com