Hacker News Reader

Comment by smegsicle | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Viruses themselves are a common cause of autoimmune reactions that cause T1D. Attempting to automatically blame a vaccine for a virus that commonly affected youth with little to no sign of infection probably isn't a very scientific method of determining cause.

Article notes that coronaviruses binding to ACE2 receptors in the pancreas could cause this. Binding to ACE2 receptors is done by the spike protein, the same spike protein the vaccines created mass amounts of.

It seems to me that it is irrelevant how many spike proteins the vaccines causes your body to make considering that most of humanity has had a real covid infection by this point.

The question would be if vaccine followed by covid infection produced more or less spike proteins (and overall health impact) than no vaccine followed by covid infection.

If you assume that hospitalization and death is correlated to overall quantity of damaging spike proteins then the default assumption would have to be that vaccines are highly beneficial.

> The question would be if vaccine followed by covid infection produced more or less spike proteins (and overall health impact) than no vaccine followed by covid infection.

The answer is "most likely more" given the IgG4 class switch. ( https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798 )

This is a "stand down" class for allergens, so your body doesn't overreact.

It would be worth studying to see if there's any meaningful different in new diabetic case with regards to natural infection compared to vaccine only. We can assume everyone has been infected, but it can easily be verified by testing for the presence of an immune response to the non-spike proteins.

mRNA vaccines don't create circulating spike protein. The specific mechanism of action of mRNA vaccines is to create a spike protein inside a cell (muscle cell - it's an intramuscular injection) which then gets presented by the MHC-proteins on the surface of the cell.

This is a similar mechanism which viral-vector vaccines use as well.

This is quite unlike regular protein-bolus vaccines which do in fact just inject a bunch of antigen into your body.

Of course in all cases, intramuscular injections don't really enter the bloodstream anyway: the immune system picks up the injected material and it is transported by the lymphatic system to be presented to the various immunological systems.

Contrast to general viral infection where a self-replicating virus with machinery specifically intended to ensure it is packaged and secreted from infected as a viable infectious agent will basically run rampant until an immune response mounts...at which pointy our blood actually will be full of pieces of spike protein from your immune system shredding virus particles (which is why PCR tests can detect infection for weeks after you've cleared it).

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8402319/

> mRNA vaccines don't create circulating spike protein

What about this recent study, which shows spike protein AND spike mRNA can enter the cell nucleus via a nuclear localization signal:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9909199/

What is somewhat disturbing about that, is that if spike mRNA (from the vaccine OR the virus) enters the nucleus, there are other studies showing it can be reverse transcribed possibly via LINE-1:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2105968118

That would mean host genome integration (DNA).

That would be bad.

Note this is no fly-by-night study, that's an NIH/NIAID/UND study.

I just saw in an article, that while uncommon, mRNA vaccines can actually lead to circulating spike protein. From the article [1]:

Most notably, the plasma of patients with postvaccine myocarditis had “markedly elevated levels” of free spike antigen (33.9 ± 22.4 pg/mL), with the protein circulating in the body unbound by antibodies. “Although postvaccine myocarditis clinically occurs more commonly in males, [this] was seen equally in both affected females and males,” the investigators point out.

[1] https://www.tctmd.com/news/free-spike-protein-mrna-covid-19-...

From the original study though, patients without myocarditis were found to have no such levels.

> A notable finding was that markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein (33.9±22.4 pg/mL), unbound by antibodies, were detected in the plasma of individuals with postvaccine myocarditis, whereas no free spike was detected in asymptomatic vaccinated control subjects (unpaired t test; P<0.0001).

So what we have is a potential explanatory mechanism (namely, probably some biochemistry which means for whatever reason these people seem to release the protein rather then keep it cell bound - although correlation is not causation, the whole effect could work the other round).

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36597886/

You're trying very hard to cling to your belief instead of just admitting, there's at least a chance, you're wrong.

Surely the disease causing a child to become diabetic is "meaningfully threatened" though?

I'm not sure why some people act like anything less than death is no big deal. Severe organ damage, whether lungs or pancreas or anything is a well documented, non-controversial risk of covid infection.

The more we learn, the more dangerous covid looks to be for kids. Diabetes is one of those risks we now know more about.

There are too many negations in your comment for me to understand its meaning. "I do think anyone can agree that pushing the vaccine..." "Is terrorism?" Or did you mean the opposite of that?

i'm not sure whether i should be more confused at your implication that three negations of what i said would be what i meant, or that "i don't think anyone can disagree" is a difficult thing to parse

I'm no intellectual giant, but I can't parse your original comment either. At the very least, it's more convoluted than necessary.

The opposite of terrorism, I guess, is being helpful and kind? So you're saying that giving the vaccine to young people was helpful and kind?

> it's more convoluted than necessary

can't disagree with that, it was the specificity of the contention that threw me off

> The opposite of terrorism, I guess, is being helpful and kind?

at the very least it was done in a way in which noone could be expected to complain, could anyone disagree?

ALSO: i tried to post this response much earlier, but I became rate limited and alas could not

full disclosure, my original intention was to promote a healthy discussion which would then be flagged off the page, an aim that i feel was entirely fulfilled, and if you felt any emotional/intellectual discomfort, perhaps i should apologize, since you don't seem like a jerk

It's because your original sentence is incoherent and internally contradictory. You think nobody can disagree that "pushing the vaccine" for "demographics too young" was..."the opposite of terrorism"? What?

I can't disagree with the statement because I can't even work out what it means, so in that sense you're correct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com