If this is true then there is no way the government can say oops. They will have to continue pushing the lie.

However, re-infection appears to be pretty low for now so I'm not sure how that squares with this. It seems like we can build immunity to the virus.

When I first read this, the first thing I asked myself, from a biology POV, is how does the spike protein get to the DNA while in the cell. The DNA is located in the nucleus of the cell. There is no way the spike protein can get to the nucleus to affect the DNA. So how can it affect DNA repair?

Any science nerds have thoughts?

Quote:

---

In contrast, our data provide valuable details on the involvement of spike protein subunits in DNA damage repair, indicating that fulllength spikebased vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells, which is also consistent with a recent study that a fulllength spikebased vaccine induced lower antibody titers compared to the RBDbased vaccine [28]. This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARSCoV2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the fulllength spike.

---

Doesn't this part say the J&J and NovaVax vaccines would be safer than the mRNA vaccines?

pagerman @ work said:

---

baron_von_awesome said:

---

BoDog said:

---

Ok, cliff notes for the reading comprehension impaired.

Jab good or bad long term?

---

Bad, that's why it was stupid to skip 6-10 years of long term safety studies.

---

Sort of, potentially.

Both the virus and the vaccine have this property. So, getting the virus (i.e. "natural immunity") would have the same impact as getting the vaccine with regard to this activity.

There is no "victory dance" to be done by either "side" here. The only people that this won't impact are people that never get the current vaccines and never get or get exposed to the virus.

I don't know how many people that will eventually actually be (I would bet a somewhat small number, but that is a completely uneducated, wild-ass guess).

All of which assumes that the lab experiments bear out in actual humans, and I have no idea how likely or unlikely that is.

Bottom line is that this is a "feature" of the virus, not the vaccines.

The research may lead to a better (safer) vaccine that does not have this "feature" of the virus.

NOTE: all of the above is from a layman's reading of the study results linked in the OP. I am not in any way, shape or form a scientist, doctor or medical professional, nor do I claim to be. I could be completely off base.

---

I have seen studies that suggests the vaccine keeps "working" long past when they should, which would be bad.

This is bad because you have a chance to not catch covid, but with the vaccine it looks like you are guaranteeing DNA damage. So yes, I will take a victory dance.

CCP Joe Veggie said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

baron_von_awesome said:

---

I think the Novavax vaccine that is coming would be free from this 'unexpected' side effect.

---

Is this facetious?

Novavax IS the spike protein. Why wouldn't Novavax cause this side effect, at least for a while.

---

it says this;

indicating that full length spike based vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells




is Novavax full length?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

So far, results of phase III clinical efficacy trials were reported and
published for a single subunit vaccine only98, which is manufactured
by the company Novavax (NVX-CoV2373) (Table 1)98,99 and
is still in a stage before regulatory approval100. It consists of the
trimeric full-length spike that is produced as....

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-021-00369-6

The responses by governments is highly disproportionate to the threat of the disease that we are told. I'm thinking that maybe they know everyone who caught it will die within X years.

Quote:

---

Our findings provide evidence of the spike protein hijacking the DNA damage repair machinery and adaptive immune machinery in vitro. We propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may impair adaptive immunity by inhibiting DNA damage repair. Although no evidence has been published that SARSCoV2 can infect thymocytes or bone marrow lymphoid cells, our in vitro V(D)J reporter assay shows that the spike protein intensely impeded V(D)J recombination. Consistent with our results, clinical observations also show that the risk of severe illness or death with COVID19 increases with age, especially older adults who are at the highest risk [22]. This may be because SARSCoV2 spike proteins can weaken the DNA repair system of older people and consequently impede V(D)J recombination and adaptive immunity. In contrast, our data provide valuable details on the involvement of spike protein subunits in DNA damage repair, indicating that fulllength spikebased vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells, which is also consistent with a recent study that a fulllength spikebased vaccine induced lower antibody titers compared to the RBDbased vaccine [28]. This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARSCoV2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the fulllength spike. Taken together, we identified one of the potentially important mechanisms of SARSCoV2 suppression of the host adaptive immune machinery. Furthermore, our findings also imply a potential side effect of the fulllength spikebased vaccine. This work will improve the understanding of COVID19 pathogenesis and provide new strategies for designing more efficient and safer vaccines.

---

Someone who is better at reading and comprehending biology stuff please explain this to me.

baron_von_awesome said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

baron_von_awesome said:

---

BoDog said:

---

Ok, cliff notes for the reading comprehension impaired.

Jab good or bad long term?

---

Bad, that's why it was stupid to skip 6-10 years of long term safety studies.

---

Sort of, potentially.

Both the virus and the vaccine have this property. So, getting the virus (i.e. "natural immunity") would have the same impact as getting the vaccine with regard to this activity.

There is no "victory dance" to be done by either "side" here. The only people that this won't impact are people that never get the current vaccines and never get or get exposed to the virus.

I don't know how many people that will eventually actually be (I would bet a somewhat small number, but that is a completely uneducated, wild-ass guess).

All of which assumes that the lab experiments bear out in actual humans, and I have no idea how likely or unlikely that is.

Bottom line is that this is a "feature" of the virus, not the vaccines.

The research may lead to a better (safer) vaccine that does not have this "feature" of the virus.

NOTE: all of the above is from a layman's reading of the study results linked in the OP. I am not in any way, shape or form a scientist, doctor or medical professional, nor do I claim to be. I could be completely off base.

---

I have seen studies that suggests the vaccine keeps "working" long past when they should, which would be bad.

This is bad because you have a chance to not catch covid, but with the vaccine it looks like you are guaranteeing DNA damage. So yes, I will take a victory dance.

---

Which is 100% supposition based on what you think you know. The notion that the vaccine "works long past when it should" would be counter to the idea that the immunity fades (and faster than "natural" immunity) and thus requires a booster to maintain efficacy. Ironically this has been one of the criticisms of the vaccine: that any protection it provides is short-lived, particularly compared to "natural" immunity.

You do you, and I know people that have entrenched themselves on either "side" of this are massively overeager to find that smoking gun that 100% proves they are "right", but I don't think this is it.

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

Quote:

---

Our findings provide evidence of the spike protein hijacking the DNA damage repair machinery and adaptive immune machinery in vitro. We propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may impair adaptive immunity by inhibiting DNA damage repair. Although no evidence has been published that SARSCoV2 can infect thymocytes or bone marrow lymphoid cells, our in vitro V(D)J reporter assay shows that the spike protein intensely impeded V(D)J recombination. Consistent with our results, clinical observations also show that the risk of severe illness or death with COVID19 increases with age, especially older adults who are at the highest risk [22]. This may be because SARSCoV2 spike proteins can weaken the DNA repair system of older people and consequently impede V(D)J recombination and adaptive immunity. In contrast, our data provide valuable details on the involvement of spike protein subunits in DNA damage repair, indicating that fulllength spikebased vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells, which is also consistent with a recent study that a fulllength spikebased vaccine induced lower antibody titers compared to the RBDbased vaccine [28]. This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARSCoV2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the fulllength spike. Taken together, we identified one of the potentially important mechanisms of SARSCoV2 suppression of the host adaptive immune machinery. Furthermore, our findings also imply a potential side effect of the fulllength spikebased vaccine. This work will improve the understanding of COVID19 pathogenesis and provide new strategies for designing more efficient and safer vaccines.

---

Someone who is better at reading and comprehending biology stuff please explain this to me.

---

I'm not a biologist. Hell didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

But my rudimentary understanding is that the spike protein from the virus and the existing mRNA vaccines (dunno about J&J) damage the functionality of your DNA repair system. This system helps repair cells when/if damaged, regardless of what is attacking it.

In other words, your body's ability to fight off other future pathogens is diminished, thereby making you more susceptible to worse health outcomes from things you would normally kick in the dirt without issue.

This is a critically important process in your body that helps stave off infections, mitigate risk of cancer, and a whole host of other things. What a lot of people don't realize is that elderly patients' immune response is far less robust than younger people (it's why a lot of old folks report they didn't have any reaction at all to the cv-19 vaccines and younger people - say in their 40s or 50s - get their asses handed to them by it). Their bodies simply don't respond in a robust manner to the "attack" stimulated by the virus. It's why infection in old people is already bad. SARS-COV-2 is, while not that deadly compared to other pathogens, a really bad thing for the elderly to get. It hits them where they're most vulnerable... a weak immune system made even weaker.

Edit - not saying CV-19 isn't bad/deadly for old folks, it most certainly is. And not saying CV-19 isn't as bad as influenza, it certainly is. Just saying there have been other pathogens that were worse than CV-19.

And so, the people who have been healthy and got the vaccine basically just tanked their immune systems? And it cannot be undone with any of our current technology?

Why would we advocate children getting the vax in light of this? It makes absolutely no sense. Heck, it made no sense in the first place and now this.

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

And so, the people who have been healthy and got the vaccine basically just tanked their immune systems? And it cannot be undone with any of our current technology?

---

You're no better off if you've had covid and no vax. You're still screwed.

Okay. I haven't had either, but my daughter tested positive for the antibodies. So I guess she's the only one that screwed.

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

Okay. I haven't had either, but my daughter tested positive for the antibodies. So I guess she's the only one that screwed.

---

I hope not.

Good grief people, can we back up from the cliff.

It's either that or we need to go back into full lockdown forever based on the way some of you are acting.

Rapier108 said:

---

Good grief people, can we back up from the cliff.

It's either that or we need to go back into full lockdown forever based on the way some of you are acting.

---

Full lockdowns don't work either.

Rapier108 said:

---

Good grief people, can we back up from the cliff.

It's either that or we need to go back into full lockdown forever based on the way some of you are acting.

---

As CCP said, the lockdowns don't work. But this study reaffirms my decision not to willingly inject myself with the shot. If I get covid walking around living my life, that's one thing. I'm not going to intentionally take a shot that we waved many of our trials and regulations to rush to market and hope for the best, though.

Rapier108 said:

---

Post this on F84 and see how long your ban would be.

---

Yep...and that *should be* an absolute condemnation of moderation.

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Good grief people, can we back up from the cliff.

It's either that or we need to go back into full lockdown forever based on the way some of you are acting.

---

As CCP said, the lockdowns don't work. But this study reaffirms my decision not to willingly inject myself with the shot. If I get covid walking around living my life, that's one thing. I'm not going to intentionally take a shot that we waved many of our trials and regulations to rush to market and hope for the best, though.

---

Ugh, seems like the China virus killed sarcasm understanding.

In no way do I support lockdowns or the shots, but right now this is in vitro tests only. As we've seen in the past, in vitro tests do not always end up matching real world results. Cause for concern, yes. Reason to go panic, no.

Rapier108 said:

---

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Good grief people, can we back up from the cliff.

It's either that or we need to go back into full lockdown forever based on the way some of you are acting.

---

As CCP said, the lockdowns don't work. But this study reaffirms my decision not to willingly inject myself with the shot. If I get covid walking around living my life, that's one thing. I'm not going to intentionally take a shot that we waved many of our trials and regulations to rush to market and hope for the best, though.

---

Ugh, seems like the China virus killed sarcasm understanding.

In no way do I support lockdowns or the shots, but right now this is in vitro tests only. As we've seen in the past, in vitro tests do not always end up matching real world results. Cause for concern, yes. Reason to go panic, no.

---

This.

On top of which, I haven't seen anything in the study (and again I am not a scientist, doctor or medical professional) that indicates if the damage to the DNA repair system is permanent, long-term, short term, or what.

Until that is known, freaking out one way or the other doesn't seem warranted.

That said, it would be interesting to know if this "feature" of the virus is something that would just naturally happen or if it would need to be something engineered into the virus for some reason (like maybe, oh I don't know, to make it more deadly?).

pagerman @ work said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Good grief people, can we back up from the cliff.

It's either that or we need to go back into full lockdown forever based on the way some of you are acting.

---

As CCP said, the lockdowns don't work. But this study reaffirms my decision not to willingly inject myself with the shot. If I get covid walking around living my life, that's one thing. I'm not going to intentionally take a shot that we waved many of our trials and regulations to rush to market and hope for the best, though.

---

Ugh, seems like the China virus killed sarcasm understanding.

In no way do I support lockdowns or the shots, but right now this is in vitro tests only. As we've seen in the past, in vitro tests do not always end up matching real world results. Cause for concern, yes. Reason to go panic, no.

---

This.

On top of which, I haven't seen anything in the study (and again I am not a scientist, doctor or medical professional) that indicates if the damage to the DNA repair system is permanent, long-term, short term, or what.

Until that is known, freaking out one way or the other doesn't seem warranted.

That said, it would be interesting to know if this "feature" of the virus is something that would just naturally happen or if it would need to be something engineered into the virus for some reason (like maybe, oh I don't know, to make it more deadly?).

---

But shouldn't the unknown also give pause to all the vaccine mandates?

pagerman @ work said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Good grief people, can we back up from the cliff.

It's either that or we need to go back into full lockdown forever based on the way some of you are acting.

---

As CCP said, the lockdowns don't work. But this study reaffirms my decision not to willingly inject myself with the shot. If I get covid walking around living my life, that's one thing. I'm not going to intentionally take a shot that we waved many of our trials and regulations to rush to market and hope for the best, though.

---

Ugh, seems like the China virus killed sarcasm understanding.

In no way do I support lockdowns or the shots, but right now this is in vitro tests only. As we've seen in the past, in vitro tests do not always end up matching real world results. Cause for concern, yes. Reason to go panic, no.

---

This.

On top of which, I haven't seen anything in the study (and again I am not a scientist, doctor or medical professional) that indicates if the damage to the DNA repair system is permanent, long-term, short term, or what.

Until that is known, freaking out one way or the other doesn't seem warranted.

That said, it would be interesting to know if this "feature" of the virus is something that would just naturally happen or if it would need to be something engineered into the virus for some reason (like maybe, oh I don't know, to make it more deadly?).

---

People are being compelled via threat to their ability to earn a living to put this unknown into their bodies. I would strongly prefer to have the long-term effects known before doing so.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Good grief people, can we back up from the cliff.

It's either that or we need to go back into full lockdown forever based on the way some of you are acting.

---

As CCP said, the lockdowns don't work. But this study reaffirms my decision not to willingly inject myself with the shot. If I get covid walking around living my life, that's one thing. I'm not going to intentionally take a shot that we waved many of our trials and regulations to rush to market and hope for the best, though.

---

Ugh, seems like the China virus killed sarcasm understanding.

In no way do I support lockdowns or the shots, but right now this is in vitro tests only. As we've seen in the past, in vitro tests do not always end up matching real world results. Cause for concern, yes. Reason to go panic, no.

---

This.

On top of which, I haven't seen anything in the study (and again I am not a scientist, doctor or medical professional) that indicates if the damage to the DNA repair system is permanent, long-term, short term, or what.

Until that is known, freaking out one way or the other doesn't seem warranted.

That said, it would be interesting to know if this "feature" of the virus is something that would just naturally happen or if it would need to be something engineered into the virus for some reason (like maybe, oh I don't know, to make it more deadly?).

---

People are being compelled via threat to their ability to earn a living to put this unknown into their bodies. I would strongly prefer to have the long-term effects known before doing so.

---

OK.

I have said nothing about the mandates one way or the other.

I was mostly addressing the notion that if you have had either the vaccine or the actual virus you are somehow "screwed" with some long-term consequence. That is simply unknown (or not spelled out clearly by the study report).

And yes, given the unknown status of the timeframe for this side effect it should give people pause about voluntarily getting the vaccine (at least to weigh this risk vs the risk for getting the virus in making that personal decision regarding whether or not to get the vaccine). And it should definitely cause states, companies and certain presidential administrations to, at the very minimum re-think vaccine mandates.

We both know that they won't.

Hopefully this is further ammunition that can be used in court to justify the courts striking down those mandates.

But keep in mind, this is a function of the virus itself, not just the vaccines. The vaccines are derived from the virus and as such also have this issue.

C@LAg said:

---

The difference is that one just screws you once.

They other screws you twice up front, then once every 6-12 months.

---

Potentially.

But people have gotten covid more than once.

pagerman @ work said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

The difference is that one just screws you once.

They other screws you twice up front, then once every 6-12 months.

---

Potentially.

But people have gotten covid more than once.

---

Sure, but no one is telling them they have to get covid if they want to travel, eat in a restaurant, shop in a store, continue employment, or other everyday things that some are trying to keep restricted to those who show proof of vaccination.

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

The difference is that one just screws you once.

They other screws you twice up front, then once every 6-12 months.

---

Potentially.

But people have gotten covid more than once.

---

Sure, but no one is telling them they have to get covid if they want to travel, eat in a restaurant, shop in a store, continue employment, or other everyday things that some are trying to keep restricted to those who show proof of vaccination.

---

See my post from 3:10.

Except there has been discussion that they have been using MRNA vaccines as prophylactics to some cancers for over a decade ... and it is working.

C@LAg said:

---

The difference is that one just screws you once.

They other screws you twice up front, then once every 6-12 months.

---

That is what I am getting from this. The spike protein can have a nasty effect on you. But, if you have had the virus you should have antibodies to prevent reinfection and that you will hopefully recover from the damage the viruses spike protein did to you.

On the other hand, the vax also gives you exposure to the spike protein and it's harmful effects but since the vax does not give you lasting immunity then you will need additional jabs every few months. You will also sooner or later get the virus and the spike protein it brings with it. So multiple and regular exposures to the spike protein.

Also, the vax teaches your body to actually produce the spike protein. That seems really concerning to me. Even if that does not last long, that seems like a really bad thing to teach your body to do.

My guess is that repeated exposure to the spike protein through the vax every few months would do greater and more likely more serious damage than catching the virus once.

C@LAg said:

---

PaulC_80 said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

The difference is that one just screws you once.

They other screws you twice up front, then once every 6-12 months.

---

That is what I am getting from this. The spike protein can have a nasty effect on you. But, if you have had the virus you should have antibodies to prevent reinfection and that you will hopefully recover from the damage the viruses spike protein did to you.

On the other hand, the vax also gives you exposure to the spike protein and it's harmful effects but since the vax does not give you lasting immunity then you will need additional jabs every few months. You will also sooner or later get the virus and the spike protein it brings with it. So multiple and regular exposures to the spike protein.

Also, the vax teaches your body to actually produce the spike protein. That seems really concerning to me. Even if that does not last long, that seems like a really bad thing to teach your body to do.

My guess is that repeated exposure to the spike protein through the vax every few months would do greater and more likely more serious damage than catching the virus once.

---

if they had only tested this vaccine like they normally do, we would have answers., instead of mandates.

---

Not likely; normal testing (and the testing that most here that don't like vaccine want) is years long.

What we would have is the beginnings of data regarding early testing.

And ironically likely some calls for an expedited process of approval, which this board used to widely call for.