Undegraded mRNA vaccines and their spike protein products survived in some people for at least 8 weeks — whether that's bad or good, no one knows

© 2022 Peter Free

 

18 February 2022

 

 

This is what happens . . .

 

. . . when one turns a national population into experimental animals by way of possibly misguided (claimed emergency) purpose.

 

We eventually discover things that we, arguably, should have tried to find beforehand.

 

 

With regard to mRNA COVID vaccines . . .

 

We were assured, from the beginning of the vaccination campaign, that the two new mRNA vaccines (from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) would not linger in the body.

 

Most of the durability estimates, that I recall, spoke of hours to a couple of days.

 

At the time, I wondered how anyone knew this. To my immunological knowledge, no one had ever persuasively investigated the manufactured mRNA vaccines' longevity in the human body.

 

Now, it turns out that those 'vaccine mRNAs will be quickly gone' pontificators were wrong — at least with regard to some people:

 

From Cell — my additions in bracketed italics:

 

 

mRNA vaccination stimulates robust GCs [germinal centers] containing vaccine mRNA and spike antigen up to 8 weeks postvaccination in some cases.

 

Histological analysis of draining LN [lymph node] shows marked impairment of GCs [germinal centers] in severe COVID-19 compared with mRNA vaccination [that's a good thing], higher quantities, and persistence of spike antigen accumulated in the GCs of mRNA vaccinees and detectable vaccine RNA in GCs for up to 2 months post-second dose. [Whether good, bad, indifferent — no one knows.]

 

© 2022 Katharina Röltgen, Sandra C. A. Nielsen, Oscar Silva, Sheren F. Younes, Maxim Zaslavsky, Cristina Costales, Fan Yang, Oliver F. Wirz, Daniel Solis, Ramona A. Hoh, Aihui Wang, Prabhu S. Arunachalam, Deana Colburg, Shuchun Zhao, Emily Haraguchi, Alexandra S. Lee, Mihir M. Shah, Monali Manohar, Iris Chang, Fei Gao, Vamsee Mallajosyula, Chunfeng Li, James Liu, Massa J. Shoura, Sayantani B. Sindher, Ella Parsons, Naranjargal J. Dashdorj, Naranbaatar D. Dashdorj, Robert Monroe, Geidy E. Serrano, Thomas G.Beach, R. Sharon Chinthrajah, Gregory W. Charville, James L. Wilbur, Jacob N. Wohlstadter, Mark M.Davis, Bali Pulendran, Megan L. Troxell, George B. Sigal, Yasodha Natkunam, Benjamin A. Pinsky, Kari C. Nadeau and Scott D. Boyd, Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition, and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, Cell, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.018 (24 January 2022) (at pages 1 and 2)

 

 

What might have contributed to the vaccines' spike-protein-creating longevity?

 

Instead of using uracil in their mRNA formulations, both manufacturers used N1-methyl-pseudouridine exactly because it is more stable in the body:

 

 

[T]herapeutic mRNA had at least two additional big challenges:

 

1) the in vitro transcribed (IVT) mRNA would be prone to nuclease degradation when injected into animals, and

 

2) the IVT mRNA would also lead to innate immunogenicity similar to what would happen when infected by a pathogen . . . .

 

The answer to these problems came from a well-known RNA modification, pseudouridine (Ψ), which can be used to replace uridine in the IVT mRNA.

 

It is demonstrated that Ψ can enhance RNA stability and, in the meantime, decrease anti-RNA immune response . . . .

 

Both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Therapeutics COVID-19 spike-encoding mRNA vaccines (both with more than 90% of efficacy against COVID-19 symptoms) contain modified Ψs . . . .

 

In contrast, another COVID-19 mRNA vaccine candidate (developed by Curevac NV), which is based on an unmodified (Ψ-lacking) mRNA encoding the same COVID-19 spike protein and uses the same LNPs as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine does . . . failed to meet expectations . . . .

 

The clinical trial test results ultimately revealed only 48% of efficacy against symptomatic disease . . . for the unmodified mRNA vaccine, suggesting that modified Ψ and use of LNP [lipid nanoparticle] technology were both critical success factors for platform validation of mRNA . . . .

 

© 2021 Pedro Morais, Hironori Adachi and Yi-Tao Yu, The Critical Contribution of Pseudouridine to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines, Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.789427 (04 November 2021)

 

 

How . . .

 

. . . anyone would intentionally make the above-described a stability-enhancing biochemical choice — and then simultaneously state that the new mRNA construct does nothing to boost long-term protective durability or conceivable mischief — under 'real life' physiological conditions — defies rational comprehension.

 

My guess is that 'somebody' misled the public by an intentional omission of fact or suspected fact.

 

 

Does this the increased mRNA vaccine longevity matter?

 

No one knows.

 

No has tested, or methodically followed up on vaccination health outcomes, in a very large population of people.

 

Yet it seems to me that COVID mRNA vaccines' (and their generated spike proteins) longevity in some people's bodies (according to this one research paper) — might explain some of the negative consequences that a few patients have experienced after being injected.

 

 

The moral? — This is why ethically based vaccine development takes many years

 

At least so, when a public agrees that turning an entire population in metaphorical guinea pigs is morally unacceptable.

 

So, what can be learned from our emergency-based use of mRNA COVID vaccines?

 

Answer:

 

 

Do not discount Big Pharma's avaricious profit motive and Government-fomented fearmongering as under-the-radar, population-sized guinea pig makers.

 

 

This is the kind of deceptive diminution of potential risk(s) that eventually breeds distrust in societal institutions.

 

I am not quarreling with these vaccines' now-demonstrated efficacy (in some demographics) in preventing serious SARS-CoV-2 illness in many people.

 

Nor am I criticizing both manufacturers' decisions to go with biochemical properties that would allow their vaccines to survive long enough (in the body) to do some good.

 

However, I am pointing out that misleading people about possibly unfavorable risk-benefit ratios of those interventions — in possibly noticeable numbers of people — is unethical and probably societally counterproductive over the long term.

 

On the other hand, if one (as a scientifically minded person) reads the above-linked article about the development of these two mRNA COVID vaccines — one cannot come away without admiring (and supporting) the biochemical ingenuity that went into creating them.

 

Helpful medical advances are ahead.

 

It would be nice, if we do not kill medical progress with a backlash resulting from continuing to indulge the duplicity and avarice-based fearmongering that accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

People understand honesty and, often, scientific ambiguity.

 

Those characteristics, after all, are what generally take place — every day — in interactions among medical providers and their patients.