Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mlyle 1207 days ago
> instead of staying at the injection site.

We've known that forever. There's been studies done with luciferase to see where the mRNA triggers protein production in small animals.

We know that a big portion of the activity is in the liver, distant from the IM injection site (a lot of the activity is at the site, too).

e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4624045/

"When mRNA-LNPs were injected intramuscularly and intratracheally, similar to intravenous and intraperitoneal deliveries, a large portion of the luciferase activity was detectable in the liver, demonstrating systemic spread of the nanoparticles."

1 comments

Yes, and people like Bret Weinstein say this is a massive problem and why there’s heart inflammation, if the mrna enters heart muscle your immune system might well attack it, the problem is - heart muscle does not get remade.
The problem with this is that there's simpler explanations. Myocarditis is more frequent with C19 infection than vaccination, so it seems spike protein circulating is "enough".

Also this study didn't find significant uptake of mRNA in the heart (though it did find notable uptake in the lungs).

The Mycocarditis line is not true - it highly depends on gender and age. Repeating that its more frequent for infection outright is wrong, it is only in certain sub-populations (female, older).
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA....

See tables 3 and 4.

Moderna does seem to have an effect in the direction you name; the Pfizer vaccine seems to have a lower risk than infection in all categories. Overall, the myocarditis risk is lower with vaccination than infection with both Moderna and Pfizer, but it may not be in some subpopulations with Moderna.

It’s such a dumb topic too - because when you focus solely on the myocarditis risk stratification between Covid and the vaccine, you lose sight of all of the other morbidities that come with Covid. It’s like that video making the rounds right now where Bill Maher is trumpeting that the infection provides as strong protection against severe disease compared to the vaccine. Cool! Not actually surprising but kind of misses the obvious point that it involves you getting Covid, a serious, highly transmissible disease, when you could get the same protection without the illness.. I guess you could use the evidence to adjust guidance on vaccine schedule but protection still wanes over time so..
It's dumb to dismiss it.

Finland, Denmark and Sweden recommend against getting vaccination for young men as they have almost no risk with Covid outside of extreme co-morbidities.

I think the data still supports what I said, even in that article, but also if you want to be really accurate you'd need a meta review of a variety of articles I've read now in detail, and my general intuition is its clear that < ~30yr old men are higher risk.
Bret Weinstein is an obvious grifter