doesn't he have access to people at the highest levels of society? Is it possible he heard something to make him question the vaccine for personal use?
Who knows what or who he has access to or what he may have heard and from whom? Is it possible he heard "inside information"? Yes. Is it possible he is an ignorant person believing what all the other ignorant people are believing? Yes.
The first "yes" requires that there is more in the vaccine than is listed. The second "yes" happens ALL THE TIME when it comes to cell biology. That is because cell biology is very complex. VERY COMPLEX! It took years of schooling for me to gain a reasonable grasp of cell/molecular biology. Based on my own experience, at least half of those with only an undergraduate degree are mostly clueless.
Even M.D.'s often don't have sufficient level of education in cell biology. While it is certainly taught in both a pre-med degree and in med school it is not a focus, and therefore a great deal of information and understanding is not required to complete those degrees. When I talk to doctors about these topics well over half are almost completely ignorant of the finer details and oftentimes even the basics (like believing mRNA can be written to DNA without a lot of extra stuff).
So ya, my money is on Zuck being ignorant as the most likely case in his response, but I will admit the other is not impossible.
Yes. First, this was many months before the vaccine was released. Second, again, Fauci didn't say it, Zuckerberg did, and it was barely in passing. If I wasn't trying to stop the spread of disinformation I wouldn't correct someone on the specifics of this, it's just not worth the effort otherwise. Third, Fauci is an idiot. I don't know what he knew at the time. Maybe he knew and didn't care to correct Zuck, maybe he didn't know. The one thing I know for sure is that I trust my knowledge more than I trust Fauci's words or lack thereof.
So what happens when a cell tries to divide after wasting resources building spike protein(s) instead of what it should have been building? Is it possible the resulting cells are damaged in some way?
Yes, the cells can be damaged and that damage can carry over through mitosis. This is extremely unlikely however.
Mitosis is an highly regulated process. There are numerous checkpoints a cell adjudicates before moving on to the next part in the cycle. It is extremely rare for a cell to get through mitosis with substantial damage without specific manipulations to bypass those checkpoints. This particular alteration (over production of a non-interactive protein) seems very unlikely to me to even begin to be problematic, much less be able to manipulate the checkpoints in any meaningful way. Even if it did make it through, by far the most likely outcome would be the induction of apoptosis (controlled cell death). It is for all these reasons that a cell becoming cancerous is so rare, despite the fact that our DNA is damaged (actual DNA modification) regularly. To put it into perspective, the actual virus (ANY actual virus) does a lot more damage to a cell than this treatment does, yet that does not cause the problems you are suggesting.
Of course the only way to be sure is through testing, but I do not see this as being problematic at this time. In other words, this is not where I would look first (or second, or third, etc.).
Who knows what or who he has access to or what he may have heard and from whom? Is it possible he heard "inside information"? Yes. Is it possible he is an ignorant person believing what all the other ignorant people are believing? Yes.
The first "yes" requires that there is more in the vaccine than is listed. The second "yes" happens ALL THE TIME when it comes to cell biology. That is because cell biology is very complex. VERY COMPLEX! It took years of schooling for me to gain a reasonable grasp of cell/molecular biology. Based on my own experience, at least half of those with only an undergraduate degree are mostly clueless.
Even M.D.'s often don't have sufficient level of education in cell biology. While it is certainly taught in both a pre-med degree and in med school it is not a focus, and therefore a great deal of information and understanding is not required to complete those degrees. When I talk to doctors about these topics well over half are almost completely ignorant of the finer details and oftentimes even the basics (like believing mRNA can be written to DNA without a lot of extra stuff).
So ya, my money is on Zuck being ignorant as the most likely case in his response, but I will admit the other is not impossible.
Shows he's not completely daft.
Yes. First, this was many months before the vaccine was released. Second, again, Fauci didn't say it, Zuckerberg did, and it was barely in passing. If I wasn't trying to stop the spread of disinformation I wouldn't correct someone on the specifics of this, it's just not worth the effort otherwise. Third, Fauci is an idiot. I don't know what he knew at the time. Maybe he knew and didn't care to correct Zuck, maybe he didn't know. The one thing I know for sure is that I trust my knowledge more than I trust Fauci's words or lack thereof.
Yes, the cells can be damaged and that damage can carry over through mitosis. This is extremely unlikely however.
Mitosis is an highly regulated process. There are numerous checkpoints a cell adjudicates before moving on to the next part in the cycle. It is extremely rare for a cell to get through mitosis with substantial damage without specific manipulations to bypass those checkpoints. This particular alteration (over production of a non-interactive protein) seems very unlikely to me to even begin to be problematic, much less be able to manipulate the checkpoints in any meaningful way. Even if it did make it through, by far the most likely outcome would be the induction of apoptosis (controlled cell death). It is for all these reasons that a cell becoming cancerous is so rare, despite the fact that our DNA is damaged (actual DNA modification) regularly. To put it into perspective, the actual virus (ANY actual virus) does a lot more damage to a cell than this treatment does, yet that does not cause the problems you are suggesting.
Of course the only way to be sure is through testing, but I do not see this as being problematic at this time. In other words, this is not where I would look first (or second, or third, etc.).