I've seen a lot of worry about the vaccine causing some prion disease. Do these fears have any basis in biology? Is there evidence to support these fears? Lets look at it a little bit.

The article put forth that discussed this makes several errors. It incorrectly states that the SARS-cov-2 vaccine has been shown to write to DNA. This is 100% false. The experiment cited begins with the premise that because people who have had Covid are later getting diagnosed with covid again (by the fraudulent PCR test!!!). They conjecture this is because the virus (not the vaccine) is being written to the DNA. The fact that the PCR test is shown to be completely fubar is not part of their discussion. This by itself is a huge red flag, but lets dig deeper.

The paper goes on to show that under lab conditions, when you take away the safeguards that exist in cells in vivo, inducing mitosis while under viral load, and introducing exogenous tools to make it happen (induced expression of HIV and LINE-1 Reverse Transcriptase) that the virus can write to DNA. Well of course it can, you just made it do it. It then showed that they got a positive result by only doing the first (induced mitosis while under viral load). But this is still the removal of a safeguard that is in place in vivo, and their positive results signal was so low as to be ridiculous. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but if it did it was such a small occurrence as to have insufficient statistically meaningful results.

Then the other paper they are making the connection with to "prove" their overall theory of "causes neurodegenerative disease" is only showing a sequence similarity with another protein that can misfold, which can eventually lead to neurodegenerative diseases after the long term accumulation of these proteins. There are several problems with that paper as well, or at least with the conclusions that are being drawn from it:

• This theory ALSO requires the vaccine mRNA to write to DNA on a large scale. There is literally zero evidence to support such a claim, and biologically it makes zero sense
• it requires the same misfolding in the SARS spike protein as in the proteins that cause ALS etc. The problem here is two fold:

1. The folding of proteins into their tertiary structure is a process that is dependent on OTHER parts of the protein. Just because there is a sequence similarity in one part, doesn't mean when it goes to fold up the forces of other domains will cause the same effect in the final structure. In fact, such a thing is very unlikely. More important, there has been no evidence to support such an idea. This was a THEORY put forth by someone who saw a sequence similarity.
2. The spike proteins are TRANSMEMBRANE proteins, not cytosolic proteins. Transmembrane proteins are translated (created) directly into the membrane. This precludes them accumulating in the cytosol to cause the problems associated with these other diseases.

• The cell has an entire system put into place to take care of misfolded proteins. These misfoldings happen all the time. Pretty much all the time they are taken care of. The disease states from misfolded proteins are from the accumulation of such proteins, not in them existing in the first place. In these cases the misfoldings happen faster than the mechanisms in place can take care of them. There is not even a theoretical way that such accumulation can happen faster than their removal in the case of the vaccine mRNA.
• This effect would have to be taking place ON A LARGE SCALE, INSIDE THE BRAIN. This is incredibly unlikely, to the point of being absurd. There is no biological basis for such an effect to be happening in multiple, localized neurons. Even a single one of these lipid nanoparticles being transcytosed through the BBB is unlikely (though not impossible). This whole brain infection thing just adds several more biological improbabilities (virtual impossibilities in some cases) to the theory.

In order to show that the spike protein ACTUALLY misfolds in a similar manner, it would require doing ACTUAL experiments. Is it something worth looking into? Maybe, I guess, meh, but the paper did NOT show anything of the sort that is being claimed.

So both papers did not really say what the article writer is saying they said. The article both made mistakes (big enough to make the entire argument fall apart), AND false extrapolations (each of which also makes the entire argument fall apart).

This conjecture has no biological basis. That doesn't mean that biology can't be surprising. Biology is surprising more often than not. But without actual evidence of a problem, indulging in such fantasies to the point of being afraid of them is discrediting legitimate concerns. These ideas might be put forth in earnest, or they could be nefarious. Either way indulging in fantasies without evidence has a harmful effect on everyone.