I'm not entirely sure what you think that is saying or what it is supposed to be in response to, but I will assume it is intended to be refutation of my main argument, that the S protein can not exist outside of a membrane, and thus cannot "shed" on its own (obviously it can when its part of the virus itself, that's just called viral transmission of SARS).
The paper you are linking to says that the S protein interacts with and downregulates the ACE-2 protein and that that downregulation impairs endothelial function. That has been known (at least by me) for over a year, though this paper does a good job of explaining the pathways in greater detail, as well as some of the extent of the harm.
What it has nothing to do with is vaccine shedding, and it ESPECIALLY has nothing to do with the S protein that is created by the vaccines somehow magically "shedding".
I know biology is complicated. I know there is a lot of disinformation, so let me be specific.
This paper talks about the interaction of the S protein (on the virus, or created by a vaccine and expressed in the membrane of a cell) and the ACE-2 protein (on a target cell).
In order to test the interactions (and deleterious effects) of the S protein itself (without the vaccine stuff or the SARS virus stuff) they had to create a lipid bilayer aka cell membrane and have the S protein expressed on its surface (think of it like a mini cell with the S protein in its membrane without the machinery inside). They actually used an (otherwise) non functional virus to create the "mini cells" and express the S protein on the surface. This is because there is no way for the S protein to exist on its own (as I have been saying, ad naseum).
That is a protocol definition not evidence of an event.
In that vaccine protocol they include protocols to look for vaccine shedding. This is because real vaccines are made out of viruses. Real viral vaccines can absolutely shed. That is why all vaccine protocols include these specific protocols. In truth its really misnamed. It should just be "viral transmission" because that's what it is, its just called "shedding" to distinguish it from another virus other than the real virus that is the vaccine.
The Pfizer mRNA vaccine is NOT a viral vaccine. It has absolutely nothing to do with a viral vaccine. That does not mean there can't be off target effects. But this protocol definition is not evidence that any off target effects have been found.
Still, we should keep an eye out for off target effects. There is evidence that there may be off target effects. But off target effects are not necessarily vaccine shedding by the definition of that term, They most certainly are not evidence of SARS S protein shedding in any way, shape or form.
I see what you are saying. Sort of like the warnings on your water bottles to beware of the water eating through your clothes if you spill it or make other contact as well as protocols on how to handle water acidity and wet clothing....
I am saying it is standard vaccine trial procedure to include looking for viral vaccine transmission. It is part of every vaccine protocol experiment. It has nothing to do with this vaccine specifically, and being a protocol it just gives what to look for because of previous viral vaccine experiments.
It has nothing to do with this vaccine having found something. (Like, literally nothing.)
I'm not entirely sure what you think that is saying or what it is supposed to be in response to, but I will assume it is intended to be refutation of my main argument, that the S protein can not exist outside of a membrane, and thus cannot "shed" on its own (obviously it can when its part of the virus itself, that's just called viral transmission of SARS).
The paper you are linking to says that the S protein interacts with and downregulates the ACE-2 protein and that that downregulation impairs endothelial function. That has been known (at least by me) for over a year, though this paper does a good job of explaining the pathways in greater detail, as well as some of the extent of the harm.
What it has nothing to do with is vaccine shedding, and it ESPECIALLY has nothing to do with the S protein that is created by the vaccines somehow magically "shedding".
I know biology is complicated. I know there is a lot of disinformation, so let me be specific.
This paper talks about the interaction of the S protein (on the virus, or created by a vaccine and expressed in the membrane of a cell) and the ACE-2 protein (on a target cell).
In order to test the interactions (and deleterious effects) of the S protein itself (without the vaccine stuff or the SARS virus stuff) they had to create a lipid bilayer aka cell membrane and have the S protein expressed on its surface (think of it like a mini cell with the S protein in its membrane without the machinery inside). They actually used an (otherwise) non functional virus to create the "mini cells" and express the S protein on the surface. This is because there is no way for the S protein to exist on its own (as I have been saying, ad naseum).
So yes, if that's what you are asking...
Exactly like that.
Oops. Wrong link. Here.
https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2020/11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020_Pfizer_BioNTech.pdf
That is a protocol definition not evidence of an event.
In that vaccine protocol they include protocols to look for vaccine shedding. This is because real vaccines are made out of viruses. Real viral vaccines can absolutely shed. That is why all vaccine protocols include these specific protocols. In truth its really misnamed. It should just be "viral transmission" because that's what it is, its just called "shedding" to distinguish it from another virus other than the real virus that is the vaccine.
The Pfizer mRNA vaccine is NOT a viral vaccine. It has absolutely nothing to do with a viral vaccine. That does not mean there can't be off target effects. But this protocol definition is not evidence that any off target effects have been found.
Still, we should keep an eye out for off target effects. There is evidence that there may be off target effects. But off target effects are not necessarily vaccine shedding by the definition of that term, They most certainly are not evidence of SARS S protein shedding in any way, shape or form.
I see what you are saying. Sort of like the warnings on your water bottles to beware of the water eating through your clothes if you spill it or make other contact as well as protocols on how to handle water acidity and wet clothing....
makes sense now. Thanks!
Lol, I'm not sure if that was sarcasm or not.
I am saying it is standard vaccine trial procedure to include looking for viral vaccine transmission. It is part of every vaccine protocol experiment. It has nothing to do with this vaccine specifically, and being a protocol it just gives what to look for because of previous viral vaccine experiments.
It has nothing to do with this vaccine having found something. (Like, literally nothing.)