The OP raised the issue of what to do with a prospective bride who has taken the vax. It doesn't really matter whether her future reproductive problems are caused by endothilial cell damage, ovarian damage, placental damage, poor oxygenation of the blood due to lung damage, etc. The point is simply that a young man who wants to get married and have children ought to avoid vaxxed women. His chances of fathering healthy children are much better if he marries an unvaxxed woman.
There is no evidence that there will be long term effects to the lungs, the ovaries, the endothelium, or any part of the body from any of the vaccines to any statistical significance. The truth is, we don't know. The other truth is, according to biology it is unlikely to be a problem for many people.
Could it happen to some? Sure. But the evidence we have so far (that we know of, it could be fraudulent) suggests such events will be very rare.
The VAERS data suggests short term serious effects in the 1:1000 range (or so), and the death rate is more like 1:20,000. Of course death is a non-issue, since she'd be dead, and its illegal to marry dead people, but serious short term effects (which is all the VAERS data shows) are also not overly concerning for long term effects. The body has a remarkable capacity for healing. To discount that is giving into your fears of the unknown, and not evidence based.
Within the VAERS data is also evidence of long term effects, but those are about the same level as the death data, and predominantly in older people. So the risk is actually very low (according to that data).
Could the VAERS data be underreported? Absolutely. I think that is highly likely. I doubt very much it is more than 10 times worse than it suggests however because if it were it would quite simply be too hard to hide from someone like myself who looks every day for such evidence (and all the other people doing the same thing diligently).
So if my 10 times hypothesis is correct (its really a reasonable upper limit) that would put the long term effects for which there is evidence at a rate of about 1:2000. Thats actually really good odds.
Its not good enough that I would risk my life. And its bad enough that I advise everyone I know to not get it, to the destruction of some friendships unfortunately (people who care nothing for actual evidence because they are too far under the spell), but in real actual numbers, its pretty good odds.
So to even slightly suggest that its a forgone conclusion, when every piece of actual evidence, and even reasonable speculation suggests that it is not going to be that bad is disingenuous at best, and fear mongering at worst.
The cell is constantly clearing surface proteins; recycling them. Especially a protein like the S protein that has no cytoskeletal and extracellular matrix anchors. So the actual proteins that get expressed on the surface will absolutely be cleared in relatively short order. The mRNA itself has a half life of a couple days. Within two weeks any infected cells should be clear of any spike producing mRNA.
According to this paper which tested PEG clearance (polyethelene glycol, which coats the nanoparticle) the body breaks it down and clears it relatively quickly.
The lipids that make up the rest of the nanoparticles will be integrated into the cell walls. But cell walls are in constant flux, and those lipids will almost certainly be broken down in short order as well. That is of course if a vaccine infected cell survives. Since the point of the vaccine is to cause an immune response which will likely kill any infected cell through induced apoptosis, the most probable outcome is that the entire thing will be consumed and cleared very quickly by this mechanism.
Our entire bodies are in constant flux. It is likely that not a single atom or molecule of you is one that you were born with. Everything gets replaced all the time. Some things can last longer than others, especially things for which there is no breakdown mechanism (can't enter any metabolic pathway), but everything gets cleared eventually. We are after all, biological machines designed for that exact purpose.
So yes, all of the vaccine will go away. I would guess very nearly every single molecule of it is gone within two weeks. I would like to see studies on the lipid clearance itself, but having looked at the molecules I see no obvious issues. That doesn't really mean much except there is nothing glaring. Biology is complicated and everything requires testing. But as for the actual nasty shit, the mRNA and S protein, that stuff has very clear breakdown pathways, so even if a cell survives the experience, that stuff will be gone in a couple weeks for sure.
The OP raised the issue of what to do with a prospective bride who has taken the vax. It doesn't really matter whether her future reproductive problems are caused by endothilial cell damage, ovarian damage, placental damage, poor oxygenation of the blood due to lung damage, etc. The point is simply that a young man who wants to get married and have children ought to avoid vaxxed women. His chances of fathering healthy children are much better if he marries an unvaxxed woman.
There is no evidence that there will be long term effects to the lungs, the ovaries, the endothelium, or any part of the body from any of the vaccines to any statistical significance. The truth is, we don't know. The other truth is, according to biology it is unlikely to be a problem for many people.
Could it happen to some? Sure. But the evidence we have so far (that we know of, it could be fraudulent) suggests such events will be very rare.
The VAERS data suggests short term serious effects in the 1:1000 range (or so), and the death rate is more like 1:20,000. Of course death is a non-issue, since she'd be dead, and its illegal to marry dead people, but serious short term effects (which is all the VAERS data shows) are also not overly concerning for long term effects. The body has a remarkable capacity for healing. To discount that is giving into your fears of the unknown, and not evidence based.
Within the VAERS data is also evidence of long term effects, but those are about the same level as the death data, and predominantly in older people. So the risk is actually very low (according to that data).
Could the VAERS data be underreported? Absolutely. I think that is highly likely. I doubt very much it is more than 10 times worse than it suggests however because if it were it would quite simply be too hard to hide from someone like myself who looks every day for such evidence (and all the other people doing the same thing diligently).
So if my 10 times hypothesis is correct (its really a reasonable upper limit) that would put the long term effects for which there is evidence at a rate of about 1:2000. Thats actually really good odds.
Its not good enough that I would risk my life. And its bad enough that I advise everyone I know to not get it, to the destruction of some friendships unfortunately (people who care nothing for actual evidence because they are too far under the spell), but in real actual numbers, its pretty good odds.
So to even slightly suggest that its a forgone conclusion, when every piece of actual evidence, and even reasonable speculation suggests that it is not going to be that bad is disingenuous at best, and fear mongering at worst.
The cell is constantly clearing surface proteins; recycling them. Especially a protein like the S protein that has no cytoskeletal and extracellular matrix anchors. So the actual proteins that get expressed on the surface will absolutely be cleared in relatively short order. The mRNA itself has a half life of a couple days. Within two weeks any infected cells should be clear of any spike producing mRNA.
According to this paper which tested PEG clearance (polyethelene glycol, which coats the nanoparticle) the body breaks it down and clears it relatively quickly.
The lipids that make up the rest of the nanoparticles will be integrated into the cell walls. But cell walls are in constant flux, and those lipids will almost certainly be broken down in short order as well. That is of course if a vaccine infected cell survives. Since the point of the vaccine is to cause an immune response which will likely kill any infected cell through induced apoptosis, the most probable outcome is that the entire thing will be consumed and cleared very quickly by this mechanism.
Our entire bodies are in constant flux. It is likely that not a single atom or molecule of you is one that you were born with. Everything gets replaced all the time. Some things can last longer than others, especially things for which there is no breakdown mechanism (can't enter any metabolic pathway), but everything gets cleared eventually. We are after all, biological machines designed for that exact purpose.
So yes, all of the vaccine will go away. I would guess very nearly every single molecule of it is gone within two weeks. I would like to see studies on the lipid clearance itself, but having looked at the molecules I see no obvious issues. That doesn't really mean much except there is nothing glaring. Biology is complicated and everything requires testing. But as for the actual nasty shit, the mRNA and S protein, that stuff has very clear breakdown pathways, so even if a cell survives the experience, that stuff will be gone in a couple weeks for sure.