>>13930040>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538446/This is an interesting article, except a few things:
a) it is done in-vitro and on the wrong type of cells.
b) the spike protein, even if it did cause issues with DNA repair, would not have a permanent effect because we'd develop antibodies to it and clear it out.
This is an interesting study, and it will be interesting to see what results they get from animal models and if it would be better to just use the spike epitope as opposed to the spike protein. It is alarming that the spike protein collocalizes to the nucleus, but again, wrong cell type, and its in-vitro. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but we need to get more data on the cell types that the RNA vaccine is injected into.
But if it turns out the current vaccine might be flawed because of collocalization, then its fine, just use the binding motif of the spike as a vaccine instead, and it would still do the same job.
This paper argues for an improvement upon existing technology, not a rebuttal of the basics of vaccine science.
I'll keep an eye out on future publications from this lab, it'll be interesting to see if animal models exhibit the same patterns, or if they are able to get quantitative proteomics on this or something.
