Stanford Medicine POV: SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Far More Toxic that mRNA Vax-Elicited Spike—But is this Accurate?

A key component of the coronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein plays a crucial role in the virus’s ability to enter and infect human cells. Understanding spike protein is essential for the development of vaccines and therapeutics to combat the virus. Importantly the mRNA vaccines rapidly developed to help train the human body to fend off SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, also offers the host’s molecular machinery instructions to produce the spike protein.

While the spike protein associated with the mRNA vaccines are not supposed to remain in the individual vaccinated for more than a few days to a week or so, study after study now suggests that in some cases the mRNA-induced spike protein may persist in circulation in the human body for months, even over a year. In fact, nascent research points to the toxicity of this circulating “free” spike protein but mainstream medicine remains hesitant about the role of the mRNA vaccine induced spike protein and its role in COVID-19 vaccine injury. Recently published in Stanford Medicine’s Scope, science writer Bruce Goldman compares and contrasts the spike protein associated with the virus versus that of the vaccine. The Stanford science writer acknowledges that all is not perfect with the mRNA vaccines, in particular the elicited spike protein, but he doesn’t allow himself the intellectual curiosity to investigate and report on the growing body of research evidencing the potential risks associated with these vaccine-created spike proteins, especially when they continue to circulate, freely, not neutralized by antibodies. This latte scenario, although somewhat rare, can potentially lead to serious, even deadly consequences.

Before delving into Goldman’s overview a brief prime of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein,. What follows are key elements associated with the virus’s spike protein:

The spike protein is a common target for mutations in SARS-CoV-2. Some of these mutations can lead to the emergence of new variants of the virus, which may have altered transmissibility, virulence, or immune escape properties.

Vaccine Development

Many COVID-19 vaccines target the spike protein to stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies and mount an immune response against the virus. Some vaccines use a small part of the spike protein (mRNA vaccines), while others use a weakened version of the virus containing the spike protein (viral vector vaccines).

Therapeutics

Some experimental treatments for COVID-19 focus on targeting the spike protein to prevent viral entry into cells or inhibit its function

Importantly a better understanding of the structure and function of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has been crucial in the development of effective vaccines and treatments to combat the virus. Vaccines that elicit an immune response against the spike protein have been successful in reducing the severity of COVID-19 and preventing hospitalization and death. Ongoing research continues to deepen our understanding of this protein and its role in the virus's infectivity and pathogenicity.

Some Challenges not Widely Discussed

The Stanford Medicine science scribe points to the billions of doses of the mRNA vaccine administered during the pandemic, leading to an unquestionable saving of lives.

It’s been sort of taboo to offer any critical assessment of the mRNA vaccines in mainstream media, or even in the pharmaceutical trade press. Even with medical journals, case series or studies centering on serious side effects of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines must always come with an accompanying passage that essentially declares the risk benefit analysis favors vaccination over not getting vaccinated.

Problems arise with the mRNA vaccines when considering “the molecular delivery vehicles now used to transport mRNA to the right places into the body.” Why? Because as the Stanford Medicine writer points out sometimes these get delivered to the wrong places “or hold on to that cargo rather than letting it go once they get inside our cells.” In fact, Goldman points to research ongoing in Standard looking to overcome these challenges.

The Cargo

Transport mechanism aside and the mRNA vaccines, Stanford’s Goldman asks about the cargo itself—that is those “mRNA strands in the vaccine.” Or even “more specifically” he suggests the key question becomes “what about the protein that this cargo instructs our cells to make in profusion?”

Goldman shares in clear, easy to follow format:

“In the case of COVID-19, that would be the infamous spike protein, which dots SARS-CoV-2's coat, picks locks on cells' outer surfaces and catapults the virus into them.” Referring to the mRNA vaccine induced spike protein’s “multiple talents” which make it “essential to the virus’s ability to infect our cells.”

It’s designed perfectly to make itself an object of the human immune system writes, Goldman, with its many prominent spikes protruding outward according to Mark Davis, PhD, Stanford Institute for Immunology, Transplantation and Infection who also according to Goldman happens to be an authority on immune response.

But is the mRNA induced spike protein toxic?

A growing number of front-line physicians, and independent scientists have claimed that the spike protein associated with the vaccine can in fact become toxic when it freely flows throughout the body.

In fact they claim that this toxic protein can, if in circulation, show up in various organs and cells. And in fact, TrialSite has reported on several if not a dozen studies that indicate this can and does occur.

While enormous pressure mounts to keep up a certain narrative about the mRNA vaccine induced spike protein (e.g., that it remains local near the injection, that it clears from the body via the lymphatic system within days and that its not linked to vaccine injury) the science unfortunately pulls in a different direction.

The mRNA vaccine induced spike protein now has been shown to be able to remain in the body for over a year, while it can show up in just about any organ or cell in the body. Mounting evidence points to the spike protein as a troublesome to even deadly trigger.

Stanford Medicine’s Bruce Goldman reports that “A number has flagged that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein may be toxic even on its own—say if released as debris from a shattered viral particle. And the science writer goes a step further acknowledging the nascent science pointing out that “contact with the spike protein appears to damage endothelial cells.” Of course, these ubiquitous cells cover all blood vessels throughout the human body “including the hundreds of billions in our lungs.”

The Big Question

Now the above points frames the big question, which frankly is about time that major academic medical centers start addressing.

“if spike proteins are toxic, wouldn't a vaccine that causes our cells to make them be toxic, too? Could the mRNA vaccines directed at SARS-CoV-2 trigger a deluge of that protein into the bloodstream, where it could wreak havoc with heavily vascularized organs such as the heart, intestine and, of course, lungs?”

Downplaying the Concern?

According to several Stanford Medicine experts, the logic that the mRNA spike protein is dangerous becomes less of a concern. For starters these experts would say “For virtually every spike-protein molecule induced by vaccination, the cell that made it becomes its jail cell.” Meaning overwhelmingly the molecular mechanism of action mitigates the potential for damage most of the time.

Stanford’s Mark Davis, again an expert in immune response says “The spike proteins made by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells and the spike proteins cells produced in response to the vaccine are nearly, although not exactly, identical.” And importantly form this point of view these differences are in essence, profound in terms of outcomes.

Dr. Davis points to the sticky transmembrane domains associated with the spike protein cells elicited by the mRNA vaccine. They play two roles including 1) riveting the protein to the intact pathogen’s fatty outer coat and 2) as a catalyzer, facilitating penetration of cells the SARS-CoV-2 virus attempts to penetrate.

Key Differences

According to Davis and the other Stanford experts, and that prominent Silicon Valley institution of higher learning clearly will have some of the best, the mechanisms of action of the spike protein inside the SARS-CoV-2 infected cell differ markedly from those that are generated form the mRNA vaccine process, goes the logic.

In this case the viral pathogen takes over the cell’s “protein-making machinery” thus forcing on a rapid fire replication of copies of the invading pathogen’s own proteins in addition to genetic material. As this process ensues, most new spike proteins are thereafter incorporated into new viral particles, capitalizing on their ability to evolve, finding and continuously exploiting novel ways of escaping from the cell that produced them. Thus these “particles are free to invade the cell next door o spill into the circulatory system” and elsewhere

Here Goldman reminds the reader “that the COVID-19 vaccine's cargo is a bunch of mRNA strands that, once safely inside a cell, direct the production of a whole lot of a single substance: the spike protein.” But he argues that “Once produced inside a vaccine-recipient cell, it has no escape accomplices (the other components of the viral structure) to latch onto, because the cell isn't making them.” Then goes the logic, the protein lacks any “dependable passage out of the cell.”

In fact, Stanford’s Dr. Davis told the science writer “the vast majority of vaccine-induced spike proteins float or are carried, either intact or sawed into snippets by enzymes inside the cell, to the cell's outer membrane.” Stuck there, they accumulate at this important location, one where “the immune system can most easily spot them and mount a coordinated response.” Peter Kim,a Stanford vaccinologist and biochemistry professor supports this argument stating “An intact vaccine-generated spike protein molecule, by virtue of its transmembrane domain, almost invariably sticks to the cell that makes it.”

Final Thoughts—Something Seems Off

Stanford’s Goldman pointed out in the medical school’s magazine:

“The sudden appearance of a new kind of vaccine has generated concerns ranging from the spurious to the undeniable.”

The writer attempts to mitigate the more severe damage from the COVID-19 vaccine’s rare, but real adverse outcomes by noting that “their lack of toxicity may not be absolute” they “are a good bet to be a lot less toxic than the spike protein produced during the vial infections the vaccines prevent.”

Actually, to clarify the vaccines have struggled preventing infection, due to variant mutation and durability challenges with the vaccines themselves, but they have helped reduce the probability of more severe infection. And as a consequence the COVID-19 vaccines have saved lives.

But importantly Goldman doesn’t go deep enough into the unfolding science of COVID-19 vaccine injury, or so-called “long Vax.” Basically establishing by his logic that the risk-benefit analyses by far benefit the COVID-19 vaccines because among other things (saving lives, and the like) the toxicity associated with the infection is far, far worse than those associated with the supposed cure.

Yet Goldman ignores significant emerging bodies of research emphasizing the concept of fee spike protein for example. As the spike protein does escape and thereafter circulates throughout the body, potentially acting as a toxic agent, it is supposedly neutralized by the antibodies elicited by the vaccine itself. However, for whatever reason this does not always occur.

Why are so many scholars and scientific journalists ignoring or downplaying the mounting literature raising the specter of concern? One recent example would be a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Circulation titled “Circulating Spike Protein Detected in Post-COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Myocarditis” authored by Lael Yonker, MD Massachusetts General Hospital and colleagues.

Does Goldman’s recent piece in Stanford Medicine’s Scope represent a more objective, unbiased comprehensive unfolding scientific view, or rather, is the analysis framed, directed by powerful underlying ideological forces permeating academic medical center labs, halls and offices?

A recent independent (non-industry ties) study out of Switzerland (University of Basel) found that nearly 3% of all healthcare professionals vaccinated had a form of myocarditis, albeit mild, most certainly jolting those independent thinkers into a heightened vigilance mode.

Why aren’t more scientists looking critically into the topic of free spike protein and the potential for toxicity and injury for example? According to Goldman, well, after talking to some experts at his institution the answer is clear—for the reasons mentioned above the spike proteins associated with the mRNA vaccines are just so much less toxic than the real thing. But is this really the kind of science that truly advances human knowledge? Or are powerful economic, political and social agendas inherently influencing science now?

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/stanford-medicine-pov-sars-cov-2-spike-protein-far-more-toxic-that-mrna-vax-elicited-spikebut-is-this-accurate-d3cde594

*************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************************