You might want to look at the Bret Weinstein podcast when you have time. Bret Weinstein and Robert Malone discuss Pfizer data obtained via a FOIA request to the Japanese Government that indicate the spike proteins are not contained in the membranes of the cells producing them, but get into the blood and later migrate to the ovaries and bone marrow. ...
If this is true, it sounds somewhat alarming to me. I've had both doses of the Moderna vaccine so I'm not an anti-vaxxer but I do look at dissenting positions from credible people and Weinstein and Malone seem credible to me.
You might want to look at the Bret Weinstein podcast when you have time. Bret Weinstein and Robert Malone discuss Pfizer data obtained via a FOIA request to the Japanese Government that indicate the spike proteins are not contained in the membranes of the cells producing them, but get into the blood and later migrate to the ovaries and bone marrow. So that's very different than your description. I'm not a medical biologist and don't have a position on this, but they present very different data and conclusions. If this is true, it sounds somewhat alarming to me. I've had both doses of the Moderna vaccine so I'm not an anti-vaxxer but I do look at dissenting positions from credible people and Weinstein and Malone seem credible to me.
First thing: as much as I admire Bret Weinstein, I find his podcasts interminably dull. He's interesting as a guest on Rogan's podcast, but he puts me to sleep on his own. Second thing, podcasts are a lousy source of information. I listen to podcasts to open lines of inquiry, to cause me to search for information, but there is rarely any solid factual evidence of anything in a podcast. So I decline your invitation to spend 2 hours trying to stay awake for that Weinstein podcast.
Instead, I have done what I do (read and search literature, which I have a lot of experince at). I am not posting this in an effort to convince anyone that the SARS-CoV2 vaccines--individually or in toto--are safe or unsafe, or that you should/shouldn't get a vaccine. The choice is entirely yours.
I am posting this answer because I promised to do so before this thread became a complete name-calling s h i t s h o w, and I try to keep my promises.
I will not be answering any further questions nor arguing with any of you one way or another.
The purpose of Science is to formulate and test hypotheses, in an effort to find truths about physical phenomena. Definitive answers are rare, conflicting information is common, and the truth only emerges over time. This is unsatisfying to the short attention span types who frequent these pages, so those of you who demand free and easy information that is beyond question will be unhappy with it. But if you are willing to invest some time and effort into reading and thinking about it, you should be able to use this information to enlighten yourself.
Now, I am not your unpaid research assistant. You can look these reports up yourself with a modest effort. Whether you can glean sufficient information from them without a research science background I can't say, but if you feel you aren't quite up to speed, I suggest you start with the following videos to get yourself in a position to understand more clearly. It will save you having to read a lot of dull, dry textual material and covers the groundwork pretty decently. And let me suggest that if you find any of these videos confusing, look at some of the linked videos on YouTube that are attached to each of them. There is a tremendous amount of good, solid science on YouTube, and these selections I'm giving you will give you a few decent places to start learning about it if you care to.
1. Difference between DNA and RNA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruUf7ntRCk82. How does messenger RNA work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dsTvBaUMvw,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKIpDtJdK8Q3. Can mRNA alter a host organism's DNA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGKg9rj9W1s4. How does the DNA-RNA-protein synthesis process work in cells:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gUY5NoX1Lk5. How mRNA vaccines work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOvvyqJ-vwo6.How did the mRNA vaccines develop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6aBJ1wYZ0M (this is #6 in a good 6-part series) ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPeeCyJReZw (this is a bit more technical and goes into more of the history of mRNA vaccine science)
7. How do antibodies come into being:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_GRI3fxUWw,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9jl9QpVz108. Humoral vs Cell-mediated immunity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vh24StylNo,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXB7M_GIf-g9. How do T-cells create immunity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWhDOR3ZsTE,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i536vS3z3e8 (ignore the pandemic statistics in the intro to the video)
10. How does the S-protein bind to the ACE2 receptor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJwHZKHpKTM11. Receptor binding pharmacodynamics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZzOg3IzjUE,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=011Bj5USal8,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXOXZ-kaSVI (This topic was integral to my Master's Degree research, which was in the study of one particular receptor-ligand interaction and which I spent about 2 years working on in the lab and the library. I'm pretty much up to speed on this topic even today. It has quite a lot of bearing on the topic of the question I'm answering here.)
If you don't want to bother learning the information in the above videos, you probably won't be able to get sufficient information from the following references to make an informed opinion. But hey, that's how most of the folks on these pages operate in any case, so don't let that hold you back.
So, do S-proteins accumulate in human ovaries?
1. Probably not, from studies in cell cultures of CoV2 infection, S-proteins don't accumulate and don't have a toxic effect.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7205710/ (this is only one representative article; there are several other studies that look at other aspects of the question, and came up with more or less the same result).
2. However: enough people are interested in this to look into it some more (
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/11/2/e045524.full.pdf). Basically, they're saying that since the S-protein attaches to Angtiotensin-II receptors, and ovarian tissue is rich in ACE2 receptors, maybe CoV2 will affect female fertility because the virus will bind to ovaries preferentially versus tissues that aren't as rich in ACE2's. But nobody knows if this will have any longterm effect on fertility, which is why they are proposing these studies. It will take a long time to get answers, because female fertility is extremely complex and highly difficult to study, despite the fact that human trailer-trash females who have more tattoos than teeth and can barely spell their own names are able to reproduce with apparent great fecundity.
3. But notwithstanding #2, the fact that lab scientists have shown that S-proteins don't accumulate in ovarian cells in tissue culture despite the abundance of ACE2 receptors on these cells, suggests that what happens to the S-proteins that have bound to the ACE2 receptors is exactly as I explained to you previously, and which is explained in part in the YouTube video in #11, above:
a) the S-protein (which is a ligand) is a "fake" ligand on the surface of the CoV2 virus that binds to the ACE2 receptor; the ACE2 receptor is supposed to
bind to Angiotensin, a hormone that has numerous regulatory effects on human cells;
b) in the normal case, ligand-receptor binding causes certain enzymes in the target human cell to be activated. This
causes particular cellular chemical reactions to take place that otherwise would be dormant. After a specified time period, the ligand is released from
the receptor and is chewed up by enzymes on the cell surface or inside it. This is the process that prevents a hormone release from having an
indefinite or prolonged effect.
c) the S-protein's binding to the ACE2 receptor may or may not trigger the cell's enzymes, but its REAL purpose is to "jam the mechanism"... it binds to
the ACE2 receptor irreversibly, rendering it useless.
d) the cell recognizes the now-defunct ACE2-ligand complex as defunct, so it pulls it back into the cell to be broken down into component parts
that can be reused.
e) the CoV2 virus, which is attached to the ACE2-ligand complex, thus gains entry into the host cell, where it releases its RNA core, and this takes over
the host cell's protein synthesis systems to manufacture multiple new copies of the virus.
f) in the case of the "free" S-proteins produced by an mRNA vaccine, the defunct receptor-ligand complex is drawn into the cell, but since there is no
virus attached to it, there is no infection of the cell; the S-protein is now nothing more than a component of a large "broken" molecular structure that
the cell breaks down into its amino acid building blocks, to be reused to make new proteins as part of the cell's ongoing life.
Now, I cannot PROVE to you that this is what happens to the S-proteins produced by one of the mRNA vaccines. All I can tell you is that this is what happens to every other receptor-ligand complex known to biomedical science, every time, in every cell of every species. For the S-protein to somehow have a completely DIFFERENT ending than every other ligand that binds to cell receptors is theoretically possible, but the fact that no one has found accumulation of S-proteins in ovarian cell cultures (see point #1 above) suggests that this is in fact what happens to S-proteins, just as it does in every single other case of receptor-ligand complexes known to science.
Now, that is as plainly as I can explain it. I hope this serves as a reasonable answer to your question. If I have failed to answer it to your satisfaction, go ask somebody else.
