Replies

Chased this down from a notable “over there”..

~~~~~~~~~~
(The Notable...)

https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1388836304918614027

If you go to his Twitter account you will see that he’s found information to
suggest that having an immune response to the “spike protein” does not
seem to be as protective as having an immune response to other parts of
the “virus”.

If that’s the case what was the reason they chose this antigen?
(link: https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1388576508189544448 )

The linked thread indicates that the spike protein by itself can damage
blood vessels. It would have been nice had vaccine researchers and
developers paid attention to this prior to the rushed vaccination of millions
upon millions of people.

End notable...
~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyhow, not knowing what to make of that, I went after the paper in question:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2020/12/04/2020.12.04.409144.full.pdf

Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) includes the cardiovascular
complications in addition to respiratory disease.

SARS-CoV-2 infection impairs endothelial function and induces vascular inflammation, leading to endotheliitis. SARS-CoV-2 infection relies on the binding of Spike glycoprotein (S protein) to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in the host cells.

We show here that S protein alone can damage vascular endothelial cells (ECs) in vitro and in vivo, manifested by impaired mitochondrial function, decreased ACE2 expression and eNOS activity, and increased glycolysis.

The underlying mechanism involves S protein downregulation of AMPK and upregulation of MDM2, causing ACE2 destabilization. Thus, the S protein-exerted vascular endothelial damage via ACE2 downregulation overrides the decreased virus infectivity.

~~~~~~~~~

~Easy