tteffuB 特肥吧 wrote:
又是一堆有根據與"主流"看法不同的內容。
我相信的健康醫藥訊息Covid-19
剛剛看到裏面一篇文章寫說
他說：「若你打上三劑，那你最好先寫好遺囑。」
有好戲可看了，好像有人建議打第三針的樣子
economic wrote:
你拿人當機器喔
癌症還五年存活率
怎樣算都治好?
怎知道不是其他疾病或衰老造成的?
別亂扯
你一直講科學邏輯，碰到人就不能用邏輯了?人就是非常複雜的機器罷了
當初罹癌，就想自己那麼擅長修理複雜電腦系統，也應該修得好自己
看到癌症需要免疫力，還用降低白血球的化療治療，不合邏輯，就毅然否決
我對待電腦系統都那麼謹慎細心，怎麼能忍受醫療界"試試看死了就算了"粗暴態度
最後徹底痊癒活了下來
研究指出冠狀病毒開始於2萬多年前的東亞。
越來越安心了，冠狀病毒對中國人的影響比其他人種小太多了。
An ancient viral epidemic involving host coronavirus interacting genes more than 20,000 years ago in East Asia
總結
目前嚴重的急性呼吸系統綜合症冠狀病毒2（SARS-CoV-2）大流行強調，儘管目前有大量流行病學和生物醫學工具，但人類仍容易受到新的病毒壓力的影響。值得注意的是，現代人類基因組包含可追溯到數萬年前的進化資訊，這可能有助於識別影響我們祖先的病毒，指出哪些病毒具有未來的大流行潛力。在這裏，我們將進化分析應用於人類基因組數據集，以恢復涉及數十個與冠狀病毒相互作用的人類基因的選型事件，包括可能始於2萬多年前的SARS-CoV-2。這些適應性事件僅限於祖傳東亞人口。多行功能證據支援一種古老的病毒選擇性壓力，東亞是幾種現代冠狀病毒流行的地理起源。因此，在東亞祖先的人群中，可能發生了與古代冠狀病毒或與另一種病毒的軍備競賽，這種病毒恰好與人類宿主的冠狀病毒具有類似的相互作用。通過更多地了解我們古老的病毒敵人，我們的研究突出了進化資訊的前景，以更好地預測未來的大流行。重要的是，適應特定人群的古老病毒流行並不一定意味著不同人群之間的遺傳易感性有任何差異，目前的證據表明，在2019年冠狀病毒疾病（COVID-19）的情況下，社會經濟因素產生了巨大影響。
Summary
The current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has emphasized the vulnerability of human populations to novel viral pressures, despite the vast array of epidemiological and biomedical tools now available. Notably, modern human genomes contain evolutionary information tracing back tens of thousands of years, which may help identify the viruses that have impacted our ancestors—pointing to which viruses have future pandemic potential. Here, we apply evolutionary analyses to human genomic datasets to recover selection events involving tens of human genes that interact with coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, that likely started more than 20,000 years ago. These adaptive events were limited to the population ancestral to East Asian populations. Multiple lines of functional evidence support an ancient viral selective pressure, and East Asia is the geographical origin of several modern coronavirus epidemics. An arms race with an ancient coronavirus, or with a different virus that happened to use similar interactions as coronaviruses with human hosts, may thus have taken place in ancestral East Asian populations. By learning more about our ancient viral foes, our study highlights the promise of evolutionary information to better predict the pandemics of the future. Importantly, adaptation to ancient viral epidemics in specific human populations does not necessarily imply any difference in genetic susceptibility between different human populations, and the current evidence points toward an overwhelming impact of socioeconomic factors in the case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
就是打了mRNA疫苗後，mRNA會隨著血液循環全身，代表mRNA會隨機性進入全身器官的細胞，並產生spike proteins表現於細胞膜上。(目前看到好像心臟腎臟大腦都會聚集)
專家的說法是當細胞質內mRNA轉譯合成完spike proteins後會很快被分解。而細胞膜上的spike proteins也會3天後分解？ 請問這段敘述是對的嗎？如何確定3天就能大部分分解完？
那在spike proteins存在的這3天，除了幫助身體辨識病毒特徵外，這些帶有spike proteins的細胞難道不會直接被t cell 殺死嗎？
換言之，就是我們打mRNA疫苗代價是犧牲身體部分細胞(百份之幾不確定)然後換來不確定有多長的免疫力?
如果打一劑犧牲部分細胞，是否打越多劑細胞死傷越多?
mRNA疫苗是首次大規模使用，可是我覺得專家說法始終很模糊，或者是單純我理解錯誤，希望有人可以幫我解惑，謝謝
不過後面加hopefully，也就是不敢100%保證
Can an mRNA vaccine cause the immune system to attack the cell expressing an antigen?
Most likely not but I see where the question comes from. Nucleated cells that have intracellular pathogens only present their processed antigens via MHC class I proteins, which only directly communicate with CD8+ T cells. CD8+ T cells are responsible for destroying cells that are actively infected by intracellular pathogens. But in theory, since the synthetic COVID mRNA transcript is specific for just the S protein (I think), then there is no possibility of just the S protein entering cells and infecting them. The virus requires much more than that single protein to maintain it's virulence. Therefore it is the responsibility for innate immune cells (APCs like dendritic cells and macrophages) to phagocytize these free floating S proteins. Once phagocytized, APCs present the viral antigen via MHC Class 2 proteins. MHC2 proteins are only located on APCs and only present antigens to CD4+ T cells, which are the helper T cells which essentially guide B cells into making antibodies against said protein. Therefore, in theory, the immune system shouldn't be attacking these cells expressing the antigen (hopefully)
Ninja Nerd也說不會，不可質疑Ninja Nerd
要真正知道副作用是什麼的話要等未來人告訴我們，我目前還沒看到
內文搜尋