[Kryptid]

It was as originally posted

"The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women."

The suggestion made by some way the string is too short. But that's just a speculation.  A longer study that saw the women give birth would be better.

They must still have the information of the women involved in the trials. It's simply a question of finding out if they all managed to give birth or of any lost their child how many?

That did not address what I said:

So please explain to us how the reaction to spike proteins produced via the vaccine could possibly be different from those same spike proteins when they are on a virus.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

So please explain to us how the reaction to spike proteins produced via the vaccine could possibly be different from those same spike proteins when they are on a virus.

Oh because you are asking a different question.

Well I'm sure you could see a difference if you took a wild virus spike and one of the spikes from the mRNA vaccine, you would notice a difference I'm sure. It's a question of how closely the mRNA can match the spikes of wild virus, as previously discussed mutations might make the current treatment in effective, hence speculative as we are, these differences could cause different immune responses. There's my hypothesis.


You didnt address my point. The covid virus and the immune response to it are different. Just because the virus doesn't attack the placenta doesn't mean the antibodies wont.

[Kryptid]

Well I'm sure you could see a difference if you took a wild virus spike and one of the spikes from the mRNA vaccine, you would notice a difference I'm sure.

Unless you've got actual evidence for that, "I'm sure" isn't good enough.

It's a question of how closely the mRNA can match the spikes of wild virus

Modern technology can sequence complete viral genomes, so we can make it a 100% match to at least some strains of the virus.

There's my hypothesis.

Which doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If there was a significant portion of COVID strains with significantly different spike protein sequences from those produced by the vaccines, then the vaccines wouldn't work on those strains (or wouldn't work as well). However, there is evidence that even mutant variants of the virus can be stopped by the Pfizer vaccine: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-20/pfizer-biontech-shot-likely-to-defeat-mutant-new-study-shows

Here's the thing about the immune system: if the spike protein produced by the vaccine causes the immune system to attack the spike proteins on the virus (and thus produce an immunity to them), then that means the immune system is treating them as the same threat. So even if they did not have a 100% identical sequence, they are close enough (and that's what matters). If the body reacts the same way to the virus as it does to the vaccine, then that means infertility caused by the vaccine must also be caused by the virus. Yet that isn't what we see.

[Kryptid]

The covid virus and the immune response to it are different.

So please tell us what that difference is (while supplying evidence in the process).

Just because the virus doesn't attack the placenta doesn't mean the antibodies wont.

Nobody said anything about the virus attacking the placenta. It's the antibodies in both cases. If an antibody will attack the spike proteins on the virus, and those spike proteins are the same as those produced by the vaccine, then those antibodies created by a viral infection are just as likely to attack the placenta as those produced by the vaccine.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

The covid virus and the immune response to it are different.

So please tell us what that difference is (while supplying evidence in the process).

Just because the virus doesn't attack the placenta doesn't mean the antibodies wont.

Nobody said anything about the virus attacking the placenta. It's the antibodies in both cases. If an antibody will attack the spike proteins on the virus, and those spike proteins are the same as those produced by the vaccine, then those antibodies created by a viral infection are just as likely to attack the placenta as those produced by the vaccine.

Thanks for the clarification I missed your point.
It's a lot of ifs. The initial concern was about syncytin-1. It's a question of how closely the mRNA created protein spikes match the wild viruses. The mRNA will be uniform spike proteins, the wild virus spike proteins will not be.

Honestly right now more concerned about finding the 11 women and knowing what happened. It's the final answer for all the speculative back and forth those 11 women hold the experimental answer to the question.

[Kryptid]

The initial concern was about syncytin-1

Okay, so let's talk about that. Here is the original quote:

"The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women."

Now let's modify that quote to this:

"The immune system is expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that an immune response against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in infected women."

Do you think that the first quote is a valid concern, but my modified version of the quote is not? Despite the fact that the spike protein of the virus must also contain syncytin-homologues? How is the immune system supposed to know that it isn't supposed to attack the placenta when presented with viral syncytin homologue proteins, but is supposed to attack the placenta when presented with the vaccine syncytin homologue proteins?

It's a question of how closely the mRNA created protein spikes match the wild viruses.

Closely enough (otherwise the vaccines wouldn't work). If the antibodies created by vaccination attack the virus, then obviously the body is treating the vaccine proteins and the viral proteins as the same thing.

The mRNA will be uniform spike proteins, the wild virus spike proteins will not be.

And, as I just said:

If the antibodies created by vaccination attack the virus, then obviously the body is treating the vaccine proteins and the viral proteins as the same thing.

It's the final answer for all the speculative back and forth those 11 women hold the experimental answer to the question.

The only speculation in this back-and-forth is coming from you. I've given you the facts about the way that the immune system works. The question is answered:

(1) If the vaccine caused infertility, then the virus would as well.
(2) If the vaccine proteins were sufficiently different from the viral proteins so that their fertility effects are different, then the vaccine would be ineffective because the antibodies formed against the two would be different.
(3) The vaccine is both highly effective (95%) and COVID-19 has not caused a notable change in fertility rates.
(4) Because all three of the above statements are true, we must conclude that the spike proteins from the vaccine will not cause any greater infertility than the virus itself.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

It's the final answer for all the speculative back and forth those 11 women hold the experimental answer to the question.

The only speculation in this back-and-forth is coming from you. I've given you the facts about the way that the immune system works. The question is answered:

(1) If the vaccine caused infertility, then the virus would as well.

Here is the main point of disgareeemt, it's an assumption that immune response to the virus will be the same as the immune response to the vaccine.

(2) If the vaccine proteins were sufficiently different from the viral proteins so that their fertility effects are different, then the vaccine would be ineffective because the antibodies formed against the two would be different.

Again I find that an assumption

 

(3) The vaccine is both highly effective (95%) and COVID-19 has not caused a notable change in fertility rates.

Again you assume the natural immune response matches that triggered by the vaccine.

(4) Because all three of the above statements are true, we must conclude that the spike proteins from the vaccine will not cause any greater infertility than the virus itself.

I don't know hence the question. I accept the possibility, but the initial question relates to the vaccine and not to natural immune response.

We are almost there 11 women isn't much but if they all delieved children without any problems that's actual experimental evidence. Which we would need to know to be conclusive. Any idea how we could find out?

[Bored chemist]

. These theories are not mine, I simply considered the implications so dire I sort an answer.

If you had been seeking an answer then, when you got one, you would have shut up, rather than continuing to post nonsense.

It is most likley the vaccine will not attack placenta however seeing what happened with the 11 women

Until the fertilised egg fuses to the uterine wall you won't get a positive pregnancy test.
Since the women are known to be pregnant, we can assumes that they have passed this stage.
But the attachment requires placental cells, so we know there's a placenta there.
So we know it wasn't blocked by the vaccine.

We already knew this as soon as we knew they were pregnant.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

. These theories are not mine, I simply considered the implications so dire I sort an answer.

If you had been seeking an answer then, when you got one, you would have shut up, rather than continuing to post nonsense.

Against my better judgement I will in this case actually respond to you.

I got an answer yesterday.  Took over a month to get an actual  answer.
Still the answer is incomplete, just because the immune response to the wild virus potentially does not attack placenta(which it might still do a small amount of antibodies might be) does not mean that the antibodies created by the vaccine wont.

It is most likley the vaccine will not attack placenta however seeing what happened with the 11 women

Until the fertilised egg fuses to the uterine wall you won't get a positive pregnancy test.
Since the women are known to be pregnant, we can assumes that they have passed this stage.
But the attachment requires placental cells, so we know there's a placenta there.
So we know it wasn't blocked by the vaccine.

We already knew this as soon as we knew they were pregnant.

That's not the issue, if antibodies attack the placenta,  that wont necessarily stop conception,  but could cause miscarriage later in the pregnancy.

The 11 women who conceived during the trails would show experimental data atleast sufficient for a phase 1 analysis of the question.  We should looking to find out if they managed to actually give birth. If they all miscarried there may actually be an issue, if 50% did there may also be a reduction in fertility of women vacinated.

Those 11 women hold the answer.

[Kryptid]

Here is the main point of disgareeemt, it's an assumption that immune response to the virus will be the same as the immune response to the vaccine.

It's not an assumption. It's a simple biological fact. If the response wasn't the same, then the antibodies wouldn't be the same and thus the vaccines wouldn't work.

Again I find that an assumption

Then you don't know how vaccines work.

Again you assume the natural immune response matches that triggered by the vaccine.

If it wasn't the same, then the vaccine wouldn't work.

the initial question relates to the vaccine and not to natural immune response.

And that is why I asked this (which you have not yet addressed):

Okay, so let's talk about that. Here is the original quote:

Quote from: Jolly2 on Yesterday at 07:00:33
"The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women."

Now let's modify that quote to this:

Quote
"The immune system is expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that an immune response against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in infected women."

Do you think that the first quote is a valid concern, but my modified version of the quote is not? Despite the fact that the spike protein of the virus must also contain syncytin-homologues? How is the immune system supposed to know that it isn't supposed to attack the placenta when presented with viral syncytin homologue proteins, but is supposed to attack the placenta when presented with the vaccine syncytin homologue proteins?

According to our current policy, yes we do.

I strongly disagree. It is better to fight misinformation with evidence and reasoning, not insults.

We have to let Jolly keep on posting unsupported nonsense which accuses vast numbers of scientists of either stupidity or fraud.
His view that we should stop trying to contain the virus is an insult, not only to the science, but to the memory of those who have died.
So the forum's policy is that we let him insult a vast swathe of people who have no way to reply.

If that's such a big concern, then we can lock his threads and warn him against posting about it in the future. Still no need for insults.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Here is the main point of disgareeemt, it's an assumption that immune response to the virus will be the same as the immune response to the vaccine.

It's not an assumption. It's a simple biological fact. If the response wasn't the same, then the antibodies wouldn't be the same and thus the vaccines wouldn't work.

Again I find that an assumption

Then you don't know how vaccines work.

Again you assume the natural immune response matches that triggered by the vaccine.

If it wasn't the same, then the vaccine wouldn't work.

the initial question relates to the vaccine and not to natural immune response.

And that is why I asked this (which you have not yet addressed):

Okay, so let's talk about that. Here is the original quote:

Quote from: Jolly2 on Yesterday at 07:00:33
"The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women."

Now let's modify that quote to this:

Quote
"The immune system is expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that an immune response against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in infected women."

Do you think that the first quote is a valid concern, but my modified version of the quote is not?

I see them as the same. Essentially it's the immune system doing the work.

Despite the fact that the spike protein of the virus must also contain syncytin-homologues? How is the immune system supposed to know that it isn't supposed to attack the placenta when presented with viral syncytin homologue proteins, but is supposed to attack the placenta when presented with the vaccine syncytin homologue proteins?

I think the concerns are related to increased functionality that yes the antibodies will attack SARS but they might also attack placenta, it not that they have to attack both but potentially could.

According to our current policy, yes we do.

I strongly disagree. It is better to fight misinformation with evidence and reasoning, not insults.

Thanks for the reply Kyrptid.

That's partly why I asked this question, many people are spreading these concerns. Rather than simply blocking the discussion I think its best to find out the truth.

I do not know if the vaccine will damage female reproductive ability. But as some scientists believe it could, I am as best I can with my limited scientific background trying to find out. As I said previously this thread can be shown to people with those concerns. I am after this discussion less concerned than I was, however I still see there is a potential issue and hope the 11 women that conceived  might hold a final answer.

Hopefully there is no risk to female reproduction.  Still i am not as yet 100% convinced and will as best I can continue to seek the truth of the matter.

[Kryptid]

I see them as the same.

Then you admit that vaccines causing infertility is the same as the virus causing infertility, as both of them contain syncytin homologues.