What’s Graphene Oxide?

Is a toxic material hiding inside the COVID vaccines causing blood clots?

Authors: Emerald Robinson Jun 13, 2022

As more and more people around the world share their stories of COVID vaccine injuries, the inevitable question becomes: what’s really in the experimental shots? This is not an academic question. In fact, it’s going to be the single most important question in medicine and public health policy for the next 50 years because we’ve just forced billions of people into a medical experiment.

People are beginning to acknowledge these COVID vaccine side effects (despite the gaslighting of the medical community and the federal government) and even celebrities are admitting to these issues. For example, Justin Bieber now has facial paralysis — and his wife recently survived a massive blood clot in her brain that led to a stroke. Neither of them has said that the COVID vaccines are responsible — but who are we kidding anymore? Are those typical medical issues for a couple in their 20s?

Senior citizens are suddenly dying. Middle-aged people are suddenly dying. Even healthy young people are suddenly dying. In fact, the corrupt media is trying to create a syndrome called “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” to hide the toxicity of the COVID vaccines. What could cause thousands of young people to have heart problems so severe that they die suddenly?

It turns out that a material called graphene oxide has been widely studied and tested in the biomedical industry — and its presence in the experimental COVID vaccines may explain the sudden increase in deadly blood clots around the world.

The links between nanotechnology and graphene oxide are well established in scientific literature. Graphene and graphene oxide are being developed and used as nanomaterials for medical applications — this is beyond dispute. Countless research papers can be found online: my quick search of scholarly articles using the search terms “graphene oxide” and “medicine” turned up 245,000 entries.

The problem is that graphene-based materials are toxic to biological life. In fact, the cancer-causing properties of graphene-based nanoparticles have already been studied and published. The results of injecting graphene oxide into mice are awful — as this study shows.

The pre-clinical risks, adverse effects of GNPs exposure, and approaches to minimize their health hazards still remain undefined. However, inhalation of graphene structures is believed to be a risk factor for cardiorespiratory disease. For example, inhaled graphene nanoplatelets can be transported deep within the distal regions of the lungs and trigger chronic inflammation in the respiratory tract [30]. It is generally thought that the placenta, lung, gastrointestinal tract and skin act as major barriers for many nanostructures entry into living organisms [31]. Indeed, a recent study on mice demonstrated that intratracheally delivered few-layered graphene was mainly retained in the lung, with 47% remaining after 4 weeks and this resulted dose-dependent acute lung injury and pulmonary oedema [32]. An in vitro study of the effects of graphene and graphene oxide on human skin HaCaT keratinocytes demonstrated that oxidized graphene was the most cytotoxic, inducing mitochondrial and plasma-membrane damage, and suggesting low cytotoxic effects at the skin level [33]. Reduced graphene oxide is more toxic than graphene oxide as evidenced by many studies reported recently [34][35]. This is primarily due to its sharp edges and structural morphology. In contrast to the typically soluble nanoparticles examined in conventional toxicology investigations, graphene nanostructures have different shapes and surface areas, and which in turn can significantly influence their diffusion, dispersion, aggregation and agglomeration in plasma. Importantly, these “tunable” characteristics of graphene account for the varying toxic outcomes on the tissues. In vivo, following toxicity testing of graphene, post-mortem histological examinations of liver alterations have revealed hypertrophy of hepatocytes, necrosis and inflammatory cell infiltration in liver and kidney tissues [36]. The level of organ function and oxidative stress has been reported to affect the fate, transport and toxicity of graphene in organs but there is currently a lack of consistency in this regard [36].

You don’t have to be a doctor to understand “cardiorespiratory disease” or “acute lung injury” or “mitochondrial and plasma-membrane damage” — do you?

Multiple studies have concluded that when graphene-based particles are injected into mice it leads “to extensive pulmonary thromboembolism.”

What’s a pulmonary thromboembolism you ask? It’s called a blood clot.

Let’s summarize what we know to be true about graphene-based materials:

Fact #1: Graphene-based materials are being developed around the world for medical purposes.

Fact #2: Graphene oxide was tested specifically as a vaccine ingredient by Chinese scientists in 2020.

Fact #3: These graphene-based materials are toxic and deadly when tested in mice — according to multiple studies.

Fact #4: Graphene-based materials specifically cause deadly blood clots in mice.

Fact #5: Vaccinated and otherwise healthy people are now dying because of blood clots — mere months after a world-wide COVID vaccination campaign.

These five facts lead to an obvious question: are graphene-based materials contained in any of the experimental COVID vaccines? Have they been hidden under trade secret agreements that allowed Big Pharma to avoid listing them in the patents and in the lists of key ingredients?

According to Spanish researcher Ricardo Delgado Martin, the answer is: yes. According to Professor Pablo Campra, the answer is: yes. According to biotech industry whistleblower Karen Kingston, the answer is: yes. 

The possible reasons behind adding graphene-based materials into COVID vaccines can be debated but they’re not important — the mere presence of such a toxic material would prove that the Biden regime’s mandating of these experimental COVID vaccines is a clear violation of the Nuremberg Code.

Simply put: there are plenty of experts who have concluded that graphene oxide is present in the experimental COVID vaccines without the knowledge or consent of the billions of people who took the shots — and this would clearly constitute a crime against humanity.

Ocular Adverse Events After COVID-19 Vaccination

Authors: Xin Le Ng, MBBS, a Bjorn Kaijun Betzler, MBBS, b Ilaria Testi, MD, c Su Ling Ho, FRCS, a Melissa Tien, FRCOphth, a Wei Kiong Ngo, FRCOphth, a Manfred Zierhut, PhD, d Soon Phaik Chee, FRCSEd, e , f , g Vishali Gupta, PhD, h Carlos E Pavesio, FRCOphth, b Marc D. de Smet, PhD, i , j and Rupesh Agrawal, FRCS a , b , e , f , g , k Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2021 : 1–9.

Published online 2021 Sep 24. doi: 10.1080/09273948.2021.1976221 PMCID: PMC8477588 PMID: 34559576

ABSTRACT

Purpose

The COVID-19 pandemic has galvanized the development of new vaccines at an unprecedented pace. Since the widespread implementation of vaccination campaigns, reports of ocular adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccinations have emerged. This review summarizes ocular adverse effects possibly associated with COVID-19 vaccination, and discusses their clinical characteristics and management.

Methods

Narrative Literature Review.

Results

Ocular adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccinations include facial nerve palsy, abducens nerve palsy, acute macular neuroretinopathy, central serous retinopathy, thrombosis, uveitis, multiple evanescent white dot syndrome, Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease reactivation, and new-onset Graves’ Disease. Studies in current literature are primarily retrospective case series or isolated case reports – these are inherently weak in establishing association or causality. Nevertheless, the described presentations resemble the reported ocular manifestations of the COVID-19 disease itself. Hence, we hypothesize that the human body’s immune response to COVID-19 vaccinations may be involved in the pathogenesis of the ocular adverse effects post-COVID-19 vaccination.

Conclusion

Ophthalmologists and generalists should be aware of the possible, albeit rare, ocular adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccination.

KEYWORDS: COVID-19, vaccination, ocular inflammation, adverse effects, uveitis

Historically, vaccines have been known to be associated with ocular phenomena. For example, vaccinations against influenza, yellow fever, hepatitis B, and Neisseria meningitidis have been associated with uveitis, acute idiopathic maculopathy, acute macular neuroretinopathy (AMN), Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease (VKH), and multiple evanescent white dot syndrome (MEWDS).1–7 The surge in the literature on COVID-19 and rapid development of vaccination regimens has produced reports on the ocular manifestations of COVID-19, as well as ocular adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccinations. Some of the reported ocular manifestations of COVID-19 infection include conjunctivitis, episcleritis, uveitis, vascular changes in the retina and cotton wool spots, optic neuritis, ocular motility deficits from cranial nerve palsies, and transient accommodation deficits.8–13

There are currently four types of COVID-19 vaccines. These include mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech14; mRNA-1273, Moderna15), protein subunit vaccines (NVX-CoV2373, Novavax16), vector vaccines (Ad26.COV2, Janssen Johnson & Johnson17; ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/ AZD1222, Oxford-AstraZeneca18), and whole virus vaccines (PiCoVacc, Sinovac19; BBIBP-CorV, Sinopharm20). While their respective trial reports on vaccine safety have shown that ocular adverse effects are rare, the possible manifestations are still a cause for concern, given the scale of the current vaccination campaign against COVID-19.

This review provides a comprehensive overview of COVID-19 vaccine-induced ocular adverse effects. A review of the incidence of such conditions is timely and would be beneficial to ophthalmologists and general physicians alike, in identifying patients who may be at a higher risk of ocular adverse events so that protocols for close monitoring of patients at risk can be designed and implemented.

Go to:

Methodology

For this narrative review, relevant publications were identified through a computerized database search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar. The search comprised the following keywords: ‘COVID,’ ‘COVID-19,ʹ ‘SARS-COV-2,ʹ ‘coronavirus,’ ‘vaccination,’ ‘ocular complications,’ ‘ocular manifestation,’ ‘thrombosis,’ ‘retinopathy,’ ‘maculopathy,’ ‘uveitis,’ ‘ocular inflammation.’ Search results were screened for relevance. References cited within the identified articles were used to further augment the search. This review encompassed an international search, but only articles published in English were used. We restricted our search to articles published within the past decade, up till August 21, 2021.

Go to:

Results

A total of 23 articles reported ocular findings associated with COVID-19 vaccinations (Table 1). Ocular complications were reported in 74 unique individuals – including facial nerve palsy/ Bell’s palsy, abducens nerve palsy, AMN, superior ophthalmic vein (SOV) thrombosis, corneal graft rejection, uveitis, central serous chorioretinopathy, VKH reactivation, and onset of Graves’ disease. The reported entities appear to overlap with the ocular manifestations of COVID-19 itself, suggesting a common pathway between virus and vaccine-mediated immune response in humans.

Table 1.

Summary of studies describing ocular adverse effects secondary to COVID-19 vaccination

StudySummaryVaccineDose InvolvedTime to onset of symptomsOcular Symptom and Number of Cases (n)
Bayas et al.21
Bilateral superior ophthalmic vein thrombosis, ischaemic stroke, and immune thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination.
A case report of bilateral superior ophthalmic vein thrombosis post-vaccinationAZD1222110 daysConjunctival congestion, retroorbital pain, diplopia
n = 1
Bøhler et al.22
Acute macular neuroretinopathy following COVID-19 vaccination.
A case report of acute macular neuroretinopathy (AMN) post-vaccinationAZD122212 daysParacentral scotoma
n = 1
Book et al.23
Bilateral Acute Macular Neuroretinopathy After Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2
A case report of Bilateral Acute Macular Neuroretinopathy post-vaccinationAZD122213 daysBilateral paracentral scotoma
n = 1
Collela et al.24
Bell’s palsy following COVID-19 vaccination
A case report of Bell’s Palsy post-vaccinationBNT162b215 daysLeft sided facial droop
n = 1
Crnej et al.25
Acute corneal endothelial graft rejection following COVID-19 vaccination
A case report of DMEK rejection post-vaccinationBNT162b217 daysSudden painless decrease of vision
n = 1
Elsheikh et al.26
Acute Uveitis following COVID-19 Vaccination
A case report of juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated anterior uveitis post-vaccinationBBIBP-CorV25 daysBilateral blurred vision, photophobia
n = 1
Fowler et al.27
Acute-onset central serous retinopathy after immunization with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine.
A case report of acute-onset central serous retinopathy (CSR) post-vaccinationBNT162b213 daysBlurring of vision, metamorphopsia
n = 1
Goyal et al.28
Bilateral Multifocal Choroiditis following COVID-19 Vaccination
A case report of bilateral multifocal choroiditis post-vaccinationAZD122229 daysRight eye floater that progressed gradually from the periphery toward the center
n = 1
Mambretti et al.29
Acute Macular Neuroretinopathy following Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination.
A case report of acute macular neuroretinopathy (AMN) post-vaccinationAZD122212 daysParacentral scotoma
n = 2
Michel et al.30
Acute Macular Neuroretinopathy After COVID-19 Vaccine.
A case report of acute macular neuroretinopathy (AMN) post-vaccinationAZD122212 daysCentral scotoma
n = 1
Mudie et al.31
Panuveitis following Vaccination for COVID-19.
A case report of panuveitis post-vaccinationBNT162b223 daysReduction in visual acuity, ocular pain, red eye, photophobia
n = 1
Ozonoff et al.32
Bell’s palsy and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.
A case series of numerical imbalance in incidences of Bell’s palsy between vaccine and placebo arms during trialsBNT162b2, mRNA-1273NANAn = 7
Papasavvas et al.33
Reactivation of Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease under control for more than 6 years, following anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
A case report of reactivation of Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease post-vaccinationBNT162b226 weeksPhotophobia, ocular pain
n = 1
Phylactou et al.34
Characteristics of endothelial corneal transplant rejection following immunisation with SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA vaccine.
A case report of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) patients with graft rejection post-vaccinationBNT162b21, 27 days to 3 weeksBlurred vision, red eye, photophobia
n = 2
Rabinovitch et al.35
Uveitis following the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection
Multicentre, retrospective study describing vaccine-related uveitis and multiple evanescent white dot syndrome post-vaccinationBNT162b21, 21–30 daysBlurred vision, red eye, photophobia
n = 23
Ravichandran et al.36
Corneal graft rejection after COVID-19 vaccination.
A case report of PKP patient with graft rejection post-vaccinationAZD122213 weeksBlurred vision, red eye
n = 1
Renisi et al.37
Anterior uveitis onset after BNT162b2 vaccination
A case report of anterior uveitis post-vaccinationBNT162b2214 daysBlurred vision, red eye, photophobia
n = 1
Repajic et al.38
Bell’s Palsy after second dose of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination in a patient with history of recurrent Bell’s palsy
A case report of Bell’s palsy post-vaccination. This patient had a history of 3 episodes of Bell’s palsyBNT162b2236 hFacial droop
n = 1
Reyes-Capo et al.39
Acute Abducens Nerve Palsy Following COVID-19 Vaccination.
A case report of isolated abducens nerve palsy post-vaccinationBNT162b212 daysPainless, horizontal, binocular diplopia
n = 1
Santovito et al.40
Acute reduction of visual acuity and visual field after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine 2nd dose: a case report.
A case report of possible uveitis post-vaccinationBNT162b223 daysReduction in visual acuity, visual distortion
n = 1
Shemer et al.41
Association of COVID-19 Vaccination and Facial Nerve Palsy: A Case-Control Study
A case-control study of association between facial nerve palsy between vaccinated and unvaccinated groupsBNT162b21, 29–14 daysn = 21
Vera-Lastra et al.42
Two Cases of Graves’ Disease Following SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination: An Autoimmune/Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants.
A case report of Graves’ disease activation post-vaccinationBNT162b212–3 daysn = 2
Wasser et al.43
Keratoplasty Rejection After the BNT162b2 messenger RNA Vaccine.
A case report of penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) patients with graft rejection post-vaccinationBNT162b2113–14 daysBlurred vision, ocular discomfort, red eye
n = 2

Open in a separate window

Facial Nerve Palsy

The Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2)14 and Moderna (mRNA-1273)15 vaccine trials suggest an imbalance in the incidence of Bell’s palsy following vaccination compared with the placebo arm of each trial. Among 36,901 vaccine arm participants in combined data, there were seven Bell’s palsy cases (1:5272) compared with one Bell’s palsy case among placebo arm participants (1:36,938). The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially reported that the observed frequency of reported Bell’s palsy in the vaccine group was consistent with the expected background rate in the general population, providing no clear basis to conclude a causal relationship.44,45 Ozonoff et al.32 commented that such reporting was misconceived. Given the generally agreed incidence of Bell’s palsy at 15–30 cases per 100,000 person-years,46,47 the median 2-month observation period of the clinical trials translated to an observed incidence of 3.5–7 times higher in the vaccine arms than the general population. Cirillo et al.46 provided an alternative interpretation – given that safety data were collected for 2 months after the second, not the first dose, the observed incidence might be 1.5–3 times higher than the general population. Collela et al.24 and Repajic et al.38 provided detailed expositions of the signs and symptoms that led to a diagnosis of Bell’s palsy in COVID-19 BNT162b2 vaccine recipients. An Israeli case-control study41 found that 21 of 37 individuals (56.8%) with facial nerve palsy were recently vaccinated with the first or second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine, compared with 44 of 74 (59.5%) in the control group. After adjustment for pre-existing immune- or inflammatory-related disorders, diabetes, and a previous episode of peripheral nerve palsy, odds ratio (OR) for exposure to the vaccine among cases was insignificant at 0.84 (95%CI 0.37–1.90, p-value = 0.67). Based on the OR from different studies, it is highly unlikely that Bell’s palsy is associated with COVID-19 vaccination and if at all, the pathophysiological process for facial nerve palsy post COVID-19 vaccination needs to be hypothesized and proven. While facial nerve palsy is a reported adverse event in other vaccinations,32 such as influenza and meningococcal conjugate vaccinations, mRNA-based vaccines might follow a different immune mechanism.

Abducens Nerve Palsy

A healthy 59-year-old female presented with isolated abducens nerve palsy following a febrile episode two days after receiving the BNT162b2 vaccine.39 No details on the persistence of the palsy were provided. Slit lamp, fundus examination, and non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain and orbits were unremarkable.

Go to:

AMN

AMN is a rare condition characterized by macular reddish-brown, wedge-shaped lesions, the apices of which are often directed toward the fovea.48 This is often accompanied by paracentral scotomas and mild loss of vision at onset.48 Four studies22,23,29,30 reported cases of AMN. All patients were female and received the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. All were on oral contraceptive pills (OCP) and manifested symptoms two days after the first dose. Three reported fever, and one reported flu-like symptoms prior to the appearance of the scotoma. In two patients, the visual symptoms lasted <24 h. On optical coherence tomography (OCT), hyperreflectivity of the outer nuclear and plexiform layers was seen along with disruption of the ellipsoid zone. Subtle capillary dropout was also noted on OCT angiography.

AMN is a rare retinal disease, the pathophysiology of which is still unknown, although a microvascular abnormality in the deep capillary plexus of the retina is hypothesized.48,49 Of the AMN cases reviewed, all subjects were confounded by OCP usage. OCP usage has been associated with structural changes to the macula, retinal nerve fiber layer, and choroidal thickness50 and identified as a risk factor for AMN. However, the relative rarity of AMN and the temporal association between the vaccine administration and the onset of the disease should be taken into consideration. This is likely due to the presence of estrogen and progesterone receptors in ocular tissues of premenopausal women, including the choroid and retina.51 It has been postulated that concurrent OCP usage may increase the susceptibility of ocular tissues to AMN.48 Whether the potential thrombogenic role of COVID-19 vaccination played an additional role in the AMN pathogenesis of these patients has yet to be established.

Central Serous Chorioretinopathy

A 33-year-old male presented with blurring of vision and metamorphopsia 69 h after receiving the first dose of BNT162b2 and was diagnosed with central serous chorioretinopathy.27 He had a previous ocular history of mild hyperopic refractive error. Dilated fundus examination revealed foveal reflex loss and a swollen macula without haemorrhage. OCT was performed, which showed macular serous detachment of the neurosensory retina, with OCT angiography showing general attenuation of choriocapillaris flow signal in the area of serous retinal detachment. Fundus fluorescein angiography showed point leakage. The patient was prescribed spironolactone, and all symptoms eventually resolved on follow up.

Ophthalmic Vein Thrombosis

Regarding post-vaccination thrombosis, rare cases of post vaccination immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) after administration of the adenovirus vector vaccines ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV2 have been well described.52–57 Anatomically, CVST post-COVID-19 vaccination has been reported to occur in virtually all the dural venous sinuses,52 and a majority of patients are females.52 This section focuses on superior ophthalmic vein thrombosis, as reported in two isolated cases.21,58 Both patients received the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. Panovska-Stavridis et al.58 describe a 29-year-old female who presented with severe headache, orbital swelling with proptosis, limited ocular motility, vertical diplopia, and reduced visual acuity 10 days after the first dose. Initial findings showed thrombocytopenia of 18 × 109/L and high D-dimer levels of 35712 μg/L. Antibody screening showed high levels of antibodies against Heparin/Platelet Factor 4 complex. Contrast-enhanced MRI demonstrated central filling defects and a widened and enhanced left SOV, revealing thrombosis. The patient was treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for two days followed with tapered oral prednisolone. All symptoms resolved within 5 days. Bayas et al.21 described a 55-year-old female with bilateral SOV thrombosis on post-dose day 10, also definitively diagnosed on MRI showing filling defects and T2 enhancement of both SOV. Laboratory investigations supported a diagnosis of secondary immune thrombocytopenia. Despite therapeutic heparinization, the patient developed an ischemic stroke in the left parietal lobe, middle cerebral artery region on post-dose day 18. Healthcare professionals should be on the alert for possible cases of thromboembolism – CVST, pulmonary, deep vein thrombosis, or in the ophthalmic context – SOV thrombosis – after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or Ad26.COV2 administration.

Corneal Graft Rejection

Four articles described corneal graft rejection soon after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination.25,34,36,43 Phylactou et al.34 reported two cases of allograft rejection following Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK); both were female. A 66-year-old woman received the BNT162b2 vaccine 14 days after grafting and developed endothelial graft rejection 7 days later (day 21 post-transplant). She had a history of well-controlled human immunodeficiency virus infection with undetectable viral load. The other case, an 83-year-old woman, underwent DMEK 6 years before BNT162b2 administration. She developed symptoms 3 weeks after the second dose. For both DMEK cases, slit lamp examination and anterior segment optical coherence tomography (OCT) revealed moderate conjunctival injection, diffuse corneal oedema, and fine keratic precipitates limited to the donor endothelium with anterior chamber cells. Crnej et al.25 reported the case of a 71-year old male that presented with acute endothelial rejection 7 days after receiving the first dose of BNT162b2, 5 months after DMEK surgery. Topical dexamethasone 1 mg/mL every two hours was initiated. BCVA improved to 20/25 with a clear cornea one week later. The patient opted to receive his second dose after being counselled for the possible association between the first dose of vaccination and the acute transplant rejection. The graft remained clear, and visual acuity remained stable 3 weeks after the second dose. Rejections were also reported following three penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) cases36,43; all three were male; 1 case had a previous re-graft. Two of the PKP rejections manifested 13 to 14 days after receiving the first dose43 of the vaccine, while the third occurred after 21 days, also from the first dose.36

Regarding corneal graft rejection, any systemic immune dysregulation may compromise corneal ocular immune privilege and increase the patient’s susceptibility for rejection.59There is a report about acute corneal endothelial graft rejection with coinciding COVID-19 infection.60 Inflammation in COVID-19 patients is characterized by increased tumor necrosis factor–α (TNF–α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) production.61 Cells of the innate immune system can invade the cornea and result in the up regulation of cytokines (including TNF–α, chemokines) and other pro-inflammatory molecules, which can result in rejection of the corneal transplants. With activation of the immune system post-vaccination, these mechanisms may contribute to vaccine-related corneal graft rejection. Reports on graft rejection after other viral vaccinations are scarce.62–64

New Onset Uveitis

We identified five case reports26,28,31,37,40 and one multicenter, retrospective case series35 describing uveitis after COVID-19 vaccination. In one case report,26 an 18-year-old female with a history of antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) presented with bilateral anterior uveitis 5 days after the second dose of BBIBP-CorV. HLA-B27 testing returned negative.

She was started on topical prednisolone acetate 1% every 2 h and cyclopentolate hydrochloride three times daily, with complete resolution and bilateral 6/6 visual acuity by 6 weeks. Goyal et al.28 described bilateral choroiditis in a 34-year-old male 9 days after the second dose of AZD1222. The patient presented with a right eye floater that rapidly progressed to severe visual loss within 12 hours. OCT revealed massive subretinal fluid involving the macula in the right eye. The left eye had milder subretinal fluid not involving the macula. B-scan showed bilateral choroidal thickening. He was started on oral prednisolone 1 mg/kg/day. Visual acuity was reinstated to 6/6 bilaterally in eleven days. In the remaining four articles, all subjects received the BNT162b2 vaccine. Santovito et al.40 described a male patient with a SARS-COV-2 infection several months earlier who developed transient visual field loss 3 days after a first dose of BNT162b2. The visual acuity deficit lasted less than a day and was associated with a plethora of systemic nonspecific symptoms, such as unilateral headache, nausea, asthenia, and mild confusion. No further investigations were performed. Mudie et al.31 described a female subject who developed panuveitis three days after the second dose. Her vision improved on a tapering dose of 50 mg/day of oral prednisone and two hourly difluprednate lasting three weeks. At the end of three weeks, there was recurrence of choroidal thickening and systemic corticosteroid therapy was recommenced. OCT showed vitreous debris, retinal and choroidal thickening. Fluorescein angiography (FA) revealed mild peripheral vascular leakage. Rabinovitch et al.35 described 21 cases of uveitis in Israel following COVID-19 vaccination. 8 and 13 cases occurred after the first and second BNT162b2 doses respectively. There were 19 patients with anterior uveitis whereas two patients were diagnosed to have multiple evanescent white dot syndrome (MEWDS) (after receiving the initial diagnosis of anterior uveitis). MEWDS is a rare self-limiting condition of the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) or outer retina,65 following the second vaccination. MEWDS cases were not treated. Mean time between vaccination to uveitis onset was 7.5 ± 7.3 days (1–30 days). At final follow-up, complete resolution was achieved in all but two eyes, which showed significant improvement. One case of severe anterior uveitis developed vitritis and macular edema following second vaccination, which needed and completely resolved following intravitreal dexamethasone.35

VKH Reactivation

One article by Papasavvas et al. was identified.33 The reported subject was a woman with a pre-existing diagnosis of VKH well controlled for the past six years. The initial onset of VKH was severe, necessitating infliximab infusions which were continued as regular maintenance therapy. She manifested a severe reactivation of VKH 6 weeks after receiving the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. She had received infliximab infusions 3.5 weeks before the first vaccine dose and 7.5 weeks before the second vaccine dose.33 Slit-lamp examination showed anterior chamber inflammation with mutton-fat keratic precipitates, and OCT was performed, revealing retinal folds, subretinal fluid and increased choroidal thickness. Oral corticosteroids were initiated, alongside infliximab therapy, with the disease reactivation brought under control. However, as the VKH reactivation was reported six weeks after receiving the second dose of vaccination, it is difficult to establish a temporal association between COVID-19 vaccination and VKH reactivation based on this single case report.

Graves’ Disease

Onset of Graves’ disease (GD) in two subjects was reported a few days after the first dose of BNT162b2.42 One patient had suffered a prior COVID-19 infection and a history pulmonary arterial hypertension. Both were newly diagnosed with GD on the manifestation of symptoms. Both received a dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine and reported symptoms 2–3 days after. No description of ocular symptoms or ophthalmic investigations were included in the study. The study found the subjects’ presentation to fit the diagnostic criteria for autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA),66 also known as Shoenfeld’s Syndrome. As Graves’ disease is known to involve orbits and/or ocular surface, we have included this two cases in this comprehensive review even though the reported cases did not had any ocular manifestations at time of presentation.

Go to:

Discussion

At present, given the nascent nature of COVID-19 vaccines and evolving data on their adverse effects, it is imperative to emphasize that no causality can be established from this review. Furthermore, of the published cases with clear ocular pathology demonstrated on examination and investigation, most recovered well with swift initiation of treatment. It is important to remember the remarkably low incidence of adverse events related to the vaccine considering the massive rollout campaign across the world. To date, there is no evidence to suggest that individuals should avoid getting vaccinated for ophthalmic-related reasons.

Most of the reviewed literature includes case reports and series, and there are limits to the detail provided regarding ophthalmic assessment, treatment initiated, visual outcome and of underreporting of cases. Furthermore, there is heterogeneity in terms of investigations performed, affecting analysis of the cases. Given that vaccine induced ocular phenomena have been established with a multitude of other vaccines, that COVID-19 vaccinations are not exempt is unsurprising. There remains a larger question of elucidating the mechanisms involved in a maladaptive immune response and identifying the susceptible individuals for closer follow up.

Vaccinations in the autoimmune population decreases the burden of infection. To boost vaccine efficacy, adjuvants are often added to potentiate their effect on the innate and adaptive immune systems. While generally safe and effective, in a fraction of subjects (perhaps genetically or otherwise predisposed), the administration of adjuvants can lead to an autoimmune or inflammatory syndrome.52 The adjuvants included in COVID-19 mRNA vaccines stimulate innate immunity through endosolic or cytoplasmic nucleic acid receptors.67 Several autoimmune diseases, particularly connective tissues diseases are associated with an altered nucleic acid metabolism and processing which may trigger an immune response following immunization.68,69

The consequences of maladaptive immune response in those with autoimmune disease resulting in reactivation of disease should be considered. It is also essential to establish the response of autoimmune disease patients to vaccines and if the response is suboptimal in this population. This would have far-reaching consequences on future development of vaccines and risk-stratification of at-risk groups. Leibowitz et al.70 reviewed evidence that suggests uveitis and autoimmune diseases have a systemic overlap, and the development of uveitis may represent an undiagnosed autoimmune condition. There may thus be a role for further workup for more widespread inflammatory disease in individuals who develop ocular inflammatory events following COVID vaccination.

Comparative models for reactivation of autoimmune diseases post-vaccination have not demonstrated an increased risk in reactivation following vaccination for other diseases.71 Regarding the COVID-19 vaccine, Achiron et al.85 found no increase in relapse activity in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients in an observational study. In fact, the recommendations provided were to vaccinate MS patients to alleviate the disease burden of COVID-19.

Go to:

Conclusions

The current literature shows substantial overlap between the ocular adverse effects of COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 vaccination. Reports on such adverse effects are rare, and further longitudinal, multicenter studies are required to prove such associations, if any. It may be useful to identify the high risk characteristics for the patients developing ocular adverse events in response to COVID-19 infection or vaccination. As COVID-19 gradually becomes an endemic disease, a dedicated international registry for compiling of rare ocular adverse effects post COVID-19 vaccination could facilitate our understanding of the subject. Such cases can be retrospectively reviewed or prospectively followed-up.

References

1. Marinho PM, Nascimento H, Romano A, Muccioli C, Belfort R Jr. Diffuse uveitis and chorioretinal changes after yellow fever vaccination: a re-emerging epidemic. Int J Retina Vitreous. 2019;5:30. doi: 10.1186/s40942-019-0180-0. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

2. Ng CC, Jumper JM, Cunningham ET Jr. Multiple evanescent white dot syndrome following influenza immunization – A multimodal imaging study. Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep. Sep, 2020;19:100845. doi: 10.1016/j.ajoc.2020.100845. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

3. Jorge LF, Queiroz RP, Gasparin F, Vasconcelos-Santos DV.. Presumed unilateral acute idiopathic maculopathy following H1N1 vaccination. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. Mar11, 2020;1-3. doi: 10.1080/09273948.2020.1734213. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

4. Shah P, Zaveri JS, Haddock LJ. Acute macular neuroretinopathy following the administration of an influenza vaccination. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. Oct1, 2018;49(10):e165–e168. doi: 10.3928/23258160-20181002-23. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

5. Sood AB, O’Keefe G, Bui D, Jain N. Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease associated with hepatitis B vaccination. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2019;27(4):524–527. doi: 10.1080/09273948.2018.1483520. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. Abou-Samra A, Tarabishy AB. Multiple evanescent white dot syndrome following intradermal influenza vaccination. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2019;27(4):528–530. doi: 10.1080/09273948.2017.1423334. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Biancardi AL, Moraes HV Jr. Anterior and intermediate uveitis following yellow fever vaccination with fractional dose: case reports. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2019;27(4):521–523. doi: 10.1080/09273948.2018.1510529. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Aggarwal K, Agarwal A, Jaiswal N, et al. Ocular surface manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. Nov5, 2020;15(11):e0241661. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241661. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Lim LW, Tan GS, Yong V, et al. Acute onset of bilateral follicular conjunctivitis in two patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. Nov16, 2020;28(8):1280–1284. Epub 2020 Oct 6. PMID: 33021847. doi: 10.1080/09273948.2020.1821901. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Seah I, Agrawal R. Can the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affect the eyes? A review of coronaviruses and ocular implications in humans and animals. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. Apr2, 2020;28(3):391–395. Epub 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1080/09273948.2020.1738501. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

11. Elenga N, Martin E, Gerard M, Osei L, Rasouly N. Unilateral diplopia and ptosis in a child with COVID-19 revealing third cranial nerve palsy. J Infect Public Health. Aug10, 2021;14(9):1198–1200. Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2021.08.007. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Umapathi T, Li KZ, Chin CF, et al. Acute isolated near vision difficulty in patients with COVID-19 infection. J Neuroophthalmol. Sep1, 2021;41(3):e279–e282. doi: 10.1097/WNO.0000000000001120. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

13. Sen S, Kannan NB, Kumar J, et al. Retinal manifestations in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and pathogenetic implications: a systematic review. Int Ophthalmol. Aug11, 2021;1–14. (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34379290; PMCID: PMC8356207). doi: 10.1007/s10792-021-01996-7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med. Dec31, 2020;383(27):2603–2615. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Baden LR, El Sahly HM, Essink B, et al. Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. N Engl J Med. Feb4, 2021;384(5):403–416. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2035389. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

16. Heath PT, Galiza EP, Baxter DN, et al. Safety and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 Covid-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med. Jun30, 2021. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2107659. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

17. Sadoff J, Gray G, Vandebosch A, et al. Safety and efficacy of single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine against Covid-19. N Engl J Med. Jun10, 2021;384(23):2187–2201. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2101544. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

18. Voysey M, Clemens SAC, Madhi SA, et al. Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK. Lancet. Jan9, 2021;397(10269):99–111. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32661-1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Gao Q, Bao L, Mao H, et al. Development of an inactivated vaccine candidate for SARS-CoV-2. Science. Jul3, 2020;369(6499):77–81. doi: 10.1126/science.abc1932. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. Xia S, Zhang Y, Wang Y, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, BBIBP-CorV: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Infect Dis. Jan, 2021;21(1):39–51. doi: 10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30831-8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

21. Bayas A, Menacher M, Christ M, Behrens L, Rank A, Naumann M. Bilateral superior ophthalmic vein thrombosis, ischaemic stroke, and immune thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. Lancet. May1, 2021;397(10285):e11. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00872-2. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Bøhler AD, Strøm ME, Sandvig KU, Moe MC, Jørstad ØK. Acute macular neuroretinopathy following COVID-19 vaccination. Eye (Lond). Jun22, 2021;1-2. doi: 10.1038/s41433-021-01610-1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

23. Book BAJ, Schmidt B, Foerster AMH. Bilateral acute macular neuroretinopathy after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. JAMA Ophthalmol. Jul1, 2021;139(7):e212471. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2021.2471. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

24. Colella G, Orlandi M, Cirillo N. Bell’s palsy following COVID-19 vaccination. J Neurol. Feb21, 2021;1-3. doi: 10.1007/s00415-021-10462-4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Crnej A, Khoueir Z, Cherfan G, Saad A. Acute corneal endothelial graft rejection following COVID-19 vaccination. J Fr Ophtalmol. Jul8, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.jfo.2021.06.001. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. ElSheikh RH, Haseeb A, Eleiwa TK, Elhusseiny AM. Acute uveitis following COVID-19 vaccination. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. Aug11, 2021;1-3. doi: 10.1080/09273948.2021.1962917. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

27. Fowler N, Mendez Martinez NR, Pallares BV, Maldonado RS. Acute-onset central serous retinopathy after immunization with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep. Sep, 2021;23:101136. doi: 10.1016/j.ajoc.2021.101136. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. Goyal M, Murthy SI, Annum S. Bilateral multifocal choroiditis following COVID-19 vaccination. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. Aug3, 2021;1-5. doi: 10.1080/09273948.2021.1957123. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. Mambretti M, Huemer J, Torregrossa G, Ullrich M, Findl O, Casalino G. Acute macular neuroretinopathy following coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. Jun30, 2021;1-4. doi: 10.1080/09273948.2021.1946567. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Michel T, Stolowy N, Gascon P, et al. Acute Macular Neuroretinopathy After COVID-19 VaccineJ Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect.2021. [Google Scholar]

31. Mudie LI, Zick JD, Dacey MS, Palestine AG. Panuveitis following vaccination for COVID-19. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. Jul2, 2021;1-2. doi: 10.1080/09273948.2021.1949478. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

32. Ozonoff A, Nanishi E, Levy O. Bell’s palsy and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Lancet Infect Dis. Apr, 2021;21(4):450–452. doi: 10.1016/s1473-3099(21)00076-1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

33. Papasavvas I, Herbort CP Jr. Reactivation of Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease under control for more than 6 years, following anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect. Jul5, 2021;11(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s12348-021-00251-5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

34. Phylactou M, Li JO, Larkin DFP. Characteristics of endothelial corneal transplant rejection following immunisation with SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA vaccine. Br J Ophthalmol. Jul, 2021;105(7):893–896. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-319338. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

35. Rabinovitch T, Ben-Arie-Weintrob Y, Hareuveni-Blum T, et al. Uveitis following the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection: a possible association. Retina. Aug2, 2021. doi: 10.1097/iae.0000000000003277. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

36. Ravichandran S, Natarajan R. Corneal graft rejection after COVID-19 vaccination. Indian J Ophthalmol. Jul, 2021;69(7):1953–1954. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1028_21. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Renisi G, Lombardi A, Stanzione M, Invernizzi A, Bandera A, Gori A. Anterior uveitis onset after bnt162b2 vaccination: is this just a coincidence? Int J Infect Dis. Jul18, 2021;110:95–97. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.07.035. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Repajic M, Lai XL, Xu P, Bell’s LA. Palsy after second dose of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination in a patient with history of recurrent Bell’s palsy. Brain Behav Immun Health. May, 2021;13:100217. doi: 10.1016/j.bbih.2021.100217. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

39. Reyes-Capo DP, Stevens SM, Cavuoto KM. Acute abducens nerve palsy following COVID-19 vaccination. J Aapos. May24, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2021.05.003. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

40. Santovito LS, Pinna G. Acute reduction of visual acuity and visual field after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine 2nd dose: a case report. Inflamm Res. Jun4, 2021;1-3. doi: 10.1007/s00011-021-01476-9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

41. Shemer A, Pras E, Einan-Lifshitz A, Dubinsky-Pertzov B, Hecht I. Association of COVID-19 vaccination and facial nerve palsy: a case-control study. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Aug1, 2021;147(8):739–743. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2021.1259. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

42. Vera-Lastra O, Ordinola Navarro A, Cruz Domiguez MP, Medina G, Sánchez Valadez TI, Jara LJ. Two cases of graves’ disease following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: an autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants. Thyroid. May3, 2021. doi: 10.1089/thy.2021.0142. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

43. Wasser LM, Roditi E, Zadok D, Berkowitz L, Weill Y. Keratoplasty rejection after the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine. Cornea. Aug1, 2021;40(8):1070–1072. doi: 10.1097/ico.0000000000002761. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. US Food and Drug Administration . Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine/ BNT162b2 emergency use authorization review memorandum. Accessed1August, 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download

45. US Food and Drug Administration . Moderna COVID-19 vaccine/mRNA-1273 emergency use authorization review memorandum. Accessed1August, 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/144673/download

46. Cirillo N, Doan R. Bell’s palsy and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines-an unfolding story. Lancet Infect Dis. Jun7, 2021;21:1210–1211. doi: 10.1016/s1473-3099(21)00273-5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

47. Erdur H, Ernst S, Ahmadi M, et al. Evidence for seasonal variation of Bell’s Palsy in Germany. Neuroepidemiology. 2018;51(3–4):128–130.doi: 10.1159/000492097. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

48. Bhavsar KV, Lin S, Rahimy E, et al. Acute macular neuroretinopathy: a comprehensive review of the literature. Surv Ophthalmol. Sep-Oct, 2016;61(5):538–565. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2016.03.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

49. Hwang CK, Sen HN. Concurrent vascular flow defects at the deep capillary plexus and choriocapillaris layers in acute macular neuroretinopathy on multimodal imaging: a case series. Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep. Dec, 2020;20:100866. doi: 10.1016/j.ajoc.2020.100866. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

50. Madendag Y, Acmaz G, Atas M, et al. The effect of oral contraceptive pills on the macula, the retinal nerve fiber layer, and choroidal thickness. Med Sci Monit. Nov27, 2017;23:5657–5661. doi: 10.12659/msm.905183. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

51. Fuchsjäger-Mayrl G, Nepp J, Schneeberger C, et al. Identification of estrogen and progesterone receptor mRNA expression in the conjunctiva of premenopausal women. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. Sep, 2002;43(9):2841–2844. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

52. Sharifian-Dorche M, Bahmanyar M, Sharifian-Dorche A, Mohammadi P, Nomovi M, Mowla A. Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis post COVID-19 vaccination; a systematic review. J Neurol Sci. Aug3, 2021;428:117607. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2021.117607. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

53. Greinacher A, Thiele T, Warkentin TE, Weisser K, Kyrle PA, Eichinger S. Thrombotic thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccination. N Engl J Med. Jun3, 2021;384(22):2092–2101. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104840. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

54. Schultz NH, Sørvoll IH, Michelsen AE, et al. Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. N Engl J Med. Jun3, 2021;384(22):2124–2130. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104882. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

55. Perry RJ, Tamborska A, Singh B, et al. Cerebral venous thrombosis after vaccination against COVID-19 in the UK: a multicentre cohort study. Lancet. Aug6, 2021. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01608-1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

56. See I, Su JR, Lale A, et al. US case reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination, March 2 to April 21, 2021. Jama. Jun22, 2021;325(24):2448–2456. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.7517. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

57. Schulz JB, Berlit P, Diener HC, et al. COVID-19 vaccine-associated cerebral venous thrombosis in Germany. Ann Neurol. Jul19, 2021. doi: 10.1002/ana.26172. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

58. Panovska-Stavridis I, Pivkova-Veljanovska A, Trajkova S, et al. Case of superior ophthalmic vein thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis. 2021;13(1):e2021048. doi: 10.4084/mjhid.2021.048. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

59. Tan DT, Dart JK, Holland EJ, Kinoshita S. Corneal transplantation. Lancet. May5, 2012;379(9827):1749–1761. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60437-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

60. Jin SX, Juthani VV. Acute corneal endothelial graft rejection with coinciding COVID-19 infection. Cornea. Jan, 2021;40(1):123–124. doi: 10.1097/ico.0000000000002556. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

61. Hadjadj J, Yatim N, Barnabei L, et al. Impaired type I interferon activity and inflammatory responses in severe COVID-19 patients. Science. Aug7, 2020;369(6504):718–724. doi: 10.1126/science.abc6027. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

62. Hamilton A, Massera R, Maloof A. Stromal rejection in a deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty following influenza vaccination. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. Dec, 2015;43(9):838–839. doi: 10.1111/ceo.12560. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

63. Matoba A. Corneal allograft rejection associated with herpes zoster recombinant adjuvanted vaccine. Cornea. Jun9, 2021. doi: 10.1097/ico.0000000000002787. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

64. Vignapiano R, Vicchio L, Favuzza E, Cennamo M, Mencucci R. Corneal graft rejection after yellow fever vaccine: a case report. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. Jan28, 2021;1-4. doi: 10.1080/09273948.2020.1870146. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

65. Ramakrishnan MS, Patel AP, Melles R, Vora RA. Multiple evanescent white dot syndrome: findings from a large Northern California Cohort. Ophthalmol Retina. Nov30, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.oret.2020.11.016. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

66. Bragazzi NL, Hejly A, Watad A, Adawi M, Amital H, Shoenfeld Y. ASIA syndrome and endocrine autoimmune disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. Jan, 2020;34(1):101412. doi: 10.1016/j.beem.2020.101412. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

67. Watad A, De Marco G, Mahajna H, et al. Immune-mediated disease flares or new-onset disease in 27 subjects following mRNA/DNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Vaccines (Basel). Apr29, 2021;9(5). doi: 10.3390/vaccines9050435. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

68. Teijaro JR, Farber DL. COVID-19 vaccines: modes of immune activation and future challenges. Nat Rev Immunol. Apr, 2021;21(4):195–197. doi: 10.1038/s41577-021-00526-x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

69. Rodero MP, Crow YJ. Type I interferon-mediated monogenic autoinflammation: the type I interferonopathies, a conceptual overview. J Exp Med. Nov14, 2016;213(12):2527–2538. doi: 10.1084/jem.20161596. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

70. Leibowitz JA, Woods AT, Kesselman MM, Mayi BS. Uveitis as a predictor of predisposition to autoimmunity. Cureus. Mar28, 2020;12(3):e7451. doi: 10.7759/cureus.7451. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

71. Mailand MT, Frederiksen JL. Vaccines and multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. J Neurol. Jun, 2017;264(6):1035–1050. doi: 10.1007/s00415-016-8263-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease After the COVID-19 Vaccination

Authors: Anıl Kuvandık, Ecenur Özcan, Simay Serin Hülya Sungurtekin Turk J Intensive Care
DOI: 10.4274/tybd.galenos.2021.91885

ABSTRACT

Reports of neurological problems are increasing for the clinical presentation of COVID19. The clinical presentation reported in this study seemed to be a combination of nonspecific complications of the systemic disease, inflammation of the cerebrovascular system, and the effects of a direct viral infection. Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, a spongiform encephalopathy caused by prions, is characterized by a severe neurological destruction, which has an extremely high mortality. In this publication, we presented a patient who was admitted to the Pamukkale University Anesthesiology Intensive Care Units with the neurological findings that developed after the COVID-19 vaccine (CoronaVac, Sinovac Life Sciences, Beijing, China). The patient died due to he progressive neurological disorders. In cases where rapidly progressive neurological disorders are observed, Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease should be considered and the role of immunity-related conditions in the progression of the disease should be investigated.

Introduction
Neurological effects from COVID-19 infections are now documented in scientific studies.(1) Neurological manifestations may be related such as direct effects of the virus on the nervous system, para-post-infectious immune mediated disease, and neurologic complications of the
systemic effects of COVID-19.(2)Unvaccinated individuals are at higher risk of serious illness
from COVID-19 infection, which can cause temporary or long term neurological effects in some patients. Autoimmunity and the opposing condition, metabolic syndrome, are well known adverse events caused by vaccines.(3) COVID-19infections are related to the induction of auto-antibodies and autoimmune disease which makes it more than reasonable a vaccine can do the same. There is no evidence that theCOVID-19 vaccines lead to neurodegenerative diseases as
far as we know. In this case report, a patient who was diagnosed with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) after Covid-19 vaccine was examined.
Case Report
A 82-year-old female patient with a known diagnosis of hypertension and dementia started to have tremors and weakness on the right side of her body. The patient’s findings emerged one day after the first dose of COVID-19 CoronaVac vaccine was administered. She admitted to the hospital with the addition of symptoms such as regression in her state of consciousness, inability to recognize the people

Discussion
COVID-19 is an unprecedented threat that is straining health system capacities around the world. Neurological symptoms develop in 17.3% to 36.4% of patients in the acute phase of the disease, and 25% of these are caused by central nervous system involvement. Central nervous system involvement is mostly seen as viral meningitis or encephalitis. The most common neurological symptoms are headache, dizziness and changes in consciousness.(4)Possible mechanisms in the neurological involvement of COVID-19; viral encephalitis, systemic inflammation, dysfunction of peripheral organs and cerebrovascular changes. These mechanisms enhance neurological symptoms by aggravating a pre-existing neurological disorder or initiating a new disease.(5) In COVID-19, there is an increase in cytokines and inflammatory mediators resulting from systemic inflammation. Systemic inflammation, on the other hand, supports cognitive decline and neurodegenerative diseases.(6) Authors(7) found prion related sequences in the COVID-19 spike protein which were not found in related coronaviruses. It was also reported a case of prion disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, initially occurring in a man with COVID-19.(1)Vaccination is an effective strategy to reduce the burden of preventable diseases. However, many clinical studies have revealed that various vaccines may be associated with different neurological disorders and autoimmune pathologies. Although some studies show that neurological disorders that develop after vaccination may not be related to the vaccine, these results may be coincidental.(8) In addition, reporting of post-vaccine-related adverse events may increase the hesitation of the public about vaccination and support vaccination opposition. No article has been found in the literature about the Covid-19 vaccines causing encephalitis. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is a very rare, rapidly progressing, contagious neurodegenerative disease with a mortality rate of 100% caused by prion proteins. Although CJD is generally sporadic, it can occur in 10% of cases with familial autosomal dominant inheritance.(9) The neuron losses in the gray matter and the many vacuoles in the central nervous system are responsible for the classic sponge-like appearance of the brain and the emergence of specific clinical symptoms in CJD. This infectious disease with fatal consequences is of particular importance as it can be iatrogenically transmitted to healthcare personnel and other patients.(10)Sporadic CJD usually begins with nonspecific symptoms in older ages. Often there are personality disorders, depression, sleep disorders and weight loss. Behavioral problems and cognitive dysfunction are important symptoms. Brain biopsy is the gold standard in diagnosis. Since surgery is risky and samples cannot be taken from the affected area all the time, brain biopsy can be performed in uncertain diagnoses after all non-invasive diagnostic methods are performed.(11) Checking 14-3-3 protein and tau protein in CSF is important in the diagnosis of sporadic CJD. These proteins are markers of neuronal destruction and their concentration increases in the later stages of the disease. In the absence of clinical signs, the 14-3-3 protein has no value and is not specific for CJD. Real-time quaking-induced conversion (RT-QuIC) test is an examination that detects the abnormal scrapie form of the prion protein (PrPsc) and provides a definitive diagnosis.(12) It was used The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) criteria for CJD diagnosis in our case.(13) Our patient had neurological symptoms and cognitive dysfunction. CSF examination was positive for 14-3-3 protein. We did not have the opportunity to do the RT-QuIC test. Periodic sharp wave complexes (PSWC) in EEG are found in 2/3 of patients with sporadic CJD and are among the diagnostic criteria.(13) The spikes on the EEG are independent of typical signs of myoclonic seizures and are associated with the fusion of dendritic membranes in neurons. Although PSWCs are initially lateralized, they are seen in bilateral frontal localization in progressive disease.(14) In our case, mixed and slow sharp waves observe in EEG were not lateralized. In MRI, the high intensity signal pattern in T2 / FLAIR sequences is compatible with astrogliosis and hyperintensity in diffusion-weighted imaging with the formation of vacuoles and prion protein in the brain. MRI images correlate with symptoms and clinical findings, but hyperintensity decreases in the later stages of the disease and cortical atrophy may be the only finding. Therefore, in the absence of specific imaging findings, if CJD is considered in the differential diagnosis, attention should be paid to when the clinical findings begin.(15) In our case, cortical diffusion restriction was detected in the left parietal, occipital, temporal lobes, and right occipital lobe on MRI. Hyperintensity was observed in the same regions in FLAIR examination. The onset of acute neurological symptoms after Covid19 vaccination suggested that there might be an adverse effect related to the vaccine. Suppression of immunity after vaccination may have accelerated the emergence of prion disease or the onset of the disease may be coincidental. In order for CJD diagnosis to be associated with the vaccine, the cause-effect relationship between them must be revealed. Therefore, further studies are needed in this area.

References

  1. Young MJ, O’Hare M, MatielloM, Schmahmann JD. CreutzfeldtJakob disease in a man with
    COVID-19: SARS-CoV-2-accelerateneurodegeneration? Brain Behav Immun.
    2020;89(January):601–3.
  2. Ellul MA, Benjamin L, Singh B, Lant S,Michael BD, Easton A, et al. Neurological
    associations of COVID-19. Lancet Neurol[Internet]. 2020;19(9):767–83. Available
    from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30221-0
  3. Classen JB. Review of Vaccine Induced Immune Overload and the Resulting Epidemics of Type 1 Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome, Emphasis on Explaining the Recent Accelerations in the Risk of Prediabetes and other Immune Mediated Diseases. J Mol
    Genet Med. 2014;02(s1).
  4. Correia AO, Feitosa PWG, Moreira JL de S, Nogueira SÁR, Fonseca RB, Nobre
    MEP. Neurological manifestations ofCOVID-19 and other coronaviruses: A systematic review [Internet]. Vol.37, Neurology Psychiatry and Brain Research. Elsevier GmbH; 2020 [cited2021 May 29]. p. 27–32. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7261450/
  5. Heneka MT, Golenbock D, Latz E,Morgan D, Brown R. Immediate andlong-term consequences of COVID19 infections for the development ofneurological disease. Alzheimer’s ResTher [Internet]. 2020 Jun 4 [cited 2021May 29];12(1). Available from: /pmcarticles/PMC7271826/
  6. Widmann CN, Heneka MT. Long-termcerebral consequences of sepsis[Internet]. Vol. 13, The Lancet Neurology.Lancet Publishing Group; 2014 [cited2021 May 29]. p. 630–6. Availablefrom: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24849863/
  7. Tetz G, Tetz V. SARS-CoV-2 prion-likedomains in spike proteins enable higher
    affinity to ACE2. 2020 Mar 29 [cited 2021Jun 1]; Available from: www.preprints.org
  8. Tian M, Yang J, Li L, Li J, Lei W, Shu X.Vaccine-Associated Neurological AdverseEvents: A Case Report and LiteratureReview. Curr Pharm Des [Internet]. 2019Nov 19 [cited 2021 Apr 28];25(43):4570–
  9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31742492/
  10. Belay ED. Transmissible spongiformencephalopathies in humans [Internet].Vol. 53, AnnuRev Microbiol; 1999 [cited 2021 Apr28]. p. 283–314. Available from: https://
    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10547693/
  11. Öz Atalay F, Tolunay Ş, Özgün G, BekarA, Zarifoğlu M. Creutzfeldt-JakobHastaliği:Dört Olgunun Sunumu veLiteratürün Gözden Geçirilmesi. TurkPatoloji Derg. 2015;31(2):148–52.
  12. Manix M, Kalakoti P, Henry M, ThakurJ, Menger R, Guthikonda B, et al.Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease: Updated diagnostic criteria, treatment algorithm,
    and the utility of brain biopsy. NeurosurgFocus. 2015;39(5):1–11.
  13. Mahale RR, Javali M, Mehta A,Sharma S, Acharya P, Srinivasa R. Astudy of clinical profile, radiological and electroencephalographic characteristics of suspected creutzfeldt-jakob diseasin a tertiary care centre in south IndiaJ Neurosci Rural Pract [Internet]. 2015
    Jan 1 [cited 2021 Apr 28];6(1):39–50.Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25552850/
  14. Diagnostic Criteria | Creutzfeldt-JakobDisease, Classic (CJD) | Prion Disease| CDC [Internet]. Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention. 2018 [cited 2021May 29]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/prions/cjd/diagnostic-criteria.html
  15. Wieser HG, Schindler K, Zumsteg D. EEGin Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease [Internet].Vol. 117, Clinical Neurophysiology. ClinNeurophysiol; 2006 [cited 2021 Apr28]. p. 935–51. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16442343/
  16. Na DL, Suh CK, Choi SH, Moon HS, SeoDW, Kim SE, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in probable Creutzfeldt- Jakob disease: A clinical anatomic correlation. Arch Neurol[Internet]. 1999 Aug [cited 2021 Apr28];56(8):951–7. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/104488




It’s Really True: They Know they are Killing the Babies

Authors: Dr Naomi Wolf Posted June 6, 2022 1,501963

Pfizer Documents Research Volunteers, a group of 3000 highly credentialled doctors, RNs, biostatisticians, medical fraud investigators, lab clinicians and research scientists, have been turning out report after report, as you may know, to tell the world what is in the 55,000 internal Pfizer documents which the FDA had asked a court to keep under wraps for 75 years. By court order, these documents were forcibly disclosed. And our experts are serving humanity by reading through these documents and explaining them in lay terms. You can find all of the Volunteers’ reports on DailyClout.io.

The lies revealed are stunning.

Volunteers have confirmed: that Pfizer (and thus the FDA) knew by December 2020 that the MRNA vaccines did not work — that they “waned in efficacy” and presented “vaccine failure.” One side effect of getting vaccinated, as they knew by one month after the mass 2020 rollout, was “COVID.”

Pfizer knew in May of 2021 that 35 minors’ hearts had been damaged a week after MRNA injection — but the FDA rolled out the EUA for teens a month later anyway, and parents did not get a press release from the US government about heart harms til August of 2021, after thousands of teens were vaccinated. [https://dailyclout.io/pfizer-vaccine-fda-fails-to-mention-risk-of-heart-damage-in-teens/]

Pfizer (and thus the FDA; many of the documents say “FDA: CONFIDENTIAL” at the lower boundary) knew that, contrary to what the highly paid spokesmodels and bought-off physicians were assuring people, the MRNA, spike protein and lipid nanoparticles did not stay in the injection site in the deltoid, but rather went, within 48 hours, into the bloodstream, from there to lodge in the liver, spleen, adrenals, lymph nodes, and, if you are a woman, in the ovaries. [https://dailyclout.io/internal-pfizer-documents-prove-knowledge-that-lipid-nanoparticles-in-mice-subjects-do-not-remain-in-muscle-but-were-shown-to-be-rapidly-distributed-in-the-blood-to-the-liver/]

Pfizer (and thus the FDA) knew that the Moderna vaccine had 100 mcg of MRNA, lipid nanoparticles and spike protein, which was more than three times the 30 mcg of the adult Pfizer dose; the company’s internal documents show a higher rate of adverse events with the 100 mcg dose, so they stopped experimenting with that amount internally due to its “reactogenicity” — Pfizer’s words — but no one told all of the millions of Americans who all got the first and second 100 mcg Moderna dose, and the boosters.

Pfizer skewed the trial subjects so that almost three quarters were female — a gender that is less prone to cardiac damage. Pfizer lost the records of what became of hundreds of their trial subjects.

In the internal trials, there were over 42,000 adverse events and more than 1200 people died. Four of the people who died, died on the day they were injected.

Adverse events tallied up in the internal Pfizer documents are completely different from those reported on the CDC website or announced by corrupted physicians and medical organizations and hospitals. These include vast columns of joint pain, muscle pain (myalgia), masses of neurological effects include MS, Guillain Barre and Bell’s Palsy, encephaly, every iteration possible of blood clotting, thrombocytopenia at scale, strokes, hemorrhages, and many kinds of ruptures of membranes throughout the human body. The side effects about which Pfizer and the FDA knew but you did not, include blistering problems, rashes, shingles, and herpetic conditions (indeed, a range of blistering conditions oddly foreshadowing the symptoms of monkeypox).

The internal documents show that Pfizer (and thus the FDA) knew that angry red welts or hives were a common reaction to the PEG, a petroleum-derived allergen in the vaccine ingredients — one that you are certainly not supposed to ingest. Indeed, PEG is an allergen so severe that many people can go into anaphylactic shock if they are exposed to it. But people with a PEG allergy were not warned away from the vaccines or even carefully watched by their doctors, EpiPen in hand. They were left to their shock.

Pfizer knew that “exposure” to the vaccine was defined — in their own words – as sexual contact (especially at time of conception), skin contact, inhalation or lactation. [https://dailyclout.io/vaccine-shedding-can-this-be-real-after-all/]. ‘Fact-checkers’ can deny this all they want. The documents speak for themselves.

Of course, people who have tried to raise any of these issues have been deplatformed, scolded by the President, called insane, and roundly punished.

Athletes and college students and teenagers are collapsing on football and soccer fields. Doctors wring their hands and express mystification. But BioNTech’s SEC filing shows a fact about which the CDC and the AMA breathe not a word: fainting so violently that you may hurt yourself is one of the side effects important enough for BioNTech to highlight to the SEC.

Exclusive: Pilots Injured by COVID Vaccines Speak Out: ‘I Will Probably Never Fly Again’

Authors: MICHAEL NEVRADAKIS  MAY 8, 2022 The Epoch Times Originally Published Children’s Defense Fund

In interviews with The Defender, pilots injured by COVID-19 vaccines said despite a “culture of fear and intimidation” they are compelled to speak out against vaccine mandates that rob pilots of their careers — and in some cases their lives.

As a commercial pilot, Bob Snow had long looked forward to seeing his daughter follow in his footsteps by helping her learn to fly an airplane.

However, having received the COVID-19 vaccine “under duress,” this dream is no longer a possibility for Snow.

“I will probably never fly again,” Snow said in a video he made about his story. “I was hoping to teach my daughter to fly. She wants to be a pilot. That will probably never happen, all courtesy of the vaccine.”

Snow is one of a growing number of pilots coming forward to share stories of injuries they experienced after getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

Some of these accounts are “hair-raising and deeply disturbing,” according to Maureen Steele, a paralegal and head of media relations for the John Pierce Law Firm.

The firm represents U.S. Freedom Flyers (USFF), an organization opposing vaccine and mask mandates for pilots and airline staff, in a series of legal actions against the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and several airlines.

Josh Yoder, a pilot with a major commercial airline, Army combat veteran and former flight medic, is a co-founder of USFF.

In a recent interview with The Defender, Yoder said the FAA has been aware of cases of pilots suffering vaccine injuries since at least December 2021, when the California-based Advocates for Citizens’ Rights hand-delivered an open letter to the FAA, major airlines and their insurers.

Yoder said USFF “has received hundreds of phone calls from airline employees who are experiencing adverse reactions post COVID-19 vaccination,” describing the stories as “heartbreaking.”

According to Yoder, the warnings contained in the letter, including testimony by “world-renowned experts,” were “completely ignored,” adding that “we are now beginning to see the consequences.”

This is leading an increasing number of pilots to “come forward to expose the truth regarding these toxic injections,” Yoder said.

The Defender recently reported on a series of reports that have been submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, involving pilots who sustained severe injuries and side effects following the COVID-19 vaccine.

Congressional testimony from Cody Flint, an agricultural pilot who has logged more than 10,000 flight hours, was included in this letter.

“The FAA has created a powder keg and lit the fuse,” Flint said in an interview with The Defender.

“We are now seeing pilots experiencing blood clots, myocarditis, pericarditis, dizziness and confusion at rates never seen before. Pilots are losing their careers and having to call in sick or go on medical leave from medical issues developing almost immediately after vaccination.”

Vaccine-Injured Pilots Share Stories With the Defender

Several pilots, including Bob Snow, shared their stories with The Defender in a recent series of interviews.

Snow, a captain with a major U.S. airline, told The Defender he received the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine on Nov. 4, 2021, “as a result of an unambivalent company mandate to receive the vaccine or be terminated.”

According to Snow, he “began experiencing issues a little over two months” after receiving the vaccine. Due to a history of gastroenteritis, he underwent an endoscopy and an abdominal CT scan.

The results of the endoscopy were normal and Snow was awaiting the results of the CT scan when he suffered cardiac arrest on April 9, immediately after landing at Dallas-Forth Worth International Airport.

As Snow described it:

“I was very lucky to have collapsed when and where I did, as the aircraft was shut down at the gate post-flight and care was immediately provided.

“There was absolutely no warning preceding my collapse in the cockpit. It was literally as if someone ‘pulled the plug.’”

After receiving CPR and AED (automated external defibrillator) shocks to be revived, Snow spent almost a week in the hospital, where he was diagnosed with having sustained sudden cardiac arrest (SCA).

Medical studies indicate survival rates for out-of-hospital SCA cases are estimated at 10.8% to 11.4%.

Snow said:

“Needless to say, that’s not an encouraging number and I feel very, very lucky to have survived.

“Had this happened in a hotel, in flight, at home or almost anywhere else, I do not believe I would be here right now.”

Snow said prior to this incident, he had “no history of prior significant cardiac issues,” based on two EKGs (electrocardiograms) per year for each of the previous 10 years — none of which, according to Snow, “provided any indication of incipient issues that might lead to cardiac arrest.”

“I have no known family history to indicate a predisposition to developing significant cardiac issues at this point in my life,” Snow added.

Snow has been recuperating at home since April 15, while awaiting more tests that will provide a prognosis for his long-term survival.

However, it is likely that he will never fly again in any capacity.

Snow said, “[f]or now, it appears my flying career — indeed, likely all flying as a pilot —  has come to a rapid and unexpected conclusion as SCA is a red flag to FAA medical certification.”

This, according to Snow, has resulted “in a significant loss of income and lifestyle,” adding that he has a college student and high school student at home and a non-working spouse who relied on his livelihood.

‘Last Thing I Remember Is . . . Praying I Would Make It’

Like Snow, Cody Flint had no prior medical history to indicate he was at risk.

“I have been extremely healthy my whole life with no underlying conditions,” said Flint, adding:

“As a pilot that held a second-class medical [certification], I was required to get a yearly FAA flight physical to show I was healthy enough to safely operate an airplane.

“I have renewed my medical every year since I was 17. The last FAA medical I received was on January 19, 2021. The medical showed I was perfectly healthy just 10 days before receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.”

Flint got his first (and only) dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine on Feb. 1, 2021. He told The Defender:

“Within 30 minutes, I developed a severe burning headache at the base of my skull and blurred vision. After a few hours, the pain was constant, but didn’t seem to be getting worse. I thought the pain would go away, eventually. It did not.”

Two days later began his seasonal job as an agricultural pilot, which typically runs from February to October of each year, Flint said.

He said:

“Approximately one hour into my flight, I felt my condition starting to rapidly decline and I was developing severe tunnel vision. I pulled my airplane up to turn around to head home and immediately felt an extreme burst of pressure in my skull and ears.”

Flint initially considered landing on a nearby highway, unsure he’d make it back to the airstrip, but chose not to so as not to put the public in danger.

Instead, according to Flint:

“The last thing I remember is seeing our airstrip from a few miles out and praying I would make it.

“Later, my coworkers told me I landed and immediately stopped my plane. They described me as being unresponsive, shaking and slumped over in my seat … I do not remember landing or being pulled from the plane.”

Flint said various doctors, including his longtime hometown doctor, refused to consider that his recent COVID-19 vaccination caused his symptoms. Instead, he was prescribed Meclizine for vertigo and Xanax for panic attacks.

According to Flint, doctors told him he would be “completely better within two days.” But two days later, Flint “could barely walk without falling over.”

Seeking a second opinion, Flint visited the Ear & Balance Institute in Louisiana, where he was diagnosed with left and right perilymphatic fistulas (a lesion in the inner ear), and highly elevated intracranial pressure due to swelling in his brainstem.

As Flint described it, “[m]y intracranial pressure had risen so high that it caused both of my inner ears to ‘blow out.’” Doctors told him this is usually caused by major head trauma.

“Obviously, I did not have head trauma,” said Flint. “What I did have, though, was an unapproved and experimental ‘vaccine’ just two days prior to suffering this bodily damage.”

“My doctors [at the Ear & Balance Institute] clearly stated my health issues were a direct result of a severe adverse reaction to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine,” he added.

Flint says he now cannot receive renewed medical certification from the FAA due to the injuries he sustained, the physical condition he is currently in and “the fact that I will be on the FAA-unapproved medicine Diamox for the foreseeable future.”

Like Snow, Flint believes “it is … highly unlikely that I’ll ever be able to fly again,” adding, “On most days, I am too dizzy to even safely drive a vehicle.”

Greg Pierson, like Snow and Flint, shared a similar story. A commercial pilot with a major U.S. airline that is also a federal contractor, he was mandated to get vaccinated.

Pierson told The Defender:

“I felt extremely pressured to consider getting vaccinated, even though I am adamant against any mandates that violate personal freedom choices.

“I did research and consulted several medical professionals regarding the associated risks.

“I have never had a flu shot in my lifetime, so this was not something I wanted to do. I reluctantly received the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine on August 26, 2021.”

For Pierson, the onset of symptoms was almost immediate, beginning “approximately 14 hours” after receiving the vaccine, when he experienced “an extremely erratic and highly elevated heart rate.”

Pierson visited a local emergency room, where he was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation. His condition was stabilized and he was soon discharged, though he remained on medication to help his heart return to a normal rhythm.

While Pierson says he has not experienced any further episodes, he nevertheless still has not been cleared to return to the cockpit.

“I successfully passed all the required protocols to re-obtain my certification that will allow me to return to work,” he said, adding the FAA has had his records and test results since Feb. 16, but he still hasn’t received a determination.

“I have been on disability since this occurrence, and combined with the leave, the personal and financial impacts have been significant,” Pierson said.

Pierson also described a similar experience to that of Flint, regarding the attitudes of some medical professionals regarding the possibility that his condition was brought on by the COVID-19 vaccine.

“When I brought the subject up to the ER cardiologist, that it was obvious what triggered my onset, she simply stated ‘s*it happens,’” Pierson said.

Widow Describes Husband’s Last Days

Snow, Flint and Pierson are fortunate in that they have managed to survive, even if their flying careers are in jeopardy.

But other pilots have not been so lucky.

American Airlines pilot Wilburn Wolfe suffered a major seizure following his COVID-19 vaccination, which cost him his life. Fortunately, Wolfe was not on duty when his seizure hit.

Claudia Wolfe, his widow, shared her late husband’s story with The Defender.

Wolfe, a former Marine just a few years from retirement, “was definitely against getting this vaccine but was put in the position to take it or lose his job as a captain,” Claudia Wolfe said.

He received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine on Nov. 9, 2021.

Claudia Wolfe told The Defender:

“[The] first 10 days were without any event … [on] day 11, it started with a migraine-like headache which got better that afternoon after taking a couple of aspirin.

“Unfortunately, the migraine came back and he was hoping that it’s nothing else but a migraine.

“On November 22, 13 days after the COVID vaccine, he had a seizure. When paramedics arrived and my husband came out of the seizure, he was paralyzed on his right side, arm and leg, and was taken to the emergency room.”

At the emergency room, a CT scan showed he was experiencing brain bleeding, and he was admitted into intensive care. There, according to Claudia Wolfe, “he continued to have convulsions on his right hand … shortly after he was admitted, he had another seizure and doctors decided to sedate him and put him on a ventilator.”

“That was the last time I talked to my husband, before the seizure in the ICU,” Claudia Wolfe said.

Wolfe never regained consciousness and died on Nov. 26, 2021 — only 17 days after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Even if he had survived, he likely would not have been able to work as a pilot again.

As Claudia Wolfe explained:

“Doctors told me that he couldn’t work as a pilot anymore because he would have to be on seizure medication.

“But as the bleeding continued to spread I was told that he probably would not recognize me or his family and he probably would need a 24-hour facility to help him.

“This man was so strong and never needed a doctor, he was never sick enough to need one, and [he] just had a physical a couple months prior for his job as a pilot.”

Pilots Describe Culture of Fear and Reluctance to Come Forward

Pilots who spoke to The Defender described a culture of intimidation that has led to many of their colleagues fearing professional or personal consequences if they speak publicly about injuries following COVID-19 vaccination.

According to Yoder, “Many pilots and other airline employees capitulated to the tactics of threats, harassment and intimidation perpetrated by the very companies they serve.”

Yoder described airlines, as well as aviation industry unions, as “state actors” illegally “working in lockstep with the U.S. government” to “enforce unconstitutional mandates via a culture of fear.”

Snow told The Defender several of his colleagues shared stories of vaccine injuries with him:

“Since my SCA I have heard from several other airline personnel regarding potential vaccine injuries up to and including cardiac issues (chest pain and myocarditis).

“Many crewmembers are very reluctant to divulge potential significant health issues for fear of losing their FAA medical certification and, potentially, their careers.”

According to Snow, such fear exists “due to both concern for one’s career and also the fear of being portrayed as a vaccine skeptic.”

“There seems to be genuine reluctance on the part of corporations, businesses, government and the medical community in general to acknowledge the potential for COVID vaccine injury,” Snow said.

Claudia Wolfe also shared her experience, stating that following her husband’s death, she learned “of others that died after the COVID vaccine,” adding that “not many talk about it or believe this vaccine can harm or kill you.”

Pierson also expressed concerns, telling The Defender, “Some things I have stated publicly could have consequences in this regard.”

This culture of intimidation appears to extend beyond just accusations of being a “vaccine skeptic.”

Steele described incidents of airline employees’ non-work and online activities seemingly being monitored by their employers, who are then using this as a justification to question or harass those employees.

“I believe the airlines have people on staff that must be trolling the social media of employees and when they find a conservative, or someone they believe to be, they attack,” Steele said.

Steele said female employees appear to be particular targets of the airlines, as they “appear to be isolated and intimidated for hours on end.”

Flint connected incidents such as those described above to political interests, telling The Defender the FAA approved COVID-19 vaccines for pilots just two days after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its first Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for such vaccines, on Dec. 10, 2020.

“I thought to myself, how could the FAA analyze the data and determine it was safe for pilots in just two days, when it took the FDA months to go over the trial data?” Flint said.

Flint said that was an especially jarring development, in light of the increased risk that pilots and cabin crew face:

“I was also extremely curious to know how the FAA is so certain that this vaccine will be safe for pilots when it’s obvious that Pfizer did not do a trial solely on pilots to find out if it would cause some of the serious health problems that immediately started to show up once the mass vaccination campaign [began].”

In the process, Flint stated, the FAA violated its own regulations.

Under the Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners: Pharmaceuticals (Therapeutic Medications) Do Not Issue – Do Not Fly, the FAA has a long-standing rule that states:

“FAA requires at least one year of post-marketing experience with a new drug before consideration for aeromedical certification purposes. This observation allows time for uncommon, but aeromedically significant, adverse reactions to manifest themselves.”

Flint said it “became painfully obvious” the FAA issued this guidance based not on science or safety, but political reasons.

“Why did the FAA abandon its own rules by encouraging pilots to take a brand-new experimental drug?” Flint asked. “This action by the FAA was totally unprecedented and extremely dangerous.”

Providing an example of such danger, Flint said, “it is now widely reported that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can cause blood clots,” adding that several peer-reviewed studies going back more than a decade “show pilots are approximately 60% more likely to experience blood clots due to the ‘nature of the job.’”

Supporting this assertion, on May 5, the FDA announced that it would restrict who could receive doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, due to the risk of blood clots.

Pierson also believes politics are at play in the medical community, telling The Defender even his longtime doctor told the FAA, in paperwork aimed at restoring Pierson’s suspended medical certification, that “it is impossible for the vaccine to have caused” his condition, though “he could not provide any explanation for an alternative hypothesis” — a stance Pierson characterized as “medical malpractice.”

Such politics are also found in professional organizations within the aviation industry, according to Pierson, who described his experience with one such entity:

“I approached the medical division of ALPA, the Air Line Pilots Association, to which I am a member, and presented them with data to substantiate my concerns.

“It was initially seemingly a concerned, open dialogue, which quickly was dismissed at the highest levels.”

Legal Actions to Follow Against the FAA, Federal Agencies, Airlines

The USFF, according to Yoder, is currently pursuing several legal actions related to the vaccine injuries that pilots and air staff are increasingly reporting.

He told The Defender:

“The U.S. Freedom Flyers have always taken a strong stance against the threats of government and corporate totalitarianism.

“We are filing massive, individual plaintiff lawsuits against the FAA, DOT [U.S. Department of Transportation] and commercial airlines to hold them accountable for the criminal and civil atrocities they’ve committed against our members.

“We will not rest until justice is served and constitutional American freedom is restored.”

Steele added:

“We are teeing up lawsuits for all the major airlines, with thousands of potential plaintiffs on our plaintiff lists.

“We also are going to be holding the FAA and the [U.S. Department of Transportation] accountable for their part in this atrocity.”

Steele said USFF “will be seeking retribution and restitution for these crimes against humanity,” mirroring remarks made by Pierson, who described the actions taken in the name of the pandemic as “nothing short of the highest crimes against humanity ever.”

According to Steele, unions are, in part, responsible for the injuries being sustained by pilots and other employees, as a result of their acceptance of vaccine mandates.

“Unfortunately the unions — from all industries — have let their members down,” Steele told The Defender. “They simply are rolling over and are in bed with the state and the corporations.”

Flint, in turn, assigned a significant amount of blame to the federal agencies:

“The FAA has failed at its duties in the most spectacular fashion, causing pilots to lose their lives, livelihoods and careers.

“The federal government, including the FAA, has not helped one single person injured by the COVID-19 vaccine.

“They [the federal agencies] have not publicly acknowledged there is a problem. They haven’t even so much as adjusted their ‘guidance’ to prevent this from happening in the future.”

Are Passengers at Risk From Pilot Vaccine Mandates?

When Snow suffered cardiac arrest, it occurred only a few minutes after he had landed a commercial airliner, full of passengers, at one of the most heavily trafficked airports in the U.S.

This begs the question: Are passengers — and the public at large — at risk due to potential adverse effects that may impact vaccinated pilots during flight?

According to Pierson, there is indeed a risk of a “catastrophic” incident:

“I became an outspoken critic of the vaccines after my injury, and due to becoming much more knowledgeable of all the potential health and safety risks from the vaccines.

“It became very clear to me that the implications of having an immediate, severe adverse reaction could be catastrophic if actively piloting an aircraft.”

Flint believes such a disaster may be an inevitability.

“It is only a matter of time before a pilot has a medically significant event from an adverse reaction to this [COVID-19] vaccine and crashes an airliner, killing a few hundred American citizens in the process.”

He added:

“When will the FAA finally do the right thing by trying to adhere to its own mission statement, which is ‘to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world’?

“How many more pilots have to die or be severely injured before the FAA acknowledges the horrible and dangerous problem it has created?”

In addition to the risk of a disaster involving casualties among passengers and the general public, the difficulties that pilots are experiencing as a result of vaccine-related adverse reactions are creating other disruptions for the airline industry and the flying public, such as flight cancellations and delays.

Yoder described this as a “ripple effect”:

“Vaccine mandates are having a ripple effect in the aviation industry that will continue for years to come.

“Pilot shortages were a concern pre-mandate, [and] have now been amplified due to early retirements and medical disqualification due to certain adverse vaccine reactions which prohibit pilots from maintaining medical certification.”

Pilots, Advocates Describe Importance of Speaking Out

The pilots, legal professionals and advocates who spoke to The Defender all expressed their hope that by speaking out and sharing their stories and experiences, they will make a difference.

Snow said:

“I hope to shine the spotlight on the potential for significant safety issues that exist within the airlines, commercial vehicles/transportation, and other safety-sensitive work that might be affected by [the] sudden onset of health issues that could be attributed to the COVID vaccines.

“It is in our collective best interest that real research and data analysis be undertaken to address this potentially dangerous situation.

“Why is there such a reluctance to investigate these EUA COVID vaccines which are still being aggressively marketed to, if not outright forced upon, the global public?”

Snow went on to discuss the history of unsafe drugs and therapies that had initially received FDA approval and the importance of “clinical and scientific studies to evaluate the possibility of injuries and deaths” instead of “parroting the marketing mantra ‘safe and effective.’”

Flint described the FAA’s handling of the issue as “one of the most glaring instances of incompetence and corruption I have ever witnessed,” adding that “the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine has taken nearly everything from myself and my family … my health and my career have been taken from me.”

He added that due to his inability to fly, he is facing mounting debt and unpaid taxes, with an income “20% of what it was before vaccination.”

Steele, who also organized the People’s Convoy, expressed her view that “[t]he only way to push back on the government and corporate overstep is demanding accountability … to hold these policymakers unequivocally accountable.”

She specifically referenced the importance of pursuing legal claims, telling The Defender:

“The only way to ensure it never happens again is to hit them in the pocketbook … In doing so, the awarded damages will also assist the victims of these policies that have been so grievously harmed.”

Yoder described the resistance he has observed to such private and government mandates, saying that “Americans have rallied in defiance to the totalitarian dictators dubbed ‘government,’” adding that “American patriots will never succumb to totalitarianism.”

Steele drew upon her experience with the People’s Convoy to share her own observation of wide public opposition to such mandates, while expressing a message of hope:

“My greatest takeaway and the most refreshing finding on the Convoy was that patriotism is alive and well in our great country.

“The American people have had it with the nonsense with the overstepping, with the ‘PC police,’ the degrading of morality in our country. They are simply over it and looking for actionable items that they can do.

“They want to see accountability. They want to see our country restored … It is important for people to know they are absolutely not alone. In fact, we are the majority.”

Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line

Current Issues In Molecular Biology

Authors: Markus Aldén 1 , Francisko Olofsson Falla 1 , Daowei Yang 1 , Mohammad Barghouth 1 , Cheng Luan 1 , Magnus Rasmussen 2 and Yang De Marinis 1,*

Abstract: Preclinical studies of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2, developed by Pfizer and
BioNTech, showed reversible hepatic effects in animals that received the BNT162b2 injection.
Furthermore, a recent study showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of human cells. In this study, we investigated the effect of BNT162b2 on the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. Huh7 cells were exposed to BNT162b2, and quantitative PCR was performed on RNA extracted from the cells. We detected high levels of BNT162b2 in Huh7 cells and changes in gene expression of long interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1), which is an endogenous reverse transcriptase. Immunohistochemistry using antibody binding to LINE-1 open reading frame-1 RNA-binding protein (ORFp1) on Huh7 cells treated with BNT162b2 indicated increased nucleus distribution of LINE-1. PCR on genomic DNA of Huh7 cells exposed to BNT162b2 amplified the DNA sequence unique to BNT162b2. Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.

Introduction
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome
coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was announced by the World Health Organization (WHO)
as a global pandemic on 11 March 2020, and it emerged as a devasting health crisis.
As of February 2022, COVID-19 has led to over 430 million reported infection cases and
5.9 million deaths worldwide [1]. Effective and safe vaccines are urgently needed to reduce the morbidity and mortality rates associated with COVID-19. Several vaccines for COVID-19 have been developed, with particular focus on mRNA vaccines (by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna), replication-defective recombinant adenoviral vector vaccines (by Janssen-Johnson and Johnson, Astra-Zeneca, Sputnik-V, and CanSino), and inactivated vaccines (by Sinopharm, Bharat Biotech and Sinovac). The mRNA vaccine has the advantages of being flexible and efficient in immunogen design and manufacturing, and currently, numerous vaccine candidates are in various stages of development and application. Specifically, COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 developed by Pfizer and BioNTech has been evaluated in successful clinical trials [2–4] and administered in national COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in different regions around the world [5–8]. BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine (modRNA) and encodes the full-length of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein, modified by two proline mutations to ensure antigenically optimal pre-fusion conformation, which mimics the intact virus to elicit virus-neutralizing antibodies [3]. Consistent with randomized clinical trials, BNT162b2 showed high efficiency in a wide range of COVID-19-related outcomes in a real-world setting [5]. Nevertheless, many challenges remain, including monitoring for long-term safety and efficacy of the vaccine. This warrants further evaluation and investigations. The safety profile of BNT162b2 is currently only available from short-term clinical studies. Less common adverse effects of BNT162b2 have been reported, including pericarditis, arrhythmia, deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, intracranial hemorrhage, and thrombocytopenia [4,9–20]. There are also studies that report adverse effects observed in other types of vaccines [21–24]. To better understand mechanisms underlying vaccine-related adverse effects, clinical investigations as well as cellular and molecular analyses are needed. A recent study showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of human cells [25]. This gives rise to the question of if this may also occur with BNT162b2, which encodes partial SARS-CoV-2 RNA. In pharmacokinetics data provided by Pfizer to European Medicines Agency (EMA), BNT162b2 biodistribution was studied in mice and rats by intra-muscular injection with radiolabeled LNP and luciferase modRNA. Radioactivity was detected in most tissues from the first time point (0.25 h), and results showed that the injection site and the liver were the major sites of distribution, with maximum concentrations observed at 8–48 h post-dose [26]. Furthermore, in animals that received the BNT162b2 injection, reversible hepatic effects were observed, including enlarged liver, vacuolation, increased gamma glutamyl transferase (γGT) levels, and increased levels of aspartate transaminase (AST) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) [26]. Transient hepatic effects induced by LNP delivery systems have been reported previously [27–30], nevertheless, it has also been shown that the empty LNP without modRNA alone does not introduce any significant liver injury [27]. Therefore, in this study, we aim to examine the effect of BNT162b2 on a human liver cell line in vitro and investigate if BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed into DNA through endogenous mechanisms.

Materials and Methods 2.1.

Cell Culture Huh7 cells (JCRB Cell Bank, Osaka, Japan) were cultured in 37 ◦C at 5% CO2 with DMEM medium (HyClone, HYCLSH30243.01) supplemented with 10% (v/v) fetal bovine serum (Sigma-Aldrich, F7524-500ML, Burlington, MA, USA) and 1% (v/v) PenicillinStreptomycin (HyClone, SV30010, Logan, UT, USA). For BNT162b2 treatment, Huh7 cells were seeded with a density of 200,000 cells/well in 24-well plates. BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer BioNTech, New York, NY, USA) was diluted with sterile 0.9% sodium chloride injection, USP into a final concentration of 100 µg/mL as described in the manufacturer’s guideline [31]. BNT162b2 suspension was then added in cell culture media to reach final concentrations of 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 µg/mL. Huh7 cells were incubated with or without BNT162b2 for 6, 24, and 48 h. Cells were washed thoroughly with PBS and harvested by trypsinization and stored in −80 ◦C until further use. 2.2. REAL-TIME RT-QPCR RNA from the cells was extracted with RNeasy Plus Mini Kit (Qiagen, 74134, Hilden, Germany) following the manufacturer’s protocol. RT-PCR was performed using RevertAid First Strand cDNA Synthesis kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, K1622, Waltham, MA, USA) following the manufacturers protocol. Real-time qPCR was performed using Maxima SYBR Green/ROX qPCR Master Mix (Thermo Fisher Scientific, K0222, Waltham, MA, USA) with primers for BNT162b2, LINE-1 and housekeeping genes ACTB and GAPDH (Table 1). Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2022, 44 1117 Table 1. Primer sequences of RT-qPCR and PCR. Target Sequence ACTB forward CCTCGCCTTTGCCGATCC ACTB reverse GGATCTTCATGAGGTAGTCAGTC GAPDH forward CTCTGCTCCTCCTGTTCGAC GAPDH reverse TTAAAAGCAGCCCTGGTGAC LINE-1 forward TAACCAATACAGAGAAGTGC LINE-1 reverse GATAATATCCTGCAGAGTGT BNT162b2 forward CGAGGTGGCCAAGAATCTGA BNT162b2 reverse TAGGCTAAGCGTTTTGAGCTG 2.3. Immunofluorescence Staining and Confocal Imaging Huh7 cells were cultured in eight-chamber slides (LAB-TEK, 154534, Santa Cruz, CA, USA) with a density of 40,000 cells/well, with or without BNT162b2 (0.5, 1 or 2 µg/mL) for 6 h. Immunohistochemistry was performed using primary antibody anti-LINE-1 ORF1p mouse monoclonal antibody (Merck, 3574308, Kenilworth, NJ, USA), secondary antibody Cy3 Donkey anti-mouse (Jackson ImmunoResearch, West Grove, PA, USA), and Hoechst (Life technologies, 34850, Carlsbad, CA, USA), following the protocol from Thermo Fisher (Waltham, MA, USA). Two images per condition were taken using a Zeiss LSM 800 and a 63X oil immersion objective, and the staining intensity was quantified on the individual whole cell area and the nucleus area on 15 cells per image by ImageJ 1.53c. LINE-1 staining intensity for the cytosol was calculated by subtracting the intensity of the nucleus from that of the whole cell. All images of the cells were assigned a random number to prevent bias. To mark the nuclei (determined by the Hoechst staining) and the whole cells (determined by the borders of the LINE-1 fluorescence), the Freehand selection tool was used. These areas were then measured, and the mean intensity was used to compare the groups. 2.4. Genomic DNA Purification, PCR Amplification, Agarose Gel Purification, and Sanger Sequencing Genomic DNA was extracted from cell pellets with PBND buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.3, 50 mM KCl, 2.5 mM MgCl2, 0.45% NP-40, 0.45% Tween-20) according to protocol described previously [32]. To remove residual RNA from the DNA preparation, RNase (100 µg/mL, Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) was added to the DNA preparation and incubated at 37 ◦C for 3 h, followed by 5 min at 95 ◦C. PCR was then performed using primers targeting BNT162b2 (sequences are shown in Table 1), with the following program: 5 min at 95 ◦C, 35 cycles of 95 ◦C for 30 s, 58 ◦C for 30 s, and 72 ◦C for 1 min; finally, 72 ◦C for 5 min and 12 ◦C for 5 min. PCR products were run on 1.4% (w/v) agarose gel. Bands corresponding to the amplicons of the expected size (444 bps) were cut out and DNA was extracted using QIAquick PCR Purification Kit (Qiagen, 28104, Hilden, Germany), following the manufacturer’s instructions. The sequence of the DNA amplicon was verified by Sanger sequencing (Eurofins Genomics, Ebersberg, Germany). Statistics Statistical comparisons were performed using two-tailed Student’s t-test and ANOVA. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM or ± SD. Differences with p < 0.05 are considered significant. 2.5. Ethical Statements The Huh7 cell line was obtained from Japanese Collection of Research Bioresources (JCRB) Cell Bank.

Results

BNT162b2 Enters Human Liver Cell Line Huh7 Cells at High Efficiency
To determine if BNT162b2 enters human liver cells, we exposed human liver cell
line Huh7 to BNT162b2. In a previous study on the uptake kinetics of LNP delivery in
Huh7 cells, the maximum biological efficacy of LNP was observed between 4–7 h [33].
Therefore, in our study, Huh7 cells were cultured with or without increasing concentrations
of BNT162b2 (0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 µg/mL) for 6, 24, and 48 h. RNA was extracted from cells
and a real-time quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR)
was performed using primers targeting the BNT162b2 sequence, as illustrated in Figure 1.
The full sequence of BNT162b2 is publicly available [34] and contains a two-nucleotides cap;
50 untranslated region (UTR) that incorporates the 50-UTR of a human α-globin gene; the
full-length of SARS-CoV-2 S protein with two proline mutations; 30-UTR that incorporates
the human mitochondrial 12S rRNA (mtRNR1) segment and human AES/TLE5 gene segment with two C→U mutations; poly(A) tail. Detailed analysis of the S protein sequence in BNT162b2 revealed 124 sequences that are 100% identical to human genomic sequences and three sequences with only one nucleotide (nt) mismatch in 19–26 nts (Table S1, see Supplementary Materials). To detect BNT162b2 RNA level, we designed primers with forward primer located in SARS-CoV-2 S protein regions and reverse primer in 30-UTR,which allows detection of PCR amplicon unique to BNT162b2 without unspecific binding of the primers to human genomic regions.

Discussion
In this study we present evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able
to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed
intracellularly into DNA as fast as 6 h after BNT162b2 exposure. A possible mechanism for reverse transcription is through endogenous reverse transcriptase LINE-1, and the nucleus protein distribution of LINE-1 is elevated by BNT162b2. Intracellular accumulation of LNP in hepatocytes has been demonstrated in vivo [36]. A preclinical study on BNT162b2 showed that BNT162b2 enters the human cell line HEK293T cells and leads to robust expression of BNT162b2 antigen [37]. Therefore, in this study, we first investigated the entry of BNT162b2 in the human liver cell line Huh7 cells. The choice of BNT162b2 concentrations used in this study warrants explanation. BNT162b2 is administered as a series of two doses three weeks apart, and each dose contains 30 µg of BNT162b2 in a volume of 0.3 mL, which makes the local concentration at the injection site at the highest 100 µg/mL [31]. A previous study on mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses using a similar LNP delivery system showed that the mRNA vaccine can distribute rather nonspecifically to several organs such as liver, spleen, heart, kidney, lung, and brain, and the concentration in the liver is roughly 100 times lower than that of the intra-muscular injection site [38]. In the assessment report on BNT162b2 provided to EMA by Pfizer, the pharmacokinetic distribution studies in rats demonstrated that a relatively large proportion (up to 18%) of the total dose distributes to the liver [26]. We therefore chose to use 0.5, 1, and 2 µg/mL of vaccine in our experiments on the liver cells. However, the effect of a broader range of lower and higher concentrations of BNT162b2 should also be verified in future studies. In the current study, we employed a human liver cell line for in vitro investigation. It is worth investigating if the liver cells also present the vaccine-derived SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which could potentially make the liver cells targets for previously primed spike protein reactive cytotoxic T cells. There has been case reports on individuals who developed autoimmune hepatitis [39] after BNT162b2 vaccination. To obtain better under-standing of the potential effects of BNT162b2 on liver function, in vivo models are desired for future studies. In the BNT162b2 toxicity report, no genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided [26]. Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects. At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination. Human autonomous retrotransposon LINE-1 is a cellular endogenous reverse transcriptase and the only remaining active transposon in humans, able to retrotranspose itself and other nonautonomous elements [40,41], and ~17% of the human genome are comprised of LINE-1 sequences [42]. The nonautonomous Alu elements, short, interspersed nucleotide elements (SINEs), variable-number-of-tandem-repeats (VNTR), as well as cellular mRNA-processed pseudogenes, are retrotransposed by the LINE-1 retrotransposition proteins working in trans [43,44]. A recent study showed that endogenous LINE-1 mediates reverse transcription and integration of SARS-CoV-2 sequences in the genomes of infected human cells [25]. Further-more, expression of endogenous LINE-1 is often increased upon viral infection, including SARS-CoV-2 infection [45–47]. Previous studies showed that LINE-1 retrotransposition activity is regulated by RNA metabolism [48,49], DNA damage response [50], and autophagy [51]. Efficient retro-transposition of LINE-1 is often associated with cell cycle and nuclear envelope breakdown during mitosis [52,53], as well as exogenous retroviruses [54,55], which promotes entrance of LINE-1 into the nucleus. In our study, we observed increased LINE-1 ORF1p distribution as determined by immunohistochemistry in the nucleus by BNT162b2 at all concentrations tested (0.5, 1, and 2 µg/mL), while elevated LINE-1 gene expression was detected at the highest BNT162b2 concentration (2 µg/mL). It is worth noting that gene transcription is regulated by chromatin modifications, transcription factor regulation, and the rate of RNA degradation, while translational regulation of protein involves ribosome recruitment on the initiation codon, modulation of peptide elongation, termination of protein synthesis, or ribosome biogenesis. These two processes are controlled by different mechanisms, and therefore they may not always show the same change patterns in response to external challenges. The exact regulation of LINE-1 activity in response to BNT162b2 merits further study. The cell model that we used in this study is a carcinoma cell line, with active DNA replication which differs from non-dividing somatic cells. It has also been shown that Huh7 cells display significant different gene and protein expression including upregulated proteins involved in RNA metabolism [56]. However, cell proliferation is also active in several human tissues such as the bone marrow or basal layers of epithelia as well as during embryogenesis, and it is therefore necessary to examine the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity under such conditions. Furthermore, effective retrotransposition of LINE-1 has also been reported in non-dividing and terminally differentiated cells, such as human neurons [57,58]. The Pfizer EMA assessment report also showed that BNT162b2 distributes in the spleen (<1.1%), adrenal glands (<0.1%), as well as low and measurable radioactivity in the ovaries and testes (<0.1%) [26]. Furthermore, no data on placental transfer of BNT162b2 is available from Pfizer EMA assessment report. Our results showed that BNT162b2 mRNA readily enters Huh7 cells at a concentration (0.5 µg/mL) corresponding to 0.5% of the local injection site concentration, induce changes in LINE-1 gene and protein expression, and within 6 h, reverse transcription of BNT162b2 can be detected. It is therefore important to investigate further the effect of BNT162b2 on other cell types and tissues both in vitro and in vivo. 5. Conclusions Our study is the first in vitro study on the effect of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 on human liver cell line. We present evidence on fast entry of BNT162b2 into the cells and subsequent intracellular reverse transcription of BNT162b2 mRNA into DNA.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https: //www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cimb44030073/s1.

Author Contributions: M.A., F.O.F., D.Y., M.B. and C.L. performed in vitro experiments. M.A. and F.O.F. performed data analysis. M.R. and Y.D.M. contributed to the implementation of the research, designed, and supervised the study. Y.D.M. wrote the paper with input from all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Strategic Research Area Exodiab, Dnr 2009-1039, the Swedish Government Fund for Clinical Research (ALF) and the foundation of Skåne University Hospital. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and supporting information.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Sven Haidl, Maria Josephson, Enming Zhang, Jia-Yi Li, Caroline Haikal, and Pradeep Bompada for their support to this study

References

  1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Available online: https://covid19.who.int/ (accessed on
    22 February 2022).
  2. Mulligan, M.J.; Lyke, K.E.; Kitchin, N.; Absalon, J.; Gurtman, A.; Lockhart, S.; Neuzil, K.; Raabe, V.; Bailey, R.; Swanson, K.A.; et al.
    Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults. Nature 2020, 586, 589–593. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Walsh, E.E.; Frenck, R.W., Jr.; Falsey, A.R.; Kitchin, N.; Absalon, J.; Gurtman, A.; Lockhart, S.; Neuzil, K.; Mulligan, M.J.;
    Bailey, R.; et al. Safety and Immunogenicity of Two RNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383,
    2439–2450. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Polack, F.P.; Thomas, S.J.; Kitchin, N.; Absalon, J.; Gurtman, A.; Lockhart, S.; Perez, J.L.; Perez Marc, G.; Moreira, E.D.; Zerbini, C.; et al.
    Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383, 2603–2615. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Harris, R.J.; Hall, J.A.; Zaidi, A.; Andrews, N.J.; Dunbar, J.K.; Dabrera, G. Effect of Vaccination on Household Transmission of
    SARS-CoV-2 in England. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 759–760. [CrossRef]
  6. Butt, A.A.; Omer, S.B.; Yan, P.; Shaikh, O.S.; Mayr, F.B. SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Effectiveness in a High-Risk National Population in a
    Real-World Setting. Ann. Intern. Med. 2021, 174, 1404–1408. [CrossRef]
  7. Dagan, N.; Barda, N.; Kepten, E.; Miron, O.; Perchik, S.; Katz, M.A.; Hernan, M.A.; Lipsitch, M.; Reis, B.; Balicer, R.D. BNT162b2
    mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 1412–1423. [CrossRef]
  8. Rossman, H.; Shilo, S.; Meir, T.; Gorfine, M.; Shalit, U.; Segal, E. COVID-19 dynamics after a national immunization program in
    Israel. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 1055–1061. [CrossRef]
  9. Fan, B.E.; Shen, J.Y.; Lim, X.R.; Tu, T.M.; Chang, C.C.R.; Khin, H.S.W.; Koh, J.S.; Rao, J.P.; Lau, S.L.; Tan, G.B.; et al. Cerebral venous
    thrombosis post BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: A black swan event. Am. J. Hematol. 2021, 96, E357–E361. [CrossRef]
  10. Larson, K.F.; Ammirati, E.; Adler, E.D.; Cooper, L.T., Jr.; Hong, K.N.; Saponara, G.; Couri, D.; Cereda, A.; Procopio, A.; Cavalotti, C.; et al.
    Myocarditis After BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Vaccination. Circulation 2021, 144, 506–508. [CrossRef]
  11. Menni, C.; Klaser, K.; May, A.; Polidori, L.; Capdevila, J.; Louca, P.; Sudre, C.H.; Nguyen, L.H.; Drew, D.A.; Merino, J.; et al. Vaccine
    side-effects and SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in users of the COVID Symptom Study app in the UK: A prospective
    observational study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 939–949. [CrossRef]
  12. Hansen, T.; Titze, U.; Kulamadayil-Heidenreich, N.S.A.; Glombitza, S.; Tebbe, J.J.; Rocken, C.; Schulz, B.; Weise, M.; Wilkens, L.
    First case of postmortem study in a patient vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 107, 172–175. [CrossRef]
    [PubMed]
  13. Kadali, R.A.K.; Janagama, R.; Peruru, S.; Malayala, S.V. Side effects of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: A randomized,
    cross-sectional study with detailed self-reported symptoms from healthcare workers. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 106, 376–381.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Parkash, O.; Sharko, A.; Farooqi, A.; Ying, G.W.; Sura, P. Acute Pancreatitis: A Possible Side Effect of COVID-19 Vaccine. Cureus
    2021, 13, e14741. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Mazzatenta, C.; Piccolo, V.; Pace, G.; Romano, I.; Argenziano, G.; Bassi, A. Purpuric lesions on the eyelids developed after
    BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: Another piece of SARS-CoV-2 skin puzzle? J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2021, 35,
    e543–e545. [CrossRef]
  16. Lee, E.J.; Cines, D.B.; Gernsheimer, T.; Kessler, C.; Michel, M.; Tarantino, M.D.; Semple, J.W.; Arnold, D.M.; Godeau, B.;
    Lambert, M.P.; et al. Thrombocytopenia following Pfizer and Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Am. J. Hematol. 2021, 96, 534–537.
    [CrossRef]
  17. Ishay, Y.; Kenig, A.; Tsemach-Toren, T.; Amer, R.; Rubin, L.; Hershkovitz, Y.; Kharouf, F. Autoimmune phenomena following
    SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2021, 99, 107970. [CrossRef]
  18. Das, B.B.; Kohli, U.; Ramachandran, P.; Nguyen, H.H.; Greil, G.; Hussain, T.; Tandon, A.; Kane, C.; Avula, S.; Duru, C.; et al.
    Myopericarditis following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Adolescents 12 through 18 Years of Age. J. Pediatr. 2021, 238, 26–32.e1.
    [CrossRef]
  19. McLaurin-Jiang, S.; Garner, C.D.; Krutsch, K.; Hale, T.W. Maternal and Child Symptoms Following COVID-19 Vaccination Among
    Breastfeeding Mothers. Breastfeed. Med. 2021, 16, 702–709. [CrossRef]
  20. Barda, N.; Dagan, N.; Ben-Shlomo, Y.; Kepten, E.; Waxman, J.; Ohana, R.; Hernan, M.A.; Lipsitch, M.; Kohane, I.; Netzer, D.; et al.
    Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 1078–1090. [CrossRef]
  21. Baden, L.R.; El Sahly, H.M.; Essink, B.; Kotloff, K.; Frey, S.; Novak, R.; Diemert, D.; Spector, S.A.; Rouphael, N.; Creech, C.B.; et al.
    Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 403–416. [CrossRef]
  22. Sadoff, J.; Gray, G.; Vandebosch, A.; Cardenas, V.; Shukarev, G.; Grinsztejn, B.; Goepfert, P.A.; Truyers, C.; Fennema, H.;
    Spiessens, B.; et al. Safety and Efficacy of Single-Dose Ad26.COV2.S Vaccine against Covid-19. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384,
    2187–2201. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Eichinger, S.; Warkentin, T.E.; Greinacher, A. Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccination. Reply. N. Engl.
    J. Med. 2021, 385, e11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Doroftei, B.; Ciobica, A.; Ilie, O.D.; Maftei, R.; Ilea, C. Mini-Review Discussing the Reliability and Efficiency of COVID-19 Vaccines.
    Diagnostics 2021, 11, 579. [CrossRef]Zhang, L.; Richards, A.; Barrasa, M.I.; Hughes, S.H.; Young, R.A.; Jaenisch, R. Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate
  25. into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118,
  26. e2105968118. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_
  28. en.pdf (accessed on 24 February 2022).
  29. Tanaka, H.; Takata, N.; Sakurai, Y.; Yoshida, T.; Inoue, T.; Tamagawa, S.; Nakai, Y.; Tange, K.; Yoshioka, H.; Maeki, M.; et al.
  30. Delivery of Oligonucleotides Using a Self-Degradable Lipid-Like Material. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 544. [CrossRef]
  31. Sedic, M.; Senn, J.J.; Lynn, A.; Laska, M.; Smith, M.; Platz, S.J.; Bolen, J.; Hoge, S.; Bulychev, A.; Jacquinet, E.; et al. Safety
  32. Evaluation of Lipid Nanoparticle-Formulated Modified mRNA in the Sprague-Dawley Rat and Cynomolgus Monkey. Vet. Pathol.
  33. 2018, 55, 341–354. [CrossRef]
  34. Sato, Y.; Matsui, H.; Yamamoto, N.; Sato, R.; Munakata, T.; Kohara, M.; Harashima, H. Highly specific delivery of siRNA to
  35. hepatocytes circumvents endothelial cell-mediated lipid nanoparticle-associated toxicity leading to the safe and efficacious
  36. decrease in the hepatitis B virus. J. Control. Release 2017, 266, 216–225. [CrossRef]
  37. Heidel, J.D.; Yu, Z.; Liu, J.Y.; Rele, S.M.; Liang, Y.; Zeidan, R.K.; Kornbrust, D.J.; Davis, M.E. Administration in non-human
  38. primates of escalating intravenous doses of targeted nanoparticles containing ribonucleotide reductase subunit M2 siRNA. Proc.
  39. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 5715–5721. [CrossRef]
  40. Available online: https://www.cvdvaccine-us.com/ (accessed on 24 February 2022).
  41. Available online: http://bridgeslab.sph.umich.edu/protocols/index.php/Preparation_of_Tail_Samples_(for_Genotyping)
  42. (accessed on 24 February 2022).
  43. Gallud, A.; Munson, M.J.; Liu, K.; Idstrom, A.; Barriga, H.M.; Tabaei, S.; Aliakbarinodehi, N.; Ojansivu, M.; Lubart, Q.;
  44. Doutch, J.J.; et al. Time evolution of PEG-shedding and serum protein coronation determines the cell uptake kinetics and delivery
  45. of lipid nanoparticle. bioRxiv 2021. [CrossRef]
  46. World Health Organization Messenger RNA Encoding the Full-Length SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein. 2020. Available
  47. online: https://web.archive.org/web/20210105162941/https://mednet-communities.net/inn/db/media/docs/11889.doc
  48. (accessed on 24 February 2022).
  49. Mita, P.; Wudzinska, A.; Sun, X.; Andrade, J.; Nayak, S.; Kahler, D.J.; Badri, S.; LaCava, J.; Ueberheide, B.; Yun, C.Y.; et al. LINE-1
  50. protein localization and functional dynamics during the cell cycle. Elife 2018, 7, e30058. [CrossRef]
  51. Sato, Y.; Kinami, Y.; Hashiba, K.; Harashima, H. Different kinetics for the hepatic uptake of lipid nanoparticles between the
  52. apolipoprotein E/low density lipoprotein receptor and the N-acetyl-d-galactosamine/asialoglycoprotein receptor pathway. J.
  53. Control. Release 2020, 322, 217–226. [CrossRef]
  54. Vogel, A.B.; Kanevsky, I.; Che, Y.; Swanson, K.A.; Muik, A.; Vormehr, M.; Kranz, L.M.; Walzer, K.C.; Hein, S.; Guler, A.; et al.
  55. BNT162b vaccines protect rhesus macaques from SARS-CoV-2. Nature 2021, 592, 283–289. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Bahl, K.; Senn, J.J.; Yuzhakov, O.; Bulychev, A.; Brito, L.A.; Hassett, K.J.; Laska, M.E.; Smith, M.; Almarsson, O.; Thompson, J.; et al.
  57. Preclinical and Clinical Demonstration of Immunogenicity by mRNA Vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 Influenza Viruses. Mol. Ther.
  58. 2017, 25, 1316–1327. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Bril, F.; Al Diffalha, S.; Dean, M.; Fettig, D.M. Autoimmune hepatitis developing after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
  60. vaccine: Causality or casualty? J. Hepatol. 2021, 75, 222–224. [CrossRef]
  61. Kazazian, H.H., Jr.; Moran, J.V. Mobile DNA in Health and Disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 361–370. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Coffin, J.M.; Fan, H. The Discovery of Reverse Transcriptase. Annu. Rev. Virol. 2016, 3, 29–51. [CrossRef]
  63. Lander, E.S.; Linton, L.M.; Birren, B.; Nusbaum, C.; Zody, M.C.; Baldwin, J.; Devon, K.; Dewar, K.; Doyle, M.; FitzHugh, W.; et al.
  64. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 2001, 409, 860–921. [CrossRef]
  65. Ostertag, E.M.; Goodier, J.L.; Zhang, Y.; Kazazian, H.H., Jr. SVA elements are nonautonomous retrotransposons that cause disease
  66. in humans. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2003, 73, 1444–1451. [CrossRef]
  67. Hancks, D.C.; Kazazian, H.H., Jr. Active human retrotransposons: Variation and disease. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2012, 22, 191–203.
  68. [CrossRef]
  69. Jones, R.B.; Song, H.; Xu, Y.; Garrison, K.E.; Buzdin, A.A.; Anwar, N.; Hunter, D.V.; Mujib, S.; Mihajlovic, V.; Martin, E.; et al.
  70. LINE-1 retrotransposable element DNA accumulates in HIV-1-infected cells. J. Virol. 2013, 87, 13307–13320. [CrossRef]
  71. Macchietto, M.G.; Langlois, R.A.; Shen, S.S. Virus-induced transposable element expression up-regulation in human and mouse
  72. host cells. Life Sci. Alliance 2020, 3, e201900536. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Yin, Y.; Liu, X.Z.; He, X.; Zhou, L.Q. Exogenous Coronavirus Interacts With Endogenous Retrotransposon in Human Cells. Front.
  74. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 609160. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Belancio, V.P.; Roy-Engel, A.M.; Deininger, P. The impact of multiple splice sites in human L1 elements. Gene 2008, 411, 38–45.
  76. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Dai, L.; Taylor, M.S.; O’Donnell, K.A.; Boeke, J.D. Poly(A) binding protein C1 is essential for efficient L1 retrotransposition and
  78. affects L1 RNP formation. Mol. Cell Biol. 2012, 32, 4323–4336. [CrossRef]
  79. Servant, G.; Streva, V.A.; Derbes, R.S.; Wijetunge, M.I.; Neeland, M.; White, T.B.; Belancio, V.P.; Roy-Engel, A.M.; Deininger, P.L.
  80. The Nucleotide Excision Repair Pathway Limits L1 Retrotransposition. Genetics 2017, 205, 139–153. [CrossRef]
  81. Guo, H.; Chitiprolu, M.; Gagnon, D.; Meng, L.; Perez-Iratxeta, C.; Lagace, D.; Gibbings, D. Autophagy supports genomic stability
  82. by degrading retrotransposon RNA. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 5276. [CrossRef]Xie, Y.; Mates, L.; Ivics, Z.; Izsvak, Z.; Martin, S.L.; An, W. Cell division promotes efficient retrotransposition in a stable L1 reporter
  83. cell line. Mob. DNA 2013, 4, 10. [CrossRef]
  84. Shi, X.; Seluanov, A.; Gorbunova, V. Cell divisions are required for L1 retrotransposition. Mol. Cell Biol. 2007, 27, 1264–1270.
  85. [CrossRef]
  86. Goff, S.P. Host factors exploited by retroviruses. Nat. Rev. Microbiol 2007, 5, 253–263. [CrossRef]
  87. Suzuki, Y.; Craigie, R. The road to chromatin—Nuclear entry of retroviruses. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2007, 5, 187–196. [CrossRef]
  88. Shi, J.; Wang, X.; Lyu, L.; Jiang, H.; Zhu, H.J. Comparison of protein expression between human livers and the hepatic cell lines
  89. HepG2, Hep3B, and Huh7 using SWATH and MRM-HR proteomics: Focusing on drug-metabolizing enzymes. Drug Metab.
  90. Pharmacokinet. 2018, 33, 133–140. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Kubo, S.; Seleme, M.C.; Soifer, H.S.; Perez, J.L.; Moran, J.V.; Kazazian, H.H., Jr.; Kasahara, N. L1 retrotransposition in nondividing
  92. and primary human somatic cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 8036–8041. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Macia, A.; Widmann, T.J.; Heras, S.R.; Ayllon, V.; Sanchez, L.; Benkaddour-Boumzaouad, M.; Munoz-Lopez, M.; Rubio, A.;
  94. Amador-Cubero, S.; Blanco-Jimenez, E.; et al. Engineered LINE-1 retrotransposition in nondividing human neurons. Genome Res.
  95. 2017, 27, 335–348. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Complications From Taking COVID Vaccine Is 40 Times Higher Than Previously Recorded

Authors:  Jim Hoft Published May 3, 2022 

A new German study with around 40,000 participants concluded that severe complications after receiving the COVID vaccine.

The study found that those suffering serious complications is 40 times higher than previously recorded.

“The number of severe complications after vaccination against Sars-CoV-2 is 40 times higher than previously recorded by the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI),” a study with around 40,000 participants by the Berlin Charité concludes.

A study on side effects after corona vaccinations is being carried out at the Charite in Berlin. Professor Harald Matthes is leading the study and is calling for more contact points for those affected.

The number of serious complications after vaccinations against Sars-CoV-2 is 40 times higher than previously recorded by the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI). This is one of the results of a long-term observational study by the Berlin Charité. Study director Professor Harald Matthes is now calling for more contact points for those affected.

Study with around 40,000 participants
The study “Safety Profile of Covid-19 Vaccines” (“ImpfSurv” for short), which focuses on the effects and side effects of the various vaccines, has been running for a year. Around 40,000 vaccinated people are interviewed at regular intervals throughout Germany. Participation in the study is voluntary and independent of how the vaccines work in the subjects.

One result: eight out of 1,000 vaccinated people struggle with serious side effects. “The number is not surprising,” explains Prof. Dr. Harald Matthes, head of the study: “It corresponds to what is known from other countries such as Sweden, Israel or Canada. Incidentally, even the manufacturers of the vaccines had already determined similar values ​​in their studies.” With conventional vaccines, such as against polio or measles, the number of serious side effects is significantly lower.

HHS Secretary Becerra Claims COVID Vaccines ‘Kill People Of Color’ At ‘Twice The Rate Of Whites,’ Vows To ‘Work’ Harder To Get More People Vaccinated

Authors: Alicia Powe Published April 19, 2022

After months of mandates forcing people to get two and three doses of COVID-19 vaccines to keep their jobs attend, school, travel and enter indoor venues, the federal government admits the experimental gene modification shots are killing people.

While vowing to ramp up biomedical tyranny and the effort to get more Americans vaccinated, U.S. Health and Human Services Director Xavier Becerra Experimental claimed the “safe and effective” mRNA shots are killing people with dark skin at a much higher rate than those with light skin.

“By the way, we know that vaccines are killing people of color — blacks, Latinos, indigenous people — at about two times the rate of white Americans,” Becerra explained during a digital “White House Convening on Equity” seminar on April 14.

After months of mandates forcing people to get two and three doses of COVID-19 vaccines to keep their jobs attend, school, travel and enter indoor venues, the federal government admits the experimental gene modification shots are killing people.

While vowing to ramp up biomedical tyranny and the effort to get more Americans vaccinated, U.S. Health and Human Services Director Xavier Becerra Experimental claimed the “safe and effective” mRNA shots are killing people with dark skin at a much higher rate than those with light skin.

“By the way, we know that vaccines are killing people of color — blacks, Latinos, indigenous people — at about two times the rate of white Americans,” Becerra explained during a digital “White House Convening on Equity” seminar on April 14.

After acknowledging the lethality of COVID shots, Becerra explained that approximately 80 percent of the American public is vaccinated.

But the government needs to “work” harder to vaccinate Americans who have refrained from getting inoculated, he argued.

“So, on vaccines, last year, we saw that about two-thirds of white American adults had received at least one shot of vaccine,” Becerra said. “That was just barely over 50 percent for black Americans and Latinos at that particular time. So, again, we’ve got to work.

“Today, a year later, over 80 percent of white American adults have received at least one shot. Over 80% of black American adults have received at least one shot. Over 80 percent of Latino Americans have received at least one vaccine shot.”

While HHS acknowledges the deadly effects COVID vaccines have on minority communities, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Effects System confirms the COVID shots are killing more people than any other vaccine in history.

According to VAERS, only 421 vaccine-related deaths in 2020 prior to the administration of the mRNA shots. In 2021, the number of people who dies after getting vaccinated precipitously spiked with at least 21,914 people died after receiving the COVID shots.

As yet, 5689 people died after receiving a COVID vaccine in 2022.

Meanwhile, the CDC is deploying fleets of federally funded “pandemic” buses to minority communities across the nation to persuade unvaccinated Americans into getting jabbed.

As reported, the CDC’s PANDEMIC (Program to Alleviate National Disparities in Ethnic and Minority Immunizations in the Community) deploys teams of health care workers into minority communities to educate people about why they need to be vaccinated.

According to PANDEMIC grant program materials, PANDEMIC’s goal is to reach groups that may experience “immunization disparities” in racial and ethnic minorities, residents of rural communities, migrant farmworkers, Native Americans, Hispanics, Blacks, and people identifying as part of the LGBTQ community and boost vaccination rates in areas chosen for having “high vaccine-hesitancy rate. ”

“If people aren’t sure [that they want the vaccine], then we have educational materials, and our community health workers and the extension agents will talk to them about their particular questions and try to answer their questions and their concerns. And then…[we] immediately give them the vaccine,” explained Catherine Striley of the University of Florida, who helps oversee the PANDEMIC project.