@joe-beyser saidWildgrass is wrong about gene therapy. Don't believe him just because he says so. He is a dogmatic fool. Here is one of the examples of gene therapy from the FDA website below.
@wildgrass If you want to say the part of the rna that is being used is part of the virus it is ok by me as long as you realize it is completely different than what attenuated viruses are. You are right on the gene therapy except that the only reason it isn't permanent is that the immune system kills the cells that took in the rna. They are hoping that the immune system wi ...[text shortened]... clotting. This is bad because now you have it around the body in places the real virus does not go.
"Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease"
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/what-gene-therapy
It does not have to change any DNA. I proved that to him multiple times so he is no longer spreading misinformation, he is spreading disinformation because he knows it is not true.
@wildgrass saidEven if that is true it doesn't prove the gene vaccines are not gene therapy, but go ahead and try to prove it. What is your source of information?
Right. That just means that insulin is also gene therapy.
edit: I found this.
https://diabeteswellbeing.com/synthetic-insulin/
It uses bacteria to create amino acids. Do you mean gene therapy for the bacteria or the person taking the insulin? Please specify.
@Metal-Brain I know he is just trying to make an argument but in case he is really interested in educating himself I hope the discussion will prompt him to educate himself on the matter. Most gene therapy has to be the RNA genes as it will be functional controlling cellular processes. This is a no Bull Chit topic here I take seriously. Anyone not doing research by now and taking "big moneys" word for it is a fool in the extreme. I do believe they will be able to fine tune the mrna vaccine methodology in the future and make it safe but for now keep it out of me.
@joe-beyser saidCool, let's educate. At the very least, it should be called RNA therapy, to distinguish from the more commonly-appeciated definition of gene therapy which permanently alters your DNA. Its mechanism of action is a lot different.
@Metal-Brain I know he is just trying to make an argument but in case he is really interested in educating himself I hope the discussion will prompt him to educate himself on the matter. Most gene therapy has to be the RNA genes as it will be functional controlling cellular processes. This is a no Bull Chit topic here I take seriously. Anyone not doing research by now and ...[text shortened]... fine tune the mrna vaccine methodology in the future and make it safe but for now keep it out of me.
RNA has a very short half life in cells, often only a minute or 2. It's a versatile therapeutic approach, but it is important to note that the transient nature of its expression as a feature. Unless the goal of the RNA delivery is to target DNA (e.g. CRISPR) then it will be expressed only very briefly.
When you write "doing research" are you referring to sitting at a lab bench conducting experiments or googling conspiracy theories on the internet?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03068-4
@wildgrass obviously not lab research as very few have resources, training, and the skills. I am talking about sifting available information on the internet and gleening truth. For example when the WHO says they want to protect Ivermectin from use for Covid even if it proves effective rather than saying they will want to ramp up production if it proves effective it counts toward Ivermectin being effective to a degree and also big pharma and bureaucracy is controlling the narrative for profit. As far as the technical things to research is why one group thinks there is a danger in the vaccine and the other doesn't. In time a person will get a better handle on this situation and make a more informed decision. There are other studies from around the world to look at too. A person can see what is credible to him or her and find other studies to compare it to. A person can look up and understand the mechanism for which the vaccines operate and not just think of it as a vaccine they are used to. Huge differences and once again I do believe research by the virologists and medical industry will find a safe way to administer this kind of treatment. You can't just go around calling people names to make yourself feel right. Now there is a movement to divide and conquer for profit the population and labeling those who do not want it. I would not have found out about Novavax without this kind of research. It looks good to me so far. I already take Ivermectin and hope I will not contract Covid and spread it further as the vaccinated folks do.
@metal-brain saidAs you've been told multiple, probably dozens of times, the COVID19 vaccines can't be "gene therapy" because they do not "treat or cure disease" as the cite you keep using defines "gene therapy".
Wildgrass is wrong about gene therapy. Don't believe him just because he says so. He is a dogmatic fool. Here is one of the examples of gene therapy from the FDA website below.
"Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease"
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/what-gene-therapy
It does not have to ...[text shortened]... no longer spreading misinformation, he is spreading disinformation because he knows it is not true.
@wildgrass
Almost missed the part of the half life you mentioned as being so short. That would not be enough time to create the spike protein so you may want to research that one. Are you saying it is not RNA that is being used? Do you think RNA are not genes? Does all gene therapy alter DNA? Just a little food for thought.
@joe-beyser saidWhat name did I call you?
@wildgrass obviously not lab research as very few have resources, training, and the skills. I am talking about sifting available information on the internet and gleening truth. For example when the WHO says they want to protect Ivermectin from use for Covid even if it proves effective rather than saying they will want to ramp up production if it proves effective it counts ...[text shortened]... take Ivermectin and hope I will not contract Covid and spread it further as the vaccinated folks do.
The WHO didn't do any primary research on that either (and has an agenda), so now you're talking about 3rd or 4th hand information. Read the original scientific articles and that'll get you closer to the truth. Millions of people have been inoculated with the vaccine so there's pounds of data. As far as I can tell there's nothing indicating significant harm that comes anywhere close to the harm from COVID.
@wildgrass saidI didn't mean to say you called me a name. I was talking about society in general. And money is the problem with getting the WHO or CDC to give it a fair shake. And you think using humans for the test was sound or the crisis used to bypass safety?
What name did I call you?
The WHO didn't do any primary research on that either (and has an agenda), so now you're talking about 3rd or 4th hand information. Read the original scientific articles and that'll get you closer to the truth. Millions of people have been inoculated with the vaccine so there's pounds of data. As far as I can tell there's nothing indicating significant harm that comes anywhere close to the harm from COVID.
@no1marauder saidThey are to treat a future disease.
As you've been told multiple, probably dozens of times, the COVID19 vaccines can't be "gene therapy" because they do not "treat or cure disease" as the cite you keep using defines "gene therapy".
@wildgrass saidThe FDA defines gene therapy, not you or anyone else. Anybody who defines it differently than the FDA is trying to alter the definition.
Cool, let's educate. At the very least, it should be called RNA therapy, to distinguish from the more commonly-appeciated definition of gene therapy which permanently alters your DNA. Its mechanism of action is a lot different.
RNA has a very short half life in cells, often only a minute or 2. It's a versatile therapeutic approach, but it is important to note that the tr ...[text shortened]... googling conspiracy theories on the internet?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03068-4
@joe-beyser saidThe ability of mRNA to stimulate potent and long lasting responses from our immune system has been known for 30 years. Its been through molecular testing, in vitro cell based studies, animal testing, optimization studies, safety studies, and clinical trials (for vaccines targeting other diseases). Its been routinely touted in the medical literature over the past decade as a promising avenue for rapid development and deployment of vaccines for emerging pathogens.
I didn't mean to say you called me a name. I was talking about society in general. And money is the problem with getting the WHO or CDC to give it a fair shake. And you think using humans for the test was sound or the crisis used to bypass safety?
Safety wasn't bypassed. Don't listen to the WHO just read the papers on the subject. There are many reasons to trust the safety and efficacy of these vaccines.
@metal-brain saidGovernment? These authors work for the Gates foundation.
Government. Here is the first sentence from the Abstract.
"Gene vaccines are a new approach to immunization and immunotherapy in which, rather than a live or inactivated organism (or a subunit thereof), one or more genes that encode proteins of the pathogen are delivered."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12667025/
Also, they call it a vaccine. Which you seem eager to deny.
@wildgrass saidI am more persuaded by the real blood clots throughout the body and heart problems that exist.
The ability of mRNA to stimulate potent and long lasting responses from our immune system has been known for 30 years. Its been through molecular testing, in vitro cell based studies, animal testing, optimization studies, safety studies, and clinical trials (for vaccines targeting other diseases). Its been routinely touted in the medical literature over the past decade as a ...[text shortened]... he papers on the subject. There are many reasons to trust the safety and efficacy of these vaccines.
@Metal-Brain
What does it matter one way or the other? 600,000 deaths in the US is not ENOUGH?
We should shelve ALL vaccines because maybe one in a million die from the reaction of the vax?
You are just another chaos generator, one who thrives on throwing monkey wrenches into everything you hate, like SCIENCE.