mRNA Therapies Classified as Gene Therapy

mRNA Therapies Classified as Gene Therapy

Debates

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
13 Apr 21
1 edit

@metal-brain said
Nefarious purposes?
That is not true at all.
A conflict of interest does not imply nefarious purposes.
You are being silly.

Did you read the first link all the way through? You don't seem to understand it.
Did you read the article?:

"No wonder the vaccine industry (and let’s not kid ourselves, CDC IS the vaccine industry) and their media outlets are fighting with such a fury to prevent the #RFK commission from being formed."

"Thus, it is evident that the CDC and their business partners need the public to not only be okay with the 69 doses of recommended childhood vaccines, but to begin to adhere to the additional 100 plus doses of vaccines recommended by the new adult schedule, and to be ready to inject their families with the additional 271 vaccines in the development pipeline.

That profit boom can’t happen if the corruption in the industry, and the vast, unassessed damage that it has done to the health of children (and now adults) is laid open for all to finally see. "

nefarious
: flagrantly wicked or impious : EVIL

Anti-vaxxer bunk accusing the CDC of being a profit driven entity unconcerned with the health of people in the US and aboard.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
13 Apr 21
1 edit

@no1marauder said
Did you read the article?:

"No wonder the vaccine industry (and let’s not kid ourselves, CDC IS the vaccine industry) and their media outlets are fighting with such a fury to prevent the #RFK commission from being formed."

"Thus, it is evident that the CDC and their business partners need the public to not only be okay with the 69 doses of recommended childho ...[text shortened]... the CDC of being a profit driven entity unconcerned with the health of people in the US and aboard.
Did you? You don't seem to read properly. You previously claimed my second link about patenting the virus contradicted an article about vaccines. You do know the difference, right?

Stop confusing RFKjr.'s allegations with the author of the article. You don't seem to understand any of what you carelessly read. To be honest, I don't think you want to understand any of it. I don't think you want to be confused with facts.

I always know when a person is ignorant and determined to stay that way when they use the term "anti-vaxxer". It is the last resort of people who can't use facts to prove their point. When RFK jr. tried to get mercury out of fish did you call him anti-fish? I would like to reduce the pesticides on strawberries I buy from the store. Do you think I am anti-strawberry?

Both of my offspring were fully vaccinated when they were children. Lay off of the ridiculous slander that is clearly meant to deceive people. You know better.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
13 Apr 21

@no1marauder said
The difference between vaccinated asymptomatic cases and non-vaccinated asymptomatic cases is simple; you have a lot less chance of getting the former than the latter according to the scientific studies. If you had read them, you'd know this.

No facts support your wild claims, so you have to resort to conspiracy theories i.e. the evil CDC is cooking the data for nefarious reasons. That is ridiculous and I think you know it.
Does the CDC study measure actual contagiousness or viral shedding?

https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/24/in-report-affirming-nearly-no-transmission-in-schools-cdc-slips-in-shocking-data-about-asymptomatic-spread/

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
13 Apr 21

@shavixmir said
🙄

What, in your own words, is gene therapy.

You won’t answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene

w

Joined
20 Oct 06
Moves
9576
13 Apr 21

This thread is still rocking eh? Not all semantics are pointless but this distinction sure is.

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53223
13 Apr 21

@Metal-Brain
So you are not educated enough to answer his question, Answer it in your OWN words.

Obviously you are incapable of that. You ONLY post conspiracy theories with no proof and you think THAT is debating.

Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
13 Apr 21
1 edit

@metal-brain said
Did you? You don't seem to read properly. You previously claimed my second link about patenting the virus contradicted an article about vaccines. You do know the difference, right?

Stop confusing RFKjr.'s allegations with the author of the article. You don't seem to understand any of what you carelessly read. To be honest, I don't think you want to understand any of i ...[text shortened]... hildren. Lay off of the ridiculous slander that is clearly meant to deceive people. You know better.
MB: You previously claimed my second link about patenting the virus contradicted an article about vaccines.

No, I didn't. I said (accurately):

"The quote in the second article explained why the CDC has patents and thus destroyed the conspiracy theory in the first link."

The excerpts from the first link show it is a conspiracy theory claiming the CDC is part of the corrupt vaccine industry because it has vaccine patents. The second article gives a perfectly reasonable explanation destroying the idiotic conspiracy theory.

Claiming that the "vaccine industry" is nothing more than a corrupt cabal unconcerned with people's health who's vaccines cause "vast damage" makes the article prime anti-vaxxer propaganda whether you want to admit it or not.

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53223
13 Apr 21

@no1marauder
Don't worry, MB would NEVER say that. He is a Troll through and through and that is the bottom line of his life.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
13 Apr 21
1 edit

@no1marauder said
MB: You previously claimed my second link about patenting the virus contradicted an article about vaccines.

No, I didn't. I said (accurately):

"The quote in the second article explained why the CDC has patents and thus destroyed the conspiracy theory in the first link."

The excerpts from the first link show it is a conspiracy theory claiming the CDC is part of t ...[text shortened]... se "vast damage" makes the article prime anti-vaxxer propaganda whether you want to admit it or not.
"The quote in the second article explained why the CDC has patents and thus destroyed the conspiracy theory in the first link."

No it didn't. It explained why it patented the virus, not vaccines. The first link is not a conspiracy theory. It is accurate information.

Does the CDC study measure actual contagiousness or viral shedding?

https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/24/in-report-affirming-nearly-no-transmission-in-schools-cdc-slips-in-shocking-data-about-asymptomatic-spread/

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
13 Apr 21

@sonhouse said
@no1marauder
Don't worry, MB would NEVER say that. He is a Troll through and through and that is the bottom line of his life.
You are trolling!

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
14 Apr 21

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
So you are not educated enough to answer his question, Answer it in your OWN words.

Obviously you are incapable of that. You ONLY post conspiracy theories with no proof and you think THAT is debating.
Nope. I am giving him a taste of his own medicine. That is what he has done to me many times.

You need to educate yourself to keep up. Start here. Sources are provided.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/johnson-johnson-vaccine-scientists-perspective/

Tum podem

Sewers of Holland

Joined
31 Jan 04
Moves
88053
14 Apr 21

@metal-brain said
I gave you the wikipedia link like you always do to me to avoid answering questions.
Don't you like being treated the way you treat others?
Answer the question.
Only by answering it will you see the error in your ways.

Because being wrong is so abhorrent to you, you avoid truths and cling to nonsense.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
15 Apr 21
1 edit

@shavixmir said
Answer the question.
Only by answering it will you see the error in your ways.

Because being wrong is so abhorrent to you, you avoid truths and cling to nonsense.
Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use.

What error?

Even if I gave you the dumbed down definition you expected I can show mRNA from the SARS2 virus can change DNA. The possibility the mRNA vaccine could do the same exists. Read about reverse transcriptase to see the error of your ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase

Tum podem

Sewers of Holland

Joined
31 Jan 04
Moves
88053
15 Apr 21

@metal-brain said
Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use.

What error?

Even if I gave you the dumbed down definition you expected I can show mRNA from the SARS2 virus can change DNA. The possibility the mRNA vaccine could do the same exists. Read about reverse transcriptase to see the error of your ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase
Whst do you mean by “the expression of a gene”?

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
15 Apr 21

@shavixmir said
Whst do you mean by “the expression of a gene”?
How do you define "gene therapy"?