Would you take a Coronavirus Vaccine

[britechguy]

OK, so it's a form of gene therapy. A form that does not actually alter genes.

I guess selective breeding is also "gene therapy" since it selectively alters genes, but via the mechanisms of nature.

What you seem to be worrying about is not something the vaccines do. So whatever umbrella you put them under, they don't alter cellular DNA, and permanently. That, to me, is what defines "gene therapy."

The fact that gene therapy technologies are used "for developing vaccines" does not, in any way, shape, or form, make the resulting vaccine a gene therapy itself.

And so long as you use the definition that a technology used to create another technology, just by the fact that the two "touched each other," makes the "another technology" indistinguishable from the one used to develop it, makes it impossible for anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint to have a conversation with you about this. "A gene therapy product" is not, itself, gene therapy proper. Computers are used to transfer money electronically, but computers are not money and money is not a computer.

 

[Sky-Knight]

The only purpose to describe mRNA technology in this context as a gene therapy is to illicit fear from the ignorant.

I have the same problem with the anti-GMO crowd. We've been using every tool at our disposal as a species to manipulate plants and animals for thousands of years. Being afraid of a new tool, that's more accurate is irrational. This is particularly irrational from someone that makes their living working with technology. Define "organic" for me... It's like trying to define "porn"! It cannot be done!

All I see here is the perpetuation of the fear of change. These vaccines were built to fight the original SARS, they are not a year old, they are old enough to drive.

Rise above the filter bubble, understand people make a ton of money off fear mongering, and that's how social media gets our "news media" paid. This isn't a grand conspiracy, it's just people doing what makes them more money. A force that's too frequently understood as a universal good, and yet in this context is clear it's anything but.

 

[nlinecomputers]

Chris von Csefalvay: Why the mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy

mRNA vaccines do involve genetic material – but they are not a form of gene therapy, as they do not modify somatic cells. Get the facts here.

chrisvoncsefalvay.com

 

[nlinecomputers]

Guys “Gene Therapy “ is a marketing term, not a medical term. It's a generic and somewhat inaccurate term used to describe work using DNA and RNA.

 

[Sky-Knight]

I wonder how many people that buy into mRNA tech being "gene therapy" are also insulin dependent diabetics?

Has anyone else in here looked into how biorecombinant insulin is made? If you can read through that process and not think: Do you want zombies?!? Because this is how you get zombies!

And yet over 10% of the US has diabetes, and a good portion of them are insulin dependent.

Who am I kidding... look at the "adult" responses to this pandemic. Perhaps insulin IS making us zombies.

 

[britechguy]

Guys “Gene Therapy “ is a marketing term, not a medical term.

Well, I'd argue that it's both, and that how marketing uses it, and how medicine (and science in general) uses it, are quite different.

And in the science world, it's an umbrella term that, as your previous post noted, covers a lot of territory related to the manipulation of genetic material. But in the medical world, "therapy," as a general rule, has a distinct focus and limited (sometimes single) mechanisms of action. There is no way a doctor or any medical practitioner would ever dub any vaccine that exists today as "gene therapy" because they themselves do not modify genes. They do what vaccines have always done, marshal a preemptive immune response to a decoy vector so that if the real vector appears the immune system already knows what to do about it without the disease actually needing to occur.

 

[britechguy]

Define "organic" for me...

Actually, there are functional definitions for organic designation. When it comes to food production and the production of any number of other things, the definitions are parametric. But there is a lot of room within the bounds of those parameters. But you still know where those bounds are.

And you're as capable as I am of looking up what the USDA functional definition of organic, which allows foods to be labeled as such, is.

 

[Sky-Knight]

Actually, there are functional definitions for organic designation. When it comes to food production and the production of any number of other things, the definitions are parametric. But there is a lot of room within the bounds of those parameters. But you still know where those bounds are.

And you're as capable as I am of looking up what the USDA functional definition of organic, which allows foods to be labeled as such, is.

Yes, and it's crap. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organic

You want me to read all this: https://www.usda.gov/topics/organic

That isn't a definition, it's another useless bureaucracy trying to make up the gap between fiction and reality.

You dig into it further to find this PDF: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Can GMOs be Used.pdf

So a short buffer zone is all it takes to maintain "genetic purity"? Life doesn't work like that... Unless the crops grown aren't genetically compatible, they're going to cross breed. Because the pollinators don't care about our definitions.

 

[britechguy]

Well, regardless of your low opinion of the definitions, functional definitions of organic do exist for industry, and not just in the USA.

They are not, of necessity, tidy, compact, two-line definitions.

But it is inaccurate to say that no functional definition of "organic" exists because it does, and is in current use. You just happen not to like it, which is fine.

 

[Kitten Kong]

I think everything has been hashed out here, and like religion and gun threads, everyone has their own opinion. And nothing will ever change.

So at this point in time, I'm going to close the thread.