Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

Are you saying that the covid vaccine was gene therapy? I did a quick search and found lots of results that dismiss this claim. I have no knowledge in the field so rely on those that do, such as this source (appears to).

http://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs...ene-therapies/

Well this link suggests that they should be classified as gene therapy but it appears that legislation doesn't allow for gene therapy yet.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10342157/

And the European Parliament currently seems to consider them gene therapy.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo...000355_EN.html

I could go on.

https://academic.oup.com/intimm/arti...08?login=false

I think the issue is that certain people get somewhat nervous when the words 'gene therapy' get used. But generally, I like to call a spade a spade.

Perhaps that's why Judith Collins is currently rushing the Gene Technology Bill through Parliament.

[onearmedbandit]

I guess, unless you're educated in the field, a lot of it comes down to who you choose to believe or read. That's why I keep out of it mostly, my opinions can only ever be formed by what someone else says, ultimately making them not my opinion. As you were.

[SaferRides]

I guess, unless you're educated in the field, a lot of it comes down to who you choose to believe or read. That's why I keep out of it mostly, my opinions can only ever be formed by what someone else says, ultimately making them not my opinion. As you were.

Exactly. And if you've already formed a view that mRNA vaccines are Bad, then you will believe information that confirms this view. Such as finding references suggesting that they are gene therapy.

Thought I'd drop in and see how this thread is progressing...

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[mashman]

I guess, unless you're educated in the field, a lot of it comes down to who you choose to believe or read. That's why I keep out of it mostly, my opinions can only ever be formed by what someone else says, ultimately making them not my opinion. As you were.

from Pfizer... for us dumb kids.

"Messenger RNA, also known as mRNA, kick-starts the process of creating proteins. Carrying genetic instructions copied from DNA, it exits the nucleus and travels to the cytoplasm,........."

The above snippet is from a very short read that uses a "factories" analogy to make the process more understandable. Sending instructions that otherwise only come from DNA. Gene-Therapy? Perhaps the title is missing an "e".

[onearmedbandit]

from Pfizer... for us dumb kids.

"Messenger RNA, also known as mRNA, kick-starts the process of creating proteins. Carrying genetic instructions copied from DNA, it exits the nucleus and travels to the cytoplasm,........."

The above snippet is from a very short read that uses a "factories" analogy to make the process more understandable. Sending instructions that otherwise only come from DNA. Gene-Therapy? Perhaps the title is missing an "e".

Whereas the link I provided quite clearly states why it isn't considered gene therapy.

Gene therapies involve making deliberate changes to a patient’s DNA in order to cure or alleviate a genetic condition. This can be by adding a functional copy of a gene, disabling a gene that makes a faulty product or changing gene activation.

The mRNA from the vaccines does not enter the cell nucleus or interact with the DNA at all, so it does not constitute gene therapy.

Gene therapies can have long-lasting effects because they permanently change the cell’s DNA, with these changes being inherited by any daughter cells that result if the cell divides. In contrast, mRNAs are always transitory and are not inherited by daughter cells, making them ideal for use in vaccines.

So I guess it's not only what you choose to read or who you listen to, but also how you interpret it. Me? Me not smart enough to know, me have no opinion. But I do like investigating people's claims so I can be better informed. Still dumb though.

[pritch]

I guess, unless you're educated in the field, a lot of it comes down to who you choose to believe or read. That's why I keep out of it mostly, my opinions can only ever be formed by what someone else says, ultimately making them not my opinion. As you were.

Actually, I read his links too. The way I read them two of them say the COVID vaccine is NOT gene therapy. Somebody wants to "reclassify" the vaccine as gene therapy. Very different.

I'm suspicious of people who want to reclassify things. A few decades ago, in one of their frequent bouts of mass hysteria, Americans were panicking in case criminals wore "flak jackets" and would consequently be protected against police bullets. A congressman was moved to suggest that flak jackets be reclassified as firearms. Yeah I know, that looks absurd. Not to some in the US Congress at the time though.

Meanwhile back with the COVID vaccine... A common complaint from the antis is that the vaccine was rushed. Scientists had been working on that technology since the 1960s. How long do the unbelievers need? OK the final part was rushed but millions were dying and that would seem to indicate the need for a degree of urgency.

I'm bowing out of this discussion as ultimately it could just decend in to the absurdity that was the World Trade Centre thread.

[Katman]

Actually, I read his links too. The way I read them two of them say the COVID vaccine is NOT gene therapy. Somebody wants to "reclassify" the vaccine as gene therapy. Very different.

I'm suspicious of people who want to reclassify things.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

The European Parliament classify them as gene therapy. The lobbyists want to reclassify them as not gene therapy.

The only way they could get a gene therapy treatment past the current legislation was to slip it through the back door called Emergency Use Authorisation.

Hence why Judith Collins is pushing through the Gene Technology Bill.

And did you even read the title in the third link???

I'm bowing out of this discussion as ultimately it could just decend in to the absurdity that was the World Trade Centre thread.

If you're truly bowing out of this discussion it's more likely because you're clearly way out of your depth.

[TheDemonLord]

Serious question: what do you think of the sovereign citizen people?

I find the concept of the Sovereign Citizen interesting - much less the usual application.

Specifically the idea that one can opt-out of society.

Now, quick caveat, usually the application of Sovereign Citizen claims is someone who is in deep shit with the Law and thinks they have discovered a quite literal 'get out of jail free' card with some poorly understand and misapplied legal argumentation - I find this to be uninteresting.

However, Imagine if you will someone in good standing, debt free, self-sufficient, living away from society, fully off-grid - Imagine such a person effectively seceeding themselves from society - I find that as an Idea to be interesting.

Petitioning the Government to no longer be protected by or beholden to the laws or wider society so long as they give up the protections and privileges afforded to being a part of society - that is something that from a pure intellectual exercise is fun to entertain.

If such a person was to exist and be entirely self-sufficient, would the Government or State have any right to deny such a request? You could make an argument from a national defense point of view that even if they wished to fully seceede from society, they are still benefitting from aspects of society.

I find it an interesting idea.

But to re-iterate, not in it's usual application.

[TheDemonLord]

Considering Covid 19 was present for almost a year before the vaccine was delivered at the Speed of Warp, I would have expected there to be studies published prior to the vaccine rollout that documented myocarditis and pericarditis due to Covid infection.

But I can't find any.

What I can find is this study of unvaccinated people which appears to show no significant difference of myocarditis or pericarditis incidence between the infected group and the uninfected control group.

https://sciencescholar.us/journal/in...cle/view/11049

I'm happy to stand corrected if I'm misreading the study.

I couldn't point to a study - I am going off of memory here - but my recollection is that even for unvaccinated people who contract Covid, they have an elevated risk of heart issues for a period of time after infection.

If the live virus has effects that target the heart, then it is not far-fetched that a live vaccine could also have side-effects that impact the heart.

[Katman]

I couldn't point to a study - I am going off of memory here - but my recollection is that even for unvaccinated people who contract Covid, they have an elevated risk of heart issues for a period of time after infection.

If the live virus has effects that target the heart, then it is not far-fetched that a live vaccine could also have side-effects that impact the heart.

That's not what the study I linked seems to be suggesting though.

The study was of unvaccinated people split into two groups - those who had been infected with Covid and those who hadn't. The results suggested that there was no significant difference in incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis between the two groups.

[TheDemonLord]

OK the final part was rushed but millions were dying and that would seem to indicate the need for a degree of urgency.

The final part, however, is the most important part. The lack of long-term studies on a large sample size is a concern. Something that should have weighed strongly against any form of compulsion around the Vaccine.

By the time the Vaccine was ready, we had pretty good evidence that unless you were over 60 or with a number of known co-morbidites, that your risk of death was extremely low.

[mashman]

Whereas the link I provided quite clearly states why it isn't considered gene therapy.

So I guess it's not only what you choose to read or who you listen to, but also how you interpret it. Me? Me not smart enough to know, me have no opinion. But I do like investigating people's claims so I can be better informed. Still dumb though.

S'ok, science doesn't know either given there are at least 2 competing sets of definitions to choose from. I go with gene therapy being a big catch all that encompasses both (all) gene related operations/communications. Makes me feel smarter than the scientists.

[pritch]

If the live virus has effects that target the heart, then it is not far-fetched that a live vaccine could also have side-effects that impact the heart.

The COVID vaccine was not a live vaccine. Research indicated that there was a specific protein in the 'spikes' of the organism. The vaccine contained that protein.

[Katman]

Whereas the link I provided quite clearly states why it isn't considered gene therapy.

In your link it states that the mRNA never enters the cell nucleus while in mashman's link (in Pfizer's own words) it states that the mRNA exits the nucleus.

Surely for it to exit, it must first have entered.

Perhaps someone should advise Pfizer that they don't appear to know what they're talking about.

[Katman]

https://www.pfizer.com/science/innov...rna-technology

To enter cells smoothly, mRNA travels within a protective bubble called a Lipid Nanoparticle. Once inside, our cells read the mRNA as a set of instructions, building proteins that match up with parts of the pathogen called antigens.