[actually_a_dog]

I assume you are referring to mRNA vaccines here. These are not in any way "gene therapy." Please quit spouting misinformation.

For reference:

> Gene therapy is a medical field which focuses on the genetic modification of cells to produce a therapeutic effect[1] or the treatment of disease by repairing or reconstructing defective genetic material.[2]

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

mRNA vaccines do not modify cells, repair, or reconstruct anything.

[candiodari]

First: Injecting RNA into cells that currently have reverse-transcriptase proteins active? I'm afraid it will modify DNA. So in any cell currently infected with a retrovirus, and there will be a lot of those in any human, it will modify DNA.

Of course, no more (in fact significantly less) than the virus will. But mRNA vaccines, when used against a retrovirus, will modify DNA.

Second: it would be considered Gene therapy whether or not it modifies DNA.

Thirdly: all RNA activity will result in expression changes for other Genes. That might not modify the DNA directly, but most researchers now consider that part of the genetic material of the cell. Again, probably a lot less than a virus would.

Fourthly: all "negative" (meaning it cuts out "wrong" DNA rather than adding some) gene therapy treatments only inject RNA as well. It's not quite the same as an RNA-based vaccine.

[kook_throwaway]

Moderna and the FDA think it's a gene therapy. "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA." [1]

>Please quit spouting misinformation.

I like how you start with the word "please" so you can pretend you're being polite.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220...

[hirako2000]

You are brilliant.

The disinformation has been so effective it created zealots constantly defending the side of pharmaceuticals, government measures, systemic control of movement and ultimately even how to treat our own health. Always using reverse accusations, especially when proven wrong or suddenly disappear, refuse to continue the argumentation, or minimise the gravity of their falsehood.

[kook_throwaway]

The gravity of the falsehood is key to understanding.

We have seen an incredible growth of authoritarianism, from the near daily 'Simon says' mandate changes, lockdowns, increased surveillance, destruction of small business, 12 trillion dollars printed, and coerced administration of a novel gene therapy. You have no choice but to be right with all of that on your shoulders, that's a lot to weigh down a conscience if one is wrong.

[hirako2000]

We've had surveillance since forever, the destruction of small businesses also isn't new, printing far too much currency has been the new normal for decades, coerced authorities and groups using corruption to gain grounds have been investigated and often sentenced. If consciousness need to kick back into these realities, we got even more educational work to do then.

[flyingcircus3]

Let's complete the sentence of your quote and see who's playing word games:

"Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism."

[kook_throwaway]

I never said it altered DNA, that was the straw man the poster who replied to me built.

[orwin]

Can you agree that your original response with half the quote might have been a bit dishonest? And if you don't think so, why not quoting the entire phrase?

[throwawaylinux]

>>> a novel gene therapy

>> these are not in any way "gene therapy."

> "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA."

Are we reading the same thing? The misinformation and dishonest strawman argument came from the second poster. One might take other issues with kook_throwaway's comment, but what's wrong with that?

[kook_throwaway]

Because we weren't debating the safety of mRNA. That is unrelated to the discussion and I would be feeding the troll by moving the conversation from ethics to semantics and efficacy. I stated in my original comment that even if it's effective I still have ethical issues with coerced administration of it, gene therapy or not.

[actually_a_dog]

[flagged]