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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
> "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?
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.
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.