[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.