What's your verdict?
They do nothing of the sort, they neither modify nor alter genes or gene expression.
I sort of expected that answer.
'Gene therapy' can create a fear in people that they are going to be fundamentally altered by some intervention. The term - or anything alluding to it - is avoided by those who promote this intervention. They use the word 'vaccine'. It sounds more familiar and comfortable, whether it is the appropriate term or not. It also has less legal hurdles to overcome.
Concerns may arise for those equating their 'self' or identity with their genes. A mere statement that this intervention is not 'gene therapy' may not suffice. Some explanation may be required. The article that I linked to attempts to do this - quite well, it seems to me. It then becomes moot whether the label 'gene therapy' is used or not.
Something must change due to this intervention (no point otherwise). Will something that constitutes 'self' be changed? Will it be a change of 'self' or a change in 'self'? Will it be revolutionary or evolutionary? Will it be permanent or reversible?
If one is given some intervention that passes instructions that are accepted, adopted and followed, then that then becomes part of one's makeup. It is an imposed change - a revolutionary change. On the other hand, if one uses whatever is already part of one's makeup and lets it identify and address challenges, there is an evolutionary change. People feel happier with that - indeed, familiar with it. It is the way vaccines normally work.
It seems to me that the article describes a process by which one's resources do not evolve to meet challenges. Rather, some alien algorithm is introduced that is more akin to an indoctrination than an education. Whether this is called 'gene therapy' or not makes no odds. I, for one, don't want it. The fact that it is new and experimental underlines my choice.
There is a good analogy to be found in the context of this forum. Whereas there may be those who accept what they are told with little scrutiny, most of us here would rather scrutinise and educate ourselves. We are wary of imposed instruction (indoctrination even) and we arrive at our own hypotheses and strategies through an evolutionary process.
A brilliant post Mike and you have explained this clearly and concisely.
What is crystal clear is that administration of mRNA is certainly not a vaccine, and calling it a vaccine is without doubt certainly more disingenuous than calling it a gene therapy, as the article via the link you posted very eloquently explains.
Like you l fear big pharma's end goal here is to supplant their artificial immune defence over our own natural immunity defences which has served us well since the dawn of the human race.
What's your verdict?
They do nothing of the sort, they neither modify nor alter genes or gene expression.
I sort of expected that answer.
'Gene therapy' can create a fear in people that they are going to be fundamentally altered by some intervention. The term - or anything alluding to it - is avoided by those who promote this intervention. They use the word 'vaccine'. It sounds more familiar and comfortable, whether it is the appropriate term or not. It also has less legal hurdles to overcome.
Concerns may arise for those equating their 'self' or identity with their genes. A mere statement that this intervention is not 'gene therapy' may not suffice. Some explanation may be required. The article that I linked to attempts to do this - quite well, it seems to me. It then becomes moot whether the label 'gene therapy' is used or not.
Something must change due to this intervention (no point otherwise). Will something that constitutes 'self' be changed? Will it be a change of 'self' or a change in 'self'? Will it be revolutionary or evolutionary? Will it be permanent or reversible?
If one is given some intervention that passes instructions that are accepted, adopted and followed, then that then becomes part of one's makeup. It is an imposed change - a revolutionary change. On the other hand, if one uses whatever is already part of one's makeup and lets it identify and address challenges, there is an evolutionary change. People feel happier with that - indeed, familiar with it. It is the way vaccines normally work.
It seems to me that the article describes a process by which one's resources do not evolve to meet challenges. Rather, some alien algorithm is introduced that is more akin to an indoctrination than an education. Whether this is called 'gene therapy' or not makes no odds. I, for one, don't want it. The fact that it is new and experimental underlines my choice.
There is a good analogy to be found in the context of this forum. Whereas there may be those who accept what they are told with little scrutiny, most of us here would rather scrutinise and educate ourselves. We are wary of imposed instruction (indoctrination even) and we arrive at our own hypotheses and strategies through an evolutionary process.
Thanks for the description: “…some alien algorithm is introduced that is more akin to an indoctrination than an education.” I knew there was something nasty in Downing Street over the last year. Joking at one side, there is a lot of linguistic abuse, on the pretext that the majority will do as they’re told, and not seeking genuine advice from elsewhere. It’s a scary reminder of what can go wrong with any nation - not just somewhere else around the globe.
BTW, I agree with your decision, and have done the same thing, and informed my GP’s practice along those lines.
This morning:
...
Vaccine sceptic is the only possible scientific position.
Right the EMA finds, the vaccine is fine, I didn't watch it all but one medic said: thrombosis is more common in the unvaccinated population that in the vaccinated population.
So Vaccine sceptic is NOT the only possible scientific position.
Anti-vaxxer?
Anti-thinker?
Is there a difference between a Vaccine sceptic and an Anti-vaxxer?
It would appear not.
