1. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    22 Jul '21 17:20
    If you get the shot in the US you must sign off on it as being experimental and unapproved by normal testing.


    I do not see why people must be categorized as vaxxer or antivaxxer since to get the shot or not is a personal choice.

    People can acquire immunity the natural way as well with very little danger if you have a good immune system.
  2. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    22 Jul '21 17:53
    @metal-brain said
    From the FDA link below:

    "Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use 1.

    Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:

    Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy ...[text shortened]... nto the body meets the FDA's definition of gene therapy. All mRNA and viral vector vaccines do that.
    I did not want to make this thread about vaccines, but you bring up an interesting definition of gene therapy. Insulin would fit this definition, which is taken by 7.4 million Americans to treat diabetes.

    If we're using this definition of gene therapy, what's wrong with gene therapy?
  3. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    22 Jul '21 17:57
    @kevcvs57 said
    There is nothing inherently wrong with gene therapy but there will always be a general sense of unease about any technique that can impact something as fundamental to who we are, coupled with it being hard to understand and even harder to control in terms of its frivolous application and potential misuse by bad actors.
    However given that the techniques cannot ( nor should t ...[text shortened]... ’s a fear we need to live with whilst exploiting the techniques for therapeutic purposes to the max.
    I get your point, but the comment "can impact something as fundamental as who we are" applies to a large number of non-gene therapy medical interventions. Plastic surgery (obviously). Or really any surgery. Anti-depressants which are known to alter the architecture and chemistry of your brain, and if taken for a long time these changes become permanent.

    All medical interventions have potential for misuse. Would you erase them from reality?

    What's specifically wrong with gene therapy where people are like "well it's gene therapy" and the reaction is fear and the assumption is bad?
  4. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    22 Jul '21 17:59
    @eladar said
    My grandfather was treated with experimental gene therapy, he died during treatment.
    I'm sorry for your loss.

    Gene therapy is curing people too though, of debilitating and otherwise incurable illnesses. Like sickle cell disease.
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    23 Jul '21 00:17
    @shavixmir said
    The Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy because they are not designed to alter or change your genes in any way. The U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) describes gene therapy as a technique that “may allow doctors to treat a disorder by inserting a gene into a patient’s cells instead of using drugs or surgery.” For example, doctors may be able to either inactiva ...[text shortened]... re always transitory and are not inherited by daughter cells, making them ideal for use in vaccines.
    "The Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy because they are not designed to alter or change your genes in any way."

    False! The FDA decides what gene therapy is, nobody else!
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    23 Jul '21 00:18
    @wildgrass said
    I did not want to make this thread about vaccines, but you bring up an interesting definition of gene therapy. Insulin would fit this definition, which is taken by 7.4 million Americans to treat diabetes.

    If we're using this definition of gene therapy, what's wrong with gene therapy?
    You brought it up.
  7. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    24 Jul '21 19:33
    @metal-brain said
    You brought it up.
    What's wrong with gene therapy?
  8. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    12361
    24 Jul '21 19:47
    @metal-brain said
    "The Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy because they are not designed to alter or change your genes in any way."

    False! The FDA decides what gene therapy is, nobody else!
    The FDA are a USAlien pansy of the insurance industry. Why should I trust them, rather than independent European scientists who say you're talking bollocks?
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    25 Jul '21 00:06
    @shallow-blue said
    The FDA are a USAlien pansy of the insurance industry. Why should I trust them, rather than independent European scientists who say you're talking bollocks?
    What is your source of information?
  10. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    25 Jul '21 20:22
    @metal-brain said
    "The Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy because they are not designed to alter or change your genes in any way."

    False! The FDA decides what gene therapy is, nobody else!
    You've bent over backwards to define the vaccine as gene therapy. But you've completely avoided telling us why that's a bad thing?
  11. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    27 Jul '21 05:55
    @wildgrass said
    You've bent over backwards to define the vaccine as gene therapy. But you've completely avoided telling us why that's a bad thing?
    It isn't bad if it cures your cancer.
    The gene vaccines are being given to healthy people though. We don't know the long term side effects, so I don't think that is wise. If you and others want to take it that is fine as long as it is informed consent. It is your body. Most people are not informed though. Do you know how many people thought the gene vaccines had FDA approval when they took them? They do not have FDA approval.

    People are put on TV saying the gene vaccines are completely safe. That is a lie. No vaccine is completely safe. Even the safest vaccines are not completely safe. The people are being misinformed, so it is not informed consent at all.
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    27 Jul '21 06:03
    @Metal-Brain
    Ok, don't get gene treatments if you don't want to but don't keep spouting your BS that gene therapy is unsafe, and sorry for your loss but I bet there were extenuating circumstances and it is not a wise thing to base an entire stance on the death of a loved one. Just saying.
  13. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    27 Jul '21 11:491 edit
    @sonhouse said
    @Metal-Brain
    Ok, don't get gene treatments if you don't want to but don't keep spouting your BS that gene therapy is unsafe, and sorry for your loss but I bet there were extenuating circumstances and it is not a wise thing to base an entire stance on the death of a loved one. Just saying.
    If you are so sure gene vaccines are safe why did you deny it for so long with such anger? The expected response from someone that is certain gene therapy is safe would be "so what if it is" instead of "how dare you say that".

    https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/mrna-therapies-classified-as-gene-therapy.188834

    On page 5 from the link above you said this:

    "So you are not educated enough to answer his question, Answer it in your OWN words.

    Obviously you are incapable of that. You ONLY post conspiracy theories with no proof and you think THAT is debating."

    First you called it a conspiracy theory and now you accept it is a fact and say it is safe. Also, did you forget about my thread called "mRNA vaccines cause cancer"?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree