Well then, gene therapy is natural.

Thanks.

Scientists say that viruses can alter our DNA. https://medium.com/medical-myths-and-... and https://www.inverse.com/article/40113...

No, the manufacturer can not be held responsible, https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysi...

I've never heard of this. Can just the pharmacist provide it?

Good question. I suspect, however, that the emergency use authorization doesn't really differentiate.

You prefer the term vaccine because you are thinking of the matter in terms of its outcome - that of conferring immunity to a specific microbe. (What's incredibly odd here is that now Dr. Fauci is saying that a person may have to continue to have shots every six months, which raises my BS flag...) I use the term gene therapy because I am thinking about the matter in terms of its implementation and the broader implications to one's overall health. Those "side-effects" and "broader implications" have killed two of my wife's friends and nearly killed a sister-in-law.

Those side-effects are NOT being disclosed to the public in good faith. Having been a student of marketing and an IT professional who's dealt with unscrupulous contractors, I have a tendency to look past the hype to focus on how something actually functions. Is the goal of immunity to a particular pathogen a compelling interest? Surely that we can agree on. The remaining question centers around how we achieve that immunity. I, however, am decidedly suspect of something where the cure seems to be as bad as the disease.

Are you aware of the mechanisms of the body used in stopping a virus? There are two attacks and both must function properly to defeat a viral infection. The first is to surround the virus itself with antibodies secreted by the immune system. Then the white blood cells (phagocytes) gobble them up and destroy them or haul them to the excretory system (obviously on a large scale). The second attack is to destroy the infested cells which are producing viral content. Certain white blood cells go around placing markers on cells indicating they have been compromised. Then other white blood cell effectively poison the marked cell, destroy it, and haul off the remains.

Once a cell has been compromised by a virus, however, it is no longer a productive part of the body. It is no longer "human." It is a virally-controlled entity - regardless its original DNA. The virus doesn't have to alter the DNA itself to fundamentally destroy normal cell function. And if enough viral alteration happens, the body is overwhelmed and dies - the "human" succumbing to the virus.

(An autoimmune disease such as Type I Diabetes, Hashimoto's, certain forms of arthritis, etc. occur when the body's own white blood cells mistakenly target normal/healthy cells for destruction. I am intimately acquainted with all three conditions.)

The article is partly fiction.
See the abstract for the study:

https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology...

If they do not meet the criteria as a vaccine (for which the manufacturers have been legally protected against lawsuits), can the manufacturer be held responsible for the results?

Herpes Zoster is the proper name for Chicken Pox.

For those 50 and older who had Chicken Pox, it can often resurface as "Shingles"

Taking lysine on a daily basis will help keep it at bay, but if it returns, see a physician for known safe anti-viral meds.

I get colds. Others get colds. We remain humans, with unaltered DNA. Knock it off.

If viruses naturally and aggressively perform "x", it is not reasonable to get wound up about our version of "x". If you want to say "x" is "gene therapy", that is your choice. When communicating with others, it will be very much like using the term "ketchup" to describe Tabasco. Only other people that think Tabasco is a form of ketchup will get it. The rest will think you are unhinged, and treat the rest of what you say accordingly.

You may not care. You may not be seeking to change other's minds. I am in a different place.

I would suggest that there is overlap; that the phrase "gene therapy" does in fact include both genetic manipulation (ie fundamental alteration of genetic code) as well as therapeutic treatments (using genes to trigger automatic responses from the body as opposed to chemicals) perhaps. But be wary that to label ALL gene therapy as the former is a fallacy of inclusion.

Also, I would be very careful about arguing that a virus neither alters DNA nor acts as gene therapy. There is no question that a virus injects its own RNA into a body's cell so that the body's own pre-programmed mechanisms for replicating RNA are triggered. That sounds pretty much like gene therapy to me. And inasmuch as the body's own DNA is subverted to the invading RNA replication process, one can argue that this subversion effectively replaces the cell's own governing DNA with the virus'. I don't think either of your arguments is nearly as sound as they are being portrayed.

The thingy in the back for pain is a Spinal Generator. I have had one a rechargeable one for seven years then replaced with a 15 year battery generator which I have surgically re-implanted 3 years ago. The generator is implanted in the hip below the skin layer with a pair of sensor strips running about half way up the spinal column again under the skin layer. In some cases for severe pain the strips are surgically implant right on the spinal column. The generator is programable to the location of the pain and the stimulation to reduce or mask out the pain signals going to the brain. It really works for me.

Ok, is a virus, like the common cold, gene therapy? No

Do either one of them alter ones DNA at all? No

So...No

Do they use genetic code? Yes. They use mRNA. Do they condition the body to respond? Yes. Thus they are a therapy. Sounds pretty accurate to me. If you have an alternative, I'm open to suggestions.

If you don't want to call them vaccines, use something other than gene therapy. It is wrong, and unnecessary, not unlike "assault rifle".

Yes, I've heard this before. But what the author admits is that these treatments do not introduce a weakened or actual form of the microbe to allow the body to respond naturally (a real vaccine), but attempt to fool the body into thinking it is under attack by instigating an immune response. The reason this key distinction is relevant is because the deaths which are happening as a result of these therapies (including two friends of my wife) are because the body is far more complex than a simple mRNA strand can account for. I'm not doubting the sincerity of those creating these substances. But the fact that they were only released to the public under an emergency use authorization without the 3-5 years of clinical trials necessary should give pause, as should the fact that this research is still in its infant stages.

I would also note that the government has altered definitions at will, so the author citing the CDC, et al to try to include these gene therapy treatments as vaccines is a fallacy of self-reference. I note that the CDC just prior to the COVID outbreak revised the definition of "pandemic" to be based on infections rather than fatality rate as had been the norm for decades. I note that the CDC revised their instructions to coroners in order to inflate the COVID death counts.

If you want to call them vaccines you go right ahead. I'm going to call them what they are: gene therapy treatments which are more dangerous than the real virus.

WTF

Huh?

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skept...

Reagan nailed that one. I think Trump could do amazing things in a second term now that he realizes just how bad the swamp is. I'd love to see him just shut down entire agencies so that people could begin to realize just how much bloat there is in our government.

Only the Johnson & Johnson version is anywhere close to a real vaccine. Both the Moderna and Pfizer treatments are gene therapy - not vaccines.

Well said. And you know, of course, the nine scariest words in the English language: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Haven't heard about those yet. Totally agree regarding anything to minimize government.

There's no problem so big that government can't make it worse.

Vaccines are not gene therapy, we agree. The problem is that the public is being sold experimental gene therapy treatments for COVID as if they were vaccines. I also agree that credibility is important and that when our public servants and policy makers engage in this kind of duplicity we should call them out on it.