To mask or not to mask....That is the question. Part II

[chipbennett]

It does not, indeed. Vehemently correcting someone who pretends to be an expert is important though.

Which is why I keep responding to you.

If, on the other hand, you have evidence that I am pretending to be an expert, feel free to produce it. And given that I have literal subject matter expertise in biopharmaceutical manufacturing, I look forward to seeing what you produce.

 

[bwframe]

July death count ignores full picture of Sweden’s COVID-19 t

From the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, Sweden made itself a compelling case study, forgoing lockdowns and mandates,

www.politifact.com

 

[chipbennett]

I feel it apropos to point out that credentialism, of which you seem to approve, is the sine qua non of appeal to authority

Precisely - which is why I'm not playing that game.

I will note that he asked me what PhD I have that qualifies me to speak on the subject, and then later asserted that one not need any formal education at all in order to understand the subject. He seems to want to have it both ways.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I think I'm ready to go back to jumping to the last post of each of the Covid threads again like I was doing before. They slowed down for awhile, but now they're getting overwhelming (in quantity of posts at least), and I mostly don't care. This is not directed at anyone in particular, but it seems to have gone back to "Uh huh!" "Nuh uh!" again with no opinions being swayed one way or another.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

At no time was I told that a Vaccine will prevent me from getting covid, but could allow me to stay out of the hospital and dying if I got it.

Funny, since it’s been proven to not even do that.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I think I'm ready to go back to jumping to the last post of each of the Covid threads again like I was doing before. They slowed down for awhile, but now they're getting overwhelming (in quantity of posts at least), and I mostly don't care. This is not directed at anyone in particular, but it seems to have gone back to "Uh huh!" "Nuh uh!" again with no opinions being swayed one way or another.

Nuh uh

 

[jamil]

Yuh huh.

Besides. Yer poopy. Don't even like bacon.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Yuh huh.

Besides. Yer poopy. Don't even like bacon.

Reported.

 

[drillsgt]

How many patients has Fauci treated? Now there’s a real ****ing hero. Illegally funds research banned due to its danger level which results in an 85% manufactured pandemic and the left lines up to lick his ass as if the sun rises and sets in it.

I suppose you’ve treated more patients? You’re not qualified to question anyone, you’ve demonstrated that here. Your opinion holds no weight, as with other trolls.

Fauci's been a bureaucrat since the day he left his residency, that's the last time he was a 'doctor'.

 

[Jaybird1980]

July death count ignores full picture of Sweden’s COVID-19 t

From the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, Sweden made itself a compelling case study, forgoing lockdowns and mandates,

www.politifact.com

From the article:
But cherry picking one statistic — the raw number of deaths in a single month — leaves a misleading impression of conditions and trends in Sweden.

Kind of like the author is doing by "cherry picking" only one measure (deaths) as to how Sweden faired the whole Covid mess. No mention of Economic impact, impact of small businesses, Suicide, depression, trust lost in (name anything)

Seems like only using deaths as the only measure of how a particular place is doing is misleading in itself.

 

[chipbennett]

My messages here usually are a form of a PSA.
I firmly believe that one does not need an advanced (or even university) degree to comprehend most of the topics rather well -- so long as one is willing to read, listen, and, most importantly, question the information they are being served.

So, why did you ask me what PhD I have, and what other credentials I have? Which is it? Can't have it both ways. (You'll note that I've not asked you for your credentials, because I'm not engaging in appeal to authority logical fallacy.)

Degrees and experience help, but also provide a false sense of confidence in one's own acumen. This is otherwise known as a Dunning-Kruger effect.
Police officers who deem themselves experts on firearms solely on the basis of their service are one such well-known example, as highlighted in many threads on this forum specifically.

Indeed, one of the two of us does have an apparently false sense of confidence in his own acumen.

In a way, I am hesitant to engage further, because @chipbennett revealed that he simply does not possess the acumen to comprehend the literature I provided.
He and I are, proverbially speaking, in vastly different weight categories, so it would be unfair to proceed.

In a way, you're full of ****, and are talking out of your ass. I'll put my 20+ years of experience in this field up against... whatever you bring to the table. You are correct; we are in vastly different weight categories.

However, this might be helpful for others, and I'll try to be gentle.

First, to get some personal jabs out of the way.

This was merely a statement of fact and a response to this condescending quote, where @chipbennett clearly made assumptions about my background.:

I made reference to prior use of internet experts as valid sources.

So three things:

1. I infer the answer is "no" (which is perfectly fine as indicated above).
   I see, that @chipbennett holds a BSc in Chemical Engineering and he's worked in quality control his entire career.
   Product manufacturing (including QC, GMP, and CQV) and wet lab drug development are vastly different topics, to put it mildly.
   This explains his lack of understanding of these relatively complex biological topics as well as, frankly, basic biology.

Your inference is incorrect.

Also, I've never worked in Quality Control - not a day in my life, much less, for my entire career. You might want to get better at internet sleuthing. Or, maybe you just don't know the difference between Quality Control, Quality Assurance, and Validation.

You should probably learn the difference between DNA, RNA, and mRNA before accusing me of lack of understanding of basic biology.

1. 
   
   
2. Ironically, @chipbennett said
   
   In that post, @chipbennett did not provide any other evidence or explanations.
   This is the definition of appeal to authority.
   
   
3. Finally, in asking if @chipbennett had any other credentials besides... whatever that is, I was actually willing to accept some form of this fallacy.
   If you will, knowing one's credentials helps understand what they are likely to know or should know.

And, again: I'm not indulging your appeal to authority logical fallacy - especially given the hypocritical, self-serving, opening statement in this comment.

Second, some basic assertions.

Yes, any use of mRNA inside the cells constitutes gene therapy, precisely because this is what mRNA fundamentally is: genetic material.

No. That is not the definition of gene therapy, as I've pointed out, several times. To constitute gene therapy, a therapy has to modify the patient's genes. mRNA, on its own, does not do that.

You are confusing gene therapy for cell therapy. The mRNA Covid vaccine is a cell therapy; it is not a gene therapy. Maybe this FAQ will help.

Later, @chipbennett makes some assertions about the articles I provided, and I'll address those below.

No, not every use of a dictionary constitutes a fallacy. I merely used it as a way to elaborate on part of the definition provided by the FDA and to specifically illustrate that "gene" refers to both RNA and DNA.

No, not every use of a dictionary constitutes a logical fallacy - but it does, when a dictionary definition is used in a reductivist manner to constrain a definition incorrectly, as you did.

mRNA is merely a subset of RNA. To understand how to apply FDA's definition of gene therapy requires understanding the differences among messenger, transfer, and ribosomal RNA. The mRNA is merely the instruction set.

I concur; the specific part (Introducing a new or modified gene) of this definition contradicts, at least, on the surface, the umbrella definition that it modifies a person's genes.
I've brought this up with the FDA, and I'll see what can be done about changing it.

Who in CBER did you reach out to?

No, mRNA is not a delivery vehicle. mRNA is precisely what is being delivered, and it does the exact same thing in all cases: it makes protein.

No. mRNA does not make proteins. The mRNA is the instruction set read by ribosomes. It is the ribosomes, aided by tRNA and rRNA, that make proteins.

mRNA does not make protein. Period. End of story. I cannot point out any more strongly how wrong you are on this point.

Third, onto the most important section: @chipbennett's interpretations of the scientific literature I provided as supporting evidence.
My opinion is that he skimmed over the abstracts, misinterpreted what they said, and aligned them with his preconceived notions.

You are correct that I mostly skimmed them. If I've misinterpreted anything in them, I welcome being corrected.

Intranasal vaccination with messenger RNA as a new approach in gene therapy: Use against tuberculosis

First, no, mRNA is not the primary antigen here. They specifically stress that protein production is what they were after. They mention that immune response against the mRNA itself "can be useful" in passing (and even that they call gene therapy as well).

So, here, I think you're correct. The study investigated whether dendritic cells, specifically, could uptake the mRNA itself: "In order to determine if antigen presenting cells (APCs) present in the lung are capable of capture the mRNA, labeled mRNA-Hsp65 was administered by intranasal route and lung APCs were analyzed by flow cytometry. These experiments showed that after 30 minutes until 8 hours the populations of CD11c+, CD11b+ and CD19+ cells were able to capture the mRNA. We also demonstrated in vitro that mRNA-Hsp65 leads nitric oxide (NO) production through Toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7)."

So, mea culpa there. The dendritic cells took up the mRNA, and the mRNA was translated into the antigen. You are correct.

However, you remain incorrect that a) this constitutes gene therapy (it does not), and b) that the authors referred to this therapy as gene therapy. It is merely using Tuberciulosis vaccination via mRNA as a proof of concept that mRNA as a delivery mechanism can be applied to gene therapies.

See for yourself:

Second, this is a peer-reviewed publication, and its authors deemed it appropriate to call this gene therapy.

They don't call Tuberculosis mRNA vaccination gene therapy. Rather, they use Tuberculosis mRNA vaccination as evidence that mRNA is a viable delivery method for gene therapies.

This is an illustration that, at the very least, the same exact technology employed by Pfizer and Moderna is currently called gene therapy -- at the very least, here and in a large number of other publications.

They don't call Tuberculosis mRNA vaccination gene therapy. Rather, they use Tuberculosis mRNA vaccination as evidence that mRNA is a viable delivery method for gene therapies.

Therapeutic Prospects of mRNA-Based Gene Therapy for Glioblastoma

First, this is nonsensical. mRNA is not used as a vehicle for "synthetic RNA". Here, @chipbennett likely misunderstood the following statement:

This statement means that genes encoded as mRNA are easier to deliver into the cells than genes encoded as DNA:

That's it.
Further in the paper, the authors discuss mechanisms of mRNA delivery (again, the delivery of genes encoded as mRNA):

Okay, let me jump in right here. This is the key difference, and what I mean by the payload of the mRNA that matters. mRNA can be used to encode genes. mRNA can also be used to encode things (e.g. proteins) that are not genes. When mRNA is being used to encode genes, you're likely dealing with a gene therapy. When mRNA is being used to encode things that are not genes, then you're likely not dealing with a gene therapy.

The Covid mRNA vaccine encodes a protein, not a gene. Yes, when determining whether the therapy is gene therapy or not, the distinction matters.

• Naked mRNA Delivery
  Importantly, this is done via electroporation, which is an in vitro technique.
• Lipoplex- and Polyplex-Mediated Transfection
• Inorganic Nanoparticle-Mediated Delivery
• Polypeptide-Mediated Delivery
• Virus-Mediated Delivery
• Cell- Mediated Delivery
• Exosome-Mediated Delivery

This demonstrates that @chipbennett's claim that "mRNA is simply the delivery mechanism" is wrong.
mRNA is the payload, and the delivery vehicles are listed above.

No. What the mRNA encodes is the payload. That is the distinction that you either are ignoring, or don't seem to understand.

Further, as to the BBB penetration, it is these mRNA delivery vehicles that are capable of crossing the BBB, not the mRNA itself:

Again, you are correct here. I was wrong on this point.

But I'm still not wrong on the part that matters:

Finally, again, it is the production of a protein that is the ultimate target here:

This is describing functional protein production by the cell, not production of an antigen protein (as with the Covid mRNA vaccine). We do not disagree that mRNA can be used as a gene therapy vector. You're merely incorrect in your apparent assertion that every therapeutic use of mRNA constitutes gene therapy.

Gene therapies ... Another approach is to deliver corrected mRNA into cells ... This approach has been pioneered by Moderna Therapeutics​

Since this is not a paper, my take on this is not going to be supported by any evidence, you can treat is as my opinion.
No, it does not "counteract" cell's own protein production or "modify" the patient's gene expression.

You should probably spend a bit of time researching silencing RNA, which does exactly what I said: counteracts damaged mRNA.

Regardless: we both agree that this therapy constitutes gene therapy, and it appears that you're merely trying to disagree to play some kind of "gotcha" game.

It does introduce the undamaged mRNA -- but not in place of patient's own, damaged mRNA.
The damaged mRNA is still there, and it's still producing the damaged protein.

Sigh. From your own, damn link: "Messenger RNA (mRNA) plays a vital role in translating the instructions in DNA into the proteins of life. If a gene is damaged it creates damaged mRNA, which goes on to create damaged proteins and, ultimately, disease. One type of RNA therapy uses a particular type of RNA — silencing RNA — to bind with damaged mRNA, which prevents it from being made into protein. Another approach is to deliver corrected mRNA into cells. By giving cells the right blueprint for creating healthy proteins, mRNA therapy can prevent or treat disease."

The essential goal of this gene therapy is the same as it is with mRNA vaccines: to make protein. That's it.

No, the goals are not the same. The goal of this therapy is to change the body's expression of its own genes, which is why it constitutes gene therapy. The goal of the Covid mRNA vaccine is to induce the cell to produce an antigen protein. It doesn't in any way change or impact the body's expression of its own genes.

You're either ignoring this distinction, or fail to understand it.

The function of the protein is entirely irrelevant to the definition of the technology.

False.

The mRNA is literally the payload inside the lipid nanoparticle, not the "protein particle."

Again, wrong. The mRNA encoding is the payload.

The protein is being synthesized inside patient's cells based on the genetic information in the mRNA.
It is the same exact procedure as this gene therapy.
Saying this is not gene therapy is the same as saying that firing a gun should be called "shooting" only if it is done during a war, but not at the range.

Interesting that you should bring up a gun-related analogy, because I thought of one, too. Claiming that all uses of mRNA as a therapeutic vector constitute gene therapy, regardless of the mRNA encoding (i.e the payload) is analogous to the way that MDA likes to conflate mass shootings and school shootings.

Scaffold-mediated delivery for non-viral mRNA vaccines

First, this: "mRNA payload was DNA"
Honestly, don't let your clients see this, @chipbennett.
Yes, this is not your field of expertise, but this is basic biology -- not to mention, given your level of seniority, you should know what you know and what you do not.

No, you cannot have DNA as the payload in the mRNA any more than you can have a 9mm cartridge as a payload in a .50 BMG cartridge. It's physically possible, but... why?

Perhaps loosely phrased on my part, and I'll take the hit on that. Mea culpa. In this study, the mRNA is encoding genetic material.

The issue of import still remains, though: this therapy is absolutely nothing like the Covid mRNA vaccine (Pfizer and Moderna both use lipid nanoparticle delivery), in terms of what is encoded by the mRNA in the therapy.

Again, don't take my word for it:

The authors made mRNA containing Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP), mixed it with different delivery systems, and then transfected different cells in vitro as well as in mice.
They assessed the efficacy of transfection by the levels of GFP protein expressed in those cells.

We're agreed that mRNA is a vector - a delivery method.

In talking about vaccine delivery, the authors refer the reader to their earlier work (reference 32).
In that paper, they explicitly mention "a protein or the equivalent nucleic acid vector" highlighting that it is the protein production that is the ultimate goal of gene therapy and mRNA vaccines in particular.

Indeed. And it is the nature and origin of the protein that matters. With gene therapy, the desired end result is to get the patient's cells to produce the body's own (healthy) proteins (or not produce damaged proteins). With a vaccine, the desired end result is to get the patient to produce immune cells (that act against the produced protein). The two are simply not the same.

Finally, the conclusion of it all.

Well, yeah. The genetic material that is being expressed is the payload.

The payload is whatever is encoded by the mRNA. That encoding can be genetic material, or not. The Covid mRNA vaccine does not cause expression of genetic material.

If you use genetic material in a viral or bacterial vector, the conversion of that genetic material into the protein inside the body is the goal of the entire endeavor.

Indeed. And viral vectors have been explored for use with vaccines - though, thus far, the safety risks far outweigh the benefits.

But - again - the payload you're describing is genetic material. The Covid virus protein spike-mimicking protein encoded by the Covid vaccine mRNA is not genetic material.

In every single instance above and in the case of mRNA COVID vaccines, the mRNA is the payload, and the vehicles usually constitute some sort of a nanocontainer.

No, the mRNA was not the payload; what was encoded by the mRNA was the payload.

It literally introduces a gene in the form of mRNA, which is translated into the spike protein.

In gene therapy, the expressed gene is the patient's gene. With the Covid mRNA vaccine, the expressed gene is the Coronavirus's gene (specifically, the Coronavirus gene that expresses the protein spike).

The function of said protein is entirely irrelevant to the definition of the technology.

False.

I do. You provided zero evidence, managed to dramatically misinterpret every single pertinent paper I referenced, and kept regurgitating the same point over and over again without any evidence whatsoever.

Evidence of what, exactly? I quoted FDA's definition of gene therapy. I linked multiple sources that attempt to explain what gene therapy is.

And that same point that I keep regurgitating is the key, foundational point of the entire matter. The goal of gene therapy is to change the body's expression of its own genes. The goal of the Covid mRNA vaccine is to induce the cell to produce an antigen protein. It doesn't in any way change or impact the body's expression of its own genes.

Eh, it might be helpful for others.
You are doing this community a great disservice by pretending to be an expert in the field you clearly do not understand -- and using that as sole proof for your statements.

...says the guy who thinks I work in QC.

Just like Fauci or Walensky or Collins.
This is the worst form of misinformation.
Shame on you.

 

[chipbennett]

To me, whether it's gene therapy or not is not a hill to die on. It doesn't matter if it is or isn't. What matters is if vaccines are as safe and as effective as claimed. And in my opinion, judging from what non-expert faculties I can bring to bear, it's still undecided on that. But I have no problem at all leaving the discussion about gene therapy to people who have a working knowledge of that discipline. It doesn't matter to what I care about.

And yet, that's at the very heart of the complaint with the Covid mRNA vaccine: it is claimed to be "untested gene therapy": the assertion that it changes the patient's genes/gene expression. (See also: the analogy about conflating mass shootings and school shootings.)

 

[Hatin Since 87]

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Wow he's treated 15 covid patients. What a ****ing hero..... This is a Dr that earns a living selling supplements to patients. At no time was I told that a Vaccine will prevent me from getting covid, but could allow me to stay out of the hospital and dying if I got it.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

View attachment 152169

Right? When they implement mitigation processes for all the Covid positive illegals that they're allowing in and shipping out all across the country then I might begin to take TPTB seriously. Until then, I will continue to not believe a damn thing they say. If it's as serious as they claim, they'd be doing that. Since they're not, I will continue to ignore them from this point forward. I'm not gonna hold my breath (literally or figuratively). Ball is in their court.

 

[d.kaufman]

At no time was I told that a Vaccine will prevent me from getting covid, but could allow me to stay out of the hospital and dying if I got it.

And that doesn't seem to be working out so well, but I'm sure you'll go with the mainstream narrative it's the unvaccinated causing it

Right? When they implement mitigation processes for all the Covid positive illegals that they're allowing in and shipping out all across the country then I might begin to take TPTB seriously. Until then, I will continue to not believe a damn thing they say. If it's as serious as they claim, they'd be doing that. Since they're not, I will continue to ignore them from this point forward. I'm not gonna hold my breath (literally or figuratively). Ball is in their court.

Let's not forget how tptb never adhere to their own mandates. DC mayor, Michigan Governor, Barry and Big Mike, etc.
Do as I say not as I do!
Rules for thee but not for me!

 

[DoggyDaddy]

And that doesn't seem to be working out so well, but I'm sure you'll go with the mainstream narrative it's the unvaccinated causing it


Let's not forget how tptb never adhere to their own mandates. DC mayor, Michigan Governor, Barry and Big Mike, etc.
Do as I say not as I do!
Rules for thee but not for me!

I got the (Pfizer) vaccine. I won't be getting the booster. I won't be putting on my mask except in my doctor's office or if I have to do it to visit my mom in assisted living. Going shopping? Nope. Not happening.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Circle k hung a sign that says “masks requested unless vaccinated”.


Meh. Request denied.

 

[nonobaddog]

To me, whether it's gene therapy or not is not a hill to die on. It doesn't matter if it is or isn't.

To me it matters a lot. I would not be participating in anything that changes my genes. At this point I am afraid of gene therapy, a lot of people are - which is precisely why some people want to call the vaccine that.

 

[d.kaufman]

Circle k hung a sign that says “masks requested unless vaccinated”.


Meh. Request denied.

I identify as vaccinated