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

[idkfa]

You need to re-read chip's post with a tiny bit of an open mind. He is correct.

The "m" in mRNA is for messenger. The message is a sequence. This sequence is used in the cell cytoplasm to make a protein. These messengers are used naturally all the time in the cells. The nucleus (where the genes are in the DNA) sends out mRNA to the cytoplasm all the time to make various proteins.

With an mRNA vaccine the message also goes to the cytoplasm to make a specific protein (in the case of the COVID vaccine the sequence makes a portion of the spike protein) which the immune system reacts to.

No genes are affected in this process. No DNA is affected in this process. This is NOT gene therapy.

No, I do not need an open mind. I provided all the evidence of what is and what is not called gene therapy.
I am well aware of all particularities of this basic biology in question, but I appreciate the thoroughness (truly).

My point is a gene is a nucleic acid sequence that has the information about a protein structure -- regardless of the type, DNA or RNA.
In other words, the pertinent information in the mRNA is identical to the corresponding DNA blueprint (minus the introns).

Whether or not DNA is affected in the process is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is gene therapy.

 

[idkfa]

...which explains why you started out asking what my PhD was in? Nice try.

No, and saying that does not make it so.

"...sole piece of evidence." You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means. I have provided plenty of evidence. You just keep ignoring it, by reiterating your demand for credentials.

Demand? No, it was a question, taunting, I admit, but a question nonetheless.
At the time I had no idea who I was talking to until you "analyzed" my sources.

No. Demanding a PhD is appeal to authority. Continually demanding credentials is appeal to authority.

You keep saying that I demanded it. I did not. I am merely stating that you don't have even that.
Note, that every other piece of evidence was provided by me, and in return you provided:

• profanities
• a good bit of mea culpas
• conjecture and personal opinion.

As to the latter, you believe that a gene can only exist as DNA.
You rejected the dictionary definition and every paper that dared to call in vivo delivery of mRNA "gene therapy" -- in other words, evidence.
At this point, we have discovered the cornerstone of the disagreement, and it is utterly pointless to conduct this conversation any further.

Me refusing to indulge your appeal to authority does not mean that I have no credentials. And I don't give a rat's ass what you consider to be relevant credentials.

More profanity. Classy.

 

[actaeon277]

Oh
My
God


Get a damn room you guys.

Are you really thinking you are changing each other's minds?

 

[drillsgt]

Oh
My
God


Get a damn room you guys.

Are you really thinking you are changing each other's minds?

I don't think anybody's mind has been changed yet lol, maybe just one more post will do it...

 

[BugI02]

Perhaps gene therapy could change their minds?

 

[BigRed]

They’re laughing at you. They’re publicly rubbing it in your faces and laughing about it.

Obammy is still what he has alway been..... a mother ******* *******.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Obammy is still what he has alway been..... a mother ******* *******.

Careful. That mother ******* ******* has some supporters here. They’re grand mother ******* *******.

 

[actaeon277]

I don't think anybody's mind has been changed yet lol, maybe just one more post will do it...

 

[JettaKnight]

Oh
My
God


Get a damn room you guys.

But leave the curtains open.

 

[jamil]

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.)


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


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.


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


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.



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


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.


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.


Who in CBER did you reach out to?



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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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

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

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.


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.


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."



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.


False.


Again, wrong. The mRNA encoding is the payload.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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).


False.



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.


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

TL;DR

 

[actaeon277]

But leave the curtains open.

I don't think I want to see it.

 

[jamil]

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.)


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


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.


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


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.



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


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.


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.


Who in CBER did you reach out to?



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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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

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

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.


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.


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."



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.


False.


Again, wrong. The mRNA encoding is the payload.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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).


False.



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.


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

TL;DR

 

[foszoe]

TL;DR

Rerun

 

[bwframe]

 

[rhamersley]

Rerun

Yes?

 

[d.kaufman]

 

[chipbennett]

No, and saying that does not make it so.

Demand? No, it was a question, taunting, I admit, but a question nonetheless.
At the time I had no idea who I was talking to until you "analyzed" my sources.

You keep saying that I demanded it. I did not. I am merely stating that you don't have even that.

...and having or not having that (a PhD) is not relevant to the discussion. You're the only one here talking about PhDs.

Note, that every other piece of evidence was provided by me, and in return you provided:

• profanities

Oh, my heavens!

• a good bit of mea culpas

(As if admitting when I'm wrong is somehow a... knock against me?)

• conjecture and personal opinion.

I've provided plenty of sources; you just seem to ignore them.

As to the latter, you believe that a gene can only exist as DNA.

I never said such a thing. Straw man, much?

You rejected the dictionary definition and every paper that dared to call in vivo delivery of mRNA "gene therapy" -- in other words, evidence.

You continue to misrepresent what those papers were saying. That mRNA can be used in gene therapies does not mean that all use of mRNA constitutes gene therapy. You may not like or agree with that distinction, but the regulators do. (Perhaps my favorite part of this entire thread was where you admitted that your definition of "gene therapy" was different from FDA's definition, and you took it upon yourself to contact them to correct it.

(I should have dropped it there; mea culpa, again. I realized that I was debating with someone who tried to correct FDA on the definition of "gene therapy", and should have seen my efforts for the windmill tilting that it is.)

At this point, we have discovered the cornerstone of the disagreement, and it is utterly pointless to conduct this conversation any further.

More profanity. Classy.

Oh, bless your heart.

 

[sparky32]

They are talking about having my sons whole Kinder class stay home for 10 days. We already have 2 parents at my sons school that tested positive for virus with mild symtoms and there son is so far negative. Im so pi**ed because my son really needs the structure at school and they already want to do this dumb crap. Even with the masks it is the same protocol for the school so it does not matter

They are 5 year olds they are gonna be sick kids all the time! Is this ever gonna end or is it gonna keep being used as a excuse to stay home for weeks on end. IM OVER IT.

 

[rhamersley]

gonna keep being used as a excuse to stay home for weeks on end.

Bingo...Teachers union approved, also.

 

[ninepntr]

I wrote to the Indiana attorney general this morning challenging him to join with other constitutionalists states attorneys general and pushing back against the CDC's eviction moratorium. There is adequate information to believe the CDC does not have the authority and at least one supreme Court Justice appears to believe just that. Further, I do not believe the Constitution supports the federal government exercising the authority it has assumed.

I specifically asked Indiana's attorney general to attack the CDC eviction moratorium on the basis of exceeding the federal government's authority under the strictures of the 9th and 10th amendments.

Those who care about this nation remaining in existence under the ideals of the Constitution need to force this to the jury box, and the sooner the better.

The same needs to be said for election integrity. The sooner cases can be forced into the courts for adjudication with evidence in front of a jury of peers the sooner there will be hope of saving the union.

If these things do not get appropriately adjudicated according to the ideals of the Constitution of the United States of America, we are going to end up for the only option will be to use that last box.

Well said,

Everyone should contact our attorney general.
CDC has no power to institute an eviction moratorium.
Landlords have expenses too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk