Covid retrospective

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

It is my understanding that spike proteins are the proteins that a virus uses to invade a human cell (or any living cell).

Again, you're using very generic language to describe very specific and scientific procedures and distinctions.  I can only assume that this is incorrect because it doesn't delineate very important characteristics.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps I am missing something – do any of your links say specifically and indicate that none of the mRNA vaccines utilize any technologies derived from mRNA gene therapy research?  That the two are in no way related? 

NT already provided those links and they indicated how they differ.  Apparently, you didn't read them.

Here's a quote from Good RX Health

• The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines use a technology called messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA instructs your cells to make part of the virus that causes COVID-19. 

• Gene therapy treats medical conditions by modifying your genes. This involves introducing, replacing, or inactivating genes in your body.

• The mRNA in vaccines don’t interact with, or change, your genes in any way. So, they  aren’t considered gene therapy.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Is there a difference between mRNA gene therapy – which according to my understanding never alters cell DNA - and the COVID vaccines?  Why are the two things two totally different unrelated things?  

???

Edited February 6, 2023 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Why are the two things two totally different unrelated things?  

One alters our DNA.  The other doesn't.  That's all that matters.

If you want to keep calling it "gene therapy" that's up to you.  You have freedom of speech.  You can call it a pearl necklace if you want.

But if you're trying to convey that the mRNA vaccine somehow changes our cellular DNA, you're wrong.

I'll say this one more time.  There are other mRNA technologies that DO alter DNA.  This technology does not.  If you're getting these things mixed up, 

DISCLAIMER: This is assuming that everyone involved in the process has been forthcoming about the mechanisms by which the  vaccine works.  So far, no one who would know and understand the differences has said otherwise.  This includes people who have other gripes against the vaccine (as I do).

Edited February 6, 2023 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

THIS:

https://news.yahoo.com/hudson-doctor-headed-jail-must-173341016.html

is exactly the type of thing that makes average people VERY suspicious of the medical field.  We're pretty much REQUIRED to try to educate ourselves as much as possible (which, admittedly, is quite insufficient) to be able to protect ourselves from fraud & hype.

And there has been just enough nefarious behavior coming from Fauci, Pfizer, the FDA, and the mandates to warrant such suspicion of a  new technology that just doesn't have a sufficient track record to hold its own against traditional vaccines.

But good luck trying to get answers.

Q: If we've already had the disease, why are we required to get the vaccine?
A (Fauci): To protect against variants.

NEWS: Pfizer vaccine proven to be ineffective against variants.

NEWS: Natural immunity from having contracted the disease is highly effective against variants.

So, what are the mandates about?

Edited February 6, 2023 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Again, you're using very generic language to describe very specific and scientific procedures and distinctions.  I can only assume that this is incorrect because it doesn't delineate very important characteristics.

NT already provided those links and they indicated how they differ.  Apparently, you didn't read them.

Here's a quote from Good RX Health

• The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines use a technology called messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA instructs your cells to make part of the virus that causes COVID-19. 

• Gene therapy treats medical conditions by modifying your genes. This involves introducing, replacing, or inactivating genes in your body.

• The mRNA in vaccines don’t interact with, or change, your genes in any way. So, they  aren’t considered gene therapy.

???

Thank you - you are being very helpful.  However, I am confused concerning spike proteins.   You say my response was generic and not specific????  Does a virus use any other method to attack living cells?  Do spike proteins serve any other purpose than for a virus attacking a living cell?  What about spike proteins did I leave out?   Since you referenced scientific procedures -this does cause me to wonder if spike proteins are ever used in gene therapy or in genetic engineering as a means to enter cells?

Also, from my reading – mRNA is used to treat some forms of cancer.  Is this different than the mRNA treatment for COVID (be careful with this question – it may be a trick question because mRNA is called gene therphy in treating cancer).   If this is different then it appears to me that the type of mRNA treatment for COVID is unique and has no research prior to COVID (at least that I can find).  Which means this threapy is even more expermental than I thought.

Actually the more I research mRNA and COVID the more I speculate that the vaccine can be dangerous to sectors of our human population.  The fact that mRNA has no therapeutic value (cure) once a person has contracted COVID and that new mRNA vaccines must be created for every variant – why has there not been any research in developing or even recognizing an existing cure?   The reason I wonder is because it appears that COVID research in entirely funded by government $$$$.  So I wonder if the government is or ever was funding research for a cure?  Which means the incentive is to never produce a cure – only new mRNA vaccines.

All this goes back to the video of the possible Pfizer executive and all the word play over surrounding gain of function and if anyone is assisting variants to generate government funding for future vaccines all at human costs to make money.  Hugh Nibley suggested that the great sin of Gomorrah was to value profits over human life.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

One alters our DNA.  The other doesn't.  That's all that matters.

Agreed. By definition, it's not gene therapy.

But I see an important distinction between injecting someone with proteins with the intent to cause an immune response and injecting someone with something that causes the recipient's cells to produce the proteins that cause an immune response. That's an extra step, and an important one. The latter is far less straightforward and introduces much more risk with associated effects that could take place than the former. If it's incorrect to call such a thing "gene therapy", it also seems incorrect to lump it under the category of "plain old normal vaccine". It is not, and it should be publicly and overtly identified as "not a plain old normal vaccine".

[Carborendum]

35 minutes ago, Vort said:

it also seems incorrect to lump it under the category of "plain old normal vaccine". It is not, and it should be publicly and overtly identified as "not a plain old normal vaccine".

I absolutely agree that it isn't a "normal vaccine".  And it would be great if we could give the technology a different name that was technically accurate.  But we don't have such a word.  No one was going to coin a word because of the nature of patents and copyrights.

So, we're stuck trying to compare it to the closest thing.  So, we used the hyphenate "mRNA-vaccine."  It's the best we can do for now.  And most of the public in virtually every country is well aware that this "vaccine" is a new technology.  It is different from traditional vaccines.  It's just the stupid politicians who refuse to acknowledge the difference and refuse to be more cautious about approving it & mandating it.

I think it is more accurate to categorize it with vaccines than with gene therapy because of the overall effect to the body and the cells.  The actions, the mechanisms are closer to a vaccine than gene therapy.

Do you have a suggestion?

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Does a virus use any other method to attack living cells?  Do spike proteins serve any other purpose than for a virus attacking a living cell? 

Does a virus do anything other than attack the cell?  Regardless of the answer, the primary purpose of a virus' existence is to attack other living cells.  So, in a sense, ANYTHING the virus does is part of that goal.

The spike protein specifically allows the vaccine body to latch onto living cell walls.  Thus these proteins run "spikes" into the cell wall to anchor the virus housing like tent stakes.

When the mRNA vaccine works, it basically generates these spikes (that's not 100% correct, but it's close enough for our discussion) but none of the internal viral DNA.  So, it has no chance of actually causing the disease itself.

The cell and immune system reacts to the spike proteins as if it were a virus attacking.  Then the immune system responds by creating a defense against said proteins as if they were the proteins formed by the virus' DNA (some of which are the virus's spike proteins).

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Also, from my reading – mRNA is used to treat some forms of cancer.  Is this different than the mRNA treatment for COVID (be careful with this question – it may be a trick question because mRNA is called gene therphy in treating cancer).  

Yes, as I mentioned before, there are other mRNA therapies/treatments that ARE INDEED gene therapy.  Some are not.  Some skate the line.  But they go into the cell rather than sit outside of it.

• Pfizer's method never goes into the nucleus of the cell. 
• The spike proteins remain outside the cell.
• The copy of the proteins are made outside the nucleus.
• DNA of the human cells are never affected.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

If this is different then it appears to me that the type of mRNA treatment for COVID is unique and has no research prior to COVID (at least that I can find).  Which means this threapy is even more expermental than I thought.

Not quite. It has been a technology since the beginning of this century.  I can't remember the exact year.  But I believe it started around 2004.  There were several trials which were "proof of concept" for the technology.  But real trials on animals started later.  I can't find a clear timeline on animal testing.  So, I don't know if that was standard or if it was rushed.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Actually the more I research mRNA and COVID the more I speculate that the vaccine can be dangerous to sectors of our human population.  The fact that mRNA has no therapeutic value (cure) once a person has contracted COVID and that new mRNA vaccines must be created for every variant – why has there not been any research in developing or even recognizing an existing cure?  

Exactly.  Now these are valid questions.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

The reason I wonder is because it appears that COVID research in entirely funded by government $$$$.  So I wonder if the government is or ever was funding research for a cure?  Which means the incentive is to never produce a cure – only new mRNA vaccines.

There are some blind spots to the public on this point.  So, this may definitely be true.  But there may be something they're just not telling simply because they figure they don't need to.  But since I haven't trusted doctors since the last 5 failed diagnoses/solutions for various ailments I've had, I'm not too keen on trusting them outright.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

All this goes back to the video of the possible Pfizer executive and all the word play over surrounding gain of function and if anyone is assisting variants to generate government funding for future vaccines all at human costs to make money. 

Yup.  When Fauci said that they're not doing gain of function research, but they are doing (then goes on to describe exactly what gain of function research is, then denies that is the definition) I kinda figured he's trying to hide something.

Go figure.  It's a lot like Biden denying we are in a recession.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Carborendum