It's not a vaccine. Vaccines provide immunity, which this does not. This is gene therapy being called a vaccine, probably for liability reasons. But I am no doctor, so that's just my view.
A gene therapy is defined as a therapy that alters a cells genome. The Pfizer/Moderna vaccines do not do that. It would be appropriate to call it bio-nanotechnology, or maybe an mRNA therapy. However, it would be, by definition anyways, inappropriate or at least inaccurate (in scope) to call it a vaccine.
A vaccine is an injection of part of a virus to induce an immune response. This injects an mRNA made without any assistance from the virus itself, which highjacks the cell to express a protein on its surface that is the same as a protein that sars-cov-2 expresses on its surface. So it does not use any part of the actual virus (the definition of a vaccine) but makes your body create a (perfectly reasonable and exact) facsimile of a small part of it.
By itself I have no problem with the ideas of the technology. On the contrary, I design related tech. The problem I have with the technology is that it is designed to induce an autoimmune response in an unspecified location of the body (its supposed to be in the muscle, but once they get into the bloodstream they can go anywhere).
Bigger than the tech problem is that it is an insufficiently tested experimental technology being forced (currently through social pressure, eventually through law) upon the whole world.
Even bigger than that problem is that all the real data is being lied about so that people can't make informed decisions. This is in direct violation of the Nuremberg code, which makes this a crime against humanity.
One of my childhood friends is a woke warrior, virtue signalling about being "pro-vaccine" and the such. The implications being if you don't want this "vaccine" you are an "evil anti-vaxxer", regardless of your opinions on (real) vaccines.
By your words, he's "pro-gene therapy", which can be turned back on the Nuremberg Code and the ties to that.
Articulating this here because someone else may also find this a useful way to turn the tables if someone asks if you're "pro-vaccine".
It's not a vaccine. Vaccines provide immunity, which this does not. This is gene therapy being called a vaccine, probably for liability reasons. But I am no doctor, so that's just my view.
A gene therapy is defined as a therapy that alters a cells genome. The Pfizer/Moderna vaccines do not do that. It would be appropriate to call it bio-nanotechnology, or maybe an mRNA therapy. However, it would be, by definition anyways, inappropriate or at least inaccurate (in scope) to call it a vaccine.
A vaccine is an injection of part of a virus to induce an immune response. This injects an mRNA made without any assistance from the virus itself, which highjacks the cell to express a protein on its surface that is the same as a protein that sars-cov-2 expresses on its surface. So it does not use any part of the actual virus (the definition of a vaccine) but makes your body create a (perfectly reasonable and exact) facsimile of a small part of it.
By itself I have no problem with the ideas of the technology. On the contrary, I design related tech. The problem I have with the technology is that it is designed to induce an autoimmune response in an unspecified location of the body (its supposed to be in the muscle, but once they get into the bloodstream they can go anywhere).
Bigger than the tech problem is that it is an insufficiently tested experimental technology being forced (currently through social pressure, eventually through law) upon the whole world.
Even bigger than that problem is that all the real data is being lied about so that people can't make informed decisions. This is in direct violation of the Nuremberg code, which makes this a crime against humanity.
Thank you, hard to to find info from a reliable source.
One of my childhood friends is a woke warrior, virtue signalling about being "pro-vaccine" and the such. The implications being if you don't want this "vaccine" you are an "evil anti-vaxxer", regardless of your opinions on (real) vaccines.
By your words, he's "pro-gene therapy", which can be turned back on the Nuremberg Code and the ties to that.
Articulating this here because someone else may also find this a useful way to turn the tables if someone asks if you're "pro-vaccine".
In this case, vaccine is just a marketing name, like BLM.