Carlton player Liam Jones refusing vax - Update: Jones retires from AFL

[MisterMarcus]

How is that blowing up in my face ?

In the post prior to the one you've quoted I said, ''but vaccines don't have to stop replication or transmission to be considered effective. Especially if they succeed in stopping disease or death in the host.''

Do you have any comprehension skills ?

So you agree with the statement in the paper, then? That vaccines are highly effective against coronavirus?

 

[Trav 20]

So you agree with the statement in the paper, then? That vaccines are highly effective against coronavirus?

I'm open-minded about that and don't dispute the assertion.

For me it's never been about the efficacy of the treatments, more-so the safety.

 

[Trav 20]

Yeah but what does Marek's disease have to do with Coronavirus?

Animal studies are exceedingly important in biological experiments for the benefit of human research and safety.

Benefits Derived from the Use of Animals - Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Trav 20]

Yeah but what does Marek's disease have to do with Coronavirus?

In fairness, here's an article from the authors of the paper re Mareks disease and his views on vaccination for covid.

Vaccines could affect how the coronavirus evolves – but that’s no reason to skip your shot

https://theconversation.com/vaccines-could-affect-how-the-coronavirus-evolves-but-thats-no-reason-to-skip-your-shot-165960

 

[MisterMarcus]

In fairness, here's an article from the authors of the paper re Mareks disease and his views on vaccination for covid.

Vaccines could affect how the coronavirus evolves – but that’s no reason to skip your shot

https://theconversation.com/vaccines-could-affect-how-the-coronavirus-evolves-but-thats-no-reason-to-skip-your-shot-165960

I like how he spends the first part of the article specifically calling out anti-vaxxers for manipulating his work for their own ends, and shuts it down.

He also notes, as I did, that the number of views skyrocketed in the past couple of weeks, and the recent comment attached by the antivax crowd....suggesting very clearly it's being spread through antivax circles as yet another attempted drive-by 'gotcha'.

 

[Trav 20]

I like how he spends the first part of the article specifically calling out anti-vaxxers for manipulating his work for their own ends, and shuts it down.

He also notes, as I did, that the number of views skyrocketed in the past couple of weeks, and the recent comment attached by the antivax crowd....suggesting very clearly it's being spread through antivax circles as yet another attempted drive-by 'gotcha'.

Which is why I posted it to you.

I believe in fair context.

 

[Gruffles]

Did you even press play and listen to the exact words of Stefan Oelrich ???

''Ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example of that cell or gene therapy''

So getting back into this as I was surprised on initially hearing what he said so investigated further. Firstly... It seems you didn't listen to the EXACT words of Stefan Oelrich as he said "FOR" in place of where you have written "OF" above... a small difference that has significant impact on the potential meaning of the statement.

However, I don't think he represented the vaccines well there and was rather trying to sell interest in Beyer's research arm. From their own website:

"Gene therapies focus on the use of genetic material as a drug, correcting or replacing the abnormal gene function causing it." Yes, this can take several forms in terms of how they correct or replace the abnormal gene function.

The vaccines don't correct or replace any abnormal gene function in the body but rather just provide a code for ribosome protein manufacturing. This code isn't embedded in the persons DNA sequence.

But if you needed a little more clarification on what was meant then direct from Bayer: "“It was an obvious slip of the tongue. According to Bayer, mRNA is not a gene therapy in the sense of general understanding"

So my interpretation above seems to be the correct one.

 

[Trav 20]

So getting back into this as I was surprised on initially hearing what he said so investigated further. Firstly... It seems you didn't listen to the EXACT words of Stefan Oelrich as he said "FOR" in place of where you have written "OF" above... a small difference that has significant impact on the potential meaning of the statement.



But if you needed a little more clarification on what was meant then direct from Bayer: "“It was an obvious slip of the tongue. According to Bayer, mRNA is not a gene therapy in the sense of general understanding"

So my interpretation above seems to be the correct one.

It's nothing more than damage control. Many are at odds to point out that it doesn't alter DNA, so there's been a concerted campaign to shift away from the term ''gene therapy treatments'', but it's nothing more than spin. You can see why the Bayer executive momentarily had a lapse - because he knows what they are.

Nature.com is one of the pre-eminent online science resources on the planet. I quote from their site:

''However, these mRNA vaccines, which have been developed and approved within a few months, signify a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy, which has battled to achieve ordinary acknowledgement due to a large number of sceptical and conservative scientists and other claimed safety and translational concerns. Although these two vaccines are not the first approved drugs utilising genetic materials as active ingredients, they are believed to be a milestone in modern medical history that may forever change pharmaceutical approaches.''

''This unprecedented achievement will also stress the crucial solutions that gene therapy may provide for many diseases. In the coming future, we expect to see a considerable effort for developing mRNA-based treatments for a wide range of diseases, e.g., hereditary disorders, type 1 Diabetes Mellitus, cancer, and HIV.''

Gene therapy avenues and COVID-19 vaccines

Gene therapy avenues and COVID-19 vaccines - Genes & Immunity

2020 has witnessed unprecedented situations due to coronavirus pandemic that affected all aspects of life. The whole globe lived months of uncertainty before two companies have announced the incredible results of phase III clinical trials for two different mRNA-based vaccines.

www.nature.com

Let me add that the article is about as effusive as you can get regarding these mRNA treatments.

I understand why there's a push to now back away from the term by some, but it is patently clear what this technology is.

There's a legitimate argument that these treatments are not vaccines at all, but if they weren't labelled vaccines no-one would take them and no emergency authorisation would have been provided.

 

[faible]

It's nothing more than damage control. Many are at odds to point out that it doesn't alter DNA, so there's been a concerted campaign to shift away from the term ''gene therapy treatments'', but it's nothing more than spin. You can see why the Bayer executive momentarily had a lapse - because he knows what they are.

Nature.com is one of the pre-eminent online science resources on the planet. I quote from their site:

''However, these mRNA vaccines, which have been developed and approved within a few months, signify a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy, which has battled to achieve ordinary acknowledgement due to a large number of sceptical and conservative scientists and other claimed safety and translational concerns. Although these two vaccines are not the first approved drugs utilising genetic materials as active ingredients, they are believed to be a milestone in modern medical history that may forever change pharmaceutical approaches.''

''This unprecedented achievement will also stress the crucial solutions that gene therapy may provide for many diseases. In the coming future, we expect to see a considerable effort for developing mRNA-based treatments for a wide range of diseases, e.g., hereditary disorders, type 1 Diabetes Mellitus, cancer, and HIV.''

Gene therapy avenues and COVID-19 vaccines

Gene therapy avenues and COVID-19 vaccines - Genes & Immunity

2020 has witnessed unprecedented situations due to coronavirus pandemic that affected all aspects of life. The whole globe lived months of uncertainty before two companies have announced the incredible results of phase III clinical trials for two different mRNA-based vaccines.

www.nature.com

Let me add that the article is about as effusive as you can get regarding these mRNA treatments.

I understand why there's a push to now back away from the term by some, but it is patently clear what this technology is.

There's a legitimate argument that these treatments are not vaccines at all, but if they weren't labelled vaccines no-one would take them and no emergency authorisation would have been provided.

Spurious claims on your behalf at the end there. It's not at all "patently clear".

Fact Check-mRNA vaccines are distinct from gene therapy, which alters recipient’s genes | Reuters

“As mRNA is genetic material, mRNA vaccines can be looked at as a genetic-based therapy, but they are classified as vaccines and are not designed to alter your genes,” said Dr Adam Taylor, a virologist and research fellow at the Menzies Health Institute, Queensland, Griffith University.

“Gene therapy, in the classical sense, involves making deliberate changes to a patient’s DNA in order to treat or cure them. mRNA vaccines will not enter a cell’s nucleus that houses your DNA genome. There is zero risk of these vaccines integrating into our own genome or altering our genetic makeup.”

Scientists told Reuters that while mRNA vaccines can be considered “genetic-based therapy” because they use genetic code from COVID-19, they are not technically gene therapy. This is because the mRNA does not change the body’s genetic makeup.

About mRNA | Moderna, Inc. (modernatx.com)

1. How does mRNA differ from gene therapy?
   Helping the body make its own medicine using mRNA sounds like it might be similar to gene therapy or gene editing. While these treatment approaches seek to treat disease through genetic information, they take fundamentally different approaches. Gene therapy and gene editing alter the original genetic information each cell carries. The goal is to produce a permanent fix to the underlying genetic problem by changing the defective gene. Moderna is taking a different approach to address the underlying cause of MMA and other diseases. mRNA transfers the instructions stored in DNA to make the proteins required in every living cell. Our approach aims to help the body make its own missing or defective protein. Unlike gene editing and gene therapy, mRNA technology does not change the genetic information of the cell, and is intended to be short-acting. It acts like traditional drugs that can be adjusted over time based on the dose and frequency needed. In simple terms, we are working to provide physicians and patients with a “controllable” way to start and manage their therapy over time.

 

[Trav 20]

Spurious claims on your behalf at the end there. It's not at all "patently clear".

Fact Check-mRNA vaccines are distinct from gene therapy, which alters recipient’s genes | Reuters





About mRNA | Moderna, Inc. (modernatx.com)

Hahaha

I quote one of the most respected science resources in the world and you quote a Reuters pimply factchecker. Reuters, where the CEO is on the board of Pfizer.

Nice bit of spin by Moderna.

1 Gene therapy products are all products that mediate their effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integrating into the host genome and that are administered as nucleic acids, viruses, or genetically engineered microorganisms.

Protein synthesis is the translation of the mRNAs copy of the spike protein.

I'll back Nature.com over Moderna's spin.

 

[theyellowsash]

I'm open-minded about that and don't dispute the assertion.

For me it's never been about the efficacy of the treatments, more-so the safety.

 

[Trav 20]

View attachment 1281406

Prove your point with quotes.

As usual, you won't be able to.

Why are the Left so disingenuous ? Is it genetic or acquired ?

 

[MisterMarcus]

Hahaha

I quote one of the most respected science resources in the world and you quote a Reuters pimply factchecker. Reuters, where the CEO is on the board of Pfizer.

Nice bit of spin by Moderna.

1 Gene therapy products are all products that mediate their effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integrating into the host genome and that are administered as nucleic acids, viruses, or genetically engineered microorganisms.

Protein synthesis is the translation of the mRNAs copy of the spike protein.

I'll back Nature.com over Moderna's spin.

mRNA does not cause or undergo transcription, mRNA is the product of transcription. Do you understand what 'transcription' is?

mRNA vaccines do not cause a change to the host genome because there is no reverse transcriptase provided in the vaccine to enable it to do so. How do you expect the mRNA to reverse transcribe itself into DNA without reverse transcriptase?

And it's not "gene therapy" if it just translates the protein......in that case it's just a different way to produce the protein and the end result is little different from a protein vaccine.

 

[Gruffles]

*snip*

Not going to acknowledge the mistake in your quote?

I think I'll take the clarification from Bayer over your interpretation of what was said. Not everything needs to be a conspiracy.

What the conversation is about here is that the development of the vaccines are pushing forward the progress in gene therapy research areas as they are using similar technology. Not all mRNA-based treatments are the same, not all are gene therapies, some are vaccines. Just because you read the article on Nature.com and see the words "mRNA vaccine" and "gene therapy" in said article does not mean that mRNA vaccines are gene therapies.

The issue with the statement is that gene therapy involves the implementation/replacement of DNA sequence in the host. The vaccines do not do this, just because they involve mRNA does not mean they are interacting with the hosts DNA. Calling these vaccines gene therapies is just outright scare mongering for people who are making a decision as to whether to get one, as they will now think "OMG it's going to change my DNA!".

This approach to the discussion I find so ridiculous as one of the many arguments that pop up is that people are critical of governments scare mongering in terms of how they present covid data. What you are doing here is the exact thing many who agree with you criticise.

 

[theyellowsash]

Prove your point with quotes.

As usual, you won't be able to.

Why are the Left so disingenuous ? Is it genetic or acquired ?

 

[Trav 20]

mRNA does not cause or undergo transcription, mRNA is the product of transcription. Do you understand what 'transcription' is?

mRNA vaccines do not cause a change to the host genome because there is no reverse transcriptase provided in the vaccine to enable it to do so. How do you expect the mRNA to reverse transcribe itself into DNA without reverse transcriptase?

And it's not "gene therapy" if it just translates the protein......in that case it's just a different way to produce the protein and the end result is little different from a protein vaccine.

Make sure you contact nature.com and have it out with them.

 

[Gruffles]

Make sure you contact nature.com and have it out with them.

Nature.com haven't said that mRNA vaccines are gene therapies. Just because you see both terms in one article does not make it so.

 

[Trav 20]

Nature.com haven't said that mRNA vaccines are gene therapies. Just because you see both terms in one article does not make it so.

So when they say, ''these mRNA vaccines (snip) signify a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy'' they're not saying the mRNA vaccines are gene therapy, just that the field of gene therapy is enhanced ?

That's your position ?

 

[carnthedons]

Anyway stripping the ridiculous semantics from the conversation the fact is the vaccines do not modify your dna, they produce an immune response to stimulate antibody creation.

Liam Jones

19

Liam Jones

Age

34

Ht

199cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.4

2star

K

6.5

3star

HB

2.9

3star

M

4.3

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

134.5

2star

D

7.6

2star

K

6.1

3star

HB

1.4

1star

M

4.1

4star

T

1.4

2star

MG

116.3

2star

D

9.4

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

2.0

2star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.2

4star

is proof you don’t have to be anything more than a dribbling Neanderthal to play football.

 

[Gruffles]

So when they say, ''these mRNA vaccines (snip) signify a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy'' they're not saying the mRNA vaccines are gene therapy, just that the field of gene therapy is enhanced ?

That's your position ?

Absolutely. The whole section before that quote is significant in the intention of the quote. This is where selectively quoting an article can impact the meaning in the selective quote. The paragraph is referring to the challenges those that are researching & developing gene therapy strategies have faced in getting recognition/adoption of their therapy techniques, and how the development and acceptance of these vaccines, which use similar technology and techniques (note: not the same), signifies a breakthrough in their field gaining recognition/acceptance. Note in the paragraph that they refer to the vaccines utilising genetic material as active ingredients. Nowhere in the paragraph (or the article for that matter) do they refer to the vaccines interacting with the host DNA, changing any DNA coding, and all through the article they refer to the vaccines as just that, vaccines.

Here's the entire paragraph rather than the small section you've quoted:

Having said that, both mRNA-based vaccines represent a unique case that is considered one of the most advanced and promising achievements in the field of pharmaceutical biotechnology and biopharmaceutical formulations. More than three decades of research effort on developing gene therapy solutions for many diseases could not convey many healthcare policymakers, pharmaceutical companies, funding agencies, medicine agencies, and drug administrations to adopt gene therapy avenues as highly potential approaches to transfer the therapeutic strategies into a new era. However, these mRNA vaccines, which have been developed and approved within a few months, signify a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy, which has battled to achieve ordinary acknowledgement due to a large number of sceptical and conservative scientists and other claimed safety and translational concerns. Although these two vaccines are not the first approved drugs utilising genetic materials as active ingredients, they are believed to be a milestone in modern medical history that may forever change pharmaceutical approaches.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Make sure you contact nature.com and have it out with them.

I'm asking you.

Assuming you're NOT just posting today's drive-by antivax talking point, why don't you want to answer?

 

[theyellowsash]

So when they say, ''these mRNA vaccines (snip) signify a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy'' they're not saying the mRNA vaccines are gene therapy, just that the field of gene therapy is enhanced ?

That's your position ?

I'm assuming you're simply trolling, because i refuse to believe anyone can have such poor comprehension skills that they cannot comprehend that the development of the vaccine can aid the general field of gene therapy without being a gene therapy itself.

 

[Trav 20]

Absolutely. The whole section before that quote is significant in the intention of the quote. This is where selectively quoting an article can impact the meaning in the selective quote. The paragraph is referring to the challenges those that are researching & developing gene therapy strategies have faced in getting recognition/adoption of their therapy techniques, and how the development and acceptance of these vaccines, which use similar technology and techniques (note: not the same), signifies a breakthrough in their field gaining recognition/acceptance. Note in the paragraph that they refer to the vaccines utilising genetic material as active ingredients. Nowhere in the paragraph (or the article for that matter) do they refer to the vaccines interacting with the host DNA, changing any DNA coding, and all through the article they refer to the vaccines as just that, vaccines.

Here's the entire paragraph rather than the small section you've quoted:

Having said that, both mRNA-based vaccines represent a unique case that is considered one of the most advanced and promising achievements in the field of pharmaceutical biotechnology and biopharmaceutical formulations. More than three decades of research effort on developing gene therapy solutions for many diseases could not convey many healthcare policymakers, pharmaceutical companies, funding agencies, medicine agencies, and drug administrations to adopt gene therapy avenues as highly potential approaches to transfer the therapeutic strategies into a new era. However, these mRNA vaccines, which have been developed and approved within a few months, signify a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy, which has battled to achieve ordinary acknowledgement due to a large number of sceptical and conservative scientists and other claimed safety and translational concerns. Although these two vaccines are not the first approved drugs utilising genetic materials as active ingredients, they are believed to be a milestone in modern medical history that may forever change pharmaceutical approaches.

I provided the link, so didn't need to quote more than necessary.

OK. I'll accept that as a plausible explanation. I'm not convinced it's not gene therapy, but I'll accept doubt for the moment.

Btw, I've never mentioned DNA being altered with these treatments, more-so are long-term safety issues with the spike protein and nanoparticles (as referenced in other posts today).

There's a very interesting article ''Inside Moderna'' from 2016 where they talk about the problems with RNA technology (it's referred to as protein therapy in once instance) due to nasty side effects. Many companies stopped trying because of it. It's quite a fascinating read. Linked below.

Let's hope Moderna's first and only ever market product (emergency use only) in 10 years is a success for the people who've taken it. My Sons included...

Ego, ambition, and turmoil: Inside one of biotech's most secretive startups

Moderna's caustic work environment has driven away top talent. There are signs the secretive startup has hit roadblocks with its most ambitious projects.

www.statnews.com

 

[Trav 20]

I'm asking you.

Assuming you're NOT just posting today's drive-by antivax talking point, why don't you want to answer?

DNA makes RNA (transcription), RNA makes protein.

That in itself doesn't dismiss the whole process of genetic coding being read by ribosomes as being outside the field of gene therapy. As I mentioned to the other poster I'm not certain and open-minded, but trying to get to the bottom of it.

Btw, whether it is or isn't gene therapy has zero relevance to my major concerns. But it's a topic of interest.

 

[josephine666]

4 October, 2021

A new study from the University of California, Davis, Genome Center, UC San Francisco and the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub shows no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people who tested positive for the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. It also found no significant difference between infected people with or without symptoms.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-similar-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people

A big problem (for me) in this study is that the measure of viral load was taken at a single point of time. No consideration that viral load may change over the course of infection and no knowledge of how long any of the participants had been infected. So no surprises there was no significant difference, there was no control over what they were analysing.