3 ms·

I would not say anything you've said is facts, they're just incorrect statements.

md8z 5y ago
If you believe so then it would help to demonstrate why. Otherwise let me know if you want some clarification on what I said, thanks.
- etherael 5y ago
  Because the definition of coercion doesn't change when you put a bunch of qualifiers in front of it and say it's for the greater good. It's still coercion. Sometimes coercion is necessary, psychopaths will kill random people absent coercion not to do so for example, but it's still coercion that stops them from doing so. Your objection basically boils down to "I don't like the way 'coercive experimental gene therapy' makes what my team is presently doing sound like". That's not an argument, it's just an attempt to force people not to use accurate language you disapprove of. Maybe coercive experimental gene therapy is exactly what's needed, just like coercive physical restraint is just what's needed when it comes to dealing with violent psychopaths. But in both cases, refusing to call a spade a spade doesn't change it from being a spade. When you respond with stuff like "I wouldn't say any of that is a fact, merely incorrect statements" then you're begging your opposition to simply make the exact same statement back to you.
  - md8z 5y ago
    We are not in opposition, please stop. I really don't want to get into a heated argument with you, you and I both know that's not the way to convince anyone. Also I am not on any "team" and I don't represent anyone, these are my own statements. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make these assumptions about me, thanks. I am sympathetic to people who can't get vaccines for medical reasons but there are companies that simply are not equipped to employ those people safely. There's nothing coercive about that, everything else you're saying about that is not related to what I'm saying. For a lot of these companies it's a matter of either they require the vaccine, or they go back to having long lines, reduced hours, occupancy limits, strict mask requirements, and other things that are inconvenient and cost money and hurt the business. This stuff is unfortunate because it also applies to immunocompromised people with whom the vaccine is not effective, I don't really know a solution that could work for them on a large scale.
    - etherael 5y ago
      > We are not in opposition Yes we are, you are continuously making the argument that if you can give good reasons for coercion, it is no longer accurate to refer to it as coercion. This is false. Examples; > For a lot of these companies it's a matter of either they require the vaccine, or they go back to having long lines, reduced hours, occupancy limits, strict mask requirements, and other things that are inconvenient and cost money and hurt the business. > there are companies that simply are not equipped to employ those people safely. And many other times. Further, you're refusing to acknowledge that the vaccines under the vaccine mandates are experimental gene therapy, with the justification; > Also that paper seems to suggest that mRNA could generally be used as a component in gene therapy. It does not say that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The paper is from 2015, the "mRNA vaccines" were not a thing at the time and thus this paper discussing what mRNA gene therapy is would of course not refer to things not released for six years to come/ "mRNA vaccines" is just a new label on the underlying technology discussed in the paper, which they clearly point out is actually gene therapy. It's coercive experimental gene therapy. Maybe it's good, maybe it's necessary, whatever. It's still coercive experimental gene therapy.
      - md8z 5y ago
        Actually I have explained multiple times why it's not coercion and why your description is incorrect. Some companies simply are unable to safely employ people who are unvaccinated. If you feel you are opposed to me then I would ask that you stop that, it's going to prevent us from having a reasonable discussion. I will tell you right now, I am not in opposition to you, I just see you may have some misconceptions and I'd like to help clear that up, if you are willing to let me do so. If not then please mention that and we can end the conversation. Otherwise I'll try to use an analogy. Would you call it coercion if a construction company had all its welding equipment malfunction, break, and become unsafe, and as a result had to let all its welders go? Or would you call it coercion if a trucking company refused to hire people that didn't have trucking licenses, on the basis that it wouldn't be safe for them to drive a truck that they weren't trained for? Or if you're a nurse and you get let go for not being vaccinated, in a hospital where the entire job description is that you can't infect the patients with more diseases? On your comment about gene therapy, AFAIK mRNA vaccines are not a new label on the underlying technology there. They are a different technology from the purpose described in that paper. Please see my other comment for what is generally referred to as gene therapy. Again we can contact a biologist or doctor for more information about this if you'd like to do that. Edit: The paper you posted has a good citation that explains it better. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd4278 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd4278 "The FDA definition of gene therapy is as follows: '... modification of the genetic material of living cells. Cells may be modified ex vivo for subsequent administration to humans, or may be altered in vivo by gene therapy given directly to the subject. When the genetic manipulation is performed ex vivo on cells which are then administered to the patient, this is also a form of somatic cell therapy ... Recombinant DNA materials used to transfer genetic material for such therapy are considered components of gene therapy.' As RNA does not result in 'modification of the genetic material of living cells', one would anticipate that its administration will not be classified as a gene therapy in the United States."

md8z 5y ago

If you believe so then it would help to demonstrate why. Otherwise let me know if you want some clarification on what I said, thanks.

etherael 5y ago
Because the definition of coercion doesn't change when you put a bunch of qualifiers in front of it and say it's for the greater good. It's still coercion. Sometimes coercion is necessary, psychopaths will kill random people absent coercion not to do so for example, but it's still coercion that stops them from doing so. Your objection basically boils down to "I don't like the way 'coercive experimental gene therapy' makes what my team is presently doing sound like". That's not an argument, it's just an attempt to force people not to use accurate language you disapprove of. Maybe coercive experimental gene therapy is exactly what's needed, just like coercive physical restraint is just what's needed when it comes to dealing with violent psychopaths. But in both cases, refusing to call a spade a spade doesn't change it from being a spade. When you respond with stuff like "I wouldn't say any of that is a fact, merely incorrect statements" then you're begging your opposition to simply make the exact same statement back to you.
- md8z 5y ago
  We are not in opposition, please stop. I really don't want to get into a heated argument with you, you and I both know that's not the way to convince anyone. Also I am not on any "team" and I don't represent anyone, these are my own statements. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make these assumptions about me, thanks. I am sympathetic to people who can't get vaccines for medical reasons but there are companies that simply are not equipped to employ those people safely. There's nothing coercive about that, everything else you're saying about that is not related to what I'm saying. For a lot of these companies it's a matter of either they require the vaccine, or they go back to having long lines, reduced hours, occupancy limits, strict mask requirements, and other things that are inconvenient and cost money and hurt the business. This stuff is unfortunate because it also applies to immunocompromised people with whom the vaccine is not effective, I don't really know a solution that could work for them on a large scale.
  - etherael 5y ago
    > We are not in opposition Yes we are, you are continuously making the argument that if you can give good reasons for coercion, it is no longer accurate to refer to it as coercion. This is false. Examples; > For a lot of these companies it's a matter of either they require the vaccine, or they go back to having long lines, reduced hours, occupancy limits, strict mask requirements, and other things that are inconvenient and cost money and hurt the business. > there are companies that simply are not equipped to employ those people safely. And many other times. Further, you're refusing to acknowledge that the vaccines under the vaccine mandates are experimental gene therapy, with the justification; > Also that paper seems to suggest that mRNA could generally be used as a component in gene therapy. It does not say that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. The paper is from 2015, the "mRNA vaccines" were not a thing at the time and thus this paper discussing what mRNA gene therapy is would of course not refer to things not released for six years to come/ "mRNA vaccines" is just a new label on the underlying technology discussed in the paper, which they clearly point out is actually gene therapy. It's coercive experimental gene therapy. Maybe it's good, maybe it's necessary, whatever. It's still coercive experimental gene therapy.
    - md8z 5y ago
      Actually I have explained multiple times why it's not coercion and why your description is incorrect. Some companies simply are unable to safely employ people who are unvaccinated. If you feel you are opposed to me then I would ask that you stop that, it's going to prevent us from having a reasonable discussion. I will tell you right now, I am not in opposition to you, I just see you may have some misconceptions and I'd like to help clear that up, if you are willing to let me do so. If not then please mention that and we can end the conversation. Otherwise I'll try to use an analogy. Would you call it coercion if a construction company had all its welding equipment malfunction, break, and become unsafe, and as a result had to let all its welders go? Or would you call it coercion if a trucking company refused to hire people that didn't have trucking licenses, on the basis that it wouldn't be safe for them to drive a truck that they weren't trained for? Or if you're a nurse and you get let go for not being vaccinated, in a hospital where the entire job description is that you can't infect the patients with more diseases? On your comment about gene therapy, AFAIK mRNA vaccines are not a new label on the underlying technology there. They are a different technology from the purpose described in that paper. Please see my other comment for what is generally referred to as gene therapy. Again we can contact a biologist or doctor for more information about this if you'd like to do that. Edit: The paper you posted has a good citation that explains it better. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd4278 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd4278 "The FDA definition of gene therapy is as follows: '... modification of the genetic material of living cells. Cells may be modified ex vivo for subsequent administration to humans, or may be altered in vivo by gene therapy given directly to the subject. When the genetic manipulation is performed ex vivo on cells which are then administered to the patient, this is also a form of somatic cell therapy ... Recombinant DNA materials used to transfer genetic material for such therapy are considered components of gene therapy.' As RNA does not result in 'modification of the genetic material of living cells', one would anticipate that its administration will not be classified as a gene therapy in the United States."