3 ms·

> 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 ref

> 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."
- etherael 5y ago
  Sorry but all you have done is repeat false claims and insisted with progressively more intensity that they're true. In light of that, I'm not interested in continuing this unproductive discussion.
  - md8z 5y ago
    Actually, there are no false claims. I have sourced my claims using sources that you previously quoted to me as being true, and I also asked you to clarify your claims with several questions that you didn't answer. I can provide more sources if you'd like that, or I can provide some more analogies if that helps explain it more. Just let me know if you change your mind, but I agree we will not have a productive discussion if either one of us is not agreeing to answer questions or be open to considering new sources and changing our minds. I personally would be open to all of that, so feel free to ask me any questions or share new sources if that will help you make it productive. But it may be more productive to just stop being hung up on that definition, you can check the paper you sourced for more details.
    - etherael 5y ago
      Definitions matter and if you change them arbitrarily in order to declare victory where none would exist if your incorrect definitions were not accepted, it is pointless to engage with you.
      - md8z 5y ago
        I didn't change anything. I clarified my definition several times, then I asked you for a clarification of your definition and you didn't give any. Coercion usually means when someone is pressured to do something via threats, and in all the examples I gave (including when it's related to vaccines) there are no threats or pressure to do anything. We can discuss this but you're not giving me anything to work with. For gene therapy I think typically the goal of that is the opposite of vaccines. Similar vectors can be used (in this case mRNA encased in lipids) but everything else is different. With vaccines you're intentionally trying to provoke an immune response, but one that's weak enough so it doesn't harm the patient. In gene therapy, you usually want to avoid generating an immune response at all, so the body doesn't start attacking the modified cells.

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."

etherael 5y ago
Sorry but all you have done is repeat false claims and insisted with progressively more intensity that they're true. In light of that, I'm not interested in continuing this unproductive discussion.
- md8z 5y ago
  Actually, there are no false claims. I have sourced my claims using sources that you previously quoted to me as being true, and I also asked you to clarify your claims with several questions that you didn't answer. I can provide more sources if you'd like that, or I can provide some more analogies if that helps explain it more. Just let me know if you change your mind, but I agree we will not have a productive discussion if either one of us is not agreeing to answer questions or be open to considering new sources and changing our minds. I personally would be open to all of that, so feel free to ask me any questions or share new sources if that will help you make it productive. But it may be more productive to just stop being hung up on that definition, you can check the paper you sourced for more details.
  - etherael 5y ago
    Definitions matter and if you change them arbitrarily in order to declare victory where none would exist if your incorrect definitions were not accepted, it is pointless to engage with you.
    - md8z 5y ago
      I didn't change anything. I clarified my definition several times, then I asked you for a clarification of your definition and you didn't give any. Coercion usually means when someone is pressured to do something via threats, and in all the examples I gave (including when it's related to vaccines) there are no threats or pressure to do anything. We can discuss this but you're not giving me anything to work with. For gene therapy I think typically the goal of that is the opposite of vaccines. Similar vectors can be used (in this case mRNA encased in lipids) but everything else is different. With vaccines you're intentionally trying to provoke an immune response, but one that's weak enough so it doesn't harm the patient. In gene therapy, you usually want to avoid generating an immune response at all, so the body doesn't start attacking the modified cells.