2 ms·
I didn't think the writing was that bad. The author's thrust is: * It was repeatedly claimed that the vaccine is not gene therapy, because it only contains RNA
by mrkeen 3y ago
I didn't think the writing was that bad. The author's thrust is:
* It was repeatedly claimed that the vaccine is not gene therapy, because it only contains RNA (which is short-lived) vs DNA (which could alter you and your offspring permanently)
* The vaccine has a bunch of DNA in it.
- pcdoodle 3y agoI just realized. This is Gen-Z's 911. Now let's go to the middle east! Don't ask about 7.
- joenot443 3y agoI found the argument similarly easy to follow. I’m surprised the GP had such a hard time with it.
- sterlind 3y ago1. not your offspring unless it infects the germline. 2. citation needed. and dredging through that dumpster fire of an article OP posted, I see nothing besides some claims made by some biotechie who seems to angrily tweet about vaccine conspiracies. no journal articles, no PubMed links, not even a BioRxiv preprint. no evidence whatsoever that the vaccines actually contain plasmids, just someone saying so on Twitter. put up or shut up.