Thats the problem.
You guys dont know the difference.
On the contrary, I do very well.
I was just curious what approach you were going to take since unlike TJ you don't always go for "here is a paper or article I have misunderstood".
You might want to actually read the articles posted by EXPERTS instead of hitting the laugh emoji. All the info is there.
Always happy to.
If you like, i'll do you misinformed, lazy guys a favor and post it again:
You're so
angry all the time.
You should smile more.
Gonna POST A SCIENCE EXPERT!!! -> Links to the "Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute" -- not a promising start.
First paragraph and they fuck up what mRNA means ("Moderna took the mRNA idea seriously, its name – a new word combining modified and RNA. ") -- an even less promising progression.
Form of Gene Therapy
The mRNA vaccinations are a form of gene therapy, according to its definition in many parts of the world, including Europe. Gene therapies remain under strict regulation and few gene therapeutics have been approved by health authorities because of safety concerns. Some experts are less concerned with the long-term risks of the mRNA vaccines, but more concerned about the efficacy of them, as mRNA is very fragile and if not properly stored, could be destroyed.
Interestingly, you didn't go on to quote the part where they discuss more specifically how gene therapy is defined "Gene therapy replaces a faulty gene or adds a new gene in an attempt to cure disease or improve your body’s ability to fight disease."
This, of course, is something the vaccines don't do.
So that one wasn't great. What's next?
Ill also REPOST this one. This one explains it better by a doctor in simpler terms:
https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2021/02/24/mrna-its-gene-therapy-not-a-vaccine/
Well, we've got a
Plandemic 2 guy - David Martin - who is " Founder and Chairman of M·CAM Inc., the international leader in innovation finance, trade, and intangible asset finance." -- so we are back to financial people for our gene therapy definitions.
Not a good start. Again.
But it is a good argument! "It isn't a vaccine because I say it isn't!".
Using the Moderna SEC filing to claim it is actually gene therapy is a nice touch, though. Slick. Even if he doesn't quote it here, he knows most people won't go and look at what Moderna actually claims (which isn't that it is gene therapy, but a discussion about how the FDA might regulate it).
But cool!
In answer to my challenge about what the difference is you quoted two investment experts who both seem to not understand or are deliberately misrepresenting things.
Well done.