7 ms·

I never said it altered DNA, that was the straw man the poster who replied to me built.

• orwin 5y ago
  Can you agree that your original response with half the quote might have been a bit dishonest? And if you don't think so, why not quoting the entire phrase?
  • throwawaylinux 5y ago
    >>> a novel gene therapy >> these are not in any way "gene therapy." > "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA." Are we reading the same thing? The misinformation and dishonest strawman argument came from the second poster. One might take other issues with kook_throwaway's comment, but what's wrong with that?
  • kook_throwaway 5y ago
    Because we weren't debating the safety of mRNA. That is unrelated to the discussion and I would be feeding the troll by moving the conversation from ethics to semantics and efficacy. I stated in my original comment that even if it's effective I still have ethical issues with coerced administration of it, gene therapy or not.