Are the injections Gene Therapy?
The mainstream seems almost allergic to the notion that the products they have been injecting themselves with could be classified as gene therapy. But, are they?
Like many who have been critical of the injections that have been forced on the population, I would comfortably classify them as gene therapy. Naturally, this won't sit well with many people who would prefer that their governments & doctors have not blatantly lied to them.
However, just because they are gene therapy does not mean that they cannot also be vaccines. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive categories. The trouble is, there has never been a vaccine that utilizes gene therapy technology - until now. Thus, the boundaries are somewhat blurred in the minds of many, including Experts.
What is Gene Therapy?
There are many definitions we can work with, and for the sake of maintaining our sanity we will refer to those that were written before 2020. Simply because many definitions in the medical industry have been changed in recent years to make it seem like there is not fuckery afoot. Which there is.
Definition from the FDA in 2018:
The FDA continues by listing several types of gene therapy products, including viral vectors & lipid nanoparticles.
For all intents and purposes, we can stop the argument right here with the figure above straight from the FDA.
Direct delivery to patient using viral or non-viral delivery vehicle.
Both the adenoviral vectors & lipid nanoparticles, which have become (relatively) common knowledge, are directly cited as gene therapeutic techniques by the FDA itself.
Constituents of a Gene Therapy
Gene therapy is not defined by a single product or design. As the terminology suggests, it is a therapeutic approach. This approach involves the transferring of a gene into a living cell.
Theoretically, that's all there is to it.
How you construct and deliver the gene into the cell makes up the whole industry of gene therapeutic technology.
There can be different objectives in gene therapy. In some cases, you can aim to deliver the gene into the cytoplasm of the cell. There, the machinery of the cell can manufacture the proteins in hopes of some therapeutic benefit.
Alternatively, you can aim to deliver the gene into the nucleus itself. Once it is in the nucleus, we hope that the new gene gets incorporated into the cell's DNA - which would confer the therapeutic benefit for the life of the cell & its progeny. Whether this final step actually occurs is not really within our control - at least until recently. Modern CRISPR technology provides us with some tools to increase the likelihood of the new genes becoming incorporated into the cell's genome.
For a deeper dive into the components of the Pfizer & Moderna injections, and the gene therapeutic technology used to deliver the Spike protein gene, check out this prior article:
So are the mRNA & DNA vaccines gene therapy?
Well, the components of these injections include:
a gene encoding a protein
the gene is delivered via lipid nanoparticles or adenovirus vectors
But, What is a Vaccine?
A vaccine is a product that provides immunity against a particular infectious agent. They typically contain a component of, or resemble a disease-causing organism.
Does this mean that a gene therapeutic technology can qualify as a vaccine?
Sure. Why not? So long as the gene you are delivering prepares the immune system for a foreign invader.
The difference between mRNA/DNA vaccines and all others that have come before it are several:
Old vaccines did not circulate throughout your body, with the potential to infect every cell
Old vaccines provided the target antigen at an isolated location (injection site), and allowed the body to learn from it
Old vaccines did not risk becoming reverse transcribed into DNA, increasing the likelihood that the viral gene would be incorporated into your cell's genome
Old vaccines did not cause the unprecedented variety & rate of complications & side effects that the new ones do
We can go on. But, I think the point is made.
Why the obsession with mRNA/DNA Vaccines?
I am afraid the discussion will take on a sinister tone from here on out.
When I was in college, the development of CRISPR technology was a hot topic. CRISPR is an acronym for 'clustered regularly interspace short palindromic repeats.' Quite a mouthful. Basically, CRISPR are a set of cellular tools that bacteria have been using to detect and remove foreign genes.
In all of our arrogance, we have decided that not only do we fully understand the function of these genes, but that we are confident in our ability to deploy them onto humans. And as long as the manufacturers have a legal shield against the consequences, why not proceed?
The technology has tremendous potential (both harmful & helpful), and lies in the hands of some of the most anti-human and detached people in existence.
A Hard Sell
Unfortunately, selling gene therapy to the population is very challenging.
Most people would rather avoid messing around with genes - a testament to the collective wisdom of the population. We have an instinct that the genetic machinery of life is far too complicated for us to confidently avoid any unforeseen consequences. Great rule of thumb, actually.
This hesitation has not been lost on the industry. Pharmaceutical companies are well aware of what they are asking people to accept as 'Safe & Effective.'
Here is a direct quote from Bayer's own Stefan Oelrich - Head of the Pharmaceuticals Division of Bayer AG
Ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example of gene therapy.
If we surveyed the public 2 years ago and asked if you'd be willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body. We would've had a 95% refusal rate.
I rest my case.
Paid subscribers enjoy:
Easy to understand perspectives on common health concerns
Research summaries relevant to your health
Insights from real case studies
Free Insights preview:
Remnant | MD is a reader-supported publication. Subscribe to support my detox from Corporate Medicine.