Is it the fact that historically there have been two types of vaccines but now there are four (mRNA and viral vector) and Health Canada hasn't updated this page?
Is it the fact that Health Canada recommends that you get your vaccines prior to pregnancy "However, if you are pregnant and need a vaccination, most are considered safe, such as the inactivated ones"?
I really don't get what you're trying to point out here?
Actually I majored in both toxicology and human physiology. It's why I laugh every time someone calls mRNA vaccination "gene therapy". I knew what mRNA was before it was cool. If you'd like to share what you think is going on in that image I might be nice and explain it to you.
Alternatively you can keep grabbing screenshots of random websites, circling random sentences and circlejerking in your echo chamber.
What makes your comment random isn't the site. It's the fact that it makes no obvious point. I can also take a screen shot of a government website, circle a paragraph or two and post it somewhere with a caption saying "OMG LOOK!!!!!!!!!!!"
I was sincere in my original comment. You're pointing to some information but you're being extremely unclear as to what you think it says.
As to the point about mRNA, what you need to understand is that mRNA isn't new or cutting edge biology. We've known about it for decades. It's been over 10 years since I was in university and it was already basic part of any program that required any understanding of molecular biology at all. I can't give you lesson plans but I am the sort of pack rat to keep old text books in my hall closet for 10 years. Enjoy!
If you'd like to see more of the book I might be willing to copy more pages if you ask nicely. I'm also still willing to explain to you what's going on in the webpage you posted. It's really not clear what you're trying to say. Maybe you think government employees should be more on the ball about updating every corner of their websites? I really don't know.
At no point did I make an argument about definitions. I asked you to clarify what point you're trying to make with your post so that it would be possible to discuss it.
If you want to question the safety of the vaccine then go for it. The website you linked to doesn't help you make that point though. It contains some outdated information about the types of vaccines that exist and gives some generic advice about their use during pregnancy. I did my best to give you the benefit of the doubt but every chance you got you resorted to a personal attack rather then even attempt to create an argument based on factual merit.
I'm not sure if you read the article passed the headline but I doesn't say what you think it says.
There are many varieties of RNA and they have different functions in different organisms. Some organisms don't have DNA. In those organisms RNA serves as the primary genetic material so when discussing these organisms it's fair to say that manipulating their RNA is manipulated their genes. Humans aren't one of these organisms though. No animal is.
The type of RNA in question for the purposes of the vaccine is messenger RNA (mRNA). To understand what this is you need to understand the basic flow of gene expression in a DNA based organism. DNA lives in the nucleus of the cell. In order to affect things outside of the nucleus it needs an intermediary, mRNA. An enzyme will come along, read the DNA and assemble a strand of mRNA based on the genetic code of the DNA. The mRNA will leave the nucleus and travel to a different part of the cell, the ribosomes. The ribosomes will read the mRNA and assemble a protein. Proteins are the primary worker unit of gene expression and they're responsible for a lot of the functions of your body.
Most vaccines work by injecting people with proteins from the target virus. The immune system will recognize these proteins as a threat and develop antibodies against them which will give you protection if your body every encounters the proteins from an actual virus. The mRNA vaccine is different in that instead of being injected with protein, you're injected with mRNA. The mRNA will travel to your ribosomes and the ribosomes will assemble a protein based on that mRNA. You immune system will then recognize and build antibodies against that protein the same way as with a conventional protein based vaccine.
Okay, you got me. I looked through the first two paragraphs of the first article and saw enough to see that you have no idea what it was you posted. You just found something that used RNA and gene in the same sentence and concluded that it meant you were right. You can still flip through the entire thing and see that no where does it say anything about mRNA being a gene.
If you'd like to try to explain what you think a "gene" is and why it's accurate to describe mRNA as a gene I'm open to listening. If you would instead like to focus on poor word choices all you're doing is showing that you have no idea what you're talking about.
What is it you think you're pointing to?
Is it the fact that historically there have been two types of vaccines but now there are four (mRNA and viral vector) and Health Canada hasn't updated this page?
Is it the fact that Health Canada recommends that you get your vaccines prior to pregnancy "However, if you are pregnant and need a vaccination, most are considered safe, such as the inactivated ones"?
I really don't get what you're trying to point out here?
Actually I majored in both toxicology and human physiology. It's why I laugh every time someone calls mRNA vaccination "gene therapy". I knew what mRNA was before it was cool. If you'd like to share what you think is going on in that image I might be nice and explain it to you.
Alternatively you can keep grabbing screenshots of random websites, circling random sentences and circlejerking in your echo chamber.
What makes your comment random isn't the site. It's the fact that it makes no obvious point. I can also take a screen shot of a government website, circle a paragraph or two and post it somewhere with a caption saying "OMG LOOK!!!!!!!!!!!" I was sincere in my original comment. You're pointing to some information but you're being extremely unclear as to what you think it says.
As to the point about mRNA, what you need to understand is that mRNA isn't new or cutting edge biology. We've known about it for decades. It's been over 10 years since I was in university and it was already basic part of any program that required any understanding of molecular biology at all. I can't give you lesson plans but I am the sort of pack rat to keep old text books in my hall closet for 10 years. Enjoy!
https://ibb.co/gRRxJqh
https://ibb.co/dBnqhDs
If you'd like to see more of the book I might be willing to copy more pages if you ask nicely. I'm also still willing to explain to you what's going on in the webpage you posted. It's really not clear what you're trying to say. Maybe you think government employees should be more on the ball about updating every corner of their websites? I really don't know.
At no point did I make an argument about definitions. I asked you to clarify what point you're trying to make with your post so that it would be possible to discuss it.
If you want to question the safety of the vaccine then go for it. The website you linked to doesn't help you make that point though. It contains some outdated information about the types of vaccines that exist and gives some generic advice about their use during pregnancy. I did my best to give you the benefit of the doubt but every chance you got you resorted to a personal attack rather then even attempt to create an argument based on factual merit.
mRNA isn't a gene, idiot
I'm not sure if you read the article passed the headline but I doesn't say what you think it says.
There are many varieties of RNA and they have different functions in different organisms. Some organisms don't have DNA. In those organisms RNA serves as the primary genetic material so when discussing these organisms it's fair to say that manipulating their RNA is manipulated their genes. Humans aren't one of these organisms though. No animal is.
The type of RNA in question for the purposes of the vaccine is messenger RNA (mRNA). To understand what this is you need to understand the basic flow of gene expression in a DNA based organism. DNA lives in the nucleus of the cell. In order to affect things outside of the nucleus it needs an intermediary, mRNA. An enzyme will come along, read the DNA and assemble a strand of mRNA based on the genetic code of the DNA. The mRNA will leave the nucleus and travel to a different part of the cell, the ribosomes. The ribosomes will read the mRNA and assemble a protein. Proteins are the primary worker unit of gene expression and they're responsible for a lot of the functions of your body.
Most vaccines work by injecting people with proteins from the target virus. The immune system will recognize these proteins as a threat and develop antibodies against them which will give you protection if your body every encounters the proteins from an actual virus. The mRNA vaccine is different in that instead of being injected with protein, you're injected with mRNA. The mRNA will travel to your ribosomes and the ribosomes will assemble a protein based on that mRNA. You immune system will then recognize and build antibodies against that protein the same way as with a conventional protein based vaccine.
Okay, you got me. I looked through the first two paragraphs of the first article and saw enough to see that you have no idea what it was you posted. You just found something that used RNA and gene in the same sentence and concluded that it meant you were right. You can still flip through the entire thing and see that no where does it say anything about mRNA being a gene.
If you'd like to try to explain what you think a "gene" is and why it's accurate to describe mRNA as a gene I'm open to listening. If you would instead like to focus on poor word choices all you're doing is showing that you have no idea what you're talking about.