Coronavirus.

SketchyMagpie

Well-Known Forumite
Have done some interesting reading into the "gene therapy" thing over the last few days. The link gilbert shared declaring that the government had "admitted the vaccine is gene therapy" essentially seems to be nothing more than reading into a clumsily-worded bullet point summary on a random press release. The summary reads "lipids are an essential component in COVID vaccines as well as other gene therapies" whereas the actual paragraph says that "mRNA... has the potential to play a transformational role beyond [covid vaccinations] in future, for products such as flu vaccines as well as other emerging technologies including gene therapies for cancer and heart disease." Much like when Biden said the words "New World Order" and the tin-foil hat brigade lost their shit, the person responsible for the formatting of that article was likely just unaware of how the shortened bullet-point version would read to the hard of thinking.

I do find it hilarious that conspiracy theorists believe the "powers that be" would fake a pandemic in order to create a smokescreen for altering our DNA via a vaccine only then to blow their cover by casually mentioning it in a press release, though. That makes as much sense as believing that there's a global conspiracy that must be kept secret at all costs yet those responsible sprinkle clues of the conspiracy throughout popular culture.

In American medical publishing it actually does seem like the definition of "gene therapy" has been widened to include anything that involves genetic code (ie the vaccines that use the genetic code of the virus) which is..... unhelpful, but nevertheless is clearly not what gilbert and his ilk mean when they talk about "gene therapy". This will and obviously has lead to some semantic issues when talking about the vaccines being "gene therapy" by the anti-vaxxers definitions but it doesn't change the fact that they do not enter the cell nucleus or interact with the DNA at all.
 
Last edited:

SketchyMagpie

Well-Known Forumite
Also, my sister tested positive yesterday so that's 8 family members who've got it or had it in the past fortnight. O.o

Hope our resident patients on the forum are doing ok.
 

gilbert grape

Well-Known Forumite
I'm sure you'll put your own slant on this but only half of the previously uninfected unvaccinated caught covid after being directly exposed. To me, that says a lot about the immune system rather than purely jabbing. The point about testing is also interesting, that it doesn't pick it up quickly.


Edit - Moved from "Opticians" thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
I'm sure you'll put your own slant on this but only half of the previously uninfected unvaccinated caught covid after being directly exposed. To me, that says a lot about the immune system rather than purely jabbing. The point about testing is also interesting, that it doesn't pick it up quickly.

I may not be the only one that needs glasses ;)


Edit - Moved from "Opticians" thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
I'm sure you'll put your own slant on this but only half of the previously uninfected unvaccinated caught covid after being directly exposed. To me, that says a lot about the immune system rather than purely jabbing. The point about testing is also interesting, that it doesn't pick it up quickly.

I'll respond here anyway, despite it getting moved in the not too distant future, hopefully @Admin will move this comment alongside.

I'll get straight to the testing part, from the link:

“We found that overall, lateral flow tests correlate very well with the presence of infectious virus,”

To me that doesn't say it doesn't pick it up quickly, it says it picks it up when it matters - you can pass it on. As the mechanism to detect is the same as the mechanism to transmit (shedding cells) this makes sense, but a more sensitive test that triggers on less infectious material could maybe tell us before someone is infectious. Otherwise regular testing is the key.

As for the rest, the age range and the fact they had remained uninfected so far does pose a sampling issue, as does the size of the sample to start with, but there is no ethical way you can go around deliberately infecting those we already know are more likely to die from it. All in all an interesting study, and I guess the next phase is to start examining biological differences between the subjects. I know this isn't peer reviewed yet but thats pretty hard til you get another group of people happy to be infected, it will be interesting to see how the next study goes as I don't think I've seen a deliberate infection one yet?


Edit - Moved from "Opticians" thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thehooperman

Well-Known Forumite
I'm sure you'll put your own slant on this but only half of the previously uninfected unvaccinated caught covid after being directly exposed. To me, that says a lot about the immune system rather than purely jabbing. The point about testing is also interesting, that it doesn't pick it up quickly.


Edit - Moved from "Opticians" thread.
Sorry can't be arsed to read your unfounded links on this thread anymore.
 

staffordjas

Well-Known Forumite
“We found that overall, lateral flow tests correlate very well with the presence of infectious virus,”

To me that doesn't say it doesn't pick it up quickly, it says it picks it up when it matters - you can pass it on. As the mechanism to detect is the same as the mechanism to transmit (shedding cells) this makes sense, but a more sensitive test that triggers on less infectious material could maybe tell us before someone is infectious. Otherwise regular testing is the key.
When I caught it , I felt ill for 6 days before the daily testing started to come up positive. Luckily had stayed in isolating anyway with feeling rotten. The morning it did come up positive,and the following 4 days, was when I felt at my worst.
If I hadn't bothered testing after those first few days I'd have never known I'd had it and just thought it was a bad cold/ flu .
 
Last edited:

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
I'm sure you'll put your own slant on this but only half of the previously uninfected unvaccinated caught covid after being directly exposed. To me, that says a lot about the immune system rather than purely jabbing. The point about testing is also interesting, that it doesn't pick it up quickly.

I lost interest when it said 'since' - we are beyond that...

Actually. that's an interesting article, it says more about us than it does about you, but you don't seem to appreciate that. I'm along the way about not being overly surprised about that.
 

littleme

250,000th poster!
5 people I work closely with have come down with covid in the last 3 days, today I've got a sore throat, cough, banging head, a itchy rash on my face, neck, chest and legs, along with welts (? Look like fluid filled blisters under my eyes)..... But I'm testing negative. Luckily I have 2 days off work, but I'm dreading ending up in hospital again.
 

Glam

Mad Cat Woman
5 people I work closely with have come down with covid in the last 3 days, today I've got a sore throat, cough, banging head, a itchy rash on my face, neck, chest and legs, along with welts (? Look like fluid filled blisters under my eyes)..... But I'm testing negative. Luckily I have 2 days off work, but I'm dreading ending up in hospital again.
:hug: From a distance, of course.

My daughter in law has it, along with her sister. we also have 1 patient with it at the moment, they are bright eyed and bushy tailed, you'd never know there was anything physically wrong.
 

littleme

250,000th poster!
:hug: From a distance, of course.

My daughter in law has it, along with her sister. we also have 1 patient with it at the moment, they are bright eyed and bushy tailed, you'd never know there was anything physically wrong.
I feel like crap, although it might not be covid, I've had allergic reactions like this before (to who knows what) , but my antihistamines don't seem to be doing much this time.
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
:hug: From a distance, of course.

My daughter in law has it, along with her sister. we also have 1 patient with it at the moment, they are bright eyed and bushy tailed, you'd never know there was anything physically wrong.
It's a weird one, someone I know only realised he had it when he was dying after running 2km. No other symptoms at all, if he didn't run he'd never have realised. Then at the other end of the scale I have famy who now find climbing stairs hard months later, and of course my mother in law who is no longer with us.

I'm sure in a few years they'll spot a genetic marker that determined who it got bad, but right now it's still anyone's guess 😔
 

littleme

250,000th poster!
I hope you haven't got it @littleme . I assumed the rash I had was because of my bubble bath but maybe not...
Hmmm I have what I call the 'corned beef rash', like when you get into a too hot bath, or sit next to a fire/heat.... Like a lacy net type thing. It's probably just a reaction to something, I get this now & again but have never found what causes it🤞 but I have spent the last 5 days in very close contact with those that have had it, work bestie had it & felt ill for 4 days before resting posative.... Fingers crossed!
 

Theresa Green

Well-Known Forumite
5 people I work closely with have come down with covid in the last 3 days, today I've got a sore throat, cough, banging head, a itchy rash on my face, neck, chest and legs, along with welts (? Look like fluid filled blisters under my eyes)..... But I'm testing negative. Luckily I have 2 days off work, but I'm dreading ending up in hospital again.
Ever had glandular fever ?
 
Top