Pfizer Hearing

Kermit said:
This is Stephan Oelrich. The head of Bayer pharmaceuticals. He is saying here that it is gene therapy.

I dont know if it is or it isnt. I haven't got the knowledge on this and admit it. Some are saying yes others no. I would suggest the lines are being deliberately blurred. My only point here it is unfair to dismiss the makers of the documentary as liars based on this seemingly contentious issue.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1466004829785010178
Click to expand...

He was wrong to say that as was widely reported in the media when he made those comments.

Why would you suggest the lines are being deliberately blurred? This would mean that multiple government agencies across the world are making deliberately conflicting statements...to what end? How are they coordinating this? What do they get out of it?

Nothing. You're making a suggestion based not on fact and based not on any sound reasoning, it's just speculative conspiracy. This is my issue, as it has been the entire duration of the pandemic, that the immediate assumption is that there is some shadowy government conspiracy afoot, which is then posted all over the internet without any proof and ultimately ends up scaring some people who aren't bright enough to think about what they're reading.

I don't believe it unfair to dismiss the makers of the documentary as liars. If they're not liars, then they're simply terrible at fact checking their own work.

As it stands, the official position of the government and the NHS genomics education team, is that the vaccines are not gene therapy. If that changes then they are gene therapy, but their assessment is that the vaccines are not gene therapy. Their reasoning is clear.
 


Frijj said:
He was wrong to say that as was widely reported in the media when he made those comments.

Why would you suggest the lines are being deliberately blurred? This would mean that multiple government agencies across the world are making deliberately conflicting statements...to what end? How are they coordinating this? What do they get out of it?

Nothing. You're making a suggestion based not on fact and based not on any sound reasoning, it's just speculative conspiracy. This is my issue, as it has been the entire duration of the pandemic, that the immediate assumption is that there is some shadowy government conspiracy afoot, which is then posted all over the internet without any proof and ultimately ends up scaring some people who aren't bright enough to think about what they're reading.

I don't believe it unfair to dismiss the makers of the documentary as liars. If they're not liars, then they're simply terrible at fact checking their own work.

As it stands, the official position of the government and the NHS genomics education team, is that the vaccines are not gene therapy. If that changes then they are gene therapy, but their assessment is that the vaccines are not gene therapy. Their reasoning is clear.
Click to expand...

I honestly cannot get my head around your mindset. There is only one truth in your world and you accept it unconditionally. It doesnt matter if there is an abundance of contradictory evidence on this matter including many doctors, the FDA and the head of a pharmaceutical company. They are unquestionably, definitely wrong. They will stay wrong until the single source of truth tells you otherwise. Then you will believe the new thing they tell you without question. Honestly mind boggling but each to their own.

A little bit of house keeping while im on. I get the feeling you think you are more intelligent than me, i.e. "aren't bright enough to think about what they are reading". Due to my job i need to maintain anonymity on here so i haven't risen to it. People i know read this board and should i start going into detail people could easily guess my identity. I will say i would be very suprised if you were. I am also humble enough to know my limitations. For example i have not argued that it definitely is or isnt gene therapy unlike you. I simply dont have the knowledge. You state as fact that it isnt despite, i would wager, no real knowledge of this subject
 
Frijj said:
He was wrong to say that as was widely reported in the media when he made those comments.

As it stands, the official position of the government and the NHS genomics education team, is that the vaccines are not gene therapy. If that changes then they are gene therapy, but their assessment is that the vaccines are not gene therapy.
Click to expand...
🤣🤣
My official position is that the vaccines are becoming a laughing stock
 
Last edited:
Kermit said:
I honestly cannot get my head around your mindset. There is only one truth in your world and you accept it unconditionally. It doesnt matter if there is an abundance of contradictory evidence on this matter including many doctors, the FDA and the head of a pharmaceutical company. They are unquestionably, definitely wrong. They will stay wrong until the single source of truth tells you otherwise. Then you will believe the new thing they tell you without question. Honestly mind boggling but each to their own.

A little bit of house keeping while im on. I get the feeling you think you are more intelligent than me, i.e. "aren't bright enough to think about what they are reading". Due to my job i need to maintain anonymity on here so i haven't risen to it. People i know read this board and should i start going into detail people could easily guess my identity. I will say i would be very suprised if you were. I am also humble enough to know my limitations. For example i have not argued that it definitely is or isnt gene therapy unlike you. I simply dont have the knowledge. You state as fact that it isnt despite, i would wager, no real knowledge of this subject
Click to expand...

On the contrary, you’re so willing to accept evidence that supports your claims you’ll source them from anywhere, so long as they agree with you.

There is one truth and that is the consensus of high quality evidence. That’s it.

Specialists in studying genetics have concluded that the vaccine isn’t gene therapy. How is that not good enough for you?

I respect your wish to remain anonymous and wouldn’t want you to put yourself in a position where you feel that anonymity isn’t assured.

I don’t know if you’re clever or not. You may recall I listed my self-determined typology of people who believe in all the COVID conspiracy and disinformation.

You’re probably more likely to be someone who just has a heightened state of paranoia about what governments and corporations get up to, than you are to be someone who isn’t intelligent.

When I referred to people who aren’t bright enough, I was suggesting it was them who were falling victim to the disinformation people like you spread.

A GP posted in this thread about vaccines and you straight up accused him of spreading bullshit about vaccines, yet you’re happy to claim members the medical profession support your claims about gene therapy.

I don’t know if you’re clever or not, but you’re very far down the rabbit hole of misinformation and conspiracy regarding COVID.

You say the vaccines don’t work. You say they’re gene therapy. You say the vaccines aren’t safe.

I wonder if you also think masks don’t work, that COVID is entirely seasonal and that lockdown was ineffective.
 
There is no middle ground or grey areas on this

To make it really simple to understand and debunk the gene therapy argument; mRNA does not enter the nucleus of a cell, interact with or make permanent changes to DNA. They do not carry carry or deliver DNA either therefore are 100% not gene therapy and none of the mRNA COVID vaccines are categorised as gene therapies

This is the current FDA (in response to posts about the FDA) list of approved gene therapies Approved Cellular and Gene Therapy Products (19/09/2022). Most are used in cancer such as CAR-T, NAR-T etc and in the EU/UK would be called Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs)
 
Last edited:
Frijj said:
On the contrary, you’re so willing to accept evidence that supports your claims you’ll source them from anywhere, so long as they agree with you.

There is one truth and that is the consensus of high quality evidence. That’s it.

Specialists in studying genetics have concluded that the vaccine isn’t gene therapy. How is that not good enough for you?

I respect your wish to remain anonymous and wouldn’t want you to put yourself in a position where you feel that anonymity isn’t assured.

I don’t know if you’re clever or not. You may recall I listed my self-determined typology of people who believe in all the COVID conspiracy and disinformation.

You’re probably more likely to be someone who just has a heightened state of paranoia about what governments and corporations get up to, than you are to be someone who isn’t intelligent.

When I referred to people who aren’t bright enough, I was suggesting it was them who were falling victim to the disinformation people like you spread.

A GP posted in this thread about vaccines and you straight up accused him of spreading bullshit about vaccines, yet you’re happy to claim members the medical profession support your claims about gene therapy.

I don’t know if you’re clever or not, but you’re very far down the rabbit hole of misinformation and conspiracy regarding COVID.

You say the vaccines don’t work. You say they’re gene therapy. You say the vaccines aren’t safe.

I wonder if you also think masks don’t work, that COVID is entirely seasonal and that lockdown was ineffective.
Click to expand...
Frijj, away. Ive quite clearly not said the jabs are gene therapy. Ive been at pains to say i dont know. Several times. My whole point was just to say its unreasonable to say it was lies to say they were when several sources, including on Modernas SEC filing said they were. You keep doing this time and again. I dont know why.
pavarotti1980 said:
There is no middle ground or grey areas on this

To make it really simple to understand and debunk the gene therapy argument; mRNA does not enter the nucleus of a cell, interact with or make permanent changes to DNA. They do not carry carry or deliver DNA either therefore are 100% not gene therapy and none of the mRNA COVID vaccines are categorised as gene therapies

This is the current FDA (in response to posts about the FDA) list of approved gene therapies Approved Cellular and Gene Therapy Products (19/09/2022). Most are used in cancer such as CAR-T, NAR-T etc and in the EU/UK would be called Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs)
Click to expand...
Interesting. I will try to find time to consider this in full. Ive just had a quick look but the first thing that jumped out was that its a list of 'approved' gene therapy products. Would these count under EUA?
 
Last edited:
Kermit said:
Frijj, away. Ive quite clearly not said the jabs are gene therapy. Ive been at pains to say i dont know. Several times. My whole point was just to say its unreasonable to say it was lies to say they were when several sources, including on Modernas SEC filing said they were. You keep doing this time and again. I dont know why.

Interesting. I will try to find time to consider this in full. Ive just had a quick look but the first thing that jumped out was that its a list of 'approved' gene therapy products. Would these count under EUA?
Click to expand...
EUA?

If you mean the EU then no as that is the FDA so only relevant to US. There will be a similar list approved in the EU. But if you look at the FDA list it's generally highly specialised treatments with small cohorts of patients.
 
pavarotti1980 said:
EUA?

If you mean the EU then no as that is the FDA so only relevant to US. There will be a similar list approved in the EU. But if you look at the FDA list it's generally highly specialised treatments with small cohorts of patients.
Click to expand...

No, Emergency Use Authorisation. Not full approval. Therefore would it even appear on a list of approved gene therapy products? Ive spent a bit time looking into this tonight. Ill reply properly tomorrow. 👍
 
Kermit said:
Frijj, away. Ive quite clearly not said the jabs are gene therapy. Ive been at pains to say i dont know. Several times. My whole point was just to say its unreasonable to say it was lies to say they were when several sources, including on Modernas SEC filing said they were. You keep doing this time and again. I dont know why.

Interesting. I will try to find time to consider this in full. Ive just had a quick look but the first thing that jumped out was that its a list of 'approved' gene therapy products. Would these count under EUA?
Click to expand...

It isn’t unreasonable to say at all. I don’t understand why the SEC document is so important to you. Experts in genomics have already said it isn’t gene therapy.

It’s like if I said to you that I consider any structure with a door and a window, to be a house, and then one day someone invents a garden shed, and you say “no it isn’t a shed, it’s a house, because this here says anything meeting this broad definition is a house” when you can quite clearly see the surveyor says it isn’t a house.

Same concept. Something specific was produced, that experts say isn’t gene therapy, even if broadly speaking, the FDA consider all things like that vaccine, are gene therapy.

You’d go with the decision made by the experts, on a specific thing, not the blanket list…

…unless you were f***ing desperate to tell everyone this video is true and amazing, which is clearly what you’re so bothered about
 
Can a mod explain how discourse of conflicting opinions is tolerated in this thread but I am banned from posting in the ukraine thread for not universally supporting the boards preferred narrative?

@Roger
 
pavarotti1980 said:
No because they actually appear in the list of approved vaccines regardless of the classification of approval
Vaccines Licensed for Use in the US
Click to expand...
I dont know whether this is being pedantic or not but that list is 'vaccines licenced for use' this does not mean it would appear on a list of 'approved gene therapy products'? I dont think thats being pedantic actually its a valid point. I.e it could br licenced under EUA but not have received full approval to be on the approved gene therapy product list.


After looking into it last night it seems the situation isnt clear regarding definitions. I will write what i found but will give it a few hours as may be a waste of time due to that gonk a few posts up trying to get me banned.
 
Last edited:
Kermit said:
I dont know whether this is being pedantic or not but that list is 'vaccines licenced for use' this does not mean it would appear on a list of 'approved gene therapy products'? I dont think thats being pedantic actually its a valid point. After looking into it last night it seems the situation isnt clear regarding definitions. I will write what i found but will give it a few hours as may be a waste of time due to that gonk a few posts up trying to get me banned.
Click to expand...
Its 100% clear. It cant be listed as gene therapy as it is not gene therapy, its a vaccine. The FDA do not regard as such and neither anyone in the EU/UK otherwise it would be listed as gene therapy.

Gene therapy is very clear in its mechanism of action. It has to involve the transport of and/or the permanent change of DNA by changes to the nucleus of the cell. The likes of SpikeVax, Cominarty and other vaccines do neither as they are as described, vaccines and do not enter the nucleus of the cell
Edit: Regardless of emergency use or full approval it would be categorised based on it's actual classification.
 
Last edited:
pavarotti1980 said:
Its 100% clear. It cant be listed as gene therapy as it is not gene therapy, its a vaccine. The FDA do not regard as such and neither anyone in the EU/UK otherwise it would be listed as gene therapy.

Gene therapy is very clear in its mechanism of action. It has to involve the transport of and/or the permanent change of DNA by changes to the nucleus of the cell. The likes of SpikeVax, Cominarty and other vaccines do neither as they are as described, vaccines and do not enter the nucleus of the cell
Click to expand...
It isnt clear at all. I have looked at a number of definitions, under some of which these vaccines do seem to qualify. I.e

"Gene therapy is a technique that uses a gene(s) to treat, prevent or cure a disease or medical disorder."

This seems a broad definition however. At this point i must reiterate that i am still not saying they are gene therapies.

The definition has been wrestled with by experts for years. Its still not clear. Here is a paper on it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6534757/#!po=38.3721

This argues there are 3 types. Direct, compensatory and augmenting. This is the definition of augmenting.

"The introduction of a novel function that would not otherwise be present in the target cell type."

Sound familiar?

Now with this definition, the crux of the matter appears to be permanency. Which is what you are alluding to. It is said there is no permanent change with these vaccines. This is where i need to investigate further. I believe i have seen a study referring to reverse transcription in the liver i think it was. I have also not seen any one discussing how long the spike protein is expressed for. When does it stop? I have seen drs suggest it is being expressed for up to 6 months afterwards, and possibly longer. Have there been any studies on this that you are aware of? Do we know for certain that it stops?

This seems a far more complex issue than i anticipated. I am still neutral and i suspect that is not going to as it appears experts in the field cannot agree on a definition. I doubt this will be resolved on a message board, certainly not to my satisfaction. It seems quite remarkable that there doesn't seem to be an agreed definition considering the implications for approval, regulation etc.
 
Kermit said:
It isnt clear at all. I have looked at a number of definitions, under some of which these vaccines do seem to qualify. I.e

"Gene therapy is a technique that uses a gene(s) to treat, prevent or cure a disease or medical disorder."

This seems a broad definition however. At this point i must reiterate that i am still not saying they are gene therapies.

The definition has been wrestled with by experts for years. Its still not clear. Here is a paper on it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6534757/#!po=38.3721

This argues there are 3 types. Direct, compensatory and augmenting. This is the definition of augmenting.

"The introduction of a novel function that would not otherwise be present in the target cell type."

Sound familiar?

Now with this definition, the crux of the matter appears to be permanency. Which is what you are alluding to. It is said there is no permanent change with these vaccines. This is where i need to investigate further. I believe i have seen a study referring to reverse transcription in the liver i think it was. I have also not seen any one discussing how long the spike protein is expressed for. When does it stop? I have seen drs suggest it is being expressed for up to 6 months afterwards, and possibly longer. Have there been any studies on this that you are aware of? Do we know for certain that it stops?

This seems a far more complex issue than i anticipated. I am still neutral and i suspect that is not going to as it appears experts in the field cannot agree on a definition. I doubt this will be resolved on a message board, certainly not to my satisfaction. It seems quite remarkable that there doesn't seem to be an agreed definition considering the implications for approval, regulation etc.
Click to expand...
Who doesn't agree on its definition?

FDA - vaccine
EMA - vaccine
MHRA -vaccine

For gene therapy it requires entry to the cell nucleus. mRNA does not enter the nucleus.
If as you think there is no consistency, which gene is used in mRNA COVID vaccines which would classify it is as gene therapy?
 
pavarotti1980 said:
Who doesn't agree on its definition?

FDA - vaccine
EMA - vaccine
MHRA -vaccine

For gene therapy it requires entry to the cell nucleus. mRNA does not enter the nucleus.
If as you think there is no consistency, which gene is used in mRNA COVID vaccines which would classify it is as gene therapy?
Click to expand...
You haven't read the paper then
 
pavarotti1980 said:
I have

Which gene is used in the COVID vaccines to alter DNA in the nucleus of a cell?
Click to expand...
I dont know. I dont pretend to know. Im looking at what experts are saying. Im trying to form an opinion with an open mind making no assumptions.

In addition you are just trying to say the FDA dont class it as gene therapy based on a list. A list which you know nothing about the criteria used to decide what does or doesn't go on it. Whether EUA effects those criteria. Whether a product licenced under EUA would meet the criteria to appear on an approved gene therapy product list. It makes sense to me personally that theres every chance it wouldnt.
 
Kermit said:
I dont know. I dont pretend to know. Im looking at what experts are saying. Im trying to form an opinion with an open mind making no assumptions.

In addition you are just trying to say the FDA dont class it as gene therapy based on a list. A list which you know nothing about the criteria used to decide what does or doesn't go on it. Whether EUA effects those criteria. Whether a product licenced under EUA would meet the criteria to appear on an approved gene therapy product list. It makes sense to me personally that theres every chance it wouldnt.
Click to expand...
You are just going round in circles.

Nobody regulatory body treats it as gene therapy as the mechanism of action does not fit that criteria for it to be classified in that way. It does not alter DNA, it does not enter the nucleus of a cell therefore it falls at the first hurdle.
If you compare it to something which actually is a gene therapy and note the differences. This will indicate why CAR-T is gene therapy and COVID vaccines are not

SpikeVax BiValent - Spikevax bivalent - Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) - (emc)
Tisagenlecleucel (CAR-T) - Kymriah cells dispersion for infusion - Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) - (emc)
 

Back
Top