geekhack Community > Off Topic
Antivax ?
Leslieann:
--- Quote from: cest73 on Thu, 22 July 2021, 03:33:58 ---If my DNA (or RNA for that matter) changes by food and environment already, it does so by inputs that are consistent with at least several generations now even be it across the globe - food is surprisingly uniform chemistry and DNA - or you are on the quick way to ER or cemetery, depending on the particular case.
With synthesized industrial whatever - well, what can i say, it's not something your gran'pa ate and lived to procreate your father, we are yet to see how this all pans out in the long term, once smoking too was prescribed to pregnant woman by the very doctors of that time and DDT was advertised as safe as taking a shower, along asbestos, lead and FCKW (OG spray propellant gas)...
All i say is something is not good just because it is shiny and new, it has to be proven by time too.
--- End quote ---
Yes, those chemicals were bad, yes, the companies all said they were safe, our gov. (like many) doesn't pre-test industrial chemicals like it does drugs, it's reactive, not pro-active, it relies on the companies to tell it whether something is is safe and well, they lie.
Food and drugs however are are pro-active but that is relatively new. Doctors did used to prescribe that, the key word is used to, regulations have changed since then and today it's difficult to get a doctor to recommend an off-label use and when they do, they usually make darn sure they know what they're getting into before hand.
yui:
--- Quote from: tp4tissue on Wed, 21 July 2021, 17:46:36 ---
--- Quote from: cest73 on Wed, 21 July 2021, 17:38:27 ---Sadly it's not a vaccine it's a gene therapy
--- End quote ---
Gene therapy is not a protected term, so it can refer to alot of things/ medical procedures.
What is the beef with gene therapy, is it not still good ? it's got therapy in the name does it not ?
Your DNA changes all the time as it responds to environmental stimuli even if nothing was injected. Just from the food a person eats, it changes gene expression.
--- End quote ---
i am not a biologist, but from the extensive reading and sci-show watching i did, i think you are both either very very wrong or partially wrong
it is not proper gene therapy, it does not have any long lasting DNA modification, just hijacking cells the produce fake viruses like a normal virus would do (well a normal one would not produce fakes).
and for TP, no your DNA does not change with what you eat, well not in a controlled manner, it get damaged by oxygen and random radiations as time goes on, (and it is a rather good thing that DNA does not change with the food you eat, imagine you hate and asparagus and grew 30cm and became blonde, well more likely eat something and get instant cancer), external stimuli can change some response over long times but not nearly as much as your response seem to imply, and only responses to the DNA changes not the DNA itself.
tp4tissue:
--- Quote from: yui on Fri, 23 July 2021, 00:51:14 ---external stimuli can change some response over long times but not nearly as much as your response seem to imply, and only responses to the DNA changes not the DNA itself.
--- End quote ---
Incorrect, dna can be upregulated/downregulated. The LARGEST external chemical exposure any animal engages in is food intake, both in volume and contact area.
Even behavior such as paternal stress response can be tracked and correlated through offspring born in different time periods, clear indication of dna impact.
It wouldn't make ANY SENSE for dna to be non-modifiable by the body. We share the same genetic root as plants, humans are 70% in common with a tree.
fohat.digs:
--- Quote from: Leslieann on Thu, 22 July 2021, 22:24:27 ---
it's difficult to get a doctor to recommend an off-label use
--- End quote ---
Regulations are frighteningly lame. Fear of lawsuits is what actually holds them back, one of the rare instances where "the markets" are more influential than "regulations" in a positive way.
yui:
--- Quote from: tp4tissue on Fri, 23 July 2021, 05:06:46 ---
--- Quote from: yui on Fri, 23 July 2021, 00:51:14 ---external stimuli can change some response over long times but not nearly as much as your response seem to imply, and only responses to the DNA changes not the DNA itself.
--- End quote ---
Incorrect, dna can be upregulated/downregulated. The LARGEST external chemical exposure any animal engages in is food intake, both in volume and contact area.
--- End quote ---
[/size][/color]
so you are just saying incorrect and talk about regulation, and then go back to food, although most chemicals that you eat do never reach your bloodstream at least not unmodified, and of that small part only very few interact with any DNA chemistry, and then only very few in a negative manner, and if they do it is randomly. although lack of some chemicals, like, by example, by excluding a whole half of what humans evolved eating, can lead to issues too.
--- Quote from: tp4tissue on Fri, 23 July 2021, 05:06:46 ---
Even behavior such as paternal stress response can be tracked and correlated through offspring born in different time periods, clear indication of dna impact.
--- End quote ---
so stress is one of the things we are pretty sure does affect how cells interpret the DNA, although last i checked it was still not fully proven and still debated... correlation != causation (for peoples not used to C-like languages != means not equal)
--- Quote from: tp4tissue on Fri, 23 July 2021, 05:06:46 ---
It wouldn't make ANY SENSE for dna to be non-modifiable by the body. We share the same genetic root as plants, humans are 70% in common with a tree.
--- End quote ---
well yes it would, plants and humans have a hell of a lot in common, both multicellular organisms moving chemicals to produce, store and use energy to stay alive, both use different means to achieve this but we have a huge base in common. and i still do not understand why that would make DNA modifiable. DNA is partially ignored under the right circumstances, it happens pretty much all of the time, your brain cells ignores the muscle cells part of the DNA, but they both have a full copy.
just as a quick example, if your DNA changed at will, how could you trace someone with their DNA decades later?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version