Postcards From The Hedge

I've been directed to a rather rambling piece by  Robert Malone , nominally about pseudouridine but it takes a while to get there as the first half is about his favourite subject: Robert Malone. I can see from that segment where the 'inventor calls mRNA gene therapy ' trope probably comes from, because he does discuss the use of nucleic acid delivery systems in gene therapy. But this does not make RNA vaccines gene therapy: gene therapy involves the complementation or repair of defective host DNA genes, and the mRNA vaccines do not contain such genes, nor even any DNA. Malone has legitimate concerns about DNA-based gene therapy's safety, and points out that genotoxicity studies are required by the FDA, as it is potentially carcinogenic. These studies were not required for RNA vaccines because RNA should not affect DNA, and RNA is normally degraded in a matter of hours. Of course, anyone who has been following along will be aware that a Swedish study  has been touted by

A common feature of pseudoscientific discourse is to obsess over definitions - as if what you call something has any bearing on what it is . Two such ideas in particular stand out in the area of nucleic acid-based vaccination: "Experimental gene therapy" and "It's not a vaccine".  Now, though I think these strategies particularly lame, I could also pick a fight with an empty room, so I am happy to tackle them on their own terms! The oddest part of these oft-twinned notions is that the first demands extension of a definition, while the second complains about that very same thing... Experimental gene therapy. Tacking 'experimental' on the front is evidently an attempt to discredit by a pejorative. Yet there is no sense in which these vaccines are still 'experimental'. They have completed Phase lll trials, in which two groups are respectively given the treatment or placebo (or, more generally, 'standard of care'), and relative benefit is as

The sheer determination of people to be confused by the straightforward is quite something to behold. Contrarian Twitter has been beside itself with self-righteous fury because it believes pregnant women have 'quietly' been advised against vaccination by the UK government. But here's the actual timeline. December 2020 - pregnant women were advised against vaccination, other than in cases of significant risk.  April 2021 - pregnant women were now to be invited along with their age group. December 2021 - in view of high numbers of unvaccinated pregnant women in ICU, they were made a priority. Simple, huh? Not if you're a contrarian.  As part of Emergency Authorisation for approval of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine under 'Regulation 174', in December 2020, a report was issued, which included a section on reproductive and developmental toxicity with the following conclusion: The absence of reproductive toxicity data is a reflection of the speed of development to first iden