Glad to know that the vaxxine is still effective for you. Others, not so much.
I’m not anti-Vaccine as a general rule, but covid mRNA injections are gene therapy, and you know that. But it’s just talking through my hat to hard core Fauci-Brix-ites, so there you go. Like arguing with my dear spouse of 50 plus years who is a covid cloth mask Pro abortion Multiple vaxxed Karen who doesn’t understand why six of her circle have developed clotting disorders. Ahh, but that’s all anecdotal.
Keep wearing your mask, there’s Avian flu about, and I suspect a sneer.☘️☘️
Wow, you assume a lot about what I supposedly know.
Given that my PhD was in biochemistry (the study of proteins) and molecular biology (the study of nucleic acids), I do NOT know that mRNA is "gene therapy." If it were, then you are getting gene therapy every time you eat something (all foods contain mRNA unless they are heavily processed to the point of destroying nucleic acids), every time you get an infection (all pathogens contain mRNA and viruses force your body to make their mRNA), and just from the natural flora (consisting of all types of microorganism) that inhabits your body.
What I DO know, because this is what I studied in university, is that mRNA lives only in the cytosol. It doesn't go into the nucleus where the DNA is. When pre-mRNA is made in the nucleus, it is transported out to the cytosol and cannot reenter the nucleus. In order for something to be a "gene therapy" agent, it must be able to access the nucleus and physically change the DNA. That's another thing: mRNA has no enzymatic activity and cannot alter the DNA. So, no, mRNA from ANY source is not a gene therapy.
As for avian flu (I assume you mean H5N1 and not one of the other avian flus like H7N9 or H9N2), I have been monitoring it for over a decade now. Influenza viruses efficiently infect -EITHER- birds -OR- mammals but cannot efficiently infect both at the same time. (There are exceptions, such as pigs which are equally susceptible to bird and mammal influenza viruses.) The H5N1 virus has a hard time infecting humans, but when it does, it causes a very serious disease because the virus settles deep in the lungs. This kind of infection has a fatality rate of about 60% in humans. But it does not spread person-to-person.
The H5N1 that is causing concern seems to be able to infect mammals more easily than previous clades of H5N1. It may even be capable of limited human-to-human transmission. When an influenza virus adapts to infect mammals, it infects the upper respiratory tract--the throat and sinuses--not the deep lungs. Typically, an infection that is confined to the upper respiratory tract is not as serious as one that infects deep in the lungs. The most common influenzas have a fatality rate of about 0.1%--600 times lower than H5N1.
The reason public health figures are watching this H5N1 virus is that they do not know what will happen if it becomes fully adapted to humans and able to spread efficiently human-to-human. Yes, H5N1 is very deadly now--but if it adapts to humans, it might not be very deadly. We don't know, and there is not an influenza expert in the world who can predict what will happen.
The good thing about another influenza pandemic (if it turns into that) is that we've had influenza vaccine technology for a hundred years now and we're very good at producing new influenza vaccines quickly.