A boy, his brain, and a decades-long medical controversy

> No, it cannot be parsed like this. “Genetic modification” has a specific, technical meaning and mRNA vaccines do not perform it. Furthermore, I’m not even sure what you mean by “viral cell”, since viruses don’t form cells (they form virions). Do you mean a host cell infected by a virus? Because that doesn’t apply here: mRNA vaccines don’t specifically act on infected cells, they act on healthy cells.

I was ambiguously referring to virions as viral cells. Better I hadn't! - thank you - but I think I can be understood nonetheless.

A modification in the frame of mind of genetic understanding is performed on a viral cell. The modification is done from the perspective of an understanding of how genes, genetic material, and genetic processes such as transcription and protein encoding work. A segment of viral genome which encodes part of the body viral is excised and modified.

Then, carried on this understanding, a therapeutic effect is produced.

>> we can parse mRNA vaccines as “the treatment of disease by reconstructing genetic material”

> Again, we cannot do this, because it’s flat out incorrect. What does “reconstructing genetic material” even mean in this context? There’s no defect, so there’s nothing to reconstruct, and the mRNA vaccine does not do so anyway since, again, it does not modify the host genome.

Indeed if you review my words you'll note that I explicitly address the lack of a defect.

The mRNA vaccines we know today can certainly be viewed as a modification and reconstruction of viral genomic material. Of viral RNA genes. Per Wikipedia: "In biology, a gene is a basic unit of heredity and a sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that encodes the synthesis of a gene product, either RNA or protein." — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene

In mRNA vaccines, the modification of the viral gene and its replication on a large scale can certainly be viewed as a reconstruction of genetic material. And it's made possible by a deep understanding of genes.

According to Wikipedia, gene or genome editing is "is a type of genetic engineering in which DNA is inserted, deleted, modified or replaced in the genome of a living organism". Note the distinct concept from gene therapy – as things currently stand on Wikipedia, however imperfect Wikipedia is, fundamentally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_editing

> — In general I’ll note that several sentences in your answer simply make no biological sense and use made-up terms.

Maybe I've just read too much Martin-Löf and am getting overly comfortable with the abstract but I'm not worried about my ability to express my thoughts. As I'm sure you're here to build understanding, I'd like to ask you to point towards the terms you experience as made-up and the sentences that don't make sense to you. I think that is the best course of action if I am to learn anything. Otherwise I might be tempted to take it that what we are experiencing is less a lack of meaning and more a lack of comprehension.

Or to make an honest suggestion, how about we stay on topic in polite discussion and charitable interpretation?

Then in closing, I feel like I am compelled to highlight my repeated use of terms like "ambiguous" and "can be parsed". I also want to repeat that personally I wouldn't call mRNA vaccines gene therapy. We are in more general agreement too: I agree that the terms should be used as you describe. However, they can be and are used ambiguously. We are all the better for understanding this extant ambiguity, not least because the nuance and ambiguity are being abused in order to manipulate people.

Even if only from the perspective of how information on Wikipedia can be construed by the layman - such as myself.

Let me be frank: this sentence is nonsense technobabble.

> A segment of viral genome which encodes part of the body viral is excised and modified.

No, this does not happen (even ignoring that I don’t know what “body viral” means).

> Indeed if you review my words you'll note that I explicitly address the lack of a defect.

And yet you use the term “reconstruct”. — Reconstruct what?

> The mRNA vaccines we know today can certainly be viewed as a modification and reconstruction of viral genomic material.

This sentence becomes somewhat true if we use “information” instead of “material”. But that has nothing to do with gene therapy (as you seem to acknowledge yourself later!?).

> Gene editing or genome editing is […]. Note the distinct concept from gene therapy

I hold a PhD in genomics. You do not need to explain basic molecular biology to me.

> Even if only from the perspective of how information on Wikipedia can be construed by the layman - such as myself.

Then I humbly suggest that your understanding of the subject matter as a layman is — evidently — fragmentary, and insufficient for making up your own definitions and claiming them as being equally valid as those of experts.

Which works for a lot of people. We don't know what causes a number of mental health issues. Research is being done but a lot of it hasn't gone anywhere.

The human body is complex and there are firm ethical limitations to what methods we can use to understand it. Experimenting on people is fraught with hazards and abuse.

We have use what works with the evidence we have because there isn't a better solution for people who need help now.