Quote Originally Posted by Deeranged View Post
Pretty much the point I'm making BCram. What the vaccine essentially does is modify DNA that is to say it takes a naturally created DNA strand and alters its programming - exactly what the anti GM people are so opposed to. My concern, whether founded or not, is that this sort of modification might have an adverse effect on the long term health of the human genome.

I'm amazed that this is not receiving a higher profile public interrogation in the media. I suspect however that the relief of having any vaccine will far outweigh the objections that may be raised and in all honesty, despite the possible long term effects I've speculated, if it saves lives now I can see why it is not being questioned.

For the record genetic mutation is generally a naturally occurring phenomenon which will be randomly initiated (notwithstanding that which can occur due to radiation poisoning for example) whereas genetic modification is deliberate alteration or engineering of the gene. I can see why it would be easy to confuse the two terms but in reality they are completely different things.

Genetic mutation drives evolution whilst genetic modification should only really alter individual form and function. However it's hypothesised that modification can ultimately manipulate evolution should the form or function of the modification provide some selective advantage to the recipient.

Grantzer asked me to explain my genetic mutation theory by the way that's why I asked back that he tells me where this was mentioned.
No I never, I asked where your evidence was. Whether mutation or modification,you provided none,while condemning tainted for the same thing.