The modification is an addition, not an edit, if that clarifies things for you.

Injecting mRNA, a gene, into your body modifies the set of genes in your body. Due to the new gene in your body your cells produce a protein they otherwise would not have. The reason anybody ever thought this was a good idea was to mitigate against an overblown risk from infection by a novel virus. People’s wariness toward the virus was understandable though given the many strange questions around it and the bizarre, unprecedented, inhumane, response provoked in many countries.

This whole notion of putting a gene in the body to evoke a response doesn’t haven’t any long track record of understanding behind it, therefore terming it experimental makes sense.

Thus, experimental gene modification.

I’d guess there might be some fancy statistics term to describe the intuitive calculation for some of us high iq critical thinkers that said don’t add on a potentially very large upside of risk onto something for the purposes of possibly mitigating a very small range of downside risk.

And now with all the complications arising from the shots that intuition was clearly correct. Even if all the issues hadn’t become apparent it would still be the right call for those with that limited range of downside risk from the virus to have not tacked on additional unknown risk from the injections.

Do you know how many countries that once used the mRNA injections have now barred their use for some or most of their populations?

mRNA is broken down quickly, it never enters the nucleus, and cannot affect or combine with our DNA in any way to change our genetic code.

> Do you know how many countries that once used the mRNA injections have now barred their use for some or most of their populations?

How many, and how many still ban their use?

Of those that restricted use two years ago in 2021 pending epidemiology results on potential myocardial associations, how many did that because of fears of "gene editing"?

Our genes are not edited nor added to and the point stands - no actual high IQ person with any real world medical exposure direct or second order ever actually thought that such editing (or addition) took place.

That was strictly a social media rumour easily debunked both then and now.

It’s not a rumour, it’s just an issue of semantics you’re debating here.

I’m calling a situation where a new gene is introduced into the body by means of injection and this new gene in the overall body system causes a new behaviour in cells, “experimental gene modification.”

There’s a set of all the genes in your body, then an mRNA injection occurs, now there is a new gene added to the set of all the genes in your body at least temporarily. This new gene is added with the intent to provoke a response.

I’m not saying it alters the genes you are born with from your parents.

Call it experimental gene therapy or something like that if you like, a distinction without much difference I think.

I don’t know about in 2021, the countries I’m talking about were initially fully on board like most western countries, as far as I know. Starting with Denmark, now I think most of Northern Europe and Australia have largely restricted use owing to the “efficacy rate” having settled at somewhere between 0% and -n%. The host of negative side effects and the utter absurdity of ever having mass injected these not well understood, no long term safety data things into healthy populations in the first place.

Probably more countries than that if you have a look around.