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?