It's not a vaccine. They say so themselves. They say it's an operating system. It's mRNA. It's nanotechnology and gene-editing biotechnology. It changes your RNA to produce antibodies, and therefore is not a vaccine
- https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/vaccine
- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/vaccine
- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/vaccine
Merriam webster has edited their definition to include the mRNA therapeutic. Which definition is authoritative? Who has the authority to change definitions of things.
Also, at the time that the vaccine injury laws were made, the Merriam webster definition did not inlcude this new technology, since it hadn't ever been made yet much less conceived
It's a legal argument worth having, or at least debating with medical lawyers
I think AstraZeneca is actually a real, traditional vaccine. But the other two not.
You're right. I'm going to stay away from Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as they're mRNA, but J&J, AstraZeneca, Novavax and Merck have more traditional (viral vector-types) in the works. I have no problem taking one of those.
Source: https://nypost.com/article/how-do-covid-19-vaccines-differ/
I was so happy to learn of J&J’s vaccine. Not because I’m happy to take the damn thing, but at least I can rest a little easier when I’m forced into it by my employer.