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
There's a reason I'm holding on just a minute to make sure everything's alright with everybody else.
But I also have to say a few things in defense of this technology. Hear me out before you downvote!
Firstly it's been around for some 32-odd years, and it's been tested extensively on animals.
The traditional vaccine is to inject a very weakened form of the virus - weakened primarily through poisons or metals, and have the body respond to it naturally, therefore creating antibodies. These reagents for weakening could cause serious allergic reactions - and some claim it could cause autism, although I personally don't think so. Regardless - a way to avoid these kinds of problems would be welcome, would it not?
RNA is indeed part of how DNA is duplicated, so it's natural to be concerned that it'll enter our cell nucleus and start mutating us, but that's never been observed, and I think the medical profession knows this well. You ingest a ridiculous amount of RNA and DNA every day simply by eating, and it doesn't fly into your stomach and start altering the DNA in it to resemble that of a cow or a grain or whatever.
But RNA can bond with anything biological, thus you can create an antibody made virtually entirely of RNA.
In this way you'll get an antibody without having an immune response. That means you don't get mild COVID symptoms - perhaps you get no symptoms at all. You didn't have to make that antibody.
This is in some ways similar to a "vaccine" involving the transfer of blood plasma - antibodies get injected directly into your blood stream - you didn't have to make them.
So yes, I would characterise this as a vaccine. It may even be a superior way of making them - we shall see. I will agree that this is a rushed experiment though - I think everybody understands that.
The way it was explained to me by a Dr is:
the mRNA they inject enters your cells.
Takes over your mitochondria (not your DNA in your nucleus) and makes a "spike protein" which is same protein on the outer wall of a Sars-CoV2 virus.
the mRNA is consumed when used.
Your immune system reacts to the spike protein as it would the virus. You do get an immune response, and might get flu/cold symptoms as your immune system ramps up. You don't have any virus just a protein. And the symptoms are from your immune system, not any kind of real infection.
The immune system then creates an antibody that binds to the spike protein.
For some period of time (weeks? months? years? lifetime?) that antibody is stored in your body making the immune response to a later infection much faster. So fast, you never get sick.
So same result of what you said.
Taking an experimental drug with mild flu symptoms to prevent you from getting a common cold with mild flu symptoms. 🤡 🌎