They changed the definition of vaccine to fit their agenda, just like they did with herd immunity. It now includes not just a weakened or killed pathogen, but also a part of it's structure (such as a protein or spike). How convenient. More importantly by definition a vaccine produces immunity. This experimental mRNA treatment does NOT lead to immunity.
Further, this vaccine does provide immunity exactly like a traditional vaccine would. Neither are perfect, with this having a ~95 effectiveness. Look up the effectiveness of previous vaccines for various other pathogens and tell me what they are, because I know for a fact most are not 100%.
You are repeating things you heard without understanding. Things that were not accurate or true to begin with.
The vaccine is like wearing a condom to prevent pregnancy or disease. Not 100% effective, but massively more effective than not wearing one. Or even more accurately, like a woman using the pill to prevent pregnancy. ~97% effective, but not 100%. So you're going to claim that the pill isn't birth control because it's only 97% effective, not 100%? Are you going to claim it's no different than not taking the pill because 97% might as well be 0% because it's not 100%?
Do you see how invalid your argument is?
Look at those legal definitions of vaccine, or quote me one from a credible mainstream source that you think the current vaccines fail to meet. I'd like to see it.
The only difference here is the mechanism of delivering the antigen, the part of the pathogen that the immune system will recognize and remember in order to provide immunity against the whole pathogen in the future. In this case the spike protein. The immune response to the administered antigen and gain of immunity are identical to traditional vaccines.
February 6th 2019 Merriam Webster definition of vaccine:
a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease
Current Merriam Webster definition of vaccine:
a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious disease:
a: an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated (see ATTENUATED sense 2) pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b: a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)
The mRNA injection does not lead to immunity, it simply lowers the severity of the disease if infected. So if you get infected you have a 97% chance of having mild symptoms, but you can still get the disease and spread it. That fits the definition of treatment more than vaccine. Even with their revised definition. (Treatment for a disease you may or may not even get)
Treatment:
the action or way of treating a patient or a condition medically or surgically : management and care to prevent, cure, ameliorate, or slow progression of a medical condition
They changed the definition of vaccine to fit their agenda, just like they did with herd immunity. It now includes not just a weakened or killed pathogen, but also a part of it's structure (such as a protein or spike). How convenient. More importantly by definition a vaccine produces immunity. This experimental mRNA treatment does NOT lead to immunity.
Show me the original legal definition. Or even the previous definition that you think was fundamentally changed.
Actually quote it for me.
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/vaccine
Further, this vaccine does provide immunity exactly like a traditional vaccine would. Neither are perfect, with this having a ~95 effectiveness. Look up the effectiveness of previous vaccines for various other pathogens and tell me what they are, because I know for a fact most are not 100%.
You are repeating things you heard without understanding. Things that were not accurate or true to begin with.
The vaccine is like wearing a condom to prevent pregnancy or disease. Not 100% effective, but massively more effective than not wearing one. Or even more accurately, like a woman using the pill to prevent pregnancy. ~97% effective, but not 100%. So you're going to claim that the pill isn't birth control because it's only 97% effective, not 100%? Are you going to claim it's no different than not taking the pill because 97% might as well be 0% because it's not 100%?
Do you see how invalid your argument is?
Look at those legal definitions of vaccine, or quote me one from a credible mainstream source that you think the current vaccines fail to meet. I'd like to see it.
The only difference here is the mechanism of delivering the antigen, the part of the pathogen that the immune system will recognize and remember in order to provide immunity against the whole pathogen in the future. In this case the spike protein. The immune response to the administered antigen and gain of immunity are identical to traditional vaccines.
February 6th 2019 Merriam Webster definition of vaccine:
Current Merriam Webster definition of vaccine:
https://archive.is/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine
The mRNA injection does not lead to immunity, it simply lowers the severity of the disease if infected. So if you get infected you have a 97% chance of having mild symptoms, but you can still get the disease and spread it. That fits the definition of treatment more than vaccine. Even with their revised definition. (Treatment for a disease you may or may not even get)
Treatment: