Yes one is a drug that mirrors the results of a vaccine and the others are vaccines. But we know the risks of normal vaccines, which are detracting reactions to the ingredients in the medium in which the vaccines are administered, can be NO WORSE than getting the disease itself, because its main component is the contagion itself. With these new "vaccines" we have no idea what a worst case scenario could be. Could a problem in the manufacturing of this drug cause your cells to make a prion (malformed self replicating protein), or could your cells do that normally? I don't know, can anyone?
No, no we don't. And that's my overriding concern. That's why I'm personally waiting before I decide whether or not to get it. But this drug meets the definition of a vaccine. That doesn't mean it's necessarily safe. We just don't know the long term effects yet.
A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms (e.g. bacteria or viruses) or fractions thereof administered to induce immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae. Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B); others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined (e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses).
They do not meet the standard definition of vaccine. They are drugs that get the same results as vaccines.
These are really just semantics. The end result is the same.
Yes one is a drug that mirrors the results of a vaccine and the others are vaccines. But we know the risks of normal vaccines, which are detracting reactions to the ingredients in the medium in which the vaccines are administered, can be NO WORSE than getting the disease itself, because its main component is the contagion itself. With these new "vaccines" we have no idea what a worst case scenario could be. Could a problem in the manufacturing of this drug cause your cells to make a prion (malformed self replicating protein), or could your cells do that normally? I don't know, can anyone?
No, no we don't. And that's my overriding concern. That's why I'm personally waiting before I decide whether or not to get it. But this drug meets the definition of a vaccine. That doesn't mean it's necessarily safe. We just don't know the long term effects yet.
CDC Vaccine:
A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms (e.g. bacteria or viruses) or fractions thereof administered to induce immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae. Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B); others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined (e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses).
They do not meet the standard definition of vaccine. They are drugs that get the same results as vaccines.
OK, fair enough. I learned something today. This tech is fairly new. I do imagine that definition will change.