The court did not “rule” that they are not vaccines. They stipulated the plaintiffs excellent arguments for the purpose of showing what the plaintiffs “might” show at trial.
*********
Correct — this post is a nothingburger. Anyway, it can be called a vaccine if it produces antibodies, which is what vaccines are supposed to do. The real issue is whether it also has harmful side effects.
I could quibble with the definition of vaccine, since it once meant a dead version of the disease that was intended to cause antibodies and was modified (including on the CDC website) to anything that produces antibodies, but I agree — it’s really unlikely that a court would uphold this distinction, and I would be shocked if they ruled that the pharma companies don’t get immunity on the basis of such an argument. Hence yes, the post is nothingburger clickbait.