If the mRNA injection from Pfizer and the other one from Moderna do not fit the definition of a vaccine, then it should *NOT* be called a vaccine. It is a gene therapy delivery system, which has no long-term track record.
Frohickey wrote: “If the mRNA injection from Pfizer and the other one from Moderna do not fit the definition of a vaccine, then it should *NOT* be called a vaccine. It is a gene therapy delivery system, which has no long-term track record.”
That’s nothing more than playing word games by using a very narrow definition of a vaccine and then claim that since this vaccine uses a different technology, that it isn’t a vaccine.
Experts at the CDC actually use this definition of a vaccine: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Clearly these vaccines fit that definition.
Feel the same way. Truth in advertising dictates that another term than “vaccine” be used. Alas, the chosen path of manipulation and propaganda dictates that the term “vaccine” be co-opted for use in fast-tracking and normalizing an experimental new technology. Johnson & Johnson, having just obtained emergency use authorization for what appears to be a true vaccine soon to be shipped in its millions of doses, must have steam coming out its proverbial ears that its competitors are basically lying about the nature of their respective products.
By the way, does anyone remember Senator Hilary Clinton reassuring New Yorkers that the haze of mystery chemicals arising out of the molten muck of Ground Zero for months on end after the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11 was not a health concern?
Fauci’s breezy high-office endorsement of the use of mRNA technology to inoculate against COVID-19 has the same whiff of being totally hollow from a scientific perspective but instead being offered solely for political reasons, intended to quell the concerns of a well-educated public despite those concerns likely having a strong basis in solid science.