They’re a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards, and a vaccine specifically has to stimulate, both an immunity within the person receiving it but it also has to disrupt transmission. And that’s not what this is. They have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand going into the cell is not to stop transmission.
But the mRNA strand causes the cell to produce the protein in question which the body then develops the immune response to. This is like saying that the smallpox vaccine using vaccinia virus wasn't a vaccine because it didn't produce an immune response but rather caused your body to produce more vaccinia viruses. But that is how it produced immunity to the smallpox variola virus - by having the body create enough of the related vaccinia virus to create an immune response.
I would have to see the exact legal definition of a vaccine to see why the smallpox vaccine would count and the mRNA vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna don't - and even then I would say that the law is falling behind the science.
Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for SARS-COV2.
And BMW started as a manufacturer of airplane engines. Does that mean every BMW on the road is really an airplane? Companies evolve and add new expertise. Using Moderna's origins is a silly argument.
I tried to watch the linked video, but only the first minute showed where Dr. Martin was defining a vaccine but no further information.
its not a vaccine because it doesnt stop transmission of covid
its clear
its not hair splitting, its what the definition of what a vaccine is
the fda and cdc defined it themselves for gods sake
using their own dam terms man
read