[Secret Agent Man]

You don’t either read or cmprehend english well.

Its not a vaccine. Not by the legal or the CCD/FDA’s own definitions of what they consider a vaccine.

Clear as day.

[mrsmith]

Clear to me that you’re a fool.
But “you kooks have a ball” as we used to say...

[coloradan]

If the mRNA approach stimulates an immune response against the spike protein, how would that not disrupt transmission? Note that conventional vaccines, i.e. using deactivated virus particles, similarly promote an immune response against the coat proteins - and this somehow does disrupt transmission.

[Slyfox]

I have heard it described as a “biologic.”

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Its not a vaccine. Not by the legal or the CCD/FDA’s own definitions of what they consider a vaccine.

Yes, it is. It instructs cells to develop antibodies to the spike proteins unique to the COVID-19 virus. It does not do so using de-activated components of the virus, but the end result is exactly the same - immune system production of antibodies for the virus.

End of story.

[Wuli]

Well O.K. One set of lawyers nearly a century ago got the SCOTUS to set the definition of “vaccine” a certain way.

But when do lawyers NOT get terms set in some way that benefits someone.

If we had all the lawyers out of the room, we’d likely never have defined “a vaccine” in law as it was done nearly a century ago at the SCOTUS.

I think legal definitions are the least important “science” that we need to know about an issue, any issue.