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.
Not just legal definition. The author states its not a vaccine by the cdc and fda’s definitions.
As per it being “old” law, thats absurd. You want to ignore precedents and rulings because they’re old and you dont like them. You sound like a socialist libtard. Thats their arguments for getting rid of established laws and precedents they dont like. And further its not a podunk small court case, it was a SCOTUS level ruling/case.