Well, I was under the impression that a vaccination “helped” your own immune system to recognize and fight off the culprit — and it seems that this (with the bees) helps recognize and fight off the culprit... am I wrong?
Anyway..., I’m not making a big deal about it... it just seemed like the perfect “sound-bite” to give under the circumstances... LOL...
You make an interesting case here. I suppose that it could be called a "vaccine" under that definition.
I was operating under the classical definition of vaccine which is when the immune system is challenged with an attenuated or dead bacteria/virus, specific markers on the bacteria/virus will trigger an immune response that eventually leads to immunity.
This is not RNAi technology; RNAi technology doesn't involve the immune system, directly. I suppose it could be argued that it helps the immune system fight off the virus, by reducing viral load. The bee(s) that did so successfully would be immune but of course this immunity couldn't be passed down via reproduction (of course that doesn't happen with any vaccine). The immunity doesn't come from the RNAi strategy however, like it would come from a vaccination intervention.
Anyway, the point is that this isn't a vaccine in the biological/medical sense. Given your definition it could be defined as such, but of course, given that definition, anything that helps us fight off infections could be labeled a vaccine, such as vitamins, hot tea, chicken soup, etc.
I'm not really arguing with you. For me, when the press uses biological terms incorrectly, it bugs me as much as when they use terminology associated with firearms probably bugs gun enthusiasts. It's just a pet peeve I have.
Also, this is an interesting thread to bump.