I have already been honest as daylight in this discussion. You have been deceptive in this discussion and thus the only who could "start" being honest here.
Its more appropriate to not change definitions in order to equivocate as the CDC has done. For example changing what "vaccine" means in order to get the jabs to qualify.
Your words:
If a substance must provide immunity to be considered a vaccine, then there are no vaccines.
The 2011 definition of vaccine per the CDC:
“A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease."
I am perfectly happy to keep the traditional definition rather than substituting my own.
Since I note the mRNA jabs do not qualify as vaccines by this established definition, honesty compels me to use a different term for them to avoid confusion.
Now you may have been able to argue that the Jabs also qualified under the traditional definition, but you gave up that approach when your chain of rationalizing took you to this gem: "If a substance must provide immunity to be considered a vaccine, then there are no vaccines."
When you say "mRNA vaccines are vaccines" its very much like saying "Trans-women are women". You could just say something like "The mRNA jabs are a good thing" and then argue for it. But calling them "vaccines" gives them credibility which they did earned. It also lets you equivocate on terms like "anti-vax" conflating those who have claims about actual vaccines with those that have legitimate claims about mRNA jabs.
Changing definitions of terms as part of polemics is dishonest, and by insisting on doing this you are being dishonest as well.
Start being honest. Its good for your soul, even though you have a lot of crow to eat to get there, I think its well worth it--well unless (as many here have suggested) you are being paid to push the pro-jab narrative. I have no idea if that is true, but I can certainly see why people expect it. But it is obvious you are being dishonest, either with us or yourself and with us. I can't see motives, only what you say.
Left off the word "not" due to poor editing.
AndyTheBear wrote: “A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease.” and “I am perfectly happy to keep the traditional definition rather than substituting my own.”
You’re ignoring the fact that there are no vaccines that fit that definition. Every vaccine in existance has ‘breakthrough infections’. Therefore, no vaccine can produce immunity. A vaccine can only produce degrees of immunity, never total immunity. Hence the reason for changing the definition.
For example, the smallpox vaccine has been effective in preventing smallpox infection in 95% of those vaccinated.
Here’s a personal experience. When I was in grade school, every child had to be vaccinated against small pox. Every vaccination had to ‘take’, you had to get a scab at the vaccination point or repeat the vaccination.
I had to take the vaccination, IIRC, at least three, maybe four times, before it took.
IOW, the small pox vaccine did not provide any degree of immunity for me until the third or fourth attempt. Was it a vaccine the first three times? Of course, it was. Whether it ‘toke’ or not didn’t determine if it was a vacccine. It only determined if I had some degree of immunity. I could still get small pox after it took but the chances were significantly decreased.
BTW, even if you do get a degree of immunity from the small pox vaccine, that ‘immunity’ only last three to five years.