We have been over this. The 100% clause you added was not part of the definition.
For example, the smallpox vaccine has been effective in preventing smallpox infection in 95% of those vaccinated.
Ok, so why does that mean it does not fit this definition:
A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease
You seem to be reading this definition as if it said:
A product that produces immunity therefore always protecting the body from the disease in 100% of the cases where the vaccine is administered. [The italics parts are your modifications]
If a vaccine produces immunity in 95% of people yet fails to produce immunity in 5% of people then the vaccine certainly qualifies as a "product that produces immunity". Just as a can opener is a tool that opens cans even if there are sometimes cans that it fails to operate well on.
Vitamin C and herbal tea and what not might "stimulate the immune system"...but they are not vaccines because they never give one immunity to a specific pathogen by triggering the targeted ability of the body to fight it like vaccines do.
AndyTheBear wrote: “A product that produces immunity therefore always protecting the body from the disease in 100% of the cases where the vaccine is administered. [The italics parts are your modifications]”
Not mine. Those are the modifications made by those who claim the covid vaccines are not truly vaccines.
AndyTheBear wrote: “If a vaccine produces immunity in 95% of people yet fails to produce immunity in 5% of people then the vaccine certainly qualifies as a “product that produces immunity”
The latest figures are that the covid vaccines are 61.8% effectiveness in preventing infection. Why doesn’t that qualify as a “product that produces immunity”?