3 ms·

Wikipedia defines "vaccine" as "a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease", which in my view would fit

Wikipedia defines "vaccine" as "a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease", which in my view would fit the Pfizer/Moderna shots. Which definition of "vaccine" do you subscribe to that these "treatments" don't fit into? Also, mRNA is not the only type of vaccine for COVID. Finally, two more questions: would you clarify which definition of "experimental" you subscribe to? And do you have a source for "testing standards were reduced"?

cies 5y ago
Maybe wikipedia also changed it (did you check?), Webster did change it: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=50886 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=50886 > Also, mRNA is not the only type of vaccine for COVID. I know. > Which definition of "vaccine" do you subscribe to that these "treatments" don't fit into? It's all marketing at this point. mRNA-treatment does not sell. Vaccine elicits people's trust, and obedience. > would you clarify which definition of "experimental" you subscribe to? Not FDA approved in the US. "approval pending" > And do you have a source for "testing standards were reduced"? These kind of drugs take years to develop. This stuff was done in a few months. They skipped some steps in the process. Understandable, but still...
- ralmeida 5y ago
  > Maybe wikipedia also changed it (did you check?) Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry from 2017, same text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine&oldid=798614270 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine&oldid=798... Here's a link to the CDC definition from 2017: https://web.archive.org/web/20171203162427/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20171203162427/https://www.cdc.g... ("Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.") > It's all marketing at this point. Definitions made prior to the pandemic would already fit the mRNA vaccines, therefore the claim that the definition was stretched for marketing/persuasion reasons don't really hold water. > Not FDA approved in the US. "approval pending" This FDA link claims Cominarty was approved in August 23 2021. The word "pending" is not found in this page. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr... > These kind of drugs take years to develop. This stuff was done in a few months. "The first human clinical trials using an mRNA vaccine against an infectious agent (rabies) began in 2013." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine) Of course the actual individual version for COVID-19 is newer, but then again, so is any flu vaccine that is updated basically yearly. What matters is the age of the "vaccine platform". > They skipped some steps in the process. Citation needed?
  - cies 5y ago
    The definition: mRNA does not stimulate the immune system directly. That's what's new about it. Did you know that? It tricks the cells of the body to create protein that then get hopefully a reaction from the immune sys. They typically also add some other stuff that helps to elicit this reaction (usually stuff that in large quantities is harmful to humans). > Definitions made prior to the pandemic would already fit the mRNA vaccines, therefore the claim that the definition was stretched for marketing/persuasion reasons don't really hold water. You you say mRNA treatment is not new? I think this is the first rollout of such medicine on humans. > "Approval pending" / "Citation needed? " Ok, I misquoted this. Here what I did mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_COVID-19_vaccine_development#Authorizations_and_licensure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_COVID-19_vaccine_de... See the PhaseIII trails were allowed to be skipped with the EUA. The process by which the treatment is now pushed to kids is even more botched. I believe we are exposing the younger (say <60) to risks bigger than the c19 poses itself. Yes we're dealing with an overly stressed healthcare system, but that's a different matter. The jab should be worth it for the person him/her self, and that should be made clear to that person, if they dont believe it they will not take it and that's their choice. Im okay with tax being used to give people that want the free jabs. Im not okay with persuding people to to take it with anythign other than data.

cies 5y ago

Maybe wikipedia also changed it (did you check?), Webster did change it: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=50886 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=50886 > Also, mRNA is not the only type of vaccine for COVID. I know. > Which definition of "vaccine" do you subscribe to that these "treatments" don't fit into? It's all marketing at this point. mRNA-treatment does not sell. Vaccine elicits people's trust, and obedience. > would you clarify which definition of "experimental" you subscribe to? Not FDA approved in the US. "approval pending" > And do you have a source for "testing standards were reduced"? These kind of drugs take years to develop. This stuff was done in a few months. They skipped some steps in the process. Understandable, but still...

ralmeida 5y ago
> Maybe wikipedia also changed it (did you check?) Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry from 2017, same text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine&oldid=798614270 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine&oldid=798... Here's a link to the CDC definition from 2017: https://web.archive.org/web/20171203162427/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20171203162427/https://www.cdc.g... ("Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.") > It's all marketing at this point. Definitions made prior to the pandemic would already fit the mRNA vaccines, therefore the claim that the definition was stretched for marketing/persuasion reasons don't really hold water. > Not FDA approved in the US. "approval pending" This FDA link claims Cominarty was approved in August 23 2021. The word "pending" is not found in this page. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr... > These kind of drugs take years to develop. This stuff was done in a few months. "The first human clinical trials using an mRNA vaccine against an infectious agent (rabies) began in 2013." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine) Of course the actual individual version for COVID-19 is newer, but then again, so is any flu vaccine that is updated basically yearly. What matters is the age of the "vaccine platform". > They skipped some steps in the process. Citation needed?
- cies 5y ago
  The definition: mRNA does not stimulate the immune system directly. That's what's new about it. Did you know that? It tricks the cells of the body to create protein that then get hopefully a reaction from the immune sys. They typically also add some other stuff that helps to elicit this reaction (usually stuff that in large quantities is harmful to humans). > Definitions made prior to the pandemic would already fit the mRNA vaccines, therefore the claim that the definition was stretched for marketing/persuasion reasons don't really hold water. You you say mRNA treatment is not new? I think this is the first rollout of such medicine on humans. > "Approval pending" / "Citation needed? " Ok, I misquoted this. Here what I did mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_COVID-19_vaccine_development#Authorizations_and_licensure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_COVID-19_vaccine_de... See the PhaseIII trails were allowed to be skipped with the EUA. The process by which the treatment is now pushed to kids is even more botched. I believe we are exposing the younger (say <60) to risks bigger than the c19 poses itself. Yes we're dealing with an overly stressed healthcare system, but that's a different matter. The jab should be worth it for the person him/her self, and that should be made clear to that person, if they dont believe it they will not take it and that's their choice. Im okay with tax being used to give people that want the free jabs. Im not okay with persuding people to to take it with anythign other than data.