Hacker News Reader

Comment by namlem | Hacker News Reader

In what way are these vaccines not vaccines? Because they are based on mRNA rather than inactive viruses or virus fragments?

View on HN

I'm not claiming that they aren't vaccines. Words change definition to follow usage. However, Merriam-Webster literally changed their definition of vaccine in the past 6 months or so. [0][1]

My argument is that by including these injections under the term vaccine, they are getting a halo effect from past vaccines that isn't warranted. Questioning vaccines is the lowest of the low, almost unthinkable, but these "vaccines" aren't like the old ones.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine

[1] https://archive.is/XGfdr

Then why wouldn't you just take one of the vaccines that meets the old definition of vaccine that you hold the esteem for? I get that anything new is less trustworthy by default, but that's only two mRNA "vaccines". The rest are attenuated, or inactivated, or sub-units of other viruses or COVID itself.

In all cases they make your body respond to proteins, that's all. Given the respective effective rates from mRNA vs. traditional vaccine methods if anything it's the halo effect of the effectiveness of the mRNA that are boosting the success rates.

The J&J vaccine is adenovirus. It’s the same class of vaccine as the flu shot we have had for decades. If you’re really concerned just take that one.

Their old definition didn't match usage. Diphtheria and tetanus vaccines use inactivated toxins for example. And the same dictionary said viruses are usually regarded as nonliving extremely complex molecules.[1]

I checked 2 dictionaries from before 2020. Neither said a vaccine had to be made from certain things.

[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20190118214500/https://www.merria...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com