by definition a vaccine should NOT be a treatment, a vaccine has to be preventative, and further personally I believe only Sterilizing immunity should be considered a "vaccine"
This is very important, because a "vaccine" in the US has legal protections other medical drugs, treatments, etc do not get, which is why there is a push to include alot of these things under the definition of "vaccine" so now they get the legal shield
It is shocking to me that soo many people that normally at against large companies, and against even capitalism do not see the huge danger in classifying these things as something that gives the companies creating them an almost complete liability shield from harms caused by their products.
Once something is a "vaccine" in the US you lose all ability to sue for most harms caused by said vaccine.
It should not matter to you whether the compensation is paid by the government or a company, but you can file for compensation and if valid, get compensated for it.
Further there is all kinds of Due process issues that make filing a Vaccine claim problematic and very expensive to appeal, there are all kinds of horror stories out there about denied claims, and to appeal the denial is $$$$$$$$$$$$ and no lawyer will take it with out up front payment, and no class action is possible to spread the costs out...
Everything else you said is true for all kinds of appeal and not just for vaccines. There are horror stories about everything and lawyers not wanting to take things up without upfront payment. But that does not stop those things. Marriage and divorce, child custody, DUI cases, police excess, companies overcharging for things, DMCA being used incorrectly, tech companies having too much power etc. are all problematic and very expensive to appeal. But we live with those. Similarly, there are trade-offs here.
this is probably where the most of our different world view comes from, I believe the FDA is just a corrupt organization rubber stamping big Pharma, and serves no actual safety purpose. Given the revolving door between the major companies and top level positions in the FDA and the actions of the FDA during COVID I have lots of examples to prove my position.
>>Everything else you said is true for all kinds of appeal and not just for vaccines
Incorrect, the Vaccine process establishes an extra Judicial process where by a committee at the DHHS gets to choose if you were actually injured by the vaccine or not, skipping the jury process completely. if you are denied by the DHHS you have to jump right to the Expensive Appeals process, there is no way to fine a standard civil lawsuit and get a Jury of your peers.
Also there is no way to form a class if the FDA screws up and a vaccine causes harm to 100's. 1000's or 10'000s of people, each case has to go through the process individually
I understand that this point you believe the FDA is infallible organization that only cares for the individual, but the FDA has proven time and time again that to be false.
Just because criminals break laws does not mean no laws should be passed. Just because corruption happens in FDA does not mean FDA is entirely corrupt and we should let everyone sell whatever drugs they can think of into the market.
Probably you heard about diphtheria and tetanus vaccines before 2020. They are prepared from toxins.
Other definitions did not restrict what a vaccine must contain.[2]
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20190118214500/https://www.merria...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20160402152957/https://www.dicti...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccinia
The definition has never been constrained to dead pathogens.
Oh, stop lying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine
"The first successful demonstration of a polio vaccine was by Hilary Koprowski in 1950, with a live attenuated virus which people drank."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine#History
> The technique of cultivating a virus repeatedly in artificial media and isolating less virulent strains was pioneered in the early 20th century by Albert Calmette and Camille Guérin who developed an attenuated tuberculosis vaccine called the BCG vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html
> MMR is an attenuated (weakened) live virus vaccine. This means that after injection, the viruses cause a harmless infection in the vaccinated person with very few, if any, symptoms before they are eliminated from the body. The person’s immune system fights the infection caused by these weakened viruses, and immunity (the body’s protection from the virus) develops.
Moderna here create something so your immune system gets prepper but it doesn't prevent it's used to fight.
I mean this word came from cow, you are right, it's time to redefine some of these terms.
Umm. You have never heard of rabies or tetnus vaccines?
This is not a change in definition.
Edit: to be clear, this kind of argument is only slightly less asinine than arguing that a vaccine isn’t a vaccine unless it comes from a cow’s udder.
Hmm, I don't see the basis for this conclusion. This treatment is acting according to the common definition of a vaccine. Whether before or after disease activation is not part of the definition. As far as your personal belief, I understand that you may feel strongly, but I'm sorry to say that doesn't really enter into articulating an accepted scientific definition.
vaccine: any preventive preparation used to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific disease, ...
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vaccine
Could you be more specific about any particular legal shield? They all have to go through the same phased trials system. I don't see any reason to conclude this is a legal shenanigan. What they have created meets the well-known definition of a vaccine.