| > Did you not notice that your Newsweek article rates this claim as false? Yes. > Definitions are always imprecise anyway. That's the same conclusion the article arrives at in order to claim it as false, when in fact, it has to admit, the definition _was_ actually changed. You're happy they're waving their hands the same as you happen to be. "Complete horseshit" is really absurd thing to say in the face of this reduction of yours, isn't it? > and it was changed because mRNA stuff is the first time something didn’t work that way It was the first time something didn't work that way and was additionally being mandated. The concern was raised that mandating something which fails to meet the previous definition of vaccine was a flaw in policy and so the definition was, in fact, changed. You ironically seem to notice that it was changed as a result of public policy and not due to any other obvious reason. > This is obviously wrong because no vaccine provides total immunity. Most vaccines provide total immunity. That's because the disease they target is not a flu that has rapid genetic mutations and where the introduction of a leaky "vaccine" does not create evolutionary pressure on the target disease. You can move the goalposts to debating weather a Tetanus "vaccine" meets the definition, but Tetanus is caused by a bacteria, so almost no definition of "vaccine" will apply to it anyways. Other than this oddity do you have even one other example? > your first thought should be to look up what the old one said and see if it was actually an accurate definition So it changed, but it was to make it "more accurate," so my claim that it was changed is somehow actually wrong? You've fallen into a tautological trap. You see why I consider you to be ideologically possessed? > And you should have the basic knowledge to be able to understand when it was clearly deficient. Yet they felt the need to change at the same time they introduced an entirely new vaccine and also decided that people needed to take this new vaccine or have their civil rights removed. That seems to be the "deficiency" they were trying to correct and were not at all suddenly concerned with improving accuracy at just a really unfortunate time. So are there any other goal post distractions you'd like to hyper focus on in an effort to ignore the original point? |
There’s also a serious problem with the phrase “the definition.” There are many definitions. There isn’t a single authority which decides what a word means.
“It was the first time something didn't work that way and was additionally being mandated.”
Come on, seriously? The tetanus vaccine is required for school in many places. Why are you saying something so obviously incorrect, and with an example that disproves it already being part of the conversation? You accuse me of not accepting debate and you do this kind of thing? I can’t even.