Why did they change the definition of ''vaccine''

This guy doesn't make much sense. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are the first commercially available MRNA vaccines, which work slightly differently to traditional vaccines; of course we are going to update the definition, since "MRNA Vaccine" is going to be part of our lexicon going forward, and warrant an amended definition.


Also, there really isn't a difference between:

[quote]produce or artificially increase immunity[/quote]

and

[quote]stimulate an immune response[/quote]

One is necessarily the other. If you increase immunity, you are stimulating an immune response, no? Very few vaccines provide sterilising immunity (i.e. like smallpox), most just boost our immune response and better prepare our bodies to fight severe symptoms.

In fact, I'd argue the new definition on Merriam Webster is way more in depth.

All they did was get more specific in the definition. But you know the adage about a little knowledge.

Before anyone goes breaking down serious issues in the medical professional community, he ought to be at least rudimentally trained in a discipline even close to the area he's speaking on. Or at least on how to read a dictionary definition.

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=50886

This is a textbook example of a little information being a dangerous thing.

The new definition includes the phrase "antigenic substance." [i]This is any substance that causes the body to make an immune response against that substance.(cancer.gov)[/i]

It still says the same thing, only more precisely. Sorry, no sky falling here.

This is truly an amazing video. I guess we don't need any medical textbooks or journals, just depend on dictionaries, and on non-scientists discussing complex scientific issues.

Because your life is so boring.