How can you relate this scenario to what itchy said?

I'm hinting at nothing. I am merely stating a fact. They changed the definition of 'vaccine' in order to fit the Covid 19 treatment in. I said in the original post that it's up to each individual to decide whether that is relevant to them or not. However, whether you do or don't does not change the fact that it happened.

If you're asking why do I personally think it matters I'm more than happy to answer. I think it's important because transparency of information is important and should not be sacrificed on the alter of "noble lies". Once you start to bend the truth in order to fit a narrative or agenda, even if you perceive that agenda to be a good one, you are on a slippery slope. Who decides which lies are acceptable or not?

Unlike our friend Bob, I am more than happy to accept that someone else's opinion may differ and don't feel the need to insult them if it does. However, despite his protestations the Covid 19 treatments are not vaccines as, in order to classify them as such, the definition of what a vaccine is needed to be changed.

Using this logic we could tweak it again to read "a product that assists a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” which, again, only changes a single word ("stimulates" to "assists"icon_wink.gif. However water would then adhere to this description and we could all happily inject water in the safe knowledge that we're being "vaccinated".

Whether you think truth matters is very much a personal choice. I happen to think it does.

Quite. It is hardly a gotcha.
There is this fake humility, that suggests it is modest to expect his complete lack of knowledge and experience to not mean his opinion and judgement should not be weighed above those who have worked in the ICU, developed and trialled vaccines etc.

The figures I posted were from Sage's own published paper. If you're suggesting Sage don't work in the relevant area and aren't qualified to comment, but you are, I suggest any humility, fake or otherwise, on your part would be an improvement.

You're sharing an opinion and don't work in the relevant area. Hypocrisy much?

Finally. The definition was changed. If you're going to keep pretending it wasn't, please provide evidence.

I've said multiple times now .. including in the very first post with which you took issue...that whether any individual attaches any relevance to that is personal choice (unlike yourself who feels only your opinion is valid). Further, I've explained in detail above why it matters to me (completely ignored by yourself so I'm assuming you have no reasoned, or indeed reasonable, argument to counter it).

I'm not exactly sure what it is about freedom of thought that scares or offends you so much but it's quite clear that you're completely incapable of accepting any view except your own and that debate to you consists of insulting or trying to belittle the person you're debating with.

You have offered nothing to counter any point I've put forward beyond an incorrect table from the Financial Times, some vague insinuation that any viewpoint other than your own must somehow be wrong and that if you belittle the person rather than the argument you are somehow "winning" the debate.

Anyway, put up or shut up time. Provide evidence that they haven't changed the definition in order to recategorise the new treatments as vaccines. It's a very simple request and one you should be able to accomplish without resorting to insults. Unless of course... God forbid...you're actually wrong. Surely not.

Thanks for the reply.

I guess I take the position bob8 is taking. I don't know how these areas work, whether they alter what fits in categories often or not. I just have to trust experts in relevant fields and the vaccines seem to be working.

Did this affect your decision whether to get vaccinated?(or take the shots and boosters if you prefer) and what is the relevance of the profits the Pfizer et al are making?