Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Then these shouldn't be called vaccines.


sort by: page size:

I am aware of them, these also should not be called vaccines.

That's not what a vaccine is.

What makes them not vaccines?

We should not call them vaccines, they work totally different. These are gene treatments.

as long as vaccines are optional it should be fine. But calling them vaccines is an overstatement

these are not vaccines. stop with the propaganda ffs.

Not a vaccine.

We really need to stop using the word "vaccine" for these jabs - it's completely the wrong descriptor.

Which is not the type of vaccine the article is about.

Buddy, that's not a vaccine.

Why do you think this doesn't qualify as a "vaccine"? Calling it such seems to make some sense to me.

I wonder if it would be less confusing if we simply stopped referring to these as vaccines and just as shots.

Vaccines are not a method of treatment.

it's not a vaccine, is it?

The article isn't about that vaccine.

There's another one that says "big pharma" so I doubt that's what's being referred to as "vaccines"

Interestingly enough, this article isn't about vaccinations.

yeah, vaccine is marketing-speak. We should call these shots something else, because that's not what people typically understand by the word "vaccine". But that ship to fight on the name has sailed for a long time.

> Non-immunizing treatments should not be called vaccines

What do you consider immunizing?

next

Legal | privacy