The kid over at the CDC apparently still has the password for the administrator account and he’s been barfing all over the website again. I’m so familiar with his - let’s call it work - by now that I’ve decided to give him a name. For the rest of this post he’s Todd the Intern.
The part of the website Todd messed with
The CDC has a web page called Immunization: The Basics1 where they give us some information on immunizations, including simple definitions of some common terms. Here’s the new definition (new today, at the time of this post):
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
The page says it was last reviewed (so the last time someone at the CDC checked it) on 1 September 2021. So of course that’s when Todd went in and changed some stuff. Someone archived a copy on 26 August 20212 at which time one of those definitions was subtly different:
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
So vaccines went from “produce immunity” to “stimulate the body’s immune response.” And immunity means you can be exposed without being infected. At least that’s what the CDC says on the same page.
Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
So per the old definition, vaccines will keep us from getting infected, but per the new definition they might not.
The part Todd missed because he’s not very thorough
The fun bit for us is that Todd the Intern missed another place on the same website where “vaccine” is also defined, in the Glossary3:
Vaccine: A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms (e.g. bacteria or viruses) or fractions thereof administered to induce immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae. Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B); others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined (e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses).
This is getting interesting – we’re in the process of giving people injections of messenger RNA (mRNA) drugs that are described as vaccines. Vaccines used to contain live or attenuated microorganisms and prevent someone from becoming infected. Does that mean the mRNA drugs aren’t vaccines?
And a vaccine is something that will “induce immunity” per the CDC Glossary. Remember, immunity means that you can get exposed to something without becoming infected. Or maybe not, according to Todd. He’s so smart.
The CDC Glossary definition was simpler back on 30 July 20204, and didn’t define the contents:
A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol.
So in one place the CDC updated the definition of vaccines to say they contain live or inactivated bacteria or viruses. This would exclude mRNA drugs from being vaccines.
But on another page they use a different definition – now vaccines stimulate the immune system, but they don’t produce immunity. So if we just ignore one definition and use the other, mRNA drugs are like, totally vaccines, dude.
Todd’s other job at Merriam-Webster
Well everyone gets to have their own definitions because obviously that’s how language works. Maybe the dictionary people can clear this up for us, so let’s see what Merriam-Webster has to say. On 18 January 20215 their definition was fairly straightforward.
: a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease
So it basically matched the newer definition from the CDC Glossary. But the wise folks at Merriam-Webster updated their big old tome of bits and bytes multiple times and by 23 October 20216 they were telling us a vaccine is:
1: a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease: such as
a: an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b: a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)
2: a preparation or immunotherapy that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases
Notice something? Todd works at the CDC and apparently moonlights at Merriam-Webster.
They went from “produce or artificially increase immunity “ to “stimulate the body’s immune response,” which is the exact phrase used over at the CDC, and both were updated this year. And neither of these agree with the Glossary definition provided by the CDC (that one was probably written by some cranky old professor who cares about silly things like accuracy).
Also, the folks at Merriam-Webster are on board with just lumping mRNA into “vaccine” so they must golf with the folks over at Pfizer.
I guess the lawyers have a definition too
Todd’s uncle got him the job at the CDC because he couldn’t cut it at Cornell Law. Here’s their legal definition7:
The term “vaccine” means any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of 1 or more diseases.
So this is in line with the old definitions from the CDC and Merriam-Webster (prevention of disease). Also surprisingly simple. Are these people even lawyers? They could at least add something in Latin to make it sound fancy. Todd, that rascal, would have chosen a nifty font or something.
A recent paper adds some more explanation by telling us what the Patent Office considers a vaccine. From Kostoff et al. (20218):
A vaccine is legally defined as any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of one or more diseases. For example, a January 2000 patent application that defined vaccines as “compositions or mixtures that when introduced into the circulatory system of an animal will evoke a protective response to a pathogen.” was rejected by the U.S. Patent Office because “The immune response produced by a vaccine must be more than merely some immune response but must be protective. As noted in the previous Office Action, the art recognizes the term "vaccine" to be a compound which prevents infection”
Over at the good old USPTO (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office), those fools still think a vaccine is something that prevents infection. We need to send Todd over there to explain it to them.
And here is the ridiculous summary for everyone smart enough to just skip to the end
So what’s a vaccine? Between Todd, the old professor in the CDC’s basement, lawyers, and the dictionary people, we have several options:
A preparation of live or attenuated microorganisms that induces immunity
A preparation of anything that stimulates an immune response to produce immunity
A preparation of anything that stimulates an immune response but might not provide immunity
A preparation of live or attenuated microorganisms, or messenger RNA that makes the body produce a fragment of a virus, or anything else that stimulates an immune response but might not provide immunity
What’s a vaccine? Whatever you want it to be, apparently.
If they get to make stuff up then so do we. Let’s circle back to the original quote from the CDC website, and simplify it slightly by removing the part about injection, since that’s not a requirement to meet their definition.
“A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines... can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”
So do zinc supplements count? How about chicken soup?
What’s the point? Definitions matter. By playing with definitions I can fool you into thinking you heard me say something that I didn’t actually say.
This part is the point
If I tell you that vaccines have a history of safety and efficacy, and this stuff in the needle I’m holding is a vaccine, then you might assume the first part of my statement applies to the stuff in the needle.
But what if the needle just contains chicken soup?
Updated on 29 Nov 2021 : per someone’s request, I am adding definitions from two old dictionaries for comparison.
Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1994
1. the virus of cowpox, used in vaccination, obtained from the vesicles of a cow or person having the disease.
2. the modified virus of any of various other diseases, used for preventive inoculation.
Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Funk & Wagnalls Company, New York and London, 1946
1. The virus of cowpox, as prepared for or introduced by vaccination: usually lymph, dried or fluid, or part of the crust of a pustule.
2. Generally, any inoculable immunizing agent.
Current:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
Archived copy:
https://web.archive.org/web/20211121025735/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
Archived copy:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https:/www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
Current:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/glossary.html#vaccine
Archived copy:
https://web.archive.org/web/20211119194433/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/glossary.html
Archived copy:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200730035036/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/glossary.html
Archived copy:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210118193104/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine
https://web.archive.org/web/20211023074049/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine
Original link:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4132
Archived copy:
https://web.archive.org/web/20211103215731/https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4132
Kostoff RN, Calina D, Kanduc D, et al. Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19? [published correction appears in Toxicol Rep. 2021 Oct 7;:]. Toxicol Rep. 2021;8:1665-1684. doi:10.1016/j.toxrep.2021.08.010
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8437699/