So, silicon diodes aren't diodes, then?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
(It is
you who insist calling the devices
silicon diodes, whereas I'm using
diodes (
therapeutics) or
semiconductors (x-
based medicine). As the devices aren't composed of mostly silicon, I do not believe the term "silicon diode" even applies.)
I mean, seriously, why would the fact that experts changed a definition to fit technological developments that weren't foreseen when the original definition was written, be a reason for laypeople to stick to the old definition as "more correct"?
Because dropping the minimum 50% immunity requirement was not done by experts, it was solely done by politicians (and civil servants on behalf of politicians) with no expert or scientist involvement.
I do trust the scientists and experts as much as one can trust humans in general for anything (we all err, we all have biases, and so on).
I do not trust politicians and civil servants acting on behalf of politicians to set the definition of "vaccine".
What is lacking here is a justification for why the old definition should be the preferred definition.
Simply put: I am happy and willing to inject myself with something that gives me at least a 50% immunity against something dangerous –– assuming that I'm given sufficient information about the risk and side effects, and the possibility of suing the manufacturer if they lie. The new definition breaks the first, and the deals the politicians made (with zero expert advice) with the manufacturing companies in the EU prohibit the second.
Dropping the 50% immunization requirement was not a medical decision, it was a political one, and that alone is enough for the old definition to be preferable to the new one.
I myself have both recommended them and recommended against them when close ones have asked my own opinion (for age 65+ yes to first dose, no to everyone else in basic good health, the rest on a case-by-case basis); and I fully stand behind those suggestions now with the statistical results of various approaches being somewhat available.
Research here demonstrates otherwise.
Perhaps; this is my opinion based on the currently available statistics. Anecdotally, I do not personally know any 65+ who took more than one dose who do not suffer from cardiovascular issues, but I suppose it could be sampling bias, or muddling correlation with causation.
The science as to the spike protein itself being toxic to heart muscle cells and causing severe clotting issues if entering vascular wall cells, could easily change my opinion. The related research is still ongoing.
.... the spike protein itself being toxic (to heart muscle cells), ....
In my opinion, it affects the brain as well. Elon Musk needs a double dose.
Actually, it is extremely unlikely it could pass the blood-brain barrier at all. Vascular wall cells and heart muscles are currently known to be
damaged by susceptible to damage from the spike protein, but the spike protein itself just isn't researched widely enough yet (its effect in different kinds of tissues, instead of just at the single-cell level). For example, research into its interaction with pluripotent stem cells (in e.g. umbilical blood) and the effect on the resulting differentiated cells will reveal a lot more, when some high-skill team gathers enough courage (as this can risk their future funding sources) to find out.