"The timing" of the tweaking of a definition of a vaccine during a global pandemic seems like a political move to you because ... ?
Do you think this tweaking of the definition changed anything in some important way?
Here is the explanation that the CDC provided:
"The CDC told the AP in a statement that it made the language shifts to add detail and increase transparency.
“While there have been slight changes in wording over time to the definition of ‘vaccine’ on CDC’s website, those haven’t impacted the overall definition,” the statement said, noting that the previous definition “could be interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine.”
The suggestion that COVID-19 vaccine ineffectiveness led the CDC to change its definition of the word online was amplified this week by U.S. Rep.
apnews.com
And Merriam-Webster's explanation:
"The company told USA TODAY the goal was to be scientifically accurate about how vaccines work, not to question their effectiveness. "
....
"Peter Sokolowski, editor at large for Merriam-Webster, told USA TODAY in an email that the company changed its "vaccine" definition to include more scientifically accurate language.
"Merriam-Webster adds definitions and evolves existing ones to accurately report on how words are used," he said."
Merriam-Webster changed "immunity" to "immune response" in its definition of "vaccine" to be more scientifically accurate, the dictionary said.
www.usatoday.com
I don't see anything nefarious going on here. Do you?