I tend to think from a functional perspective rather than a clinical perspective - not actually working in medicine - and for me the word "vaccine" has a clear functional definition.
In a more condensed form, a functionally-defined "vaccine" is any product introduced into the human body to *specifically* train the immune system to recognize and attack something. This is in contrast to immunotherapies that generally boost immune response, that modulate the activities of particular aspects of immunity (e.g. immunosuppressants), or that specifically train the immune system *not* to attack something (e.g. allergy/desensitization shots).
It seems to me that most people would agree with this functional definition, which includes such treatments as "cancer vaccines" (where the immune system is being trained to recognize and attack cancer cells).
I've generally stayed out of the "is-it-or-is-it-not-a-vaccine" argument, since for me these novel products have clearly fit into the category as commonly and functionally understood, whether or not they fit into the more precise clinical definition.
I also think that this class - as thus defined functionally - has biological relevance with regard to shared concerns and risk factors. Any products designed to specifically train the immune system to attack something can potentially become problematic when:
1. The immune system makes a mistake and also learns to attack a component of self (autoimmunity), or
2. This sort of immune training is undertaken too many times, leading to a "state change" in immune function with unknown and potentially complex consequences, or
3. Failure to encounter the target "attack-ees" in the natural context of illness, innate immune response, and generation of adaptive immunity (because vaccines have pre-established adaptive immunity) has implications for immune system development, also with unknown and potentially complex consequences.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: Vaccines as a class
Date: 2022-10-26 03:23 pm (UTC)In a more condensed form, a functionally-defined "vaccine" is any product introduced into the human body to *specifically* train the immune system to recognize and attack something. This is in contrast to immunotherapies that generally boost immune response, that modulate the activities of particular aspects of immunity (e.g. immunosuppressants), or that specifically train the immune system *not* to attack something (e.g. allergy/desensitization shots).
It seems to me that most people would agree with this functional definition, which includes such treatments as "cancer vaccines" (where the immune system is being trained to recognize and attack cancer cells).
I've generally stayed out of the "is-it-or-is-it-not-a-vaccine" argument, since for me these novel products have clearly fit into the category as commonly and functionally understood, whether or not they fit into the more precise clinical definition.
I also think that this class - as thus defined functionally - has biological relevance with regard to shared concerns and risk factors. Any products designed to specifically train the immune system to attack something can potentially become problematic when:
1. The immune system makes a mistake and also learns to attack a component of self (autoimmunity), or
2. This sort of immune training is undertaken too many times, leading to a "state change" in immune function with unknown and potentially complex consequences, or
3. Failure to encounter the target "attack-ees" in the natural context of illness, innate immune response, and generation of adaptive immunity (because vaccines have pre-established adaptive immunity) has implications for immune system development, also with unknown and potentially complex consequences.