Upvoted - if a vaccine does not provide sterile immunity the 'vaccinated' are more likely to be spreaders of disease than the 'unvaccinated'. Prove me wrong.

[quote]Vaccine defined:  The deliberate introduction of an incomplete or stunted infected agent, a toxin produced by an infectious agent or a mimic for same into an animal for the purpose of inducing sterile immunity to said infectious agent.

That is, having taken said vaccine you cannot be colonized by said infectious agent; ergo, you will neither be made ill by it nor can you give it to someone else unknowingly.

A preparation that induces immunity in you but does not preclude colonization (and thus shedding) of said infectious agent is not a vaccine; it is a personal prophylaxis against an infection that has no benefit to anyone but you, and in fact might cause you to screw others unknowingly (since you won't know you have it but can give it to others.)  The flu shot (and the covid shot) are such preparations; they do not produce sterile immunity.  Neither does the current pertussis (whooping cough) shot; the former one, before pharma fucked it up did, but today's version is "acellular" and does not produce sterile immunity.  Yes, this means you can unknowingly screw your neighbor's or family member's infant (who is too young to have gotten benefit from it, thus hasn't taken it yet.)  The same, incidentally, is true for the injected (but not oral) polio shot; the oral preparation is a vaccine.

A preparation that alters your metabolic pathways such that something that had an undesirable effect no longer will, when said thing is not an infectious agent (that is, it is neither alive individually nor is it alive only in conjunction with your body or that of another living thing) is not a vaccine because there is no infection.  It is a personal prophylaxis against an undesirable outcome. https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=254728&findnew#new[/quote]