Another way is to take a look around LinkedIn and see what titles other companies are doing (especially ones in the same talent market as you). Look both in the titles of current/past employees and in the job postings themselves.

True, but "don't buy masks NOW because the health workers need them" is totally different than "don't buy masks because they are not effective for the general public and can actually be worse" - being either a terribly wrong idea (like the article defends) or outright lying to the public (if the message was told not because it was believed to be true, but as a roundabout way of being extra emphatic to avoid the public hoarding masks and causing PPE shortages for health workers).

Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry from 2017, same text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine&oldid=798...

Here's a link to the CDC definition from 2017: https://web.archive.org/web/20171203162427/https://www.cdc.g... ("Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.")

> It's all marketing at this point.

Definitions made prior to the pandemic would already fit the mRNA vaccines, therefore the claim that the definition was stretched for marketing/persuasion reasons don't really hold water.

> Not FDA approved in the US. "approval pending"

This FDA link claims Cominarty was approved in August 23 2021. The word "pending" is not found in this page.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr...

> These kind of drugs take years to develop. This stuff was done in a few months.

"The first human clinical trials using an mRNA vaccine against an infectious agent (rabies) began in 2013." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine)

Of course the actual individual version for COVID-19 is newer, but then again, so is any flu vaccine that is updated basically yearly. What matters is the age of the "vaccine platform".

> They skipped some steps in the process.

Citation needed?

Is it possible that this is not enough, and “virtually everyone will eventually be exposed”? Yes. Is it possible that COVID will become endemic and many (but not all or even most) people will be exposed? Yes. Have I seen any source that makes a strong case for this? Not yet.

If you're willing to go that route, the same could be said for COVID itself.

Also, mRNA is not the only type of vaccine for COVID.

Finally, two more questions: would you clarify which definition of "experimental" you subscribe to? And do you have a source for "testing standards were reduced"?

The numbers could lean either way and would be very sensitive to variations in the probabilities involved - I'm sure it would be very hard to reach any form of consensus on "probability of dying from taking the vaccine". It's also worth addressing wasn't even making the point of which (so-called) experimental treatment has a better likely outcome but rather addressing criticism at (so-called) experimental treatments in general.

From an "unknown risk" perspective, you'd also have to consider that COVID itself could have yet-unknown long-term risks.

To determine if this is a rational strategy or not, we'd have to get real numbers (is it really likely that 1 in 100k people die from taking the vaccine?), and compare that against the reduction in probability of dying from COVID by even combining both treatments.

How much, exactly?

> Over the long run we'll all be exposed no matter what we do

Plausible, but your sources don't appear to support that, other than the claim from Mr. Pollard. Is there anything I'm missing?