Insofar as the term is somewhat jarring, or causes some readers to pause briefly to contemplate its meaning, that is all for the better. People really do need to slow down and contemplate what these shots are (non-FDA approved, experimental genetic therapy injections), rather than mindlessly accepting the notion that they are "vaccines."
The term "non-mRNA injected" has the benefit of being more accurate, as you concede. Indeed, all Americans are "vaccine-free" since there are no actual vaccines available! Moreover, "non-mRNA injected" avoids the rather cheesy (at least to my ears) "vaccine-free" phraseology, which echoes a "fat free" marketing slogan from the 1990s.
I find it hard to believe people will not understand the term "non-mRNA injected."
Insofar as the term is somewhat jarring, or causes some readers to pause briefly to contemplate its meaning, that is all for the better. People really do need to slow down and contemplate what these shots are (non-FDA approved, experimental genetic therapy injections), rather than mindlessly accepting the notion that they are "vaccines."
The term "non-mRNA injected" has the benefit of being more accurate, as you concede. Indeed, all Americans are "vaccine-free" since there are no actual vaccines available! Moreover, "non-mRNA injected" avoids the rather cheesy (at least to my ears) "vaccine-free" phraseology, which echoes a "fat free" marketing slogan from the 1990s.
Thanks, Abu. And to further confuse, most of us who have not taken the mRNA shot have taken vaccines for other pathogens, and are not "vaccine-free."
True - hadn't thought of that. So "vaccine-free" is inaccurate in two entirely different respects.
But I am also non-viral-vector-DNA-spike-injected