I’ve edited the post you answered to include stuff I’ve posted in other comments.
Words are used to convey meaning.
I totally agree. Which is why I’ve been pushing the point that the meaning of variolation is not what people here seem to accept it as.
Vaccination is a word in common use for all diseases
Indeed. And it’s the word that should be used here.
A starting point for increasing knowledge of the subject: live-vaccines (edit to add: not a good link for differentiating between true live and live attenuated/modified vaccines, my mistake.)
highly relevant parallel twin that refers specifically to the inoculation by the live dangerous virus, variolation.
NO.
Using a live virus is a known as a “live virus vaccination”.
Can you find ANY evidence that variolation is an acceptable term for any disease other than smallpox?
No it isn’t. Quoting your own source “ Live vaccines contain a weakened or attenuated form of a virus or bacteria.”. That is not what is suggested here.
Intentional infection through controlled means with the contagious virus hasn’t been used since Smallpox (as opposed to pox parties). There is no accepted term. The meaning was immediately clear to me on first reading it. It appears to be a successful reintroduction if a word for an analogous purpose. It’s even unique enough to be googleable.
A true “live vaccine” is different from “live-attenuated” vaccine. (you’re right re the link, it doesn’t make the differentiation clear and is poor referencing on my part.)
Due to the increased risks of “live vaccines” (and the ability to attenuate the infective agent in the majority of cases) they are rare but they do exist and are the subject of research.
For example:
Used for military personnel: Adenovirus vaccine contains live adenovirus
I’ve edited the post you answered to include stuff I’ve posted in other comments.
I totally agree. Which is why I’ve been pushing the point that the meaning of variolation is not what people here seem to accept it as.
Indeed. And it’s the word that should be used here.
A starting point for increasing knowledge of the subject: live-vaccines (edit to add: not a good link for differentiating between true live and live attenuated/modified vaccines, my mistake.)
NO.
Using a live virus is a known as a “live virus vaccination”.
Can you find ANY evidence that variolation is an acceptable term for any disease other than smallpox?
No it isn’t. Quoting your own source “ Live vaccines contain a weakened or attenuated form of a virus or bacteria.”. That is not what is suggested here.
Intentional infection through controlled means with the contagious virus hasn’t been used since Smallpox (as opposed to pox parties). There is no accepted term. The meaning was immediately clear to me on first reading it. It appears to be a successful reintroduction if a word for an analogous purpose. It’s even unique enough to be googleable.
A true “live vaccine” is different from “live-attenuated” vaccine. (you’re right re the link, it doesn’t make the differentiation clear and is poor referencing on my part.)
Due to the increased risks of “live vaccines” (and the ability to attenuate the infective agent in the majority of cases) they are rare but they do exist and are the subject of research.
For example:
Used for military personnel: Adenovirus vaccine contains live adenovirus
adenovirus type 4 and type 7 vaccine, live
and:
A Study to Assess the Safety of Live Intranasal Sendai Virus Vaccine in Children and Toddlers
(for “croup” rather than disease caused by sendai virus)
Using a live unattenuated dose of COVID to stimulate immunity would fall into the live vaccination category.