@powder Wow. There's a lot to unpack there. I'll try to break it down into sections.

1. I completely understand your point about consent and the ability to refuse.
   I personally don't feel the influenza vaccine should be a condition of employment, but in no way am I an anti-vaxxer. For me, I don't think that the benefits outweigh the downside. I personally get a very bad immune response most of the time I've been forced to take it. However, I haven't had influenza for probably near two decades. Add to those two things the fact that many years the vaccine is so ineffective is almost irrelevant. If these or similar sets of circumstances were what we were talking about, I would fully support your position. Now I don't know exactly the mechanisms is action for the medications/treatments you're referring to, so I'm not arguing specifics. I'm arguing the overall claim that things not meeting the specific wording shouldn't matter if they meet the intent of the policy.

2. Consent as a necessary requirement.
   While I believe that getting someone's consent for something is a lofty, noble goal that should be strived for to the best of our ability, consider an extreme scenario:
   Ebola has become aerosolized and it is incredibly infectious with a death rate near 100%. It has an incubation period of almost two weeks, the second half of which you can shed the virus before you even know you have it. A "treatment" has been developed that prevents you from shedding the virus by blocking it's ability to cross into the lungs, but it doesn't protect you from getting infected (thus, not a vaccine). 2.a. In this scenario, would you agree that forced treatment is in order if people aren't willing to consent? 2.b. What do you think should be the punishment/containment parameters for someone that refuses? 2.c. If you can agree that there are circumstances where forced vaccine or non-vaccine treatments are warranted, then you already agree with me in principle, there's just a disagreement over the specific parameters we deem essential enough to mandate forced treatment. That, however, was not the point of my response to try to agree what the specific parameters should be, but rather the principle of the policy.

3. Definition of a vaccine.
   Language is imprecise, and often fails us miserably. You are in the weeds on definitions here, and it is doing a disservice to your argument. Try to step back and look at intent and purpose over specific definitions. If you use the example above and there is a treatment that prevents the shedding of the virus, but not the contraction of it, should it matter if it accomplishes immunity through population immunity instead of individual immunity? The intent is to stop the spread and protect people which it ultimately can do if everyone were to take the treatment that stopped the spread. This is what I mean by taking a step back. Look at the bigger picture. Again, I'm not arguing any specifics of any particular drug or treatment, just principle.

4. Vaccine for death.
   Please don't use fallacious arguments. Conflating a vaccine for death (which is something that is not contagious and ultimately essentially just affects you) with a vaccine for a communicable disease is horribly disingenuous, non-analogous, and fallacious. Additionally, I only know one person that states he wants to live until the heat death of the universe, and he's crazy as a motherfucker. I don't even want to live to be 60. If someone developed a vaccine for death, I'd probably kill myself that day just to make sure I didn't accidently take it or have it given to me accidentally or otherwise.

5. State mandate treatments turned final solution.
   This is another fallacious argument of the slippery slope persuasion. Almost everyone, at least here, gets something in common like MMR, etc. but even vaccines and such aside, if the government really wanted to kill everyone, or certain populations, there are already plenty of ways they could do it that would be much less difficult than getting various drug companies to all be in cahoots to make fake treatments (or taint real ones) in an effort to kill off huge swaths of their own customers. I mean, we can't really have an actual discussion about the merits of something like this if this is an actual argument you're making. And if they did get them to taint a treatment to kill off everyone that consented, do you really want to be alive in a world that contained nothing but the politicians that planned it (so obviously refused the poison) the drug companies to made the poison (so obviously refused it) and the anti-vaxxers? Even if I found out the secret conspiracy and what was going to happen, that would just make me rush to the front of the line to make sure they didn't run out before getting to me so I wouldn't be stuck in a world with all the most awful people.

6. The specifics of the definition are not important. The intent of the policy is, and any use of the specifics of the wording to circumvent the intent of the policy is detrimental to it. I thought I did a good job of illustrating this point with my expensive non-injection vaccine example, but apparently I have failed.

@powder You kinda ignored most of my points. So you said there's never a situation where consent isn't necessary. I'll make it simple, the punishment for being an anti-vaxxer is that your children can't attend public school. What do you suggest the punishment should be for refusing to take a treatment as suggested in my last comment? Should people be allowed to continue to roam about in society potentially spreading the infection?

Interesting chat guys, from my quick scan, thanks.
@powder re #3.
I think that scientific definitions are not what are being considered. Laws & legal definitions are constantly examined for intent. Legalities will determine compulsoriness of vaccinations (injections) or consequences imposed, in the greater public interest.
Much like, anti-glyphosate commentary so often refers to the number of payments & the dollars paid in court hearings & out of court settlements. That is a matter of financial prudence & the malleability of legal interpretations & each jurors' mindset (or payment to avoid trusting them). Scientific support of the 'safe use according to instructions', is almost irrelevant in court. [That's the limit of my concentration, with today's headache.]