Posted on 11/13/2021 7:11:32 AM PST by upchuck
When the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other powerful entities control (and outright change) the language surrounding the COVID injection, the pandemic, and related topics, how can we as citizens trust what we hear from the public health officials and media?
It’s becoming more and more difficult, to be sure. We’ve seen throughout the pandemic, of course, that anyone and everyone questioning today’s contentious issues – such as whether to inject kids with a brand new drug that has absolutely no long-term safety data – are soundly pigeonholed as conspiracy theorists, “anti-vaxxers,” “domestic terrorists,” or “right-wing COVID-19 pandemic deniers.” But given how openly the government continues to move the goalposts simply to protect its agenda, it seems that many parents and medical professionals are willing to deal with these labels to keep raising questions.
A Big Brother move from the NIH and CDC: Government changes definition of injections to fit the narrative At the beginning of the pandemic, we were told that the COVID-19 shot was the only way out of the pandemic and that mass vaccination would help prevent the spread of COVID-19 by producing herd immunity. Real-world data shows this is simply not true, and while the COVID-19 shot can prevent hospitalization or death for some, it cannot prevent infection in many cases.
Real-world data also reveals that the “effectiveness” of these shots at preventing severe illness with SARS-CoV-2 wanes in a matter of months – a fact that officials and Big Pharma executives gladly use as justification for the endless parade of booster shots.
But instead of admitting that the COVID jab fails to adequately confer immunity against SARS-CoV-2 – and is, by this reasoning, not truly a vaxx per the CDC’s definition – government officials, in a concerning move straight out of 1984, have decided to simply change the official definition of a vaccine.
Before August 2021, this is how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defined vaccine and vaccination:
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
These definitions are taken verbatim from a now-archived webpage on the CDC. But on September 1, 2021, the CDC changed these definitions, which now read as follows:
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.
Notice any key differences?
Leaked emails reveal CDC’s efforts to obscure the truth about mRNA COVID shots.
According to the U.S. government, a vaxx is no longer used to “produce immunity” but instead to simply stimulate an immune response against a disease, which may (or may not) provide protection.
These changes were brought about after a flurry of emails between CDC employees, who expressed concern that “Right-wing COVID-19 deniers are using [the] ‘vaccine’ definition to argue that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines” and that “The definition of vaccine we have posted is problematic and people are using it to claim the COVID-19 vaccine is not a vaccine based on our own definition.”
This is blatant gaslighting, according to critics. Suddenly, the definition of a vaccine is “problematic”?
Suddenly, we are told that jabs are only meant to prevent severe illness rather than prevent illness itself? It’s not new that vaccines aren’t perfect and frequently fail to protect people – so why change the definition now?
NATURAL Immunity,,,
.
Yup.
I like it.
Bookmark
The effectiveness of the vaccines wanes in months.
But the adverse effects last much longer.
In the fall of 2020 the FDA gave emergency use authorization (EUA) for 3 covid-19 vaccines. The EUA was based on only 120 days of phase 2 testing data (typically there are 4 phases of testing to bring a drug to market, requiring years to accumulate the necessary data). The rapid conditional approval was understandable and justifiable based on the alleged pandemic and the lack of any other treatments.
Then Pfizer changed 4 components of their vaccine, called it Comirnaty, and began phase 1 and phase 2 testing. Why the change? No idea. Could have been to reduce allergic reactions to the replaced components. Could have been to make it more effective. Could have been to reduce side effects. Could have been to make it more patentable. Could have been to make it easier or cheaper to manufacture. Could have been to improve production yields. Don't know, doesn't really matter. It is a new formulation.
Pfizer went to the FDA for approval. What the FDA should have done is grant approval to move to phase 3 testing. They should be planning on moving Comirnaty through the regular 4 phase testing and regulatory approval process. There are already 3 other vaccines available to address the alleged pandemic. There is no emergency need for Comirnaty. It should be going through the regular approval process. It does not merit an emergency use authorization.
But no, the lawless FDA didn't bother with what would have been a highly questionable EUA for Comirnaty. Nope. They went ahead and granted it full use approval. On merely phase 2 testing data and a promise that it is "functionally just like" the existing Pfizer vaccine...which itself is only in phase 3 testing at the moment.
That's bad, real bad. Given that all of these versions and formulations are based on mRNA technology which has never before been put to widespread use this is insane. But that's our lawless government and government agencies at work.
There was a news story ,ast night on news ax that stated that folks,were getting the vax for work, but then going out and getting the “antidote”, or detoxed to it immediately after.
[[The people who forced/coerced people to get the vaccine by threatening their livelihoods should face the most severe consequences if this turns out to have long term debilitating effects]]
The should also be held liable,legally,if it turns out that the report on fr yesterday is true, that the vax actually Increases the chance of getting covid by 126%. (Of course the left will,then argue, “wel. It might I crease the chance of getting it, but it decreases your chances of dying from it, therefore we aren’t culpable”) but who knows, are they also,lying about it decreasing deaths? They lied about it stopping the transmission of covid for over a year. And now we find out it might even I crease the risk of getting covid? If that is true, then they blatantly lied to
People to coerce them into getting vaxxed, thinking they would be protected from getting it. Intentionally deceiving the masses
Nice. Now there’s a track record of long-term safety. Thank you.
But the same old reality; the MSM and government elites and politicians are making millions on stocks in the vaccine. So F'n SAD!
So when vaccinated people die from Covid...what’s that?
I was told just this week that I needed to get a FOURTH shot! I politely told the pharmacist “no”.
Fake vaccine coverup
No wonder CDC employees aren’t getting vaccinated.
Hey! How 'bout $50k? All they have to do is stop paying the $50k for hospitalizing CoVID patients and give it to CoVID survivors to 'pay for further prophylactic treatments' to keep them immune.
I have a feeling we will be needing those 'naturally immune' folks to treat our damaged population.
“Naturally Immune Folks”
Interesting,
CDC is not your friend.
We need a support Group.
.
I just escaped California and I want to pick the
“Right” Doctor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.