Posted on 10/05/2024 1:52:42 PM PDT by nickcarraway
COVID-19 vaccination has been the subject of immense scrutiny and misinformation since the vaccines were first administered in the U.S. nearly four years ago.
In the first year alone, it is estimated that vaccinations prevented 14.4 million deaths globally, according to estimates by Imperial College London. However, vaccination has not eliminated the disease—a fact that many of its opponents have jumped on.
Across social media, skeptics have claimed that the COVID-19 vaccinations are "ineffective" and do not fit into the historical definition of a vaccine. But what does the science say?
The Claim
There are widespread claims on social media that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary changed their definition of vaccine in 2021.
On September 8, 2021, U.S. Representative Thomas Massie shared a post on X, (formerly Twitter) showing three different definitions of the word vaccination.
"Check out @CDCgov's evolving definition of 'vaccination,'" he wrote. "They've been busy at the Ministry of Truth."
An image below contained the following text:
Vaccination (pre-2015): Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease.
Vaccination (2015 – 2021): The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
Vaccination (Sept 2021): The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.
A similar post was shared to Instagram in November 2021:
"Vaccine used to be defined as a substances that provides 'immunity' to a specific disease," reads an Instagram post on November 4, 2021, that has received over 26,000 likes.
It continues: "Now, Merriam Webster has literally changed the definition of 'vaccine' and removed the 'immunity' portion in order to possibly cover for the fact that the Covid 'vaccines' don't actually provide immunity from Covid."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
>> misinformation
that it’s safe & effective?
That's a circular definition; "Vaccination is injecting a vaccine" does not define what a vaccine is.
The article is a massive straw-man argument. While maybe a few got confused and thought a dictionary definition was changed that was NOT what most discovered and SAW with our own eyes.
The CDC changed the “official” definition and dropped the word immunity and put “protection in it’s place.
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html
It does not take much digging to find the real truth, this thread’s article is fake news and regime lies to misinform the public.
"It's an inconsequential red herring," John P. Moore, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the Weill Cornell Medical College, told Newsweek. "It's anti-vaxxers choosing to make an issue of something that isn't real."
The simple answer is YES!
Newsweek lies. It says no vaccine was completely effective. Yet, here is the difference.
Vaccines were completely effective for those who’s bodies took them as intended and didn’t have a faulty immune reaction. For instance, the polio vaccine actually totally protected people from polio—if your body did what was needed.
Vaccines like COVID-19 were designed to never be effective at preventing the disease condition. Even when your body did everything right, it was still intended to never stop infection.
Newsweek LIES!
I remember that the CDC’s definition for “vaccine” changed several times. It was a recurring discussion here on Free Republic.
>> “It’s an inconsequential red herring,” John P. Moore, a professor
The “professor” labeling a forceful objection as an inconsequential red herring... silly, dialectically daft professor
‘Science fact check’ == Big Med propaganda.
You might be opening Pandora's Box here, Nick, ... it's just full of "words", ... look for earnest, see if it's there.
I can confirm your memory.
NewswEEk talking about science is akin to Kamila talking about...well...anything. They are effing journalists...a study adjacent to studies and DEI.
And they added:
b: a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine
Definitions change. Used to be the definition of a TV had tubes and rabbit ears. Now it’s got wifi and flat screens of various types. In the end the definition is the goal, not the method. Vaccines try to help your immune system fight off illness, how is irrelevant. Just like how whether your TV gets signal from antenna, cable, or the internet is irrelevant.
"Speaking about the Merriam-Webster definition, Moore said: 'Immunity and immune response are basically synonymous terms for all practical purposes,' he said."
Lies - all lies. In time for 'vaccination' season, the Sequel.
Immunity and immune response are NOT, "basically synonymous terms for all practical purposes."
Using the article's conflation of 'immunity' and 'immune response', we can therefore consider that 'diplomatic immunity' means perhaps some the diplomat can be arrested, tried, receive some convictions and some jail time, but the convictions/time served will be milder. This isn't how we use the terms in question.
Immunity from a disease used to mean you don't get sick. Yes, there were exceptions (some individuals), but the rule was 'don't get sick.' The CDC post 2020 uses immunity to mean you may get sick and die, but you will be less sick and less likely to die, or will spend less time in the hospital. Only the CDC's 'new' definition doesn't appear to be valid for the vaccinated either.
The mRNA platform is gene therapy - the MOderna documentation reflecs this in one of their quarterly meeting publications. mRNA technology is not, as the article claims, "small messenger molecules that directly deliver instructions on how to spot the infection to our cells." In fact, Moderna put out a publication saying it wasn't messenger RNA in their product; it was 'modified RNA' (that's where they got their company name, Moderna).
The mRNA, gene therapy product, goes into cells and makes the cell start producing a specific antigen, supposedly to serve to provoke the immune system to respond. However these antigens can surface on any cell in the body (tests done after 'vaccine' distribution show that these spike proteins collect in the ovaries, testes, heart, lungs etc.) So the body's own immune system can 'attack' these organs in the body and can provoke substantial immune response (ADE). At least that's what happened to the animals in the trials for mRNA platform drug trials prior to 'Covid', and it's why there never was a human application of the platform until 'Covid'.
There isn't an 'off switch' for the production of this specific kind of antigen, so some people may sicken from illnesses they would normally resist just because their body is targeting a select antigen (spike protein) to the exclusion of other pathogens.
The article uses the strawman argument that the vaccine is not 100% effective. No one said vaccines have to be 100% effective. They also employ the false dichtomy - either you believe that true vaccines are 100% or you realize that a failed 'gene therapy product' pushed as a 'vaccine' is the best we can hope for. We were promised 'vaccines' on the decades long understanding of the term - whether or not there are individuals for whom the vaccine didn't - we were not told that the trial data for these gene therapy products was disastrous, distorted and limited as much as it was. For example, the trials did not test 'infectivity', but we were told we'd kill grandma unless we got the vax.
"In other words, these linguistic tweaks were designed to be informative, not sinister."
HAHAHAHAHAHA! The lies were backside covering and this NewsWeek article is more of the same.
"The vaccines have consistently retained their ability to protect against severe disease and death, which makes it a success."
FALSE. The CDC exaggerated the threat of the illness, refused to treat the illness, warned that people were dying from the illness when they were often dying from lack of treatment for the illness, and then claims that it saved lives. Where's the proof? They lied every day. Why would I believe cover stories now? These ghouls are back, 'warning' people to get the booster shots!
They changed the definition of what vaccine was to make this death shot fit.
“Protection”
The gene therapy shot then fails this new definition. How many times did we read someone famouns multi jabbed getting covid....??? And some badly impacted.
Imperial College London
About as much credibility as Fauci, CDC, NIH, FDA, Astrazenica, Pfizer, Moderna
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.