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 ...
If you were stupid enough to get the Covid “vaccine” you deserve what you get.
Imperial College junk science absolutely drove the dysfunctional response to the covid bioagent scandemic
https://www.aier.org/article/the-failure-of-imperial-college-modeling-is-far-worse-than-we-knew/
From the above(2021)
“Just over one year ago, the epidemiology modeling of Neil Ferguson and Imperial College played a preeminent role in shutting down most of the world. The exaggerated forecasts of this modeling team are now impossible to downplay or deny, and extend to almost every country on earth. Indeed, they may well constitute one of the greatest scientific failures in modern human history.”
Nonsense, Vitamin C also “helps your immune system fight off illness” and it’s never been called a vaccine.
Not nonsense. Absolutely true. Vitamin C is a vitamin, different category. And it actually doesn’t help your immune system so much as FEED your immune system. Meanwhile Vaccines specifically target certain illnesses. And you knew that. But you chose to red herring anyway. Because you’re wrong. And you know it.
Based on no evidence whatsoever.
These people just make this stuff up, then pat themselves on the back and ask for a raise.
Yes. It was.
When I moved, I got rid of my big old Miriam Webster paper dictionary. I wish I had kept it because I could compare what was written 20 or 30 years ago with what gets on the Internet now. Winston Smith’s job in the book 1984 would be so much easier now because with a click of a mouse something like a definition can be changed everywhere instead of his having to sit in an office and physically rewrite things.
Vaccine: a suspension of attenuated or killed micro-organisms (bacteria, viruses, or rickettsiae), or of antigenic proteins derived from them, administered for the prevention, amelioration, or treatment of infections diseases.
More nonsense.
“fact check” by Newsweek. So you can trust it.
Vaccines have never been 100% effective so I agree with them that the new definition is more accurate. For instance, the yearly flu shots that some people get have never come close to giving full immunity, yet we’ve never had a problem calling them vaccines.
The problem is that they reworded the definition during the Covid timeframe and obviously did so in response to the fact that the new mRNA vaccines weren’t living up to expectations. This makes the rewording seem weaselly and evasive.
My impression is that the new vaccines work fairly well but not great and are safe for most people. I also think there may be more side effects than have been officially acknowledged. I know several people who had bad side effects including a woman who had clotting in her lungs and a man who had heart problems. I also know plenty of people who had no problems at all.
Newsweek?
No thanks, I’ll get my information elsewhere.
That was a instant NO for me.
“a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease”
to
“a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
I believe the first definition to be more correct and the second to be a CYA for a vaccine that wasn't a vaccine. I suppose opinions may vary on that. It appears to me that the second definition could describe a vitamin pill, if a vitamin produces any beneficial result whatever. As worded, that definition might even include a sugar pill, if said pill were used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases. The new definition does not state that the preparation must be effective, only that it be used for the stated purpose.
- - - - -
The definition of vaccination also changed.
[Prior to 2015 change] “Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent disease.”
[2015-2021] “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
September 2021 “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.”
Yes, the CDC changed its definition of vaccine to be ‘more transparent’A spokesperson for the CDC said the previous definition could be interpreted to mean vaccines are 100% effective. This has never been the case for any vaccine.
Author: Megan Loe
Published: 7:18 AM PST February 4, 2022
Updated: 3:28 PM PST February 7, 2022As we learn more about the virus that causes COVID-19, public health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have continually updated their guidance to align with scientific developments.
Posts on social media have highlighted an alleged change to the CDC’s definition of vaccine, with some claiming this update took place because the COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective. Several viewers, including Mike, also emailed VERIFY with questions about the CDC changing its vaccine definition.
THE QUESTION
Did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) change its definition of vaccine?
THE SOURCES
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
- Wayback Machine, a digital archive tool
- Merriam-Webster
THE ANSWER
TRUE
Yes, the CDC changed its definition of vaccine from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease” to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” The public health agency also changed its definition of “vaccination.”
[snip]
NUREMBERG II is the only way to get the Whole Truth, we need lots of rope too.
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.