Orwellian Newspeak: The CDC Changed the Definition of "Vaccine" to Allow Ineffective COVID-19 Inoculations
The new definition of "vaccine" includes a serum that merely “stimulates the body’s immune response” without actually producing any protection from disease.
The CDC and the vaccine makers understood from the beginning that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were ineffective in protecting persons from COVID-19. As the ineffectiveness of the COVID-19 injections in providing immunity was becoming increasingly clear, the CDC realized that the injections did not meet the definition of a vaccine. They needed to fix that problem because so many of the laws protecting pharmaceutical companies from liability required that their injections be vaccines. They needed to change the very definition of a vaccine to include an injection that is ineffective in producing immunity.
The CDC defines immunity as “[p]rotection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.” So far, so good. Up until September 2021, the CDC's definition of “vaccine” was “[a] product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” So, it was understood by all before September 2021 that a vaccine “stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity.” And immunity means "[p]rotection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected."
But in September 2021, that all changed. The CDC changed the definition of vaccine to mean instead "[a] preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases." Now, the definition of a vaccine includes a vaccine that merely “stimulates the body’s immune response” without actually producing any protection from disease. Now, a vaccine can be ineffective in providing any protection in preventing infection; it only needs to stimulate the body’s immune response regardless of whether that stimulation is effective in protecting against disease.
In an email response to a news inquiry, a spokesman for the CDC stated: “while there have been slight changes in wording over time to the definition of ‘vaccine’ on the CDC’s website, those haven’t impacted the overall definition. ... The previous definition…could be interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine, so the current definition is more transparent.”
The real reason for the changed definition is that since the mRNA vaccines have been such a spectacular failure, a change in the definition was necessary to account for that failure. For the CDC to claim that changing the meaning of vaccine from “stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity” to “stimulate the body's immune response against diseases” is only a slight change that does not impact the definition is dissimulation of the first order.
If the new definition was not a change, then why do it? There is a world of difference between producing immunity and simply responding to a disease. Under the new definition, the body’s response could be, and as we have seen with the mRNA vaccines, has been, ineffective in fighting off the disease. Before the definition change, a vaccine was required to offer immunity from the disease; now, all that is needed is for the vaccine to prompt the body’s immune system to respond to the disease. Indeed, the body could respond to the disease with a cytokine storm (a.k.a., antibody-dependent enhancement), which may kill the patient, as we have seen with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Now, the ineffectiveness of vaccines is built into the definition.
I think they have been changing definitions as well as rewriting history simultaneously.