In a surreptitious move to support the vaccine narrative, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly changed the definition of a vaccine,1,2 which they have held since at least February 24, 2011.3 At first glance, it might seem like a small change, but it has massive repercussions.
The meaning of words can change over time, and can be influenced by social, economic, political, religious and technological factors. Many of the words we use today have vastly different meanings than they did 10 or 100 years ago.4 However, changing medical words and definitions has a significant impact on bias in perception. One study demonstrated that a simple switch in terminology could result:5
“… in a disease being perceived as more serious, more likely to be a disease, and more likely to be a rare condition. These findings regarding the conceptualization of disease have implications for many areas, including medical communication with the public, advertising, and public policy.”
For example, medical literature has redefined the meaning of “health” over several decades to move from the absence of disease to a state of well-being. That definition continues to evolve in light of value-based health care, which some recommend should now include “specific patient needs, and the organizational, value-based system required to satisfy those needs.”6
This change in definition then affects health care delivery, public perception and interpretation of the meaning of health. This strategy was not lost on the CDC when they removed critical words from the definition of a “vaccine” to change the public perception of any administered therapy that may impact a person’s immune system.
This opens the door to the administration of other “products” or “preparations” that may affect your immune system, still while calling it a vaccine. And, let’s face it, for much of the public, the word “vaccine” continues to have positive implications.
CDC Removes Critical Words From Vaccine Definition
To fully understand the importance of the change, it’s crucial to note that, before the COVID pandemic, the definition of a vaccine had been relatively stable for nearly a couple decades with minor word changes occurring every few years. All through that time the intent of a vaccine — to give you immunity by protecting you from a specific disease — had remained basically the same.
For example, according to an archived snapshot of the CDC’s website, the definition of a vaccine February 24, 2011, was:7
“A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol.”
By July 2015, the wording had changed to:8
“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system 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 in the nose.”
The wording was the same in June 20179 and likewise in June 201910 and June 2020.11 By August 26, 2021,12 however, the definition had changed slightly to add the words “to produce immunity”:13
“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.”
Then, less than a week later, just days after the FDA gave final approval to Pfizer’s mRNA jab, the definition changed again, September 1, 2021 — this time, significantly. The definition of a vaccine now reads:14
“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.”
As you’ll note, the second sentence remains the same. It is the first part of the definition that has dramatically changed. In the latest definition, a vaccine:
- Is no longer a “product” but instead is a “preparation”
- No longer directly stimulates the immune response, but is used to stimulate the system
- Does not produce immunity
- Stimulates the immune response against diseases, not against a specific disease
- No longer protects a person from the disease
These dramatic changes were likely created to allow the CDC, FDA and other governmental agencies to call the genetic therapy experiment being administered worldwide a “vaccine” — while they knew full well the so-called “vaccine” was not created to either produce immunity or prevent transmission of disease. In fact, by any definition of a vaccine in use before 2021, this jab is not a vaccine.
Organizations Are Changing the Goal Posts
Alex Berenson was once a reporter for The New York Times and is now an award-winning author. He published a timeline of events on a Substack page that he calls “A Lawsuit in Three Acts.”15 In Act I is an August 26, 2021, screenshot of the CDC website, with the prior definition of a vaccine as you can see above. Act II is a screenshot of a tweet Berenson posted August 28, 2021:
“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it — at best — as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity.”
Following the release of that tweet, Twitter ruled the information misleading and suspended his account16 for “violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules.”17 As Berenson writes, “This defamatory act prevents me from using my account anywhere in the world.”18
Within days of Berenson’s ban, Act III occurred. The CDC changed the definition of vaccine, removing the standard that had been in place for at least 20 years that vaccines produce immunity. In his last comment, Berenson alludes to the acts of censorship that have been ongoing in social media platforms since the beginning of this pandemic, writing, “Discovery’s gonna be awesome!”19
September 8, 2021, one of Berenson’s followers, Carol Jones, commented, “LOL!!! My lawyer husband just laughed when he read this. That is a slam dunk.” As a side note, Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s definition of a vaccine once was:20
“… a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.”
However, before the CDC changed its definition, Merriam-Webster had already changed theirs, which now includes a secondary description of the experimental COVID-19 genetic therapy.21 Interestingly, when they made the change, the definition evolved from a simple, single line to a much more complex 12-paragraph definition that is a reflection of the times we live in.
The movement toward changing the definition of a vaccine may help protect the pharmaceutical industry and health agencies from violating a Federal Trade Commission act that regulates deceptive practices in medical claims. According to this it is unlawful to say:22
“… that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”
And further, you cannot have a vaccine that does not meet the definition of a vaccine. Currently, the COVID-19 genetic therapy injection program does meet the vaccine definition of the CDC and Merriam-Webster — but only after the definitions changed.
What Is a Pandemic?
The definition of a vaccine is not the only thing that has changed since 2020. To continue promoting mandates, lockdowns and emergency use authorization of genetic therapy injections, the infection must be causing a pandemic.
According to the World Health Organization, their original definition of a pandemic specified that there must be simultaneous epidemics experienced worldwide “with enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses.”23
While the published documents with the definition of a pandemic have since been pulled offline and cannot be accessed any longer through the Wayback machine, the WHO published a paper refuting the allegations that they had changed the definition “for the simple reason that it has never formally defined pandemic influenza.”24
They argued that while they had described a pandemic influenza, it was never a “formal definition.” In their explanation they say that since 2003 their pandemic preparedness page had contained this statement:25
“An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”
They claim that was changed in response to a query from a CNN reporter just weeks before they declared a swine flu pandemic after only 144 people died from the infection worldwide. The new statement removed the phrase “enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses” and was revised to:26 “An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity.”
The Council of Europe apparently had the same question and cited this alteration in their page as evidence that the WHO could declare a pandemic without demonstrating the severity of the disease against which we didn’t have immunity.27
Unfortunately, the number of excess deaths that can be attributed directly to COVID-19 is likely not be the result of the infection itself, but from the CDC’s and NIAID’s suppression of successful treatment modalities that can save lives.28,29,30,31,32
Vaccine Sales Pitch: Herd Immunity
Health experts promote the idea of herd immunity, hoping 100% of the public will become vaccinated. However, in July 2021 the news reported that 100 fully vaccinated crew members aboard the British defense aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth had tested positive while onboard. At the time, it was unclear whether any had symptoms.33
This was one of the first reports that vaccinated individuals could have breakthrough infections, aka, “vaccine failure.” Vaccine failure would indicate that herd immunity is impossible. But, of course, that depends on your definition of herd immunity.
In June 2020, WHOs definition was posted on their COVID-19 Q&A page and was in line with widely accepted standards for infectious diseases. Courtesy of the Wayback machine, the original definition was:34
“Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”
Since humans have been alive, immunity has developed from previous infection. Your immune system is designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent, not to a vaccine. However, since October 15, 2020, the WHO believes this is no longer the case, as they updated their definition of herd immunity to a “concept used for vaccination” or, rather, to support vaccination:35
“‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.
Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but — crucially — vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing it on, breaking any chains of transmission.”
The page was again updated on December 31, 2020:36
“’Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving ‘herd immunity’ through vaccination …
Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing on the pathogen, breaking any chains of transmission.
To safely achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, a substantial proportion of a population would need to be vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population.”
As you can see from the areas I put in boldface in the two definitions above, the WHO definition of a vaccine and the CDC definition are not congruent. In this statement, the WHO says that vaccines protect the individual from getting the disease or passing on the pathogen. The current CDC definition37 says that vaccines merely “stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases” without mention of immunity, protection or passing pathogens.
This means the definition of a vaccine by the WHO does not cover the function of the COVID-19 genetic therapy program, since the mRNA gene therapy’s purpose is only to lessen symptoms. The NIAID admits that after the mRNA shots people can still get breakthrough infections38 (so they aren’t protected from getting the disease) and will have enough pathogens in their nasal cavity to spread the disease39 (they are passing on the pathogen).
Even with the changes the WHO made to their definition of herd immunity, it is apparent that the COVID-19 injection program will never meet the standards of herd immunity set by the WHO. The only question is how long will it take the WHO to change their definition again?
Living in a World Where Goal Posts Are Constantly Changing
In this short video, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, gives an accounting of Dr. Anthony Fauci vacillating on his recommendations regarding masking in public. Fauci was appointed as the director of the NIAID in 1984 which, by 2020, should have made him an expert on the transmission of infectious diseases.
Yet, as is apparent by this historical recounting, the recommendations evolve depending on the current climate, just as the definitions of herd immunity, vaccines and pandemics have evolved.
These definitions have been changed to fit the new narrative being churned out by public health officials and mainstream media that promote fear and ignore science. In many ways, you’re living in a fog of war right now — a fog of COVID war — according to Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director of the American Institute for Economic Research.40
During such a fog, “It is often unclear who is making decisions and why, and what the relationships are between the strategies and the goals. Even the rationale can become elusive as frustration and disorientation displace clarity and rationality.”41 Seeing through the fog is the first step to coming out of the battle unscathed.
I would encourage you to copy the content from this article and save it to your hard drive so you can share this information and help others see through this fog of misinformation and lies that is threatening our way of life.