Vaccine Awareness Week Update 2021

This week, we celebrate our 12th anniversary of Vaccine Awareness Week. In this video, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) — which will celebrate its 40th anniversary as an organization in April 2022 — summarizes some of the high and low points we've experienced over the past year. "It's really kind of surreal for me to watch what has unfolded since the winter of 2020," Fisher says. "In the 1990s, I predicted that the day would come when we would not be able to function in society unless we had received every government recommended vaccine. I didn't exactly understand how they would get there. Well, now we know how they got there, and it's like living my worst nightmare, which I thought my children and grandchildren would be grappling with after I was long gone. Instead, I'm here to witness it and it's very disturbing. But within this difficult challenge, we also have opportunity, because I truly think that what they've done has completely changed the public's view of public health officials and of public health policy in general. And I don't think they're going to recover — perhaps ever — but certainly not for a long, long time. The perception is that the public has not been told the whole truth about how this virus came about, and about the way in which they [need to] handle it. Certainly, if you look at it, you see that psychological warfare has been used to create such fear and anxiety in the minds of so many people that they were willing to give up fundamental civil liberties in order to feel safe, [but it's] an illusion of safety … I think they have overreached, because they are zealots in saying that everyone should get all these vaccines in order to keep the public safe." Growing Understanding of Vaccine Dangers According to Fisher, polls show two-thirds of Americans do not want COVID shot mandates.1 They do not want to be required to show a vaccine passport in order to participate in society, enter a restaurant or a store, hold a job or go to college.2 "There is definitely not an appetite in this country for mandatory use of this COVID-19 vaccine," Fisher says. [People are] starting to understand that vaccines do not prevent infection and transmission. The entire mandatory vaccination system has been built on the myth that if you get vaccinated, you cannot get infected and transmit the infection to other people. The truth is that vaccine-acquired immunity is often very temporary and sometimes you don't get it at all. ~ Barbara Loe Fisher, NVICAn estimated 25% to 30% of health care workers and medical doctors are even refusing the COVID shot.3 As noted by Fisher, "That's quite significant, considering they're the ones who have been taking care of these [COVID] patients in hospitals." Importantly, over the past 18 months, the number of people asking questions about vaccine safety has grown significantly. "We've been talking about these issues — vaccine ineffectiveness, leaky vaccines, as well as vaccine safety issues — for nearly 40 years," Fisher says. "So, these issues aren't just relevant for COVID. I'm hoping that this conversation is going to widen to taking a critical look at the entire mass vaccination system that is the centerpiece of public health policies around the world." In the early 1980s, when the NVIC first started, there was no information at all for the public about vaccine risks. Doctors never discussed it, so parents knew nothing. Of course, doctors were not educated on vaccine risks either, so the ignorance was spread equally among medical professionals and lay people. Awareness about dangers has increased more or less in tandem with the expansion of the childhood vaccination schedule. "When I came into this work, it was seven vaccines we were giving our children," Fisher says. "Tetanus, the DPT shot, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and oral polio vaccine. That was it. That's all the children got." Today, children receive 72 doses of 16 different vaccines by the age of 18. The catalyst for the explosion of added vaccines in the early 1990s was the partial liability protection Congress gave vaccine manufacturers in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act The movie, "1986: The Act," released in 2020 explains how the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA) came about, and the ramifications of it. Fisher, who is featured prominently in the film, explains: "That law was passed in November of 1986. I and other parents of DPT vaccine injured children worked on that law with Congress. They basically told us they were going to protect these companies from liability. We could either come to the table and argue for what we thought the children should get, or not come to the table, but they were going to pass the law. We came to the table and did the best we could. We were just a young group of parents agains

Vaccine Awareness Week Update 2021

This week, we celebrate our 12th anniversary of Vaccine Awareness Week. In this video, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) — which will celebrate its 40th anniversary as an organization in April 2022 — summarizes some of the high and low points we've experienced over the past year.

"It's really kind of surreal for me to watch what has unfolded since the winter of 2020," Fisher says. "In the 1990s, I predicted that the day would come when we would not be able to function in society unless we had received every government recommended vaccine.

I didn't exactly understand how they would get there. Well, now we know how they got there, and it's like living my worst nightmare, which I thought my children and grandchildren would be grappling with after I was long gone. Instead, I'm here to witness it and it's very disturbing.

But within this difficult challenge, we also have opportunity, because I truly think that what they've done has completely changed the public's view of public health officials and of public health policy in general. And I don't think they're going to recover — perhaps ever — but certainly not for a long, long time.

The perception is that the public has not been told the whole truth about how this virus came about, and about the way in which they [need to] handle it.

Certainly, if you look at it, you see that psychological warfare has been used to create such fear and anxiety in the minds of so many people that they were willing to give up fundamental civil liberties in order to feel safe, [but it's] an illusion of safety … I think they have overreached, because they are zealots in saying that everyone should get all these vaccines in order to keep the public safe."

Growing Understanding of Vaccine Dangers

According to Fisher, polls show two-thirds of Americans do not want COVID shot mandates.1 They do not want to be required to show a vaccine passport in order to participate in society, enter a restaurant or a store, hold a job or go to college.2 "There is definitely not an appetite in this country for mandatory use of this COVID-19 vaccine," Fisher says.

An estimated 25% to 30% of health care workers and medical doctors are even refusing the COVID shot.3 As noted by Fisher, "That's quite significant, considering they're the ones who have been taking care of these [COVID] patients in hospitals." Importantly, over the past 18 months, the number of people asking questions about vaccine safety has grown significantly.

"We've been talking about these issues — vaccine ineffectiveness, leaky vaccines, as well as vaccine safety issues — for nearly 40 years," Fisher says. "So, these issues aren't just relevant for COVID. I'm hoping that this conversation is going to widen to taking a critical look at the entire mass vaccination system that is the centerpiece of public health policies around the world."

In the early 1980s, when the NVIC first started, there was no information at all for the public about vaccine risks. Doctors never discussed it, so parents knew nothing. Of course, doctors were not educated on vaccine risks either, so the ignorance was spread equally among medical professionals and lay people. Awareness about dangers has increased more or less in tandem with the expansion of the childhood vaccination schedule.

"When I came into this work, it was seven vaccines we were giving our children," Fisher says. "Tetanus, the DPT shot, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and oral polio vaccine. That was it. That's all the children got."

Today, children receive 72 doses of 16 different vaccines by the age of 18. The catalyst for the explosion of added vaccines in the early 1990s was the partial liability protection Congress gave vaccine manufacturers in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act

The movie, "1986: The Act," released in 2020 explains how the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA) came about, and the ramifications of it. Fisher, who is featured prominently in the film, explains:

"That law was passed in November of 1986. I and other parents of DPT vaccine injured children worked on that law with Congress. They basically told us they were going to protect these companies from liability. We could either come to the table and argue for what we thought the children should get, or not come to the table, but they were going to pass the law.

We came to the table and did the best we could. We were just a young group of parents against the pharmaceutical industry, the medical industry and the government, that all wanted to take total liability away from these manufacturers and the doctors.

We managed to get that law to not protect the doctors. When that law was passed, the doctors were still liable for medical malpractice when it came to vaccines harming a child. The companies were also still liable for design defect. What they got off on was failure to warn.

This is what people just don't understand. They [the vaccine manufacturers] were still liable in a civil court of law. And what did [Congress] do? In December 1987, in the dead of the night, an amendment was added to an omnibus budget bill … that completely let all the doctors and vaccine providers off the hook in a civil court of law.

In hearings in 1987, companies begged Congress to give them full liability protection and Congress wouldn't do it. They only gave the doctors full liability protection.4

Our unique contribution to that law was the safety provisions: informing, recording, reporting safety provisions. VAERS is the result of what we did in insisting that there be a centralized vaccine adverse event reporting system that parents and the public could report to, as well as the doctors.

This is a one-of-a-kind vaccine adverse event reporting system [VAERS], and why we know today that more than half a million COVID vaccine reactions have been reported by the public, by doctors around this country and in other countries that use the Pfizer, Moderna and the Johnson & Johnson vaccines.

There've been more than [13,600 deaths following COVID vaccination as of August 20, 2021, and more than 55,820 post-COVID shot hospitalizations5] reported to that system."

The Destruction of the NCVIA

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 also requires doctors to provide parents with written vaccine information before their children are vaccinated. Originally, these information statements were thick booklets full of information. But after the law was passed, the Department of Health and Human Services gutted the vaccine safety provisions, reducing that vaccine information statement down to a single sheet of paper.

"They took out a lot of information that should be given to parents," Fisher says. "They gutted the compensation provisions. So, today, almost no child qualifies for compensation under that law. I guess what I'm trying to say is, what the law was when it was passed is not anything like the law we see today."

Then, in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Wyeth in a DTP vaccine injury case (Bruesewitz v Wyeth6) in which the prosecutor argued the vaccine injury was the result of a design defect (failure to make a product safer). Wyeth could have made the DPT vaccine safer, and they didn't do it. The Supreme Court majority claimed the legislative history was clear — that Congress intended that vaccine manufacturers should have no liability for FDA licensed and CDC recommended vaccines.

This was in fact the complete opposite of what the legislative history shows. Two of the Supreme Court judges, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote a brilliant dissent, stating that the legislative history does not show that Congress wanted to give the companies complete liability protection.7

The film, "1986: The Act," dispels the myths surrounding this law, clearing up the many confusions about what the law was initially intended to accomplish. Unfortunately, the misinterpretation and gutting of the NCVIA opened the proverbial flood gates to more vaccines being mandated for children.

"There's not been one vaccine that has been created by the pharmaceutical industry and endorsed by government that has not eventually been mandated," Fisher says.

"And what they're trying to do during this pandemic is set the stage for every adult to also be required to get every government-endorsed vaccine. It is a public/private partnership between the pharmaceutical industry and government, and it's dangerous.

When I came into this work, there was somewhat of a firewall between the pharmaceutical industry and government. They're now one and the same, and Pharma calls the shots at the FDA, the NIH and the CDC. That's just the plain truth of it."

The PREP Act

While the U.S. Supreme Court granted vaccine makers blanket immunity for childhood vaccine-related injuries by the Supreme Court in 2011, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act passed by Congress in December 20058 added yet another layer of liability protection for the industry. After 9/11, Congress and the pharmaceutical industry got together and passed BioShield legislation.

This federal legislation was based on the idea that weapons of mass destruction could be used against the United States, necessitating protective legislation to respond to "pandemic or bio-terrorism emergencies." Of course, the weapons of mass destruction were never actually found but, still, Congress in partnership with the pharmaceutical industry passed BioShield legislation. The PREP Act is part of that legislation.

The PREP Act has to do with declared public health emergencies such as pandemics, and includes a separate mechanism for compensation when the injury occurs from a pandemic-related medication or vaccine. The PREP Act compensation mechanism was reconfirmed by Congress in the spring of 2020, and again in March 2021,9 in regard to COVID-19.

While the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Act-related compensation mechanism has been fatally compromised with Congressional amendments and federal agency rule making over the years, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) under the PREP Act is even worse. It's so bad, if you're injured by a vaccine used under a public health emergency declaration, there's virtually no hope of compensation.

Imagine surrendering to all the pressure of losing your job and getting the jab, only to get so sick you generate over $1 million in hospital bills. It sounds outrageous, but this has in fact happened to many. They have zero recourse and in most cases have to declare bankruptcy, while the vaccine companies can continue to ravage the public treasuries without ANY liability or responsibility. It's beyond reprehensibly criminal, but they are getting away with it.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s book, "The Real Tony Fauci," which comes out in November 2021, goes into far greater detail as to just how this BioShield legislation is really nothing more than a gaming of the system, essentially allowing drug companies to capture hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal government, (really you, the taxpayer). It's all a massive money and power grab.

Fauci himself, who is definitely one of the cores of this whole nightmare, is responsible for having allocated probably over $1 trillion in federal funding to researchers, principal investigators that are intimately and ultimately tied to pharma, over the 37 years he's presided as director of the NIAID. His budget for fiscal year 2021 alone is $6.5 billion.10 The patents they created generates royalties to them. It's a nightmare dystopia of raping the public from the federal treasury.

'Colossal Mismanagement of a Pandemic'

From the beginning, health authorities have been neglectful when it comes to the treatment of COVID-19. They've even actively prevented safe and effective treatments from being used. In the interview, Fisher describes her own experience with COVID-19:

"I had COVID in December of 2019. I had a fairly difficult course with it for 10 weeks into the end of February of 2020. Of course, I didn't know what I had, but it was not a fun experience, and I was left with long-COVID that lasted 16 months until a functional medicine doctor who tested me found that the COVID had reactivated a [latent] Epstein-Barr infection.

She prescribed a short course of appropriately dosed ivermectin, and I had an amazing reduction in my symptoms, which included cardiac symptoms that had been diagnosed by a cardiologist. So, I had all the classic symptoms of COVID and I had a classic course of long-COVID, yet I didn't know that I could have used ivermectin months ago to help me get through.

My energy shot up after that ivermectin and I stopped having to sleep 12 hours a day. My cardiac symptoms were significantly reduced. It was like I got my life back. Yet the government has gone after doctors who have urged people to get vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, ivermectin11 and these other licensed drugs that are safe and have been around forever.

The government actively discouraged people from doing things that could have helped them recover. This is so wrong on so many levels. It's a colossal mismanagement of an outbreak."

Of course, there are indications that it wasn't really inadvertent mismanagement but, rather, a strategic and carefully orchestrated plan to implement the Great Reset. 

"A couple of months ago, I went to the website of the World Economic Forum and what comes up? The Great Reset.12 I could not believe what I was reading. It's completely transparent, how they want to reset the entire world's economy," Fisher says.

The ultimate "public health authority" is of course the World Health Organization, and the No. 1 funder of the WHO is Bill Gates, as he provides funding not only through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation but also GAVI.

This financial leverage gives Gates a disproportionate amount of power over public health globally and, of course, we know that his primary goal is to expand the use of vaccines. At the same time, Gates is also a major Big Tech player, which is the central enforcer of censorship. By censoring one side of the discussion, Big Tech is responsible for making informed consent impossible.

Growing Awareness That Vaccines Don't Prevent Infection

The good news is that the COVID situation is waking people up not only to the potential dangers of these novel mRNA injections, but also to the problems and fallacies associated with all the conventional vaccines. They are starting to recognize these injections are not as harmless or as effective as they have been purported to be. That is one of the silver linings of this entire mess.

"[People are] starting to understand that vaccines do not prevent infection and transmission," Fisher says. "The entire mandatory vaccination system in this country has been built on the myth that if you get vaccinated, you cannot get infected and transmit the infection to other people; that you have vaccine-acquired immunity that is robust and contributes to herd immunity.

The truth is that vaccine-acquired immunity is often very temporary and sometimes you don't get it at all. And really, herd immunity is more based on natural immunity … So, the term 'immunization' really should never be used anymore.

These COVID 'vaccines,' the government has now acknowledged, cannot reliably prevent infection and transmission.13 This is a game-changer, if people will really get their arms around it. And so, I am glad that has come out. I'm also glad that we're seeing people around the world stand up and fight for their freedom."

The Fight for Medical Autonomy and Freedom

Since the start of the COVID pandemic, the NVIC has encouraged people to work within the system, to go to your state legislators and have personal conversations with them. NVIC created model state legislation at the beginning of this pandemic, because they knew the end game would be mandatory COVID vaccination.

So far, 21 U.S. states have passed legislation that restrict or prevent COVID vaccine mandates or COVID vaccine passports. Several state governors have also issued executive orders to the same effect. These successes show us that we should not lose complete faith in the system just yet. It's broken, yes, but the answer is not to give up but, rather, to get personally involved. We need freedom-loving, rational people to get involved at every level of government, Fisher says:

"That means your school board, your county boards, city councils, your state legislatures. At the local level, you can really make a difference. Talk to your neighbors, talk to your community, give them the information that's produced by NVIC and by mercola.com.

Give them factual information backed up with references, and try to change the conversation in your community. Also, we have to change bad laws so that we won't have to feel this oppression that we've felt for almost two years …

I'll just point out, there's a page on the CDC website that basically talks about quarantine camps14 and being able to detain citizens should they feel that they need to be protected from the rest of society, or the rest of society protected from them. This is a very serious constitutional issue."

As explained by Fisher, the federal government could also invoke its authority over interstate commerce and prohibit unvaccinated people from flying from one state to another that way. There's already legislation introduced in Congress proposing this.15 So, even though 21 states have enacted laws against the requirement of vaccine passports, we're not out of the woods yet. The freedom to travel can still be stripped from us in a variety of ways, and we must fight to block all of them.

FDA's Approval of the Pfizer COVID Shot

August 23, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted full approval16 to the COVID-19 mRNA injection developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, sold under the brand name Comirnaty, for use in people aged 16 and older. It's the fastest approval in history,17 and is based on just six months' worth of data from 44,060 people.18,19

Half of them got the shots and half initially received a placebo. However, in the second week of December 2020, Pfizer unblinded the control group and 93% of controls opted to get the real injection20 rather than remain in the control group for the remainder of the trial, which is slated to continue for another two years. In other words, there's no control group left against which to compare side effects and effectiveness.

The FDA was expected to hold a public meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC)21 and allow for public and expert input before the first COVID-19 vaccine was formally licensed.

For transparency and full public disclosure of vital scientific information, this meeting should have taken place before approval because COVID-19 vaccines are the first to ever have been distributed to the US population under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

In response, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Children's Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit22 August 31, 2021, against the FDA and its acting director, Dr. Janet Woodcock, for this mess. On its website, CHD says:

"CHD argues that the licensure was a classic 'bait and switch,' allowing Pfizer, the Biden administration, the U.S. military and employers to exhort people to take 'licensed' vaccines when in fact the vaccines available and being administered continued to be the Pfizer-BioNTech Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) vaccines …

… the FDA violated federal law when it simultaneously licensed Pfizer's 'Comirnaty' vaccine and extended Pfizer's EUA for its vaccine that has the 'same formulation' and that 'can be used interchangeably …

The law (21 U.S. Code § 360bbb-3-(3)) on 'authorization for medical products for use in emergencies' requires the EUA designation be used only when 'there is no adequate, approved and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing or treating such disease or condition.'

The lawsuit alleges once the FDA approved and licensed Pfizer's Comirnaty vaccine, there was no further basis for the FDA to preserve the EUA status for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that Pfizer acknowledges has the 'same formulation' and is 'interchangeable.'"

As explained by Fisher, in order to receive Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA, vaccine makers had to show their COVID jabs were more than 50% effective at preventing serious symptoms of COVID-19 disease.23 They were not required to demonstrate that the shots prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection or that it prevents transmission of the virus.

"So the bar was set very low at the very beginning for the Emergency Use Authorization," she says. "If you look at the rhetoric the CDC uses, you can see they're always talking about prevention of hospitalization and death. This is not what people think happens when you get a vaccine. We have been carefully taught to believe that when we get vaccinated, we will not get infected and we won't transmit that infection to other people."

Many Vaccines Don't Prevent Infection or Transmission

The problem is, many vaccines don't work the way we've been told. Take the pertussis vaccine, for example. According to Fisher, there's ample evidence that you can be vaccinated against pertussis and still transmit the infection, including asymptomatically.24,25 The same thing has been shown for measles,26 mumps,27 influenza28 and chickenpox29 vaccines.

"That's why I said that this is an opportunity to educate people about what vaccination really means," Fisher says. "It's also an argument for why [COVID] vaccines should not be mandated.

In this case, it's a biological pharmaceutical product that has never been made like this. This is an entirely new technology.30 It is truly an experiment on the human race, because they did not do the kind of science that they should have done to get Emergency Use Authorization."

Dr. Peter McCullough, an epidemiologist and cardiologist who is very familiar with medical research protocols, has pointed out that none of the COVID injection trials has data safety monitoring boards. It appears standard safeguards were intentionally eliminated for the rapid rollout of these shots and to eliminate any public outcry because the incriminating data are simply not being collected.

How convenient. Actually, it is a clever strategy to achieve their goals and they are getting away with it, because those in authority do not have the courage and boldness of physician scientists like McCullough and Dr. Robert Malone, who invented the mRNA technology.31 We need 10 times more of these types of brave souls to stick their necks out, as they have the credibility to actually make a difference. We just need enough of them to take a stand.

Had proper monitoring boards been in place, McCullough believes the vaccination campaign would have been stopped by late January 2021, because of the high number of suspicious deaths that had occurred by then. There's also the possibility of these shots causing antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), which is a big concern for the future.

Watch the NVIC Conference for FREE

As you might expect, this has been an unusual year, and virtually nothing has been routine. This year, NVIC was removed from three of the four major social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram and Twitter)32 after NVIC held their groundbreaking online Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination: Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 2st Century in late 2020.33 Fisher says:

"This year, so many people have been contacting us. We have a counseling service and we help people, families, who are going through a vaccine reaction or who are asking for information … Our weekly Vaccine Reaction newsletter has seen an almost 50% increase in subscribers, and this shows you that people are thirsty for this information.

One of the things we're really excited about is we're going to be launching a brand-new website in 2022 that your donations helped us do. It's a very expensive project, but something that I'm very excited about. We're also going to be launching an updated NVIC portal website.

We have been putting an awful lot of our efforts into the states, trying to educate people and train them on how to be effective vaccine choice advocates in their state. This takes a lot of organizing, and it takes a lot of collaboration between other groups that are on the front lines in the states.

We wouldn't be here if it hadn't been for the support that you [Dr. Mercola] have given us over the years. And I feel positive; I feel that the people in this country are going to remember that freedom is something they have to fight for. It's taken us a little bit of time to come out of our shock, because they punched us around pretty good in 2020, but I think people are waking up now and are going to start to really fight back …

Those who are authoritarian — forced vaccinators — have revealed themselves in the last 18 months. And that reveal has caused people to take a step back and look to see what their real goal is."

Take Action, Support NVIC Today

As in previous years, during Vaccine Awareness Week, I will match your donations to the NVIC, dollar for dollar, so this is a great time to maximize your impact. So, please, consider making a tax-deductible donation to the NVIC today, and be sure to sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal to stay abreast of the latest legislative activities in your state.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

Source : Mercola More   

What's Your Reaction?

like
0
dislike
0
love
0
funny
0
angry
0
sad
0
wow
0

Next Article

CDC Changes the Definition of Vaccines

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 A

CDC Changes the Definition of Vaccines

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.

Source : Mercola More   

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.