Jump to content

The Ever Changing Definition Of 'Vaccine"


AdamX
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, AdamX said:

image.thumb.png.2068fa805d6a1a29be6b4362e24a252f.png

Semantics. So what? Definitions evolve over time. Just the way things go. No conspiracy here. Move along. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Lawyers_Guns_and_Money said:

Semantics. So what? Definitions evolve over time. Just the way things go. No conspiracy here. Move along. 

 Can you provide an example where the definition of a word has changed so radically in such a short period of time.

And why would a new word not be used?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AdamX said:

 Can you provide an example where the definition of a word has changed so radically in such a short period of time.

And why would a new word not be used?

I haven't done homework in 30 years. But under this logic, if in a couple of years vaccines can be administered using a patch, you would say they are not vaccines because they are not being "injected"? Your definition of "radically " is questionable. 

Edited by Lawyers_Guns_and_Money
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lawyers_Guns_and_Money said:

I haven't done homework in 30 years. But under this logic, if in a couple of years vaccines can be administered using a patch, you would say they are not vaccines because they are not being "injected"? Your definition of "radically " is questionable. 

That's not the point.  There is a big difference between "immunity" and "protection" and if you do some homework you will realize that mRNA is not like any traditional vaccine.   He makes a valid point no need to start the conspiracy theory pointing lol.

Edited by billywillyjones
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, billywillyjones said:

That's not the point.  There is a big difference between "immunity" and "protection" and if you do some homework you will realize that mRNA is not like any traditional vaccine.   He makes a valid point no need to start the conspiracy theory pointing lol.

They are LITERALLY synonyms of each other. 

Screenshot_20210908-122158_Opera.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lawyers_Guns_and_Money said:
4 hours ago, billywillyjones said:

That's not the point.  There is a big difference between "immunity" and "protection" and if you do some homework you will realize that mRNA is not like any traditional vaccine.   He makes a valid point no need to start the conspiracy theory pointing lol.

They are LITERALLY synonyms of each other. 

No they are not. Otherwise there would have not been any reason for the CDC to change its definition of “vaccine,” removing the standard that vaccines produce immunity. Now they just need to “stimulate the body’s immune response.”

Immunity used in a vaccination context refers to a state in which you cannot catch the disease anymore and therefore also cannot transmit it anymore.  Protection in a vaccination context means  that the risk of catching the disease has been lowered.  But you can still catch AND transmit it.  And that's what we see happening now, with double vaxxed people still catching covid and ironically forming a bigger danger than the unvaxxed for spreading it as the 'vax' suppresses their symptoms.  So those wonderful vaxxes now created an army of vaxxed super-spreaders...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Berenson, ex New York Times reporter, was banned from Twitter by the "fact-checkers" for making exactly that point.  He is taking legal action, because he was of course fully right > see his post with the CDC's changing definitions of what constitutes a 'vaccine'.

 

 

A lawsuit in three acts

Hey, Twitter, can you hear me now?

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-43

Act 1, Aug. 26, 2021 (and before): The CDC defines a vaccine as “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease.”

 

  https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-43  


Act 2, August 28, 2021: I tweet that we should not think of the mRNA vaccines as vaccines because they do not stop infection. Twitter rules my tweet misleading and suspends me for “violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules.” This defamatory act prevents me from using my account anywhere in the world.

 

  https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-43  

Act 3, Sep. 1, 2021: The CDC changes its definition of “vaccine,” removing the standard that vaccines produce immunity. Now they just need to “stimulate the body’s immune response.”

Oh.

  https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-43  

Discovery’s gonna be awesome!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be far more clear to speak about 'sterilizing vaccines' and 'non-sterilizing vaccines'.  The vaccine for mumps is a sterilizing vaccine, once you have been vaxxed with it you cannot get the disease anymore (nor spread it of course).  But ALL of the covid-vaccines are non-sterilizing vaccines, and their only purpose was to reduce the severity of the symptoms when you got covid.  At their introduction it was believed that you could not transmit the virus anymore even if you catched it after having been vaccinated.  But that turned out to be NOT the case. 

Of course using the more appropriate 'non-sterilizing' descriptor of these covid-vaccines, would quickly end the non-discussions where the ignorant compare these covid-vaccines with sterilizing vaccines, but the vax-pushers have an interest in creating and maintaining that confusion.

Note: Maybe I am a bit too harsh calling those that don't know the difference 'ignorant' because the above TRUTH you will NOT find on the mainstream media. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lawyers_Guns_and_Money said:

I haven't done homework in 30 years. But under this logic, if in a couple of years vaccines can be administered using a patch, you would say they are not vaccines because they are not being "injected"? Your definition of "radically " is questionable. 

This would not change the definition of a vaccine

The method of delivery would be then be dermal instead of injection.

This would not change the definition of what was being delivered.

It is obvious to any reasonable person that the definitions are being changed to suit political narratives.

 

 

Edited by AdamX
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AdamX said:

Can you provide an example where the definition of a word has changed so radically in such a short period of time.

 

Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual. The term originally meant 'carefree', 'cheerful', or 'bright and showy'.[1]

While scant usage referring to male homosexuality dates to the late 19th century, that meaning became increasingly common by the mid-20th century.[2] In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and as a noun, referring to the community, practices and cultures associated with homosexuality. In the 1960s, gay became the word favored by homosexual men to describe their sexual orientation.[3] By the end of the 20th century, the word gay was recommended by major LGBT groups and style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex,[4][5] although it is more commonly used to refer specifically to men.[6]

At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. Among younger speakers, the word has a meaning ranging from derision (e.g., equivalent to 'rubbish' or 'stupid') to a light-hearted mockery or ridicule (e.g., equivalent to 'weak', 'unmanly', or 'lame'). The extent to which these usages still retain connotations of homosexuality has been debated and harshly criticized.[7][8] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

While we may not like it, the language changes and evolves constantly.  I spent 20 years in the US in the media, then became an overseas English teacher for 25+ years and as such have noticed this in ways that most people don't. The changes in the language are sometimes frustrating and confusing, because we have to re-evaluate some forms of expression from our earlier years.  I personally hate how the word "impact" has gone from a noun to a verb.  "How does this impact our bottom line?"

This change of meaning in how the word "vaccine" is expressed is a classic example of how things change over time to suit the new reality.  If you want something that doesn't change, become a fundamental Muslim, as they try to live and want to live just as things were 1400 years ago.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, MrStretch said:

Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual. The term originally meant 'carefree', 'cheerful', or 'bright and showy'.[1]

While scant usage referring to male homosexuality dates to the late 19th century, that meaning became increasingly common by the mid-20th century.[2] In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and as a noun, referring to the community, practices and cultures associated with homosexuality. In the 1960s, gay became the word favored by homosexual men to describe their sexual orientation.[3] By the end of the 20th century, the word gay was recommended by major LGBT groups and style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex,[4][5] although it is more commonly used to refer specifically to men.[6]

At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. Among younger speakers, the word has a meaning ranging from derision (e.g., equivalent to 'rubbish' or 'stupid') to a light-hearted mockery or ridicule (e.g., equivalent to 'weak', 'unmanly', or 'lame'). The extent to which these usages still retain connotations of homosexuality has been debated and harshly criticized.[7][8] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

While we may not like it, the language changes and evolves constantly.  I spent 20 years in the US in the media, then became an overseas English teacher for 25+ years and as such have noticed this in ways that most people don't. The changes in the language are sometimes frustrating and confusing, because we have to re-evaluate some forms of expression from our earlier years.  I personally hate how the word "impact" has gone from a noun to a verb.  "How does this impact our bottom line?"

This change of meaning in how the word "vaccine" is expressed is a classic example of how things change over time to suit the new reality.  If you want something that doesn't change, become a fundamental Muslim, as they try to live and want to live just as things were 1400 years ago.

Didn't realize they had Hummers, RPG's, suicide vests and 5 G 1400 years ago but you live and learn I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MrStretch said:

Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual. The term originally meant 'carefree', 'cheerful', or 'bright and showy'.[1]

While scant usage referring to male homosexuality dates to the late 19th century, that meaning became increasingly common by the mid-20th century.[2] In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and as a noun, referring to the community, practices and cultures associated with homosexuality. In the 1960s, gay became the word favored by homosexual men to describe their sexual orientation.[3] By the end of the 20th century, the word gay was recommended by major LGBT groups and style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex,[4][5] although it is more commonly used to refer specifically to men.[6]

At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. Among younger speakers, the word has a meaning ranging from derision (e.g., equivalent to 'rubbish' or 'stupid') to a light-hearted mockery or ridicule (e.g., equivalent to 'weak', 'unmanly', or 'lame'). The extent to which these usages still retain connotations of homosexuality has been debated and harshly criticized.[7][8] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

While we may not like it, the language changes and evolves constantly.  I spent 20 years in the US in the media, then became an overseas English teacher for 25+ years and as such have noticed this in ways that most people don't. The changes in the language are sometimes frustrating and confusing, because we have to re-evaluate some forms of expression from our earlier years.  I personally hate how the word "impact" has gone from a noun to a verb.  "How does this impact our bottom line?"

This change of meaning in how the word "vaccine" is expressed is a classic example of how things change over time to suit the new reality.  If you want something that doesn't change, become a fundamental Muslim, as they try to live and want to live just as things were 1400 years ago.

We are not talking about changes in meaning of words in daily language.  We are talking about DEFINITIONS in a scientific context.  The switch from 'providing immunity' to 'providing protection' in the definition of a vaccine, has large consequences and creates - intended - confusion.  As I mentioned higher using the terms 'sterilizing' and 'non-sterilizing' vaccines would have cut short all the non-discussions re this issue (but might have also alerted the public, that these are not ordinary sterilizing vaccines). 

By the way, the mRNA 'vaccines' are actually 'gen therapies', but they had to be labelled as vaccines because the required tests for FDA-approval of a gen therapy are far more stringent than the approval tests for a vaccine.  The most striking one being that gen-therapies require tests on 'fertility impact' which by definition take more than 9 months, but by labelling them as vaccines those tests could be skipped.  And unfortunately there are already clear signals that these mRNA vaccines DO impact fertility and alarmed doctors/scientists are recommending NOT to take them for women of child-bearing age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2021 at 2:23 AM, Lawyers_Guns_and_Money said:

They are LITERALLY synonyms of each other. 

Screenshot_20210908-122158_Opera.jpg

That is simply misleading.  A synonym is not a definition 

Immunity definition is - the quality or state of being immune; especially : a condition of being able to resist a particular disease especially through preventing development of a pathogenic microorganism or by counteracting the effects of its products. 

Protection definition is - the act of protecting : the state of being protected.

Protection definition is - the act of protecting : the state of being protected.

lol.

Edited by billywillyjones
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2021 at 8:13 AM, BlueSphinx said:

We are not talking about changes in meaning of words in daily language.  We are talking about DEFINITIONS in a scientific context.  The switch from 'providing immunity' to 'providing protection' in the definition of a vaccine, has large consequences and creates - intended - confusion.  As I mentioned higher using the terms 'sterilizing' and 'non-sterilizing' vaccines would have cut short all the non-discussions re this issue (but might have also alerted the public, that these are not ordinary sterilizing vaccines). 

By the way, the mRNA 'vaccines' are actually 'gen therapies', but they had to be labelled as vaccines because the required tests for FDA-approval of a gen therapy are far more stringent than the approval tests for a vaccine.  The most striking one being that gen-therapies require tests on 'fertility impact' which by definition take more than 9 months, but by labelling them as vaccines those tests could be skipped.  And unfortunately there are already clear signals that these mRNA vaccines DO impact fertility and alarmed doctors/scientists are recommending NOT to take them for women of child-bearing age.

If these words were used so loosely in a legal contract it would be thrown out of court.  Lawyers, Guns and Money better consult a lawyer lol.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2021 at 8:13 AM, BlueSphinx said:

We are not talking about changes in meaning of words in daily language.  We are talking about DEFINITIONS in a scientific context.

I hate to break it to you, but even "definitions" in a scientific context change, because science changes.  The environment and situations in which science is used and reported change, so the definitions change as well.

You want something that never changes?  Try math.

Science isn't static, it's ever moving, ever changing, and as such there are changes in how things are referred to or reported.

"Vaccine" used to, in the scientific context of our fathers, mean something different than the current use of the word. It doesn't negate the previous meaning, it adds to it, with today's knowledge and use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2021 at 1:04 AM, BlueSphinx said:

Alex Berenson, ex New York Times reporter, was banned from Twitter by the "fact-checkers" for making exactly that point.  He is taking legal action, because he was of course fully right > see his post with the CDC's changing definitions of what constitutes a 'vaccine'.

 

A lawsuit in three acts

Hey, Twitter, can you hear me now?

Sep 8 https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Bb0z-dn22-GKSRUFf-0l1GnJ8pOdcQwZNu1dYM0dnW7jjx8M0sU6Ar2o-dLCjK8Iy0jz-GT1co0Mbppgavw4LySmYsPo0bbNE0ewG9vVc02TRMUJshYvqzHKuYBUe0TwgB2x1-yWNcpdmlutnKHx-rUlPugpZbFlOHO0ehRPCF3ubGT3TN7NnSpa50hrD6xAWBMlOaFJb-QtX5YWhpuyB-BVu-wA9Ytn9j5MFRXf0RqRHKc51Da-5Jlnuw0IKFtvmHY=s0-d-e1-ft#https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_30,c_scale,f_png,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack.com%2Ficon%2FHeartIcon%3Fv%3D2%26height%3D40%26strokeWidth%3D2 https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/PiG6iSgdl_h01y30W6bs21oeLSrxsRTWouCT3i97X9u9wcViWz6e3cRombUBOJrQ1pz-UP-hWnAj6rQQU6vgFThdA_GpnK4eVtR_2QPukl5WXmzutYzvJBvm2uAFVgU9EEynZbE4ZWBCRogagBDko03SWCvxzWnl8SleXRrWCkaxOKhPEuxi8WaVOO6lZ9qZRLVCqCQHfuJWx_asXXHOS6-HsJ1zAbCd97S9N025U_AoH_OqyyQzMlC2XUkvEanVFOPQIQ=s0-d-e1-ft#https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_28,c_scale,f_png,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack.com%2Ficon%2FCommentIcon%3Fv%3D2%26height%3D40%26strokeWidth%3D2 https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/ZhB64U-clRsGiDd9U5jH22DvsDNfIDHCvW4A4aKyUGICpaQNKF-TDmJQLvpbxkuATbW-rp9I3c1S1hbLuZ9azoH76_J11CEouA2dY9SjQw99NM348othYq2cDyvP4fybSX3yyRb0nwdT96QZRNOxb2Nd3wgSwjo1FCPPJg7Co1Y8FwgWwWR7LkPH9qk52QW0euFsufy__xeo19aMnI7_Wfzrs4h8bg2cHQgkVI_fSNakWBzM3N_XRdf5VsmJ-gg3Gg9fRZe0KziuF89Krz21yi4KV8v_DcW2sCwy71M=s0-d-e1-ft#https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_28,c_scale,f_png,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack.com%2Ficon%2FRecommendIcon%3Fv%3D2%26height%3D28%26stroke%3D%2523999999%26strokeWidth%3D2

Act 1, Aug. 26, 2021 (and before): The CDC defines a vaccine as “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease.”


Act 2, August 28, 2021: I tweet that we should not think of the mRNA vaccines as vaccines because they do not stop infection. Twitter rules my tweet misleading and suspends me for “violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules.” This defamatory act prevents me from using my account anywhere in the world.

Act 3, Sep. 1, 2021: The CDC changes its definition of “vaccine,” removing the standard that vaccines produce immunity. Now they just need to “stimulate the body’s immune response.”

Oh.

Discovery’s gonna be awesome!

Oh that Alex Berenson - master of pandemic miscalls. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-wrongest-man/618475/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use