If the Covid19 shots “reduce symptoms”, but don’t prevent infection or transmission…are they truly “vaccines”?
“New Normal Newspeak” is a series of short articles highlighting how our language has come under assault in the past eighteen months.
“Vaccine” is a word a with a simple meaning. I’ll quote it to you, from the Oxford dictionary:
A substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.
And here, from the CDC’s website:
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.
Encyclopedia Brittanica says more or less the same. As does dictionary.com. Cambridge University. Merriam Webster.
You get the point.
A “vaccine” is substance that, when introduced into a body, “provides immunity” to a specific disease. This person, now immune, is therefore incapable of passing that disease on to others. This is the entire point of vaccination.
But you don’t need me to tell you that, every other word on the news these days is “vaccine”.
The “vaccine” for Covid19 – whether from Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca or Johnson&Johnson – is being pushed everywhere you look. These companies have made billions in the last year selling hundreds of millions of doses of their “vaccines”.
But given the above definitions, do the Covid19 jabs qualify? Or is “vaccine” another word whose meaning is being changed before our eyes?
As of today, it is readily admitted that Covid “vaccines” do not confer immunity from infection and do not prevent you from passing the disease onto others. Indeed, an article in the British Medical Journal highlighted that the vaccine studies were not designed to even try and assess if the “vaccines” limited transmission.