As if we needed another reason to distrust the CDC…

 

… representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky has found one.  In a tweet yesterday, he pointed out how the Center for Disease Control and Prevention‘s definition of “vaccination” has evolved over time.  Click the image below for a larger view.

He goes on to provide sources for the changing definitions, to prove he’s not making up anything.

Gee, the more the COVID-19 vaccinations prove to be sub-optimal at best (and downright dangerous to health at worst), the faster the CDC’s definition of a vaccination changes.  Political correctness at its finest!  Who’d o’ thunk it?

Bureaucrats – causing worse (and less curable) diseases in the body politic than germs and viruses do in the human body.

Peter

13 comments

  1. "Bureaucrats – causing worse (and less curable) diseases in the body politic than germs and viruses do in the human body."

    So very true. Better to be alone and deal with COVID and its variants than to listen to Fauci and his minions. If he and the CDC ever told the truth it would be by accident.

    1. The operative word in the post 2015 definition is PRODUCEā€¦as in the description of mRNA based Injections being Mutation Producing Factories.

      The WRONG words are underlined.

      In the pre-2015 definition the human body was doing the producing as in the body producing capabilities to combat the injected organism. In the post-2015 definition the Injection is the producing agent, as in the Injection alters the body, builds a factory and then produces prevention or protection that cannot adapt.

  2. The first definition specifies what a vaccine is considered to be : a "killed or weakened infectious organism". The change in 2015 seems to be what is defined as a vaccine. The MRNA shots from Moderna and Pfizer are not "killed or weakened infectious organisms" I think that is a significant change.

  3. They further diluted the definition by adding the word vaccine. One could theoretically change the definition of vaccination to "to introduce a vaccine into the body". Boom. Done. No need for a reason in that definition. The next question, however, is "what is a vaccine?". Which is a completely different question.

  4. Based on the well documented prophalactic effect of ivermectic, sounds like it could be called a vaccine now and the people taking it would be considered vaccinated under this definition.

  5. No surprise, political scum.

    A paid consultant (MD/PhD) was giving a corporate talk on Covid, pushing the vaccine sales job beyond rationale "to get everyone compliant for the jab). She gave nothing but disinformation, stating the exact opposite the veterinarian audience knew as proper viral science. Read her bio…former CDC director. These people have sold their sorry souls.

  6. @Heresolong, they broke a basic rule of language, which is that the definition of a word must not include any form of the word it defines. As you noted, it's self-referential and so loses all meaning. I think we really are seeing the death of competence. These folks can't do anything right – not even at the level of basic English composition.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *