In recent years, and especially after the start of the COVID pandemic in 2020, major health organizations across the world have changed several definitions of medical terms, which in turn have a significant impact on everyday life. In fact, were it not for the World Health Organization changing its definition of \u201cpandemic\u201d back in 2009, we wouldn\u2019t even be in this mess.<\/p>\n
Like the swine flu before it, SARS-CoV-2 would not have qualified as a pandemic were it not for the WHO erasing a few key words from the definition. Pre-2009, the official definition of a pandemic was:1<\/span>,<\/sup>2<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n \u201c\u2026 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Then, in 2009, the WHO removed the severity and high mortality criteria (\u201cenormous numbers of deaths and illness\u201d), leaving the definition of a pandemic as \u201ca worldwide epidemic of a disease.\u201d3<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n By removing the restrictive criteria of severe illness causing high morbidity and leaving geographically widespread infection as the only criteria for a pandemic, the WHO has the ability to declare a pandemic any time there\u2019s more cases of a given disease than normal.<\/p>\n Having this ability is of crucial importance, seeing how the WHO has played a central role in the technocratic takeover we\u2019re now facing. The WHO has emergency powers over its 194 member countries, so when the WHO declares an international public health incident, all member states are required to follow along \u201cin lock step\u201d with the WHO\u2019s directives.<\/p>\n Were it not for the WHO, nations would respond to any given outbreak in any number of ways. Trying to influence them to respond in ways that benefit the technocracy would be like herding cats. Without lockstep coordination between all the world\u2019s nations, using a biosafety narrative to control people and shift wealth distribution on a global scale simply would not be feasible.<\/p>\n But there\u2019s also an even greater and more long-lasting implication for society. By redefining what certain words and terms mean, the rising biosecurity state is attempting to change your perception of what’s true and what is false. In the process, they\u2019re perverting science into something ruled by faith, speculation and biased opinion. The dangers of that are incalculable.<\/p>\n In September 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shocked medical experts by changing the definition of a vaccine from \u201ca product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease,\u201d4<\/span><\/sup> to \u201ca preparation that is used to stimulate the body\u2019s immune response against diseases.\u201d5<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n The key change is that a \u201cvaccine\u201d no longer produces immunity, so it no longer protects you against the disease. It only stimulates an immune response against a given disease. This definition was obviously contrived to describe the limited function of the COVID-19 gene therapy injections, which do not make you immune and can\u2019t prevent you from getting or spreading the infection.<\/p>\n By any definition of a vaccine in use before 2021, the COVID shot is not a vaccine. At best, the shot will reduce your symptoms. This also means they cannot, ever, produce herd immunity. This despite the redefinition of herd immunity, from being something produced as a result of natural infection, to something resulting from mass-vaccination.<\/p>\n The WHO changed their definition of herd immunity in October 2020, likely in anticipation of the global mass vaccination campaign. To reiterate, in the past, herd immunity meant when enough people had acquired immunity to an infectious disease, such that the disease could no longer spread widely in the community.<\/p>\n Before science introduced vaccinations, herd immunity was achieved by exposure to and recovery from normal exposures to an infectious disease. Courtesy of the Internet Archive\u2019s Wayback Machine, before October 2020, the WHO\u2019s definition of herd immunity included both vaccine immunity and \u201cimmunity developed through previous infection.\u201d6<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n However, in October 2020, the updated definition dropped natural immunity altogether. The current definition now reads as follows:7<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n \u201c\u2018Herd immunity\u2019, also known as \u2018population immunity\u2019, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Adding insult to injury, they also specify that \u201cHerd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.\u201d This totally ignores the billions of people throughout history who have been infected naturally with measles, mumps, chicken pox and other infectious diseases, and who now have lifelong immunity to those diseases thanks to their natural infection, as opposed to vaccines that wane and need regular boosters.<\/p>\n Speaking of boosters, the rollout of COVID jab boosters means the CDC will most likely rewrite the definition of \u201cfully vaccinated\u201d as well. As reported by Axios, October 22, 2021:8<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n \u201cCurrently, the CDC’s definition is the following: \u2018Fully vaccinated persons are those who are \u226514 days post-completion of the primary series of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccine\u2019 … \u2018We may need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ in the future,\u2019 [CDC director Rochelle] Walensky said during a press briefing.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s not complicated to understand what such a redefinition will mean. It means that anyone who has received the initial single- or double-dose of COVID \u201cvaccine\u201d will magically be considered unvaccinated again once a certain amount of time has elapsed. As noted by The Atlantic,9<\/span><\/sup> the term \u201cfully vaccinated,\u201d if redefined, will lose its meaning.<\/p>\n Not surprisingly, the CDC director’s comments are a complete reversal of her position in late September 2021. According to The Epoch Times, at that time she said officials were not considering changing the definition of \u201cfully vaccinated.\u201d10<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n Just one month later, at the end of October 2021, The Epoch Times reported Walensky was now suggesting that the definition \u201cmay change as boosters become more commonplace.\u201d Coincidentally, just five days after that, the CDC announced their recommendations for a booster shot for everyone, even suggesting a fourth dose for certain immunocompromised individuals.11<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n The redefinition of \u201cfully vaccinated\u201d will be a means to enforce never-ending booster shots, as your vaccine pass will expire at a certain time after each dose and, with it, all of your so-called \u201cfreedoms.\u201d It\u2019s quite clear that the whole idea behind vaccine passports is to create segregation.<\/p>\n We\u2019re seeing this in Australia and a number of other countries, where unvaccinated individuals are being excluded from economic and social activities.12<\/span>,<\/sup>13<\/span><\/sup> Australian premier Daniel Andrews has actually stated that, going forward, life for the vaccinated will \u201cbe about the maintenance of your vaccination status.\u201d Can you believe it? That\u2019s what \u201clife\u201d has been reduced to now. Maintaining your vaccination status.<\/p>\n We\u2019re seeing the same scenario play out in Israel too, where vaccine passports expire six months after the second COVID dose. If you refuse to get the next dose, you\u2019re shunned from society like everyone who refused from the get-go.<\/p>\n In Australia, individuals are even facing arrest if they don\u2019t take the booster shots when required. It\u2019s mindboggling to consider that all of this is happening because of an illness that has killed just .012% of the population and 1% of those infected.14<\/span>,<\/sup>15<\/span><\/sup> And the reason it can happen at all is because certain word definitions have been unscientifically manipulated and altered to support their heinous actions.<\/p>\n Updating the definition of \u201cfully vaccinated\u201d will also have the side effect of skewing mortality statistics, giving government another round of ammunition for false claims.<\/p>\n We\u2019ve been repeatedly told that we\u2019re now in a pandemic of the unvaccinated, and this lie will gain new traction once fully vaccinated people are dropped into the unvaccinated category, six months after their last dose.<\/p>\n We\u2019re already seeing this narrative roll out in Israel. As reported by The Wall Street Journal,16<\/span><\/sup> \u201cunvaccinated Israelis have made up the bulk of those severely ill\u201d in recent days. However, it also states that officials attribute this to the fact that over 2 million people have gotten the third booster shot. This implies that far from being completely unvaccinated, some of those counted as \u201cunvaccinated\u201d may actually only be lacking the third booster:<\/p>\n \u201c\u2018The most vulnerable group right now are those people who have been inoculated with two doses and not the third,\u2019 Mr. Bennett said in a cabinet meeting last week, adding that they behaved as if they were fully protected, but weren\u2019t.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the video below, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko testifies before the rabbinic court in Israel about the side effects being seen following the COVID-19 shot and the success he\u2019s had in treating his patients with simple nutraceuticals and off-patent drugs. Despite his testimony and their own data, health officials in Israel are still pushing everyone to get a booster shot.<\/p>\nWhat Is a \u2018Vaccine\u2019?<\/h2>\n
Definition of Herd Immunity No Longer Has Scientific Basis<\/h2>\n
Definition of \u2018Fully Vaccinated\u2019 May Soon Be Rewritten<\/h2>\n
How Is Segregation Even Remotely Acceptable?<\/h2>\n
New Definitions Will Skew Mortality Statistics Too<\/h2>\n