I'm sure you've seen this, dear Jack, but maybe some of your readers haven't, so if I may I'll note it here:
Dr Byram W. Bridle, Associate Professor of Viral Immunology in the Department of Pathobiology at the University of Guelph, explains how, by this definition, your yogurt is now a "vaccine"
In my office I happen to have a Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary, 1991. It says:
Vaccine (1799)
1 : matter or preparation containing the virus of cowpox in a form used for vaccination
2 : 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
— Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary, 1991
When I saw Bridle's post, and then went and looked up "vaccine" in my own 1991 dictionary, I realized, on a new level, that the whole show was weasely woo. Everyone I know who ran like a frantic lemming to get jabbed all assumed that immunity = 100% immunity, as in, get jabbed, you will NEVER get sick. What's still somewhat of a mystery to me to this day is how, after jabbing, then after getting covid anyway, so many of them kept on jabbing.
* * *
On this note also: Aaron Siri's excellent series of posts on vaccines on his Substack, specifically, starting at his pinned post:
Did the U.S. Death Rate from Measles Decline by over 98% Before Introduction of a Measles Vaccine?
Your bite-size dose of immunity against vaccine misinformation. Spread the truth.
In Australia a "vaccine" falls under the category of "biological medicine", there is no mention of immunity in the Regulations so legally I suspect ivermectin, wihich is derived from the fermentation of a bacterium, could be argued to be a "vaccine"!
I wholeheartedly agree that definitions matter! When the CDC, et al, changed the decades old definition of “vaccine” to fit their mRNA shot, that just confirmed my decision to stay far far away!
Considering the general mess in the current medical research, procedures, practice and abuse of patients, we should demand from the top-tier medical authorities in the country to compile a Standard Medical Dictionary with these entries clearly explained in an unambiguous way. With the effect that all entities operating within the medical field must follow these definitions and must not create their own ad hoc interpretations or deviations - with a particular requirement that no legal excuses or secondary meanings may affect the base terminology.
Otherwise, how do we know that a doctor is a doctor? Maybe the operating surgeon, aka doctor, is a doctor of philosophy. If he/she actually holds a PhD, is he/she qualified to be called a doctor or a philosopher? Thus, is a philosopher allowed to interfere with a living organism and get paid for it - regardless of the outcome?
If the outcome of the intervention is negative, i.e. the intervention has not improved the condition of the patient, how can it be called “treatment”? Thus, the healthcare setting should be renamed the diseasecare facility / worker…
Trust is optional, fortunately. Following common sense, it should not be applied if you have experienced anything that sheds a different light, for example when you read in a drug leaflet that it may (or may not) cause a side effect.
It’s like “Trust me, I’ll pay you for the groceries, or not.”
Trust before any first-hand experience is bordering with stupidity. How can you trust a person whom you have never met, never talked to before, and who is paid for treating you (the more complex the treatment, the higher compensation he/she receives) - and not for making you healthy?
As the medical profession is by definition always burdened with negative outcome, even accidental, and the 100% certainty level can never be achieved owing to the nature of the human body (as medical practitioners are always telling you when you meet them) - trust in reference to medicine is out of question. No more talking about it. Not a single word.
Thank you. Wow!
I'm sure you've seen this, dear Jack, but maybe some of your readers haven't, so if I may I'll note it here:
Dr Byram W. Bridle, Associate Professor of Viral Immunology in the Department of Pathobiology at the University of Guelph, explains how, by this definition, your yogurt is now a "vaccine"
https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/p/i-just-had-four-vaccine-doses
The CDC's definition of "vaccine" on Aug 26, 2021 (and prior):
"A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease."
Source: screenshot of CDC page from the "wayback machine"
https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https:/www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
* * *
In my office I happen to have a Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary, 1991. It says:
Vaccine (1799)
1 : matter or preparation containing the virus of cowpox in a form used for vaccination
2 : 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
— Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary, 1991
When I saw Bridle's post, and then went and looked up "vaccine" in my own 1991 dictionary, I realized, on a new level, that the whole show was weasely woo. Everyone I know who ran like a frantic lemming to get jabbed all assumed that immunity = 100% immunity, as in, get jabbed, you will NEVER get sick. What's still somewhat of a mystery to me to this day is how, after jabbing, then after getting covid anyway, so many of them kept on jabbing.
* * *
On this note also: Aaron Siri's excellent series of posts on vaccines on his Substack, specifically, starting at his pinned post:
Did the U.S. Death Rate from Measles Decline by over 98% Before Introduction of a Measles Vaccine?
Your bite-size dose of immunity against vaccine misinformation. Spread the truth.
https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/did-the-death-rate-from-measles-decline
* * *
Finally, I do have one transcript to share on this topic:
https://transcriberb.dreamwidth.org/137201.html
Fauci in the Hall of the Mountain King
"We know it's highly effective."— Dr. Anthony Fauci
(The transcript is a bore, just for historical purposes. The video with the music is hilarious.)
Words matter, definitions of words matter more.
Just released page trying to track down the definition:
https://totalityofevidence.com/historical-vaccine-notes-in-the-pursuit-of-artificial-immunity/
In Australia a "vaccine" falls under the category of "biological medicine", there is no mention of immunity in the Regulations so legally I suspect ivermectin, wihich is derived from the fermentation of a bacterium, could be argued to be a "vaccine"!
I wholeheartedly agree that definitions matter! When the CDC, et al, changed the decades old definition of “vaccine” to fit their mRNA shot, that just confirmed my decision to stay far far away!
That is wild!!
Extremely important article.
Considering the general mess in the current medical research, procedures, practice and abuse of patients, we should demand from the top-tier medical authorities in the country to compile a Standard Medical Dictionary with these entries clearly explained in an unambiguous way. With the effect that all entities operating within the medical field must follow these definitions and must not create their own ad hoc interpretations or deviations - with a particular requirement that no legal excuses or secondary meanings may affect the base terminology.
Otherwise, how do we know that a doctor is a doctor? Maybe the operating surgeon, aka doctor, is a doctor of philosophy. If he/she actually holds a PhD, is he/she qualified to be called a doctor or a philosopher? Thus, is a philosopher allowed to interfere with a living organism and get paid for it - regardless of the outcome?
If the outcome of the intervention is negative, i.e. the intervention has not improved the condition of the patient, how can it be called “treatment”? Thus, the healthcare setting should be renamed the diseasecare facility / worker…
Well you would have to trust them to be honest and I can’t do that!
Trust is optional, fortunately. Following common sense, it should not be applied if you have experienced anything that sheds a different light, for example when you read in a drug leaflet that it may (or may not) cause a side effect.
It’s like “Trust me, I’ll pay you for the groceries, or not.”
Trust before any first-hand experience is bordering with stupidity. How can you trust a person whom you have never met, never talked to before, and who is paid for treating you (the more complex the treatment, the higher compensation he/she receives) - and not for making you healthy?
As the medical profession is by definition always burdened with negative outcome, even accidental, and the 100% certainty level can never be achieved owing to the nature of the human body (as medical practitioners are always telling you when you meet them) - trust in reference to medicine is out of question. No more talking about it. Not a single word.
Well put together, thank you !
Thank you 😊