One thing people like to claim about the COVID-19 injections is that they are “vaccines”, and they don’t alter you or change DNA. They claim this because they are either ignorant, or because they are trying to disingenuously imply or state that these injections are just like any other so-called vaccines and there is no reason to be concerned about billions of people being coerced into taking it under false pretences.
by Scott 21 December 2021 - 12 min read
Are the COVID-19 injections even vaccines?
That’s a reasonable question.
The Cambridge Dictionary website has the following definitions for the word “vaccine” listed:
"a substance that is put into the body of a person or animal to protect them from a disease by causing them to produce antibodies"…and:"a special substance that you take into your body to prevent a disease, and that often contains a weakened or dead form of the disease-causing organism"
Obviously we are now seeing controlled admissions that the COVID-19 injections “are not perfect”. No kidding. The manufacturers and government alike admit that the jabs won’t stop you “catching” COVID-19 or “passing it on”.
Setting aside the existence of COVID-19 for now, for those who believe it is real, there are arguments about whether the vaccines have any impact on transmissibility so, depending on who you believe, it has some chance of reducing your risk of passing it on, or no impact at all.
The BBC published an article on the 29th October 2021 titled “Covid: Double vaccinated can still spread virus at home” and cite a “study” that makes some claims about transmissibility figures.
It is important to understand this is not really a scientific study, it is an app that allows people to self-report their health. As of today there are apparently 4,731,515 members of the public who have downloaded the app to report their health daily. It should be obvious that anyone choosing to participate in something like this is already a devoted COVID Disciple and therefore likely has internal biases, paranoia and skewed thinking that’s the result of ingesting 18 months of propaganda so far, and therefore the “source data” for this so-called study is essentially trash.
What we are seeing though, is the admission that the so-called “vaccines” don’t qualify to be called any such thing.
Definition of “vaccine”
If we go back to the definitions of the word “vaccine” for a moment, we see the first definition says a vaccine should “protect them from a disease”, and the second one says a vaccine should “prevent a disease”.
Not even by the various manufacturers own descriptions of how the COVID-19 injections work do they “protect from” or “prevent” COVID-19. It allegedly reduces symptoms and the claim is you’re less likely to die from COVID-19. Setting those claims aside for now, we can see that the COVID-19 injections do not fulfil the basic criteria to be called a “vaccine”. The usual way the media, politicians and pharmaceutical companies, along with their army of devoted sales-people explain that away, is by stating the previously mentioned “no vaccine is perfect” excuse.
What people think of vaccines generally and if they are truly effective, justified or otherwise is outside the scope of this article. The point is that what people previously understood were vaccines either worked, or they didn’t. You either got full immunity, i.e. you were protected from the disease, and the immunisation prevented you from getting the disease, or it didn’t work and you got ill anyway.
Mostly we’re led to believe that they did and do work, and you are protected from getting the disease in question. Not that you’d get it anyway, still pass it on but you might have less severe symptoms. The fact that the COVID-19 injections have been referred to as “vaccines” from day one is dishonest. It is an attempt to misrepresent an alleged treatment for symptoms as something that will protect you. On the Cambridge Dictionary website the word “protect” is defined as:"to keep someone or something safe from injury, damage, or loss"To protect is not a sliding scale. The phrase “partial protection” is a nonsense. You are either protected, or you are not. Some people have tried to argue the “seat-belt” analogy. They don’t stop all injury, but they reduce your chances of severe injury and they claim that COVID-19 injections are like seatbelts. What seat-belts do, is stop you headbutting the windscreen or going through it. They do protect you against that, because if you are prevented from sailing through your windscreen 100% of the time by seat-belts, it is justifiable and accurate to state that seat-belts protect you from that.
No-one claims seat-belts protect against all forms of injury. That claim is easily disprovable, and so no sensible person makes that claim. The protection seat-belts offer is limited to preventing a specific outcome, i.e. flying through your windscreen. That is it. People wear them and trust that it will stop them from having the outcome seat-belts are designed to prevent.
Meanings of words matter, and the subversion of language, the creeping disassembly of definitions and turning everything into shades of grey is deliberate and dangerous. Calling COVID-19 injections “vaccines” was an intentional choice to initially sell them to 7 billion+ humans under false pretences. The choice to call them vaccines and not therapeutics or treatments was to dishonestly promote these injections as something that will actually protect, after frightening those billions into believing there was something they needed to be protected from. Calling them “vaccines” also allows them to assign the pejorative label “anti-vaxxer” to anyone who is remotely concerned with these injections, despite the fact that you can’t be anti-vaxx if it’s not a vaccine. That’s like saying someone is anti-clothes if they don’t want to wear jewellery. It is nonsense, and lies. The question in the title though, is are they “gene therapy”? Or is that just anti-vaxx conspiracy theory? Well on the Pfizer website they have a section titled “Gene Therapy Science” where they helpfully define it for us as follows:Gene therapy is the introduction, removal or change in genetic material—specifically DNA or RNA—into the cells of a patient to treat a specific disease. In its broadest interpretation, the term “gene therapy” may refer to:
Gene transfer (gene addition): addition of a functional copy of a missing gene or augmentation of a gene that is non-functional into target cells to produce more of a protein
Gene editing: removal, disruption or correction of faulty elements of DNA within the gene
Cell therapy: transfer of intact, live cells into a patient
https://www.pfizer.com/genetherapysciencemRNA injections are encapsulated precisely within that definition, and are therefore considered by many to be “gene therapy”, not vaccines. Not by any reasonable understanding, not by the literal definitions and not by the documentation from the actual manufacturers.
There is then the question are they actually “therapy” at all? That might seem like an odd question considering how it appears we have just proven them to be that and not “vaccines”. This is why the meanings of words really matter, because now we can look at the meaning of the word “therapy”… Definition of “therapy” If you look up the word “therapy” on Wikipedia for example, it is not especially clear as while we all agree that some words can have slightly different meanings depending on the context they are used in, especially in medical or legal fields, the Wikipedia article renders the word “therapy” almost devoid of specific meaning with remarks such as:The words care, therapy, treatment, and intervention overlap in a semantic field, and thus they can be synonymous depending on context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapy …followed by a left-to-right analysis of connotative levels and specificity, linguistic senses and so on. Whilst I am not debating this description of complex syntactic and semantic nuances, it is not massively helpful at determining a basic definition. Language is a complex thing, and can convey even more complex ideas but definitions of words should not be complex.
Not if you care about being able to communicate cogently and have someone understand it. If the words that make up sentences are badly defined, or meanings can drift too far it makes communication virtually impossible.
This was the idea of NewSpeak in George Orwell’s novel 1984. The destruction of language done in such a way that it becomes impossible to convey certain types of thinking via words, and eventually once this is fully established it would be impossible to even think of certain ideas because the methods of forming those ideas in one’s mind via language would no longer exist. There are of course complexities, contexts and situations where we understand things to vary in meaning, and I am not accusing Wikipedia of deliberately undermining the definition of the word “therapy” specifically, but this is a general trend that does not bode well. Helpfully Wikipedia does list this with regards to the definition of the word “therapy”…The English word therapy comes via Latin therapīa from Greek: θεραπεία and literally means "curing" or "healing" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapy
This is more like what we generally understand the word to mean.
The dictionary.com website lists the meanings of “therapy” as…therapy [ ther-uh-pee ] noun, plural ther·a·pies.
the treatment of disease or disorders, as by some remedial, rehabilitating, or curative process: speech therapy.
a curative power or quality.
any act, hobby, task, program, etc., that relieves tension.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/therapy Again, this is more like what we understand the word “therapy” to mean, in general use. Why are we looking at this in such detail? Well we have just proven that these injections for COVID-19 are not “vaccines”, and established that the likes of Pfizer themselves really define them as “gene therapies”, but is that an accurate designation? Looking at the meaning of the word “therapy”, for something to be considered a therapy, genetic or otherwise means it needs to have some “remedial, rehabilitating or curative process, power or quality”. In other words we are prepared to accept that not all treatments/therapies are cures, but to be considered a “therapy” it does need to have a benefit.
As yet, the claimed benefits for these injections are unproven. The reason they are unproven despite most people thinking that once they had their COVID-19 injections and either haven’t been diagnosed with COVID-19 and believed the injection has saved them from getting it, or subsequently have been diagnosed with COVID-19, were ill with something and believe they would have been more ill or even died if they’d not had the injections, is that those things cannot be proven. It is a belief, nothing more. It is impossible to prove you would have been more ill with something after taking any medical intervention if you ended up ill anyway. You can believe it, but it doesn’t make it true. It is impossible to say you were prevented from being ill with something by a medical intervention that has only allegedly affected about 1% of the population and no-one can prove who by or when they were allegedly exposed to COVID-19, primarily because according to this scientific article quoted by Public Health England no less, states that the “Gold Standard” test which is RT-PCR…...does not distinguish between infectious and non-infectious virus. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.32.2001483 Given we’re meant to believe that the majority of people spreading this “virus” are asymptomatic, i.e. not ill, what symptoms are being reduced by this “therapy”? You can’t reduce zero symptoms to anything less than zero. Some people might point to “computer models” published by Governments and disseminated by the media, but they are not proof, or evidence of anything.
Others might point to the reduction in people being ill with what is diagnosed as COVID-19 since the injections were introduced. They want to believe, so they choose to ignore other reasons why this would happen. They were told that these “vaccines” would help, and they want to believe it so rather than look at this objectively, and now that evidence is plentiful that Pfizer’s data is more than questionable, (Whistleblower Reveals Pfizer Clinical Trial 'problems') see the corruption and lack of evidence that these injections help anyone, they conflate two convenient things together and have decided that in this instance correlation equals causation and simultaneously chant “trust the science” at anyone who dares to ask a question that challenges their belief.
None of this is science. It is not evidence based, not replicable and therefore not verifiable and not science. It is a sales-pitch and an advertising campaign we’re being made to pay for, and a belief-system based on nothing but propaganda. If you start to look beneath the facade at the actual data on any of this, or even something as basic as the definitions of the words being used, the whole thing collapses. The next time someone tries to tell you that these are just “vaccines” or even “therapies”, and that you should have them to protect yourself and others, or any of the other usual coercive tactics that infringe on your personal right to accept or deny a medical intervention based on the well established international laws of informed consent, you can helpfully point them in the direction of a dictionary.