CDC Quietly Changes Definition Of ‘Vaccine’ As COVID-19 Continues To Infect Vaccinated People

[mystery-ak]

CDC Quietly Changes Definition Of ‘Vaccine’ As COVID-19 Continues To Infect Vaccinated People

The Center for Disease Control has a new definition of "vaccine" on their website as COVID-19 continues to infect the vaccinated.

by Andrew White   
September 8, 2021

As Joe Biden gears up to announce his new “strategy” to combat the COVID-19 Delta variant, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly changed the definition of “vaccine.” This comes as vaccinated people continue to get infected with coronavirus, and as vaccine effectiveness is reportedly “waning.”

The CDC recently changed the definition of “vaccine” on their website amid a growing outbreak of “breakthrough” coronavirus infections among vaccinated people; infections that have prompted many businesses and governmental bodies to reinstitute mask mandates, social distancing, and other COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.


On August 26, 2021, the definition of “vaccine” on the CDC website was “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease.” The definition of “vaccination” at that time was “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”

As of yesterday, the new definition of “vaccine” on the CDC website is “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” The definition of “vaccination” describes “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.”

more
https://nationalfile.com/cdc-quietly-changes-definition-of-vaccine-as-covid-19-continues-to-infect-vaccinated-people/

[PeteS in CA]

On August 26, 2021, the definition of “vaccine” on the CDC website was “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease.” The definition of “vaccination” at that time was “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”

As of yesterday, the new definition of “vaccine” on the CDC website is “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response 1 against diseases 2.” The definition of “vaccination” describes “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.”

Wowzers! Scandal!!!

Looking at the new definition:

1 This is a more precise description of what a vaccine does.

2 This reflects the reality that some very common vaccines target multiple diseases. For example, the MMR vaccine, commonly administered during childhood, targets measles, mumps, and rubella. For example, the DTaP and TDaP vaccines target diphtheria, tetanus, and Pertussis.

That article is an anthill short of Himalayanizing an anthill.

[PeteS in CA]

Since this article, https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/09/08/the-cdc-just-made-an-orwellian-change-to-the-definition-of-vaccine-and-vaccination-n1476799 , was linked as a call-out post in a thread not relevant to the article, I'll address its second himalayanized imaginary anthill here:

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

Was changed to:

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

This change also improves the accuracy of the definition. The MMR vaccine, for example, is not a magic silver bullet that detects and kills the viruses the moment they enter an exposed person's body. In real life, the infection process usually has begun (allowing for the possibility of a lucky immediate detection) before the exposed person's immune system detects and reacts to the presence of the viruses. Thus, the vaccine usually protects the recipient from the disease symptom becoming serious or even discernible.

So the PJMedia article is two anthills short of Himalayanizing anthills.

[Hoodat]

The MMR vaccine, for example, is not a magic silver bullet that detects and kills the viruses the moment they enter an exposed person's body. In real life, the infection process usually has begun (allowing for the possibility of a lucky immediate detection) before the exposed person's immune system detects and reacts to the presence of the viruses. Thus, the vaccine usually protects the recipient from the disease symptom becoming serious or even discernible.

Uh, no.  It is the person's antibodies against the virus that protects the person from disease.  Unfortunately, the mRNA jab doesn't prompt the body to produce antibodies against the virus.  Which is why no one is now saying that the mRNA jab prevents you from getting Covid.  It has now been redefined as a therapeutic that essentially addresses the symptoms of Covid by making them milder.  That puts it in the same category with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.  The only difference here is that ivermectin is only given to people who are showing symptoms of Covid while the mRNA therapeutic is being given to healthy people who are showing no indication that they will ever be sick.

[Smokin Joe]

Uh, no.  It is the person's antibodies against the virus that protects the person from disease.  Unfortunately, the mRNA jab doesn't prompt the body to produce antibodies against the virus.  Which is why no one is now saying that the mRNA jab prevents you from getting Covid.  It has now been redefined as a therapeutic that essentially addresses the symptoms of Covid by making them milder.  That puts it in the same category with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.  The only difference here is that ivermectin is only given to people who are showing symptoms of Covid while the mRNA therapeutic is being given to healthy people who are showing no indication that they will ever be sick.

And there it is.

When the Medical Establishment starts giving credit for those who have antibodies even without the vaccine (AKA "natural immunity"), there can be rational talks about vaccination or treatment. Until then, no thanks.

[PeteS in CA]

Uh, no.  It is the person's antibodies against the virus that protects the person from disease.  Unfortunately, the mRNA jab doesn't prompt the body to produce antibodies against the virus.  ...

1. mRNA vaccines and the J&J viral vector vaccine cause the recipients' immune systems to produce antibodies that attack the SARS-CoV-2 virus spike proteins, rendering attacked viruses unable to infect cells and reproduce.

2. There are, that I know of, three vaccines in use outside of the US that use traditional dead/inactivated virus technology. The one developed in India I've heard little about. The two developed in China - by Sinovac and Sinopharm - have, in countries that have used them, been relatively ineffective. Apparently, the traditional dead/inactivated virus technology that has been effective against other diseases is much less so against the SARS-CoV-2 variants that were not yet around when the Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines were developed. Traditional dead/inactivated virus technology is not any kind of magic gold standard for vaccines.

Of course, that is all peripheral to the falsity of the claim that the CDC's definition updates were somehow "Orwellian".

[Smokin Joe]

The CDC has been moving goalposts since we were going to lock down for two weeks to flatten the curve.

[Hoodat]

1. mRNA vaccines and the J&J viral vector vaccine cause the recipients' immune systems to produce antibodies that attack the SARS-CoV-2 virus spike proteins, rendering attacked viruses unable to infect cells and reproduce.

Then by definition, they are not Covid vaccines.  Nor do they render SARS-2 from infecting cells and reproducing.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

[Kamaji]

So they've made the definition more accurate.

[PeteS in CA]

So they've made the definition more accurate.

Yep, very sneaky of the CDC to do that!

[Smokin Joe]

So if it doesn't provide protection from the disease it isn't a vaccine?

(As in people still catch it, carry it, and pass it along, regardless of the effects on the individual--as in those with the shot  don't get as sick, but can still wander around with a high viral load and pass it on to others.)

[Kamaji]

So if it doesn't provide protection from the disease it isn't a vaccine?

(As in people still catch it, carry it, and pass it along, regardless of the effects on the individual--as in those with the shot  don't get as sick, but can still wander around with a high viral load and pass it on to others.)

Then there is no such thing as a vaccine, because none of the substances we colloquially call "vaccines" provide 100% magic bullet protection against disease.

Silly us, here were all were calling these things vaccines, when it turns out they aren't.

[Smokin Joe]

Then there is no such thing as a vaccine, because none of the substances we colloquially call "vaccines" provide 100% magic bullet protection against disease.

Silly us, here were all were calling these things vaccines, when it turns out they aren't.

Maybe they aren't 100%, but kids I knew stopped getting polio when the vaccine came out. Smallpox vaccine has nearly eradicated that disease, too. In the meantime, people with the jabs are carrying Delta and other variants, with the same viral load as people who never go the shots.

[rustynail]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."

[mountaineer]

One of my college roommates - a public school teacher - just posted to Facebook, "I have Covid. I’ve had both vaccinations and wore a mask at school…. I still got it."

Gee, how can that be?

[Hoodat]

One of my college roommates - a public school teacher - just posted to Facebook, "I have Covid. I’ve had both vaccinations and wore a mask at school…. I still got it."

Gee, how can that be?

The real question is, "How long have you been carrying the virus and infecting other people around you before it figured out a way of breaking out of your jabbed spike coat and infected your own cells?"

[mountaineer]

Alex Berenson:

Just how badly did vaccine failure surprise Fauci?
This badly: on May 20 (May!) he said the US might be able to eliminate Sars-Cov-2 entirely. Three months later he was begging for boosters double-quick. True story.
   
Let’s go to the videotape!

On May 20, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci (People’s Sexiest Man Alive for 12 straight years) took time from his busy day for an interview the Washington Post.

Beyond its cringe-inducing title - “Coronavirus: Leadership During Crisis” - the interview is noteworthy because it came at the moment of peak overconfidence in the mRNA vaccines.

Sars-Cov-2 had basically disappeared in Israel, which was the first country to begin a mass mRNA vaccination campaign. With about 80 percent of adults vaccinated, new cases were down 99.5 percent from their January peak and still falling. Deaths had dropped nearly as much.

On Twitter and off, the word “miracle” was getting thrown around a lot. Slate and the Atlantic had turned their attention to the vitally important question of which vaccine was the coolest (Pfizer! Pfizer was the coolest!)

And the only thing standing in the way of herrrrd immunity were the mouth-breathing Trump fans (and some African-Americans who remembered Tuskegee, but no one blamed them) who refused to submit to the miracle.

No matter, though. The vaccines were that good!

How good?

Dr. Fauci can speak for himself:

Q: Vaccinations are rising, but is there a concern about a resurgence in the latter part of the year as the weather gets colder? And how much of this hinges upon what our understanding is of how long these vaccines are effective?

DR. FAUCI: Well, I don't think we should be that concerned right now about how long they're effective. I think they will be effective long enough that we will get to the point where we are not going to be necessarily worrying about a surge…

[as] highly effective as these vaccines are and you get a substantial proportion of the population vaccinated, the chances of there being a surge are extraordinarily low.

But what about boosters, Dr. F.?

Boosters? Boosters? We don’t need no stinking boosters!

Q: One thing that you've talked about is that people might need a booster shot within a year or so of being vaccinated. What is the timeline right now for when people might need to start getting that?

A: …I really don't think it's accurate to say that we will need boosters X number of months from now. We may not need it for quite a while… Will this be a situation where over the years, we may need intermittent boosts? Again, you want to be prepared for that, Yasmeen, but you don't know definitely if we'll need it…-

--

But Fauci wasn’t done with his answer. He had a prediction to make.

A: When you have an infectious disease and you want to, in essence, address it appropriately, there are three possibilities. One, you could eradicate it. That's a very high bar because we've only eradicated one human infectious disease in our entire history, and that is smallpox, with a highly successful vaccination campaign.

The next thing is you can eliminate, and you generally do that by having certain countries, usually with good vaccination programs, essentially eliminate the presence of a particular pathogen in society. We've done that with polio in the United States. We've done that with measles in the United States and other developed nations.

So, that's called elimination, and the other is control. You have a very, very low level in the community, not enough to be a public health issue but enough to know that you haven't completely eliminated it. We don't know where we're going to be with SARS-CoV-2 and with COVID-19. I would hope it would be much closer to elimination than just control. That's going to depend entirely on the success, which I believe we're going in the right direction, of the vaccine program…

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/just-how-badly-did-vaccine-failure