Word Crimes
The redefinition of fundamental terms enables those in power to deceive the unaware.
FOR COMPLETE DETAILS: NotSafeAndNotEffective.com
“VACCINE”
What is the legal definition of the term “vaccine”?
Good question!
In 1976, Congress authorized and funded a nationwide vaccination campaign including liability exemption for manufacturers, for swine flu, (National Swine Flu Immunization Act, PL 94-380, 90 Stat. 1113) without defining the term vaccine.
In 1986, Congress authorized and funded a nationwide child vaccination program, including liability exemption for manufacturers and establishment of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, (National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, PL 99-660, 100 Stat 3755, codified at 42 USC 300aa-1 to 34), without defining the term vaccine.
Vaccine has not been defined by Congress through amendments to the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), or to the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), and the term has not been defined by the FDA through regulations published in the Federal Register.
In 1987, Congress provided a statutory definition of [taxable] vaccine through the Internal Revenue Code, 26 USC 4132.
https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/regulatory-simulations-at-home-and-c1e
The United States legal definition of “vaccine” for tax purposes:
(2) Vaccine The term “vaccine” means any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of 1 or more diseases.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title%3A26%20section%3A4132%20edition%3Aprelim)
CDC Definition #1:
CDC Definition #2:
https://www.cdc.gov/nerd-academy/about/glossary.html
CDC Definition #3:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/glossary/index.html#heading-v
CDC Definition #4
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/immunity-types.html
CDC Definition #5 (deleted)
The CDC altered the definition on the above page on September 2, 2021 and then deleted the page entirely, but the page was archived:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210901163633/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
The CDC attempted to fraudulently redefine the term “vaccine”
The NEW FRAUDULENT CDC Definition (September 2, 2021)
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
The CDC has completely removed the above page in an attempt to hide their fraudulent attempt to alter the meaning of the term “vaccine”, but it was archived:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210902194040/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
Over the past 4+ years, both the CDC and the Merriam-Webster dictionary have changed their definitions of the word “vaccine.”
Rather than honestly address the fact that the COVID-19 “vaccines” were failing to prevent infections, both the CDC and Merriam-Webster merely dishonestly created new and fraudulent definitions of the term “vaccine.”
The new definition of “vaccine” does not require that they provide “immunity,” prophylaxis or protection from disease.
The term “vaccine” has been fraudulently re-defined by the CDC as a substance that merely triggers the production of antibodies. They are now attempting to fraudulently describe a “vaccine” as a form of ongoing immuno-stimulant therapy.
Merriam-Webster (January 23, 2019)
https://web.archive.org/web/20190123105554/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine
Merriam-Webster (current definition)
The word immunity has been replaced with "immune response” due to the failure of the COVID-19 vaccines to provide true immunity by stopping infection and transmission.
According to the CDC’s fraudulent attempt to redefine the term “vaccine,” now a vaccine’s “effectiveness” is merely a measurement of the “immune response” that it triggers.
According to the CDC and the FDA, measuring an increase in antibody production is all that is now required to authorize a “vaccine.”
MUST READ ARTICLE:
Affirmative action for the multinational corporations. Why have them improve their vaccines when you can just change the definition of vaccine to fit their ineffective vaccines?
https://technofog.substack.com/p/cdc-emails-our-definition-of-vaccine
SOURCE: Toxic Shot - Facing the Dangers of the COVID “Vaccines”
The mRNA platform and all fraudulent “vaccines” based on this technology must be removed from the market IMMEDIATELY.
The lipid nanoparticles used in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 jabs are toxic “vectors” that are designed to deliver a synthetic “biological agent” in the form of modified messenger RNA (mRNA).
These products are not “vaccines.”
They are biological weapons and their target is YOU.
By design and intention, the purpose of these biological agents is to have human cells manufacture the toxic spike protein in order to trigger an immune response which unfortunately leads to cellular destruction, tissue and organ damage, disease and death.
The products utilizing the mRNA PLATFORM:
Do NOT “stay in the arm”
DO concentrate in the liver, spleen, adrenal glands, ovaries and bone marrow
Do NOT provide immunity
Do NOT provide prophylaxis or protection from disease
Do NOT prevent transmission of disease
Are NOT “safe”
Are NOT “effective”
Are NOT “vaccines”
Have caused enormous harm, injury, disability and death
The COVID-19 “vaccines” were never tested for their ability to block viral transmission and they have been shown to be ineffective in preventing the diagnosis of COVID-19. Medical product regulators, as well as governments and governmental bodies, have misled people in order to coerce them into accepting these bioweapons as “vaccines.”
The COVID-19 “vaccines” are not vaccines at all. The lipid nanoparticles are a biological weapons “vector” that delivers a payload of mRNA that is designed as a blueprint for a synthetic version of the toxic spike protein.
The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA “vaccines” do NOT meet the legal definition of a vaccine (for tax purposes). They have NOT been shown to prevent infection and they have NOT been shown to stop transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
Any mRNA jab, including any manner in which the “vaccine’s” substance(s) might be administered, are not "vaccines" as defined in 26 USC § 4132(a)(2) for tax purposes. They are gene therapy-based bioweapons that cause immeasurable harm and they provide NO prophylatic, protective or other peaceful purpose. These biological weapons violate 18 USC §§ 175-178. Therefore, any such mRNA “vaccines” need to be immediately removed from the market via federal injunction, warrant and seizure.
The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA “vaccines” also deliver the mRNA and many other toxins in lipid nanoparticles, which are fatty envelopes that "trick" one's cellular membranes into allowing the mRNA and other toxins to cross the blood-brain barrier and to enter cells throughout one's body. This transfects cells and transforms these cells into "factories" of foreign, synthetic proteins with no effective "off-switch" for the process.
This results in a proliferation of non-human, synthetic and toxic proteins that are foreign-to-self which causes the immune system to attack any cells that contain/produce such proteins. This leads to cell death, tissue damage, clotting, cancer and a host of other ailments, including death.
The injection of the COVID-19 “vaccines” into billions of people has resulted in an unprecedented level of reported adverse events, disease, disability and death.
We were told over and over that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA injections were “vaccines,” but they are NOT.
The Pfizer and Moderna injections ARE not “vaccines.”
They are toxic biological weapons.
They must be taken off the market immediately.
“VACCINATED”
Dr. Paul Alexander telling MP's directly what is happening. The vaccinated are infected.
“Vaccinated” does NOT mean that a person was just injected with a “vaccine.”
For Pfizer’s COVID-19 “vaccine” clinical trial, a participant was NOT considered to be “vaccinated” until at least 7 days after receiving their second injection.
That means that for the period of time after the first injection (about a month) and at least 7 days after the second injection, any adverse events that occurred were NOT considered when determining the benefit or risk of the jab!
The Pfizer clinical trial actually demonstrated “negative effectiveness,” but that portion of the data was ignored.
Pfizer designed the trial such that “defined COVID-19 cases” were counted starting only seven days after a participant received the second of two shots (at least 28 days after the first shot).
Put differently, COVID-19 cases that occurred before that point—that is, between shot one and seven days after shot two— were not considered when evaluating the efficacy of Pfizer’s vaccine.
That was a highly significant qualifier because 409 “[s]uspected” COVID-19 cases occurred after the participant received the first vaccine shot, but before seven days elapsed after taking the second shot. Id. at 41. By contrast, only 287 suspected COVID-19 cases occurred among placebo recipients in that same interval.
In other words, more people in the trial’s treatment group experienced COVID-19 than in the placebo group, even though the former had taken at least one ostensibly immunity enhancing dose.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Pfizer%20Vaccine%20Petition%20Filed.pdf (pages 18-19)
This is not science.
This is 1984 “Newspeak.”
This is fraud.
“SAFE”
The mRNA “vaccines” have been a very “safe” investment for the companies who produce the products because their income was insured by the government and they enjoyed “immunity” from liability for any harms that their products may have caused.
If any harm at all might occur, then a biological product may NOT be referred to as “safe.”
https://thelawdictionary.org/safe/
How can anyone honestly claim that the COVID-19 jabs were “safe?”
The lie is abundantly obvious.
“EFFECTIVE”
The mRNA “vaccines” have been effective in increasing the profit margins of the companies who produce them (and their stockholders) and many of the health care professionals who have administered them.
They have also been very effective in a negative way by increasing rates of infertility, disease and the costs associated with treating these newly ill people.
“efficacy” measures a vaccine’s capacity to succeed in ideal conditions, such as a controlled clinical trial.
https://www.osfhealthcare.org/blog/vaccine-efficacy-explained/
If you hear the words efficacy, efficacious or efficaciousness, realize that the information only applies to controlled studies, NOT the real world.
“effectiveness” describes how well a vaccine performs in the real, uncontrolled world.
https://www.osfhealthcare.org/blog/vaccine-efficacy-explained/
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/what-difference-between-efficacy-and-effectiveness
If you EVER hear the word “effectiveness,” DEMAND THAT THE ABSOLUTE RISK REDUCTION BE SPECIFIED!
Do NOT fall for the propaganda that attempts to trick you into focusing on the RELATIVE RISK REDUCTION, because it is massively deceptive.
Relative Risk Reduction versus Absolute Risk Reduction
Risk ratios are widely misused in ways that exaggerate both the benefits and harms of drugs. This is especially true regarding the term “relative risk reduction”.
Despite the fact that “relative risk reduction” is commonly cited, it does not really measure “risk” at all.
If a drug or injection changes risk from 2 deaths per 10 people to 1 death per 10 people, the relative risk reduction (50%) is the same as if the drug or injection changes risk from 2 deaths per 1,000,000 people to 1 death per 100,000,000 people.
Saving 1 out of every 10 lives is obviously different than saving 1 our of every 100,000,000 lives so, while it may be accurate, it is deceptive to say that both of these changes represent a 50% “relative risk reduction.”
The height of deception occurs when a drug or injection SHIFTS the risk of dying from the disease of concern by causing more deaths that are diagnosed to have been caused by OTHER diseases. In every case, one must look at the OVERALL death rate.
If a drug or injection causes one to be more likely to die from any cause, it is effective, but in an obviously negative way.
Absolute risk reduction based on complete and all-inclusive mortality data must be the primary consideration.
So what does the word “effective” REALLY mean?
“effective” means the treatment’s beneficial effects can be expected to outweigh any harmful effects. Effective care is treatment proven to have a positive effect on your health, while addressing particular problems caused by disease, injury, illness or a clinical condition.
Always demand to be presented with a complete and honest presentation of the overall risks associated with the disease you are trying to avoid along with a complete and honest presentation of the risks of the treatment you are being encouraged to receive so that you can do an honest comparison.
Any time you hear someone say that anything in life is “safe and effective” you should immediately know that you are being lied to.
“RARE”
Please watch the video below:
https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1849893369519972381
I commend Del Bigtree on his very powerful presentation. However, he seems to be unaware of the legal definition of the term “rare.”
Are “adverse events” attributed to “vaccines” commonplace, or are they legally defined as “rare?”
Source 21 USC § 360bb(a)(2)
ADVERSE EVENTS ARE ONLY “RARE” IF YOU USE THE LEGAL DEFINITION!
“rare disease or condition” means any disease or condition which
(A) affects less than 200,000 persons in the United States, or
(B) affects more than 200,000 in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug for such disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States of such drug.
STOP AND READ THE ABOVE LEGAL DEFINITION AGAIN, CAREFULLY!
BY LAW, the definition of a “rare disease or condition” means any disease or condition from which BIG pHARMA cannot make a profit!
James Roguski
310-619-3055
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
ControlBloodSugarNaturally.com
I claim no copyright of any kind whatsoever, over any of my work, ever. Everyone is encouraged to copy any and all of it, in part, or in full, and use it for whatever purposes they wish. In fact, I would be delighted if someone were to copy this entire body of work. I encourage everyone to duplicate and mirror it in its entirety. I also encourage everyone to adapt and utilize the information in whatever manner they deem appropriate. No citation or other reference is requested or required. It would actually bring me great joy to see this information multiply exponentially and "go viral".
All content is free to all readers.
All support is deeply appreciated.
Whoa, that definition of a rare adverse event is chilling. They actually said the quiet part out loud.
Thank you for your life’s work and may your life and work be protected. I’ve shared this article with my teenaged son. Hopefully he will read it and begin to see, starting with this one point of deception on the part of the CDC regarding vaccine definition. We have protected the kids from getting the vaccines, but they don’t really truly understand why. I’m viewed at least by son as anti-establishment, he thinks I believe in things emotionally without the backing of science. We went back and forth about it yesterday, and basically he said he’d be willing to hear what I have to show from real scientists, doctors, etc on the subject (as his uneducated mother I am highly unqualified you see).