By Dr. Mercola
- Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, announced the CDC may consider updating the definition of “full vaccination” for COVID-19 as the number of people getting vaccinated wanes
- Walensky’s definition of “fully vaccinated” could translate to economic and social interactions in much the same way that is happening in Australia, where the premier announced people who are not fully vaccinated are excluded from any economic or social activities
- The CDC recently made a drastic change to the definition of “vaccine” to allow the CDC, FDA and other agencies to call the gene therapy injection a “vaccine”
- Changing definitions during 2020 and 2021 is not a new phenomenon. NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci and the WHO have changed the definition of herd immunity, and Fauci admits to telling Americans only what he thinks they can handle at the given moment
Since the start of 2020, it may have felt like you’re living in an altered sense of reality. Major health organizations across the world have changed definitions of medical terms that have a significant impact on everyday life. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently announced they are contemplating yet another change in the definition of “vaccination.”1
The greater implication for society is that by using false information, “health experts” are attempting to change your perception of what’s true and not true. And in the process, they are perverting science.
For example, in October 2020, the World Health Organization changed their definition of herd immunity. In the past, herd immunity meant when enough people had acquired immunity to an infectious disease that the disease no longer spread widely in the community. Before science introduced vaccinations, herd immunity was achieved by exposure and recovery from an infectious disease.
Courtesy of the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, before October 2020, the WHO’s definition of herd immunity included both vaccine immunity and “immunity developed through previous infection.”2 However, in October 2020, the updated definition dropped natural immunity and is now:3
“‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.”
And, to add insult to injury, they add, “Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it,” totally ignoring the billions of people 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.
The definition change had precedent, as other disease definitions have also been changed. The original WHO definition of a pandemic from May 1, 2009, specified simultaneous epidemics worldwide as having “enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses.”4 However, this changed leading up to the 2009 swine flu pandemic, after which WHO removed the severity and high mortality criteria.
The change allowed the WHO to declare the swine flu a pandemic after just 144 people had died worldwide. Fast-forward to September 2021, when the CDC changed the definition of a vaccine from one that had been held since at least February 24, 2011,5 which was “a product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease.” The new definition is:6
A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
It’s a definition that’s obviously contrived to describe what the mRNA COVID-19 gene therapy injections do. And now, according to Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, they are contemplating making another change, this time to the definition of “fully vaccinated” for COVID.7
Are You a Reasonable Child?
As of October 15, 2021, the CDC8 considered people fully vaccinated for COVID-19 if they are two weeks after their second dose in a two-dose series or two weeks after a single dose from Johnson & Johnson. With the number of people getting vaccinated waning in the U.S., Biden administration officials are encouraging eligible Americans to get their booster shot, or else.9 The “or else” was announced by Walensky, who told reporters:
“We may need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ in the future. If you’re eligible for a booster, go ahead and get your booster and we will continue to follow.”
Not surprisingly, and almost as if on cue, the CDC director’s comments are a 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 “fully vaccinated.”10
Yet, just one month later at the end of October 2021, The Epoch Times reported that she was now suggesting that the definition “may change as boosters become more commonplace.” Coincidentally, just five days after that, the CDC announced their recommendations for a third, or booster, shot for everyone, and suggested a fourth dose for certain immunocompromised individuals.11
Besides the possibility that booster shots could go on ad infinitum, what’s worrisome is that Walensky’s definition of “fully vaccinated” could very well translate to economic and social interactions in the U.S., not unlike what’s already happening in Australia, where Premier Daniel Andrews announced that any unvaccinated individuals will be excluded from economic and social activities.12
Additionally, he warned that individuals could also be locked up if they don’t take the booster shots when they are required — all because of an illness that has killed just .012% of the population and 1% of those infected.13,14 This is far less than the 10.8% of all deaths during 2019 in Australia attributed to ischemic heart disease.15
In other words, Andrew’s intent has little to do with confining the spread of an infection that has barely affected the country. Instead, the expectation is the public will be ‘reasonable children’ just as Alice is expected to be in “Through the Looking Glass.”
The analogy is clear: Health agencies around the world have become modern-day “Humpty Dumpty” characters who change the meaning of words just because they can by virtue of the power of their positions. For a refresher on this fairy tale, Humpty Dumpty haughtily instructs Alice on how to interpret his grammar and semantics:16
“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.”
Does that not sound exactly like what is happening today?
CDC Has a History of Changing Definitions
As mentioned earlier, changing the definition of “fully vaccinated” would follow on the heels of other changes the CDC completed September 1, 2021. The original definition of a vaccine had stood since at least February 24, 2011.17 By 2015 the CDC18 had changed the wording to include “stimulate[ing] a person’s immune system to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”
The wording stayed the same until August 26, 2021,19 when it was altered slightly to add the words “to produce immunity.” Days after the FDA gave final approval to Pfizer’s mRNA shot, the definition changed again — this time, significantly.20 If you compare the earlier definition to the latest definition, a vaccine:
- Is no longer a “product” but instead is a “preparation”
- Does not produce immunity but instead stimulates an immune response
- Stimulates the immune response against diseases, not against a specific disease
- No longer protects a person from the disease
As I pointed out earlier, these dramatic changes were likely created to allow the CDC, FDA and other governmental agencies to call the genetic therapy experiment administered worldwide a “vaccine,” while knowing full well the so-called vaccine was not created to either produce immunity or prevent transmission of disease. In fact, by any definition of a vaccine in use before 2021, this shot is not a vaccine.
Changing the Definition Follows Israel’s Example
According to data from the CDC reported in The Epoch Times,21 it appears that more people are getting their booster shots at this time than are getting their first vaccination. The CDC reports that the number receiving a booster shot is 66.2% of those who are fully vaccinated. While the CDC reports more than 189 million Americans are vaccinated, 65 million have not taken their first shot.
In Israel, in a move to ensure booster shots are part of their definition of fully vaccinated individuals, the government has mandated that vaccine passports expire six months after the second COVID dose.
To maintain a valid vaccine passport, individuals must get a booster shot.22 In Israel, people must use a vaccine passport to get into restaurants, theaters and bars. New York City and San Francisco are using similar passports, as is France and Italy.
Despite 65% of the population being fully vaccinated by October 26, 2021,23 Israel had recorded 1,324,451 cases of COVID-19 as of October 27, 2021.24 According to the Epoch Times25 the seven-day average for infections September 2, 2021, was over 1,000 per one million people, which is twice the number seen in the U.S. and the U.K.
And, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal,26 data from Israel’s Ministry of Health suggest the majority of those who are severely ill have received two doses of the vaccine. While the Journal points out that “in recent days, unvaccinated Israelis have made up the bulk of those severely ill,” it also says that officials attribute this to the fact that over 2 million people have gotten the third, or booster, shot, implying that some of the “unvaccinated” may actually only be lacking the booster:
“’The most vulnerable group right now are those people who have been inoculated with two doses and not the third,’ Mr. Bennett said in a cabinet meeting last week, adding that they behaved as if they were fully protected, but weren’t.”
In this video, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko is testifying before the rabbinic court in Israel about the side effects being seen following the COVID-19 shot and the results he has had in treating his patients. Despite his testimony and information from their own data, health officials in Israel are still pushing hard to vaccinate as many people with a booster shot as possible.
CDC Taking a Page From Anthony Fauci’s Book
The ever-changing CDC definition of vaccination appears to be similar to the route Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical adviser to the president of the U.S., has taken since the start of the pandemic. His definition of herd immunity has also evolved, apparently based only on his gut feelings.27
Fauci has had ample opportunity to truthfully share information about an ongoing health situation. Yet, his statements show he has not taken a higher path of truth that would have helped Americans make smart decisions. Instead, he has engaged in what the daily online magazine Slate labeled “noble lies.”28
The origin of a “noble lie” is from Plato’s Republic29 written in 380 B.C., which essentially is a discussion of the meaning and nature of justice.30 A noble lie falls under the category of paternalistic lies. The American Psychological Association31 states this about lies with paternalistic motives:
“Many lies that are intended to help others require the deceiver to make assumptions about whether lying serves others’ best interest.”
In other words, Fauci may be functioning under the delusion that he has the right to lie based on assumptions about whether the lies he tells are serving the best interest of those who have the full capacity and capability of understanding the science and making up their own mind.
An example of the paternalistic approach to truth-telling Fauci has taken is his definition of herd immunity. A New York Times32 article in December 2020 discussed Fauci’s perspective, noting that in the early months of 2020, he cited a 60% to 70% estimate. Later in the year he boosted the number to 70% to 75% during television interviews.
By December 16, 2020, in an interview with CNBC, he said, “I would think that you would need somewhere between 70, 75, maybe 80%.” The next day, Fauci admitted to The Times reporter that he had “slowly but deliberately been moving the goalposts … partly based on new science and partly based on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.”33
He claimed he had delayed raising the estimate because of vaccine hesitancy, saying, “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90%. But, I’m not going to say 90%.”34
Are Fauci and the CDC Pulling a Code Red?
Essentially, what Fauci is saying is that he tells Americans what he thinks they can handle. And the ever-changing definitions of vaccines and “fully vaccinated” may be exactly the same strategy being used by the CDC.
Much like the character played by Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men,” Fauci is hiding the truth of his actions behind a veil of secrecy believing that Americans “can’t handle the truth.” In the movie, Nicholson’s character blurs the lines between the death of a Marine during an illegal hazing — extrajudicial punishment — and defending the country against enemy incursion.35
As the scene plays out in the video clip below, you can imagine that Col Jessup, played by Nicholson, wholeheartedly believes his order that led to the needless death of a Marine in the barracks, had protected others.
Without considering that the Marine could have been legally disciplined and discharged, Nicholson defends the unlawful action with an eloquent speech, which takes the focus from his illegal order and places it squarely in the light of defending the country.
You can almost imagine Fauci passionately defending his lies with the explanation that Americans can’t handle the truth. Unfortunately, the truth about COVID-19 is not always easily found and not usually covered in mainstream media.36,37,38
Sources and References
- 1, 7, 10 The Epoch Times, October 22, 2021
- 2 Internet Archive, June 9, 2020, WHO, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Serology 2nd to last bullet
- 3 Internet Archive, October 15, 2020, WHO, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Herd immunity, lockdowns and COVID-19 first line
- 4 PAHO, Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 #5
- 5, 17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Immunization the Basics, February 24, 2011
- 6, 20 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Immunization the Basics, September 1, 2021
- 8 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 15, 2021
- 9 Reuters, October 22, 2021
- 11 CDC October 27, 2021
- 12 Twitter, October 18, 2021
- 13 Australian Government Department of Health, COVID-19 Summary Statistics
- 14 Worldometer, Australian Population
- 15 Parliament of Australia, October 29, 2020
- 16 Britannica, Lewis Carrol quotes, Language
- 18 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, July 15, 2015
- 19 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 26, 2021
- 21 The Epoch Times, October 22, 2021, para 1, 3, 4, 10
- 22 New York Times October 21, 2021
- 23 Our World in Data October 26, 2021
- 24 Reuters October 27, 2021
- 25 Epoch Times, September 2, 2021
- 26 Wall Street Journal, August 31, 2021
- 27, 32, 33, 34 New York Times, December 24, 2020
- 28 Slate, July 28, 2021
- 29 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Plato’s Myths
- 30 History HitTV, July 26, 2018 para 2
- 31 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 146:31 line 1
- 35 Reference, May 7, 2021
- 36 The Desert Review, October 18, 2021
- 37 Vaccine Report, September 1, 2021
- 38 BitChute, August 13, 2021