By Joel Hirschhorn
The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) once was a federal agency nearly everyone respected. That no longer is the case.
There are many reasons why the CDC should be widely disrespected. Its latest debacle is how it changed the definition of the word, vaccine. Why would the government’s key public health agency change the definition of what a vaccine is in the midst of a pandemic?
After millions of Americans have taken the shot. And millions more are being beaten into taking it for the first time and others to get booster shots.
Gene Therapy, Not Vaccines
Here is the key point. Long after it became widely recognized by medical experts and informed citizens that COVID-19 vaccines clearly did not fit the official CDC vaccine definition, the CDC thought the answer was not to fix deficiencies in COVID-19 vaccines or stop their use by most people. Their response was to change the vaccine definition to fit the so-called vaccines.
This was done so the government could keep pushing vaccine mandates. Of course, the “vaccines” should be referred to as gene therapy products, which is more accurate than calling them experimental vaccines.
To see how corrupt this action by the CDC was, it is necessary to examine the details of the vaccine definition debacle.
Immunity Language Dropped
Prior to September 1, 2021, the CDC defined a vaccine as: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”
This definition had been used for years and it makes sense. No expert or sensible citizen would find fault with it. But did it honestly apply to the COVID-19 vaccines?
The CDC’s new concoction is: “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.”
Vaccines Now Stimulate, Don’t Protect
Previously, the CDC said immunity is “Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”
Think about that last sentence: You can be exposed to COVID-19 without being infected, but we know that is not true for fully vaccinated people who still get infected.
This is the key language in the original definition: “stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”
Vaccines’ Purpose Changed
It is rational to invoke the purpose of a vaccine to stimulate an immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the recipient from that disease. Exactly what everyone for years thought was the correct way to think about a vaccine. People want permanent protection from the COVID infection disease.
But now the CDC has taken out the language referring to getting immunity for a specific disease and getting protection from that disease.
Now, COVID vaccines do not have to directly produce immunity. Now they only have to stimulate the body’s immune system.
Vaccines and Public Health
You don’t get immunity because COVID vaccines do not directly produce immunity. They do not directly kill the COVID virus. Vaccinated people can still have high viral loads and transmit the virus to others.
While some individuals may get some health benefits from COVID shots, they do not necessarily protect the entire population. This is why mandates for everyone to get the shots really do not make sense from a public health perspective. In fact, 31 studies on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, documented by Paul Elias Alexander, Ph.D., raise doubts on vaccine mandates.
The only logical way to understand what the CDC has done is to accept the truth belatedly seen by the CDC: COVID vaccines do not, in fact, produce effective immunity for COVID infection and do not provide effective protection, once vaccinated.
Much of the public does not yet know what the CDC has acknowledged for the COVID vaccines. Odds are, everyone who depends on mainstream media for good pandemic information hasn’t been informed about the CDC’s action and its implications.
The new vaccine definition, if publicly known, would reduce public confidence in current COVID vaccines. You don’t have to be a medical expert to see the new definition has been created to accommodate COVID shots.
In fact, these definition changes reflect what is now known about the limitations of the COVID vaccines.
Other Glossary Changes
Elsewhere on the CDC website is a glossary of many terms; here is what is especially relevant to the debate about COVID vaccines:
Attenuated vaccine: A vaccine in which a live microbe is weakened (attenuated) through chemical or physical processes in order to produce an immune response without causing the severe effects of the disease. Attenuated vaccines currently licensed in the United States include measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, rotavirus, yellow fever, smallpox, and some formulations of influenza, and typhoid vaccines.
Most people would read this and find that it fits with what they think of as vaccines that have been routinely taken by most people, especially children. Clearly, COVID vaccines do not fit this definition. But seeing this established view of vaccines helps explain why so many people resist and reject the COVID shots. They are so fundamentally different than long accepted and used vaccines.
The following glossary definition is especially relevant:
Active immunity: The production of antibodies against a specific disease by the immune system. Active immunity can be acquired in two ways, either by contracting the disease or through vaccination. Active immunity is usually permanent, meaning an individual is protected from the disease for the duration of their life.
This CDC definition of active immunity recognizes that you can get it by contracting the disease versus through vaccination. In other words, it recognizes what today is commonly called natural immunity achieved by once being infected by the COVID virus. And that such immunity is likely permanent and better than vaccine immunity, as recent clinical studies substantiate. But it also infers that active immunity obtained through vaccination is also permanent, which clearly is not the case for COVID shots, as evidenced by breakthrough infections.
Moreover, the COVID vaccines are now widely known from considerable clinical evidence to lose their effectiveness, typically in about six months. And even worse, they provide hardly any protection against variants like the Delta variant. Same disease but from a different virus in terms of its complex genetic makeup. So, befitting the new CDC definition, the shots really do not have long-lasting effective immunity to the specific COVID infection caused by all variants.
There is a rational basis for thinking the limited benefits of those shots do not adequately offset their risks. This is true for the vast majority of healthy people, especially children, who have an extremely low risk from COVID infection for serious illness, hospitalization, or death.
How interesting it would be, in the context of informed consent, if people were shown the original and new vaccine definitions to stimulate productive discussion with medical providers of COVID shots.
Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D. (email@example.com)is the author of Pandemic Blunder who worked on health issues for decades as a full professor at the Univerity of Wisconsin and a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association. A version of this article was published on the Pandemic Blunder Newsletter on November 11, 2021. Reprinted with permission