How they tricked us into the COVID injections

As long as we keep using Big Pharma’s terminology, Big Pharma wins

War is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.  mRNA is vaccine.

At my physical exam in November ’22, my doctor asked me why I’d chosen not to get the COVID “vaccine.” My answer was simple: I had decided not to be a subject in an unprecedented experiment involving an untested drug based on a radical new technology.

The more interesting question: Why were so many people so enthused about doing what I chose not to? Here are my suspicions:

1.      they were terrorized by mainstream “news”;

2.      they were told that it was their civic duty;

3.      they had no idea what was in the injections.

Central to Big Pharma’s success (about 69% of the U.S. population now having received at least two injections) was item #3 above. People felt they were doing something quite normal because the injections were vaccines. Vaccines have worked wonders and they’ve been widely distributed among large populations for decades, so why should there be a problem with getting another one? Surely this new one must be just as safe and effective as the old ones – right?

The problem is that the COVID injections are not yet-another-vaccine. They are in fact something completely different. Big Pharma understood that people might rightfully fear injecting such a thing, so it was in their interest to ensure that people did not understand that nothing like this has never been distributed to any significant population.

THE TRICK

How do you get millions of people to try something radically new, something that has undergone almost no testing and whose actual effects are unknown? Well, you trick them. You trick them by giving your radically new medicine a familiar, trusted name.

Using the Wayback Machine, we can see Merriam-Webster’s definition of “vaccine” as of January 8, 2021:

By September 30, the definition of this same word was virtually unrecognizable:

This is not so much a modification as a total transformation, and it was certainly no accident. As surely as the Biden administration was telling Twitter exactly who to censor, we can be pretty certain that the CDC was behind this “vaccine” definition change.

GASLIGHTING

If you search on “vaccine definition change”, you’ll find the usual mainstream “fact checking” apologists attacking critics of this change by claiming that critics are “missing context.” The “fact checkers” focus on the change in the wording regarding immunity, saying that the new definition is better because the old definition implied that vaccines were 100% effective. As with most such rationalizations, these arguments are absurd. The old definition didn’t imply 100% immunity, but this doesn’t matter to the “fact check” folks because they know their readers will never bother to check the old definition for themselves.

But far more ominous is the much larger change, the one that the fact-checkers would rather have you ignore, the one that cannot be so easily dismissed, namely the change to the description of the injected material itself. In the old definition, a vaccine is a “preparation” that contains one or more of the following:

·         killed microorganisms,

·         living attenuated microorganisms,

·         or living fully virulent microorganisms.

But the new definition (in 1b above) introduces an entirely new thing:

·         genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein).

There was nothing remotely similar to this in the old definition.

So here’s the trick: Adding this new clause allowed Big Pharma to use an old, trusted word (“vaccine”) to describe something radically new and different, something whose long-term effects cannot possibly be known to anyone.

Do a search on “mRNA” and you’ll find almost no mention of it in the popular press in relation to the COVID injections. One might imagine that curious “journalists” would find it worthwhile to inform their readers about this technological marvel, but one might be wrong. It would seem that something or someone is stifling all that journalistic curiosity. What could it be?

There is a profound difference between traditional vaccines and mRNA injections:

·         Traditional vaccines consist of entire organisms such as one might find in nature. The only unnatural aspect is that in nature you wouldn’t have such things injected.

·         Pure, concentrated mRNA is not something that is found in nature. In fact, as Johns Hopkins informs us, it took a long time for humans to figure out how to deliver such a thing into the body. The mRNA concept is very clever, bypassing the need to mass-produce living organisms by instead isolating the distinct genetic information that should supposedly allow the patient to create the desired immunity.

The mRNA injections are not analogous to any natural occurrence, and they therefore constitute something entirely new and entirely artificial. The stark reality is:

·         mRNA injections are not similar to the vaccines that preceded them;

·         until 2021 nobody had any experience with distributing such injections on a large scale;

·         it was not possible for anyone to have conducted reasonable clinical trials of the COVID injections by the time they were introduced, and in fact there are probably no reasonable trials to this day;

·         nobody knows how to treat people having adverse effects from the injections, since the causes of those effects are unprecedented;

·         and finally, nobody can possibly know the long-term effects of these injections.

Traditional vaccines generally spent years in development and underwent testing with small populations before being disseminated to the public. For example, the first successful polio vaccine was in development for six years (1947-1953), and that was the second-round effort after an earlier failed one that began in 1935. Even though polio was far more worrisome than COVID, since it crippled large numbers of young children for life, the polio vaccine underwent a year of testing on a limited population before it was approved for wide scale use in 1955.

Today we have a number of other alarming concerns:

·         People involved in the development of these injections, most particularly Robert Malone (who is credited with inventing the mRNA injection technology) are warning against using them.

·         After over a year of insisting that the drugs prevent transmission, the CDC now acknowledges that they don't;

·         After over a year of insisting that the drugs prevent infection, Fauci acknowledged that they don't;

·         The CDC and the NIH took unprecedented steps to prevent qualified doctors from making their own decisions about prescribing repurposed drugs (including HCQ and Ivermectin), in an apparent attempt to justify the emergency use authorization of the "vaccines,” thereby exempting the manufacturers from liability.

·         The FDA is now lying, claiming that it never issued a prohibition against the use of Ivermectin, when in fact both doctors and pharmacies knew (and still know) that they could lose their licenses if they used either drug for COVID.

·         The FDA mounted a propaganda campaign depicting Ivermectin as purely a horse dewormer, clearly intending to deceive people into believing that Ivermectin is used exclusively on animals, despite the fact that anyone with a browser can find the truth about Ivermectin's use in humans (it is one of the most popular drugs dispensed to humans in the world).

·         Pfizer sought to have data regarding the effects of its drug suppressed for 55 years, then 75 years. Obviously Pfizer's confidence level is low and/or Pfizer is hiding something.

·         According to VAERS, every year the mRNA injections cause about 50% more adverse reactions than all the actual vaccines of the past 30 years combined.

·         According to VAERS, every year the mRNA injections are associated with three times as many deaths as all the actual vaccines of the past 30 years combined.

·         Federal agencies and health service providers are doing everything in their power to suppress both entry of data into VAERS and the public’s awareness of VAERS. My guess is that 95% of the public has never heard of it. Although VAERS was created as a concession to the public in return for the federal government granting blanket liability exemption to Big Pharma, most of the press today seems firmly dedicated to discrediting the data in it.

CONSEQUENCES

Our reality: Big Pharma and its captive federal agencies have mislabeled their radically new injections as “vaccines,” leading millions of people to falsely lump them in with previous products that have a long history of safety and effectiveness. Few of the people who lined up to get “vaxxed” have any notion that they’ve been injected with a radically different technology that has essentially no track record of either safety or success.

This mislabeling produces a false equivalence in the minds of most people:

·         If you vocally oppose the mRNA injections then you are labeled “anti-vax.”

·         Hesitancy to receive an mRNA injection is labeled as “vaccine hesitancy.”

The sad thing is that we are helping with this. Just like Big Pharma and the federal agencies, we use the word “vaccine” to describe these mRNA injections, lending credibility to the companies and agencies that foisted this misnomer upon us. Until we stop doing this, we’ll be on the losing side of most people’s largely uninformed opinions.

Disclaimer: I am not a medical professional, and I am not licensed to provide medical advice. Nothing in this article constitutes medical advice. This article is provided for entertainment purposes only.

==== ADDENDUM OF 1/31/2024

Here’s an entertaining collection of some of their other, more obvious COVID lies, almost all in their own words:

·         The COVID Lie That Started It All

·         THE UNVACCINATED | "Nobody is Safe!"

·         Peter Hotez - Vaccine Expert

·         Children of the COVID!