Global Health: Changing Definitions to Change Perceptions

by | Oct 31, 2021 | Editorials

The phrase “follow the science” becomes empty and meaningless when “science” itself is manipulated and altered to fit and promote a prevailing agenda. This article will recap some of the definitions that have been changed in order to fit the “pandemic” narrative.

#1 “Pandemic”

Most are unaware that a month before the H1N1 “pandemic”, the WHO changed the definition of the word “pandemic” to fit the prevailing narrative.

Pre-2009 definition:

“An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”

Post-2009 definition:

“An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity.”

See source.

#2 “Herd Immunity”

What happens when the need for your vaccine is undermined by the ability to achieve herd immunity through natural infection? Simple, change the definition of “herd immunity” to make it all about vaccination!

*Note: the concept of herd immunity itself is extremely controversial and has historically been used to justify mass vaccination.

Original definition:

“Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”

Updated 2020 definition:

“‘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. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.

See source.

#3 “Vaccine”

What happens when people question your motives behind developing experimental gene therapies and passing them off as “vaccines”? Change the definition of “vaccine”, of course!

What happens when your “vaccine” utterly fails to provide “immunity” to the “disease” it was developed to combat? Change the definition again!

Pre-2015 definition:

“Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease.”

2015-2021 definition:

“The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”

September 2021 definition:

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

See source.

#4 Gain of Function Research

What happens when you lie through your teeth about funding dodgy “gain of function” research at a certain lab in Wuhan and then get found out? Change the entire name and meaning of “gain of function research”, duh!

Indeed, Fauci’s NIH scrubbed all mention of “gain of function” from their website and replaced it with an entirely made-up term – “Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens” (ePPP).

Pre-October 2021 definition:

“The term gain-of-function (GOF) research describes a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent…. The subset of GOF research that is anticipated to enhance the transmissibility and/or virulence of potential pandemic pathogens, which are likely to make them more dangerous to humans, has been the subject of substantial scrutiny and deliberation.

Post-October 2021 definition:

“On limited occasions, when justified by compelling public health need and conducted in very high biosecurity laboratories, NIH has supported certain research that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans. The U.S. Government and the Department of Health and Human Services define such research as enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (ePPP) research. NIH-supported ePPP research requires strict oversight and may only be conducted with appropriate biosafety and biosecurity measures… While such research is inherently risky and requires strict oversight, the risk of not doing this type of research and not being prepared for the next pandemic is also high.”

See source.

I hope you can see the game that is being played here. In other words, follow the science! But only the “science” decreed by the tyrants of global health (i.e. the “science” they manufacture to fit their agenda) because if you don’t, you’re a conspiracy theorist.

Did you find this article valuable? Leave a rating below.

Average rating / 5.

Latest Articles

The CBDC gaslighting campaign

The CBDC gaslighting campaign

In an insightful analysis of Central Bank Digital Currencies, “Shinobi” asks some important questions, including whether it’s even feasible to create one? …just to replace the average volume of cash transactions alone a CBDC would need to process 246 times...

The Fed announces “pilot” ESG social credit system

The Fed announces “pilot” ESG social credit system

The fed has announced that 6 of the nation’s largest banks will participate in a climate scenario analysis exercise designed to enhance the ability of supervisors and firms to measure and manage climate related financial risks. So, what’s the big deal? Well… This is...

Join Our Newsletter

Get the 5-minute, weekly newsletter keeping thousands of free thinkers informed and inspired.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This Post

Share this post on social media