β-Redex Reducing Member
- Sep 13, 2016
- Lambda Centre
Yes the definition of vaccine in my oldish chambers dictionary specifically defines it as a preparation containing dead of dying vriruses or bacteria.
The problem is that all the research and propaganda on vaccines was about vaccines according to the old definition. mRNA injections are something new and are experimental. Whether they walk, swim, and quack like a vaccine on the long term we have yet to see because they have not been tested like a vaccine.In other words, if it walks like a vaccine, swims like a vaccine and quacks like a vaccine then it's a vaccine.
Evidently it is, seeing how easy it was to prescribe us the new definition of "vaccine". Seems like you are confusing the natural slow changes in language with the prescribed changes that got pushed on us by a small group of organisations. The change to the definition of "vaccine" was started by the government and mRNA injection vendors. They started wrongly using the word and since most people had no idea that they were misusing it so most people just went along with it. In other words, this change was planned ahead of time. It was a presciptive change. And it confuses people because now people think that all the old literature about vaccines applies to the mRNA injections, which it does not. And that is the problem. Language is now used to confuse, while language is actually supposed to be used to inform.But English is not a prescriptive language, so definitions are free to evolve when the situation changes.
The measures influenced me, just not the virus.hogwash