Would government change long-accepted definitions to dodge accountability? You bet your ass they would--and just did

In George Orwell's dark novel of totalitarian rule "1984" the protagonist works in a government bureau that constantly looks for articles from old newspapers that would expose government failure or lies.  The "offending" articles are quickly destroyed--as the protagonist puts it, they're "tossed down the memory hole."

Of course that was fiction.  Communist governments have tried that, but no one really imagines the U.S. government doing anything like that, right?  (I tried writing "our government" but it didn't seem truthful.)

Think again.

Dictionary.com defines "immune" as "the state of being insusceptible to a particular disease."  "Insusceptible" means you can't get it. This has been the universally-accepted definition forever.

But as data began pouring in that the so-called covid "vaccines" did NOT keep people from getting the virus, last August 26th the CDC quietly changed the definition of "vaccine," erasing the common, accepted definition and replacing it with...well, take a look:

Definition of Terms  (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm)

Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.

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

Let's examine these definitions, which are cunningly worded to LOOK totally familiar and benign, but which actually change the definition as far as the CDC and government are concerned.

First: "Immunity."  Went from "You can no longer get the disease" ("insusceptible") to the much more vague, weaker "Protection from..."   That means that if a jab is shown to reduce severity of a disease, that's all it needs to do to qualify as a "vaccine" under the new definition.

Then note the next sentence:  "If you are immune to a disease you CAN be exposed to it without becoming infected."  The uncritical reader interprets this as meaning "If you're exposed, you won't be infected"--which is the intent.  But the phrasing can just as easily be interpreted as "If you're exposed, you might not be infected.  That's obviously an entirely different result.

The people who changed this definition did this deliberately, carefully, so most readers would take the first definition, which agrees with the universal definition.  But the phrasing they chose covers their ass if they were to be prosecuted for approving the vaxxes knowing the didn't keep people from getting covid. 

This total change is supported in the definition of "immunization."  Now, as in the definition of "immunity," immunization doesn't keep someone from getting a disease, but is now "A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease."  Same argument as before: While "immunity" is certainly protection, "protection" is totally vague, and not necessarily the same thing as the common definition of "immunity."  Again, the CDC did this deliberately, so the average snowflake liberal wouldn't spot anything unusual.

With the reader now conditioned to accept "might not" and "protection" instead of the common definition of immunity, now for the new definition of "vaccine:"  "A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases."  Not "to prevent someone from getting a disease."

There can be little doubt that the vaxxes "stimulate the body's immune response." But obviously that's far different than preventing someone from getting a disease--the heretofore accepted definition.

Again, this change is intentional, so they can escape any responsibility for covid cases among vaxxed people, even if those cases result in death.  Nice job!

This logic is carried to the final definition, "vaccination."  As set up in the first three definitions, "vaccination" is now defined as simply "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease."  Again, the uncritical reader translates "protection" as immunity, but "protection" doesn't necessarily mean immunity, as heretofore understood.

Again, replacing the understood definition of "vaccine" and "immunity" with "protection" is intentional.  This is defensive lawyering, done to allow CDC and FDA officials to claim they never lied about ANYTHING--that all their statements were totally in accordance with the [new, unusual] definitions right there on the website.

The vax makers already have immunity from being sued for wrongful death.  This definition change will allow corrupt judges to throw out all lawsuits brought against government officials.