Emails Confirm Vaccine Definition was Changed b/c COVID Shots Aren’t “Vaccines.” [“Immunity” was Removed from Definition. Shots are a “Treatment” and People have a Right to Refuse “Medical Treatment”]

/

From [HERE] and [HERE] Newly obtained emails confirm that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) changed its definition for both “vaccine” and “vaccinated” because people were pointing out that definitions didn’t seem to apply to the COVID-19 vaccines.

“The definition of vaccine we have posted is problematic and people are using it to claim the COVID-19 vaccine is not a vaccine based on our own definition,” Alycia Downs, a CDC official, wrote in an email on Aug. 25, 2021, to a colleague.

The definition is located on a page titled Immunization Basics.

“Vaccine” was defined since at least 2011 by the CDC as a product that triggers immunity, while “vaccination” was described as an injection that prevents a disease, according to archived versions of the page. However, a flood of inquiries on the definitions was triggered by the fact that the COVID-19 vaccines have been increasingly ineffective against infection by the virus that causes COVID-19, the emails show.

“Our question is how is the CDC and the rest of the world allowed to call the shot a vaccination when it doesn’t even meet your own definition,” one person wrote to the CDC.

“Right-wing covid-19 pandemic deniers are using your ‘vaccine’ definition to argue that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines,” another said.

The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines are both built on messenger RNA technology. They are two of the three COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States.

Downs and colleagues Allison Michelle Fisher, Cynthia Jorgensen, Valerie Morelli, and Andrew (no last name given) worked on changing the definitions for “vaccine” and “vaccination,” according to the emails. [MORE]

A recently filed lawsuit funded by a renowned IP underwriter and analyst Dr. David Martin challenging the CMS federal mandate explains the importance of the definition vaccine and the legal distinction between vaccine and treatment because it triggers a much higher and stricter level of judicial review of mandates. The complaint in relevant part states "the CMS Mandate must be struck down because:

  • The overwhelming evidence shows that the Injections do not prevent transmission, infection, or reinfection in those who receive them.

  • The CDC Director has admitted that the Injections do not prevent infection or transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that has been identified by various public health agencies as causing the disease known as COVID-19. “[W]hat [the vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”1

  • The CDC has acknowledged that the “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” are equally likely to spread the virus.2 The Injections do not confer immunity but are claimed to reduce the severity of symptoms experienced by those infected by SARS-CoV-2. They are, therefore, treatments and not vaccines as that term has always been defined in the law.

  • In fact, the CDC has actually changed its definitions of “vaccine” and “vaccination” so that the Injections would fit within the new definition. Until recently, the Centers for Disease Control 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.”3

  • The CDC also previously defined “Vaccination” as: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”4

  • Both prior definitions fit the common understanding of those terms. To be vaccinated meant that the recipient should have lasting, robust immunity to the disease targeted by the vaccine.

  • But on September 1, 2021, the CDC quietly rewrote these definitions. It changed the definition of a “Vaccine” to: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”5 It changed the definition of “Vaccination” to: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to protection from a specific disease.”6

  • Thus, the CDC has eliminated the word “immunity” from its definitions of “Vaccine” and “Vaccination.” Upon information and belief, the CDC did so because it recognizes that the Injections do not produce immunity to the disease known as COVID-19.

  • This is a critical factual and legal distinction. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to refuse medical treatment is a fundamental human right. Since the Injections do not stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as a matter of fact, they are not “vaccines” as a matter of law. Instead, they are a therapeutic or medical treatment which Dr. Griner has the fundamental human right to refuse.

The complaint further explains,

The complaint explains,

“Because the Injections are treatments, and not vaccines, strict scrutiny applies. The US Supreme Court has recognized a “general liberty interest in refusing medical treatment.” Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278, 110 S. Ct. 2841, 2851, 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 242 (1990). It has also recognized that the forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1041, 108 L.Ed.2d 178, 203 (1990), see also id. at 223 (further acknowledging in dicta that, outside of the prison context, the right to refuse treatment would be a “fundamental right” subject to strict scrutiny).32

As mandated medical treatments are a substantial burden, Defendants must prove that the CMS Mandate is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling interest.

No such compelling interest exists because, as alleged above, the Injections are not effective against the now dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 in that they do not prevent the recipient from becoming infected, getting reinfected, or transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to others. Indeed, evidence shows that vaccinated individuals have more SARS-CoV-2 in their nasal passages than unvaccinated people do.

The Injections may have been somewhat effective against the original SARS-CoV- 2 strain, but that strain has come and gone, and the Injections—designed to fight yesterday’s threat—are simply ineffective against the current variant.

Since the Injections are ineffective against the Delta and Omicron viral variants, and the original variant has been supplanted, there can be no compelling interest to mandate their use at this time.”

But even if there were a compelling interest in mandating the Injections, the CMS Mandate is not narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest.

The blanket mandate ignores individual factors increasing or decreasing the risks that the plaintiff—indeed, all healthcare workers—pose to themselves or to others.

Defendants entirely disregard whether employees have already obtained natural immunity despite the fact that natural immunity does actually provide immunity whereas the Injections do not.

Treating all employees the same, regardless of their individual medical status, risk factors, and natural immunity status is not narrowly tailored.

Moreover, the CMS Mandate fails entirely to consider other existing treatment options beyond the Injections as part of a more narrowly tailored approach. 97. Given these facts, as more fully set forth above, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Alternatively, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law as to Plaintiff, who already has natural immunity.” [MORE]