Can the drugs that are being offered for our protection against this world-wide disease be really called a vaccine by the CDC’s definition?
The CDC defines Immunity as follows:
“Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
They also define 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. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Let us first examine what is meant by immunity. The definition says that “if you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected”. What? But wait! Don’t we see people who took the drug still getting infected, in significant numbers? In fact has some not died? How can you be immune if after you take the drug you can be infected again? Sounds a bit fishy?
Now let us examine the definition of vaccine. From what we gleaned, can anyone in good conscience say that the “vaccines” being offered are producing immunity to a specific disease? Don’t we all still have to wear masks, even the vaccinated? Before you jump to respond that these drugs lessen the symptoms, then please note that lessening the severity is not part of the definition. What we have learned is that a vaccine is a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease and immunity means that you can be exposed to the disease without becoming infected.
This brings me to the next question. So if the drugs we are being encouraged to take do not provide immunity as was promised, how can we then achieve “herd immunity” when the drug does not provide immunity by the CDC’s definition?
I would really like that question answered.
I have provided a link to the CDC website with the definitions for your convenience:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm