In case you haven't heard, Merriam-Webster recently revised its definition of the term “anti-vaxxer”. This has generated a great deal of backlash about what changes they made, presumably to suit the establishment agenda.
That, in turn, generated the predictable condescending response from the establishment and its horde of spin-doctors and “fact-checkers”, who employed their usual tactics to conclude that those sounding alarms about this change are fools and agenda-driven liars spreading false information. This will be sanctified as irrefutable fact by their colleagues in the establishment media and the technocrats for whom they work, who will instruct their platforms to censor the opposition. Not long after, they will issue calls for their co-workers in government to persecute those who express the now-debunked position.
Lost in all the hoopla is a close look at Merriam-Webster's actual definitions of “anti-vaxxer” and “vaccine” at present, irrespective of what they did or didn't change. Here they are in full, followed by my commentary:
Definition of anti-vaxxer: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination
All the fuss has been focused around whether and when Merriam-Webster introduced the last part into their definition of “anti-vaxxer”. To me, while interesting, that is less important.
The real significance is that, according to Merriam-Webster, everyone who supports the Nuremberg Code and the principle of informed consent is, by definition, an anti-vaxxer! Even if one has shot himself and his children up with every concoction declared by the pharmaceutical overlords to be a vaccine, even if they have gladly signed up for a lifetime subscription of every new “vaccine” they churn out, if they are against forcing people to take it, they are “anti-vaxxers”!
This is wonderful news. I would hereby like to welcome the overwhelming majority of the human race, who should now declare loudly and proudly that they are anti-vaxxers, and confidently challenge anyone who isn't.
The tables have officially been turned. The term “anti-vaxxer” is no longer a pejorative to slander and mock those who are against any or all “vaccines”. It is no longer a sword of Damocles swinging over those who express reservations about taking an injection of idolatry, lest one face the angry god of covid, or, far worse, be declared an anti-vaxxer. The term now means anyone who is against forcing people to kneel.
Perhaps the establishment believes their spell is so powerful that those who already live in terror of being called an “anti-vaxxer” will go along with this part of the definition as well. They will support forcing people to be injected with any and all crap, or at least look the other way, to protect themselves from having the dreaded “anti-vaxxer” tag slapped on them, with all that entails.
If the establishment is right, the fascist takeover is essentially complete. If not, now is the time to welcome the new hordes of “anti-vaxxers” and enlist them in the fight against evil. After all, those who support forcing people to get injected with something today will inevitably be forced to get injected with something they don't want tomorrow.
Thank you, Merriam-Webster.
Now let's have a look at their definition of “vaccine” (with emphasis added):
1 : a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease: such as
a : an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated (see attenuated sense 2) pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b: a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)
2 : a preparation or immunotherapy that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases
Others have noted that a vaccine by definition does not provide immunity against anything – not the most recent “vaccine”, nor any of them. In fact, according to Merriam-Webster's definition, it does not necessarily provide any actual protection whatsoever. All it does is stimulate an immune response in the recipient's body.
In other words, if you injected someone with HIV, and this caused their immune system to respond, as it naturally would to defend itself from this deadly attack, the injection could reasonably be called a vaccine. According to the definition of the term, an injection of actual HIV, which would stimulate an immune response against HIV (irrespective of the immune system's success) may be called a vaccine, and I challenge any “fact-checker” to dispute this.
Furthermore, one of the examples of a vaccine that Merriam-Webster helpfully provides is “a toxin”. The same people define “toxin” as follows: “a poisonous substance that is a specific product of the metabolic activities of a living organism and is usually very unstable, notably toxic when introduced into the tissues, and typically capable of inducing antibody formation”.
You read that right. According to Merriam-Webster, whose definitions are exploited in media reports, medical papers, and legal codes to mislead the public, a poisonous substance, which is “usually very unstable”, that is injected into a person, which stimulates an immune response (as we should certainly hope it would) may be defined as a vaccine.
Furthemore, anyone who is against such a toxin being mandated (forced) on people is an “anti-vaxxer”, which is about the worst thing a person can be.
They are doing it. This is real.
Are you in favor of people being forced by their governments to be poisoned?
not, you better wake up and join the fight.