CDC Changes the Definition of a Vaccine
CDC Changes the Definition of a Vaccine
In September of 2021 the CDC changed the definition of Vaccine and Vaccination and they didn’t tell anyone they were doing it.
The Old Definition before Covid Pandemic1:
Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
Vaccine: 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.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.
September 2021 Definition During the Covid Pandemic2:
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.
May 2025 Definition – It appears they have once it “tweaked” it again3:
Vaccine -- A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms (e.g., bacteria or viruses), fractions of the agent, or genetic material of the administered to induce immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae. Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B); others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined (e.g.Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses).
Vaccination – the physical act of administering a vaccine.
So, basically they change the word “stimulate” to “induce” an immune response.
If you were a Big Pharma Vaccine Maker, which definition would you prefer?
A vaccine to produce immunity?
OR
A Vaccine to stimulate the immune system?
Don’t you think you could probably change the methodological strategies when all you have to do is produce something stimulates the immune system?
You could pretty much inject about anything and label it a vaccine.
A CDC Spokesman said:
“The previous definitions could have been “interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine, so the current definition is more transparent, and also describes the ways in which vaccines can be administered4.”
The CDC is saying that vaccines have NEVER been 100% effective. All that we saw on TV during the
Covid Pandemic was that the Covid Vaccines were 95% Effective.
Was that even true?
What does 95% effective even really mean??
All the propaganda stated over and over again that “this vaccine is about 95% effective.”
“It’s 95% Effective against the disease.”
“The vaccine is 95% effective at reducing symptomatic Covid-19.”
Does that mean that 95% of the people who take it will not get Covid?
What does it mean?
Pfizer’s Original Clinical Trial Report – December 31, 2020
The Report showed that the vaccine was Safe and had 95% Efficacy after the second dose.
This was Relative Risk Reduction.
Absolute Risk Reduction was 0.84%.
Dr. Aseem Malhotra – “Relative Risk Reduction is a way of exaggerating the benefits of any intervention, clearly in the case of people trying to sell you something and in this case the Pharmaceutical Industry5.”
Pfizer reported that it’s vaccine had 95% efficacy, does it mean it protects you 95% of the time?
NO.
The 95% is referring to the Relative Risk Reduction and its doesn’t state how your Overall Risk is reduced by Vaccination, which we need to look at Absolute Risk Reduction.
What is the Difference Between Relative Risk Reduction and Absolute Risk Reduction?
In the clinical trial2 is stated the risk of the unvaccinated contacting Covid-19 was .88% and the risk of vaccinated developing Covid was 0.04%.
The Net Benefit or the Absolute Risk is: .88 - .04 = .84%
The 95% Effective refers to the difference between 0.88% and 0.04%.
0.88% down to 0.04 = 95% Relative Risk Reduction
It is not a 95% benefit, it is less than 1% benefit. A 0.84% benefit.
Just to note: both these numbers seem way off from the eye test of what really happened. It seemed like everyone I knew who was vaccinated got Covid, so the eye test says the vaccine wasn’t effective and definitely didn’t prevent 95% of the people from getting covid.
From the book “Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidene-Based User's Guide”
“Absolute risk, relative risk, and number needed to treat (NNT). When explaining risks associated with treatment, three approaches exist to describe how the treatment changes risk. For example, when explaining the benefits of taking chemoprevention to prevent breast cancer, risk reduction could be described as (1) a 50% risk reduction (relative risk reduction), (2) a reduction from a 6% risk of breast cancer to 3% (absolute risk reduction) or (3) the number of women needed to take chemoprevention to prevent cancer in one of them (NNT)6.”
This Pfizer Study was designed to follow participants for safety and efficacy for 2 years after the second dose, but they didn’t stick with the “design.”
Why?
Here is what Pfizer said in their report of this clinical trial -- “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine”, published in “The New England Journal of Medicine” on December 31, 2020:
“Although the study was designed to follow participants for safety and efficacy for 2 years after the second dose, given the high vaccine efficacy, ethical and practical barriers prevent following placebo recipients for 2 years without offering active immunization, once the vaccine is approved by regulators and recommended by public health authorities. Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy for this vaccine will occur, but it cannot be in the context of maintaining a placebo group for the planned follow-up period of 2 years after the second dose7.”
At the time this was published Pfizer had received EUA – Emergency Use Authorization 11 days prior, on December 20, 2020.
As with all vaccines, we NEVER get to see a true comparison of health between the Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated.
Pfizer stated because of how “Effective” their vaccine was, the “ETHICAL and PRACTICAL BARRIERS” prevent following the Placebo group for 2 years without offering the safe and effective vaccine.
How could Pfizer claim that the “ethical” decision was to offer everyone in the placebo group the vaccination after just two months, when on average, the safety testing should last for YEARS?
How could they offer the Placebo group the vaccine with known benefit of the vaccine to be UNDER 1%?
Are you feeling lied to yet?
Does this pass the “Eye Test” of what we all witnessed?
The Eye Test says that the real Covid Pandemic began AFTER the Vaccines were introduced.
Source:
1. Immunization Basics | CDC. web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm. *Note: CDC changed definition of Vaccine from Providing Immunity to providing Protection. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
2. Waking the World up. “CDC Changed Definition of Vaccine in 2021.” Rumble, 1 May. 2025, rumble.com/v6t7ijv-cdc-changed-definition-of-vaccine-in-2021.html. *Note: CDC Changed definition of vaccine in 2021.
3. “Vaccine Glossary.” Vaccines & Immunizations, 17 Sept. 2024, www.cdc.gov/vaccines/glossary/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm.
*Note: New CDC Definition of Vaccine and Vaccination.
4. Camero, Katie. “Why Did CDC Change Its Definition for ‘Vaccine’? Agency Explains Move as Skeptics Lurk.” Miami Herald, 27 Sept. 2021, www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html. *CDC Changed the definition of Vaccine from providing immunity to providing protection. This opens the door for MULTIPLE vaccines and it is more like they are using vaccines as a “treatment” instead as the traditional vaccine that provides true immunity from infection.
5. . Waking the World up. “95% Effective – Pfizer said it’s Covid Jabs were 95% Effective – What Does That Mean?” ” Rumble, 28 Apr. 2025, rumble.com/v6sojkl-95-effective-pfizer-said-its-covid-jabs-were-95-effective-what-does-that-me.html. *Were Pfizer’s Covid mRNA Vaccines really 95% effective in preventing Covid?
6. Fischhoff, Baruch. Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence Based User’s Guide. Government Printing Office, 2012. *Note: Relative Risk vs Absolute Risk - 95% Effective isn't what you think when using "Relative Risk."
7. Polack, Fernando P., et al. “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 383, no. 27, Dec. 2020, pp. 2603–15. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2034577. *Note: Pfizer Covid mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trial Claiming Vaccine is Safe & 95% Effective.
© Jeff Linke
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROTECT YOURSELF: Protect yourself, your children and loved ones from the harmful EMF from the newly installed 5G Towers. We are constantly being Bombarded by Harmful Radiation, being hit from all directions, every single day.
Up
to 75% OFF!
Hope
& Tivon’s EMF Protection Products:
https://www.ftwproject.com/our-special-offers/ref/528/
Check out the Special Offers on all the EMF PROTECTION
Products – including:
1. Phone
& Laptop Shields
2. Pyramids
3.
Sleeping
Pods
4. Charge
Plates
5. GardenSets
6.
Shungite
Tiles
7. Pendants.
***PLEASE FOLLOW My BLOG → https://mrnavac.blogspot.com/
END. 5/11/2025 6:00 PM
*******************************************************
Comments
Post a Comment