CLAIM: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has changed its definition of vaccination because COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context.
In other words, not false. Covid 19 vaccines are ineffective at preventing disease and spread of the disease. That is why they changed the definition. Now they have the legal status of a vaccine so they have the limited liability protection of vaccines. In other words, you cannot sue them without an uphill battle.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-976069264061
Here is an excerpt from Dr. Rand Paul's congress website:
"On October 20th, the NIH admitted in a letter to two Members of Congress that research supported by the NIH in Wuhan did create viruses that gained function or gained in lethality.
On the same day, the NIH removed its previous definition of gain-of-function research from its website and replaced it with another term: “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen” research. As described on the NIH website, ePPP research refers to research “that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer, or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans.”
And wouldn’t you know it, the NIH letter admitting the agency funded research that strengthened bat viruses in Wuhan makes no mention of gain of function research either. Rather, the letter argues that the experiments do not count as ePPP research “because these bat viruses had not been shown to infect humans.”
So what explains the change in terms? To avoid contradicting Dr. Fauci’s testimony that NIH does not fund gain of function research, the NIH is compelled to change the topic. The NIH is effectively moving the goalposts and arguing that any experiment that combines an unknown virus with a known pathogen such as the SARS coronavirus (15% mortality) is not gain-of-function because the experimenters do not know yet whether the recombinant virus will be enhanced.
That’s crazy! Defining away ‘gain-of-function’ research by saying it doesn’t exist unless you know in advance it will occur is the very essence of hubris.
So, according to the altered NIH standard, recombing any unknown bat virus with a deadly virus like MERS (a coronavirus with mortality as high as 50😵 is NOT gain of function research because the result is not yet known.
Why so many machinations and word manipulations? Because ultimately, we’re talking about culpability here. NIH, under Dr. Fauci’s tutelage, funded research in Wuhan that used recombinant genetics to merge unknown bat coronaviruses with a known pandemic pathogen, the SARS virus.
And Dr. Fauci still claims it isn’t ‘gain-of-function’ research because the scientists didn’t know in advance that the newly created virus would be enhanced or more deadly.
But isn’t that the very purpose of the experiment to see if the newly created virus has gained function?"
https://www.paul.senate.gov/op_eds/fox-news-op-ed-sen-rand-paul-md-nih-lied-and-continues-lie-about-gain-function-research-and-covid/
Is that fair?
FDA Expands Term “Protein” to Include Chemically Synthesized Polypeptides.
The initial BPCIA definition of “biological product,” included “protein (except any chemically synthesized polypeptide).” The new definition of “biological product” removes the parenthetical from the term “protein.” Now, “protein” refers to any alpha amino acid polymer with a specific, defined sequence greater than 40 amino acids (including chemically synthesized polypeptides).
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/02/14/1018296/bill-gates-climate-change-beef-trees-microsoft/
Is it just me or do a lot of things Bill Gates invests in result in a definition change somewhere?
But wait, there is more. The Gates funded WHO has changed their definition of herd immunity on their COVID-19 page over the course of the year.
the June 9 version had a one-paragraph definition for herd immunity that said it is the “indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”
The Nov. 13 version, however, focused entirely on vaccination and said “'herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.”
The Dec. 31 version that is now displayed includes the definition from the June 9 version with further clarification that the WHO supports achieving herd immunity through vaccination rather than mass infections.
@metal-brain saidFrom your AP link:
Covid 19 vaccines are ineffective at preventing disease and spread of the disease. That is why they changed the definition.
"this does not mean that the agency altered it because of problems with the coronavirus vaccines."
@metal-brain saidThread 195609
Not preventing disease and spread of the disease is a problem.
@metal-brain saidReducing lethality is an acceptable solution where eradication is unlikely to be successful.
Not preventing disease and spread of the disease is a problem.
@vivify saidNot preventing disease and spread of the disease is still a problem.
Thread 195609
Vaccines prevent disease. Gene vaccines do not. Hence the definition change. It was the only way to get them approved, buy rigging the game. They were not vaccines until they changed the definition.
@metal-brain said🥱
CLAIM: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has changed its definition of vaccination because COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context.
In other words, not false. Covid 19 vaccines are ineffective at preventing disease and spread of the disease. That is why they changed the definition. Now they have the legal status of a vaccine s ...[text shortened]... sen-rand-paul-md-nih-lied-and-continues-lie-about-gain-function-research-and-covid/
Is that fair?