Why does it make me cringe every single time someone refers to the toxic gene-based injections as “vaccines”? Why do even those in the know persist in using the wrong terminology, and thereby play into the narrative that is causing so much harm?
Why would anyone, especially those in the know give legitimacy to these experimental technologies, that inject a toxin, by calling them “vaccines”?
Every time you refer to them as “vaccines” this gives them a legitimacy that they should not be given, and that they do not deserve. Vaccines are traditionally considered to be “safe” and have an acceptable risk benefit profile. They were traditionally considered to be able to prevent the target disease. For instance, I took the Yellow Fever vaccine before my vacation in The Gambia, years ago. I went to the Gambia, and did not contract Yellow Fever. I can’t imagine saying to myself, I took the vaccine, and still contracted Yellow Fever, but guess what, I did not contract a serious bout of the disease. How ridiculous I would have sounded. I took the Yellow Fever vaccine and had no side effects whatsoever. Also the benefits of the vaccine lasted for 10 years. When I traveled to Kenya on safari, and Egypt, I was still able to reap the benefits of the vaccine I had previously received.
Vaccines are supposed to be safe. They are supposed to have undergone extensive testing over long periods of time to assure the regulators, and consumers, that they are safe. They are NOT supposed to cause illness, disability and death in healthy individuals like these injections evidently do!
Some additional reasons not to refer to the gene based injections as “vaccines”
Here is why the term “vaccine” is inappropriate for the Sars-Cov-2 gene based injections:
They are not vaccines
They are gene-based injections
The gene tells the body to create a protein, in this case, a toxic protein called Spike Protein
Because they are gene-based injections, there are risks, that need to be monitored for the life of the recipient
There are protocols on how patients who have received gene-based injections should be monitored. These have been in place for many years. They place emphasis on safety.
They are not safe, especially not in the healthy
They are not effective
They do not prevent the spread of the disease
They evidently cause disability and death in the healthy
Referring to them as “vaccines” gives them a legitimacy that they do not merit
It allows the ignorant to refer to those who refuse them as “anti-vaxers”, thereby making it a culture issue
What should we call these injections?
I have heard them called all sorts of names, including “clot shots”, “jabs”, “toxic shots”, “Spike protein shots”, and some names that they deserve, but that I cannot use here in a professional context.
I used to refer to them as a gene therapy, but realized that they are not a gene therapy, because a gene therapy involves telling the body’s cells to make a therapeutic protein that would benefit the health of the recipient. These injections tell the body’s cells to create a toxin, the “Spike Protein”. I am also concerned about using the term gene therapy, because gene therapy can do so much good for those with rare diseases. I don’t want to tar gene therapy with the brush of these injections.
My recommendation is that we refer to them as “gene-based injections”, or “gene based toxin injections”
Whatever you call them, stop calling them “vaccines”, because you are feeding into the narrative used by those who are pushing propaganda, that leads to much harm.
I understand that people are tired, and give in and called them “vaccines”, but why bother to do all you are doing to help, if you are going to refer to them as something that will only lead more people, children, teenagers, and babies to be harmed? You are a part of the problem, rather than the solution.
You can support my writing by buying me a coffee - https://ko-fi.com/dontcomply
I have always referred to these shots as "COVID-1984 GMO Jabs" Once you are injected with one of these shots you are a genetically modified organism.
This leverages the existing widely known negative connotation of GMOs. And it shows the dichotomy of avoiding GMO foods, lobbying for labels and speaking against GMOs yet readily accepting them in your own body.
Words and their meanings are crucial, both for communicating ideas and planting ideas. While many words change in meaning over time, words of science do not. Science does not change definitions. Hypotheses (commonly called "theories") change, but not definitions.
This is not science. It's an unadulterated quest for power over others.