Which is why it is important to emphasize that, even by the new definition, the shots still are problematic. They do not and have not provided protection.
Perhaps the CDC will change the definition of a vaccine yet again to "Big Pharma money maker that does no good and potentially much harm to the human body. " That would at least be honest.
Which is why it is important to emphasize that, even by the new definition, the shots still are problematic. They do not and have not provided protection.
Perhaps the CDC will change the definition of a vaccine yet again to "Big Pharma money maker that does no good and potentially much harm to the human body. " That would at least be honest.
They are that. However, since "worthless" also carries a second connotative definition of "contemptible; despicable", the term is still broadly appropriate at the 50,000 foot view of the data this article takes.
Very much so.
Which is why it is important to emphasize that, even by the new definition, the shots still are problematic. They do not and have not provided protection.
Perhaps the CDC will change the definition of a vaccine yet again to "Big Pharma money maker that does no good and potentially much harm to the human body. " That would at least be honest.
Exactly.
Also, they are not worthless. Worthless implies neutral value, or null value.
They are negative efficacy with major side effects and death. They are a net loss.
They are that. However, since "worthless" also carries a second connotative definition of "contemptible; despicable", the term is still broadly appropriate at the 50,000 foot view of the data this article takes.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worthless
(I confess to having been a fan of William Safire's column "On Language" back in the day!)
To fully unpack the excess mortality data will take several articles.