According to Canadian Vaccinologist Dr. Byram Bridle:
“In short,… we made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now. We didn’t realize that by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”…
The reason for that is that the de facto or constructive definition of a vaccine is a circular-reference.
“[I]noculating people with a toxin” is vaccination by definition, because whatever toxin there may be, it is injected into the body. It does not matter whether it is a vitamin-shot or battery-acid – if it is injected into the body and has been labelled a vaccine, then it qualifies as a vaccine.
Evolution of the word “vaccine”:
From ancient Roman times to about the beginning of the 18th century the actual (and complete) definition of vaccinus (or uaccinus) was (emphasis added):
vaccīnus, a, um, adj. [vacca], of or from cows: caro, Plin. 28, 12, 50, § 185: lac, id. 25, 8, 53, § 94: caseus, id. 28, 14, 58, § 204. [Lewis & Short Latin-English Dictionary]
uaccinus ~a ~um, a. [adjective] [VACCA + INVS] Of or derived from a cow. [Oxford Latin Dictionary (1968 ed.)]
Likewise the Oxford Latin (1968) defines porcinus as
porcinus ~a ~um [PORCVS + INVS] Of or belonging to a pig. b. (fem as sb.) pork.
The original and organic meaning of the word vaccine, and which persisted for centuries as the only meaning, was as an adjective to describe the source of certain products or things.
If a blood-sample were taken from a pig, then it was (and remains) a porcine-blood-sample. If it were taken from a cow, then it was (and remains) a vaccine-blood-sample.
Now let us consider the entry for the word “Vaccinate” in The Imperial Dictionary and Encyclopedia of Knowledge, New York (1898 ed.) (Complete definition except for the pronunciation symbols following the defined term (v.t. means verb, transitive; “a” means adjective; and L. means Latin(-root):
Vaccinate …(v.t.) vaccinated, vaccinating [L. vaccinus, pertaining to a cow, from vacca, a cow]. To inoculate with the cow-pox by means of matter or lymph taken directly from the cow or from a person previously treated, for the purpose of procuring immunity from small-pox or of mitigating its attack. – Vaccination – …n. [noun] The act of vaccinating; the art or practice of inoculating persons with the cow-pox, with a lymph taken from a pustule caused by previous vaccination in a healthy child. Inoculation is artificial communication of the small-pox itself. Vaccine – …a [adjective] [L. vaccinus]. Pertaining to cows or to cow-pox – Vaccine matter, the lymph contained in the pustules produced by vaccination or derived from cow-pox vesicles.
Did you catch the cognitive sleight-of-hand? Consider the contents within the first set of square-brackets under “Vaccinate”:
Vaccinate …(v.t.) vaccinated, vaccinating [L. vaccinus, pertaining to a cow, from vacca, a cow].
So far the authors have it right. The Latin root is vaccinus, (from vacca, – a cow).
Now compare the same under the word Vaccine in the adjective form:
Vaccine – …a [adjective] [L. vaccinus]. Pertaining to cows or to cow-pox
Note that the Latin is still given within the square brackets as vaccinus, (and it (vaccine) is still indicated solely as an adjective), but now it is nominally-or-allegedly-defined as “Pertaining to cows or to cow-pox”.
The larger effect is to give the false impression that the Latin-root directly supports the expanded definition, while providing quasi-plausible-deniability by putting it outside the square-brackets for Vaccine but not for Vaccinate. (“quasi” because it is non sequitur regardless of whether the authors are consciously intending to deceive anyone).
So how did the same Latin-root vaccinus and / or the adjective vaccine effectively transmogrify from “Pertaining to cows” into “Pertaining to cows or to cow-pox”?
That is why the de facto definition of a “dictionary” is “Opinion, arranged alphabetically”.
It is the same process as defining “apple” as “the fruit from an apple tree” for millennia, and then amending it to mean “the fruit from an apple tree or a kind of computer”.
A cow-pox-virus is no more a cow, than an Apple computer is a kind of fruit. And that is simply the first-removed fatal-flaw in the definition.
We have regardless still not encountered vaccine alleged to be a noun (a tangible thing). As at 1898, at least, it is still indicated solely as an adjective.
If we now jump to the present, according to the online OED (Oxford English Dictionary online version) the word vaccine is first indicated and purported as a noun, that means (bolding added):
[1] “any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing an innocuous form of the disease agent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production.”
[2] “the virus of cowpox, used in vaccination, obtained from pox vesicles of a cow or person.”
[3] a software program that helps to protect against computer viruses, as by detecting them and warning the user.
And then as an adjective:
adjective
of or relating to vaccination.
of or relating to vaccinia.
of, relating to, or derived from cows.
The original definition and correct part-of-speech is still there. But it now appears as if it were a minor appendage or afterthought.
And what, exactly, is a preparation?
According to the same 1898 dictionary:
Prepare…~ Preparation…n. [noun] [L. proeparatio.] The act of preparing; that which is prepared for a particular purpose; a substance compounded or made up for a certain use; the state of being prepared or in readiness ~
Substituting the two relevant noun-forms directly into the first OED definition given above for Vaccine:
[1] “any [thing] which is prepared for a particular purpose; or substance compounded or made up for a certain use used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing an innocuous form of the disease agent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production.”
Also note the legitimate (by the word “or” in the definition) and alternative construction of [2]:
[2] “the virus of cowpox, used in vaccination, obtained from pox vesicles of a … person.”
Again, a cow-pox-virus is just a label for a virus that can infect either cows or humans. The virus does not make a moo sound.
To make things easy, go straight to the third definition:
[3] a software program that helps to protect against computer viruses, as by detecting them and warning the user.
Apparently, “Vaccine” is (or may be) a brand of computer-virus-protection-software. Just as “Mustang” is a brand or make of automobile produced by the Ford Motor Company (That is, if there is such a brand as “Vaccine Anti-virus Software”, then it is precisely identified by this definition).
Alternatively, it may mean that “vaccine” is asserted as a general-class-type of software that is focused on protecting against computer software viruses (which of course are not viruses at all – unless you choose to label them as such).
The logical conclusion is that whatever is being injected into the bodies of people today has no more to do with the word “vaccine” than “a software program that helps to protect against other software programs that have been arbitrarily-labelled as computer-viruses”.
The only thing that can be gleaned from observation and practice is that anything injected into the body, and that has been labelled a vaccine, is a vaccine.
Technically – the preparation usually called a lethal-injection, used to execute people in the U.S. prison system, is a vaccine if you choose to call it that – as for example the “death-penalty-vaccine”.
That is how you arrive at:
‘In short,… we made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now. We didn’t realize that by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”…
Imagine that the definition of “Mustang” were expanded from “a kind or breed of horse” to add [2] “A model of automobile produced by the Ford Motor Company”.
Then, say, 20-years later, the government issues an order requiring all ranchers to inoculate their Mustangs with a new drug because blood-tests have revealed that their oil-pressure is too low.
Nominally well-educated professionals do not seem to grasp that you cannot mix-and-match the definitions of old words given arbitrary new meanings.
In other words, if you cannot make any sense at all of the official nominal-covid-nominal-vaccine debate, then it is not because you are insane or stupid – it is because you are sane and at least reasonably intelligent.
As far as I am aware, the substances being injected into a largely ignorant and / or deliberately mal-educated public contains no cow-pox-virus, nor small-pox-virus, nor anything else having anything to do with cows.
And even if there were a genuine cow-pox or small-pox-based vaccine, if you add, say, cyanide or other poison to it, it would still be defined as a “vaccine”.
The Short Version
The original and organic meaning of the word porcine is “Pertaining to pigs”. The original and organic meaning of the word vaccine is “Pertaining to cows”. There was no noun form, per se. The adjectives were derived from the noun vacca – the Latin word for cow.
2,000 or so years later, the word porcine still means “Pertaining to pigs” and it has no other alleged meaning.
The same 2,000 or so years later, the word vaccine is still an adjective that means “Pertaining to cows”, but is alleged to have acquired multiple alternative meanings as a noun that applies to anything (any preparation) that the manufacturer chooses to label as a vaccine.
That is why the on-line OED defines it as [3] “a software program” – it is because the manufacturer chose to label it as a vaccine.
The people running the pharmaceutical-corporations are doing the same thing. They are taking a “preparation” of substances that have nothing to do with cows or even cow-pox-virus or small-pox-virus, and merely labelling them as vaccines.
Vaccine – Pertaining to cows, see also bullshit.
If the original alleged pox-virus were obtained from a pig instead of a cow, then the people today would be told that they must all be porcinated or porkinated.
___
Timothy Paul Madden, forensic financial economist, and historian of equity, law, and policy.