“Know well, then, that worthy and godlike is the zeal with which you rush upon definitions. Apply yourself to it, and practice it, while yet you are a novice – all the more, because it seems useless, and is called trifling by the vulgar : for if you do not, the truth will escape you.” – Plato
Leader, noun, The first one to figure out that everyone else is following.
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 intended to be injected into the body and is labelled a vaccine. It does not matter whether it is a vitamin-shot or battery-acid – if it is, or is to be, injected into the body and has been labelled a vaccine, then it is a vaccine.
Evolution and mutation of the word “vaccine”:
From ancient Roman times to about 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 and renderings, etc.
If a Roman farmer had a cart-load of manure from his pigs, then it was (and remains) a load of porcine-manure (porcinus excrementum). If the manure were instead obtained from his cows, then it was (and remains) a load of vaccine-manure. (vaccinus excrementum).
As at 1860, at least, such had not changed. According to Websters American Dictionary of the English Language (1860 ed.):
VACCINE, (-sin,) a. [L., vaccinus, from vacca, a cow.] Pertaining to cows ; derived from cows ; as the vaccine disease or cow-pox.
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 the original Latin meaning:
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. 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. [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. [L. vaccinus]. Pertaining to cows or to cow-pox –
Note that the Latin meaning 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 and wholly-non-sequitur 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 were consciously intending to deceive anyone, including themselves).
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”?
The answer is that 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 or a pox, 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 (as it was in 1860).
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):
 “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.”
 “the virus of cowpox, used in vaccination, obtained from pox vesicles of a cow or person.”
 a software program that helps to protect against computer viruses, as by detecting them and warning the user.
And then as an adjective:
of or relating to vaccination.
of or relating to vaccinia.
of, relating to, or derived from cows.
The original and organic 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 and / or inoculation as used in the first definition  given above?
According to the same 1898 dictionary / encyclopedia of knowledge:
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 ~
Note that both potential meanings of the word preparation as tangible-things are in the form of a circular-reference – a preparation is that which is prepared.
And again from the same dictionary under its definition of Vaccination:
Inoculation is artificial communication of the small-pox itself.
If we now substitute both definitions into the OED online definition  we get:
 “any (…thing that is prepared) [to be] used as a preventive (artificial communication of the small-pox itself) 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.”
The thing to note here is that the nominal definition is not at all precise but rather in the form of a rambling discourse on what it might be or “usually” is, and which oscillates between the general and the specific.
If we then cross-reference with the stand-alone definition of Inoculate from the same 1898 dictionary / encyclopedia of knowledge (Complete entry except for pronunciation symbols):
Inoculate, v.t. – inoculated, inoculating, [L. inoculo, inoculatum, to ingraft the eye or bud of one tree into another – in, into, and oculus, an eye (whence ocular).] To graft by inserting a bud ; to bud; med: To communicate a disease to by morbid matter introduced into the blood, especially that of small-pox; hence, generally, to infect, to contaminate – v.i., To practice inoculation – Inoculable …a. Capable of being inoculated, or of being communicated by inoculation. – Inoculation,…n. The act or practice of inoculating; communication of a disease by contagious matter introduced into the blood ; especially artificial communication of small-pox formerly employed instead of vaccination. – Inoculator,…n., One who inoculates.
Thus (1) the Latin meaning of grafting one (living) tree-eye or bud into another tree has nothing to do with the practice of injecting foreign (morbid / dead) substances into people; (2) medical-inoculation means generally to infect or to contaminate; and (3) vaccination and inoculation are mutually exclusive, thus directly contradicting the same word as used in the definition of Vaccinate in the same dictionary: Vaccinate….To inoculate with the cow-pox.
One reason for the confusion is because cow-pox is small-pox – or very close to it – with its potency reduced. The cows caught small-pox and survived, and then the weakened or dead small-pox virus would be injected into a human. Inoculation meant that a small-pox-virus diluted by other means was injected directly into a human and without having been pre-processed through a cow. To assert that to vaccinate henceforth means to inoculate with the cow-pox is not just non sequitur but a direct contradiction in terms.
And according to the on-line Encyclopedia Britannica (bolding added):
Cowpox disease, which is evident from the ulcers on the teats of cows, had been known as a disease of cows for hundreds of years; human cowpox occurred as a self-contained localized ulcer on the hands or at other sites where scratches or abrasions allowed entry of the virus.
The preventive effect of vaccination, or intentional inoculation with the vaccinia virus, was demonstrated by Edward Jenner in 1796, following the observation that milkmaids who had been infected by cowpox during milking subsequently were immune to smallpox.
During the 1980s, researchers discovered that rodents were also a natural reservoir for the [vaccinia] virus, and that rodents, not cattle, were responsible for most cowpox infections in humans.
The words and official stories are like constantly-mutating initial-impressions of people in the business of coming up with new definitions of old words to describe what they do – there is no logical connection or scheme by which to ascertain the accuracy or consistency of the alleged new meanings.
Also note the legitimate (by the word “or” in the definition) and alternative construction of :
 “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 small-pox virus varient after it has been contracted by a cow, but which can directly infect either cows or humans. The virus does not make a moo sound after it infects a cow – it is still a form of small-pox with a different label. The bare-word-association started in 1796 when Edward Jenner noticed that a milk-maid who had contracted cow-pox was apparently immune to small-pox. So shouldn’t it be called the milk-maid-virus? And how could a milk-maid get it at all, for that matter, if it is a cow-pox? And what about the rodents loitering around in the barns with the cows? Did the rats infect the cows who then infected the humans? Is there a difference between what the Britannica calls human cowpox, and human ratpox? Confused?
To make things easy, go straight to the third definition:
 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 purports to protect against computer software viruses (which of course are not viruses at all – unless you choose to label them as such – for marketing purposes or otherwise).
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 created with the intent of injecting it into the body of a human or animal, 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 as a preventative-inoculation against future offences.
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  “A model of automobile produced by the Ford Motor Company”.
Then, say, 20-years later, the government issues an order requiring all horse-ranchers to inject their Mustangs with a new drug because blood-tests have revealed that their oil-pressure is too low.
Seemingly well-educated professionals do not seem to grasp that you cannot mix-and-match the definitions of old words given arbitrary (non sequitur) new meanings.
The highest form of that art is the word person. For centuries the word had only one de facto meaning (in the minds of the masses – they got it exactly backward but that is another issue):
Person – noun, A being-of-conscience created by a higher-power.
Then some clever humans decided to add another and wholly contrary meaning:
Person – noun, (1) A being-of-conscience created by a higher-power ; (2) A legal-construct or corporation / legal-person owned as the property of its shareholders.
Those are two entirely different things that have no more to do with each other than a cow-pox-virus and a malicious-computer-software-program.
No sane man or woman would mix-and-match the definitions, and most certainly not with respect to anything truly important and that ultimately affects virtually everyone on Earth. That would be truly insane. You could end up believing that horses can have low-oil-pressure or most anything else that is beyond-absurd.
See also: Supreme Court of the United States, Re: Citizens United.
At the time, someone asked me: What does Citizens United mean? I replied that it means that the members of the Supreme Court are clinically-insane by existing medical and psychiatric standards.
If someone had managed to hit the judges with a combination lucid-interval-and-truth-ray just before they announced their decision in Citizens United, here is what we may have got instead:
We here at the Supreme Court are part of what can be fairly and broadly referred to as an arm of the entrenched-money-power.
At certain times and under certain circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the masses that corporations be natural-persons-in-law with the rights, powers and privileges of a natural-person or living being-of-conscience.
At other times and other circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the masses that corporations be items of property that can be actively bought and sold and traded for profit in the stock and financial markets.
Your laughable naiveté is manifest in your expectation that you are going to receive a definitive answer from this Court, or even that it is possible for us to give you one. Among the foundational purposes of this Court is to actively prevent that question from being answered definitively at all. The instant we give a definitive answer, the game is over.
Whatever answer we give you must perpetuate the systematized-delusion that the same concept (corporate personhood) can mean either X (a living being-of-conscience), or minus-X (an item of property), depending on the ever-changing needs of the decision-maker.
So our current answer is that a corporation is a natural-person-in-law with the rights, powers and privileges of a natural-person, except when it isn’t. We’ll let you know next time whether that situation has changed in the meantime.
Essentially all really-important-words or terms are in practice such counter-sense or contra-sense words / terms that are adaptable to that same template. Notwithstanding that the respective concepts are logically and objectively mutually-exclusive, the judges of the Courts (and the broadly-defined financial-world / social-control-structure) maintain that it can be either or both, and we’ll let you know if and when it becomes important. They near-always do so by mixing-and-matching non sequitur definitions.
They are currently orchestrating-our-reality by applying the same oscillating-contradiction-technique to the word vaccine.
After all, why get a real-job, when you can obtain all the power-and-wealth-of-the-world playing word-and-mind-games for fun-and-profit?
Here below is the ground-zero chain-of-reasoning employed by the keenest-legal-minds in Canada in 1989, and then unanimously-ratified by the members of its Supreme Court in 1990, and which was then exported internationally via international treaties and corporate level-playing-field policies.
Pay close attention because they are referring to the foundational international-anti-money-laundering and anti-racketeering-law, and, by total amount, all debt in the world today has been created-in-fact in direct reliance upon or through this decision as so ratified:
There is no doubt that the corporate plaintiff committed an offence under [the criminal law] [and] The parties… acted on the advice of their… solicitors…. [described elsewhere by the trial judge as “two leading [major city] law firms”]
and / but
…[The criminal law], … provides only for punishment of persons [who violate the criminal law].. but does not prohibit agreements providing for [the violation of the criminal law]….
“The purpose of [the criminal law] is to punish everyone who [violates the criminal law] …It does not expressly prohibit such behaviour, nor does it declare such a [criminal] agreement or arrangement to be void. The penalty is severe, and designed to deter persons from making such [criminal] agreements. … It is designed to protect [the victims of it]… It is not designed to prevent persons from entering into [contractual agreements] per se…. Therefore the agreement [which the Court / judges have found and acknowledged to be contrary and offensive to the criminal law, and which criminal law is a designated / international racketeering offence] is not fundamentally illegal.”
The Courts then enforced the criminal contract, and gave the criminal / offending plaintiff everything that it claimed and asked for. See also: Precedent.
From 1990 to 2021 “criminal and racketeering but not fundamentally illegal” became, and remains, the de facto international mantra of corporate crime.
But even that is subordinate to the larger absurdity staring us all in the face, but which we have been rendered cogno-linguistically-incapable of perceiving. Filling in the details of the Courts’ findings of fact:
There is no doubt that the corporate plaintiff [Thomson Associates Inc., and directly funded by the CIBC [bank]] committed an offence under s. 347(1)(a) [of the Criminal Code] by entering into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate… [and] The parties… acted on the advice of their… solicitors…. [described elsewhere by the trial judge as “two leading Toronto law firms”]
A corporation is a legal-construct – a piece-of-paper if you will. A corporation can no more commit a mens rea criminal offence, than a gun can commit murder.
Guns don’t murder people, people do (I do not like guns but that is not the issue).
Corporations don’t commit criminal offences, people do. What people? The people calling themselves directors, executive officers, officers, employees and other actual or constructive agents of the corporation / piece-of-property / piece-of-paper.
Corporations have the legal-capacity of a non compos mentis (not mentally competent) natural-person – like an infant or a man or woman in a coma. That is why their affairs have to be administered by directors, officers, employees and other de facto agents and trustees.
In this particular case the facts established Mr. Willian E. Thompson and the aggregate members of his two leading Toronto law firms as major international organised crime figures – and righty so.
They did not just violate one criminal law statute – but at least a dozen others falsifying the securities to conceal it, and conversion / money-laundering to divvy up the proceeds. They all knew and understood that they were committing fraud, forgery, racketeering, and – above all -Counselling (by the solicitors) to commit multiple enterprise-crime / organized-crime / racketeering offences.
Regardless, if the judges of the Courts – from the trial Court all the way to a unanimous Supreme Court – were to rule and hold that a gun, per se, had committed murder, then the masses would recognize that said judges are, at a minimum, dangerously incompetent.
But if the same judges, as here, take the same essential and material legal-elements and findings-of-fact to conclude that an inanimate-legal-construct committed a mens rea criminal act – then nobody even notices the non sequitur – let alone the prima facie insanity of it. Why is that?
Because the concept of corporate-personhood is the primary cogno-linguistic device by which the masses of humanity have been rendered cognitively-dyslexic and incapable of recognizing a systematized-delusion even if their lives depended upon it.
A systematized-delusion is a false-premise followed by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion – a central delusion upon which other aberrations of the mind converge. Welcome to Earth – owned and operated by professional-schizophrenics who genuinely believe and embrace whatever answer they need.
The lethal-danger to humanity lies in the fact that not one of those judges was even capable of recognizing the prima facie insane substance of their ruling, either at the front-end (There is no doubt the corporate entity / piece-of-paper committed a mens rea criminal offence) or at the back-end (criminal / racketeering offences are not illegal).
In the case of either country’s supreme court, imagine that they are presented with a new-born-infant and a piece-of-paper / incorporation-document, and their response is that they cannot tell the difference because they are both labelled a “person”. Not even a genuine village-idiot could pretend to be that profoundly stupid.
Basically, our lives depend upon our ability to grasp that these people – and the entire global control-structure are not corrupt – they genuinely believe it because it is the answer that they need.
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 public contain 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-nominal-vaccine, if you add, say, cyanide or other poison to it, it would still be defined as a vaccine.
If it is one-part something labelled or marketed as a patented-covid-virus, and nine-parts enhanced-gene-therapy or some other gain-of-function substance, then it is still a vaccine by definition.
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 (i.e., and not vice versa).
2,000 or so years later, the word porcine still means “Pertaining to pigs” and it has no other alleged meaning. If you tell someone that a test-tube contains a porcine blood-sample, then they will understand that it comes from a pig.
The same 2,000 or so years later, the word vaccine is still an adjective that means “Pertaining to cows”. But if you tell someone that a test-tube contains a vaccine blood-sample, you will at best confuse the hell out of them, because the word is also alleged to have acquired multiple alternative meanings as a noun that apply to anything that the manufacturer of it chooses to label as a vaccine.
That is why the on-line OED defines vaccine as  “a software program” – it is because the manufacturer chose to label it 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. And the masses believe it because, well, it is being injected into their bodies, and must therefore be a vaccine.
The official stories are so full of circular-references that it difficult to read or listen to them without getting as dizzy as the people propagating them.
Vaccine – Pertaining to cows, see also manure (vaccinus excrementum).
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.
But what about the current-alleged verb form? Why would anyone want to take an adjective meaning “Of, or pertaining to cows” and transmogrify it into a verb? Literally translated, to assert that someone is being vaccinated means that they are being cowed. According to Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1860 ed) the verb (To) cow means:
COW, v. t. [Qu. Ice. kufika, or kuga, to depress] To depress with fear ; to sink the spirits or courage ; To oppress with habitual timidity. Shak.
That might even be interpreted as arrogant-and-overconfident language-manipulators laughing in our faces while they spoon-feed us vaccinus excrementum.
If reading all of the above causes you cognitive-dissonance, or otherwise exercises your brain in a way that it is not used to, then don’t worry – it will all go away once you are cured of being unvaccinated.
Soon no one will be left uncowed.
Timothy Paul Madden, forensic financial economist, and historian of equity, law, and policy.
From The Doubter’s Companion, by J. R. Saul ↑
A “natural-person” is a contradiction in terms because all “persons” are created by law and not otherwise. But that is yet another cognitive-firewall and / or example of cognitive-dyslexia, and / but I will play-along with the fiction to the contrary here and for the time-being. ↑
Citizens’ United is the U.S. case that decided that corporate political donations are protected free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because corporations are deemed to be persons in law. The Court ruled that corporate persons have to have the same 1st Amendment rights as their shareholders. It apparently never occurred to any of the judges to ask how a piece of paper determines which political party to support. Citizens United is so profoundly and literally stupid as to defy belief, or mine anyway. ↑
Thomson, (William E.) Associates Inc. v. Carpenter  34 O.A.C. 365. ↑