This is very interesting to note, and important to understand. If you can change the meaning of words, you change how people perceive reality.
Much of what we think about comes from what we think or perceive is in reality. We don't know some things, or many things, we only get provided information about it. But that information is often manipulated to convey a certain perspective meant to shape how we see the world.
The past 1.5 years has seen an obvious manipulation of human consciousness, or attempt to do that, and for the most part it's been successful. This has been helped with changing definitions to claim something is happening when it isn't. Here are some noteworthy changes to keep in mind, as posted here
Most are unaware that a month before the H1N1 “pandemic”, the WHO changed the definition of the word “pandemic” to fit the prevailing narrative.
Pre-2009 definition:
“An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”
Post-2009 definition:
“An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity.”
What happens when the need for your vaccine is undermined by the ability to achieve herd immunity through natural infection? Simple, change the definition of “herd immunity” to make it all about vaccination!
Original definition:
“Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”
Updated 2020 definition:
“‘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. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.
What happens when people question your motives behind developing experimental gene therapies and passing them off as “vaccines”? Change the definition of “vaccine”, of course!
What happens when your “vaccine” utterly fails to provide “immunity” to the “disease” it was developed to combat? Change the definition again!
Pre-2015 definition:
“Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease.”
2015-2021 definition:
“The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
September 2021 definition:
“The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.”
What happens when you lie through your teeth about funding dodgy “gain of function” research at a certain lab in Wuhan and then get found out? Change the entire name and meaning of “gain of function research”, duh!
Indeed, Fauci’s NIH scrubbed all mention of “gain of function” from their website and replaced it with an entirely made-up term – “Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens” (ePPP).
Pre-October 2021 definition:
“The term gain-of-function (GOF) research describes a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent…. The subset of GOF research that is anticipated to enhance the transmissibility and/or virulence of potential pandemic pathogens, which are likely to make them more dangerous to humans, has been the subject of substantial scrutiny and deliberation.“
Post-October 2021 definition:
“On limited occasions, when justified by compelling public health need and conducted in very high biosecurity laboratories, NIH has supported certain 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. The U.S. Government and the Department of Health and Human Services define such research as enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (ePPP) research. NIH-supported ePPP research requires strict oversight and may only be conducted with appropriate biosafety and biosecurity measures… While such research is inherently risky and requires strict oversight, the risk of not doing this type of research and not being prepared for the next pandemic is also high.”
