Language vs. Truth

Does language have the power to change truth?

Per previous articles, language and definitions are a fundamental aspect of why we are where we are. Never mind research papers, graphs, charts, data sets. The simple act of defining Covid-19 gene therapies as “vaccines” is the one fundamental act that has enabled the human race to render degrees of harm upon itself, the scale of which will take years to fully realise.

The situation is so bad and the potential consequences so huge that I believe that the majority of the human race doesn’t have the emotional capacity to face them. Denialism is alive and well, because everyone who took a Covid-19 gene therapy has to cope with the possibility that they hurt themselves and their families. Who wants to face that reality? Far, far easier to ignore and deny causality for your heart attack, myocarditis, blood clot, neurological issue etc and put it down to bad luck. Do not even dare to look at the increasing frequency and volume of such injury and death and a lowering of the average age of such phenomenon. Literally, “there’s nothing that I want to see here.”

Let’s revisit the linguistic mechanisms for a second, and then consider how truth factors in, if it does.

Definition of “vaccine”

Easier and quicker to refer to someone else’s work here. See this court filing by plaintiff DEVAN GRINER, MD v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity as the President of the United States of America; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; XAVIER BECERRA in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES; CHIQUITA BROOKS-LASURE in her official capacity as Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; MEENA SESHAMANI in her official capacity as Deputy Administrator and Director of Center for Medicare; and DANIEL TSAI in his official capacity as Deputy Administrator and Director of Centerfor Medicaid and CHIP Services; Defendants.

Yep, you read that right. One MD versus the US President and the United States of America. David and Goliath eat your heart out.

Griner’s case is against the CMS mandate that seeks to force him to take a gene therapy in order to practise medicine. The case deals specifically with language, definition and classification (my bold):

5. However, the CMS Mandate must be struck down because:

i. The overwhelming evidence shows that the Injections do not prevent transmission, infection, or reinfection in those who receive them.

ii. The CDC Director has admitted that the Injections do not prevent infection or transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that has been identified by various public health agencies as causing the disease known as COVID-19. “[W]hat [the vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”

iii. The CDC has acknowledged that the “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” are equally likely to spread the virus.

iv. The Injections do not confer immunity but are claimed to reduce the severity of symptoms experienced by those infected by SARS-CoV-2. They are, therefore, treatments and not vaccines as that term has always been defined in the law. In fact, the CDC has actually changed its definitions of “vaccine” and “vaccination” so that the Injections would fit within the new definition. Until recently, the Centers for Disease Control defined a “Vaccine” as: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”

vi. The CDC also previously defined “Vaccination” as: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”

vii. Both prior definitions fit the common understanding of those terms. To be vaccinated meant that the recipient should have lasting, robust immunity to the disease targeted by the vaccine.

viii. But on September 1, 2021, the CDC quietly rewrote these definitions. It changed the definition of a “Vaccine” to: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” It changed the definition of “Vaccination” to: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to protection from a specific disease.”

ix. Thus, the CDC has eliminated the word “immunity” from its definitions of “Vaccine” and “Vaccination.” Upon information and belief, the CDC did so because it recognizes that the Injections do not produce immunity to the disease known as COVID-19.

x. This is a critical factual and legal distinction. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to refuse medical treatment is a fundamental human right. Since the Injections do not stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as a matter of fact, they are not “vaccines” as a matter of law. Instead, they are a therapeutic or medical treatment which Dr. Griner has the fundamental human right to refuse.

The above is clear and straightforward, and well understood by many who consider themselves “awake” but given an extremely wide berth by those in power and their lackeys.

This is an example of how language is used to redefine reality itself, and therefore truth itself. But how deep does this reality re-engineering go and is it deep enough to affect truth?

What is reality now?

In the context of Covid-19 gene therapies “reality” partly depends upon two basic things:

1. What knowledge a party has;

2. The powers of enforcement.

I know that Griner’s claims are correct because I have kept abreast of sufficient information, research and evidence to know that Covid-19 gene therapies are not vaccines and are unsafe and ineffective, regardless of their label or definition.

I have no powers of enforcement. The only thing I can do is refuse to take the products and suffer whatever consequences others with greater power enforce upon me. I might be able to persuade others, but I cannot force any reality onto anyone else.

So, it could be argued that a dominant version of reality to which I am still subject is that I am refusing to take a vaccine whose safety and efficacy is “as marketed” by those with the powers of enforcement. This sounds like nonsense but it isn’t. This is a key mechanism of perception control.

This situation is exactly what existed in Mao’s China, the USSR and what exists around the globe at all times in varying forms and degrees. “Reality” is not stable, certain, or absolute. It is a product of multiple factors and powers, including information or the lack of it. It is also subjective. My reality is not yours, no matter how close we are. Something in your past, your mind, your knowledge base, information sources, belief system, values and another’s ability to enforce something upon you determines your version of reality, and it will be different to mine.

Has truth been affected?

Consider the CDC’s previous definitions:

Until recently, the Centers for Disease Control defined a “Vaccine” as: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”

The truth of Covid-19 gene therapies, as demonstrated by their actual published performance and the supposed prevalence of Covid-19 diagnoses is that:

• They do not result in immunity to Covid-19;

• They do not protect people from Covid-19.

Some people would argue that they reduce the severity of symptoms and the likelihood of hospitalisation. However, they will not be able to produce evidence to back those claims with certainty and will not be able to show a methodology by which such evidence was acquired. At best, they will quote a model that asserts these claims with no evidence or estimates based upon comparing numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated experiencing disease conditions. Unfortunately, it is the vaccinated who are “suffering” repeat infections, some of which could simply be the effect and detection of ongoing spike production in their systems, if spike protein induces symptoms and is detectable on current PCR. Repeat infection could also be the product of vaccine-induced Original Antigenic Sin, Antibody Dependent Enhancement and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

vi. The CDC also previously defined “Vaccination” as: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”

Again, the truth is that “vaccination” with Covid-19 gene therapies does not produce immunity to Covid-19.

The basis for my claims of truth are any and all governmental and manufacturer data sets, trial results and real world performance of these products, along with the open admissions of governments, manufacturers and philanthropaths to that effect. They don’t produce immunity to Covid-19, per the previous definition of “Vaccine” and “Vaccination”.

But, against the new definition, how does the truth stack up?

“Vaccine” to: “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

Hmm. It’s close, and comes down to some technical wrangling. When injected, Covid-19 gene therapies seem to trigger measurable antibody titers against a version of Spike protein in the bloodstream. So, on the surface, that fits this definition, right?

Not quite. If you want to be able to say that Covid-19 gene therapies trigger an immune response against Covid-19 - an airborne respiratory virus - you have to know with certainty that:

• whatever antibody response is elicited is actually mechanistically involved in the defence against the SARS-CoV-2 virus and resultant disease; and

• the antibodies act effectively where it matters; and

• there is a direct correlation between the presence and quantity of those antibodies with disease progression.

Guess what? The above hasn’t been fully proven. It is assumed that blood borne B-cell antibodies seemingly induced by Covid-19 gene therapies have an effect on disease progression. But, as has been pointed out for a long time, this isn’t proven with certainty. Even the UK government admitted in its own reports that this mechanistic relationship wasn’t proven but assumed through correlation. Literally, it was claiming that correlation equalled causation.

“Vaccination”: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.”

Against this current definition, Covid-19 gene therapies fall short. They do not protect from Covid-19 disease. Estimated or assumed reduction in symptoms that one may wish to causally attribute to Covid-19 gene therapies is not “protection from disease”, necessarily.

Truth hasn’t been re-engineered. Yet.

I argue that despite linguistic attempts to redefine reality and the use of powers that try to enforce that reality, the truth remains:

Whatever one wants to classify Covid-19 gene therapies as, they do not produce meaningfully effective immune response to or protection from Covid-19 disease.

How long will it take for truth to reassert itself against an enforced reality?

One way I would answer that question depends upon energy. How much energy (and therefore momentum) is contained within the system? In the Covid system there is an absolutely gigantic amount of energy, which can be measured directly in monetary terms. Almost all of the world’s money is pinned on the side of the narrative. That is almost all of the active momentum in the system acting on each and every person in the world to push them along and down, and it’s been working and continues to work to that effect.

That energy is coming out in a controlled, orchestrated and ongoing global release. Therefore, it can continue to act for probably an inestimable period of time.

Imagine a gas storage tank like this:

It contains a gigantic amount of energy. Tapped at a constant and controlled rate that gas can be put to long-lasting effect. The purpose to which it is put is up to those who own the gas. That could be useful industrial and domestic uses, or it could be used to poison people, for example.

If that gas tank represents all the energy behind the Covid narrative, waiting for it to all be released for its present purpose in a controlled manner, it gets us to the end station on a minority’s railroad into hell.

There are two choices: divert the railroad, or blow the tank.

Both choices are in play, but it still comes down to timing and one must accept an undeniable truth: if you manage to blow the tank, there will be collateral damage at least in the blast radius of the gas tank.

At this point, blowing the Covid narrative up will leave behind political voids and the present state of global economic damage, plus more.

There will be forms of power vacuum that will be filled in chaotic manner. They will occur around the world at various overlapping times. This will cause chaos in itself, and the existing minority power and vested interest will reconfigure and re-emerge having relabelled and rebranded itself. The money and the power won’t disappear and be destroyed. To believe so is utterly naive. You cannot clear out all the layers of corruption in any organisation and you can’t clear out meaningful amounts of it in a short time. Multiply that by every institution in the country and the world. Even revolutions do not achieve this. They just shift the paradigm and focus for a while, and the forces rebalance.

Meanwhile, increasing numbers of injured people will inherently retreat into their own tiny realities and lose their power to act against the system because their most pressing issue will be survival today and waking up tomorrow, in a time when healthcare systems radically diminish. This is now published NHS strategy. Like it or not, we have crossed the Rubicon and most people are still watching the Covid-19 slow motion car crash that was absolutely guaranteed from the outset.

A coming truth: the collapse of society?

According to UK figures, 44.5m UK citizens have dosed themselves with gene therapies, which is circa 65% of the total population.

Potentially all of them have reduced their lifespans and their ability to procreate as a result. The majority were not actually forced, so they must cope with the knowledge that they did it to themselves and they have zero access to recourse. This situation could lead to high levels of unpredictable behaviour, some of which may be grounded in nihilism. There will also be persistent mass denialism supported by ongoing broadcast propaganda that will increase further past this present point of incoherent insanity, to which many will still cling. Many others will simply refuse to entertain anything but their own coping narrative, whatever that version of reality is.

You can consider anyone suffering with conditions that make them unable to work as essentially "dead" in economic terms, and worse because they create drag demand on the state, health system and their immediate networks. Casualties are always costlier than kills.

Those 44.5m dosed are in every walk of life, so as they peel off they diminish every aspect of society, starting with health care itself because all the medics got dosed (assuming relative batch uniformity of baseline negative effects of the dose, rather than either dose range finding, or placebo, or batch specific payloads).

Over the next ten years, imagine 50% of that 44.5m becoming significantly, possibly debilitatingly ill with diseases that are a mixture of acute and chronic, resulting in the death of at least 10% of them within the next ten years. Turbocancer has been witnessed in healthcare systems since last year. There are clear mechanistic causal relationships between Covid-19 gene therapies and turbocancers, in published research.

Now add in reducing fertility amongst all of them (and possibly amongst the undosed for reasons I won’t go into here). Again, this is in published research and even manufacturer trial documents.

How much of UK society must economically die before society as we know it today collapses?

Winter of discontent 2? Except this time, it won’t just be the binmen who don’t turn up to work. People might have to dig their own graves and build their own caskets.

A Baseline became the desired form of life insurance for all of the remaining naturals. Unnaturals began to awaken to feelings of fatalistic spite and understood that even their late Baselines and class actions opened a second front that would hamstring the system and sap it of resources and capacity. Therefore, once known the idea could not become unknown without the masters having to literally destroy all meaningful vestiges of humanity in an attempt to erase the Baseline from history.

The awakening, spiteful unnaturals came to realise that they, their families and friends faced the same fate of impending death and began to embrace the same, nihilistic objective. Destitution would not last forever thanks to the now recognised deleterious gene therapies that sullied most of the world.

Baseliners: How the war was won

If that is a possible impending truth, is it worth blowing the gas tank?