Sharyl Attkisson: “Anti-Vaxxer” a Very Effective Propaganda Tool

“Definitions now are being rewritten and changed in real-time to fit…whatever the establishment wants people to think,” says five-time Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson. The term “anti-vaxxine” is now used to describe anybody who is opposed to vaccine mandates. In this episode, we discuss how propagandists have taken control of the information landscape.


MINISTRY of TRUTH


TECHNO FROG details the CDC’s emails discussing changing the term “vaccination”

The CDC caused an uproar in early September 2021, after it changed its definitions of “vaccination” and “vaccine.” For years, the CDC had set definitions for vaccination/vaccine that discussed immunity. This all changed on September 1, 2021.

The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021:

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

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

People noticed. Representative Thomas Massie was among the first to discuss the change, noting the definition went from “immunity” to “protection”.

[….]

CDC emails we obtained via the Freedom of Information Act reveal CDC worries with how the performance of the COVID-19 vaccines didn’t match the CDC’s own definition of “vaccine”/“vaccination”. The CDC’s Ministry of Truth went hard at work in the face of legitimate public questions on this issue…..

(READ IT ALL)

Another note on the Merriam Webster (Ditionary) change to “Vaccine” is elucidated by DECEPTION, SELF-DECEPTION, & DEFACTUALIZATION — who has an excellent subtitle to the site: “Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.” Funny and sad at the same time.

Paraphrasing George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ to illustrate a simple concept my mother drummed into my head from as far back as I can remember, ‘Words mean things.’

In his other memorable offering, ‘1984,’ Orwell used a construct called “Newspeak” as a means for his dystopian government to control thought. It did so by limiting the number of words available with which to articulate thought. I suppose elimination of words was to the author a simpler method to use in fiction when compared to that which has been employed in fact by those who seek to control our thoughts and our acceptance of their agendas.

The current pathway to achieving Orwell’s objective in what we like to think of as ‘the real world’ is to keep the words but change their meaning. There can be no more glaring example than Merriam Webster’s treatment of the word ‘vaccine.’ One day the word referred to a substance administered to an individual in order to convey immunity and to stop the spread of a disease. Overnight it was expanded to include Gene Therapy.

Consider the difference this small addition makes. The pushback against ‘vaccine’ is growing in scope and strength, fueled primarily by the revelation that it is not a vaccine but in fact is gene therapy. Now, with the stroke of a pen, it is also a vaccine. For the propagandists this neutralizes all argument based on whether or not the government is being truthful in its vaccine regulations, mandates and other pronouncements. Now that gene therapy is a vaccine it is no longer a lie. Advantage Orwell.

Consider VAERS, that trove of information on the negative aspects of vaccines. This is a useful compilation of information but also illustrates our government’s approach to the entire subject. When reports are helpful to the official narrative they are akin to gospel but when they provide data that runs counter to the narrative they are false information. My reaction to the government’s self-serving position on VAERS is like that of Enid Strict, SNL’s Church lady, “Well, isn’t that special?”….

(READ IT ALL)

FOX NEWS covers the change in “Anti-Vaxxer” in the Merriam Webster dictionary as well, saying,

Merriam-Webster’s online definition of “anti-vaxxer” is spreading on social media this month amid outrage over vaccine mandates. The definition of the term was first added to the online dictionary in 2018 and was updated in late September.

“Redefine words all you want Merriam Webster, but WORDS STILL HAVE MEANING. By this definition, you aren’t pro-vaccine unless you believe the government should force everyone to get a medical procedure?” Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’s press secretary, Christina Pushaw, tweeted Wednesday morning.

Fox News examined Merriam-Webster’s current definition of “anti-vaxxer” compared to its definition from 2018, and found it omitted the word “laws” in favor of “regulations.” The definition still states, however, that an “anti-vaxxer” includes people who oppose such rules on vaccinations or the vaccines, themselves.

“Definition of anti-vaxxer: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination,” Merriam-Webster’s website currently states, noting that it was updated on Sept. 29, 2021.

The definition of “anti-vaxxer” was previously defined, according to an archived definition from 2018 examined by Fox News, as: “A person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination.”

Editor at large of Merriam-Webster.com, Peter Sokolowski, told PoltiFact in May – after outrage first cropped up over the definition – that the word was first added in 2018.

At the time, Sokolowski said the definition remained unchanged from 2018.

Merriam-Webster did not immediately respond to Fox News’s request for comment on why the definition was updated on Sept. 29.

Fox News also examined the definition of “anti-vaxxer” in the New Oxford American dictionary and found it does not include language on mandates, laws or regulations.

“A person who is opposed to vaccination, typically a parent who does not wish to vaccinate their child,” the New Oxford American dictionary states.

After the definition was criticized over the summer, critics have taken to Twitter to lambaste the definition again following its update last month.

[….]

And of course the CDC changes what is required to be considered “vaccinated” regarding Covid Shots — RIGHT SCOOP:

What do you call it when they create an endless set of steps you have to take to remain a part of society? Because that is what is happening. Think about what we’re being told.

We’re told to stay inside and do nothing until there’s a vaccine and then when we get it we can finally start returning to normal life. Except after the vaccines, they say it’s not enough, keep wearing masks and staying six feet apart and also a bunch of industries and private businesses will have to remain out of work.

That’s not good enough for them, though. So, every day someone on cable news, often CNN’s “Dr.” Wen but often just commentators or even reporters and anchors, goes on air and says how we aren’t harsh enough to unvaxxed, they have to be punished more, they have to be driven from society further. That’s still happening every day.

Except vaccination isn’t vaccination, is it? You have to get a booster too. The covid regime forever……

(READ IT ALL)

 

Gregg Jarrett Documents 6-Lies To The FISA Court

Gregg Jarrett filled in for Sean Hannity on Friday (11-27-19) and discussed aspects of the FISA Warrants I am sure many do not know. All of this can be found in his book, “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History“.

I add a quote from HotAir (just pass the 8-minute mark) discussing the New York Times saying the Steele Dossier is garbage and probably Russian propaganda. But this is after two years of them using it as “Gospel Truth” – here is that and a couple other noteworth articles:

  • NY Times: Say, This Steele Dossier Appears To Be False (And Maybe Was A Russian Disinformation Effort) (HOT AIR)
  • If This New York Times Reporter Suspected the Dossier Was a Fraud Why Is He Only Reporting on It Now (RED STATE)
  • NYT Finally Acknowledges That Steele Dossier Might Not Be That Factual (DAILY WIRE)
  • WTF MSM!? NY Times Admits the Dossier May Have Been a Russian Disinformation Operation (THE BLAZE)

At any rate, this is a great pre-cursor to the December 9th IG Report… which will be followed up by clarifications from Durham, surely.

Obamacare `Success` Story (e.g., Propaganda)

Reality and the re-Tweeting of Chad’s “success” story (see WaPo for instance) are two different things. The first being is that he is paying a lot more (Washington Examiner):

American media outlets were finally able to track down a mythical creature — a person who actually signed up for the Obamacare exchanges online.

But that person, Chad Henderson, admitted to the Washington Post that the premium for the plan he enrolled in was $175. Ouch! Wasn’t Obamacare supposed to lower premiums?

Henderson’s going to pay a $175 premium and he won’t even receive vision or dental insurance. He has contacts, so not having vision insurance is kind of a bum deal.

Henderson, as far as we know a healthy, 21-year-old college student at Chattanooga State Community College who lives in Flintstone, Ga., and works part-time at a day-care center, did not qualify for tax credits to purchase insurance, according to the Post.

Without Obamacare, Henderson could have received health insurance for as little as $44.72 on eHealthInsurance.com, according to Michael F. Cannon of the Cato Institute.

“I can’t yet say whether Chad’s $175 premium is the lowest-cost plan available to him through the Obamacare Exchange,” Cannon said. “[I’m in the process of researching that, and it’ll probably take a few hours.] But it’s probably close.”

Thanks to Obamacare’s community-rating price controls that take effect in 2014, Henderson’s cheapest plan option on eHealthInsurance jumped up to $190.23.

…read more…

See Twitchy!

The above shows something else in Chad’s “success” story. HotAir has this:

…Rothman was convinced they would properly vet The Only Man In America With ObamaCare Exchange Insurance … at least until he wasn’t:

Chances are you will soon be hearing the name Chad Henderson and his heroic story of enrolling successfully in a health care exchange. His is a saga of hope and redemption. If Chad can do it, maybe the millions of other healthy young people needed to sustain this program can too.

UPDATE: It turns out Henderson’s knowledge of OFA was not the result of his astuteness or political acumen. According to his LinkedIn profile, he is a current OFA volunteer. Maybe those many media outlets who spoke with him will make note of this seemingly relevant fact.

OFA? You mean Organizing for America, which spent the last year stuffing e-mail inboxes with an avalanche of missives about just how easy and wonderful ObamaCare would be? That OFA?

It’s not just OFA, by the way, but also his past record of Democratic Party activism that the media should have noted. Henderson either is now or recently has been the President of the Walker County Young Democrats, depending on how updated his LinkedIn summary is. Shouldn’t that have been disclosed along with the miracle of his successful registration this week?

But hey, the mainstream media has lots of editors and fact-checkers. I’m sure they’ll get around to it. (via Doug Powers at the Boss Emeritus’ place).

…read more…

Propaganda Busted!

UPDATE:

Busted! Media’s Obamacare Poster Boy Chad Henderson Never Purchased An Obamacare Health Insurance Plan

The media’s poster boy and Organizing For America’s volunteer, Chad Henderson, admits he never signed up for an Obamacare plan. Enroll America praised Chad as someone who had successfully purchased insurance coverage on HealthCare.Gov. Washington Post spoke with Chad’s father who said he did not believe Chad signed up for healthcare coverage.

To Occupy Or Not To Occupy-That Is the Question [Answered] ~ Propaganda Is the Name of the Game

They are going home to their snug/warm beds with the heat on probably paid for by their evil, capitalist parents.

Via The Blaze

Over the past couple weeks, The Blaze has received reports that some NYC Occupy protesters have been leaving their tents at night and fleeing to a local hotel for better accommodations. And while we’re still investigating those claims, it seems now there’s evidence of something similar going on in London. The Daily Mail has published thermal imaging pictures showing that the tents at the Occupy camp near St. Paul’s Cathedral are nearly empty at night. The Daily Mail commissioned the photographs itself after images from a police helicopter showed similar findings.

….Here’s how the Telegraph explains its findings:

The footage, shot at 1230am on Tuesday Oct 25 shows a multitude of darkly coloured tents around the courtyard indicating those that were unoccupied.

On Monday the revelation was described as a “charade” and pressure was growing on the church and other authorities to evict the camp.

It would appear most of the protesters are heading home to sleep in their own beds at night rather than staying onsite.

“It is like a phantom camp – a big charade,” Matthew Richardson, a Corporation of London councillor, told the Telegraph…..

Anti-Israeli Sentiments at U.N. and NYT Exemplified (Goldstone Report-plus-Samantha Powers Bias Revisited)

Camera.org, a highly recommended site for bias against Israel in the media, reports on the retraction of the Goldstone Report that needs to be inculcated into the psyche of bloggers in preparation to answer the liberals who still cite this report which most rejected when it came out (save the liberal U.N. backers and anti-Semites around the world). As Camera comments on this about-face:

In examining the New York Times’ record on the Goldstone report, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that the newspaper is more interested in promoting as credible an investigation that even its leader has repudiated than in objectively reporting on its shortcomings. Unfortunately, this is unsurprising coming from a media outlet that is increasingly moving from objective news reporting to advocacy journalism.

…(read more)…

Richard Cohen weighs in on Goldstone’s retraction in the Washington Post after mentioning that Israel, in contradistinction to its cultural mores, was “accused of deliberately targeting civilians during its brutal 2008-09 war with Hamas.” He continues:

That accusation was contained in a report to the United Nations by Richard Goldstone, an eminent South African judge who had been used by the international community previously to investigate war crimes. That Goldstone was also a Jew and a Zionist made the charge all the more powerful.

Now, though, Goldstone has retracted his findings. He no longer believes that Israel intentionally targeted civilians during the Gaza war (although he still believes Hamas did) and says that any deaths were inadvertent — the usual fog of war, the usual panicked decision. For Israel, it’s like the governor has called the warden — it’s been reprieved and taken off death row.

Once again, rockets are being fired into southern Israel from Gaza, some of them going up the coast as far as Ashkelon, a major city and port. Before the last war, from April 2001 to the end of 2008, 4,246 rockets and 4,180 mortar rounds were fired into Israel, killing 14 Israelis and wounding more than 400. The rockets have since been improved. Should more than the occasional rocket actually make it all the way to Ashkelon (one came close Monday) or should one of them come down on a school, another war with Hamas would start a moment or two later. Israel has already hit back, but not in force. In addition, a West Bank settler family of five was recently murdered in their home by what are universally thought to be Palestinians. This, too, has put Israel on edge.

…(read more)…

This resending of the report has consequences reverberating towards the Obama Administration that should be highlighted in the 2012 Elctions. In fact, it has even caused the likes of Rabbi Schmuley Botech to comment on Samantha Powers (someone whom I just blogged on as well), he says the following:

On my recent lecture tour in South Africa the subject of Judge Richard Goldstone came up quite a lot. Whether it was the dinner in Johannesburg at the home of Chabad head Rabbi David Masinter where acquaintances of the judge were in attendance, or at Sea Point Synagogue, South Africa’s largest, where I lectured and whose Rabbi, Dovid Weinberg, had officiated at Goldstone’s grandson’s Bar Mitzvah in Johannesburg, or my speech for Chabad of Cape Town and later in Pretoria, the man whom the media describes as a ‘respected international jurist’ and who had falsely accused Israel of war crimes was never far from anyone’s lips.

South Africans are among the world’s proudest Jews and most ardent Zionists. So it was understandable that they would detest Goldstone, viewing him as a traitor to his people, a man who engaged in a blood libel against the Jewish state in order to enhance his standing at the United Nations.

I have personally never agreed with this assessment of Goldstone, seeing him instead as one of Lenin’s ‘useful idiots,’ a man so full of his own pomposity and self-righteousness as to be utterly blind to simple notions of right and wrong. Like Jimmy Carter before him, Goldstone is one of those well-meaning ignoramuses whose view of morality is that whichever is the party without tanks and an air force must be the party who is just. This knee-jerk reaction to always champion the underdog, notwithstanding their evil actions explains the shockingly obvious statement in Goldstone’s recent Washington Post apology to Israel in which he wrote, “In the end, asking Hamas to investigate [its own crimes] may have been a mistaken enterprise.” It took a famous judge three years to come to the conclusion that asking a terrorist organization hell-bent on exterminating Israel to impartially report its own atrocities was not his brightest idea.

[….]

Much more troubling, however, are the comments attributed to Samantha Power, the rising star of the Obama Administration who is being discussed as a replacement for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. I am a huge fan of Power’s 2002 book A Problem from Hell, detailing how America refused to intervene to stop repeated genocides in the twentieth century. I have repeatedly extolled the Pulitzer-prize winning book in lectures and columns and believe it should be required reading by every American High School student. I was also not surprised to read that it was Power who was instrumental in persuading an always reluctant President Obama to intervene in Libya to stop Gaddafi from slaughtering his people. It was therefore with considerable sadness that I learned of Power’s troubling statements on Israel, comments that require her immediate clarification lest she compromise her own moral credibility. American Thinker and other publications have reported that Power said that the United States should send in a massive military force to protect the Palestinians from Israel. And that she maligned the American pro-Israel lobby with her advocacy of “alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import [the pro-Israel lobby] and… sacrificing…billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine.” Is Power really arguing for greatly reducing or eliminating American military aid to Israel and channeling it instead to the Palestinians who have repeatedly used foreign aid to foster hatred of Jews in schools, line the pockets of corrupt officials, and promote terrorism?

There is more, with Power seemingly criticizing the New York Times in 2003 for being insufficiently critical of Israel after it attacked terrorist-saturated Jenin. Of Israel’s presence in Lebanon, Power wrote in her book, Chasing the Flame, that what sparked Israel’s invasion of Lebanon was “dispossessed Palestinians and Israeli insecurity,” where in truth Israel invaded Lebanon to stop the incessant stream of rocket attacks that terrorized its northern cities. The phrase ‘Israeli insecurity’ implies that Israel is paranoid rather than reflecting the reality of a Lebanon dominated by Hezbollah, whose genocidal aim is the destruction of Israel.

…(read more)…

One should take note that while the New York Times is about as bad as they get, it is not taxpayer funded like NPR (National Public Radio)! Here is an example of the bias found at NPR on this matter, followed by a video of the European Union voting on March 10th of 2010, adopting the Goldstone Report:

NPR:

  • 18,321 words in pro-Arab only segments;
  • 4,934 words in pro-Israel segments.

Bias in number of Arab-only vs Israeli-only segments:

  • 63-percent Palestinian/pro-Arab only segments;
  • 37-percent Israel/pro-Israel segments.

You may contact this European Parliment member, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, via email to enquirer why she supported such bad reporting and took the positions she did in the above video – “knowing now what we did then [at least reasonable people].” – annemie.neyts-uyttebroeck@europarl.europa.eu