What Does the Word "Unv-d" Mean?
... and other linguistic tricks.
This story is a quick collection of recent news and observations that caught my eye. I am of course in the middle of working on a philosophical piece (or three) but interesting bits keep popping up, and I want to quickly mention them so that you can go and dig as deep as you want.
First, let’s shed some light on an a very peculiar example of linguistic sloppiness. Namely, let’s talk about the famous “epidemic of the unv-d” and about what the word “unv-d” actually means, according to the CDC.
We’ve all heard about the epidemic of the unv-d. We’ve heard that in the U.S., the ICUs are filled with the squirming vermin who are begging doctors on their deathbeds to give them the shot, and that the heartbroken doctors sigh, shed a tear or two, and say, “Oh dear it’s too late now, I am so sorry but you have to die.” And then a fly on the wall, that just happened to be there in the hospital ward, flies and reports the tragedy to the New York Times, which then tells the world about the price that people pay for their reckless choices.
Now, let me ask you a question that may seem redundant and silly but please bear with me. What vaccination status comes to your mind when you hear the word “unv-d”? Is it a person who has not received a COVID injection at all?
Well, not so fast.
According to the CDC, a person within the first 14 days of the first dose of a two-dose v-e or the first dose of the one-dose v-e is considered unv-d. Same is true for anyone whose status is not available.
Anecdotally, I know a number of people who experienced COVID-like symptoms shortly after receiving the shot. Following the logic of the CDC’s definition, if they were to go to the hospital and test positive using a PCR test—which in itself is a work of art—well then, there we go! Another unvaccinated COVID patient to add to the list!
Let me quote the CDC directly (from an asterisk under a chart):
* Persons were considered fully vaccinated ≥14 days after receipt of the second dose in a 2-dose series (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines) or after 1 dose of the single-dose Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine; partially vaccinated ≥14 days after receipt of the first dose and <14 days after the second dose in a 2-dose series; and unvaccinated <14 days receipt of the first dose of a 2-dose series or 1 dose of the single-dose vaccine or if no vaccination registry data were available.
Is this good science?
To me, this is a bit like changing the definition of “murder” in the middle of a murder trial from “killing a person” to “killing a person or possibly insulting the person’s mother,” then formally indicting the suspect for murder based on a possible rude remark, and burying the new definition of “murder” in some obscure legal document that no normal person would ever look for—all while publishing a large number of eloquent articles in very popular newspapers about how the suspect was proven guilty of murder and officially indicted. That doesn’t feel right!!!
Now, let’s do an exercise and think about statistics in child-like terms. How many people ended up in the hospital with COVID-like symptoms shortly after receiving their first dose of a two-dose v-e or their one dose of a one-dose v-e? We don’t know! Was it a lot of people or just a handful people? We don’t know! Among the hospitalized COVID patients who have contributed to the “epidemic of the un-d”, have there been more proper vermin, or pseudo-under-14-days-vermin? We don’t know! And what is a “COVID patient,” anyway? Is it strictly a person who came to the hospital due to COVID-like symptoms—or is it also a person who has broken a leg and had a positive PCR test on admission? We don’t know! How many cycles did they use for the PCR test? We don’t know! Did the hospitals give a PCR test to all patients regardless of their assumed v-n status, or mostly to the “unv-d” patients? We don’t know!!!!! And finally, did the hospitals properly report all breakthrough cases? Allegedly not.
Having gone over the unknowns, what do we know? Well, we do know—and this is what the science tells us—that there is an epidemic of the unv-d.
[This kind of reminds me of how in my Soviet childhood, we wrote school literary essays. The teacher went over the talking points, and then we had to “prove” them.]
Why is there such havoc in medical reporting? Is it mostly due to natural incompetence or laziness and the resulting chaos, or is there an element of design to the chaos—so that any potential safety issue or blatant ineffectiveness of a very lucrative commercial product can be obscured in the most effective way?
Mind you, this product is not just very lucrative on its own. Its special commercial significance is in the fact that it is a proof of concept product paving the way for a whole new super lucrative business model and multiple new lines of products that can turn every single one of us into a subscriber for life and make billions and billions of dollars for the investors. By the way, if anything goes wrong, what is our recourse?
The linguistic confusion does not end with the definition of the “unv-d.” For example, the definition of a “hospitalization” is up for grabs as well, not to mention the fact that the definition of a “case” has been upended last year in broad daylight and the fact that the WHO arbitrarily changed the definition of the term “pandemic” in 2008. Anecdotally, I heard that currently, outpatient hospital visits may count as “hospitalizations,” at least in some states. And if you ask me how accurate or prevalent those anecdotal reports are I’ll say again: I have no idea, and neither does anybody else, seemingly. The reporting standards are on the Moon.
[Therefore, a request: If you are in the medical field and happen to know how your hospital is reporting the v-n status of COVID patients—and are legally allowed to share that knowledge—please reach out to me because I’ve been trying and trying to get to the bottom of this—and so far, it’s been a bottomless well of linguistic uncertainties. And without linguistic transparency, what good are the numbers next to the words?!]
Speaking of language, I am strongly compelled to repost the interview with brilliant Dr. Venu Julapalli in which, among many things, he talks about how medical facts are being reframed to suit the desired narrative. If you missed his interview earlier, please check it out, Dr. Julapalli is magnificent. The segment below is scrolled to the moment in our long conversation where he talks about the bizarre downplaying of myocarditis and COVID hypoxia in v-d patients.
NEXT ITEM. COMIRNATY.
As we know, the FDA has approved the Comirnaty v-e (i.e., the Pfizer v-e, kinda). The approval occurred in a way that, again, was a little peculiar. It is a can of worms but CHD did a good job at dissecting the legal nuance, I recommend their analysis.
And here is the Comirnaty insert from the FDA website. One would think that it would be a good idea to eval…wait no. The mantra!!! It’s safe and effective! Of course!!!
I’ll leave it at that, with an additional comment that the rat study mentioned below was not super thorough, either. But who cares! In Vax, we trust!!!
NEXT ITEM. ALL ROADS LEAD TO MANDATORY BOOSTERS FROM NOW AND INTO THE INFINITY.
Let me get to the heart of it. My policy research over the years makes me believe that, under the guise of COVID, we are being groomed to become life-term subscribers to “in-body artificial immunity as a service”—or an attempt at it anyway. Meanwhile, no long-term safety studies have been done, and honestly, it’s anybody’s guess what’s going to happen to our bodies in ten years—and that’s without wetting our little pinky toe in dark conspiratorial waters.
See the speech by an Australian MP below. Limitations of Pfizer data: “The long-term safety is not known… Effectiveness against variants of concern has not been assessed.”
And, and… the artificial immunity thing is not just about COVID and boosters! The manufacturers are actively working on a number of adult v-es for every real and imaginary malaise there is and isn’t (including the literal plague). And, I believe, the intense emotional barrage around the COVID shot is designed to set a psychological and legal precedent for the creation of a captive market and for enforcing a subscription to “artificial immunity as a service.” From the COVID mandate, we are likely to move on to illnesses that have been up until now considered mundane, then to real and imaginary mental health issues, etc. etc. And by time it’s all said and done, we won’t even remember how it all started, we’ll just be completely discombobulated and probably perpetually unwell because this technology, even without any conspiracy, is an elephant in a china shop. The scientists have no idea what fine connections inside our bodies they are breaking, and we’ll only know that after a few decades.
At the same time—a deep dive into it would be a conversation for another time but there is some evidence to that effect—it is not unlikely that this type of product negatively impacts our broad spectrum immunity—and thus, after a certain number of boosters people may actually become biologically dependent for life on the lucrative subscription to artificial immunity—as good as it is or isn’t—which we don’t know. Don’t forget, one of the best-selling business books of the past years was called, “HOOKED.” Trends are trends—and creating addiction is a market trend of today.
For the record, a number of established scientists expressed concerns back in 2020 about how mass v-ing people against COVID during an active pandemic could trigger the development of vaccine-resistant variants and thus throw the pandemic into an infinite loop. They expressed concerns—and were quickly censored and called conspiracy theorists.
And whether the current situation has anything to do with v-e-triggered viral escape—or it is a result of weakening people’s immune systems with stress, lockdowns, and sanitizers—or whether we are looking at “antibody dependent enhancement”—it is disingenuous on the part of our health authorities to act like the variants unexpectedly snuck up on us. A variety of things could be going on but one thing that isn’t going on is an unexpected onslaught of variants.
By the way, apropos of almost nothing, here is a quick bit from the Lancet that, again, touches upon the much-censored topic from last year of how these v-es might not end up being all that helpful after all:
And here is an interesting tweet from Malone.
I’d like to add some context to his tweet. As such, antimicrobial resistance is anticipated to become a problem much bigger than any COVID—that’s according to the World Economic Forum—which, of course, translates to opening brand new markets, exponential economic growth for pharma companies and their investors, etc. etc. What’s not so good for our bodies is actually pretty good for their bank accounts. So to me, all this that’s been happening since 2020 looks suspiciously like the friendly behavior of a drug dealer.
And, since I mentioned the HIV shot, here is this bit since it hasn’t been widely reported.
AND FINALLY, A FEW WORDS ABOUT REGULATORY AGENCIES.