The War on Words

Words can move mountains, pierce the toughest armour, make the sun shine, and surround us in the fiercest of storms. They can communicate love, comfort, compassion and care.

Words enable us to understand each other. They’re like oxygen. We use them to connect. And to live. They can make the heart sing, for it is words — genuinely meant — that truly touch our souls.

Words flow along the line of easy communication, as long as the person speaking and the person listening have a shared understanding on the meaning of the words, written or spoken.

Trust is also a vital factor.

There is trust that the words, phrases and concepts used have no hidden meanings, that the person communicating them is doing so in good faith and that the information conveyed is honest. This is crucial — and never more than in the case of perceived emergencies.

For if the definitions of words are altered or misused they can persuade people towards a major course of action that, if they were aware of the alteration in meaning, would have had them running a country mile in the opposite direction.

Take today.

People have been assured through wall-to wall advertising, 24/7, that a “little prick” is “safe and effective”. To most of us, the definition of “safe” concurs with the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, which states:

‘Without risk, not involving much or any risk’ and ‘protected from danger or harm’. Effective, to most, it means successful — something that achieves the desired outcome with the assumption in this case that it provides excellent protection against a particular disease.’

So, with the words defined as outlined above, are those little pricks safe and effective?

No, not according to thousands of Pfizer documents that were quietly released by the FDA on the order of an ethical American Judge. Documents that the FDA had wanted kept confidential for 75 years.

Some of this information related to adverse reactions and side effects to the experimental injection. There were nine pages of tightly worded script describing many extremely serious adverse reactions which blew that three-word phrase “safe and effective” out of the water. (Some of those listed also seem to describe the symptoms of “monkey-pox” and the “marburg virus” quite well, too).

A quick google search on this order by the Judge brings up the usual paid-off tribe of “fact-checkers” whose rebuttals cannot compete with the real facts.

This list, as well as the recent information seen here that NZ is 90% “vaccinated”, yet is globally showing the greatest increase in all-cause mortality, should bring an immediate halt to the continued rollout of the experimental injection, but instead it seems to be completely ignored by mainstream media and those who incorrectly assume it is their job to tell the rest of us what to do.

There have been no apologies, and no advertisements highlighting any serious adverse reactions, and it is not mandatory for medical staff to report them. (Yet it has been made mandatory for most Kiwis to get the experimental injection. Children who, it has been clearly understood are at no risk, are also being encouraged to get this injection and yet the one they are receiving is apparently different to the one approved by Medsafe.

In October 2020, a screen shot from an FDA meeting was captured before emergency approval was granted for the experimental injection. The screen shot can be seen here.

As the article states, “They knew.”

Other important information on the adverse effects of the “little prick” can be found on www.nzdsos.com, where pictures speak a thousand words.

Up to June 2022 Medsafe recorded 62,915 New Zealanders adverse events since the rollout of this experimental gene-based therapy that remains on trial until 2024, but there will be more than that as many of them are not reported.

Therefore, phrases such as “safe and effective”, with respect to this product, are a lie.

Using such misleading phrases seems tantamount to weaponizing language and utilizing words as propaganda to induce a population into a course of action they would not take if the full facts were presented.

It is a war on words.

New Zealand, and the world, has recently been subjected to other key definitions that are incorrect. The word “vaccine” is one of them.

Most Kiwis are familiar with the usual definition of vaccine which, when I was nursing, was basically the theory that it is: “A preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.” The idea is that if you’re vaccinated, you’ll have antibodies that will overcome that disease.

Not everyone agrees with this type of medical intervention as they sensibly question the actual contents of the vaccines, what they do, and if there are any adverse reactions, but at least people were in overall agreement as to the definition of the word.

So when the world was asked to “get vaccinated” against this “terrible” new disease, most did, because their concept of a vaccine was the above definition. Many thousands of Kiwis rolled up their sleeves on hearing it was a vaccine, as they understood it to mean.

But it wasn’t.

The experimental injection doesn’t fit the above definition. The word appears to have been usurped by a sleight of hand and people were tricked into believing that the experimental injection was a “vaccine”.

In early 2021, the definition of vaccine was changed in the Webster dictionary, which can be seen here and here. But those definitions are not the ones that most people understand a vaccine to be, or have seen. Make sure you check out the short video clip at the bottom of that reference too, as it enlarges on what they have done and how they differ, and also how the WHO (World Health Organisation) has also changed the definition of herd immunity and, while not to be outdone, the National Institute of Health (NIH) has changed the definition of ‘Gain of Function Research’).

So at this stage, it seems reasonable to assume those who received or were coerced to have the injection had no idea that what they were injected with was not a vaccine as most traditionally understood it to be, or that it contains lipid nano-particles and messenger RNA that changes their DNA. It was a novel type of injection had never been used on a population.

When receiving the injection people were not made aware of many of adverse reactions in the short-term and it hadn’t been around for long enough to ascertain long-term reactions. Nor were they advised that graphene oxide had been identified as a component of the injection or that there has been proof of a “continuing evolution of self-assembling microscale artificial technology” within the recipient’s body.

(Please, don’t give up hope if you’re reading this article but have been coerced, forced, or tricked into having any of these injections, as you’ll find help at www.nzdsos.com. These professionals have bravely stood up and spoken out about the dangers of the injection, at great cost to themselves, and set up a clinic to effectively assist those injured by the experimental injection. You’ll find those compassionate, courageous souls here).

There is more information on the twisting of words and the lies — much more — but it is probably not needed to come to the conclusion that this injection has been mislabelled a “vaccine” and is neither safe or effective.

Trust has been shattered.

It was reasonable for people to presume that government officials would not intentionally wish harm on those they purported to represent, or continue to do them harm by suppressing alarming factual information that surfaced on the only product they were promoting that would “end covid”.

Most Kiwis used to trust their doctor and feel confident that they would receive genuine care in our public health system if they were admitted to a hospital. Now, many avoid doctors and hospitals.

Nor are most aware that we are currently living in an environment where the Medical Council for doctors and the Nursing Council have threatened their members with suspension if they speak out about the experimental injection.

Those courageous souls who refused to comply have either been suspended or resigned, ethics intact.

A cone of silence reigns. How could this possibly occur in a place like New Zealand?

Those that remain within the system comply, even to the extent that thousands of Kiwis, injured as a result of the experimental injection, have been subjected, while acutely ill, to outrageous claims that they must be “suffering from anxiety”, or they are “depressed” or mentally ill. “Because it is not the injection.”

One patient, after a serious reaction to the experimental injection, was prescribed drugs for schizophrenia — a condition she did not have — while in hospital. That isn’t a place of healing. That’s a place of torture.

To use words against a patient to curb dissent, to hide behind the lie that it was “not the vaccine”, by alleging there must be something wrong with the patient, is tantamount to a psychological attack when the patient is already fragile as a result of their acute injuries — and to prescribe treatment for some malady they do not have, is to completely betray trust.

There is a broader aspect to changing the meaning of words that involves concepts. Most of us have the general understanding that when a person is admitted to hospital, they are going to a place where qualified nurses and doctors will look after them and all of the treatments will help them recover, with the best interests of the patient at heart.

Many years ago, as a staff sister in a busy Coronary Care Unit, I was accompanying an Australian registrar as he checked the patients. He noted the absence of any bowel activity on the chart of one patient and perfunctorily ordered a pharmaceutical laxative.

I challenged it and asked, “Why not first try him with bran on the breakfast cereal in the morning?”

He stopped writing the prescription, looked at me over his glasses and said, “But Mary, you don’t get new golf clubs with bran on the breakfast cereal.”

I’ve never forgotten that.

It was very helpful, for it emphasized that the patient’s best interests are not at the forefront with everyone. On the drug rounds after meals, drugs were dispensed to deal with a symptom, followed by several extra drugs prescribed to deal with the side effects of the first drug given.

Very few, if any, natural remedies were considered. That is not how student doctors are taught. There is no money in it.

What happened?

Well, at the beginning of the 20th century words were used to demonize natural healing methods by calling those who practiced natural medicine, “Quacks” which is propaganda that was promoted by Rockefeller and others who owned pharmaceutical companies.

Prior to this, herbal medicines were often used by doctors and natural healers, but when pharmaceutical products were made they became a casualty of big pharma who focused on the synthetic manufacture of natural remedies so they could be patented and sold. The fact that the potency of the product was compromised and there were unknown side effects as a result, were apparently an unhappy side effect of the cost of doing business to these people.

Shame on them.

Fast-forwarding to 2022 we find that, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, this advertising we are currently subjected to, is like something from the George Orwell book, 1984.

The way it is currently set up, it is a war of words that has been politicised. The people will continue to be betrayed through the continual use of twisted words and concepts. When this is done, it becomes a system that does not have the patient’s health at heart, for the medical staff have been hobbled and compromised by threats of suspension. This is widespread in many other areas of government influence, including education.

Whoever heard of people ordering doctors and nurses on what treatment to give who have no contact with the patients? Apparently they can also tell there are only 100 people in the country who will qualify for an “exemption” from an experimental injection, before they know the personal circumstances of anyone. Does that make sense to you?

You will know those in power, calling the shots (excuse the pun) by their actions. Do they want to know of side effects, or do they seek to suppress them? Do they want to hear about treatments that work that don’t have associated side effects, or are they not interested? Are they misleading the public with incorrect definitions and concepts? Do they encourage more freedom or less freedom? Is an environment of fear being created through words? Are they inviting input from independent sources, or do they ignore it? Do they encourage a questioning of science, or do they try to suppress it and smear anyone who questions? Are they shutting down an experimental treatment that has killed hundreds and maimed and injured almost 63,000 Kiwis, or do they try to get even more to take the experimental injection and continue to insist on the same treatment that clearly doesn’t work, with the most “cases” NZ has ever had (notwithstanding that the tests are irrelevant as they have been proved to give over 98% false positive results.) Are they beginning to insist on young children, who were never at risk, getting an experimental injection that is apparently different to the one approved by Medsafe, or are they stating there is no need for it?

The courageous doctors at nzdsos.com have been tirelessly blowing the whistle to the Ministry of Health, the government, and the police on these alarming issues that are coming to light. But there is an absence of interest or concern in these areas. Not even a decent response. And still, the reporting of side effects is not “compulsory”.

Ask yourself, why?

Look up the definitions of key words in a dictionary published before 2019 and discover the root meaning of the words. Become literate in regard to these key words. It could save your life.

It stops when most of us say no, we do not consent to being tricked with incorrect definitions and deceit.

Keep strong, Kiwis.

Stand up and speak out in ways that you are able to.

Seek out courageous groups and people that fearlessly bring you the facts from overseas and national experts, brave enough to bring you the truth. Here are some:

• Voices Freedom
• Dr. Sam Bailey
• The Hatchard Report
• NZDSOS
• FreeNZ
• Liz Gunn and her Odysee Channel (FreeNZ)
• The Health Forum NZ

Image Credit: All photos © Mary Hobbs.