Grand Jury: Uncovered tricky wordplay with “safe and effective”

Of course you remember the phrase “safe and effective.” How could you forget? That phrase fueled every single vaccine mandate. Well … it was always a lie, even before they found out the shots didn’t work, right from the start, and the Grand Jury Report explained exactly how they did it.

This is critically important: the federal agencies like the CDC and the FDA played a rhetorical shell game on America. And the corporate media helped them hide the definitional pea. First of all, when government officials called the vaccines “safe,” they were using a legal term of art.

In other words, when they said safe, they deceptively relied on a highly subjective legal definition that doesn’t actually mean “safe” — but never said so.

Here’s how the Grand Jury Report explained it:

In other words, the vaccines were never considered “safe” in general. When Fauci said the jabs were safe, he meant they were “safe” compared to the relative risk posed by the virus (“relative freedom from harmful effect” and “the condition of the recipient”). All the CDC and FDA had to do was decide the virus was more deadly than the bubonic plague — which they did — and then virtually anything could be considered safe, no matter how risky it really was.

Even worse than helping the agencies mislead people with a legalistic definition of an everyday dictionary word, the media never even asked the agencies to explain the risk/reward matrix. So they got away with using a totally subjective standard that wasn’t tied to anything — certainly not to anything scientific.

The media could have explained all this to us at the time, but they didn’t. They are pathetically useless and I hope every reporter who helped promote this lie gets fired.

So they can spend time in honest self-reflection, of course.

The term “effective” is nearly as bad. When the government said the vaccines were “effective,” they used a weasel definition for that word too. Legally speaking, the term “effectiveness” can be based on a regulatory determination arising from clinical trials, as you would expect, or from “other data.”

‘Other data’ is undefined.

There weren’t any clinical trials proving effectiveness — Pfizer never even tested for that. The regulators relied on “other data” to conclude the shots were effective. The media never asked the agencies to explain what their “other data” was that caused them to determine the vaccines were so “effective.”

From the report, citing federal statute:

It was all wordplay, right from day one. They tricked us by secretly using a different definition for common dictionary words, a stealthy different definition than what we thought they meant. They will blame us for not knowing the legal meanings of those words and stupidly assuming they were using lay definitions. But they are experts, you see, so how can you expect them to speak plainly?

They got away with it last time.

But now we know. They won’t get away with it any more.

The term “safe and effective” has become a hissing and a byword.

Jeff Childers

Jeff Childers is the president and founder of the Childers Law firm. Jeff interned at the Federal Bankruptcy Court in Orlando, where he helped write several widely-cited opinions. He then worked as an associate with the prestigious firm of Winderweedle, Haines, Ward & Woodman in Orlando and Winter Park, Florida before moving back to Gainesville and founding Childers Law. Jeff served for three years on the Board of Directors of the Central Florida Bankruptcy Law Association. He has also served on the Board of Directors of the Eighth Judicial Bar Association, and on the Rules Committee for the Northern District of Florida Bankruptcy Court. Jeff has published several articles as co-author with Professor William Page of the Levin College of Law (University of Florida) on the topic of anti-trust in the Microsoft case. He also is the author of an article on the topic of Product Liability in the Software Context. Jeff focuses his area of practice on commercial litigation, elections law, and constitutional issues. He is a skilled trial litigator and appellate advocate.


Post Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *