What does "Truth" mean to you? Here are a couple of quotes that stand out for me.....

Arthur Schopenhauer famously said, "All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." This has led many to believe that truth and positive change go through multiple stages before they are accepted.

And from Carl Sagan in 2007 - "The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true."

When we are trying to convey a truth, we have to use words, and what words we choose really can change the meaning in many different ways. Of course every word has a definition, but what about when we have different definitions for the same words? What about if we have associations with words other than or in addition to the basic definitions?

Words are like little programs.

We all know what a computer program can do, it can run a few lines of code and do something.

I think words can be like that too, When you hear certain words, you associate them with images, some knowledge that has been long known, or an idea.

From https://www.8bitcontent.com/words-with-deep-meanings

"Language is a powerful tool that helps us communicate and explore complex ideas. Words with deep meanings can inspire or destroy."

Absolutely. And some examples of powerful words are: Adventure, Grace, Propaganda, Vaccine, Anti-Vaxxer

Meaning of "Vaccine"

Let's look closer at the word "vaccine" as an example. What does that word mean to you? How would you define it?

No doubt, vaccines have been a great invention that has helped humanity prevent some of the worst diseases. As such, for most people, there is a very positive association with this word. For any new medicine on the market, it would be very desirable that it would be classified as such.

However, what if a new product didn't quite match up to the standard of what a vaccine is? Would you think it's fair to change the definition to lower the standard or broaden the meaning so that it qualifies? I suppose that if you could make a lot of money from this, you would have a strong incentive to have it done.

Here is what I would have defined a vaccine as: A drug/injection that provides immunity so that you do not transmit a disease. Does that sound reasonable?

Well this was the definition for over a 100 years. As laid out in the history of the word "vaccine" that you can read about here: https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/the-origin-of-the-word-vaccine/

Then why did they change it in Jan 2021? According to Lead Stories, it was NOT changed... it was just updated. (https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/11/fact-check-merriam-webster-did-not-change-definition-of-vaccine-to-exclude-portion-about-immunity.html)

USA today also debunked this claim saying it was "missing context:" (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/30/fact-check-merriam-webster-changed-vaccine-definition-accuracy/6354415001/)

Yes, well I think that when you "update" a definition, you are changing it. Let's look at the context for that update then.

Previously, on Merriam-Webster's webpage, the definition contained the word "immunity", or;
"...to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease." Ok, not too far off what I thought it should be. (https://archive.is/fQWsZ)

Cambridge's dictionary says something similar without the word "immunity" (https://archive.is/zDhbu - From May 2021);
a substance containing a virus or bacterium in a form that is not harmful, given to a person or animal to prevent them from getting the disease that the virus or bacterium causes
or
a special substance that you take into your body to prevent a disease, and that contains a weakened or dead form of the disease-causing organism

The new definitions that it was changed..., oh sorry, updated to, in Jan 2021, says the following: (https://archive.is/ypcgk) (all the numerous copies of the page are here: https://archive.is/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine )
"a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious disease."

Immune response? Not quite the same thing as immunity, is it? Vitamin D provides an immune response too, doesn't it?

What about Cambridge's dictionary? Well, there was an update there too. (https://archive.is/oJVPz- from Jan 2023) Now it says:
a substance that is put into the body of a person or animal to protect them from a disease by causing them to produce antibodies (=proteins that fight diseases)
or
a special substance that you take into your body to prevent a disease, and that often contains a weakened or dead form of the disease-causing organism

The first part is now similar to Webster's definition but strangely only talks about antibodies (not the other parts of the immune system like B-cells or T-cells), they also removed the "not harmful" part, and the second part had the word "often" inserted. Does that tighten the definition? Or loosen it?

What is the general purpose for updating these definitions? It's just a word, right? Well, for one thing, I think it's reasonable to say there are more medicines that cause an immune response, than providing immunity.

If I can draw a venn diagram, then I think it would look like this (see first diagram below):

Is that fair? Sure the sizes of the circles may be different, but I think this is directionally correct.

Imagine you are a big pharmaceutical firm, would you rather have your medicine called a vaccine and mandated? Or just a therapeutic and recommended?

I guess I struggle to think of the new shots that give only an immune response as "vaccines." I for one would like to see the review of how this definition was changed and if there was any government or large corporation involvement. But that's just me. What about you?

The meaning of "Anti-Vaxxer"

By the current definition of "anti-vaxxer", the number of people in this group has increased dramatically as of late, but did anyone know that the definition for anti-vaxxer included people against the mandates? I was trying to find the original definition from the early 2000s but I couldn't find it. Apparently the anti-vaxxer movement went back to the 1800s.

My definition without looking it up would have been that it was only people against the old definitions of vaccines. This I think is the small minority of people out there. But if you add the people against the new definition of vaccines, then I suspect that number grows, and then people who are pro vaccines but anti mandate, the number would be even larger, and I would guess the majority of people, wouldn't it? In fact, if I try to do the venn diagram for this word, I think it looks something like the second diagram below:

Yikes! Complicated, isn't it? It's worthwhile then, if someone uses that term, to check what they actually mean....

Like this article: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321207#summary

When they don't distinguish between the groups, are they doing it on purpose? Or is it unintentional?

I think this article from the LA Times is a little more honest: https://archive.is/V3fpz

Just some thoughts to ponder.

Let me close with a Carl Sagan quote: "I don't want to believe. I want to know!"