Well, to claim that 'the vaccines are safe and effective,' you would need to redefine the terms vaccine, safe, and effective. My 1984 Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a vaccine as 'a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease.' This was consistent with the CDC's definition until the COVID-19 shots, which do not meet this standard because they do not produce immunity. Instead, the current CDC definition describes a vaccine as 'a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases,' which aligns more closely with a prophylactic.

The same 1984 dictionary defines safe as 'free from danger or injury.' While the COVID shots may generally be free from immediate injury, they are not free from the potential danger of injury. Under the Emergency Use Authorizations, long-term studies were not conducted to assess long-term risks. Consequently, the definition of safe has been adjusted to mean 'reasonably free of immediate harm,' which differs from being free of the danger of harm and allows for some level of acceptable risk. Myocarditis, a known risk of the shot, is deemed an 'acceptable' risk by authorities, but it contradicts the dictionary definition of 'safe' as completely free from harm. For example, the potential for unknown long-term effects, such as immune system dysregulation, remains a danger that violates the dictionary definition of 'safe' due to the absence of comprehensive studies. So it is unsafe by definition for two separate reasons.

The 1984 dictionary defines effective as 'having an intended or expected effect; producing a strong impression or response.' However, the efficacy of the COVID shots falls short of the intended or expected effect seen in traditional vaccines, rendering them less effective. When these shots were introduced, they were claimed to be highly effective, but their actual efficacy proved lower than promised. So the expectation and intent was higher so it's ineffective by definition. I don't even know how they could stretch the truth to even explain how this could be true, it's just hope--they hoped it was effective.

Therefore, stating that 'the vaccines are safe and effective' is misleading when using the traditional definitions of vaccine, safe, and effective. A more accurate statement would be that the COVID shot is reasonably free of immediate harm but has disappointing efficacy. In the phrase 'the vaccines are safe and effective,' only the words the, are, and and hold true--slim pickings. I refuse to call the COVID shot a vaccine because I use the King's English, not redefined newspeak terms. In the King's English, a vaccine aligns with the 1984 dictionary definition. Calling the COVID shot a vaccine concedes to altered language.

Since the benefit of the shot is minimal, while the risks remain unknown, I choose to avoid the unknown risk by avoiding a shot with little to no benefit. Known things tend to have a liner distribution while unknown things tend to have a logarithmic distribution, so unknown things can get out of hand very quickly. In other words, in domains where knowledge is strong and effects are well-understood, relationships often appear linear and predictable. In domains with high uncertainty or complexity, relationships often follow logarithmic or other non-linear patterns. So you don't want the known to the unknown in equal balance but defer to the unknown because of it's non-linear distribution having out-sized effects. To make an informed decision, one only needed to recognize that those promoting the shot were either lying or making unproven claims asserting things they could not know due to the lack of long-term studies. In either case, they were not trustworthy. Only logic, reason, and evidence should guide decisions. Until definitive evidence is provided keep your dictionary handy, don’t get hooked by newspeak, reel in the truth and don't take the bait of those who redefine words to promote a shot lacking comprehensive studies.