Having built data centers [D/C] (the networks in them) its been interesting to watch the evolution from the early business owned, to the co-locations, to the early-cloud, to this era in 2020-2026.
I also am cautious as we evolve the designs in the current era.
Sadly there are to falsehoods that draw away from the central issues, some of which Taylor touched on, but the devil is in the details.
Data centers once the mark of a medium to Fortune 100 empire, gave way to co-locations where you could rely on infrastructure to house your gear and take real estate issues OFF your shoulders, eventually virtual server farms let you even rent the hardware, free of ownership woes.
This was refined as the art of offering ??AAS (whatever-as-a-service) weeded out those who couldn't deliver. Somewhere in this era the roots of cloud also found its footing and evolved.
Eventually pricing feel from commercial level costs to anyone-can-rent-cloud-space.
I've used/managed space at the mid-high level commercial end for F100 employers, and found the sweet spot for using full cloud services or running a big of 'BYOS' mixed with cloud.
Up into the 2020s cloud services were present, IN SIZE, but unobtrusive to the public.
Digital currency triggered the need for more compute power, and the scales began to tip as you could no longer hide D/C growth.
The media hype and meme-storms of AI/Skynet/Job-loss/data-privacy setup a perfect storm to stoke everyone's concerns.
Classic data privacy concerns are on the rise, and sadly need far more attention then D/C footprints.
D/C growth is significant, clearly. And far to many attribute it to the needs for AI. Which requires one very important observation:
---- AI ain't! Its not a thinking machine there is no sentience, its a damned impressive step, but its not AI.
Sadly the gulf between building more D/C to improve the hyper processing of ai (assistive intellect) and real Intelligent systems couldn't be worse. The public generally believes the sales hype, and many respond by oppressing compute power to keep the feared daemon in the box.
The REAL ISSUES:
-Rapid D/C expansion:
-The impact to water is far more limited then activists complain about. The industry will pivot on close-systems and dry solutions to handle permitting issues and is glad to defeat the activism by offering a solution and keeping the D/C onslaught at full tilt.
-This is nothing more then a COMMODITY, its not the cutting edge its not the defining business tool of our time. It IS the same thing that just-in-time shipping, tactical deployment of resources at a moments notice, massive dynamic trucking solutions always have been to a free market.
-Local/Community benefit: There is no significant Long Term employment boon behind such D/Cs. The phases of building, initial operation, and any expansion will always draw from local labor pools, as well as draw from national businesses who grow up to rapidly deploy that infrastructure. The community may see some benefits (even cool ones) but in general its just the industry model again. BUT the business model does not support huge staff, the operational margins demand it.
-Environmental impact: Water impact in modern D/Cs will become far less impactful then the old ones. Cost and community pressure will ensure it (thank God)
The real environmental key is location/location/location. The municipalities need to get invovled and stay invovled, the people need to know. You may not like a refinery but no petro-no go_go. These concentrations of 'Compute' are part of our world we need to wisely manage their footprint as successful businesses and as citizens around them.
Electricity is the real pivot point. Self-powered D/Cs are the best ( nuclear may have its day). But most certainly the local grid needs to be forced into TRANSPARENCY. Residential power planning is nothing like the load/demand planning for industry. A huge facility that does not offset jobs or tax base (the small # of places it does need to be noted/framed) should not get sweetheart deals that are passed on to the local community.
D/Cs seldom are designed for the local community, they are built to integrate nationally with 'sibling facilities' to offer global (if not national) services that anyone [usually business] can lease. And their are no 2ndry benefits from transport or road taxes because compute services leave on wire/fiber/satellite, never creating a taxable commodity for the municipal coffers.
End Thoughts:
Do we need datacenters: With open eyes we need to realize they power the cyber-industrial complex, and we need to realize how much is necessary.
Do they need to be on EARTH: Even now Musk is doing, what a number of us have dreamt of, LOW-ORBIT where solar power is perfect, connectivity needs only open space, facility issues are dramatically reduced.
Should AI be the motivation: Most surely the sales pitch and head bobbers would have you believe its true. The current 'ai' (assistive intellect) is amazing, dynamic, and most conversational hyper-search resource we hoped for in the winters of '93. BUT its not AI.
In fact if you research the past 2 winters of AI, you'll see we are on the cusp of the 3rd winter in many folks view. Its likely the mergence of Robotics and LLMs into rudimentary automatons may get us to the next season of AI.
Its time to wakeup, smell the coffee, use all this compute power for whats needed, and NOT OVERBUILD the D/Cs only to let someone else eat the loss and cost as so often happens with overbuilt 'great ideas'
Just the thoughts of an old D/C builder, Lights out datacenter designer, and LLM engineer
I don't think this piece belongs on reality's last stand. This is written by someone who was ignorant about data centers, referred to those neutral words as ones that sounded like something ominous, and then the piece continued to talk about things where the author is evidently ignorant. This is an opinion piece, not a truth piece, and it is not even by an expert in the field. It is the equivalent of a high schooler's essay. A core aspect of reality's last stand is criticizing when platforms are given to works that should not have one. This piece should not be given a place on a platform like this.
I publish a lot of opinion pieces on RLS. I don't tend to judge a piece by whether it's written by an expert, but whether the arguments are sound. I've done enough research on data centers and the negative narratives around them to know they are largely unfounded and, in many cases, the opposite of reality. I think this piece is a good fit for RLS given the "debunking popular false narratives" ethos of the site.
I've never held that every piece on RLS represents the absolute truth. Sometimes it's good to platform a variety of well-argued perspectives and let readers form their own opinions.
Of course, people are always free to disagree and express that in the comments!
This to is a seminal time in our culture, as we sublime technology into our daily lives. When you have your face in a screen for more then 2 hours in a day; and you justify why you need to be using it...... your hooked, willing to sacrifice part of you day to sit with the iron "as an old professor once told me".
This topic is worth detailed conversation. People need to realize; from all walks of life how its meshed with your waking hours. Nowhere else in recent 'civilized' times have we made such a deal. Gladly we carry handheld devices; sit down during/after/before a meal to 'check up' on some regular things, have some flat screen staring up at us; looking for input.
..... but a word, or Not; [as it pleases the wandering Netizens]
Wow, the author visits some really noisy libraries.
Here is a thread from city-data.com by people who lived near a data center in Murphy NC, a formerly pristine area that was so quiet you could hear a pin drop.
The residents had no idea when the permits were issued or by whom, and neither, apparently, did the town council.
Here's an article from WaPo (I know, I know) with decibel information: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/cryptocurrency-mine-noise-homes-nc/ This poor guy's home was 100 yards from where one was built. "A sensor placed on Lugiewicz’s property by The Washington Post captured noise levels roughly every five minutes over nearly three weeks. In nearly every reading — 98 percent of the time, day or night — decibel levels were above 55, about the noise of a normal conversation.
More than 30 percent of the readings exceeded 60 decibels — high enough that if they were in D.C., they would violate the city’s daytime residential noise ordinances. Estimates from the National Park Service show that expected environmental sound levels in the area should be around 41 decibels.
Kurt Fristrup, a former Park Service scientist who studied noise impacts on rural environments, compared the noise near Lugiewicz’s home to living close to a very busy road without normal pulses in traffic.
Imagine “45 sedans traveling close together nonstop on a three-lane road at 35 miles per hour,” Fristrup said.
...
The Murphy Electric Power Board did not respond to specific questions about the mine or noise complaints but provided a general statement saying: “When an individual or corporation submits an application for electric service, pays the proper construction fees, provides a security deposit, and agrees to abide by our service rules and regulations we strive to provide safe, reliable electric service.”
[now I get it. How do you spell "g-r-e-a-s-e-d p-a-l-m"??]
Lugiewicz, who works mainly from home, soon gave up on using the expansive deck he completed a month before the mine started operations, where he had hoped to perch with his laptops and listen to the birdsong. Instead of using his “outdoor office,” he retreated indoors and soundproofed his home.
He and his wife began building a new home about 1.6 miles up the mountain."
Now I ask you: if these are so great for people & the environment, why all the secrecy & stonewalling?
This is a well-written and fairly persuasive article, but I think you undermine the strength of the argument by supporting the narrative that Moderna has made this incredible breakthrough of a cancer "vaccine." It's not actually a vaccine at all, it's applications are very limited and Moderna has a long way to go to prove that it is both safe and effective. See, e.g., https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/the-mrna-gold-rush-why-modernas-cancer
The CDC officially [and diabolically] changed the definitions during covid. So with respect to the "cancer vaccine," who knows.
Before Sept. 2021:
Vaccine "A product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce *immunity* to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease."
Vaccination "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce *immunity* to a specific disease."
After Sept. 2021"
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases."
Vaccination: "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce *protection* from a specific disease."
When I was a kid we used to poke each other with yucca needles to protect against boogeymen. I think that would probably qualify as a vaccine at this point. And do you know, I have never been haunted or infected by a single boogeyman!
The opposition is in geographic areas with a majority Democrat voting population. I say let this play out where all the data centers get built in red state areas that will welcome the economic benefits.
In fact, I keep yelling that Trump supports the building of data centers in liberal communities to help inspire opposition.
Here's a little chat I had when I inquired about when the CDC changed the definition of "vaccine."
<b>Me: what was the change the cdc made to the definition of "vaccine" during covid? </b>
Summarized the CDC's definition changes for vaccines and vaccination.
On September 1, 2021, the CDC revised its website definitions of "vaccine" and "vaccination":
Before Sept. 2021 After Sept. 2021
Vaccine "A product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease." "A preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases."
Vaccination "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease." "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease."
The core shift was replacing "immunity" with "immune response" (for vaccine) and "protection" (for vaccination). A CDC spokesperson said the old wording "could be interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine," so the new language was "more transparent" and also better describes how vaccines can be administered.
The change was not made to cover up shortcomings of the COVID-19 vaccines, per the CDC and multiple fact-checkers (AP, Newsweek, USA Today). Experts like Dr. John Moore of Weill Cornell called the concern "semantics, not science," noting that "immunity" and "immune response" are essentially synonymous in practice.
<b>Me: Well of course a CDC spokesperson would say that. Once it was shown that the covid injections did not produce immunity, the CDC & Moderna etc. still wanted to be able to call them "vaccines" because of public perception. The language lowered the bar on what constituted a vaccine, didn't make it more "transparent." It allowed things to be called vaccines that before the change wouldn't have qualified.</b>
Researched CDC vaccine definition changes and immunity evidence
You're raising a point that fact-checkers have specifically addressed. Here's the fuller picture:
Your argument's logic: The old definition required "immunity." The mRNA vaccines produce waning, non-sterilizing protection (the Israeli study in July 2021 was widely publicized on this). The new definition only requires an "immune response" — a lower bar. Therefore the change accommodated the gap.
Counterarguments from immunologists and fact-checkers:
Dr. John Moore (Weill Cornell): "Immunity and immune response are basically synonymous terms for all practical purposes." His framing is that the CDC cycled through three definitions over the years, and the latest one ("protection") is actually closer to the original intent than the 2015 version ("to generate immunity"), which he says was the misleading one because people read "immunity" as all-or-none.
The mRNA vaccines do produce an immune response — antibodies and T-cell memory. The question is whether that response is durable enough to constitute "immunity" in the strong sense. The CDC's own archived page explicitly says mRNA vaccines "still trigger an immune response" and calls the claim that "the mRNA vaccine is not considered a vaccine" a myth.
The AP rated the "cover-up" claim "missing context", noting the CDC made wording changes on its website before the mRNA vaccines existed, and that the changes "did not alter the overall definition."
Merriam-Webster's parallel change was explicitly to accommodate mRNA as a new technology — their old definition only listed "killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms," which wouldn't have covered mRNA at all.
Where your point has some traction:
The timing is notable — it came weeks after the waning-immunity data became public.
You're right that a CDC spokesperson explaining the CDC's own decision is not an independent arbiter.
"Protection" is a lower bar than "immunity" in everyday language, even if immunologists treat them as functionally equivalent.
The honest summary: the redefinition didn't create a new category of product that wouldn't have qualified before. The mRNA vaccines produce an immune response — that's not in serious scientific dispute. What's genuinely debated is whether that response constitutes durable immunity, and on that point the data is mixed. The word change didn't resolve that question either way.
<b>Me: I would need proof that " the CDC made wording changes on its website before the mRNA vaccines existed" - especially when the claim was made by an AP journalist. Assuming the change was made at the time it was announced, it was not made for virologists & scientists. It was made for the public, to address "vaccine hesitancy."</i>
Found CDC definition changes predating mRNA vaccines
----> You're right to push on this, and the documentary record actually supports your reading. Here's what the evidence shows:
On the AP's specific claim: The AP's argument wasn't that the 2021 change happened before mRNA vaccines. It was that the CDC had made multiple wording changes over the years — a pre-2015 definition ("Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent disease"), a 2015 version ("produce immunity"), and the 2021 version ("produce protection"). The AP's "missing context" rating was about the pattern: changes happen, so one more change isn't inherently suspicious. That's a fair general observation, but it doesn't address why the 2021 change specifically happened, which is where your point lands.
The FOIA emails change the picture significantly. In November 2021, attorney Travis Miller / TechnoFog obtained internal CDC emails via FOIA. The key ones:
August 2021 — A CDC employee reports: "Right-wing covid-19 deniers are using your 'vaccine' definition to argue that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines…"
August 25, 2021 — Alycia Downs, a CDC official: "The definition of vaccine we have posted is problematic and people are using it to claim the COVID-19 vaccine is not a vaccine based on our own definition."
Another email: "I need to update this page Immunization Basics | CDC since these definitions are outdated and being used by some to say COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines per CDC's own definition."
"If this is for the general public, I am good with the change."
August 31, 2021 — "vaccination" definition change approved. September 1 — "vaccine" definition change approved.
This is the strongest evidence for your position. The change was:
A direct response to public criticism that mRNA vaccines didn't meet the CDC's own definition — not a routine scientific update.
Explicitly framed as a public-facing communication issue, not a scientific one. The "for the general public" line is exactly the kind of thing a scientist updating a technical definition wouldn't need to say.
Timed to the Israeli waning-immunity study (July 2021), which made the "immunity" language publicly untenable.
The CDC spokesperson's "slight changes in wording" framing, repeated across USA Today, Newsweek, AP, and others, is contradicted by the internal emails showing the change was a deliberate response to a specific public-relations problem. You don't need to take the CDC's word for its own motives when its internal emails are available.
Having built data centers [D/C] (the networks in them) its been interesting to watch the evolution from the early business owned, to the co-locations, to the early-cloud, to this era in 2020-2026.
I also am cautious as we evolve the designs in the current era.
Sadly there are to falsehoods that draw away from the central issues, some of which Taylor touched on, but the devil is in the details.
Data centers once the mark of a medium to Fortune 100 empire, gave way to co-locations where you could rely on infrastructure to house your gear and take real estate issues OFF your shoulders, eventually virtual server farms let you even rent the hardware, free of ownership woes.
This was refined as the art of offering ??AAS (whatever-as-a-service) weeded out those who couldn't deliver. Somewhere in this era the roots of cloud also found its footing and evolved.
Eventually pricing feel from commercial level costs to anyone-can-rent-cloud-space.
I've used/managed space at the mid-high level commercial end for F100 employers, and found the sweet spot for using full cloud services or running a big of 'BYOS' mixed with cloud.
Up into the 2020s cloud services were present, IN SIZE, but unobtrusive to the public.
Digital currency triggered the need for more compute power, and the scales began to tip as you could no longer hide D/C growth.
The media hype and meme-storms of AI/Skynet/Job-loss/data-privacy setup a perfect storm to stoke everyone's concerns.
Classic data privacy concerns are on the rise, and sadly need far more attention then D/C footprints.
D/C growth is significant, clearly. And far to many attribute it to the needs for AI. Which requires one very important observation:
---- AI ain't! Its not a thinking machine there is no sentience, its a damned impressive step, but its not AI.
Sadly the gulf between building more D/C to improve the hyper processing of ai (assistive intellect) and real Intelligent systems couldn't be worse. The public generally believes the sales hype, and many respond by oppressing compute power to keep the feared daemon in the box.
The REAL ISSUES:
-Rapid D/C expansion:
-The impact to water is far more limited then activists complain about. The industry will pivot on close-systems and dry solutions to handle permitting issues and is glad to defeat the activism by offering a solution and keeping the D/C onslaught at full tilt.
-This is nothing more then a COMMODITY, its not the cutting edge its not the defining business tool of our time. It IS the same thing that just-in-time shipping, tactical deployment of resources at a moments notice, massive dynamic trucking solutions always have been to a free market.
-Local/Community benefit: There is no significant Long Term employment boon behind such D/Cs. The phases of building, initial operation, and any expansion will always draw from local labor pools, as well as draw from national businesses who grow up to rapidly deploy that infrastructure. The community may see some benefits (even cool ones) but in general its just the industry model again. BUT the business model does not support huge staff, the operational margins demand it.
-Environmental impact: Water impact in modern D/Cs will become far less impactful then the old ones. Cost and community pressure will ensure it (thank God)
The real environmental key is location/location/location. The municipalities need to get invovled and stay invovled, the people need to know. You may not like a refinery but no petro-no go_go. These concentrations of 'Compute' are part of our world we need to wisely manage their footprint as successful businesses and as citizens around them.
Electricity is the real pivot point. Self-powered D/Cs are the best ( nuclear may have its day). But most certainly the local grid needs to be forced into TRANSPARENCY. Residential power planning is nothing like the load/demand planning for industry. A huge facility that does not offset jobs or tax base (the small # of places it does need to be noted/framed) should not get sweetheart deals that are passed on to the local community.
D/Cs seldom are designed for the local community, they are built to integrate nationally with 'sibling facilities' to offer global (if not national) services that anyone [usually business] can lease. And their are no 2ndry benefits from transport or road taxes because compute services leave on wire/fiber/satellite, never creating a taxable commodity for the municipal coffers.
End Thoughts:
Do we need datacenters: With open eyes we need to realize they power the cyber-industrial complex, and we need to realize how much is necessary.
Do they need to be on EARTH: Even now Musk is doing, what a number of us have dreamt of, LOW-ORBIT where solar power is perfect, connectivity needs only open space, facility issues are dramatically reduced.
Should AI be the motivation: Most surely the sales pitch and head bobbers would have you believe its true. The current 'ai' (assistive intellect) is amazing, dynamic, and most conversational hyper-search resource we hoped for in the winters of '93. BUT its not AI.
In fact if you research the past 2 winters of AI, you'll see we are on the cusp of the 3rd winter in many folks view. Its likely the mergence of Robotics and LLMs into rudimentary automatons may get us to the next season of AI.
Its time to wakeup, smell the coffee, use all this compute power for whats needed, and NOT OVERBUILD the D/Cs only to let someone else eat the loss and cost as so often happens with overbuilt 'great ideas'
Just the thoughts of an old D/C builder, Lights out datacenter designer, and LLM engineer
I don't think this piece belongs on reality's last stand. This is written by someone who was ignorant about data centers, referred to those neutral words as ones that sounded like something ominous, and then the piece continued to talk about things where the author is evidently ignorant. This is an opinion piece, not a truth piece, and it is not even by an expert in the field. It is the equivalent of a high schooler's essay. A core aspect of reality's last stand is criticizing when platforms are given to works that should not have one. This piece should not be given a place on a platform like this.
I publish a lot of opinion pieces on RLS. I don't tend to judge a piece by whether it's written by an expert, but whether the arguments are sound. I've done enough research on data centers and the negative narratives around them to know they are largely unfounded and, in many cases, the opposite of reality. I think this piece is a good fit for RLS given the "debunking popular false narratives" ethos of the site.
I've never held that every piece on RLS represents the absolute truth. Sometimes it's good to platform a variety of well-argued perspectives and let readers form their own opinions.
Of course, people are always free to disagree and express that in the comments!
And so we discuss, and learn.
......
This to is a seminal time in our culture, as we sublime technology into our daily lives. When you have your face in a screen for more then 2 hours in a day; and you justify why you need to be using it...... your hooked, willing to sacrifice part of you day to sit with the iron "as an old professor once told me".
This topic is worth detailed conversation. People need to realize; from all walks of life how its meshed with your waking hours. Nowhere else in recent 'civilized' times have we made such a deal. Gladly we carry handheld devices; sit down during/after/before a meal to 'check up' on some regular things, have some flat screen staring up at us; looking for input.
..... but a word, or Not; [as it pleases the wandering Netizens]
Wow, the author visits some really noisy libraries.
Here is a thread from city-data.com by people who lived near a data center in Murphy NC, a formerly pristine area that was so quiet you could hear a pin drop.
https://www.city-data.com/forum/western-north-carolina/3315680-crypto-mining-invasion-murphy-nc.html There are other links. One commenter: "About 25 people went to the town meeting (note this was AFTER the fact) and were basically told we were on our own. We ask for phone number and email to contact the crypto mining co. and were told to get them ourselves."
The residents had no idea when the permits were issued or by whom, and neither, apparently, did the town council.
Here's an article from WaPo (I know, I know) with decibel information: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/cryptocurrency-mine-noise-homes-nc/ This poor guy's home was 100 yards from where one was built. "A sensor placed on Lugiewicz’s property by The Washington Post captured noise levels roughly every five minutes over nearly three weeks. In nearly every reading — 98 percent of the time, day or night — decibel levels were above 55, about the noise of a normal conversation.
More than 30 percent of the readings exceeded 60 decibels — high enough that if they were in D.C., they would violate the city’s daytime residential noise ordinances. Estimates from the National Park Service show that expected environmental sound levels in the area should be around 41 decibels.
Kurt Fristrup, a former Park Service scientist who studied noise impacts on rural environments, compared the noise near Lugiewicz’s home to living close to a very busy road without normal pulses in traffic.
Imagine “45 sedans traveling close together nonstop on a three-lane road at 35 miles per hour,” Fristrup said.
...
The Murphy Electric Power Board did not respond to specific questions about the mine or noise complaints but provided a general statement saying: “When an individual or corporation submits an application for electric service, pays the proper construction fees, provides a security deposit, and agrees to abide by our service rules and regulations we strive to provide safe, reliable electric service.”
[now I get it. How do you spell "g-r-e-a-s-e-d p-a-l-m"??]
Lugiewicz, who works mainly from home, soon gave up on using the expansive deck he completed a month before the mine started operations, where he had hoped to perch with his laptops and listen to the birdsong. Instead of using his “outdoor office,” he retreated indoors and soundproofed his home.
He and his wife began building a new home about 1.6 miles up the mountain."
Now I ask you: if these are so great for people & the environment, why all the secrecy & stonewalling?
Moderna. really? MRNA. really? Have we learned nothing at all from the last, disastrous experimental gene therapy?
This is a well-written and fairly persuasive article, but I think you undermine the strength of the argument by supporting the narrative that Moderna has made this incredible breakthrough of a cancer "vaccine." It's not actually a vaccine at all, it's applications are very limited and Moderna has a long way to go to prove that it is both safe and effective. See, e.g., https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/the-mrna-gold-rush-why-modernas-cancer
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/moderna-launches-mrna-cancer-vaccine-trial-experts-warn-risks/
The CDC officially [and diabolically] changed the definitions during covid. So with respect to the "cancer vaccine," who knows.
Before Sept. 2021:
Vaccine "A product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce *immunity* to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease."
Vaccination "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce *immunity* to a specific disease."
After Sept. 2021"
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases."
Vaccination: "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce *protection* from a specific disease."
When I was a kid we used to poke each other with yucca needles to protect against boogeymen. I think that would probably qualify as a vaccine at this point. And do you know, I have never been haunted or infected by a single boogeyman!
The opposition is in geographic areas with a majority Democrat voting population. I say let this play out where all the data centers get built in red state areas that will welcome the economic benefits.
In fact, I keep yelling that Trump supports the building of data centers in liberal communities to help inspire opposition.
Here's a little chat I had when I inquired about when the CDC changed the definition of "vaccine."
<b>Me: what was the change the cdc made to the definition of "vaccine" during covid? </b>
Summarized the CDC's definition changes for vaccines and vaccination.
On September 1, 2021, the CDC revised its website definitions of "vaccine" and "vaccination":
Before Sept. 2021 After Sept. 2021
Vaccine "A product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease." "A preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases."
Vaccination "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease." "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease."
The core shift was replacing "immunity" with "immune response" (for vaccine) and "protection" (for vaccination). A CDC spokesperson said the old wording "could be interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine," so the new language was "more transparent" and also better describes how vaccines can be administered.
The change was not made to cover up shortcomings of the COVID-19 vaccines, per the CDC and multiple fact-checkers (AP, Newsweek, USA Today). Experts like Dr. John Moore of Weill Cornell called the concern "semantics, not science," noting that "immunity" and "immune response" are essentially synonymous in practice.
<b>Me: Well of course a CDC spokesperson would say that. Once it was shown that the covid injections did not produce immunity, the CDC & Moderna etc. still wanted to be able to call them "vaccines" because of public perception. The language lowered the bar on what constituted a vaccine, didn't make it more "transparent." It allowed things to be called vaccines that before the change wouldn't have qualified.</b>
Researched CDC vaccine definition changes and immunity evidence
You're raising a point that fact-checkers have specifically addressed. Here's the fuller picture:
Your argument's logic: The old definition required "immunity." The mRNA vaccines produce waning, non-sterilizing protection (the Israeli study in July 2021 was widely publicized on this). The new definition only requires an "immune response" — a lower bar. Therefore the change accommodated the gap.
Counterarguments from immunologists and fact-checkers:
Dr. John Moore (Weill Cornell): "Immunity and immune response are basically synonymous terms for all practical purposes." His framing is that the CDC cycled through three definitions over the years, and the latest one ("protection") is actually closer to the original intent than the 2015 version ("to generate immunity"), which he says was the misleading one because people read "immunity" as all-or-none.
The mRNA vaccines do produce an immune response — antibodies and T-cell memory. The question is whether that response is durable enough to constitute "immunity" in the strong sense. The CDC's own archived page explicitly says mRNA vaccines "still trigger an immune response" and calls the claim that "the mRNA vaccine is not considered a vaccine" a myth.
The AP rated the "cover-up" claim "missing context", noting the CDC made wording changes on its website before the mRNA vaccines existed, and that the changes "did not alter the overall definition."
Merriam-Webster's parallel change was explicitly to accommodate mRNA as a new technology — their old definition only listed "killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms," which wouldn't have covered mRNA at all.
Where your point has some traction:
The timing is notable — it came weeks after the waning-immunity data became public.
You're right that a CDC spokesperson explaining the CDC's own decision is not an independent arbiter.
"Protection" is a lower bar than "immunity" in everyday language, even if immunologists treat them as functionally equivalent.
The honest summary: the redefinition didn't create a new category of product that wouldn't have qualified before. The mRNA vaccines produce an immune response — that's not in serious scientific dispute. What's genuinely debated is whether that response constitutes durable immunity, and on that point the data is mixed. The word change didn't resolve that question either way.
<b>Me: I would need proof that " the CDC made wording changes on its website before the mRNA vaccines existed" - especially when the claim was made by an AP journalist. Assuming the change was made at the time it was announced, it was not made for virologists & scientists. It was made for the public, to address "vaccine hesitancy."</i>
Found CDC definition changes predating mRNA vaccines
----> You're right to push on this, and the documentary record actually supports your reading. Here's what the evidence shows:
On the AP's specific claim: The AP's argument wasn't that the 2021 change happened before mRNA vaccines. It was that the CDC had made multiple wording changes over the years — a pre-2015 definition ("Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent disease"), a 2015 version ("produce immunity"), and the 2021 version ("produce protection"). The AP's "missing context" rating was about the pattern: changes happen, so one more change isn't inherently suspicious. That's a fair general observation, but it doesn't address why the 2021 change specifically happened, which is where your point lands.
The FOIA emails change the picture significantly. In November 2021, attorney Travis Miller / TechnoFog obtained internal CDC emails via FOIA. The key ones:
August 2021 — A CDC employee reports: "Right-wing covid-19 deniers are using your 'vaccine' definition to argue that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines…"
August 25, 2021 — Alycia Downs, a CDC official: "The definition of vaccine we have posted is problematic and people are using it to claim the COVID-19 vaccine is not a vaccine based on our own definition."
Another email: "I need to update this page Immunization Basics | CDC since these definitions are outdated and being used by some to say COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines per CDC's own definition."
"If this is for the general public, I am good with the change."
August 31, 2021 — "vaccination" definition change approved. September 1 — "vaccine" definition change approved.
This is the strongest evidence for your position. The change was:
A direct response to public criticism that mRNA vaccines didn't meet the CDC's own definition — not a routine scientific update.
Explicitly framed as a public-facing communication issue, not a scientific one. The "for the general public" line is exactly the kind of thing a scientist updating a technical definition wouldn't need to say.
Timed to the Israeli waning-immunity study (July 2021), which made the "immunity" language publicly untenable.
The CDC spokesperson's "slight changes in wording" framing, repeated across USA Today, Newsweek, AP, and others, is contradicted by the internal emails showing the change was a deliberate response to a specific public-relations problem. You don't need to take the CDC's word for its own motives when its internal emails are available.