Why Did WHO Change Definition Of Herd Immunity Last Year ?

John Carpay, President  of the Center of Constitutional Freedoms brought to my attention through one of his videos , podcasts this startling fact. 

On the WHO website for June 9 , 2020 the following definition is given for herd immunity :

‘ Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection ‘

On November 13, 2020 the definition was changed to:

‘Herd immunity also known as ‘population immunity’ is a concept used for vaccination in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.’

The Mayo Clinic says that that there are two paths to immunity for COVID , vaccines and infection. 

Now , there is a the persuasive idea that vaccines are necessary to get to herd immunity quicker than just through infection but Mayo does tell the truth that there are two ways to reach herd immunity .

If one looks up John Hopkins  Medical School and type in herd immunity they immediately have an article attacking natural immunity and supporting vaccine immunity. But it mentions both. It was written last August. It says Sweden who did not get into severe lockdown paid a big price in deaths comparing it to Finland and Norway. However, this world leading Institution has not updated this article to show that since last August many European countries that had severe lockdowns incurred death rates higher than Sweden —worldometer says Swedish death rate was 1359 per one million —-France is 1541, UK 1867 , Italy 1941. 

What WHO should have done was kept  the definition for honesty sake ( rather important one would think) and proceed as Mayo did and explain both methods fully.

But in their zeal to be a vaccine partisan they sacrificed honesty. 

The other points that are important and not discussed even by Mayo or Hopkins are

  1. The vaccines presently available are experimental —special exemptions by Governments 
  2. Hence , we know not what are possible negative effects to these

vaccines , even six months out let alone a year or two.

3. Up until now vaccines took two to four years to be approved 

4. Given that the companies are provided their own legal immunity from any negative effects of the vaccines , talking about immunity, one has to wonder just how effective these vaccines are going forward. There is even talk now that they are effective for only one year and boosters will be needed. 

5. And perhaps the biggest fault of all of all these BIG INSTITUTIONS AND MEDICAL EXPERTS was and is to downplay preventive measures which would have lessened the the number of sick people from using vitamin D, to invermectin to hdroxchoroquin and many other treatments.

Morale of the story :

A. It is hard to find the unvarnished truth . 

B .One has to dig hard and deep . 

C. Even leading reputable heath institutions are not above bias 

D. And the WHO ? Rotten as ever. 

11 thoughts on “Why Did WHO Change Definition Of Herd Immunity Last Year ?

  1. And Brian, consider this: one of Trumps advisers early on defined the comparative risk of this Covid: as not as bad as the Spanish flu but about 4 or 5 times worse than the regular flu. But Trump did not want to make people panic, and hid this and downplayed the disease as to risk of number of deaths possible.
    Now we see worldwiide 3 million dead this past year, (and suggested this is under reported)vs about 450,000 typical from the flu, so about 6 times worse, not much off from Trumps adviser, and not dropping.
    In the USA, 560,000 dead vs about 40,000 per year for the flu, about 14 times worse, but death rate now dropping a lot. Other countries vary a lot on this comparison.
    So, the unvarnished truth is hard to find, and sources keep changing the definitions as you note.
    The science is accumulating and much yet uncertain.
    Seems many cannot handle the truth, even when it exists.
    This not the 50 million who died from the Spanish flu, but not yet conquered, and variants may play havoc with any success, and is worse for younger people than the original virus. About 2000 below age 10 dead in Brazil, and P1 variant which is now spreading in Canada, and the vaccine less effective.
    Winston Adams, Nfld


  2. Pingback: Pandemia: la verità usata per salvare la menzogna | il Simplicissimus

  3. Pingback: The Wuhan “Lab-Leak” Story: More Fear Porn | Truth In Plain Sight.com

  4. Pingback: When you’re caught lying, blame it on somebody else…

  5. Pingback: La verità usata per salvare la menzogna - The Unconditional Blog

  6. Pingback: Mai multă pornografie a fricii: Teoria virusului scăpat din laboratorul din Wuhan | Blogul lui Marius Mioc

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s