WHO Changes The Definition of Herd Immunity & Says Vaccines Are Required To Achieve It
By
Arjun Walia
In Brief
- The Facts:
The World Health Organization (WHO) has changed their original definition of herd immunity. Now, the concept of herd immunity seems to be specific to and dependant on a vaccine.
- Reflect On:
Why are so many renowned scientists and doctors being censored across social media for sharing evidence, research, and opinions on COVID-19 if they oppose the official narrative we are receiving from governments and mainstream media.
What Happened: It appears as if the World Health Organization (WHO) has completely changed their definition of herd immunity amidst the coronavirus pandemic. This was brought to our attention through Harvard Medical School Professor Martin Kulldorff, he posted a tweet on his feed from Dr. Eli David, a well known AI expert, showing a screenshot of the WHOs definition of herd immunity on June 9th, 2020, and a revised version from November 13th, 2020.
According to Kulldorff, the WHOs definition of herd immunity that was posted on June 9th and prior to that is something that is “scientifically correct” and something “no infectious disease epidemiologist would contest.”
--> Join us on Telegram: Be sure you get our most important and latest content by joining our free Telegram channel. You can also meet and chat with like minds! Click here to join.
The June definition from the WHO reads as follows,
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. This means that even people who haven’t been infected, or in whom an infection hasn’t triggered an immune response, they are protected because people around them who are immune can act as buffers between them and an infected person. The threshold for establishing herd immunity for COVID-19 is not yet clear.
The revised November definition reads as follows,
‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.
advertisement - learn more
What we have here is the idea of any possibility of a population achieving some type of natural immunity, like the life-time immunity one receives from measles if they contract the measles naturally, for example, completely thrown out the window. The new definition expresses the idea that herd immunity can only be achieved through mass vaccination campaigns and nothing else.
All this being said, the WHO still explains the natural way one can be protected from a disease, they do so here. They also explain how a vaccine may help that, according to them.
Herd immunity has largely been a theoretical concept, and it’s been used as a backbone for imposing vaccine mandates in multiple countries. Children’s Health Defense claims that “The public health establishment borrowed the herd immunity concept from pre-vaccine observations of natural disease outbreaks. Then, without any apparent support science, officials applied the concept to vaccination, using it not only to justify mass vaccination but to guilt-trip anyone objecting to the nation’s increasingly onerous vaccine mandates.”
Obviously, many people do not see vaccine mandates to be unethical and infringing on human rights, many see it as a measure that is actually for the greater good, but this is a big topic and it’s not really black and white. The question we need to ask ourselves is, can vaccines even achieve herd immunity? Are mandating vaccines ethical or should freedom of choice always remain? It’s already been emphasized that there is no proof the COVID vaccine will stop transmission of the virus or prevent people from getting infected. With that logic, it’s This isn’t new, it’s a common theme if we look at the vaccine history and the progression of various diseases.
For example, in a 2014 analysis in the Oregon Law Review by New York University (NYU) legal scholars Mary Holland and Chase E. Zachary (who also has a Princeton-conferred doctorate in chemistry), the authors claim that 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.” This is one of multiple reasons why so many suggest voluntary choice as opposed to vaccine mandates.
The legal scholars’ review discusses a number of other problems that make the theoretical concepts of vaccine efficacy and herd immunity highly imperfect in practice and, in fact, unachievable. These include:
- Secondary vaccine failure, defined as waning vaccine-induced immunity that no longer offers protection
- Mutation of the virus against which one is vaccinating, with the mutation plausibly triggered by the vaccine itself (vaccine researchers also allude to the problem of “genotype mismatch” between the vaccine strain and the wild-type virus)
- Viral shedding that allows asymptomatic vaccinated individuals to transmit the vaccine strain of the illness
- Importation of illness due to travel
- Recurrent outbreaks of illness in vaccinated populations that, say Holland and Zachary, “scientists simply cannot explain”
The measles vaccine is a great example of vaccine failure. It’s mandated for children yet there is a history of measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations. Measles outbreaks can also be a vaccine strain measles, for example, a study published in 2017 shows that out of the measles cases they sequences in the United States in 2015, nearly 40 percent of them were caused by the vaccine. Considering the number of hospitalizations, permanent disabilities and deaths due to the MMR vaccine, and the fact that 0.01 percent of measles cases are fatal, it’s not hard to see why so many oppose mandatory vaccination for children in public schools. You can read more about the number of injuries from this particular vaccine and see documented examples of measles vaccine failure here.
Herd Immunity And Covid: The idea that herd immunity can be achieved without a vaccine is something that countless experts in the field have brought up. Many seem to believe that lockdown measures actually prevented herd immunity. Take the Great Barrington Declaration, for example, a declaration that opposes lockdown measures as a way for combating COVID. It was initiated by Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist.
They explain,
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.
As you can see above, the concept of herd immunity according to them “is not dependent upon a vaccine.”
Scientists, doctors and people who have supported the idea of herd immunity developing from COVID have come under fire. It’s perplexing how someone like Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, can go on television anytime he pleases and attain instant virality, opposing the idea of natural herd immunity as a way to combat COVID yet scientists who do not agree are never really given the light of day.
This has been a common theme during the pandemic, the suppression of science, data, scientists and doctors who oppose or present information that calls into question the official narrative has been quite alarming.
Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – (source)
Below is an interesting lecture from Gupta. She touches upon herd immunity which is why I’m posting it here.
The Takeaway: Are we seeing basic freedoms and enjoyable experiences within life become inaccessible for those that don’t wish to participate in extreme COVID measures? What is this fear driven approach saying about our general view of life at this time? We’ve all been confused and unsure of what ‘the new normal’ will look like. Heck, why are we even talking about a new normal in the context of more centralized power and control? What about a new normal in a world where humanity can truly thrive? Is this not worthy of a conversation? Nonetheless, the mainstream plan for ‘new normal’ is becoming clear, and it’s precisely what we’ve been projecting would happen.
Can we truly accept that controlling everyone’s lives and what they can and can’t do is the best thing to do with an extremely low mortality virus? Does this indicate the level of fear we have towards life? The issues with our general health? If the worry is straining health care systems, are we seeing the limitations of how our rigid social infrastructures can’t be flexible and maybe it’s time to look at a new way of living within society? Perhaps a new way built on a completely different worldview?
Why do we allow governments and private institutions to dictate what we can and can’t do? Do these entities really represent the will of the people? Should governments not be presenting the information
Dive Deeper
These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.
Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.
No comments:
Post a Comment