If you’ve read my posts here much before, you’ll know that I’ve documented elsewhere on this site their ties at the top with Communist ideology. And it is frightening where that could go. But I’ve seen many posts lately on some of my more favoured sites out there, asking the question, “did WHO change the definition of herd immunity,” and “did WHO change the definition of pandemic?”
Although I’m not a fan of the World Health Organization, I think this one isn’t as clear-cut as the conspiracy theorists believe it is.
First, the takeaway:
- I think the World Health Organization is headed up by a communist sympathizer (which I’ve written about elsewhere).
- I’m not surprised that “the powers that be” at the WHO are on the same track to get everyone in the world vaccinated as are Bill Gates, Fauci and all the newly-minted billionaires out of this crisis and the Covid vaccine as the only way out.
- I don’t see that in this case, the WHO has done anything underhanded to “change the definition of herd immunity” in some clandestine way, hoping people won’t notice.
- I think they are misguided at best and possibly somewhat malevolent in their approach to the best ways to deal with the covid issue (although I can’t prove this, though it sure seems like it).
- As Christians we need to be very careful about saying “that is what they are doing” as opposed to what we maybe more often should be saying, such as “I believe that is what they are probably doing,” or, “I have to be open to the possibility that is what they are doing”
- When we say “that’s it” as opposed to “that sure looks like it” we damage our credibility and our witness.
- Real, careful thinking (the “cognitive man” approach) requires careful thought, the need to not jump to conclusions without knowing instead of suspecting and also, sometimes, having to say I don’t know.
Now, for “the rest of the story….”
Just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.
I see a lot of articles documenting (very well) the constantly changing landscape of recommendations from the WHO, the CDC, the AMA and various other governing bodies in different countries. Quite honestly, it seems there is a lot of story-changing and backtracking going on.
Many of us, especially on “the right” see some rather sinister looking things happening with changing recommendations and silencing of competing views on the rightness or wrongness of pushing the vaccines as the only answer.
I think there are competing worldviews at work here in the different articles I read regarding this subject. For instance, from “my side” of the conspiratorial fence, I see a lot of mentions of a “change in definition of herd immunity” that supposedly happened on the World Health Organization website.
As an example, I’m going to take a “deep dive” into one article I came across over at Medium. It’s written by Tara, self-described as a “Resolute over-thinker, introvert, eternal optimist, recovering procrastinator, unashamed nerd.” (You can follow her at “All’s Write With The World.”)
Tara makes some interesting points. And I think her concerns that she raises resonate with me. I believe, as it seems she believes, that the Covid vaccines are now more dangerous than the virus. It seems that there is probably not much left anymore of the original Covid strain and all that are left are the many variants that have sprung up.
And I also believe that, as most of these things go, this would be better treated these days by an emphasis on vitamins C, D and zinc with the ability for doctors to freely prescribe ivermectin and hydroxichloroquine as needed. I’m not a doctor but I see many (and ever more recently) advocating for this choice in treating patients, yet often denied the right to do so by bureaucracies of all sorts.
But the specific question is, “did the WHO change their definition of herd immunity to push their agenda of global vaccination?”
Tara notes the following from the WHO website:
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the methods to obtain herd immunity used to be found on this web page. The page, titled Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19): Serology and dated 9 June, 2020, can be found on the Web Archive (Wayback Machine): https://web.archive.org/web/20201101161006/https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology
Now compare this with the explanation currently on the same page as of 13 November, 2020. (https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology)
And Tara asks, “What happened to that other part? You know, the part about herd immunity being developed through previous infection?” Furthermore, they state that “Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.”
Ok. I see the change. It is fair to question this.
Again, where’s the acknowledgement that herd immunity can be, and has been, established through previous infection? The WHO not only chooses to ignore one of the main methods of achieving herd immunity, it also asserts some deceitful claims, if not flat out lies. For example: “Vaccines train our immune systems to develop antibodies, just as might happen when we are exposed to a disease but — crucially — vaccines work without making us sick.”
She has several good points. The vaccines are apparently making A LOT of people sick. And according to some immunologists looking at the numbers, the risk of injury or death from the vaccine is now worse than the risks from getting covid.
Now here’s the jump….
In conclusion, the author asks, “Why would the WHO change the definition of herd immunity to completely ignore the other major half of it? Well, other than pushing the narrative that the experimental Covid-19 vaccine is the only way to save humankind from the Corona virus.”
I get the complaint. But here’s the problem. They didn’t actually “change” the definition of herd immunity.
As a matter of fact, I’m just going to copy a screenshot, right here, from the WHO website, right now, at June 24th, 2021. It is still there…..
Read it for yourself. “‘Herd Immunity,’ also known as ‘population immunity.’ is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infections.”
Their point, though (although I’m skeptical they have it right, for reasons that others note) is, “WHO supports achieving ‘herd immunity’ through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.”
Questioning the wisdom of these vaccines is a fair thing to do, with all the injuries reported. But saying they are “changing the definition” to hit an agenda isn’t dealing fair with the facts.
They’re not changing the definition of herd immunity. They’re explaining why they think people are better off with the vaccine rather than the disease.
An ever-increasing number of immunologists think they are wrong. I get that, too, and from my limited perspective, I’d rather take my chances with Covid and zinc, D and ivermectin than I would ever want to have to take my chances with the vaccine.
But saying they are changing their definitions when they’re not is intellectually dishonest.
Look, I get the frustration. The American Institute for Economic Research posted an article expressing the frustrations we’ve all been dealing with on this issue.
Coronavirus lived on surfaces until it didn’t. Masks didn’t work until they did, then they did not. There is asymptomatic transmission, except there isn’t. Lockdowns work to control the virus except they do not. All these people are sick without symptoms until, whoops, PCR tests are wildly inaccurate because they were never intended to be diagnostic tools. Everyone is in danger of the virus except they aren’t. It spreads in schools except it doesn’t.
On it goes. Daily. It’s no wonder that so many people have stopped believing anything that “public health authorities” say. In combination with governors and other autocrats doing their bidding, they set out to take away freedom and human rights and expected us to thank them for saving our lives. At some point this year (for me it was March 12) life began feeling like a dystopian novel of your choice.
True. And so far, so good. But they, too, say this definition was removed from the WHO website, with conclusions as to why they did it….
But it wasn’t removed. And they even explain why they are making the change in emphasis – which is because, in the WHO’s mind, you’re better off with the vaccine than the disease.
So they’re not saying herd immunity doesn’t happen with people getting exposed to the disease, but only from the vaccine. They’ve not “changed the definition.” They’re only wanting people to see why they think the vaccine is wise.
And if we aren’t careful to see what is actually being said and instead jump on the memes that support our preconceptions, without proper homework, we just exchange one problem for another.
I fell for this, too. I saw this meme on facebook, and thought it sure fit the bill.
It is two different links, from two different pages, both still up there. And it’s an inaccurate meme to reinforce a presupposition that these people can’t be trusted.
But it’s based in disinformation. And the ends don’t justify the memes.
This particular attack on what they are doing doesn’t help our credibility in the end.
Can they be trusted? I’m not convinced. But does this way of glossing over the fact that these are two entries, still both on their website, on different pages, help us to get people to see it?
It only helps the preaching to the choir. But it isn’t going to do anything but destroy our credibility with the very people we still need to reach.
Pick your battles, do your homework, be humble and say “maybe” instead of jumping to conclusions all the time. We will all be better off for it.