Since March, when the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) virus pandemic became a daily focus of our lives in the western world, we have had a steady stream of mixed messages about the crisis. When it comes to the virus and the disease it causes, the “facts” change almost daily in accordance with the whims of so-called “authoritative sources” of information pushed by Big Tech and politicians all over the world.
For example, early in the pandemic, we were told that wearing masks is useless. Then, we were told we probably should wear a mask, but it wasn’t compulsory. As people became fatigued from a daily barrage of negative and contradictory information while working from home and living under lockdown, then many cities and state governments made masking mandatory. We were told it was scientific.
Some mayors, governors, and pundits even ventured to say that if we didn’t wear a cotton face covering when in public, we were very literally killing others.
In Canada, a video emerged of a man who was tackled and stomped on by a group of mall security officers for not wearing a mask. Some of the security guards who assaulted the man weren’t wearing masks themselves. The man, Corporal Joshua Walker, a Canadian Armed Forces reservist, was then charged by police for assault with intent to resist arrest and engaging in prohibited activity on the premises.
As it turns out, the man, as evidenced by a video he took of himself before being assaulted, was wearing a mask. He was assaulted after calling the guards “three stooges.”
In November, the largest study of its kind on masks came out of Denmark and was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. The study used a control group and followed 6,000 people for a month. Both the control group and the mask group were asked to practice social distancing.
The mask group was given 50 surgical masks and trained on their proper use. The study’s main criteria was “SARS-CoV-2 infection in the mask wearer at 1 month by antibody testing, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or hospital diagnosis.”
The study found that out of the 6,000 people studied: “Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%).” The study declared “the difference observed was not statistically significant.”
It concluded: “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use.” It added: “The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.”
Yet, this study, the largest of its kind, went largely unreported by the big media sources that tech aristocracy deems to be “authoritative.” Neither did it affect public policymakers in many parts of the world. In December, Calgary, Canada’s City Council, decided to extend their mandatory mask bylaw, which extends to all indoor public spaces, including places of work, until the end of 2021.
The driving force behind both the narrative and the measures put in place in North America around the CCP virus seems to use the concept of “science” merely as both a pretext to install autocracy by declaring public health emergencies with no expiry date and to brand anyone who challenges the state of affairs as heretically “unscientific.”
To achieve these ends, whatever they may be, no low is too low, including rewriting science itself.
The World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations body that is the most “authoritative” health source there is, appears to have recently redefined the concept of herd immunity from one that was in line with the science that has stood for decades to one that is, well, more in line with the current narrative for mass vaccination.
U.S. President Donald Trump defunded the $400 million per year that the United States previously gave to the body, admonishing the WHO’s mishandling of the pandemic as well as Director Tedros Ghebreyesus’s too-close-for-comfort relationship with the Chinese Communist Party.
The American Institute of Economic Research (AIER) reported the change to the WHO’s definition of Herd Immunity on their webpage: “…the World Health Organization — once glorious because it was mainly responsible for the eradication of smallpox — has suddenly decided to delete everything [relevant] from cell biology basics. It has literally changed the science in a Soviet-like way.”
“It has removed with the delete key any mention of natural immunities from its website. It has taken the additional step of actually mischaracterizing the structure and functioning of vaccines.” AIER describes itself as a U.S.-based non-partisan research advocacy organization founded in 1933.
The article shows a screenshot of WHO’s “Serology” page posted in June of 2020 that is stored on archive.org, describing herd immunity as “the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”
AIER’s article praises this definition as “pretty darn accurate overall… Even the statement that the threshold is ‘not yet clear’ is correct. There are cross immunities to Covid from other coronaviruses and there is T cell memory that contributes to natural immunity.”
However, in the current version of the WHO page, herd immunity has been completely redefined to imply that the human immune system requires vaccination to be resistant to the disease the CCP virus causes, which the WHO has coined “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).”
The new definition defines herd immunity as a “concept used for vaccination, in which a population 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,” the WHO’s modified definition claims.
AIER puts the WHO on blast for their new definition: “What this note at the World Health Organization has done is deleted what amounts to the entire million-year history of humankind in its delicate dance with pathogens… You could only gather from this that all of us are nothing but blank and unimprovable slates on which the pharmaceutical industry writes its signature.”
The author, Jeffrey A. Tucker, AIER’s Editorial Director, doesn’t stop there: “In effect, this change at WHO ignores and even wipes out 100 years of medical advances in virology, immunology, and epidemiology… It is thoroughly unscientific — shilling for the vaccine industry in exactly the way the conspiracy theorists say that WHO has been doing since the beginning of this pandemic.”
Tucker finds the claim that vaccination is some sort of protection from the virus completely absurd: “What’s even more strange is the claim that a vaccine protects people from a virus rather than exposing them to it. What’s amazing about this claim is that a vaccine works precisely by firing up the immune system through exposure.
“Why I had to type those words is truly beyond me.”