In what should be one of the biggest scandals haunting the World Health Organization today is its blatant redefinition of what and how herd immunity can be achieved to accommodate Big Pharma’s experimental, gene editing COVID19 vaccines.
As of 9 June 2020, the WHO defines 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.”
This has been the widely accepted understanding of what herd immunity is all about.
Below is the actual snapshot of the WHO web page with original herd immunity definition.
However, on 13 November 2020, the phrase herd immunity was redefined as “a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. “
New Science or Conflict of Interest?
Without hesitation, the agency that’s supposedly serving the healthcare needs of the global community effectively discarded million years of facts about how humankind evolved, and survived against all kinds of adversarial pathogens and viruses, without the intervention of Modern Medicine, medical “experts” and aggressively toxic bio-chemical compounds.
What’s funny is that even their own Wikipedia still has the following definition of what herd immunity is…
Herd immunity (also called herd effect, community immunity, population immunity, or social immunity) is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through vaccination or previous infections, thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity. Immune individuals are unlikely to contribute to disease transmission, disrupting chains of infection, which stops or slows the spread of disease. The greater the proportion of immune individuals in a community, the smaller the probability that non-immune individuals will come into contact with an infectious individual.
Individuals can become immune by recovering from an earlier infection or through vaccination. Some individuals cannot become immune because of medical conditions, such as an immunodeficiency or immunosuppression, and for this group herd immunity is a crucial method of protection. Once the herd immunity threshold has been reached, disease gradually disappears from a population. This elimination, if achieved worldwide, may result in the permanent reduction in the number of infections to zero, called eradication. Herd immunity created via vaccination contributed to the eventual eradication of smallpox in 1977 and has contributed to the reduction of other diseases. Herd immunity applies only to contagious disease, meaning that it is transmitted from one individual to another. Tetanus, for example, is infectious but not contagious, so herd immunity does not apply.
Herd immunity was recognized as a naturally occurring phenomenon in the 1930s when it was observed that after a significant number of children had become immune to measles, the number of new infections temporarily decreased, including among the unvaccinated. …
Since the currently manufactured vaccines are of an experimental type, i.e., mRNA, the same agency continues to accommodate Big Pharma by saying that…
“Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it,”
… which means that even though not an actual COVID19 virus is being used to manufacture the Pfizer and Bill Gates’ Moderna vaccines, (as they have yet to isolate and prove that the specific COVID19 strain does actually exist,) it’s still scientific to use the gene-editing mRNA vaccines for the moment.
Bear in mind, the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines are yet to be established, and that’s very clear from the non-approval of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines by FDA agencies in most countries. What these companies have right now is only an “emergency authorization,” which carries no penalties either from the government side, or the manufacturers’, should a recipient die, or injured, post vaccination.
There are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including local and systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune diseases.
An article published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a division of the National Institutes of Health, said other risks include:
- the bio-distribution and persistence of the induced immunogen expression;
- possible development of auto-reactive antibodies; and
- toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components.
The threshold of vaccination towards achieving herd immunity itself is also an ever-growing “guesstimates”…
Dr. Anthony Fauci on Sunday dismissed accusations that he deliberately moved the goalposts on when the country would vaccinate enough people against COVID-19 to reach herd immunity, saying he was previously offering “guestimates.”
Reported by some outlets as a “confession,” Fauci told The New York Times: “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent …Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”
In subsequent interviews, Fauci has focused on the other part of that Times report in which he compared COVID-19 to measles, saying at the time that “I’d bet my house that COVID isn’t as contagious as measles.”
Active Resistance vs. False Experts
The totalitarian COVID19 policies of governments around the globe are mostly based on the WHO guidelines that change on the fly, in a whim.
An increasing number of independent, high caliber experts are gaining the world’s attention to the faulty use of PCR tests, which the same World Health Organization necessitates the use of 45 amplification cycles, instead of the maximum 27 cycles to avoid high false positive PCR test results.
No wonder, a growing number of vaccine recipients needed immediate medical attention only a few minutes from vaccination, while alert frontliners are now openly expressing their hesitance to be experimented upon by their government.
The imposition of lockdowns should be based on the ratio of COVID19 deaths over the total population, and not on the number of infections, which include the deliberate inclusion of false positives.
To illustrate how the false COVID19 statistics justifying lockdowns affected the economic situation of a country, consider the 9,257 number of “COVID19 deaths” out of a population of 110,316,540 in the Philippines, which led to the economic loss of as high as 23.6% GDP since the plandemic begun.
Obviously, a mere 0.00839% of the total population cannot justify the locking down of the entire economy of healthy majority, right?
So, is this what the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 of Sustainable Development and Inclusivity all about?
The sustainability of regressive corporations, the deterioration of the quality of life, and the inclusivity of all COVIDPass bearing citizens into the mass surveillance apparatus?