News
Featured Image
WHO Director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesusvasilis asvestas / Shutterstock.com

LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

GENEVA, Switzerland, December 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The World Health Organization (WHO) has updated its definition of “herd immunity,” redefining the term as something only achievable when the “vast majority of a population are vaccinated.” 

It was recently discovered that the WHO changed this definition, suppressing the fact that immunity happens as a natural process in populations as individuals are infected and develop immunity to a particular virus.  Such “herd immunity” can, potentially, be assisted by a vaccine but is not dependent upon it.

The WHO definition prior to the change stated:

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 [emphasis added].

The WHO’s new definition is largely drawn from a speech delivered in October by the organization’s Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.  It suppresses the fact that herd immunity is achieved by natural means and narrows the concept as to apply only to the process of vaccination, suggesting that protection from COVID-19 can’t happen without mass vaccination. It states:

‘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.

Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it…

With herd immunity, the vast majority of a population are vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population. 

But Stanford epidemiologist and co-author of The Great Barrington Declaration, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, has stated that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) new definition of “herd immunity” does not rightly define the biological reality.

Bhattacharya told LifeSiteNews, “The revised definition of herd immunity’ at the WHO site is not actually a definition of herd immunity.  It provides a nice description of how vaccines can protect people against infections and makes a sensible, but obvious, point that we should not intentionally infect anyone with a disease.”

However, he clarifies, “[h]erd immunity describes the situation when – because of both natural immunity and vaccine-induced immunity – every new person infected with an infectious disease will pass the infection on to an average of one person or fewer. At that point, the number of infected people will tend to shrink.” This, he states, is “the end point of many epidemics, and will be the end point of this COVID-19 epidemic.”

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: No to government and corporate penalties for refusing COVID-19 vaccine
  Show Petition Text
102732 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 125000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

                                                                                                                      **Photo credit: Shutterstock.com

Mainstream media sources are promoting offensive suggestions by some doctors that people who refuse a vaccine for COVID-19 should be "punished" by the government and by business - effectively coercing them into taking the vaccine.

  • One group of doctors writing in 'USA Today' suggested that the government impose special taxes (i.e., fines) on people who refuse the vaccination and that business simply refuse to serve them. [see story below]
  • Another doctor writing in an online publication called 'The Conversation' shamelessly suggested that people who refuse a vaccine should be given a psychoactive drug to induce compliance. [see story below]

But, these suggestions are plain political posturing, and have nothing to do with science or with the recent trends of the disease.

And, in case they haven't noticed, we live in a democracy not a medical dictatorship!

Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks policy-makers and business people, at all levels, to pledge to respect the rights of those who, in good conscience, decide not to vaccinate themselves or their children.

People should not have to live in fear of governmental or corporate retribution for refusing a vaccine which is being rushed to market by Big Pharma and their fellow-travelers in NGOs, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

It would be intolerable and immoral for the government or business to coerce someone, and their family, to take a COVID vaccine against their will to avoid a fine, or just so they can do their weekly grocery shopping.

Medical freedom must be respected in principle and also in practice.

So, it is now time that our policy-makers listen to all voices involved in this vital conversation, and start to represent those who will not tolerate being punished for refusing a vaccine.

Simply put, legislatures must begin to act as legislatures again.

Questions must be asked. Hearings and investigations must be held. And, the legislatures of each state and country must return to the business of representing the people who voted for them, assuming their rightful place as the originator of legislation.

We can no longer accept the dictates of executive branches without question, especially now that, statistically speaking, the initial brunt of the COVID crisis has passed.

Neither can we accept the dictates of doctors who seem detached from reality and from science, and who only seem to be attached to the idea of promoting ideas which contribute to the agrandizement of power and control of political interests, and wealth of those who stand to make a lot of money from the sale of a COVID vaccine.

Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks government and business leaders to pledge to respect the rights of those who refuse a COVID vaccine, and not seek to punish them for doing so.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'Doctors lay out plan to ‘punish’ people who refuse coronavirus vaccine: ‘There is no alternative’' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctors-lay-out-plan-to-punish-people-who-refuse-coronavirus-vaccine-there-is-no-alternative

'US professor: ‘Psychoactive pill’ should be covertly administered to ensure lockdown compliance' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-professor-ensure-lockdown-compliance-by-drugging-dissenters-with-psychoactive-pill

  Hide Petition Text

Finally, he affirms, “The WHO attempting to alter the definition will not change that basic biological fact.”

Also commenting on the WHO’s new definition was Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former vice president and chief scientist for Pfizer pharmaceutical. In a Monday tweet presenting the new definition, the British national calls it a “lot of chuff” which is “factually wrong in numerous ways.”

Later in its presentation on the topic, the WHO states that “The vast majority of people in most countries remain susceptible to this virus. Seroprevalence surveys suggest that in most countries, less than 10% of the population have been infected with COVID-19.”

In an earlier analysis of these questions, Yeadon called such a presumption of 100% initial susceptibility to the COVID-19 virus “ridiculous because while SARS-CoV-2 is indeed novel, coronaviruses are not.”

He pointed out that there are at least “four, endemic, common-cold inducing coronaviruses … [which] circulate freely in UK and elsewhere.” Those who have been infected by “one or more of these endemic, common-cold producing coronaviruses in the past, have a long-lived and robust [T-cell] immunity, not only to those viruses, but to closely related viruses. SARS-CoV-2 is one such closely-related virus.”

“To not expect such cross-over is … to demonstrate the lack of the requisite understanding” for being effective in mitigating harms due to an epidemic, he wrote.

Thus, drawing from the scientific data, Dr. Yeadon concluded that due to previous exposure to common-cold coronaviruses, “a significant proportion (30%) of the population went into 2020 armed with T-cells capable of defending them against SARS-CoV-2, even though they had never seen the virus,” and that public health authorities are “naively wrong to assume ‘everyone was susceptible’.”

In addition to these 30%, Yeadon also demonstrates that concluding a “less than 10%” infection rate of the population, based on seroprevalence surveys, “is a gross and amateur underestimate,” since “not every person, infected by a respiratory virus, goes on to produce antibodies” and that is what these surveys measure.

Drawing from two independent methods, which arrive at the same general conclusion, Yeadon demonstrates that the real infection rate is “in the mid-20s to low-30’s per cent,” and thus WHO’s estimate “less than 10%” is “a gross and amateur underestimate.”

Thus, combining these figures together, and considering one can add 10% for some young children who are “resistant,” one arrives at the conclusion that 65 to 72% of the population is currently immune to COVID-19, achieving, Yeadon says, herd immunity.

“Accordingly,” Yeadon concludes, societies “should immediately be permitted to get back to normal life.”

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.

RELATED

‘We have to fight back’: Doctor lays out ‘sensible’ anti-COVID strategy

Former Pfizer VP: ‘No need for vaccines,’ ‘the pandemic is effectively over’

Research scientist warns coronavirus vaccines have ‘terrible safety record’ historically

Doctor calls Fauci’s demand for mass COVID vaccinations ‘utter nonsense’

COVID-19 ‘warp speed’ vaccines likely not safe and not needed, medical expert says

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.