Why did WHO change definition of herd iImmunity last year?

John Carpay, President of the Centre of Constitutional Freedoms brought to my attention through one of his video podcasts ­– this startling fact. 

On the World Health Organization website for June 9, 2020 the following definition is given for herd immunity: 

“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.”

On November 13, 2020 the definition was changed to:

“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.”

The Mayo Clinic says that that there are two paths to immunity for COVID, vaccines and infection. 

Now, there is a persuasive idea that vaccines are necessary to get to herd immunity quicker than just through infection but Mayo does tell the truth that there are two ways to reach herd immunity.

If one looks up John Hopkins Medical School and type in herd immunity they immediately have an article attacking natural immunity and supporting vaccine immunity. But it mentions both. It was written last August. It says Sweden which did not get into severe lockdown, paid a big price in deaths comparing it to Finland and Norway. However, this world-leading institution has not updated this article to show that since last August many European countries that had severe lockdowns incurred death rates higher than Sweden — Worldometer says Swedish death rate was 1,359 per one million — France is 1,541, UK 1,867, Italy 1,941. 

What WHO should have done was keep the definition for honesty sake (rather important, one would think) and proceed as Mayo did and explain both methods fully.

But in their zeal to be a vaccine partisan they sacrificed honesty. 

The other points that are important and not discussed even by Mayo or Hopkins are

The vaccines available are experimental – special exemptions by governments 

Hence, we know not what are possible negative effects to these vaccines, even six months out, let alone a year or two.

Up until now vaccines took two to four years to be approved 

Given that the companies are provided their own legal immunity from any negative effects of the vaccines, talking about immunity, one has to wonder just how effective these vaccines are going forward. There is even talk now that they are effective for only one year and boosters will be needed. 

And perhaps the biggest fault of all by these so-called big institutions and medical experts was and is to downplay preventive measures that would have lessened sickness and death from the use of vitamin D, to ivermectin, to hydroxychoriquin and many others.  

Morale of the story:

A. It is hard to find the unvarnished truth. 

B. One has to dig hard and deep. 

C. Even leading reputable heath institutions are not above bias 

D. And the WHO? Rotten as ever.