- The Facts:
The World Health Organization (WHO) has changed their original definition of herd immunity. Now, the concept of herd immunity seems to be specific to and dependant on a vaccine.
- Reflect On:
Why are so many renowned scientists and doctors being censored across social media for sharing evidence, research, and opinions on COVID-19 if they oppose the official narrative we are receiving from governments and mainstream media.
Before you begin...
What Happened: It appears as if the World Health Organization (WHO) has completely changed their definition of herd immunity amidst the coronavirus pandemic. This was brought to our attention through Harvard Medical School Professor Martin Kulldorff, he posted a tweet on his feed from Dr. Eli David, a well known AI expert, showing a screenshot of the WHOs definition of herd immunity on June 9th, 2020, and a revised version from November 13th, 2020.
According to Kulldorff, the WHOs definition of herd immunity that was posted on June 9th and prior to that is something that is “scientifically correct” and something “no infectious disease epidemiologist would contest.”
--> Our Journalism Is Moving - Our investigative journalism and reporting is moving to our new brand called The Pulse. Click here to stay informed.
The June definition from the WHO reads as follows,
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. The threshold for establishing herd immunity for COVID-19 is not yet clear.
The revised November definition reads as follows,
‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected 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.
What we have here is the idea of any possibility of a population achieving some type of natural immunity, like the life-time immunity one receives from measles if they contract the measles naturally, for example, completely thrown out the window. The new definition expresses the idea that herd immunity can only be achieved through mass vaccination campaigns and nothing else.
All this being said, the WHO still explains the natural way one can be protected from a disease, they do so here. They also explain how a vaccine may help that, according to them.
Herd immunity has largely been a theoretical concept, and it’s been used as a backbone for imposing vaccine mandates in multiple countries. Children’s Health Defense claims that “The public health establishment borrowed the herd immunity concept from pre-vaccine observations of natural disease outbreaks. Then, without any apparent support science, officials applied the concept to vaccination, using it not only to justify mass vaccination but to guilt-trip anyone objecting to the nation’s increasingly onerous vaccine mandates.”
Obviously, many people do not see vaccine mandates to be unethical and infringing on human rights, many see it as a measure that is actually for the greater good, but this is a big topic and it’s not really black and white. The question we need to ask ourselves is, can vaccines even achieve herd immunity? Are mandating vaccines ethical or should freedom of choice always remain? It’s already been emphasized that there is no proof the COVID vaccine will stop transmission of the virus or prevent people from getting infected.
In a 2014 analysis in the Oregon Law Review by New York University (NYU) legal scholars Mary Holland and Chase E. Zachary (who also has a Princeton-conferred doctorate in chemistry), the authors claim that 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.” This is one of multiple reasons why so many suggest voluntary choice as opposed to vaccine mandates.
The legal scholars’ review discusses a number of other problems that make the theoretical concepts of vaccine efficacy and herd immunity highly imperfect in practice and, in fact, unachievable. These include:
- Secondary vaccine failure, defined as waning vaccine-induced immunity that no longer offers protection
- Mutation of the virus against which one is vaccinating, with the mutation plausibly triggered by the vaccine itself (vaccine researchers also allude to the problem of “genotype mismatch” between the vaccine strain and the wild-type virus)
- Viral shedding that allows asymptomatic vaccinated individuals to transmit the vaccine strain of the illness
- Importation of illness due to travel
- Recurrent outbreaks of illness in vaccinated populations that, say Holland and Zachary, “scientists simply cannot explain”
The measles vaccine is a great example of vaccine failure. It’s mandated for children yet there is a history of measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations. Measles outbreaks can also be a vaccine strain measles, for example, a study published in 2017 shows that out of the measles cases they sequences in the United States in 2015, nearly 40 percent of them were caused by the vaccine. Considering the number of hospitalizations, permanent disabilities and deaths due to the MMR vaccine, and the fact that 0.01 percent of measles cases are fatal, it’s not hard to see why so many oppose mandatory vaccination for children in public schools. You can read more about the number of injuries from this particular vaccine and see documented examples of measles vaccine failure here.
Herd Immunity And Covid: The idea that herd immunity can be achieved without a vaccine is something that countless experts in the field have brought up. Many seem to believe that lockdown measures actually prevented herd immunity. Take the Great Barrington Declaration, for example, a declaration that opposes lockdown measures as a way for combating COVID. It was initiated by Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.
As you can see above, the concept of herd immunity according to them “is not dependent upon a vaccine.”
Scientists, doctors and people who have supported the idea of herd immunity developing from COVID have come under fire. It’s perplexing how someone like Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, can go on television anytime he pleases and attain instant virality, opposing the idea of natural herd immunity as a way to combat COVID yet scientists who do not agree are never really given the light of day.
This has been a common theme during the pandemic, the suppression of science, data, scientists and doctors who oppose or present information that calls into question the official narrative has been quite alarming.
Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – source)(
Below is an interesting lecture from Gupta. She touches upon herd immunity which is why I’m posting it here.
The Takeaway: Are we seeing basic freedoms and enjoyable experiences within life become inaccessible for those that don’t wish to participate in extreme COVID measures? What is this fear driven approach saying about our general view of life at this time? We’ve all been confused and unsure of what ‘the new normal’ will look like. Heck, why are we even talking about a new normal in the context of more centralized power and control? What about a new normal in a world where humanity can truly thrive? Is this not worthy of a conversation? Nonetheless, the mainstream plan for ‘new normal’ is becoming clear, and it’s precisely what we’ve been projecting would happen.
Can we truly accept that controlling everyone’s lives and what they can and can’t do is the best thing to do with an extremely low mortality virus? Does this indicate the level of fear we have towards life? The issues with our general health? If the worry is straining health care systems, are we seeing the limitations of how our rigid social infrastructures can’t be flexible and maybe it’s time to look at a new way of living within society? Perhaps a new way built on a completely different worldview?
Why do we allow governments and private institutions to dictate what we can and can’t do? Do these entities really represent the will of the people? Should governments not be presenting the information
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Abductions & Car Vandalism – Startling Australian UFO Report Unclassified
Before you begin...
An uncovered Australian report performed by their Department of Defence. “Scientific Intelligence — General — Unidentified Flying Objects” is trending again. Those who have done extensive research on UFOs will find the Australian version of disclosure to be far more intellectually honest than the American version. Albeit it was conducted decades ago.
According to ex-US intelligence official Luis Elizondo, the Defense Department’s Inspector General is presently conducting three reviews. The inquiries vary from the Department of Defense’s handling of UFO claims to Elizondo’s alleged whistleblower retribution. The open IG cases are crucial to Australia’s report because they establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US Department of Defense is being dishonest and shady when it comes to the UFO subject. For decades, Australia has been a loyal friend of the United States. Within Australia’s boundaries, they share a military installation (Pine Gap). When a close defense ally’s intelligence agencies determined that the US was not being intellectually honest in its approach, perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that there is more to the tale than the 144 incidents studied since 2004 by the UAPTF.
The CIA became alarmed at the overloading of military communications during the mass sightings of 1952 and considered the possibility that the USSR may take advantage of such a situation.
Australian UFO study.
According to the summary, OSI, acting through the Robertson-Panel, encouraged the USAF to use Project Blue Book to publicly “debunk” UFOs. In a tragic twist of fate, when Australian authorities sought explanations from the US Air Force, the allegation was debunked. The authors of the study were depicted as conspiratorial and even crazy by the US Air Force. Ross Coulthart reported this, and it may be heard in a recent Project Unity interview. Courthart is an award-winning investigative journalist who is drawn to forbidden subjects. He also stated on the same podcast that a senior US Navy official identified as Nat Kobitz told him that the US had been in the midst of reverse-engineering numerous non-human craft. According to his obituary, Mr. Kobitz was a former Director of Research and Development at Naval Sea Systems Command.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
PGA Tour To End COVID Testing For Both Vaccinated & Non-Vaccinated Players
- The Facts:
The PGA Tour has announced that it will stop testing players every week, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated or not.
- Reflect On:
Are PCR tests appropriate to identify infectious people? Should people who are healthy and not sick be tested at all, anywhere?
Before you begin...
The picture you see above is of John Rahm, a professional golfer on the PGA tour being carted off the golf course after tournament officials told him he had COVID. He was healthy and had no symptoms, yet was forced to withdraw from the tournament. He was told in front of the camera’s, and a big scene was made out of the event. You would think something like that, especially when you are a big time sports figure, would be done behind closed doors with some privacy.
Earlier on in June a spokesperson for the PGA Tour said that more than 50 percent of players on the PGA tour have been vaccinated. Although it seems that the majority of players on the tour will be fully vaccinated judging by this statement, it does leave a fairly large minority who won’t be, and that’s something we’re seeing across the globe as COVID vaccine hesitancy remains high for multiple reasons.
We are pleased to announce, after consultation with PGA Tour medical advisors, that due to the high rate of vaccination among all constituents on the PGA Tour, as well as other positively trending factors across the country, testing for COVID-19 will no longer be required as a condition of competition beginning with the 3M Open. – PGA tour Senior VP Tyler Dennis
The tour recently announced that the testing of players every week will stop starting in July for both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. This was an unexpected announcement given the fact that, at least it seems in some countries, vaccinated individuals will enjoy previous rights and freedoms that everyone did before the pandemic. Travelling without need to quarantine and possibly in the future not having to be tested could be a few of those privileges. Others may include attending concerts, sporting events, or perhaps even keeping their job depending on whether or not their employer deems it to be mandatory, if that’s even legally possible. We will see what happens.
Luckily for professional golfers, regardless of their vaccination status they won’t have to worry about testing positive for COVID, especially if they’re not sick. This is the appropriate move by the PGA tour, who is represented by their players and it’s a move that the players themselves may have had a say in. It’s important because PCR tests are not designed nor are they appropriate for identifying infectious people. A number of scientists have been emphasizing this since the beginning of the pandemic. More recently, a letter to the editor published in the Journal of infection explain why more than half of al “positive” PCR tests are likely to have been people who are not infectious, otherwise known as “false positives.”
This is why the Swedish Public Health agency has a notice on their website explaining how and why polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are not useful for determining if someone is infected with COVID or if someone can transmit it to others, and it’s better to use someone who is actually showing symptoms as a judgement call of whether or not they could be infected or free from infection.
PCR tests using a high cycle threshold are extremely sensitive. An article published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35, only 3 percent of the samples showed viral replication. This can be interpreted as, if someone tests positive via PCR when a Ct of 35 or higher is used, the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97 percent. This begs the question, why has Manitoba, Canada, for example, using cycle thresholds of up to 45 to identify “positive” people?
When it comes to golf, the fact that spread occurring in an outdoor setting is highly unlikely could have been a factor, but it’s also important to mention that asymptomatic spread within one’s own household is also considerably rare. It really makes you wonder what’s going on here, doesn’t it?
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
New Study Questions The Safety of COVID Vaccinations & Urges Governments To Take Notice
- The Facts:
A new study published in the journal Vaccines has called into question the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.
- Reflect On:
Why are people hesitant to take the vaccine? Why are scientists and journalists who explain why hesitancy may exist censored?
Before you begin...
A new study published in the journal Vaccines by three scientists and medical professionals from Europe has raised concerns about the safety of COVID vaccines, and it’s not the first to do so. The study found that there is a “lack of clear benefit” of the vaccines and this study should be a catalyst for “governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”
The study calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) in order to prevent one death, and to do so they used a large Israeli Field study. Using the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl), the researchers were able to assess the number of cases reporting severe side effects as well as the cases with fatal side effects as a result of a COVID vaccine.
They point out the following:
The NNTV is between 200-700 to prevent on case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95 % confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.
The researchers estimates suggest that we have to exchange 4 fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2-11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations. This puts the risk vs. benefit of COVID vaccination on the same order of magnitude.
We need to accept that around 16 cases will develop severe adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines per 100,000 vaccinations delivered, and approximately four people will die from the consequences of being vaccinated per 100,000 vaccinations delivered. Adopting the point estimate of NNTV = 16,000 (95% CI, 9000–50,000) to prevent one COVID-19-related death, for every six (95% CI, 2–11) deaths prevented by vaccination, we may incur four deaths as a consequence of or associated with the vaccination. Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths.
The study does point out that COVID-19 vaccines are effective and can, according to the publication, prevent infections, morbidity and mortality associated with COVID, but the costs must be weighted. For example, many people have been asking themselves, what are the chances I will get severely ill and die from a COVID infection?
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine recently shared that the survival rate for people under 70 years of age is about 99.95 percent. He also said that COVID is less dangerous than the flu for children. This comes based on approximately 50 studies that have been published, and information showing that more children in the U.S. have died from the flu than COVID. Here’s a meta analysis published by the WHO that gives this number. The number comes based on the idea that many more people than we have the capacity to test have most likely been infected.
How dangerous COVID is for healthy individuals has been a controversial discussion throughout this pandemic, with viewpoints differing.
Furthermore, as the study points out, one has to be mindful of a “positive” case determined by a PCR test. A PCR test cannot determine whether someone is infectious or not, and a recent study found that it’s highly likely that at least 50 percent of “positive” cases have been “false positives.”
This is the issue with testing asymptomatic healthy people, especially at a high cycle threshold. It’s the reason why many scientists and doctors have been urging government health authorities to determine cases and freedom from infections based on symptoms rather than a PCR test. You can read more in-depth about PCR testing and the issues with it here if you’re interested.
When it comes to the documented 4 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations and whether or not it’s a significant number, the researchers state,
This is difficult to say, and the answer is dependant on one’s view of how severe the pandemic is and whether the common assumption that there is hardly any innate immunological defense or cross-reactional immunity is true. Some argue that we can assume cross-reactivity of antibodies to conventional coronaviruses in 30–50% of the population [13,14,15,16]. This might explain why children and younger people are rarely afflicted by SARS-CoV2 [17,18,19].
Natural immunity is another interesting topic I’ve written in-depth about. There’s a possibility that more than a billion people have been infected, does this mean they have protection? What happens if previously infected individuals take the vaccine? What does this do to their natural immunity? The research suggesting natural immunity may last decades, or even a lifetime, is quite strong in my opinion.
There are also other health concerns that have been raised that go beyond deaths and adverse reactions as a result of the vaccine.
As the study points out,
A recent experimental study has shown that SARS-CoV2 spike protein is sufficient to produce endothelial damage. . This provides a potential causal rationale for the most serious and most frequent side effects, namely, vascular problems such as thrombotic events. The vector-based COVID-19 vaccines can produce soluble spike proteins, which multiply the potential damage sites . The spike protein also contains domains that may bind to cholinergic receptors, thereby compromising the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathways, enhancing inflammatory processes . A recent review listed several other potential side effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that may also emerge later than in the observation periods covered here …Given this fact and the higher number of serious side effects already reported, the current political trend to vaccinate children who are at very low risk of suffering from COVID-19 in the first place must be reconsidered.
Concerns regarding the distribution of the spike protein our cells manufacture after injection have been recently raised by Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist from the University of Guelph who recently released a detailed in depth report regarding safety concerns about the COVID vaccines.
The report was released to act as a guide for parents when it comes to deciding whether or not their child should be vaccinated against COVID-19. Bridle published the paper on behalf of one hundred other scientists and doctors who part of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, but who are afraid to ‘come out’ publicly and share their concerns. Byram, as many others, have received a lot of criticism and have been subjected to fact checking via Facebook third party fact-checkers.
A recent article published in the British Medical Journal by journalist Laurie Clarke has highlighted the fact that Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others. YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”
It’s also important to note that only a small fraction of side effects are even reported to adverse events databases. The authors cite multiple sources showing this, and that the median underreporting can be as high as 95 percent. This begs the question, how many deaths and adverse reactions from COVID vaccines have not been reported? Furthermore, if there are long term concerns, will deaths resulting from an adverse reaction, perhaps a year later, even be considered as connected to to the vaccine? Probably not.
This isn’t the only study to bring awareness to the lack of injuries most likely not reported. For example, an HHS pilot study conducted by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research found that 1 in every 39 vaccines in the United States caused some type of injury, which is a shocking comparison to the 1 in every million claim. It’s also unsettling that those who are injured by the COVID-19 vaccine won’t be eligible for compensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) while COVID is still an “emergency”, at least in the United States.
Below is the most recent data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Keep in mind that VAERS is not without its criticism. One common criticism we’ve seen from Facebook fact-checkers, for example, is there is no proof that the vaccine was actually the cause of these events.
A few other papers have raised concerns, for example. A study published in October of 2020 in the International Journal of Clinical Practice states:
COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.
In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”
For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes — not right away, but three or four years down the road. In this latest paper, Classen warns that the RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light.
There are a plethora of reasons why COVID vaccine hesitancy has been quite high. I wrote an in-depth article about this in April if you’re interested in learning about the other reasons.
Conversations like this are incredibly important in today’s climate of mass censorship. Who is right or wrong is not important, what’s important is that discussion about the vaccine and all other topics remain open and transparent. The amount of experts in the field who have been censored for sharing their views on this topic has been unprecedented. For example, in March, Harvard epidemiologist and vaccine expert Dr. Martin Kulldorff was subjected to censorship by Twitter for sharing his opinion that not everybody needed to take the COVID vaccine.
It’s good to see this recent study point out that the benefits of the vaccine, for some people, may not outweigh the potential costs.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
The Bosnian Pyramid Complex: Larger, Older & More Mysterious Than Pyramids In Egypt
If the Bosnian pyramid of the sun is genuine, and there is very little doubt in my mind that it...
Quantum Experiment Sheds Light On The Metaphysical Properties of Human DNA
Vladimir Poponin is a well known Russian scientist who in 1995, with his colleagues, including biophysicist Peter Gariaev, conducted a very...