The World Health Organization has modified the definitions of the pandemic and herd immunity, first to be able to declare a state of pandemic, and subsequently in order to impose vaccination on a large scale. The narrative is amplified by the Russian channel Sputnik, quoting TV producer Răzvan Dumitrescu, who in turn has picked it up from American sources.
NEWS: “A monumental hoax! The famous TV producer discloses undisputable evidence that the WHO has mystified the data and circumstances of the pandemic – hence its being declared in suspicious conditions! […] Răzvan Dumitrescu shows how the WHO modified key terms like “pandemic” and “herd immunity” in order to launch a global hysteria about the pandemic and then vaccination.
The conclusion? Răzvan Dumitrescu presents it in the form of a “little question”: If the old definition of the word PANDEMIC and the old definition of herd immunity would still stand today, would we be witnessing everything that’s happening right now?”
Most definitely not! Our conclusion? The entire planet has been hoaxed!”
NARRATIVE: The World Health Organization has changed the definitions for the pandemic and herd immunity to be able to declare the COVID-19 pandemic and impose mass vaccination.
BACKGROUND: The fake narrative on the imaginary pandemic (which is the result of a conspiracy) is one of the most commonplace such theories in recent years, being promoted by Russian propaganda channels, communities of anti-vaxxers, alt-rightists, conspiracy-mongers, etc. In this case, the story is amplified by Sputnik, which picks up on ideas promoted by TV producer Răzvan Dumitrescu who, in turn, quotes other sources without citing them. Răzvan Dumitrescu presented two arguments: the first is connected to an alleged modification in the definition of the term pandemic, which happened sometime between 2008 and 2011, and the second is linked to the fact that the WHO allegedly redefined the term “herd immunity” as well, claiming this is only obtained through vaccination. As regards the definition of the pandemic, this is an older dispute referring to the flu pandemic (not others). The initial source in the second case seems to be the American Institute for Economic Research which, as Veridica has shown before, was “marked by a series of major controversies, including the downplaying of the risks of climate change and global warming and the publication of a study extolling the benefits of the so-called “sweatshops” – workshops and factories in third-world countries operating on the border of compliancy and exploiting low-wage workers for large Western corporations. AIER is part of a network of think-tanks funded by companies in the tobacco and petrochemical industries. Resuming normal production is in the interest of such corporations”.
PURPOSE: To undermine efforts to combat the pandemic and the authorities making these efforts.
WHO THE NARRATIVE IS FALSE: The so-called controversy over the modification of the definition of pandemic is linked to a 2009 WHO press release regarding the flu pandemic (therefore not just any pandemic, but one strictly caused by the flu virus). The WHO changed its description of this pandemic, but never operated any changes in terms of the procedures and communication with governments, the phases where a pandemic is identified and declared overall. As regards the flu virus pandemic in particular, there was nothing for the WHO to change because, although it had issued numerous warnings and recommendations for member states, at that point it wasn’t working with a separate, specific definition for the flu pandemic. Therefore, the argument on modifying the definition of the flu pandemic doesn’t even stand, so its extrapolation to another pandemic caused by a different type of virus lacks any foundation.
As regards “herd immunity”, the World Health Organization has never denied it can be achieved naturally, by those who survive an infection; the updated definitions in this case are clear evidence of that.
The World Health Organization warned, however, that never before in the history of medicine has the organization employed a strategy whereby herd immunity is obtained naturally through the deliberate infection of the population. Such an approach would be unethical: the population is knowingly exposed to risks, some people may die for the hypothetical greater good, and efforts to prevent the pandemic and save lives would be sidelined. Accordingly, the WHO advocates herd immunity through vaccination.
The incriminating article about the WHO redefining herd immunity is listed on November 13 in the Q&A section devoted to vaccination. The article in question acknowledges the fact that the SARS-Cov-2 virus provides immunity to those who get infected and recover. The problem is it is unsure how long this immunity can last and that obtaining immunity through infection exposes the population to unwanted risks and suffering. The article refers to achieving herd immunity as a policy / goal, not as a scientific notion. The WHO subsequently adjusted its position in this matter as well.
GRAIN OF TRUTH: For a short period of time, the WHO’s webpage presented the claim that herd immunity (as a strategy) can be achieved through vaccination.