‘Sky News’ Documentary: What Really Happened in Wuhan?

In October 2019, the World Military Games were held in Wuhan, China. Reports emerged of athletes becoming sick with a respiratory virus and symptoms that are now well recognized as COVID-19.1 It would be months before the U.S. took action, but evidence strongly suggests that U.S. intelligence had knowledge of a problem occurring in Wuhan in November 2019. If they had reacted quickly, said David Asher, former COVID-19 investigator for the U.S. State Department, “The whole world would have been different. It would have been like stopping 9/11 before it happened.”2 He was speaking to Australian journalist and “Sky News” host Sharri Markson, whose explosive documentary, “What Really Happened in Wuhan?” features multiple experts who believe beyond any reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan.3 The illness circulating at the World Military Games, among athletes who later returned home to more than 100 different countries, is just one piece of the evidence that, cumulatively, may solve the mystery of COVID-19’s origins. First Cluster October 2019: Three WIV Scientists Became Ill A series of events occurred in late 2019 that point to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) as the epicenter of the virus. According to Markson, three people working at WIV became sick with COVID-like symptoms in October 2019. This is believed to be the first cluster of cases. Markson also spoke with former President Donald Trump, who stated there were reports that body bags were seen outside of WIV.4 Mike Pompeo, former secretary of state, told Markson that he’s seen data suggesting SARS-CoV-2 may have leaked from the lab in late summer — July or August — 2019,5 while other information suggests the leak may have occurred in September. WIV is well known for its controversial gain-of-function (GOF) research on bat coronaviruses. Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., the director of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, also known as “bat woman,” has been studying bat-borne viruses since 2004, including SARS-like coronaviruses. According to the World Society for Virology, “One of her great contributions is to uncover genetically diverse SARS-like coronaviruses in bats with her international collaborators and provide unequivocal evidence that bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-CoV.”6 Part of WIV’s GOF research involved using humanized mice for experiments to determine which coronaviruses could infect humans, as well as research to make viruses that weren’t able to infect humans do just that.7 According to Markson, it’s stated that over more than a decade, Zhengli’s research team collected thousands of bat samples in China and Africa, “searching for the origins of SARS, as well as isolating and characterizing many new viruses.”8 But WIV’s online virus databases disappeared from the internet beginning September 12, 2019 — 22,000 coronavirus samples, gone.9 That same day, WIV heightened its security and issued a tender to replace its air conditioning system. A month later, a communications blackout occurred, during which there was no cellphone or signal activity for about two weeks. It’s a circumstance that’s difficult to explain — unless the Chinese government was trying to deal with a disaster before it became public.10 Also difficult to explain is this: WIV bought a coronavirus PCR testing machine November 6, 2019.11 Increasing Evidence of COVID Origins Coverup Markson spoke with Chinese defector Wei Jingsheng, who spent 18 years in Chinese prison for standing up to Beijing and then defected to the U.S. He maintained his contacts, however, and said he knew the Chinese government was doing experiments with biological weapons and thought they might use the World Military Games as an opportunity to spread the virus, since many foreigners would show up there. Jingsheng passed on this information to U.S. intelligence as early as October 2019. Asher, a veteran weapons investigator who led a U.S. taskforce into the origins of COVID-19, uncovered information that Washington sat on classified intelligence information from November 2019. He learned of the information in November 2020 — a year later. Meanwhile, many of the people who were most involved in the initial days, either having been infected or reporting on the scene, have disappeared. In early 2020, a journalist in China was sending out reports from hospitals on a daily basis; he heard the government was covering up illnesses, so he started posting videos. Then he disappeared. There’s also Huang Yan Ling, a researcher at WIV who worked closely with Zhengli. Many believe Ling is patient zero for the COVID-19 pandemic, but she’s now missing. Her profile and biography are missing from WIV’s website, but, after rumors surfaced that she was presumed dead, the Chinese government posted a notice on WIV’s site saying she’s alive and well.12 No proof was offered, however, and if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) wanted to stop the r

‘Sky News’ Documentary: What Really Happened in Wuhan?

In October 2019, the World Military Games were held in Wuhan, China. Reports emerged of athletes becoming sick with a respiratory virus and symptoms that are now well recognized as COVID-19.1 It would be months before the U.S. took action, but evidence strongly suggests that U.S. intelligence had knowledge of a problem occurring in Wuhan in November 2019.

If they had reacted quickly, said David Asher, former COVID-19 investigator for the U.S. State Department, “The whole world would have been different. It would have been like stopping 9/11 before it happened.”2

He was speaking to Australian journalist and “Sky News” host Sharri Markson, whose explosive documentary, “What Really Happened in Wuhan?” features multiple experts who believe beyond any reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan.3

The illness circulating at the World Military Games, among athletes who later returned home to more than 100 different countries, is just one piece of the evidence that, cumulatively, may solve the mystery of COVID-19’s origins.

First Cluster October 2019: Three WIV Scientists Became Ill

A series of events occurred in late 2019 that point to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) as the epicenter of the virus. According to Markson, three people working at WIV became sick with COVID-like symptoms in October 2019. This is believed to be the first cluster of cases. Markson also spoke with former President Donald Trump, who stated there were reports that body bags were seen outside of WIV.4

Mike Pompeo, former secretary of state, told Markson that he’s seen data suggesting SARS-CoV-2 may have leaked from the lab in late summer — July or August — 2019,5 while other information suggests the leak may have occurred in September. WIV is well known for its controversial gain-of-function (GOF) research on bat coronaviruses.

Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., the director of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, also known as “bat woman,” has been studying bat-borne viruses since 2004, including SARS-like coronaviruses.

According to the World Society for Virology, “One of her great contributions is to uncover genetically diverse SARS-like coronaviruses in bats with her international collaborators and provide unequivocal evidence that bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-CoV.”6

Part of WIV’s GOF research involved using humanized mice for experiments to determine which coronaviruses could infect humans, as well as research to make viruses that weren’t able to infect humans do just that.7

According to Markson, it’s stated that over more than a decade, Zhengli’s research team collected thousands of bat samples in China and Africa, “searching for the origins of SARS, as well as isolating and characterizing many new viruses.”8 But WIV’s online virus databases disappeared from the internet beginning September 12, 2019 — 22,000 coronavirus samples, gone.9

That same day, WIV heightened its security and issued a tender to replace its air conditioning system. A month later, a communications blackout occurred, during which there was no cellphone or signal activity for about two weeks. It’s a circumstance that’s difficult to explain — unless the Chinese government was trying to deal with a disaster before it became public.10 Also difficult to explain is this: WIV bought a coronavirus PCR testing machine November 6, 2019.11

Increasing Evidence of COVID Origins Coverup

Markson spoke with Chinese defector Wei Jingsheng, who spent 18 years in Chinese prison for standing up to Beijing and then defected to the U.S. He maintained his contacts, however, and said he knew the Chinese government was doing experiments with biological weapons and thought they might use the World Military Games as an opportunity to spread the virus, since many foreigners would show up there.

Jingsheng passed on this information to U.S. intelligence as early as October 2019. Asher, a veteran weapons investigator who led a U.S. taskforce into the origins of COVID-19, uncovered information that Washington sat on classified intelligence information from November 2019. He learned of the information in November 2020 — a year later.

Meanwhile, many of the people who were most involved in the initial days, either having been infected or reporting on the scene, have disappeared. In early 2020, a journalist in China was sending out reports from hospitals on a daily basis; he heard the government was covering up illnesses, so he started posting videos. Then he disappeared.

There’s also Huang Yan Ling, a researcher at WIV who worked closely with Zhengli. Many believe Ling is patient zero for the COVID-19 pandemic, but she’s now missing. Her profile and biography are missing from WIV’s website, but, after rumors surfaced that she was presumed dead, the Chinese government posted a notice on WIV’s site saying she’s alive and well.12

No proof was offered, however, and if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) wanted to stop the rumors, the first thing they would have done was have her schedule a public appearance.

Speaking with Markson, Miles Yu, former principal China policy adviser to the U.S. State department, said it would have been a triumphant thing for the Chinese government to let Ling speak, but she never did. She disappeared.

“Anyone the government doesn’t like, they disappear,” Yu said, adding that the CCP is a regime not only capable of doing these things, but they do them with great pride.13 John Ratcliffe, former director of U.S. national intelligence, also spoke with Markson, stating:14

“If there was really no blame here, if this were really some naturally occurring virus because someone ate a bat from a wet market, China wouldn’t have done the things that they did. The Chinese Communist Party would not have shut down Wuhan. They would not have silenced doctors and scientists and journalists and disappeared some of them.”

Proof of Live Bats at WIV

World Health Organization investigators, including Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance president, claimed the suggestion of live bats at the WIV in China was a conspiracy theory.15 The dismissal was part of the rationale used to bolster the idea that SARS-CoV-2 is a natural virus that jumped from animals to humans, possibly due to a wet market in Wuhan, China.

Anyone who suggested otherwise — including that the virus may actually be a manmade product that escaped from a lab — was censored, discredited and called a conspiracy theorist. Markson revealed another bombshell, however — proof via video footage taken inside the facility that WIV kept live bats in cages.16

Meanwhile, Daszak has close ties to WIV through EcoHealth Alliance, which funded GOF research at WIV17 and Zhengli, which is why his participation in the WHO investigation into COVID-19’s origins was highly conflicted from the start. Further, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, gave funding to the EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn funneled it to WIV.18

While investigating her book, “What Really Happened in Wuhan?” Markson discovered that Daszak was invited to brief the FBI and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence February 3, 2020, during the early days of the pandemic. Ironically, misinformation was a key topic at the meeting, Markson said.

Fauci Lied About Funding Wuhan Coronavirus Research

In an April 17, 2020, White House press briefing, Fauci said the science was "totally consistent with a jump from an animal to a human."19 Two days after this press briefing, Daszak wrote to Fauci thanking him for his help in deflecting the lab origin theory.20 Not long after, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a statement April 30, 2020, saying that "SARS-CoV-2 was of natural origin.”21

Many aren’t aware that Fauci has long supported controversial GOF research, which he spoke openly about at a hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs at the U.S. Senate, held April 26, 2012. Fauci spoke favorably of dual use research of concern, or DURC, stating, “the risk-benefit ratio of such research clearly tips towards benefiting society.”22

According to Markson, Fauci was “up to his neck” funding coronavirus research at WIV, with 60 such projects funded. “Then he wrote a paper where he said gain-of-function research was worth the risk of a pandemic, and that he had even funded coronavirus research in conjunction with the Chinese military,” she said.23

Daszak, meanwhile, was also the mastermind behind the publication of a scientific statement published in The Lancet in March 202024 condemning such inquiries as "conspiracy theory,"25 which was then relied on by the media to "debunk" evidence showing the pandemic virus most likely originated from a laboratory.

Daszak then ended up on both the WHO investigation into COVID-19s origins and The Lancet's COVID-19 commission,26 despite the glaring conflicts of interest.

Increasing questions are also being asked about what type of research was being conducted at WIV, which relied on French experts to build the laboratory, which was supposed to be a center of international collaboration. However, France has no role in running the facility27 and, according to Markson, “the French were immediately kicked out” of the lab after it was built, raising alarm bells with French intelligence.28

It’s believed the French were pushed out because of the Chinese military’s interest in the work being done at WIV, which suggests that they were working on biological warfare or biological warfare defense.29 According to Asher, “My concern was that the Chinese were doing research in, as we learned later, quite uncontrolled circumstances that was most definitely related to biological warfare ambitions in the future."30

SARS-CoV-2 Is Modified to Infect Humans

Markson also spoke with Nikolai Petrovsky, professor of endocrinology at Flinders University College of Medicine in Adelaide, Australia, is among those who has stated SARS-CoV-2 appears to be optimally designed to infect humans.31

His team sought to identify a way by which animals might have co-mingled to give rise to SARS-CoV-2, but concluded that it could not be a naturally occurring virus. Petrovsky has previously stated it appears far more likely that the virus was created in a laboratory.32

According to Petrovsky, SARS-CoV-2 is better adapted to infect humans than any animal, including bats, but his paper was rejected over and over again, without even being looked at. “Science is not about politics. It’s not about only finding nice things,” he told Markson. “It’s about finding the truth. What are the facts?”33

Taken together, the facts are becoming overwhelming and, Pompeo said, “cumulative evidence points singularly to WIV.”34 Markson also brought up the fact that the World Health Organization is beholden to China.

COVID-19 Origin Investigation Conflicted

In February 2021, WHO cleared WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan, China, of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.35

Only after backlash, including an open letter signed by 26 scientists demanding a full and unrestricted forensic investigation into the pandemic’s origins,36 did WHO enter damage control mode, with director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and 13 other world leaders joining the U.S. government in expressing “frustration with the level of access China granted an international mission to Wuhan.”37

WHO’s allegiance to China was secured years earlier, when China secured WHO votes to ensure its candidates would become director-general. A Sunday Times investigation also revealed that WHO’s independence was severely compromised and its close ties to China allowed COVID-19 to spread in the early days of the pandemic while obfuscating the investigation into its origins.38

Academics and public health officials have staunchly defended the natural-origin theory for SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, until finally, in May 2021, the U.S. government ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to look into COVID-19’s origins and, after 90 days, produce a preliminary report.

The classified report was delivered in August, but its results were reportedly inconclusive, with intelligence agencies unable to pinpoint whether COVID-19 has a natural or laboratory origin.39 But as Ratcliffe told Markson, there’s still more intelligence suggesting SARS-CoV-2 came from WIV that has yet to be declassified:40

“And so I think the time has come for the Biden administration to declassify additional information. Again, more evidence — if you need it — that the Chinese Communist Party officials acted badly, bullied international officials, covered up intelligence and reporting on this.

There is more intelligence out there and I'd like to see it declassified because it will create additional pressure not just on Chinese Communist Party officials but others that still continue to deny that China is the bad actor here."

Investigation is also needed as to why intelligence agencies with access to this information didn’t act on it, which could have led to an entirely different outcome during the pandemic.

Source : Mercola More   

What's Your Reaction?

like
0
dislike
0
love
0
funny
0
angry
0
sad
0
wow
0

Next Article

CDC Changes the Definition of Vaccines

In a surreptitious move to support the vaccine narrative, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly changed the definition of a vaccine,1,2 which they have held since at least February 24, 2011.3 At first glance, it might seem like a small change, but it has massive repercussions. The meaning of words can change over time, and can be influenced by social, economic, political, religious and technological factors. Many of the words we use today have vastly different meanings than they did 10 or 100 years ago.4 However, changing medical words and definitions has a significant impact on bias in perception. One study demonstrated that a simple switch in terminology could result:5 "... in a disease being perceived as more serious, more likely to be a disease, and more likely to be a rare condition. These findings regarding the conceptualization of disease have implications for many areas, including medical communication with the public, advertising, and public policy." For example, medical literature has redefined the meaning of “health” over several decades to move from the absence of disease to a state of well-being. That definition continues to evolve in light of value-based health care, which some recommend should now include “specific patient needs, and the organizational, value-based system required to satisfy those needs.”6 This change in definition then affects health care delivery, public perception and interpretation of the meaning of health. This strategy was not lost on the CDC when they removed critical words from the definition of a “vaccine” to change the public perception of any administered therapy that may impact a person’s immune system. This opens the door to the administration of other “products” or “preparations” that may affect your immune system, still while calling it a vaccine. And, let’s face it, for much of the public, the word “vaccine” continues to have positive implications. CDC Removes Critical Words From Vaccine Definition To fully understand the importance of the change, it’s crucial to note that, before the COVID pandemic, the definition of a vaccine had been relatively stable for nearly a couple decades with minor word changes occurring every few years. All through that time the intent of a vaccine — to give you immunity by protecting you from a specific disease — had remained basically the same. For example, according to an archived snapshot of the CDC’s website, the definition of a vaccine February 24, 2011, was:7 “A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol.” By July 2015, the wording had changed to:8 “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed in the nose.” The wording was the same in June 20179 and likewise in June 201910 and June 2020.11 By August 26, 2021,12 however, the definition had changed slightly to add the words “to produce immunity”:13 “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.” Then, less than a week later, just days after the FDA gave final approval to Pfizer’s mRNA jab, the definition changed again, September 1, 2021 — this time, significantly. The definition of a vaccine now reads:14 “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.” As you’ll note, the second sentence remains the same. It is the first part of the definition that has dramatically changed. In the latest definition, a vaccine: Is no longer a “product” but instead is a “preparation” No longer directly stimulates the immune response, but is used to stimulate the system Does not produce immunity Stimulates the immune response against diseases, not against a specific disease No longer protects a person from the disease These dramatic changes were likely created to allow the CDC, FDA and other governmental agencies to call the genetic therapy experiment being administered worldwide a “vaccine” — while they knew full well the so-called “vaccine” was not created to either produce immunity or prevent transmission of disease. In fact, by any definition of a vaccine in use before 2021, this jab is not a vaccine. Organizations Are Changing the Goal Posts Alex Berenson was once a reporter for The New York Times and is now an award-winning author. He published a timeline of events on a Substack page that he calls “A Lawsuit in Three Acts.”15 In Act I is an A

CDC Changes the Definition of Vaccines

In a surreptitious move to support the vaccine narrative, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly changed the definition of a vaccine,1,2 which they have held since at least February 24, 2011.3 At first glance, it might seem like a small change, but it has massive repercussions.

The meaning of words can change over time, and can be influenced by social, economic, political, religious and technological factors. Many of the words we use today have vastly different meanings than they did 10 or 100 years ago.4 However, changing medical words and definitions has a significant impact on bias in perception. One study demonstrated that a simple switch in terminology could result:5

"... in a disease being perceived as more serious, more likely to be a disease, and more likely to be a rare condition. These findings regarding the conceptualization of disease have implications for many areas, including medical communication with the public, advertising, and public policy."

For example, medical literature has redefined the meaning of “health” over several decades to move from the absence of disease to a state of well-being. That definition continues to evolve in light of value-based health care, which some recommend should now include “specific patient needs, and the organizational, value-based system required to satisfy those needs.”6

This change in definition then affects health care delivery, public perception and interpretation of the meaning of health. This strategy was not lost on the CDC when they removed critical words from the definition of a “vaccine” to change the public perception of any administered therapy that may impact a person’s immune system.

This opens the door to the administration of other “products” or “preparations” that may affect your immune system, still while calling it a vaccine. And, let’s face it, for much of the public, the word “vaccine” continues to have positive implications.

CDC Removes Critical Words From Vaccine Definition

To fully understand the importance of the change, it’s crucial to note that, before the COVID pandemic, the definition of a vaccine had been relatively stable for nearly a couple decades with minor word changes occurring every few years. All through that time the intent of a vaccine — to give you immunity by protecting you from a specific disease — had remained basically the same.

For example, according to an archived snapshot of the CDC’s website, the definition of a vaccine February 24, 2011, was:7

“A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol.”

By July 2015, the wording had changed to:8

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed in the nose.”

The wording was the same in June 20179 and likewise in June 201910 and June 2020.11 By August 26, 2021,12 however, the definition had changed slightly to add the words “to produce immunity”:13

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”

Then, less than a week later, just days after the FDA gave final approval to Pfizer’s mRNA jab, the definition changed again, September 1, 2021 — this time, significantly. The definition of a vaccine now reads:14

“A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”

As you’ll note, the second sentence remains the same. It is the first part of the definition that has dramatically changed. In the latest definition, a vaccine:

  • Is no longer a “product” but instead is a “preparation”
  • No longer directly stimulates the immune response, but is used to stimulate the system
  • Does not produce immunity
  • Stimulates the immune response against diseases, not against a specific disease
  • No longer protects a person from the disease

These dramatic changes were likely created to allow the CDC, FDA and other governmental agencies to call the genetic therapy experiment being administered worldwide a “vaccine” — while they knew full well the so-called “vaccine” was not created to either produce immunity or prevent transmission of disease. In fact, by any definition of a vaccine in use before 2021, this jab is not a vaccine.

Organizations Are Changing the Goal Posts

Alex Berenson was once a reporter for The New York Times and is now an award-winning author. He published a timeline of events on a Substack page that he calls “A Lawsuit in Three Acts.”15 In Act I is an August 26, 2021, screenshot of the CDC website, with the prior definition of a vaccine as you can see above. Act II is a screenshot of a tweet Berenson posted August 28, 2021:

“It doesn't stop infection. Or transmission. Don't think of it as a vaccine. Think of it — at best — as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity.”

Following the release of that tweet, Twitter ruled the information misleading and suspended his account16 for “violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules.”17 As Berenson writes, “This defamatory act prevents me from using my account anywhere in the world.”18

Within days of Berenson’s ban, Act III occurred. The CDC changed the definition of vaccine, removing the standard that had been in place for at least 20 years that vaccines produce immunity. In his last comment, Berenson alludes to the acts of censorship that have been ongoing in social media platforms since the beginning of this pandemic, writing, “Discovery’s gonna be awesome!”19

September 8, 2021, one of Berenson’s followers, Carol Jones, commented, “LOL!!! My lawyer husband just laughed when he read this. That is a slam dunk.” As a side note, Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s definition of a vaccine once was:20

"… a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.”

However, before the CDC changed its definition, Merriam-Webster had already changed theirs, which now includes a secondary description of the experimental COVID-19 genetic therapy.21 Interestingly, when they made the change, the definition evolved from a simple, single line to a much more complex 12-paragraph definition that is a reflection of the times we live in.

The movement toward changing the definition of a vaccine may help protect the pharmaceutical industry and health agencies from violating a Federal Trade Commission act that regulates deceptive practices in medical claims. According to this it is unlawful to say:22

"... that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made."

And further, you cannot have a vaccine that does not meet the definition of a vaccine. Currently, the COVID-19 genetic therapy injection program does meet the vaccine definition of the CDC and Merriam-Webster — but only after the definitions changed.

What Is a Pandemic?

The definition of a vaccine is not the only thing that has changed since 2020. To continue promoting mandates, lockdowns and emergency use authorization of genetic therapy injections, the infection must be causing a pandemic.

According to the World Health Organization, their original definition of a pandemic specified that there must be simultaneous epidemics experienced worldwide “with enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses.”23

While the published documents with the definition of a pandemic have since been pulled offline and cannot be accessed any longer through the Wayback machine, the WHO published a paper refuting the allegations that they had changed the definition “for the simple reason that it has never formally defined pandemic influenza.”24

They argued that while they had described a pandemic influenza, it was never a “formal definition.” In their explanation they say that since 2003 their pandemic preparedness page had contained this statement:25

“An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”

They claim that was changed in response to a query from a CNN reporter just weeks before they declared a swine flu pandemic after only 144 people died from the infection worldwide. The new statement removed the phrase “enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses” and was revised to:26 “An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity.”

The Council of Europe apparently had the same question and cited this alteration in their page as evidence that the WHO could declare a pandemic without demonstrating the severity of the disease against which we didn’t have immunity.27

Unfortunately, the number of excess deaths that can be attributed directly to COVID-19 is likely not be the result of the infection itself, but from the CDC’s and NIAID’s suppression of successful treatment modalities that can save lives.28,29,30,31,32

Vaccine Sales Pitch: Herd Immunity

Health experts promote the idea of herd immunity, hoping 100% of the public will become vaccinated. However, in July 2021 the news reported that 100 fully vaccinated crew members aboard the British defense aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth had tested positive while onboard. At the time, it was unclear whether any had symptoms.33

This was one of the first reports that vaccinated individuals could have breakthrough infections, aka, “vaccine failure.” Vaccine failure would indicate that herd immunity is impossible. But, of course, that depends on your definition of herd immunity.

In June 2020, WHOs definition was posted on their COVID-19 Q&A page and was in line with widely accepted standards for infectious diseases. Courtesy of the Wayback machine, the original definition was:34

“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.”

Since humans have been alive, immunity has developed from previous infection. Your immune system is designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent, not to a vaccine. However, since October 15, 2020, the WHO believes this is no longer the case, as they updated their definition of herd immunity to a “concept used for vaccination” or, rather, to support vaccination:35

“‘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.

Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but — crucially — vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing it on, breaking any chains of transmission.”

The page was again updated on December 31, 2020:36

“'Herd immunity', also known as 'population 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. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination ...

Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing on the pathogen, breaking any chains of transmission.

To safely achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, a substantial proportion of a population would need to be vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population.”

As you can see from the areas I put in boldface in the two definitions above, the WHO definition of a vaccine and the CDC definition are not congruent. In this statement, the WHO says that vaccines protect the individual from getting the disease or passing on the pathogen. The current CDC definition37 says that vaccines merely “stimulate the body's immune response against diseases” without mention of immunity, protection or passing pathogens.

This means the definition of a vaccine by the WHO does not cover the function of the COVID-19 genetic therapy program, since the mRNA gene therapy’s purpose is only to lessen symptoms. The NIAID admits that after the mRNA shots people can still get breakthrough infections38 (so they aren’t protected from getting the disease) and will have enough pathogens in their nasal cavity to spread the disease39 (they are passing on the pathogen).

Even with the changes the WHO made to their definition of herd immunity, it is apparent that the COVID-19 injection program will never meet the standards of herd immunity set by the WHO. The only question is how long will it take the WHO to change their definition again?

Living in a World Where Goal Posts Are Constantly Changing

In this short video, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, gives an accounting of Dr. Anthony Fauci vacillating on his recommendations regarding masking in public. Fauci was appointed as the director of the NIAID in 1984 which, by 2020, should have made him an expert on the transmission of infectious diseases.

Yet, as is apparent by this historical recounting, the recommendations evolve depending on the current climate, just as the definitions of herd immunity, vaccines and pandemics have evolved.

These definitions have been changed to fit the new narrative being churned out by public health officials and mainstream media that promote fear and ignore science. In many ways, you're living in a fog of war right now — a fog of COVID war — according to Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director of the American Institute for Economic Research.40

During such a fog, "It is often unclear who is making decisions and why, and what the relationships are between the strategies and the goals. Even the rationale can become elusive as frustration and disorientation displace clarity and rationality."41 Seeing through the fog is the first step to coming out of the battle unscathed.

I would encourage you to copy the content from this article and save it to your hard drive so you can share this information and help others see through this fog of misinformation and lies that is threatening our way of life.

Source : Mercola More   

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.