O:H header
Our reality continues to get more Orwellian by the day. A few months back the WHO quietly changed the definition of the term 'herd immunity' on their website from the definition that's been with us for about a century to a new one that indicates herd immunity is only possible through vaccination.

By changing the definition they are creating the perception that vaccination is the only way to deal with diseases of any kind, rather than the way life has dealt with them from the beginning of immune systems.

On top of this, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization has said "Herd 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," but, he explained, it is achieved by protecting people from the virus, "not by exposing them to it".

Join us on this episode of Objective:Health as we talk about herd immunity, then and now and the changing of language as a means of controlling discourse and populations.

For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:

♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth
♥LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@objectivehealth:f

And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here:

Running Time: 00:26:14

Download: MP3 — 24 MB

Here is the transcript:

Doug: Hello and welcome to Objective: Health. I'm your host for today, Doug, and with me in our virtual studio are Erica and Elliot.


Doug: And in the background on the ones and twos we have Damian.

Damian: Hello.

Doug: Hey have you guys heard about herd immunity?

Erica: Ah! {laughter} Baaaaahhhhhhh.

Doug: Pretty good, eh? Recently the WHO have decided to change the definition of herd immunity. Maybe you can bring it up Damian. The old definition of herd immunity...

Damian: The shorter one or the longer one?

Doug: The shorter one. They lengthened it.

Erica: They added to it.

Doug: Yeah. I can't read that so let me bring it up on my own computer here. Sorry folks. Originally the definition was,
"Herd immunity is the indirection protection from an infectious disease that happens when the population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection."
Now if you can bring up the other one Damian just so people can get an idea of how they've changed this definition. It says,
"Herd immunity, also known as population immunity is a concept used for vaccination in which population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it."
So you can see how that has changed. It has gone from "it can be done through vaccination or naturally through the immune system" and then they change it to, "No, it's ONLY through vaccination that herd immunity is achieved." We were talking on the last show about the Orwellian nature of a lot of these tactics that are being brought in. It doesn't get much more Orwellian than changing official definitions, definitions that have been around for the last hundred years, the definition of herd immunity, for them to just turn around and change it just like that, with a snap of the fingers. It's like we don't have an immune system anymore. It's only something that's conferred by a vaccine. Never mind that herd immunity is how diseases have been controlled naturally since the beginning of life essentially, since the beginning of immune systems.

That's why colds and flu come and go on a seasonal basis. They make the rounds. People acquire natural immunity. At first people are falling left, right and center, but then after a while it tends to ease off and everybody develops natural immunity and it's not a threat anymore.

Now that isn't conferred unless you get a vaccine. If you don't get a vaccine you never get immunity.

Elliot: It's really bizarre how they can even get away with something like that. You don't even have to be a medical doctor or a medical professional to have an understanding of what herd immunity is. Really it was common knowledge, what herd immunity consisted of and it was even so much so that you had various governments, including the British government initially, where Britain, one of the first ones to come out and say that they were going with a model, instead of locking down the country which they subsequently did anyway, were originally going to go with a model based on herd immunity. It was based on the concept of people catching a virus and developing immunity on the whole and it dwindling out. That's really the kind of approach that Sweden took originally, right?

So I think this is criminal. What it really is, is an excellent way to worm their way into people's brains and change the way that they're perceiving reality.

Doug: Yeah.

So language is a very excellent way to determine someone's perception of reality. One of the main things that any kind of tyrannical regime will try to do, pathocracy or a tyrannical regime, is destroy or change language to fit the purpose of what they are trying to achieve. They will try to change the meaning of words. That's really important for them to do. When you can change the meaning of words you can change people's thinking. You change their thinking about a certain subject. You can govern their thinking and how they perceive reality essentially. That's what they're trying to do by doing this.

It flies in the face, as you say Doug, of a hundred years of medical literature, of medical understanding, of medicine as a whole, of virology.

Doug: Yeah.

Elliot: Of infectious diseases. I find it an abomination how you don't have every single medical doctor outraged about this, right?

Doug: Yeah, totally. Anybody who knows anything, especially doctors though. But one thing that's also interesting with that second definition of herd immunity is that they say herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it. But that's how vaccination works. That's what vaccination is. It's exposure to the virus, right? The idea that you expose people in a controlled way, to a virus so that the immune system will build up an immunity without having to be exposed to the wild virus. In theory that's what vaccination is all about.

So are they changing the definition of that now too? Because that's really strange, the idea that you can somehow build up immunity without being exposed to the virus, that people need to be protected from it, hence the lockdowns. I wonder because these new mRNA vaccines that are coming out aren't actually exposing people to the virus. What they're doing is hijacking your own DNA to create spike proteins from the virus so that you build up an immunity to that. So there is no exposure there.

It's almost like the WHO is projecting into the future here. Soon all vaccines are going to be mRNA vaccines. Also the idea of exposure to any of these viruses will be a thing of the past.

Erica: You even see it with something like the chickenpox. When we were kids Doug, you got the chicken pox. You had a chicken pox party. All the kids in the neighbourhood got it. You're now conferred with immunity for life, right? You won't get the chickenpox again, usually. Sometimes adults get shingles which is a type of chicken pox. Then in the late 1990s the chickenpox vaccine came out. So they're slowly wiping the slate clean of these things that we got as children that built immunity. We talked about this before with regard to measles as well. Now you have the measles vaccine.

So it's wiping away in that Orwellian way, any sort of documented history about the immune system actually being stronger after being exposed to illnesses. Now you have no control. It's all about the vaccine. It's all about the WHO dictating what you're going to follow and how you're going to follow it.

For those that may not know, back in 2009 the WHO also changed their definition of pandemic in order to create artificial panic and sell billions of doses of flu vaccines that became the H1N1 nightmare.

Doug: Debacle.

Erica: Yeah. The WHO is kind of notorious for doing these kinds of things. It's a good thing we have people paying attention in that previous article that you showed, of how they just go and reword it, change it, and then it falls down the memory hole and people think, "Oh, herd immunity. That's through vaccination." Then the narrative changes and all of a sudden all the history that we've experienced is gone.

Doug: I remember when we started this show we would talk about herd immunity and it had nothing to do with vaccination. We were never talking about it in terms of vaccination. We were talking about how it was an alternative to vaccination. Now they've changed the definition so it's only about vaccination. It's really creepy!

Erica: Really creepy.

Doug: Damian, I'm sending you an article here that maybe you can pull up. It was on UN News. It was a news release from the United Nations, in other words, the WHO from October 12. In it they quote Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus - I can't pronounce his last name.

Erica: Just call him Ted. {laughter}

Doug: Ted. Teddy, head of the WHO. They're quoting him in this article and he says,
"Herd 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. Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak."
...the WHO chief said, calling it scientifically and ethically problematic.

Okay, maybe we can get away, on a technicality here. Has it been used as a strategy? No! It's just the natural thing that happens. That is what happens. He's making it sound like it's radical, that as a strategy it's a radical departure from everything that's ever been done in the past. That is nonsense! As we just explained, this is how living beings deal with disease in populations! This is the way it works!

So there's a real twisting of definitions going on here, a really - I hate to use the word again - but a really Orwellian redefinition of these terms.

Maybe we should talk about the Great Barrington Declaration as well, which was a group of doctors who wrote a declaration. This was back last year. This group of doctors came out and said, "The way that we are dealing with this covid business is insanity, pure insanity." I'm paraphrasing here obviously. They didn't actually say that. But they're saying that what strategy needs to be employed is that you protect the vulnerable and let the rest of the world carry on with their lives so that herd immunity can be achieved naturally. If people are healthy, let them go to work! If they get sick, they go home. They take a few days off work, whatever. You keep letting kids go to school.

The vulnerable, the elderly, the people who have serious conditions are the ones you protect. Those are the ones who you perhaps place on lockdown or put in some kind of situation where you're being very careful about what they're exposed to and who they're exposed to. You keep the same staff on so they're not exposed to constant people coming in and out, new people who have been exposed to new things. That's how you deal with something like this. This is all of course on the premise that covid is actually something dangerous and nasty.

This Great Barrington Declaration did get quite a bit of traction so I do wonder if this changing of definitions that you see going on at the WHO is a response, maybe not to this directly, but to this line of reasoning, saying that,
"No, no, no. Herd immunity is radical. It's dangerous. It's unethical. So these people who are putting forward this declaration are dangerous radicals. These people should be shunned. This is insane. We NEED to lock everyone up. We NEED to stop you from going to work, from going to school, from going outside."
Elliot: Well on October 4, 2020 this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, an epidemiologist; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases; and finally, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford Medical School, a physician epidemiologist, health economist and public health policy expert.

So are these just random fools {laughter} who have written up this declaration or are these world-leading experts with credentials which are impeccable? These are professors at the world's leading universities in medicine and they are outright saying that herd immunity is something which is desirable. It has been a factor which has allowed the vulnerable in a population to be protected against a virus since they are really the only ones who are susceptible to this kind of thing. And they have outright said that a vaccine is NOT necessary for that. They actually explicitly say in the declaration,
"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, but IS NOT DEPENDENT upon a vaccine. A goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity."
That was really one of the main stated aims at the start of all of this, at the start of the lockdown. It was to get to a point where you could protect the healthcare systems until we reach a point of herd immunity, right? But now the tides have turned and with these new waves continually being IMAGINED {laughter} by Fauci and the lie, what's happening is that herd immunity is no longer recalled and, as you said Doug, herd immunity is something that is immoral, {laughter} is a terrible consequence. "No, in fact we need the vaccine." The only answer is the vaccine and we see the stooges in the WHO who are probably in the back pocket of people of the likes of Fauci, etc., are simply doing the bidding of their masters with the aim of getting this vaccine out and the vaccine is the only answer. Everyone must have the vaccine. Until then no one is safe. It doesn't matter if you've had the vaccine. You're not safe until everyone else has the vaccine.

What skewed logic! It's just bizarre.

Doug: It's interesting, you said that it was October 4, 2020 that that came out. Well that quote I read from Teddy of the WHO was October 12th, so basically a week later. A week later he came out with that statement so it was probably a direct result of the Great Barrington Declaration.

Erica: Sounds like damage control big time.

Doug: Absolutely.

Erica: We're still being told that it's going to be optional. Maybe you can take it if you want to take it. Now I think they're starting to realize that people are thinking, "I don't know about this," especially as the side effects come out. People are realizing that it's not going to protect against anything really.

Doug: They'll still have to wear a mask.

Erica: Yeah. I think it's damage control. I think they're like, "Whoa, we've got to go back and dig through and change everything so people don't know." People, this is not about a virus. It's no longer about the virus anymore. It's going into uncharted territory now.

Doug: Absolutely. Well interesting, this article came out on Christmas Day. It was from RT. "Fauci admits to lying about covid-19 herd immunity threshold to manipulate public support for vaccine. Moves goal post to 90%."

So it goes into detail about how at first Fauci said something along the lines of, "We'll need to reach 60-70% of the population being immune before herd immunity actually kicks in." Then he moved the goal post at one point and said, "No, it'll be more like 70-75%." And then at one point he said on CNBC, the magic number suddenly rose up to 75, 80 or 85%. Then at one point it went up to where as of Christmas he has said 90%. He might have gone higher since then. I don't know.

But it just shows that he doesn't know. He doesn't know any of this stuff. It's always just numbers pulled out of the air. I think that maybe he said the original 60% then got a look at the numbers of people who were unwilling to take the vaccine and he thought, "I've got to make this scarier. I've got to throw these numbers up a little bit higher." And it's like, "It's not working. Maybe I'll throw them even a little bit higher." So now it's at 90%. I don't know if that has raised the number of people who are actually willing to get the vaccine.

Elliot: Next it'll be "The only way to achieve herd immunity is if 110% of the population {laughter} gets the vaccine.

Erica: And you've got to quadruple the dose because we're not 100% sure, so just in case you're going to have 27 required doses {laughter} in the next two years.

Doug: Exactly.

Elliot: We're 10% sure so {laughter} so you need to follow our advice 400%.

Doug: That'll make up for their unsureness.

Erica: I can't believe people still take this guy seriously. He basically came out and said he lied. "I lied to get everybody to go along with it" and people aren't going, "Well maybe he's lying NOW!" It's a mind virus too by the way.

Doug: Absolutely it is. I don't know why anybody's still listening to him, or any of them. I don't know why anybody was ever listening to Bill Gates.

Erica: In that article Doug, I almost fell out of my chair. What did he just celebrate? His 80th birthday? And what did they call him? They called him...

Elliot: A beacon of scientific thinking and enlightenment during these dark ages of ignorance and superstition. {uproarious laughter}.

Erica: Oh my gosh! Bust a gut laughing. Yeah, just swallow it all. Take it all, one big gulp.

Doug: I don't think Fauci is a bastion of anything except for bullshit. A bastion of bullshit. Well, I don't know, do we have anything else to say about herd immunity, the changing of the definition, our Orwellian world?

Erica: I don't know.

Doug: Stay cognizant folks. It's like you were saying Erica, it's good that we have people out there. I think it was on the last show you were saying it actually, but it's good that we have people out there, that we still have an independent press that is paying attention to this kind of stuff, bringing it to our attention. If somebody wasn't out there publicizing this - and I think this might have come from the Last American Vagabond who does a podcast on YouTube and then other outlets started picking it up. I might be wrong about that. He might not have discovered it himself.

But nonetheless, somebody discovered it. They did this redefinition thing very quietly. They didn't publicize it. It just showed up on their website one day. Suddenly the definition had changed. I know personally I'm not on the WHO website very often reading what they have to say about anything, so it's good that somebody is, is what I'm saying, that somebody's keeping up with this stuff, that somebody is actually paying attention. If we all pay attention to something and make it public then we all benefit.

So it's networking at its best because they're going to keep on doing this kind of thing; keep on changing our language, changing definitions, changing things. It's 1984 in real life. This is the way it's working now.

Erica: And eliminating our history in the process so people forget and they do not remember. I think that's the slippery slope, reminding people that we have a past and we need to learn from it. All these things that are happening have been practiced in one way or another before. It's such a rabbit hole to go down but it's not like they're making it up as they go along. They're following a script and you can apply that to the Iraq war after 911 or any number of things. You can see this very similar pattern, my point being, they're not very creative. They just keep running out the same scenario and if people are looking for information sound bytes that's all they're going to hear. "Oh, we've got to do it. We've got to get the vaccine. We've got to do it."

But for people who are interested in going a little bit deeper, you really start to connect the dots and you start to see that this has all been done before in one way or another. When we did our biosecurity show we talked about these plandemic scenarios that they've been running since 2001. So they're doing these things and I think with the internet it's more accessible because people are doing their due diligence and they're also saving the information because a lot of stuff is being scrubbed from the internet as well.

Doug: Totally.

Erica: So it's important that we all do our part to really document day-to-day what is transpiring because you see a pattern unfold.

Doug: Okay.

Erica: And you've got to have a sense of humour about it guys! You've got to laugh and tell jokes and look at funny memes because it's the way you're going to make it through. You've got to have a sense of humour about it all. These things are for real.

Doug: The memes are the saving grace.

Erica: This is really what they're doing.

Doug: The memes are the saving grace of the current age, I would say, for sure. Let us laugh at it all. Okay, I think that is our show for today. Thanks everybody for joining us today. Thanks to my co hosts, that's Damian keeping it real. We will see you on the next one. Be sure to like and subscribe. You're probably not seeing this on YouTube but you can subscribe on lbry or you can subscribe on Briteon and we will see you on the next one.