For people of “My Generation”, the letters WHO make us think, “Won’t Get Fooled Again.” I make this association as I hear news from the World Health Organization and look back on a year of official lies and gaslighting that have been aimed at the people of the entire world. I list a few examples here, with the most important one being the dangerous assurance that there will be no long-term harm caused by the new mRNA vaccines. A growing number of scientists are sounding the alarm about this new biotechnology. The latter half of this post covers two such scientists’ dissenting opinions.

The List of Lies and Scandalously Destructive Policies

1. Definitions of Pandemic. The deceptions started several years ago when the WHO opened its gates to private donations and came under the influence billionaire philanthropists. The definition of pandemic changed in 2009 so that it no longer had to be defined as a disease causing a significant increase in harm and mortality. Now it means just any pathogen that is widespread in many countries. Any cold virus, if found throughout the world, can be defined as a pandemic.  

2. Cause of death. During the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been an obvious distortion of death certificate data in some countries that aims to emphasize Covid-19 as the primary cause of death. In Britain, “Covid deaths” are defined as any death that occurs within sixty days of a positive Covid-19 test result in the deceased. Interestingly, the same principle is not being applied to any person who dies within sixty days of receiving a Covid vaccine.

3. Testing for infection: There was a manipulation of the ways Covid-19 was detected. For months critics charged that the number of cycles used in the PCR test was producing a large number of false positives. In a strange, coincidental timing with the inauguration of president Biden, the WHO announced a directive that the number of cycles used in the test should be lowered. After that, the number of cases detected began to decline. (See the video by Dr. Scott Jensen (2021/02/18) explaining this, but ignore the false claims about it in the “false information” warning that Facebook will try to show you before you watch the video).

4. Denial of the effectiveness of anti-viral treatments: Throughout the year, there has also been a denial that effective anti-viral treatments exist. They exist, but if this were admitted, pharmaceutical companies would have had much more trouble getting vaccines approved for emergency use. Previous post on this here.

5. Masks. The official position about the efficacy of masks also changed quickly. People were forced to wear masks outdoors, even in wide open spaces like beaches and parks, but later many research findings showed there was no evidence of significant transmission in such places. See this surgeon’s explanation of why masks have no beneficial effect outside of the surgical setting.

6. Emphasis on only germ theory: There was a disingenuous neglect of terrain theory—the approach to fighting disease through measures that strengthen the immune system and improve health care delivery, sanitation, social security, and psychological and physical health. There was no attempt to calm people while there was a corresponding effort to enact policies that increased anxiety and social stresses in numerous ways. The effect of such stress on the immune system has been well established by medical science. This is not just a marginal complaint to make. Hippocrates said, “first do no harm,” but real harm has been caused.

7. Herd immunity. There was a sly re-definition of herd immunity that made a joke of the idea that the WHO was “just following the science”:

BEFORE IT WAS KNOWN WHETHER A VACCINE COULD BE SOLD

The World Health Organization’s Definition of Herd Immunity on June 9, 2020

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, 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.

AFTER IT WAS KNOWN THAT A VACCINE WOULD BE SOLD

The World Health Organization’s Definition of Herd Immunity on November 13, 2020

‘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. Read the Director-General’s 12 October media briefing speech for more detail.

(emphasis added, but the scare quotes around herd immunity in the later definition were added by the WHO)

Screenshots of these two definitions circulated widely on social media while the old definition disappeared from the WHO website. A google advanced search for the sentences in the former definition does not produce any results.

On December 31, 2020, the WHO recognized its foolishness and revised its position again by inserting an admission that herd immunity “happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.” They also stated that “WHO supports achieving ‘herd immunity’ through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.” (italics added)

Improving upon the strange disappearance of “immunity through previous infection” in the November 13th statement, they now distinguish between immunity happening naturally through infection and immunity being achieved by human intervention (using achieve, a verb showing human agency) with vaccines. In spite of this readmission of the old definition of herd immunity, no one has heard of it recently because it is being studiously kept out of the discourse about the pandemic.

Interestingly, they define vaccinated people as “protected from getting the disease in question and passing on the pathogen, breaking any chains of transmission.” By this definition, the mRNA “vaccines” being delivered in the winter of 2021 are not vaccines because recipients are being told that they can still be infected, probably with few or no symptoms, but can still transmit the disease. They are still told they must wear masks and take all the other precautions they had to take previously. Furthermore, the design of the mRNA therapy is so different from vaccines that some researchers believe they should not be defined as vaccines.

If it were just a matter of one or two false statements, one could say they were just errors made in the midst of a crisis, but what we see here are too many holes in the plot. There is a persistent pattern revealing an agenda that aims to shut down dissenting voices and misdirect society at large. It is stunning that so many have been so uncritical and obedient while under house arrest and editorials in the press warn readers “Don’t go down the rabbit hole” by trying to educate yourself about what is going on. That might turn you into a “conspiracy nut.” Don’t think. Don’t learn. Forget everything your school teachers said about the importance of being a critical thinker. You couldn’t possibly know how to evaluate all the information you gather. Leave it to the experts in each narrow field of knowledge because they are the only ones capable of proper discernment, and even for them it’s really, really hard.

In the remaining part of this article I want to discuss one more lie which may be the most dangerous lie of all, and that is Anthony Fauci’s statement, made either deceitfully or in inexcusable ignorance, that vaccines don’t cause any adverse reactions or harms later than forty-five days after injection. I don’t need to refer to the radical anti-vaxxers to prove him wrong. I will provide one clear example from two medical researchers who are very much in favor of doing vaccination when circumstances call for it. They are not anti-vax, and neither am I, but they stress that there are vaccines which cause long-term harm. First, the false information stated by Anthony Fauci:

The speed with which it [development and approval of the mRNA vaccines] has been done is a reflection of the extraordinary advances in science and there was no compromise of safety, but as I said before, in the history of vaccinology, you don’t see effects that occur years later. Almost all of the bad effects, as rare as they are—and they are very rare—occur between 15 and 45 days from the time you get vaccinated, and as I said, because of that, just to be sure, the vaccine is not allowed to be distributed until sixty days after the people have been vaccinated. – Anthony Fauci, interviewed by Eugenio Derbez, March 11, 2021, 21:30 ~

Expert opinion #1

The first doctor whose view contradicts that of Dr. Fauci view is Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche. A partial transcript of an interview he gave recently is below. The second doctor is Dr. Christine Stabell Benn, and a partial transcript of a presentation she gave follows the first one by Dr. Bossche.

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, interview published by Children’s Health Defense, March 15, 2021

This partial transcript has been edited for clarity, and the order of paragraphs has been re-arranged. The speaker’s intended meaning, obvious in the context, was preserved while some sentences were revised. Readers can refer to the original transcript or the video recording to confirm what is written below.

I have a background, essentially, as far as vaccines are concerned, in industry as well as in the non-profit sector. I have been working with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI [The Vaccine Alliance] especially concentrating on vaccines for global health. I’ve also been working with several different companies, vaccine companies developing essentially prophylactic vaccines, and my main focus of interest has always been, in fact, the design of vaccines.

At this point, it’s so irrelevant whether you’re a pro-vaxxer or an anti-vaxxer. It is about the science. It’s about humanity. My perspective was, and still is, that if you go to war, you had better make sure that you have the right weapon. The weapon in itself can be an excellent weapon, [but it may not be the right weapon]. And that is what I’m saying really about the current vaccines. There are brilliant people who have been making these [mRNA] vaccines in no time and with regulatory approval and everything. The weapon in itself is excellent.

The question is this: is this the right weapon for the kind of war that is going on right now? My answer is definitely no because these are prophylactic vaccines, and prophylactic vaccines should typically not be administered to people who are exposed to high infectious pressure. We are administering these vaccines in the heat of a pandemic. In other words, while we are preparing our weapon, we are fully attacked by the virus. The virus is everywhere. That is a very different scenario from using such vaccines in a setting where the vaccinated people are barely exposed or not exposed at all to the virus.

I’m saying this because if you have a high infectious pressure, it’s so easy for the virus to jump from one person to the other. If their immune response, however, is just mounting, as we see right now with the number of people who have got their first dose [of the vaccine], they get the first dose, the antibodies are not fully mature… Their immune response is suboptimal, but they are in the midst of this war while they are mounting an immune response. They’re fully attacked by the virus every single time. This is textbook knowledge [not just my speculation].

Every single time you have an immune response that is suboptimal in the presence of an infection, in the presence of a virus, that infected person is at risk for immune escape. That means that the virus can escape the immune response. That is why I’m saying that doing mass vaccination with these vaccines (which in their own right, are, of course, excellent) in the midst of a pandemic [is a mistake] because when you do this, within a very short period of time, to a population with high antibody titers, the virus comes under enormous pressure.

That wouldn’t matter if you could eradicate the virus, if you could prevent infection, but these vaccines don’t prevent infection. They protect against disease, but we just, unfortunately, look no further than the end of our noses in the sense that hospitalization is all that counts—getting people away from the hospital.

In the meantime, we are not realizing that by our interventions during this pandemic, we give the virus the opportunity to escape a reaction mounted by the immune system. That is of course, a very, very, very dangerous thing, especially if we realize that these viruses need only ten hours to replicate.

If you think that by making new vaccines, a new vaccine against the new infectious strains, we are going to catch up, that’s impossible. The virus is not going to wait until we have those vaccines ready. This thing continues.

The fact is that these long lived antibodies have high specificity, of course, for the [spike protein of the Sars-Cov-2] virus. They out-compete our natural antibodies. Natural antibodies have a very broad spectrum, but they have low affinity, so by doing this [vaccination], even if your antibodies don’t work anymore, because there is resistance or the strains are too different from the original strain, specific antibodies will still continue to out-compete your natural immunity. That is a huge problem because these natural antibodies provide you with broad protection.

This protection is variant non-specific. It doesn’t matter what variant you get. It doesn’t even matter what type of coronavirus is coming in. It will protect you unless, of course, you suppress the level of innate immunity, or it is, for example, out-competed by long-lived specific antibodies [induced by the vaccination]. It’s not like you can say, “We missed it. Let’s try again [with an updated vaccine].” No, you did some harm. This is different from drugs. Immunizing somebody is like installing new software on a computer. Don’t forget, these antibodies will be re-activated every single time you encounter a coronavirus. You cannot just erase this, so this is very serious.

I think we are very close to vaccine resistance right now. It’s not for nothing that already people have started developing new vaccines against the new strains. But what I was saying is that, [with this vaccination] you are losing the most precious part of your immune system that you could ever imagine. That is your innate immune system. The innate antibodies, the natural antibodies, the secretary IGMs, will be out-competed by these antigen-specific antibodies that bind to the virus. That will be long-lived. That is a long-lived suppression. You lose every protection against any viral variant or coronavirus variant. So this means that you are left with just a single immune response. Your immunity has become nil. It’s all gone. The antibodies don’t work anymore. Your innate immunity has been completely bypassed, and this happens while highly infectious strains are circulating.

See Dr. Geert’s open letter to the WHO, March 6, 2021.

Expert opinion #2

Dr. Christine Stabell Benn, MD (1996), PhD (2003), Doctor of Medical Science (2011), University of Copenhagen, Bandim Health Project in Guinea-Bissau (BHP, www.bandim.org) since 1993, postdoctoral researcher at the Danish National Hospital and the Department for Infectious Diseases and at Stanford University.

Dr. Christine Stabell Benn explained in her TEDx talk that her research team discovered that live polio vaccines (an attenuated but active virus) have broad beneficial effects on immunity as a child’s immune system develops over several years, but she found that non-live vaccines, the ones that have become most commonly used, have harmful effects over several years and lead to increased childhood mortality. She also stresses that these findings “may have implications also for other types of diseases, more chronic diseases which depend on the immune system, such as asthma and allergies, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, cardiac diseases, even some cancers.”

It seems clear that the mRNA vaccines are more akin to non-live vaccines than they are to live vaccines. They don’t even contain a whole virus. They cause human cells to produce one protein found on the Sars-Cov-2 virus, then the immune system produces antibodies that neutralize that single protein. That is a very non-robust, limited design which virus variants may quickly evolve ways of evading. The risks are significant, and it is shocking and inexcusable that a doctor of Anthony Fauci’s high ranking is not aware of Dr. Benn’s research findings, which have been known for several years. How is it that amateurs like me can find the information but he can’t?

The possibility of harmful effects emerging years later seems to be very clear, especially for children who are vulnerable while their immune systems are developing during exposure to other vaccines and environmental toxins. This is the saddest irony of all. Vaccines may causing the poor health that made people vulnerable to dying from a viral infection, and our solution for this is to enter into a vicious circle in which we hope to be saved by further vaccinations.

The warning about the effects on children relates also to the obvious point that healthy people under the age of sixty face an extremely low risk from the Sars-Cov-2 virus. It would make almost as much sense to immunize them with a small inoculum dose (small viral load) of the virus itself. Furthermore, millions of people have survived exposure to the virus already—which is evidence of various forms of immunity—yet they are still being told they need to get a vaccine for a virus that did not cause them any harm but did give them immunity. The talk of making the vaccine mandatory for people of all ages seems all the more deluded in light of the findings described below.

How vaccines train the immune system in ways no one expected

Christine Stabell Benn, TEDx Aarhus, Denmark, October 2018

Note about the title: The title chosen by TED puts a distorting, pro-vaccine spin on a message that actually has some alarming things to say about the long-term harm done by some vaccines. The accurate title would be “How live vaccines improve the immune system in ways no one expected and how non-live vaccines damage the immune system in ways no one expected.”

TRANSCRIPT HIGHLIGHTS

All the live vaccines are associated with very beneficial non-specific effects…

Non-live vaccines, on the other hand, all have negative non-specific effects. Children who received [non-live] DTP vaccine had five times higher risk of dying than those who didn’t…

Intriguingly, the negative effects of DTP vaccine were strongest for girls, and that is a pattern we’ve seen for all the non-live vaccines…

And this may have implications also for other types of diseases, more chronic diseases which depend on the immune system, such as asthma and allergies, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, cardiac diseases, even some cancers…

Our research results are not quite yet accepted… the main reason is the polarized vaccine debate…

[vaccine supporters] are reluctant to accept our findings because they imply the possibility that some vaccines may sometimes be harmful….

The vaccine skeptics… may be more reluctant to accept the beneficial effects. And their focus on the negative effects may make the vaccine supporters take an even more rigid stance. In my opinion, neither side is right or wrong…

And things are moving in the wrong direction. Live vaccines are being stopped; more non-live vaccines are being developed… Based on all the available data, this global switch from live to non-live polio vaccine will be a public health disaster.

See the video and the full transcript here.

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT

In Guinea-Bissau, we have a field station where we follow 200,000 people with regular home visits and we register all deliveries, all vaccinations, all hospitalizations, health center visits, all child deaths. And with this information we started doing what nobody else had done before us: we evaluated the effect of vaccines on overall health. This may come as a surprise, but normally vaccines are not assessed for their effects on overall health. They’re only assessed for their protective effects against the vaccine disease. Everybody has been so convinced that vaccines only had protective effects against the vaccine disease, so it didn’t seem necessary to assess their effects on overall health. But when we started looking at the effect of vaccines on overall health, it quickly became clear to us that there was something wrong. Something was simply missing in this equation. Because some vaccines had a much bigger effect on overall health than could be predicted based on their specific protective effect, and other vaccines had much less effect than was expected…

The live vaccines contain a little bit of the weakened disease and it creates a mild natural infection in the body which is so mild that it usually doesn’t cause any symptoms. These vaccines are really good at stimulating the immune system, so you know them because these are the vaccines you only need one shot of to get good protection. The non-live vaccines also contain the disease, but it has already been killed. So the non-live vaccines, they also contain the disease, but it has already been killed. So these vaccines are not very good at stimulating the immune system, and you know that because these are the vaccines which you need several shots of, of the same vaccine, to get good protection. But on the positive side, these non-live vaccines can never cause the real disease in the body. Not even in people with very weak immune systems, so most doctors prefer them over the live vaccines and nowadays most newly developed vaccines are non-live…

We have now evaluated 10 vaccines for their non-specific effects, four live and six non-live, and the results are very consistent. All the live vaccines are associated with very beneficial non-specific effects. They improve overall health much more than could be expected, based on their protective effects…

Non-live vaccines, on the other hand, all have negative non-specific effects. They simply do not improve overall health as much as expected based on the protective effects, and, in fact, most of them have negative effects on overall health…

But when we tested the effect of live polio vaccine in Guinea-Bissau, we saw, in a randomized trial among newborns, that the newborns who were randomly allocated to live polio vaccine, their mortality was reduced by a third compared with the children who didn’t get live polio vaccine at birth. This very big effect of live polio vaccine on the risk of dying was clearly purely non-specific—there was no polio. So live polio vaccine made the babies stronger and more able to combat all kinds of other diseases. We have seen these very beneficial non-specific effects of live polio vaccine in many other studies now and in even more studies, we have seen very beneficial non-specific effects of three other live vaccines—measles, tuberculosis and smallpox vaccines. All the live vaccines seem to come with a bonus in the form of increased protection against a wide range of diseases…

Before we started looking closer at DTP [diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis] vaccine, it had only been studied for its protective effects. In one study, we went back to historical data, from when DTP vaccine was introduced in Guinea-Bissau in the 1980s, and the results were scary. In spite of being protective against three deadly diseases, the introduction of DTP was associated with increased overall mortality. Children who received DTP vaccine had five times higher risk of dying than those who didn’t. And this is just one example of many studies now done of DTP vaccine and they all show the same: DTP-vaccinated children have higher mortality than those who didn’t get DTP. So it appears that DTP vaccine has negative non-specific effects. The protection against the three deadly diseases comes at a very high price, namely increased risk of dying.  So, with the best of intentions, the use of DTP vaccine may kill more children than it saves. I know these results are extremely uncomfortable. And most people, including myself, just wish they weren’t true. But this is what the data tells us. Intriguingly, the negative effects of DTP vaccine were strongest for girls, and that is a pattern we’ve seen for all the non-live vaccines. So for all six non-live vaccines, we’ve seen that they have very strong negative, non-specific effects in females, and we haven’t got a clue why, yet…

When we and others recently started to look for non-specific effects of vaccines on hospitalizations [in high-income countries], we found exactly the same patterns. For instance, in a recent study from the US, children who had a live vaccine had only half the risk of getting hospitalized [for an infection] compared with children who had a non-live vaccine…

And this may have implications also for other types of diseases, more chronic diseases which depend on the immune system, such as asthma and allergies, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, cardiac diseases, even some cancers…

And we’ve been accumulating data for 25 years now showing that vaccines have important non-specific effects. Yet, the world only focuses on the protective effects. Our research results are not quite yet accepted. And I’ve spent literally years, I think, pulling out my hair and speculating why it’s so difficult to get these promising results acknowledged. And I think the main reason is the polarized vaccine debate. The people who have the power to do something, to follow up and respond to these findings – the World Health Organization and the health authorities, are all vaccine supporters. And in my interpretation, they are reluctant to accept our findings because they imply the possibility that some vaccines may sometimes be harmful. So it is easier just to dismiss the whole thing. The vaccine skeptics, on the other side, may find that our observations on non-live vaccines confirm their worst fears – vaccines can be harmful – but they may be more reluctant to accept the beneficial effects. And their focus on the negative effects may make the vaccine supporters take an even more rigid stance. In my opinion, neither side is right or wrong…

And things are moving in the wrong direction. Live vaccines are being stopped; more non-live vaccines are being developed. For instance, live polio vaccine has already been replaced completely by non-live polio vaccine in high-income countries. And the little girl you saw in the video in the beginning might be one of the last in the world to receive live polio vaccine, because the plan is to stop live polio vaccine completely by 2022 and replace it entirely with non-live polio vaccine. Based on all the available data, this global switch from live to non-live polio vaccine will be a public health disaster.

See the video and the full transcript here.