We have always been at war…

…with Eastasia

I think the most sinister image I have seen during the whole of this debacle over SARS-CoV-2 during 2020 is this one:

Herd immunity is a concept well known to every doctor who has ever had dealings with infectious diseases, from the humblest GP to the most high-flying epidemiologist. It’s such a basic truth that I can’t even remember when I learned it, though it was probably during university pre-clinical immunology rather than at medical school. People catch infections, and if they don’t succumb they become immune through that wondrously complex and multifaceted collection of biological processes called “the immune system.”

But since, like everything else, the immune system evolved at species level, rather than individually, immunity has the communal effect of maximising the protection across the whole inter-communicating species. Once a certain number of people become immune, even the non-immune are protected by the difficulty a given organism will have of finding a susceptible individual. Biologically this means not only that fewer individuals actually get sick or die from a novel organism, but that fewer need even to have the genetic capacity to deal with that organism, allowing greater variability within the species. The net result is also to put pressure on the pathogen to evolve greater transmissibility at the expense of virulence. This process has, for longer than I have been alive (in fact for over a century), been termed “herd immunity.”

Amongst humans herd immunity provides more than simply species survival: it allows a greater chance of long life for those with immune deficiency from pathology or old age. Because of herd immunity, the weak amongst us can benefit from our instinctive protective behaviours towards them, and the world can be a kinder place.

Just as “herd immunity” was a useful term for describing the epidemiology of infections, it became a useful way of discussing the therapeutic effectiveness of the artificial immunity produced by vaccines over the last couple of centuries, and especially in the period of mass-vaccination from the mid-twentieth century, beginning forty years after the term was coined.

Now, at the beginning of the COVID outbreak, those Brits not cursed with mnemonic deficiency syndromes will recall Patrick Vallance using “herd immunity,” in its original sense, as the end towards which the proposed policy of “flattening the curve” of deaths was directed. All of us medics immediately understood that aim, and at that stage, before we found how the Chinese Communist Party had lied about the outbreak and let it spread globally for months before we had suspected it, probably mostly agreed with the plan. At least we agreed until it morphed into compulsory lockdowns and abandoned all the WHO pandemic guidelines up to and including the October 2019 edition.

So it was quite a shock, later in the summer, to hear Matt Hancock (now amusingly dubbed “Hancocchio” by Peter Hitchens) telling us that the goal of herd immunity was a lunatic fringe conspiracy theory, and that the only way there has ever been, or ever will be, to end pandemics is to immunise the whole world with vaccines that did not, at that stage, even exist.

In passing, let us note that even before COVID, globalist organisations like the Gates Foundation and the WEF had been rather bizarrely pushing vaccination as a core feature of the new sustainable world order. Read back some of the pre-2020 literature, and you’ll find that your previous assumption that the focus on “vaccination” was all about eradicating the known scourges of polio, measles and so on from the poor doesn’t seem to be what they meant at all. Rather, vaccination was planned as a constantly rolling programme for all, on which such things as foreign travel would depend. COVID has just put flesh on those existing bones.

Well, politicians often give misleading statements, Hancock more than most. He, after all, was the one who was away with the fairies on the meaning of “false positive” tests, and has apparently spent billions of our money on policies entirely based on that misunderstanding. He is the one who said in Parliament that Vitamin D has been proven to be ineffective and then, quietly and grudgingly, announced a policy of providing it in inadequate doses, too late, and through yet another inefficient logistics operation, to the vulnerable who ought to have been on it since the Autumn via their GPs.

So scientists and doctors up and down the country no doubt, like me, snorted at the garbled version of herd immunity he gave us, and maybe many of them consequently signed up to the Great Barrington Declaration that takes the true concept for granted. They, like me, will have been surprised at how it soon became a contentious issue even within the professions, and I for one learned from that just how far so-called “professionals” are willing to prostitute themselves to go with the flow. The same pusillanimity was true of bishops during the frequent reversals of the English Reformation, but modern “dispassionate scientists” can be turned from true science by mere threats to their tenure, even without the rack. I despise those bishops.

But the two versions of the WHO statement represented on the graphic above (which I obtained from the “Watts Up With That?” site) show a truly Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” process going on at the highest global levels. The longstanding understanding of herd immunity the WHO was using in June has, as you see, been quietly replaced with an entirely different one in line with Hancock’s parliamentary version (presumably now also replacing the traditional understanding promoted by SAGE in March). Neither Patrick Vallance nor Chris Whitty have apologised for misunderstanding basic immunology all their lives, because they didn’t misunderstand. It’s just that somebody like Winston Smith has changed the truth, and they are proclaiming it as if they have always believed it. Blind guides are a thing to avoid – willfully blind guides are dangerously sinister, and to be feared.

So if you aren’t a doctor, or if you are one but doubt your own memory in the light of current health announcements, you can check on the WHO site – and lo and behold! Herd immunity was always and only about giving people vaccines, and was never about “exposing them to the virus.” Silly you for forgetting. And remember, social media are committed to removing any content that disagrees with the WHO, so half of the Ministry of Truth’s history-changing is being facilitated by the global corporations that support it.

I haven’t the heart to check Wikipedia, but I think they would be as keen to keep abreast of consensus science from the WHO as they are to dismiss conspiracy theorists speculating about a Great Reset. Once the Great Encyclopaedia uses the new definition, then that is what the world will believe.

No doubt the other half of the Ministry’s job will follow automatically as the professional organisations get into step with the WHO and amend their definitions, and as publishers hasten to correct the new editions of textbooks. Those trained in the old doctrine will retire, and those retired will die (and be ignored even before that). The old editions of textbooks will go to library store-rooms, than to landfill. Any dog-eared copies that remain in private hands will be laughed at by the younger generation as “What they used to believe.” It takes a bit longer than it does for Ingsoc in Airstrip One, but is just as effective.

The WHO is a fundamentally political organisation, implementing the policies both of those governments that are influential enough to appoint its leaders (the People’s Republic of China having got Tedros Adhominem his current job), and of the pharmaceutical corporations and NGOs that fund it. It was founded to bring together the best scientific information to inform global health policy, but when politics and science meet, politics always wins. This is clearly demonstrated by the admission by the WHO working group on masks, quoted by the BBC, that they were politically leaned on to change their advice on masks from “useless” to “mandatory.” This was a policy reversal that was also reflected in the unapologetic voltes faces of official spokesmen like Fauci and Whitty, and in the recent censorship of the large Danish blind-trial of masks by the major “independent” scientific journals.

But the herd immunity deception is far worse, because it is not simply about changing an immediate policy, but about distorting the very understanding of natural science by the whole human race, and they know they can get away with it by marginalising those of us who learned science the old apolitical way.

There are really no benign explanations for the WHO’s rewriting of science in this way. One might wonder, charitably, if they realised they had misunderstood herd immunity for their entire history, thus giving poor advice to the world community since World War II. That’s nonsense at a factual level – I and all the WHO scientists read the same text-books at college, remember. But if it were true, it would warrant a major apology for the millions of lives WHO would have damaged for decades, not a quiet re-write to their web-page.

Or maybe they believe the science has suddenly changed and that they need to put the erring world medical profession right. Well, in the first place the WHO has no mandate to determine basic science: its role is to gather it together and form policies based on it. Science (as we all know) changes because old paradigms are challenged by new data and new theories, not because the World President of Science issues a new decree.

Unless you can think of another explanation, then, I can only conclude that the WHO has used totalitarian methods to attempt to change reality for the whole world, for political and/or commercial goals (in both cases ideological, not scientific). Clearly, it is doing this in some kind of coalition with world leaders like Fauci and Hancock, who somehow seemed to grasp the new definition of herd immunity even before professional scientists like Sunetra Gupta and the 40 other major signatories, together with the 52,000+ medics and health scientists, who have put their names to the Great Barrington Declaration.

Science will not undo such a travesty, because it was never science that produced it but politics, though scientists and medics ought to be at the forefront of those exposing the deception to the light of truth and fighting it politically. And that’s because the politics in question is not about which party is in power, or which president gets to run your country. Rather, it’s about “spiritual wickedness in high places.” If it succeeds, then your grants, your tenure or your thriving practice will not be worth having, if indeed they even remain in existence.

For if your science, like that of Lysenko, becomes a pawn of politics, then it is more effective for the powers and principalities to replace the scientists with party apparatchiks who have the ideological blinkers necessary to believe the stuff, rather than to suffer those who only pay lip-service to it to remain at large.