Could we have avoided a pandemic entirely had we not tampered with some important definitions?
I can’t help thinking that we might have dodged this whole mess if some powerful people hadn’t messed with linguistics (and gain-of-function research).
If only the WHO hadn’t changed the definition of pandemic to make way for a “swine flu pandemic” back in 2009…
Medically, the pandemic moniker is unjustifiable…
So how could WHO make such an outrageous claim?
Simple. It rewrote the definition of "pandemic."
A previous official definition (and widely used unofficial one) required "simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness." Severity--that is, the number--is crucial, because seasonal flu always causes worldwide simultaneous epidemics. But one promulgated in April just days before the announcement of the swine flu outbreak simply eliminated severity as a factor.
That's also how we can have a "pandemic" when six months of epidemiological data show swine flu to be far milder than the seasonal variety.
If only regulatory agencies didn’t wiggle the bar of “safety” and “efficacy” and promote deadly drugs and ineffective ventilation protocols that did not save lives and likely added to the death toll.
the published data lated showed that "remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits [and] the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies."
…What's weird about remdesivir is that it hasn't been held to the same standards as other drug candidates.
If only off label use of drugs that have been used for decades didn’t suddenly become controversial at a time when we desperately needed treatment. Imagine if doctors had been free to treat patients using inexpensive and available drugs with known safety profiles.
Resurrecting old drugs for unmet medical needs—known more formally as drug repurposing—was an important message in the Nobel Prize for Medicine earlier this month…
More globally, this report of successful repurposing of an old drug, ivermectin, for treating a totally different disease, is another important reminder that, particularly for urgent threats like antibiotic resistant superbugs or neglected diseases, we should reexamine our existing armamentarium. Older drugs, like many older people, are a source rich in treasures.
If only we had used more accurate definitions for “cases” and “COVID deaths”
If only the WHO didn’t change the definition of “herd immunity” to render natural immunity useless…
Who knows what we could have created using different definitions and parameters?
Thanks to semantics, we constructed a pandemic.
And then we redefined our way out of effective solutions.
A new definition of vaccines gave us a shot that didn’t produce immunity.
A new lower bar allowed Emergency Use Authorization and liability protection of these “vaccines” to remain even as their efficacy dropped to well below 50%…
A new definition of “anti-vaxxer” made anyone who opposed mandates a potential threat fueled ad hominem attacks against anyone who spoke outside the lines.
Meanwhile, a continued push for a “more inclusive definition of health” paves a way for normalizing chronic disease and using all kinds of drugs to manage them.
At least we have a new definition just in time to dodge a recession…
But maybe we should stop letting these people define our future. Their pathological ideas have a funny way of becoming our realities.
Our 1984 Newspeak dictionary is in progress. We need to pay attention.
There are so many more. The WHO also redefined "causality" ..."In the new causality assessment, only reactions that have previously been acknowledged in epidemiological studies to be caused by the vaccine, are classified as a vaccine-product–related-reactions. Reactions observed for the first time during post-marketing surveillance (Phase 4 clinical trial) are not considered as ‘consistent with causal association with vaccine’. All new serious adverse reactions are labelled as coincidental events ‘inconsistent with causal association,’ or ‘unclassifiable’ and the association with vaccine is not acknowledged. (5). It has, in effect, made phase 4 trials redundant."
https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2268/rr-0
el gato malo nails it here. https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/sunlight-not-gaslight?r=gt86w&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web