Masters of Health Magazine July 2021 | Page 85

Council (PA) believes that the changes made to the pandemic definition were highly inappropriate at a time when a major influenza infection was occurring [1]. These changes affected disease descriptions and indicators, and they were made in a non-transparent manner. It also meant that because of the PPP’s that locked governments into prescribed actions when a pandemic was called, authorities were constrained in their actions – even when the evidence did not match the actions they were required to implement [5]. Once the pandemic was declared governments had no choice but to buy up the required vaccines according to quantities and prices set in the PPP’s.

 

Medical Diagnosis of Disease

Diagnosis of disease is a grey area of science because criteria can be changed over time, and this can give the appearance of an increase in one disease and a decline in another. In addition, people usually die from multiple factors, therefore cause of death can be subjective. Hence, an appearance of a pandemic can be manipulated by medical authorities by changing the diagnostic criteria for a disease or by changing its surveillance in the population. This was the case in the swine-flu pandemic in 2009, and it is described in my article titled ‘A new strain of influenza or a change in surveillance? [6]

This was also the case for the alleged global public health emergency in 2020. The WHO declared a pandemic of Coronavirus 2019, based solely on the alleged identification of the virus using a RT-PCR test. This test is not a diagnostic tool, meaning it cannot diagnose COVID disease, and the extra surveillance of the healthy population resulted in hundreds of healthy people without symptoms and/or non-serious cases of disease, being used to frighten the public about a new ‘flu-like illness’ that was called COVID disease.    

   

The history of the control of infectious diseases provides evidence that under a traditional definition of a ‘pandemic’ it is extremely unlikely that a global pandemic of a virus would ever occur after 1950/60. This is because the virulence and pathogenicity of microorganisms is determined by the environmental and host characteristics of each country.  Therefore, the arbitrary change in definition of a pandemic by the WHO that removed the need for a virus to be causing enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses worldwide (not just in some countries) are critical to the question of whether there was a ‘global public health emergency’ in 2020, for a new mutated coronavirus.

The traditional definition of a pandemic defines the risk of a pathogen on case-fatality statistics (deaths) and hospitalizations, and not on an increase in ‘ cases’ of a disease. By 1950, in Australia, it was recognized that most cases of infectious diseases were non-serious or asymptomatic due to improved hygiene, sanitation, and nutrition, and these non-serious cases provided immunity in individuals. After 1950, in all developed countries, it was only hospitalization and case-fatality statistics (deaths) within each demographic that were considered useful in informing governments about the risk of a disease to the community [7].

This is the reason why the Australian government stopped reporting cases of measles, whooping cough, and influenza in 1950: the majority of these cases in Australia (99.9%) after this time were non-serious cases of disease that were fundamental to creating herd immunity in the population [8]. It was recognized that virulence and pathogenicity were determined by environmental and host characteristics.

Therefore, infectious disease control was referred to as social or ecological medicine. It was addressed in government public health policy because political and economic decisions regarding public health infrastructure, and not medications, were used to control these diseases.

Since 1986, when liability was removed from all vaccine manufacturers in the US, the WHO has been re-writing this history to claim that vaccines are necessary to control these diseases. Whilst some vaccines may have been responsible for a decline in ‘cases’ of some diseases, they were not responsible for the reduction in the risk of death. This is significant because they are not a risk-free solution. The reduction in cases needs to be weighed against the increase in chronic illness and death in children/adults caused by vaccines. Historically public health authorities acknowledged that the risk of death to infectious diseases was removed before vaccines were introduced.