There was no pandemic by any WHO definition
Tom Jefferson, Carl Heneghan, and Covid Contrarians at a crossroads
In an article for paid subscribers, Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan responded to a reader comment with a brief tour of WHO pandemic definitions.
The three statements they featured follow:
An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses.
An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity.
“Pandemic” means the global spread of a pathogen or variant that infects human populations with limited or no immunity through sustained and high transmissibility from person to person, overwhelming health systems with severe morbidity and high mortality, and causing social and economic disruptions, all of which require effective national and global collaboration and coordination for its control
Each of these descriptions is flawed, in my opinion; none should be regarded as legitimate. Here’s why:
There is no such thing as a “new” influenza virus.
A causal relationship between influenza as an illness (described very well by Dr. Mike Yeadon here ) and the entities characterized as influenza viruses has never been demonstrated.
The notion of human beings as “immune-naive” relative to a pathogen or “variant” thereof is presumed but lacks evidentiary support. (The same is true with respect to “herd immunity” and respiratory illness.)1
Global spread of a pathogen or variant is ill-defined and has never occurred in the manner health authorities and epidemiologists purport/believe.
Person-to-person transmissibility of the things called viruses has never been proven, including for SARS-CoV-2.
There is no documented instance of a “global spread of pathogen or variant that infects human population" doing anything along the lines of “overwhelming health systems with severe morbidity and high mortality, and causing social and economic disruptions” — and, consequently, no basis to claim that “effective national and global collaboration and coordination” are “required” for the “control” of such a pathogen.
Sadly, we’ve been lied to for decades. Global pandemics are not observable biological phenomena. They are creatures of political/social science, tools for economic exploitation, and mechanisms for those in authority to gain or preserve power.2
Nature does not produce so-called “pandemic-potential” spreading viruses, nor can such agents be created (let alone enhanced) through gain-of-function experiments.
Back to Jefferson & Heneghan…
Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan observe incongruities between (and absurdities of) the WHO definitions but stop short of stating whether they believe pandemics occur. They end their piece with a barb: “What is a pandemic? It‘s what Dr. Tedros says it is.” I love the sarcasm, yet remain confused as to whether the two Oxford professors think pandemics are “a thing”.
To find out, I replied.
Am I correct to infer that, although you don't agree with the WHO's 2023 statement as being the definition of a pandemic, you otherwise agree with the claims in the statement?
Also, you do or do not believe that pandemics are possible?
Dear Jessica,
We have not really discussed whether we agree with this that or the other definitions. The point of the post was pointing out the moulding of definitions to fit facts (or presumed facts).
Best wishes, Tom
Thank you for responding.
Do you plan to write an article that states your beliefs/claims relative to the WHO definition you've cited?
Colleagues and I have observed that there is little difference between the "Covidian" viewpoint and a good number of the "dissenters" in the sense that both camps support the idea that the "last pandemic" wasn't handled correctly and we need to do better in planning for the "next pandemic."3 (We reject there having been a pandemic by ANY definition, including the 2023 iteration.)
Given your stature in the study of influenza, pandemics, the COVD event, etc., I humbly submit that it is paramount for you to discuss/make clear to readers whether you agree with "this, that, or the other definitions."
I recently came across this interview you did in 2009 and would love to hear more about how your views have evolved in the ~15 years since. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-epidemiologist-tom-jefferson-a-whole-industry-is-waiting-for-a-pandemic-a-637119.html
I note that you expressed less concern about influenza than you did about SARS. I'm not sure if that's true of your fellow academics (in the UK and around the world) but it seems like something that could have been taken advantage of by the orchestrators of/criminals involved with the COVID event.
Regards,
Jessica
Dear Jessica,
Thank you for your comment. I am running out of explanations to offer you, although you have a massively inflated opinion of my stature - you must be a very kind person. Try this explanation. I do not have opinions on evidence. If that changes and it stands up to scientific scrutiny (or even better logic) I report it with the PROVISIONAL conclusion that this seems ok. Definitions can all be good or bad or a mixture thereof, I critique them if there is a logic gap and that’s it. What we pointed out is that you do not change a definition during an event to justify your evidence free actions. As we showed, WHO have a long track record of doing just that.
Next, IF, as you kindly suggest, I have "stature” it may be because I stick to evidence, have slogged my guts out to produce and update our Cochrane reviews and their fall out and all the criticism I got is from people who do not like my aftershave (which I do not use because I have a lockup beard). I refrain from making sweeping statements but draw conclusions from my own work. Those who did not like the conclusions of A122 and tried to undermine it in every way possible, the NYT, the Cochrane grandees etc have not slugged through hundreds of randomised and observational studies since 2006. So for me they have not earned their stripes. I do not do ideology. I do evidence.
I do not do personal attacks either (with the exception of Matt Hancock and those who tried to hurt my family) and try to stick to evidence and "more likely than not" conclusions.
Show me a large, well designed, independent placebo controlled trial of influenza vaccines showing a credible effect and the relevant review will change its conclusions.
Good quality evidence is my star and I do not follow the lights of each passing ship. Remember the similiarieites between epidemiology and archaeology: find the evidence, treat it right and interpret it. No definitive stuff, only evolving understanding.
Best, Tom
I appreciate the dialogue.
My question remains, as I don't see how the article you've written (or the above response to me) addresses Adam's original core inquiry in a direct fashion:
After decades of scholarship - and experiences with SARS-1, H1N1, and COVID-19 - do you (you and Carl) hold that pandemics involving spreading viral agents are real, observable, biological/epidemiological phenomena?
I infer that you do believe in human-to-human transmission of the agents called viruses -- and also accept (based on your interpretation of various findings as evidence) that certain viral agents are causative of respiratory illness. Is it the case that you see that transmission/spread as normal/expected and reject it being characterized as 'pandemic'?
How does your view differ from that of Sunetra Gupta, for example? https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/sunetra-guptas-view-on-the-origins and https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/problems-with-sunetra-guptas-assessment
(I am clear on her view, because she has expressed it in no uncertain terms, but am less clear on yours.)
One final point: I think we can agree that evidence does not present itself objectively as such. So, for me, it's less about "finding" evidence and more about making determinations about what constitutes evidence relative to a given question, issue, problem, etc. -- which involves subjective determinations of one kind of another. This is as true in a court of law as it is in (or for) a scientific study.
Regards, Jessica
Jefferson did not respond; any further dialogue will be posted here.
At a Crossroads
The WHO ‘pandemic’ definitions and conversation with Tom Jefferson make this much clear:
‘Covid Contrarians’ are at a crossroads.
As colleagues and I explained, there is very little difference between the ‘official story’ promoted by governing authorities & ‘Covidians’ and the versions elevated as Permitted Dissent. Two dominant sides that seem to be ‘fighting’ are, in actuality, both defending the same fortress.
The “crossroads questions” are:
Was there a pandemic involving a sudden-spreading/circulating/transmitting coronavirus? I say no.
Was there a sudden-spreading/circulating/transmitting coronavirus, pandemic or otherwise? I say no.
Was there a new disease as of late 2019/early 2020? I say no.
But many others say yes to one or more of the above, including the WHO and its member countries.
Before the election, Jay Bhattacharya (now NIH Director) downplayed the importance of having an official pandemic definition, even as he acknowledged that declaring a pandemic is a “fundamentally political act” made by “political actors.” At the same time, he insisted that biology and epidemiology are “inputs” that “play an important role” in such declarations.
I spy a contradiction: If science plays a meaningful role in the decision, then why dismiss the need for a clear scientific definition of what constitutes a pandemic?
Preparing for impossible events is wasteful. The “Next Pandemic” stance endorsed by Bhattacharya and others (Jefferson? Heneghan?) should be subjected to intense scrutiny and vigorous debate, if not abandoned immediately, until evidence justifies having a definition, let alone plans to go with it.
Related article: Novelty & immunity: Why were we so blind to the obvious?
Thank you, Jessica, for your courteous, well-formed questions to a well-known, experienced epidemiologist.
As you know, I’ve come to appreciate that, once a person has seen or been shown the several lines of purported evidence for viruses, pandemics and vaccines, and having the penny drop that this is an extraordinarily successful deception, we have a duty to attempt to expose that it’s entirely lies & is very likely to be used again.
I’m not smarter than anyone else and this point isn’t a scientific one. I’m no longer prepared to waste my time on or with those who at best are pretending.