Andrew Bridgen Endorses HART Article Which States That The Term 'Pandemic' Was Weaponised And Which Denies That There Was A Novel Virus
I seem to be alone in regarding this as a somewhat serious misstep on the part of Bridgen, who has got so much right over the years and who I admire greatly.
Why do I think Bridgen is making a serious error by endorsing HART? Because HART is attempting to airbrush out of history some rather inconvenient scientific facts, probably with the good intention of not wanting to unnecessarily alarm the public and/or wishing to avoid serving the nefarious interests of the Disease X scaremongers. But, facts are facts and the public must be provided with them; they have a right to know the truth, unabridged (or should that be unabridgened?)
HART claims that the word ‘pandemic’ has been ‘hijacked for nefarious ends’. Malone recently kicked back against this on Twitter. The justification for claiming that it has been hijacked is as follows:
The word pandemic used to have a very specific meaning. It was used to describe a scenario where there was extensive incapacitation of key workers and large numbers of deaths, including young people. A genuine pandemic is not something that would have needed billions of dollars in advertising for people to even notice and fear. Using this long-established definition of the word, we conclude that there was in fact no global pandemic in 2020. The word was deliberately misapplied and weaponised against an unsuspecting public.
That is not the case or at least, since 2001, it has not been the case. As Malone points out, the authoritative Dictionary of Epidemiology 4th Edition (2001), defines ‘pandemic’ as follows:
That was 23 years ago and there was no qualifying criteria relating to severity or lethality then. The 5th and 6th editions show little change. So it’s not really the case that the establishment suddenly changed the internationally accepted definition of ‘pandemic’ to accommodate the rather mild symptoms associated with the vast majority of Covid-19 infections, in order to alarm the public and create the impression of a serious pandemic. It is the case though that they deliberately hyped the seriousness of the risk of disease to the vast majority and greatly overestimated the case fatality rate and infection fatality rate. That is not in dispute. One may consider arguing over this to be somewhat pernickety, but it’s important, because there are a lot of people out there who have latched on to the ‘no pandemic’ argument to simltaneously claim that there was no novel virus, no lab leak of a GOF virus and even that viruses do not exist, are not transmissible and/or do not cause disease.
You can understand Malone’s frustration; well, at least I can.
HART argue that the WHO changed their definition of an influenza pandemic from one which causes many fatalities, in 2003, to one which does not necessarily cause a huge number of fatalities, in 2009. They did change their description it is true, but unlike the Dictionary of Epidemiology which formally defines a pandemic of any disease, the WHO description of an inflenza pandemic was not a formally recognised definition. This is pointed out in HART’s own reference written by Peter Doshi:
There has been considerable controversy over the past year, particularly in Europe, over whether the World Health Organization (WHO) changed its definition of pandemic influenza in 2009, after novel H1N1 influenza was identified. Some have argued that not only was the definition changed, but that it was done to pave the way for declaring a pandemic. Others claim that the definition was never changed and that this allegation is completely unfounded. Such polarized views have hampered our ability to draw important conclusions. This impasse, combined with concerns over potential conflicts of interest and doubts about the proportionality of the response to the H1N1 influenza outbreak, has undermined the public trust in health officials and our collective capacity to effectively respond to future disease threats.
WHO did not change its definition of pandemic influenza for the simple reason that it has never formally defined pandemic influenza. While WHO has put forth many descriptions of pandemic influenza, it has never established a formal definition and the criteria for declaring a pandemic caused by the H1N1 virus derived from “pandemic phase” definitions, not from a definition of “pandemic influenza”.
What is more concerning is that HART state the following:
This would not have been possible were it not for three false premises that covid was:
novel;
extremely lethal; and
unprecedented.
It was none of these things. It was no more novel than numerous other viruses which emerge each year in terms of the ability to be recognised by our immune systems.
Whilst one can agree with 2. in that Covid was probably, overall, no more serious a disease than a bad ‘flu season in terms of its summed total impact across all age groups, the latest revelations from the DEFUSE emails firmly put to bed any arguments that SARS-CoV-2 was not a lab created virus which must mean, per se, that it was novel. Was its emergence unprecedented? Maybe not, if other lab manufactured viruses have also been released but gone unnoticed, which is a definite possibility.
The genetic make-up of the SC-2 coronavirus clearly is novel and the array of symptoms which characterise mild to moderate to severe infection also constitutes a clearly identifiable syndromic pattern of disease, as argued by Pierre Kory and others, based largely on the documented toxicity of the spike protein, but which is refuted by Martin Neil, Jonathan Engler and Jessica Hocckett.
Of course there is a risk that the WHO will weaponise understandable public apprehension concerning the ‘escape’ of lab created GOF viruses to push for a pandemic treaty, but that was not the case with Covid. Quite the opposite in fact. The establishment actively denied the lab-leak hypothesis and instead pushed for years the myth that the deadly novel Covid virus came from an animal. They’re still pushing the BS fear-based narrative that deadly, unknown diseases can suddenly emerge from natural reservoirs and infect humans (zoonoses) because of ‘climate change’ and man-made environmental destruction. So it seems a little odd to me that they are accused by HART and others of suddenly pivoting to scare-mongering about man-made GOF viruses, specifically ‘Disease X’. Given that it is now fact that SARS-CoV-2 was a GOF virus created in a lab, it would only be prudent for us to recognise that they might do the same again in order to declare another pandemic and thus initiate a new power grab based on the acquisition of even more emergency powers afforded to them by the pandemic treaty. HART rightly warns of the latter, but it singularly fails to acknowledge the reality which is now staring us in the face: GOF exists.
I think it is a political/strategic mis-step too.
I don't beleive there was a virus myself. It was non replicating infrectios clones or DNA plasmids scattered around....the clones could infect but only for a while.
They cannot even with their microscopes see a virus or alter it. They can only play with computer gene sequences.