Valery Goltsman

It went largely unnoticed when The World Health Organization (WHO) changed some of its fundamental definitions about herd immunity and medical ethics. Yet their new rules give an insight why at times it feels like living in the movie Idiocracy (2006), surrounded by all the farcical formalism that defies logic and common sense that once seemed absolute.

We are witnessing the rise of the new health collectivism and social responsibility doctrine that is being made up virtually on the fly, as we are getting bombed with dogmas like “take a vaccine to protect the others” or “stay apart and wear a mask to save lives”. Nobody has ever addressed virus outbreaks this way, so why now?

In November 2020, the WHO changed their definition of herd immunity from:

“When a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection” to “a concept used for vaccination in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. In December 2020, they added: WHO supports achieving ‘herd immunity’ through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.

Herd immunity against COVID-19 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination, not by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease.”

It is interesting how The WHO uses the words “protect” and “expose” in respect to humans as if humans are owned and controlled by them. Then it gets even more interesting when the WHO redefines the ethics:

“Attempts to reach ‘herd immunity’ through exposing people to a virus are scientifically problematic and unethical. Letting COVID-19 spread through populations, of any age or health status will lead to unnecessary infections, suffering and death.”

The WHO is essentially claiming control over the forces of nature that are far from being well-researched or understood by today’s science. It doesn’t take a PhD to know that it is impossible to predict the emergence of a virus or control its spread between humans and animals, but it is an entirely different matter when it comes to controlling the humans. When humans obey (they keep 6 feet distance, they wear masks, stay indoors, group in social bubbles) they accept severe violations of their most essential human rights as a necessary virtue! The new approach of the WHO fully disregards the “human” element in humans. We are not seen as living social creatures driven by personal goals and desires, but as mere elements in the virus transmission chain.

The once dystopian idiocracy is today’s reality, and it is supported by the grotesque formalism instituted by the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO implicitly suggests that people no longer belong to themselves. They cannot make their own health choices, they are property that the WHO is ethically obliged to keep away from the virus, even if it makes it hard to … breathe! They find it unethical to let children go to school unmasked and play together, because they may cause them “unnecessary infections, suffering and death.” Just like a livestock that needs to be kept in stables and properly managed to avoid outbreak of the foot-andmouth disease. This may be an ugly analogy, but this is the apparent stand of the WHO that is being carried out in the polices of local public health establishments.

If allowed to unfold, the rhetoric of the WHO paves the way to the new public health doctrine whereby the authorities can arbitrarily set health standards and actively manage the population, which creates potential for developing the tools of control that the world has not yet seen. Those who control health – control life.

The WHO considers it unscientific and unethical to let people enjoy essential liberties and be the humans they were born to be. We are not fully there now, but are moving fast in this direction.

In the movie Idiocracy, the crops do not grow, because they are watered with electrolytes; common sense does not rule there, plants are given electrolytes, because they crave electrolytes, – that is what the (corporate) science said. The logic is formally correct, but it loses its meaning when it is refined and cleared of other essential substances. By following the formal definition everybody forgot that plants need water, just like humans need to breathe fresh air and be humans instead of being kept safe in “individual bubbles”.

Destroying people’s well-being for the sake of wellbeing has nothing to do with protection and safety. But it has entirely different meaning when big power is achieved this way.