World Health Organization scrambling to save credibility: Recants admission that asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 is “very rare”
Reproduced from original article:
Sara Middleton, staff writer | June 22, 2020
(NaturalHealth365) Here’s a reasonable assumption: if it’s unlikely for an asymptomatic carrier of COVID-19 to spread the viral infection, then the measures made in response to the current pandemic outbreak – like business closures, mass surveillance, and compulsory face masks – were probably overblown at best, and at worst a serious infringement on the public’s unalienable right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Of course, all along we’ve been made to believe by some officials that asymptomatic spread is a major force driving behind the pandemic disease. So, it’s a hard pill to swallow when the beleaguered World Health Organization (WHO) recently admitted – then later, with their tail between their legs, changed their mind on the matter – that asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 is rare.
Oops: After admitting asymptomatic spread is rare, WHO backtracks and tries to waters down their stance
On June 8 2020, the WHO held one of their weekly virtual press conferences (a transcript is availble online). During the conference, the WHO’s technical lead Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove admitted that asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 “appears to be rare.”
Dr. Van Kerkhove cited international contract tracing data, much of which is as-yet unpublished, which suggests that officials are “not finding secondary transmission onward” of the novel coronavirus from asymptomatic people. “Asymptomatic spread” simply means that an infectious agent is passed from an infected person to another person, even if the infected person doesn’t appear to be sick.
The admission stunned and confused people, to say the least.
Responding to the backlash, Dr. Van Kerkhove tried to ease off her official statement the very next day. She claimed that far from being “very rare,” the rate of asymptomatic spread at this time is simply unknown.
Do NOT ignore the health dangers linked to toxic indoor air. These chemicals – the ‘off-gassing’ of paints, mattresses, carpets and other home/office building materials – increase your risk of headaches, dementia, heart disease and cancer.
Get the BEST indoor air purification system – at the LOWEST price, exclusively for NaturalHealth365 readers. I, personally use this system in my home AND office. Click HERE to order now – before the sale ends.
Okay. Meanwhile, we’ve been told all along that asymptomatic transmission is happening a lot – or at least enough to justify all the modeling guidelines used by public health officials to close down the economy.
Surprise surprise, other officials wasted no time responding to WHO’s admission, and launched some considerable damage control to quell the uproar.
As officials flip flop on COVID-19, the public is left in the fray as restrictions continue to tighten in some states
In a June 8 Twitter thread, director of Harvard Global Health Institute Dr. Ashish K. Jha “reassured” his followers at least 20 percent of people who get COVID-19 are truly asymptomatic. He further claimed that up to 60 percent of the spread comes from people who don’t have symptoms.
He and other officials say it’d be more accurate to refer to this unknown issue as “presymptomatic” spread instead of asymptomatic. Presymptomatic means a person newly infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus can spread it to others during the virus’s “incubation period” (the time from first infection to the onset of first symptoms), which can supposedly can last up to two weeks for the novel coronavirus.
A more recent narrative review published in the Annals of Internal Medicine asserts that asymptomatic spread accounts for a slightly more conservative estimate of 45 percent of COVID cases, yet is still “a significant factor in the rapid progression of COVID-19.” And, we can assume, a legitimate justification for contact tracing, forced use of face masks (hi, Governor Newsom!), forced quarantine, and so on.
Critics blast the review for making broad claims that are simply unsubstantiated by the evidence so far. So, who to believe?
As we’ve maintained all along, we understand that it’s tough to come to firm conclusions about a new illness people are learning about. But if we are making concessions and giving leeway for this uncertainty, why make such broad statements and public health restrictions that have serious repurcussions which very well may echo into the future?
Sources for this article include: