When did WHO change the definition of pandemic?

[MinorityView]

And does anyone have the actual before and after wording?


WHO responds to criticism
-------------------------------------
The World Health Organization responds to the allegations that there was a fake pandemic.

WHO has been consistent for years on the definition of pandemic. It has to do with the how widespread an infectious disease is --- it doesn't have to do with the virulence, the danger of the disease.

This came up against a public misunderstanding, that an epidemic was less virulent, less dangerous than a pandemic. Which the media had trouble making clear.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/vpc_transcript_14_january_10_fukuda.pdf


I found some online stuff saying that the definition was changed in 2003, which is years ago. It seems to me that would be around the time they started fussing about bird flu...

Any thoughts?

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f71/Angladrion/WHOpandemic1a.jpg


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 illness.

Unfortunately, I have no dates for these JPGS....

as far as I am concerned, this change was this year.

If you google it you can find cache's of USA Health and Human services right up to 2009. lazines,, or fact?

On 6 May the first warning of a change in definition came with this article:



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e89de9ea-3b11-11de-ba91-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e89de9ea-3b11-11de-ba91-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss)
WHO considers flu alert overhaul

By Andrew Jack in London
Published: May 7 2009 15:42 | Last updated: May 7 2009 15:42
The World Health Organisation (http://www.who.int/en/)is considering an overhaul of its pandemic ratings system amid growing criticism that it provoked unnecessary alarm by rapidly escalating its warnings over swine flu (http://www.ft.com/indepth/swine-flu).
Officials at the agency’s headquarters in Geneva said they were discussing changes to the six-point scale to make clear in the future the gravity of the threat posed by a new virus.
The move comes against a backdrop of intensifying attacks on the WHO, which has been accused of “crying wolf” over its decisions to raise its pandemic alert from level three to an unprecedented five (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/95684290-349d-11de-940a-00144feabdc0.html). This comes amid indications it may even go to the maximum level six.
Media organisations initially seized on the raising of the alerts in front page headlines around the world, but as it has emerged that the death toll has stayed relatively low, so the criticism has mounted. As of Thursday morning the WHO had confirmed 2,099 cases in 23 countries, including 44 deaths.
While designed to identify and classify the spread of a new flu virus between humans around the world, the WHO’s system of pandemic alerts provides no indication of the danger of the virus.
Even if the A (H1N1) virus in Mexico proves no more lethal than a typical seasonal flu, it could still soon trigger the highest level six WHO pandemic alert once it has been identified as spreading widely between humans in different parts of the world.
Margaret Chan (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1c319e14-37d9-11de-9211-00144feabdc0.html), WHO director general, has stressed that an increase to level six is a technical change which does not mean that people around the world are at serious threat.
In an interview with the FT earlier this week Ms Chan defended the organisation’s public statements. “I am not predicting the pandemic will blow up but if I miss it and we don’t prepare, I fail. I’d rather over-prepare than not prepare,” she said.
But her reassurances clash with a widely-held public understanding of a pandemic as a serious infectious disease.
Only two weeks after the Mexican virus was first decoded, health officials are still struggling to understand which age groups and what overall proportion of a population are infected by the flu, and how many are at risk of dying or becoming seriously ill as a result.
With such limited data, they still want to be able to alert health authorities around the world to the potential risks so that they can step up their response while gathering more information.
Scientists also warn that even if outside Mexico the virus has so far proved relatively mild, there is a significant danger that it could mutate on mixing with some of the seasonal flu viruses now starting to circulate in the southern hemisphere. These are widely resistant to antiviral treatments such as Tamiflu.
The ”Armageddon” scenario is that it might mix with the H5N1 bird flu virus, which is highly lethal in humans but so far has not proved to be easily transmitted between humans.
The WHO had already sparked concerns from a number of health authorities for changing its pandemic alert scale last month, just after the Mexican virus was identified. This had the effect of speeding up the escalation from level 3 and was out of step with many national pandemic plans.
Anthony Kessel, from the UK’s Health Protection Agency, said the current arrangements were “a necessary alert system” but added: “It will be important for the WHO’s member states and advisory bodies to determine whether in the future a link with the severity of the infection is feasible, and whether it would add value to our current system.”




New Defintion:

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f71/Angladrion/WHOpandemic2.jpg


A disease epidemic occurs when there are more cases of that disease than normal. A pandemic is a worldwide epidemic of a disease. An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity. With the increase in global transport, as well as urbanization and overcrowded conditions in some areas, epidemics due to a new influenza virus are likely to take hold around the world, and become a pandemic faster than before. WHO has defined the phases of a pandemic to provide a global framework to aid countries in pandemic preparedness and response planning. Pandemics can be either mild or severe in the illness and death they cause, and the severity of a pandemic can change over the course of that pandemic.

In other words, we can have our cake and eat it.

as to the date, there is debate as to whether it was changed in May or July.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Tom Jefferson made no bones about the definition being changed this year...

In googling archives, I found this URL, but nothing comes up for me:

Apparently the first jpg is from a July 2008 archive at waybackmachine: http://web.archive.org/web/20080709063114/http://www.who.int/csr/disease/influenza/pandemic/en/ but that page doesn't come up any more, and says it can't be retrieved..... the tentacles of WHO reach far and wide.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/health/policy/23who.html?_r=2&hp

May 23, 2009

W.H.O. to Rewrite Its Pandemic Rules

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/donald_g_jr_mcneil/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Bowing to pressure, the World Health Organization (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/w/world_health_organization/index.html?inline=nyt-org) announced Friday that it would rewrite its rules for alerting the world to new diseases, meaning the swine flu (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/influenza/swine_influenza/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) circling the globe will probably never be declared a full-fledged pandemic.

Dr. Keiji Fukuda, the deputy director general making the W.H.O. announcement, said that he could not predict exactly what the new rules would be but that criteria would include a “substantial risk of harm to people,” not just the geographic spread of a relatively benign virus.

The six-point system was created in 2005 when the threat was H5N1 avian flu (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/the-flu/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier), which has a fatality rate of about 60 percent. But the system does not take into account a virus’s lethality, and in the current outbreak, some countries have complained that the warning system created panic and pressure for border closings, even though the strain was less deadly.

Asked if the W.H.O. could damage its credibility by changing the rules in mid-outbreak, Dr. Fukuda said: “There’s nothing like reality for telling you whether something is working or not. Rigidly adhering to something that is not working would not be very helpful.”

Speaking in Geneva, Dr. Fukuda added, “We’re trying to walk a fine line between not raising panic and not being complacent.”

The W.H.O., starting in April, quickly raised its alert level to 4 and then 5 as the virus spread in North America. But even as the virus infected people in Britain, Spain and Japan, the agency did not go to Level 6, which signifies spread to a new continent. Dr. Fukuda argued that there was still no proof of “community spread,” meaning beyond travelers, schools and contacts. Some experts were skeptical.

While acquiescing, he noted that experts hashed out these issues in 2005. Geographic spread is easy to detect, but severity is highly subjective. Death rates are impossible to calculate before many people are infected; if they turn out to be high, precious time has been lost. Viruses can mutate, becoming more lethal, and even a less lethal strain can kill many people in poor nations with young, malnourished and AIDS (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/aids/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier)-infected populations.

Separately, federal health officials said a study of flu genes released Friday showed that the virus could have been circulating undetected in pigs for years, and called for better surveillance.
The study (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1176225), published online by Science magazine, was a collaboration between virologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/centers_for_disease_control_and_prevention/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and the W.H.O., along with others from Mexico, Britain, the Netherlands and the health departments of several American states and New York City.

After sequencing virus genes from 76 Americans and Mexicans and comparing them to known human and pig sequences, the study found no identical matches but concluded that the virus could be in pigs anywhere in the world, said Dr. Nancy Cox, chief of the federal agency’s flu division.

The closest match, surprisingly, was found in Thailand in 2005 — a pig with both North American and Eurasian flu genes.
Since the outbreak began, virologists have wondered how Eurasian genes got into a North American pig. Live pigs are moved through the Americas fairly easily, but rarely are legally moved across oceans, because they carry diseases. Even a single breeding boar must be tested and quarantined.
Now that the mixed genes have been found in Asia, it is possible that they came from a North American pig that was taken there. There is little flu surveillance of pigs in much of the world, and even in the United States it is “not very systematic,” Dr. Cox said.
Canadian pig farmers are required to report flu; Americans are not. Early this month, the United States Agriculture Department (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/agriculture_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s chief veterinarian said it sequenced only 500 samples a year from 100 million pigs.
In 2006, facing the avian flu threat, the United States chicken industry began voluntarily testing 1.6 million chickens a year.

Dr. Paul Sundberg, head of science for the National Pork Board (http://www.pork.org/), said it was planning more tests, especially on pigs in contact with people at fairs or livestock exhibits.

Henry L. Niman, who runs a Web site tracking flu mutations (http://www.recombinomics.com/whats_new.html), complained that many swine sequences are posted by American universities and in Mexico only on private databases. “Those sequences would be very useful for figuring out how the H1N1 emerged,” he said.

The flu (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/the-flu/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) could also be in an intermediate host, said Dr. Cox, as the 2002 SARS virus passed from bats to humans through palm civets. But she said scientists “don’t have a hypothesis for alternative hosts.” Not enough is known about how many species carry flu, Dr. Cox said. For example, virologists were surprised to learn in 2004 that bird flu (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/avian-influenza/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) could kill zoo tigers and house cats.

Dr. Fukuda also said the new virus has been confirmed in 42 countries (http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_05_22/en/index.html) and had killed 86 people. About half of those hospitalized are young and healthy with no underlying conditions, he said. In the United States, such conditions are more common among the 300 now hospitalized.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

http://www.virology.ws/2009/05/23/who-will-redefine-pandemic/

WHO will redefine pandemic

by Vincent Racaniello on 23 May 2009

http://www.virology.ws/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/pandemic-influenza.jpgThe World Health Organization, whose duties include directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system, will soon be writing science textbooks.

That statement isn’t true, of course. But it was my reaction to reading the latest announcement (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/health/policy/23who.html?_r=1&hp) from Geneva:

Bowing to pressure, the World Health Organization announced Friday that it would rewrite its rules for alerting the world to new diseases, meaning the swine flu circling the globe will probably never be declared a full-fledged pandemic. Dr. Keiji Fukuda, the deputy director general making the W.H.O. announcement, said that he could not predict exactly what the new rules would be but that criteria would include a “substantial risk of harm to people,” not just the geographic spread of a relatively benign virus.
Apparently members of the United Nations don’t like the fact that WHO has been using ‘pandemic’ to describe the global spread of the new H1N1 influenza strains. They feel that the word pandemic implies that the virus is lethal and capable of causing many deaths – like the 1918 strain of influenza. Problem is, the new H1N1 strain isn’t any more lethal than seasonal strains of the virus. Apparently using the p-word gets everyone frightened as pandemic preparedness plans shift into gear.

According to the virology textbooks (one of which (http://estore.asm.org/viewItemDetails.asp?ItemID=799) I wrote), the word pandemic means ‘global epidemic’. Even wikipedia has a benign definition: “A pandemic (from Greek παν pan all + δήμος demos people) is an epidemic of infectious disease that spreads through populations across a large region; for instance a continent, or even worldwide.”

I can already see how the WHO edict will influenza future versions of textbooks. For example, the current edition of Clinical Virology (http://estore.asm.org/viewItemDetails.asp?ItemID=796) states “Over the past 300 years, at least six pandemics of influenza have probably occurred, including three well-characterized ones in the 20th century”. In the next edition, this will have to be rewritten: “Until recently, at least six pandemics of influenza have probably occurred, including three well-characterized ones in the 20th century. In 2009, a new strain of H1N1 influenza emerged and spread globally, but it was not considered a pandemic by the new WHO rules”.

WHO redefining pandemic is absurd. Pandemic is an epidemiological definition that has nothing to do with virulence. A pandemic of influenza occurs when a new viral strain emerges to which the population has little or no immunity. Although pandemic is most frequently associated with influenza virus, other infectious agents may cause worldwide epidemics. The world is currently in the midst of an AIDS pandemic, one of the worst in history.

WHO should leave textbook writing to others. To paraphrase Andre Lwoff, a pandemic is a pandemic. The word implies nothing about virulence – and has little to do with politics.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Others tracking this say it changed in May 2009

http://bigbrother-uk-1984.blogspot.com/2009/10/irrefutable-truth-oms-changed-pandemic.html

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

as per 2006: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563983/

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Fumento says 2005, but I don't think so:

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/opinion/commentary/article_49972472-6952-5926-9258-6fb50fb70aed.html

[MinorityView]

Thank you for digging all that up! I found some of those when I was searching too. By the time I'd looked at 5 or 6 different web-sites I was getting very confused.

Confusion serves WHO, I guess. As long as they can hold press conferences and say vague stuff like "several years" and no one raises a hand and asks for exact dates and the exact wording of the earlier and the later definitions.

I'm getting pissed off by all these lies and manipulations.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Here is the proof that they are lying.

Absolutely lying.

PDFs attached

My blog today:


http://beyondconformity.co.nz/_blog/Hilary's_Desk/post/More_WHO_swine_flu_porkies (http://beyondconformity.co.nz/_blog/Hilary's_Desk/post/More_WHO_swine_flu_porkies)

On 10th January 2010, the WHO put out a press release stating that they had not changed the definition of epidemic mid-way through the Swine flu, in order to ramp up sales of an unnecessary vaccine for a virus which did not fit their previous definition of the word "pandemic". Their porky comes after a European governing body announced a formal investigation of WHO for consistently scaremongering H1N1 into something dangerous, when it is not even as bad as normal flu, and...according to them... doing it because WHO experts have their hands in the "pharma tills" big time.

Yesterday, the Sunday Star Times published an article yesterday, ramping everyone up about a “next” wave of Swine Flu (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3257151/Vaccine-alert-for-next-wave-of-pandemic), to yet again frighten the gullible into accepting a new trivalent flu shot which has H1N1 in it. Nothing like having a captive audience, huh? So if you "want" the ordinary flu vaccine, the Swine flu is embedded in it as well. Have their been any studies looking at the safety of this particular combination? After all, Switzerland has put out a warning that Novartis's H1N1 vaccine could be dangerous for the autoimmune (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60J1X120100120). Have any studies been done in that regard on the New Zealand vaccine? No? I thought not.

I thought readers here might like to know that anything the WHO did change the definition of "pandemic" in the middle of the Swine Flu outbreak, to suit themselves, and good old Google cache provided the proof. (Psst... Is the head of WHO internet literate?)

These two documents were sourced and provided by Dr Tom Jefferson, and Dr Peter Doshi. (http://attentiallebufale.it/informazione-scientifica/speciale-bufale-pandemiche-come-difendersi/lanalisi-di-doshi-al-voltafaccia-delloms/)

This is the WHO website on 1 May 2009 (Google cache pdf).
This is the WHO website on Sept 2, 2009 (Google cache pdf).

So, the question that needs to be asked is:

If the WHO is lying about changing the definition of the word "pandemic" in order to ramp up fear, so that Big Pharma farms even bigger profits, and WHO does too, what else are they lying about?

Stay Tuned.

[MinorityView]

Wow!

I'm going to see if I can put those up somewhere so people could link to them.

I've contacted insidevaccines' tech guy with the files. If you don't want them out there for some reason, let me know and I'll cancel the request.

But I think it would be really good to have the evidence visible.

Thanks so much.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

why should they not go world wide??? take them fling them saturate the radio waves with them....

Cheers,

hilary.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

My blog today:


http://beyondconformity.co.nz/_blog/Hilary's_Desk/post/More_WHO_swine_flu_porkies (http://beyondconformity.co.nz/_blog/Hilary's_Desk/post/More_WHO_swine_flu_porkies)

On 10th January 2010, the WHO put out a press release stating that they had not changed the definition of epidemic mid-way through the Swine flu, in order to ramp up sales of an unnecessary vaccine for a virus which did not fit their previous definition of the word "pandemic". Their porky comes after a European governing body announced a formal investigation of WHO for consistently scaremongering H1N1 into something dangerous, when it is not even as bad as normal flu, and...according to them... doing it because WHO experts have their hands in the "pharma tills" big time.

Yesterday, the Sunday Star Times published an article yesterday, ramping everyone up about a “next” wave of Swine Flu (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3257151/Vaccine-alert-for-next-wave-of-pandemic), to yet again frighten the gullible into accepting a new trivalent flu shot which has H1N1 in it. Nothing like having a captive audience, huh? So if you "want" the ordinary flu vaccine, the Swine flu is embedded in it as well. Have their been any studies looking at the safety of this particular combination? After all, Switzerland has put out a warning that Novartis's H1N1 vaccine could be dangerous for the autoimmune (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60J1X120100120). Have any studies been done in that regard on the New Zealand vaccine? No? I thought not.

I thought readers here might like to know that anything the WHO did change the definition of "pandemic" in the middle of the Swine Flu outbreak, to suit themselves, and good old Google cache provided the proof. (Psst... Is the head of WHO internet literate?)

TThese two documents were sourced and provided by Dr Tom Jefferson, and Dr Peter Doshi.

This is the WHO website on 1 May 2009 (Google cache pdf).
This is the WHO website on Sept 2, 2009 (Google cache pdf).

So, the question that needs to be asked is:

If the WHO is lying about changing the definition of the word "pandemic" in order to ramp up fear, so that Big Pharma farms even bigger profits, and WHO does too, what else are they lying about?

Stay Tuned.

[MinorityView]

I did it!
http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2010/01/24/pandemic-when-did-the-definition-change/

it took several tries but I finally figured out which thingee I had to click to make the uploaded file link appear in the post.

It isn't pretty, but it does the job.

Put up a link at Huffington Post and also at MDC...and here :)

As MT says, this is a good one, why not spread it around? If anyone else has a blog, feel free to put up the original docs on your blog, too.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

But if people click on it, they won't be able to upload it. You have to be a member here to be able to see the pdf, and upload them.

Oh I see. You've uploaded them to IV.

Now, be a tidy girl, and go and underline the bits which have changed with colour, so that it smacks people in the eyes. :angry015:

Actually, if you can insert that smilie into the post, that would be comment enough.

[MinorityView]

Groan! You are a tough lady! Do you realize it is bedtime in Vermont?

I highlighted what I thought was the most significant change in red in both of them.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

The Fukuda press release is such a load of bollocks isn't it? Makes me furious. I'm attaching a copy here for posterity :camera::camera::camera: :

Fukuda says:

Now let me move on to the second issue. Did WHO change its definition if a pandemic? The answer is no, WHO did not change its definition.

Here's a screen shot of your website, Dr Fukuda - okay? This is an earlier version, 2005 to be precise. So please don't bleat that you've never had severity as part of the WHO index of pandemics since 1999:


http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f71/Angladrion/WHOpandemic1a.jpg

and here's the google cache proof that this existed on your site on May 1, 2009, provided by Dr Tom Jefferson and Dr Peter Doshi... (http://attentiallebufale.it/informazione-scientifica/speciale-bufale-pandemiche-come-difendersi/lanalisi-di-doshi-al-voltafaccia-delloms/) and that it was the official WHO definition:

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f71/Angladrion/WHO_Pandemic_preparedness_May_1_200.jpg




So again, let me provide a little bit of context here for this answer. Let me start by pointing out
that there are many sounces that any of you can go to, to look up the word pandemic and find the definition and you can find these in textbooks, you can find these simply by going to the web, and typing in 'definition of pandemic".




What you'll find is that definitions are sometimes worded somewhat differently but all of them basically agree that the pandemic is a worldwide spread of an infection or a disease. Now different diseases can have different features when they cause a pandemic. A pandemic of HIV/AIDS for example has features which are very different from a pandemic of influenza. And even when we look at influenza pandemics, we can see that there are significant differences between the pandemics, for example, the pandemic caused by the 1918 virus, resulted in the greatest number of deaths that we know of, and more than what we saw in 1957 or 1968, as well as 2009. But the basic idea is the same: there is the world wide spread of a disease. WHO has consistently emphasized this concept in these definitions.





Look Dr Fukuda, go and look at the Google cache of your own website please. You said it clear as anything, that a pandemic is several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.



and then mysteriously, on 2nd September FOUR months later, your site showed this:




screeenshot:


http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f71/Angladrion/WHOpandemic2.jpg






and dated jpg for the record, provided by Dr Tom Jefferson and Dr Peter Doshi (http://attentiallebufale.it/informazione-scientifica/speciale-bufale-pandemiche-come-difendersi/lanalisi-di-doshi-al-voltafaccia-delloms/):




http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f71/Angladrion/WHO_Pandemic_preparedness_webpage_S.jpg




What is there you don't understand about that, mate??!!!! I couldn't give a rams undocked tail about what OTHER texts say, the issue is whether WHO changed IT'S definition to suit itself, and the answer is YES!





The formal definitions of pandemics by WHO can be seen in the guidelines which have been provided to countries. Now these guidelines were first developed in 1999 and then updated subsequently in 2005 and then in 2009.




Actually, no, those guidelines were never as specific as your own webpage, but witter on mate.




The longer you speil your own verbal diarrhoea, the more you'll believe it. Let me make it simple for you. Look at the screenshots and the google attachments. And here you say on 14th January




One of the things that WHO did not do in any of these definitions was make severity part of the definition.





But you did on your own website. Got that yet?




:pin:

[MinorityView]

Gulp.

Methinks you are a bit irritated. Mildly.

This is Fukuda :cham:

This is MT:shoot:

And this is me :sleep:

We really need to spread this BS around. WHO has been caught with their pants down :dork:

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

You know me and porkies MV. We don't get on. I've just had such a guts full of the medical profession constantly telling such a load of bollocks, about everything. Not just pandemic definitions.

This one is so easy to prove too. How is it that the media just roll over and bleat that WHO can do no wrong?

[MinorityView]

I don't know. Bleating is easy, I guess.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Mustn't bite the hand that feeds you?

[MinorityView]

yeah, that too.

lazy and greedy

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Can you please attribute those two documents? I asked Dr Jefferson whether he would like attribution, and he said yes

Use this URLhttp://attentiallebufale.it/informazione-scientifica/speciale-bufale-pandemiche-come-difendersi/lanalisi-di-doshi-al-voltafaccia-delloms/ (http://attentiallebufale.it/informazione-scientifica/speciale-bufale-pandemiche-come-difendersi/lanalisi-di-doshi-al-voltafaccia-delloms/) :

These two documents were sourced and provided by Dr Tom Jefferson, and Dr Peter Doshi.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

I've embedded Dr Jefferson's URLS in the document attributions as well as putting it separately....

[MinorityView]

Thanks, I took care of that right away.

Besides, it adds to our credibility to have doctors as sources...

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

True, but I had to wait for permission to do so.

This is a reminder to me that we should never take for granted definitions won't be changed on the sly. The problem is, there are so many definitions of various things, that how do you keep on top of what needs to be done? How do you know which is the next definition someone will change without warning, particularly when it's as obvious as this one.