A critical analysis of A. Omran’s theory of epidemiologic transition (ET) and of its various interpretations. The periodization of ET proposed by Omran is called into question, and the differentiation of the two "epidemiological revolutions" by M. Terris is compared with it. The paramount historical importance of ET as a trigger and an integral part of the demographic transition as a whole is noted. Disagreement with the interpretation of ET as an integral part of the “health transition” is substantiated. The concept of the "cardiovascular revolution" is contested. A method of graphical representation of ET is proposed and the criteria for its completion are discussed. Disagreement with ideas about the "first", Neolithic, and "third”, expected in the future, ET, as well as about a "reverse" ET is substantiated. Problems with “catching up” ET in the less developed countries are considered.