Was the Vaccine Designed to kill

[-=SS=-]

If YOU assert a fact, YOU have to provide the evidence

Monthly share of influenza tests that were positive - OurWorldInData

For the third and last time, do you actually have any credible retort for the EVIDENCE ABOVE.

You keep skirting the point and drawing attention back to Scientific American, which was titled the following and opened with:

Flu Has Disappeared for More Than a Year - Scientific American

Since the novel coronavirus began its global spread, influenza cases reported to the World Health Organization from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres have dropped to minute levels.

I can dredge google and list out dozens, perhaps hundreds, of news publications, journal articles, going all the way up to the WHO datasets itself that all say the same god damn thing. That between 2020 and 2021 influenza for all intents and purposes disappeared, that it was at historically low levels, and within many of those publications they also state that both "experts are baffled" and rationalize it with "but perhaps caused by lockdown, masks, and social distancing".

I'm not going to ask you a fourth time. Just answer the actual point of contention. Or are you going to continue to adopt the attitude of MSM and establishment shills, and continue to deflect the argument to an irrelevant distraction in the hopes people might not see the obvious incongruency between the data and the narrative?

 

[AlsoTapered]

I didn't mention influenza once. I stuck strictly to the COVID epidemic within India. You haven't responded so I don't know if you now see the points I made or just don't want to discuss it.

As for the graph you provide. Read the text above and below the graph. Right away that should reveal four major problems. I hope I don't need to spell them out. It's worth looking at the citations the graph is based on and ask why that data wasn't presented as a graph by the people who collected the data.

I believe it was H. L. who noted 'For every complex problem there is a solution which is clear, simple and wrong.'

 

[-=SS=-]

People who were tested had a respiratory infection with a fever, cough and onset within the last 10 days. Only a fraction of potential cases of influenza are tested by labs to confirm whether they have influenza and to identify their strain. The level of testing may vary between countries and over time.

Data source: FluNet by the World Health Organization (2023)

And? What? If you have a point then make it, don't be a patronizing cryptic dick about it.

The WHO has the data presented on their own website by the way. Same data, same source 'FluNet, which is the WHO itself.

 

[-=SS=-]

Thought it might be worthwhile seeing what the 'fact' checkers have to say about this.
Fewer Cases of Flu Due to Pandemic Precautions, Contrary to Viral Claim - FactCheck.org

Measures adopted to slow the spread of COVID-19 — such as wearing masks, keeping six feet apart, washing hands frequently and staying home — also slowed the spread of viruses that cause the flu.

That’s likely the reason that recorded cases of influenza dropped dramatically in 2020 and 2021, as explained by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and many other researchers and scientists.

So there you have it. USDC, WHO, and 'many others' all acknowledging what my little scientific american article stated, that Influenza rates (as shown in the two graphs aforementioned) dropped to less than 1% globally.

Their explanation? All the measures that were implemented for covid stopped influenza spreading.. but not covid. Hence the 'likely' disclaimer.

That's their explanation, which I don't accept given the credibility of epidemiology as a profession is completely in the gutter, as demonstrably proven by all the continually overinflated predictions by the likes of Neil Fergusson and Imperial College (not just covid, but other diseases as well).

So, what's your explanation? I challenge anyone to present an actual credible explanation for why Influenza rates dropped to less than 1% globally, given both illnesses are caused by viral respiratory pathogens with the same transmission vectors.

 

[AlsoTapered]

Well, one thing I would suggest is that only a fraction of people who presented with a respiratory infection with a fever and cough were tested.

I've highlighted their words. So right away we don't know how many were tested or indeed if any were tested.

During the COVID pandemic a lot of people who developed symptoms didn't perform a lateral-flow test to PROVE that it was COVID. In the UK a test cost £10 and for most of the people on this planet, that represents a lot of money. It represents three days of food to me.

If someone develops symptoms which could be influenza or could be COVID. the treatment is the same - symptomatic and if serious, supportive. So unless someone gets really ill or is immunocompromised, they would not be detected.

In fact I'm pretty certain people were explicitly told not to visit their doctor if they had been in contact with someone COVID in the last 10 days or had any COVID symptoms themselves. So they would not be detected.

I think it likely (but I will still check) that the COVID epidemic really pushed the medical community both structurally and financially and so less testing would be a reaction. You have to demonstrate that influenza testing a person is of value.

So unless one is randomly testing a population, relying on presentation criteria and then testing an unspecified fraction of that subset might not give an accurate result.

The share of positive tests is calculated by dividing the number of tests that were positive to any flu strain by three possible denominators, based on data availability.

A percentage of an unknown number is not helpful.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

But I will indeed properly read all of the citations that you have provided. I am not welded to any truth as I really haven't studied the topic.

Still no mention on the Indian COVID data I presented. Are we in agreement on that topic?

 

[December Flower]

For the third and last time, do you actually have any credible retort for the EVIDENCE ABOVE.

You keep skirting the point and drawing attention back to Scientific American, which was titled the following and opened with:


I can dredge google and list out dozens, perhaps hundreds, of news publications, journal articles, going all the way up to the WHO datasets itself that all say the same god damn thing. That between 2020 and 2021 influenza for all intents and purposes disappeared, that it was at historically low levels, and within many of those publications they also state that both "experts are baffled" and rationalize it with "but perhaps caused by lockdown, masks, and social distancing".

I'm not going to ask you a fourth time. Just answer the actual point of contention. Or are you going to continue to adopt the attitude of MSM and establishment shills, and continue to deflect the argument to an irrelevant distraction in the hopes people might not see the obvious incongruency between the data and the narrative?

Do you take Meth on a regular basis?
It would explain a lot.

We gave you a billion reasons why the data is that way. Just because you lack the reading-comprehension skills and don't read what we write, doesnt mean we didnt say it 5+ times

Also none of this is evidence. It's interesting data for sure, but what does it prove? That ppl lost their shit during lockdown? That we don't get Influenza if we stop touching infected surfaces? What even IS your fucking point?

 

[AlsoTapered]

. It's interesting data for sure, but what does it prove?

In the end, that is the key point.

Didn't Mark Twain note 'There are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damned lies and statistics'.

I think people feel like an attack on any data they provide is an attack on them.

So I've learn never be too welded to any belief. I've been wrong before and I'm sure I will be wrong again. I have no CLUE as to the anomaly of influenza infections but I guess step one is to find the limitations of the data-set. During lockdown we all used PPE, we didn't congregate and we all washed our hands... which seems a logical reason.

There still WERE some reported cases in that 'missing year' but I didn't see how many tests were carried out. That seems the logical thing to check,

 

[-=SS=-]

Also none of this is evidence. It's interesting data for sure, but what does it prove? That ppl lost their shit during lockdown? That we don't get Influenza if we stop touching infected surfaces? What even IS your fucking point?

The WHO's own data, the central global authority on data collection pertaining to diseases, is not evidence. Check.

The point is very simple. If the lockdown measures were responsible for the historically low global influenza rates, which is what the WHO and experts claim, then why were these measures not equally effective against another pathogen that has the same exact transmission vector. You can even get specific; why were masks touted as effective and mandated to the point of being a criminal offence in many countries to not wear one, despite having never been shown to be effective (as per Fauci himself) - if they were so effective, then why have they never been utilized for influenza in the same fashion.

Speaking plainly, does it not even occur to you to be even slightly suspicious of the fact?; that another respiratory virus comes along with the same exact method of transmission, the same set of overlapping symptoms, and one of them virtually vanishes whilst the other clearly bogarts all the people for itself? If the distribution had been say 60/40, that would be plausible and there would be no point of contention.

Viruses don't self motivate, they are not living organisms, they can't outcompete each other. If two viruses overlap, which SARS-Ncov2 and Influenza clearly do, then one should expect to see a distribution of cases. The notion that a set of counter measures could virtually eliminate one and have seemingly little impact on the other, is ridiculous. They both rely on human vectors to propagate.

If someone develops symptoms which could be influenza or could be COVID. the treatment is the same - symptomatic and if serious, supportive. So unless someone gets really ill or is immunocompromised, they would not be detected.

I think it likely (but I will still check) that the COVID epidemic really pushed the medical community both structurally and financially and so less testing would be a reaction. You have to demonstrate that influenza testing a person is of value.

You're making excuses here and covering for the establishment. If they are deliberately not testing for influenza in favour of covid, then that is a dereliction of duty on the part of the government and health services. Why? Because not only are they taking their eye off the ball in regards to influenza, but also making it possible to grossly misrepresent the threat of the other (covid). Which is exactly what they did.

We know they over exaggerated it, right from the start - No.10 parties, Neil Fergusson and others not obeying the rules that their fear mongering resulted in, etc. The evidence for the propaganda (and censorship) is incontrovertible.
We know that the testing regime was designed to grossly mispresent the scale and danger - PCR at irrelevantly high cycle thresholds, lateral flow tests showing false positives.

You're assuming on good faith that they weren't deliberately controlling the narrative, when they clearly were. It's obvious that they were. The fear mongering was obscene and completely unhinged, yet those at the top didn't even believe in it themselves.

 

[AlsoTapered]

You're assuming on good faith that they weren't deliberately controlling the narrative, when they clearly were. It's obvious that they were. The fear mongering was obscene and completely unhinged, yet those at the top didn't even believe in it themselves.

Ah - so your position is that their is a huge conspiracy taking place?

 

[ageingpartyfiend]

Ah - so your position is that their is a huge conspiracy taking place?

Poster has stated he doesn't believe that covid exists on many occasions

 

[December Flower]

You're assuming on good faith that they weren't deliberately controlling the narrative, when they clearly were. It's obvious that they were. The fear mongering was obscene and completely unhinged, yet those at the top didn't even believe in it themselves.

Yknow the funny thing about this whole "the government controls everything" is, why would they do it so fucking badly?
Why 0%-ish Influenza numbers on purpose, how fucking stupid do you think these people are?

A bunch of Influenza cases during that time went towards Corona, yes - I already said that 5 times.
But no, nobody crossed out Influenza's name and wrote Corona in its stead on purpose. The tests were shit and everyone knows.

I told you: go to a fucking hospital. go to any medical facility tbh, talk to the people who WORK there and deal with this shit every day. The people who dealt with people dying, people fighting for their lives because of Corona.
Talk to the people who don't have the freedom to 'just not believe in it'. And not to fucking influencer tictoc nerds that stole a fucking stethoscope from work.

Talk to people who treated patients with Corona, talk to a Virologist, Influenza does not do near that kind of organ damage.
Influenza does not do near that kind of damage to the immune system. Great you never got it - 20-30% are immune, big deal. Doesn't mean others didn't get it.

And on top of that: Influenza returned for sure once lockdown ended. Corona is still very much an issue in medical facilities.
And so what if it was 1.5%? 3.2% in 2001. 3.3% in 2002. 4.4% in 2004. 4.5% in 2010. Was it Aliens? George Bush? Find out, next time: on the History channel. (oh those are German numbers btw, don't write me letters)

So..what's your point exactly? I already told you I am not going to ignore reality, because some dude on the Internet told me the evil governments & scientists put a hat on the Influenza virus. If you just wanna win, get off the fucking horse already, it's long dead.

What is your logic for a worldwide conspiracy, when half the world is at war with each other most of the time? How do you explain stuff like that?

 

[-=SS=-]

Ah - so your position is that their is a huge conspiracy taking place?

Getting the majority of countries to abandon their pandemic response contingency plans, in favour of copying an untested Chinese totalitarian lockdown approach.

There is no such thing as tightly synchronised political incompetence, at the global scale. Someone at the supranational level made the judgement call and all the politicians fell in line.

The incessant propaganda and censorship of debate, necessary to maintain a singular narrative.

Pretty obvious there was a conspiracy.

 

[December Flower]

Getting the majority of countries to abandon their pandemic response contingency plans, in favour of copying an untested Chinese totalitarian lockdown approach.

There is no such thing as tightly synchronised political incompetence, at the global scale. Someone at the supranational level made the judgement call and all the politicians fell in line.

The incessant propaganda and censorship of debate, necessary to maintain a singular narrative.

Pretty obvious there was a conspiracy.

You are correct about the fact that numbers were stacked in favour of Corona, mostly due to the fact that the 15 minute tests were garbage, and I'm sure Big Pharma had dollar signs in their eyes when they heard the word virus.

That's it. They filled their pockets with billions, as they always do. It's a business. Like everything in the world.

I think the conspiracy you speak of is called "capitalism".

 

[-=SS=-]

You are correct about the fact that numbers were stacked in favour of Corona, mostly due to the fact that the 15 minute tests were garbage, and I'm sure Big Pharma had dollar signs in their eyes when they heard the word virus.

That's it. They filled their pockets with billions, as they always do. It's a business. Like everything in the world.

I think the conspiracy you speak of is called "capitalism".

OK this is good, you recognise that something is not right at least.

However capitalism as the explanation still does not explain all the facets of what transpired. It doesn't explain why China clearly deceived the world by leaking videos of people falling the streets, and why the Western intelligence agencies didn't step in to allay the fears at the government level (they would have known) - or did they?; as we have acknowledged there were parties at No. 10 Downing street during the first wave of April 2020 so clearly people did already know the danger was grossly exaggerated.

It doesn't explain the self-sabotage of essentially stopping the world for two years. Sure, pharma made lots of profit, but why would the establishments of all nation states knowingly commit economic suicide by enforcing an untested lockdown approach when they already had contingency plans? Even as selfish and psychopathic as many of those people are, they wouldn't trade short term profits for the risk of completely destabilising their societies (and risking future profits).. it's a fools gamble.

It also doesn't explain the incessant propaganda and censorship. In the UK we have evidence of just how sophisticated this was, involving various branches of the military acting against the public behind the scenes (77th brigade, psychological nudge units SPI-B, etc).

 

[December Flower]

OK this is good, you recognise that something is not right at least.

However capitalism as the explanation still does not explain all the facets of what transpired. It doesn't explain why China clearly deceived the world by leaking videos of people falling the streets, and why the Western intelligence agencies didn't step in to allay the fears at the government level (they would have known) - or did they?; as we have acknowledged there were parties at No. 10 Downing street during the first wave of April 2020 so clearly people did already know the danger was grossly exaggerated.

It doesn't explain the self-sabotage of essentially stopping the world for two years. Sure, pharma made lots of profit, but why would the establishments of all nation states knowingly commit economic suicide by enforcing an untested lockdown approach when they already had contingency plans? Even as selfish and psychopathic as many of those people are, they wouldn't trade short term profits for the risk of completely destabilising their societies (and risking future profits).. it's a fools gamble.

It also doesn't explain the incessant propaganda and censorship. In the UK we have evidence of just how sophisticated this was, involving various branches of the military acting against the public behind the scenes (77th brigade, psychological nudge units SPI-B, etc).

Dont fucking patronize me, i've been saying that from the start, and i dont need your approval to be correct. Your argument is still bordering on paranoid schizophrenia. Medicine is my life, and im not going to ignore reality for your manic episode

Umm yeah that's exactly why i'm saying it wasn't deliberate. Why would countries put themselves into financial ruin on purpose?

That' so dumb i can't even find words to describe HOW dumb it is. Why would countries do a mass suicide? Maybe cuz there is still a virus, dingus.

The USA pretty much already lost their FED status because of this. 33 trillion in debt, why tf would they want that? That's why i keep making fun of your argument, it's too dumb

It's clear that the winner was Big Pharma. No politics: Capitalism

 

[AlsoTapered]

I believe the term late-capitalism is now in vogue but the whole point of the system is that it adapts.

 

[-=SS=-]

But the reference to a capitalist conspiracy is an intellectual block. The fact that it's in vogue is itself evidence there is something that supersedes it, or that it is somehow integrated into a greater superstructure. If you trace the ownership of all corporations, as was done in a Swiss study Who Controls the World: James B. Glattfelder at TEDxZurich, then you see there is a handful of financial institutions who basically own the entire capitalist structure. OK. Now who owns and controls those financial institutions? Where are they based? What are the interconnections on a personal level?

This is why the corporate superstructure was conceived in the first place. Much like the system of law and lawyers, or accounting and offshore banking, it acts as proxy to separate the curiosity of the public from the ruling class.

 

[AlsoTapered]

Tell you what - adjust the views show it shows every available year WHO influenza data is available, not just a narrow range.

 

[December Flower]

I believe the term late-capitalism is now in vogue but the whole point of the system is that it adapts.

They were able to make infinitely(10,000+ years) long lasting lightbulbs in the 60's i think.

Decided it wasn't feasible. Instead we get bulbs that break every other year and that makes them better for the environment, or something. Collective agreement.
I mean, yeah money rules everything. Planned obscolescence. Nobody is trying to sell you stuff that never breaks. Who needs 10 washing machines?

Businesses try to make money at every single turn.

Worldwide pandemic: ofc everyone who could filled their pockets. Duh. Still 0% proof that there is no Corona.
Honestly I got no clue anymore what our SS Obersturmbannführer over here is even arguing about
I never disagreed on the fact that Big Pharma is ofc a huge fucking conglomerate, that made gigantuous amounts of money through the Pandemic.

@SS: yknow what is proof for Corona? The plethora of cases of long-term organ damage, even in young people.
I got a dude sitting downstairs who can only use half his lung since Corona and he's 35. If you wanna disprove something, shouldn't you check if it was proven for certain first? Longterm Corona damage is very well documented, and happened among both vaccinated and unvaccinated, although much more of the latter.
Or is everything you read that you don't agree with automatically misinformation created by the big bad bogletron? Then go to a hospital and ask the workers. Or is the nurse an agent paid by the FBI to keep quiet?
Then ask the fucking janitor. Or is he the FBI agent naturally deployed in every medical facility to make sure people keep quiet?! That utter rapscallion!

You know I find the other guy with a crazy idea in this thread, that Corona was some bioweapon that got out made much more sense, and that is saying a lot,
even though he fully ignored that spike proteins are just shells some viruses envelop themselves in to better survive & multiply. Still made more sense than you.

Everybody would have had to be a part of it. Every virologist, every doctor, every nurse, every janitor at a hospital or any other medical facility.
We all saw what Corona can do to the body. There is so much evidence by the damage it did alone.

Did people take advantage of the situation? 100%
Nobody ever said they didn't

 

[-=SS=-]

I got a dude sitting downstairs who can only use half his lung since Corona and he's 35. If you wanna disprove something, shouldn't you check if it was proven for certain first? Longterm Corona damage is very well documented, and happened among both vaccinated and unvaccinated, although much more of the latter.

And these things never happened before corona? Of course they did. It should be feasible therefore to show statistics that prove there has been an actual increase in such damages occurring, whilst also taking into account other factors e.g. vaping causing severe lung damage. Can you provide that, to back up your assertion? Or are you just assuming the long term damage is valid based only on the fact these people provided a positive test result?

You know I find the other guy with a crazy idea in this thread, that Corona was some bioweapon that got out made much more sense, and that is saying a lot, even though he fully ignored that spike proteins are just shells some viruses envelop themselves in to better survive & multiply. Still made more sense than you.

Neither you or the conspiracy circuit people who believe it came from a biolab can actually prove their positions from a scientific standpoint. It all boils down to the root foundation of the science itself, and whether viruses can 1. be demonstrated to actually exist 2. can they be demonstrated to cause the illnesses ascribed to them. In both cases the answer is not as solid and clear as you both presume it to be. I've posted here a long time ago breaking down why, and how for instance none of the teams that performed the original viral isolation even bothered to provide confirmed visual identification following scientific protocols and they openly admit to not doing it.

I can buy a light microscope and prove that bacteria and fungi exist, at least. Viruses on the other hand, exist at the extreme edge of human perceptibility. No one has ever seen them infecting cells directly, no one has ever isolated them directly from any tissue, all the methods involved rely on inference based on theoretical belief about what is happening. That is the crucial point. Once you realize that is the case, and it is true, then you have to ask yourself whether science is actually in error (whether this is intentional or unintentional is open to speculation).

I make the same exact argument when it comes to astrophysics and cosmological theories. Things occurring well beyond our human perceptibility that rely on inference because we can't measure directly (and are limited by the time scale as well). You find the very same issues, with complex mathematical explanations that have little grounding in reality at all. And like viruses, if you challenge the theories you're seen as a heretic.

Everybody would have had to be a part of it. Every virologist, every doctor, every nurse, every janitor at a hospital or any other medical facility.

That doesn't mean they have to understand the truth. Personally I think some people at the top do know the truth, but that is just me. I'm also completely open to the idea that actually this entire thing is a human delusion based on misinterpretation of observation within science, and that we are just participating in a long running mistake that has yet to be corrected by better scientific protocol.

We all saw what Corona can do to the body. There is so much evidence by the damage it did alone.

This is the crux of the matter. You did NOT see what corona did to the body, you saw bodies that were suffering from illness - did you see a virus causing damage, directly, or did you just infer that was the case based on your beliefs? Be honest here. You know what I'm saying is true, you did not literally see a virus causing damage because you've never seen one directly in fact. None of us have. It is all inferred. Do you understand the point I'm making here?

It's really not that much different to the hysteria of the medieval ages and attributing physical symptoms to witchcraft or unseen forces. The physical symptoms are real, the diagnosis and theory behind it is not.