by Jacqueline Brook

Based on a paper published in the Lancet in 2014, I’ve been wondering if the lockdowns and economic disruption, etc., that were inflicted on the planet over the last few years were perhaps going to be tried with an influenza scenario.

Neil Ferguson, one of the ‘fathers’ of western pandemic lockdown policy, is named as an author on the paper, entitled: “Comparative community burden and severity of seasonal and pandemic influenza: results of the Flu Watch cohort study.”

The study invited participants and tracked influenza and the 2009 ‘pandemic’ virus in those participants over 6 seasons in England (2006-11).

Infection with influenza was identified by preseason and postseason serology (antibody) tests and defined as a four-fold antibody titre rise in tests of unvaccinated individuals. I’m not sure if people vaccinated for influenza were excluded from the study, but the paper says that that definition doesn’t work for the vaccinated since both vaccination and natural infection lead to increased antibody levels. Influenza was also identified by RT-PCR tests performed on nasal swabs, which participants were asked to submit on day 2 of any illness.

Here are some of the conclusions:

– On average influenza infected 18% of unvaccinated people each winter.

– Most infections [77%] were asymptomatic. 

– The symptoms associated with 2009 pandemic influenza were substantially milder than those of seasonal H3N2.

– A quarter of infections had PCR-confirmed disease and 17% of people with PCR-confirmed disease [4%] had medically attended illness. 

– Only a minority of people with PCR-confirmed influenza had a fever high enough to meet the CDC definition of influenza-like illness.

– PCR-confirmed influenza was very rare in people older than 65 years in all seasons.

– Measurement of the proportion of serologically confirmed infections that are asymptomatic should be an early priority for any emerging infection of pandemic potential. 

In other words, with regards to that last point towards the end of the paper, the pandemic potential of a flu virus should be largely based upon the very high number of people who have either no symptoms or negligible symptoms!

There is no mention in the paper of the typical accuracy of either the antibody or the RT-PCR tests. And no examination of what it means to be healthy.

This paper provides the justification to declare almost any flu season a pandemic.

Can you imagine if it had been trotted out and used to declare an ordinary flu season to be a pandemic before 2020? “77% of you are walking around with the flu, have no clue, and are a danger to your community!” People would’ve just laughed and gone about their business. But PCR testing identified a new virus and the fear mongering was ramped up so high that one doctor admitted that about a third of the patients in her hospital, early on, probably died as a result of having antibiotics hurled at them—which have never been known to cure viral illness.

I felt discriminated throughout the pandemic for being healthy. When you have to prove via a dodgy test that you are healthy, or show evidence that you have been inoculated with a gene therapy for which they had to change the definition of vaccine and that has produced VAERS data unlike any other vaccine in history, you are being discriminated against. And when I say dodgy, first, the PCR test cannot detect either active virus or active infection. (Kary Mullis, the guy who invented PCR, was horrified that his lab technique was used to label people as HIV-positive.) And second, apparently every school kid figured out how to manipulate the rapid tests, if they didn’t want to go to school on any given day.

Unless you’re indulging in lots of alcohol or recreational drugs, I think most of us know the minute something isn’t right. And most of us are not likely to respond by running out to a mall or a restaurant or an entertainment event.

What’ll they try next to turn us all into sheeple?