First the definition change
However, if you wish to create the illusion of a pandemic, spread fear for political and pharmaceutical profit purposes, the hysteria surrounding H1N1 has been ideal.We've got lots of fancy slogans this time round too!
Just create the right balance of fear and reassurance. Come up with fancy slogans like "this year it is a different flu season" but also reassure the populace that the vaccine is coming, and most cases are mild.
- "We're all in this together"
- "Flatten the curve"
- "Clap for healthcare workers"
'09- But, how to get all this started? I know, lets start the show with a bang by (LA Times) changing the very meaning of pandemic, as was done by the WHO, so that you can hype a pandemic out of just about any influenza situation.For visuals, see here (WND)Conveniently Covid-19 is exactly that. A animal or animal human flu virus. Which fits many viruses, really.
This is how WHO once defined pandemic:
"The WHO definition for "influenza pandemic" once required "several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness."
Now it requires "sustained chains of human-to-human transmission leading to community-wide outbreaks" in two parts of the world, with this addition: The cause must be an animal or human-animal flu virus; the latter is known as genetic reassortment.
What makes this interesting is this-To claim a pandemic no deaths were required.
Under this new definition, "community-wide outbreaks" of swine flu in two South American countries and somewhere in China could qualify as a pandemic. No deaths required.
As has so often been written here language creates the reality. A change in definition alters reality by altering perceptions. By changing the definition the WHO changed the reality of what constitutes a pandemic. This is Propaganda. To the core.
Below is some additional information included at WND from an interview with Der Spiegel
Epidemiologist Tom Jefferson, formerly a general practitioner in the British Army, has worked for the Cochrane Collaboration for 15 years. He evaluates all published flu-related studies.
In a July 21 interview with Der Spiegel magazine, Jefferson asked, "Don't you think there's something noteworthy about the fact that the WHO has changed its definition of pandemic?"It seemed to me there was something noteworthy about the WHO changing the very definition of a pandemic 11 years ago- Which is why it was written about here!
He continued, "The old definition was a new virus, which went around quickly, for which you didn't have immunity, and which created a high morbidity and mortality rate. Now the last two have been dropped, and that's how swine flu has been categorized as a pandemic."
Jefferson said there's money to be made when a pandemic occurs.
"The WHO and public health officials, virologists and the pharmaceutical companies. They've built this machine around the impending pandemic," he said. "And there's a lot of money involved, and influence, and careers, and entire institutions! And all it took was one of these influenza viruses to mutate to start the machine grinding."
He said he saw no difference in the definition between the swine flu and a normal flu epidemic. Jefferson told the magazine that there are hundreds of other viruses that can be deadly, but researchers aren't as interested in those because the money isn't as readily available.
"With rhinoviruses, RSV and the majority of the other viruses, it's hard to make a lot of money or a career out of it. Against influenza, though, there are vaccines, and there are drugs you can sell," he said. "And that's where the big money from the pharmaceuticals industry is. It makes sure that research on influenza is published in the good journals. And that's why you have more attention being paid there, and the entire research field becomes interesting for ambitious scientists."
Then the Lives lost figure too lowThat's an odd claim. Lives lost figure too low. Too low, why? Too low for who?
Or too low for WHO? And, here I thought we were locked down for the express purpose of saving lives?
The tone of the CTV article struck me as odd, since, it's asking if we "should be comparing countries?" Isn't that what this has all been about? No one cared when it came to spreading the fear porn far, wide and liberally if it was right or wrong to compare?
Sure as hell CTV didn't give a WHOot!
"TORONTO -- In a little more than two months, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, raced around the world and turned a handful of known cases to more than three quarters of a million, with at least 36,000 lives lost - reported figures that the scientific and health communities widely agree are too low.
"with at least 36,000 lives lost - reported figures that the scientific and health communities widely agree are too low."
Why would 36, 000 lives lost globally be considered too low?
How could anyone really ask that?
Isn't it enough that many people lost their family members?
That vast swathes of the alleged free world are locked down due to this alleged "pandemic"
Or is the question being asked because 36,000 deaths globally isn't really a pandemic when one considers the multi billion population of this planet?
Hell, 36,000 deaths is not even a bad global flu season on an annual basis.
* the article regarding "low death rates" is a few days old. Today's global count is 44,264 as of the time this report is published- Still not into the numbers of a bad global flu season!
Is that the reason CTV is finally questioning the narrative?
Lastly: Since there is always money to be made from pandemics you can of course, purchase a "covid plushy"