Most know this, many still don't, but one fact is true, this simple Flu was used to control populations.
I'll make this as short and sweet as possible.

From 2010...






Those interested can read it in its entirity here:
https://www.academia.edu/43023323/Scenarios_for_the_Future_of_Technology_and_International_Development

Must Watch...

https://twitter.com/mjgranger1/status/1424867639579578368
https://twitter.com/i/status/1424867639579578368

Let us not forget: Event 201 in October 2019, and how prior to this Bill Gates wrote about depopulation to save humanity and the earth.
Yes, they want to kill us all!

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/

I'll add another...


https://twitter.com/Afro_Crypto/status/1419674250902786053

Interesting...

https://twitter.com/Afro_Crypto/status/1424028203383857155

Biden's dementia provides VERY plausible deniability
for when he accidentally reveals the left's evil plans.

His dementia causes him to accidentally reveal the plans,
but the left can claim that these revelations are
just meaningless ramblings of a senile moron.

Quote from: Solar on August 13, 2021, 07:43:37 AMThose interested can read it in its entirity here:
https://www.academia.edu/43023323/Scenarios_for_the_Future_of_Technology_and_International_Development

In case anyone has a hard time reading that fine print,
I transcribed the part that was posted as images.

The whole document seems to be celebrating
robust government responses to disease outbreaks.
Lots of advocating of lockdowns, restrictions, etc.
There's no mention of therapeutics,
like hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ivormectin, etc.

Here's a thought -
since hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin together
have been proven to ANNIHILATE covid, (in January 2020!)
how effective would that combination be on the regular flu virus?

--------------

TRANSCRIPT -

Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development
Rockefeller Foundation, 2010
Santy Chan

Technology in Lock Step

While there is no way of accurately predicting what the important technological advancements will be in the future, the scenario narratives point to areas where conditions may enable or accelerate the development of certain kinds of technologies.  Thus for each scenario we offer a sense of the context for technological innovation, taking into consideration the pace, geography, and key creators.  We also suggest a few technology trends and applications that could flourish in each scenario.

Technological innovation in "Lock Step" is largely driven by government and is focused on issues of national security and health and safety.  Most technological improvements are created by and for developed countries, shaped by governments' dual desire to control and monitor their citizens.  In states with poor governance, large-scale projects that fail to progress abound.

Technology trends and applications we might see:

• Scanners using advanced functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology become the norm at airports and other public areas to detect abnormal behavior that may indicate "antisocial intent."

• In the aftermath of pandemic scares, smarter packaging for food and beverages is applied first by big companies and producers in a business-to-business environment, and then adopted for individual products and consumers.

• New diagnostics are developed to detect communicable diseases.  The application of health screening also changes; screening becomes a prerequisite for release from a hospital or prison, successfully slowing the spread of many diseases.

• Tele-presence technologies respond to the demand for less expensive, lower bandwidth, sophisticated communications systems for populations whose travel is restricted.

• Driven by protectionism and national security concerns, nations create their own independent, regionally defined IT networks, mimicking China's firewalls.  Governments have varying degrees of success in policing internet traffic, but these efforts nevertheless fracture the "World Wide" Web.

Scenario narratives
Lock Step
A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.

In 2012, the pandemic that the world has been anticipating for years finally hit.  Unlike 2009's H1N1, this new influenza strain - originating from wild geese - was extremely virulent and deadly.  Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults.  The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains.  Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.

The pandemic blanketed the planet - though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols.  But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge.  The United States's official policy of "strongly discouraging" citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders.  However, a few countries did fare better - China in particular.  The Chinese government's quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizen, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.

China's government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure.  During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets.  Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified  In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems - from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty - leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.

At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval.  Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty - and their privacy - in more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability.  Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit.  In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests.  In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.

Across the developing world, however, the story was different - and much more variable.  Top-down authority took different forms in different countries, hinging largely on the capacity, caliber, and intentions of their leaders.  In countries with strong and thoughtful leaders, citizens' overall economic status and quality of life increased.  In India, for example, air quality drastically improved after 2016, when the government outlawed high-emitting vehicles.  In Ghana, the introduction of ambitious government programs to improve basic infrastructure and ensure the availability of clean water for all her people led to a sharp decline in water-borne diseases.  But more authoritarian leadership worked less well - and in some cases tragically - in countries run by irresponsible elites who used their increased power to pursue their own interests at the expense of their citizens.

There were other downsides, as the rise of virulent nationalism created new hazards: spectators at the 2018 World Cup, for example, ...

Let's start with getting rid of people like Bill Gates.

That's PDF seems to show that there was anning being done, and in place, for a pandemic.  Given that the biggest threat to the human race is a virus/pandemic, it makes sense that all countries would prepare.

Imagine a virus that spread as easily as H1N1 (estimated 750 mill-1 bill worldwide), but killed 10%, 20% or more.

Quote from: p1tchblack on August 14, 2021, 04:37:28 PMThat's PDF seems to show that there was anning being done, and in place, for a pandemic.  Given that the biggest threat to the human race is a virus/pandemic, it makes sense that all countries would prepare.

Imagine a virus that spread as easily as H1N1 (estimated 750 mill-1 bill worldwide), but killed 10%, 20% or more.

More fake news. No evidence a virus is the biggest threat. Stop spreading misinformation.
If there were any serious virus everyone would see that is the case and take all RELEVANT steps to stop it, which would halt it immediately. Its not hard to stop a REAL pandemic.

Quote from: T Hunt on August 14, 2021, 06:41:35 PMMore fake news. No evidence a virus is the biggest threat. Stop spreading misinformation.
If there were any serious virus everyone would see that is the case and take all RELEVANT steps to stop it, which would halt it immediately. Its not hard to stop a REAL pandemic.

No, there's no evidence of the dangers of a virus, but I've heard very convincing arguments that a virus is more dangerous that never nuclear war. Like I said, consider a virus that spreads like H1N1, but I'd as deadly as MERS, which killed half the people it infected.

Given the worldwide belief of the legitimate dangers of Covid, which you don't believe in  what would convince you that a virus/pandemic were real?

Quote from: p1tchblack on August 15, 2021, 09:22:01 AMNo, there's no evidence of the dangers of a virus, but I've heard very convincing arguments that a virus is more dangerous that never nuclear war. Like I said, consider a virus that spreads like H1N1, but I'd as deadly as MERS, which killed half the people it infected.

Given the worldwide belief of the legitimate dangers of Covid, which you don't believe in  what would convince you that a virus/pandemic were real?

See you lied again. Most people worldwide know covid is a hoax and dont wear masks or even consider it in their daily lives. Stop parroting the movie you are watching on CNN, its not real.

Nothing would be needed to convince us if a virus was really a threat because we would know already. We are the ones paying attention to reality, remember.

Quote from: T Hunt on August 15, 2021, 10:28:44 AMSee you lied again. Most people worldwide know covid is a hoax and dont wear masks or even consider it in their daily lives. Stop parroting the movie you are watching on CNN, its not real.

Nothing would be needed to convince us if a virus was really a threat because we would know already. We are the ones paying attention to reality, remember.

None of us, as far as I know, are virologists or some other medically trained professional who could truly prove that Covid is real.

How would you already know if a virus/pandemic was real? Do you believe HIV was real? What about the Spanish flu? What about MERS or Ebola? If so, why?

Quote from: p1tchblack on August 15, 2021, 10:44:52 AMNone of us, as far as I know, are virologists or some other medically trained professional who could truly prove that Covid is real.

Dont need to be. The courts already proved it cannot be proven to exist.

QuoteHow would you already know if a virus/pandemic was real? Do you believe HIV was real? What about the Spanish flu? What about MERS or Ebola? If so, why?

Because the facts would bear that out if it were true. Not hard to follow facts, just use critical thinking/common sense.

Quote from: T Hunt on August 15, 2021, 10:48:52 AMDont need to be. The courts already proved it cannot be proven to exist.
Because the facts would bear that out if it were true. Not hard to follow facts, just use critical thinking/common sense.

Why do you trust  the courts now, when you didn't in regard to the election?

Where do you get the facts that you're following with critical thinking and common sense?

Quote from: p1tchblack on August 15, 2021, 09:22:01 AMNo, there's no evidence of the dangers of a virus, but I've heard very convincing arguments that a virus is more dangerous that never nuclear war. Like I said, consider a virus that spreads like H1N1, but I'd as deadly as MERS, which killed half the people it infected.

Given the worldwide belief of the legitimate dangers of Covid, which you don't believe in  what would convince you that a virus/pandemic were real?

Nothing but straw men arguments, no facts. Consider this, if a bullfrog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt.

Quote from: Possum on August 15, 2021, 01:10:17 PMNothing but straw men arguments, no facts. Consider this, if a bullfrog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt.

Right. And viruses come in many different types. Some very deadly, some spread very easily.  The impact of a virus that spreads like H1N1, but is as deadly as MERS could be devastating to the planet. For example, what happens when the people who run power plants are too scared to go to work or, even worse, are dead. What happens when news stations stop broadcasting or supermarkets stop receiving food because the distribution channels shut down.  Among the many things to think about.