It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Take the Swine Flu Vaccination?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 10:39 AM
I was sat in my car this morning on my way to work and heard on the radio another advert telling me about the swine flu-jab and why I should have it. As it is, I’ve seen quit a few threads on here about the flu-shot and what it contains, chip implants etc. I’ve no reason to get it as I see my immune system as 100% and rarely get a sniffle.
At that point, my mind clicked onto a new line of thought. What if it is advisable to get the swine flu shot? What if it is part of the government agenda, but for a different purpose to what people are assuming; population control from a different perspective.

In the 1918 flu pandemic wiped out a sizeable proportion of the population. Now think of this in cold political terms. You have a country, national debt, X amount unemployed, X amount going hungry, crime, population increase, illegal immigrants etc. What your problem is, too many people to rationally support.

Introduce a new virus.

Something mild, something to scare the population into actions first. The amount of people who have died so far from swine flu, is extremely low. More people die from normal flu.

Introduce The New Virus

You explain the virus has mutated, which is scientifically possible.
In this day and age, it’s very simple for a virus to spread across the world before the infected even know. Just a few sneezes and coughs at a major international airport. Delivery to the world is guaranteed.

You have already protected the ones you want against it, although there may be one or two who develop complications, but that’s acceptable.
People in jobs drop dead, people who have been vaccinated take over from where they were. Unemployment falls.
Food production is stable, because if a farmer dies, then there’s a few farmers who lost lands who would easily be able to take their place, or large corporations takeover and production continues, less hungry as more food to go around.
Undesirables & criminals who don’t listen to the government are erased. Illegal immigrants removed.
If you control the anti-virus, you can decide also which countries get it. If it’s America who hold it, and they don’t like, say, Afghanistan, withhold the drug or slip them a placebo, Middle East troubles resolved. People who do survive in the areas most stricken, will need supplies, step in an immunised army who can ‘help’ take control, and if they have any oil, well, I guess that still needs to be produced.

Afterwards, you could blame the virus on a surviving group, as you need someone for the survivors to be angry at. Plant evidence, a few angry speeches, a battle not just to get that group of survivors but to hide your crime, tears on TV, a monument or two, a promise to learn from this. You know, the usual stuff. You vaccinated your group of people, so now you have fear to control the populace as well as you control the anti-virus. Trust, because they saved you.

This is of course nothing more than speculation, an idea whilst sat at the traffic lights waiting for them to change. It probably will end up in Skunks due to no evidence, just assumptions, so it’s perfectly reasonable if Mods decide to move it. It’s a thought I’ve share with you and for the people who cry out against the swine flu vaccine to have a little thought about the shots. The ideas for the evidence are similar to what they are for against the virus, just a different slant

Question is, would a government do such a thing? Erm….no

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 11:16 AM
It is entirely possible.

This theory has been discussed before though.

It is basically the reverse theory, for lack of better words.

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 11:51 AM
reply to post by Daisy-Lola

This has been my logic for sometime.

If there really is a sinister plan to kill a significant portion of the population, what part of the population would you want to bump off? That part that obeys (ie gets their flu shot) or the portion of the population that views the government with suspicion?

I'll let the members here decide which part of the population would be most at risk.

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:01 PM
I've had it
And apart from a sore arm and a few dizzy-feeling sick spells the next day
I was fine.

Point is, I got it coz I'm diabetic, and as I've said on another thread, I don't want flu with my diabetes
Wouldn't be good.

But yeah, I dunno, I might aquire some of the microchip detectors someone mentioned for a bit of a laugh

Frankly, I inject myself 3 times a day. If they wanted to chip me, it wouldn't be a problem.

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 02:52 PM
Man, I wish I could "anti-flag" something. This reverse theory was tiresome when it began.

If there really is a sinister plan to kill a significant portion of the population, what part of the population would you want to bump off? That part that obeys (ie gets their flu shot) or the portion of the population that views the government with suspicion?

Yes, indeed, how would they kill off the people who didn't follow orders?
What do you think VAERS is for?

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national vaccine safety surveillance program co-sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS is a post-marketing safety surveillance program, collecting information about adverse events (possible side effects) that occur after the administration of vaccines licensed for use in the United States.

Everyone who gets the shot will have to fill out the forms, for safety (Ha.)
It will be a simple matter to know who doesn't get the shot.

top topics

log in