Noticed that vaccines have been brought up in quite a few comment sections, even in posts that are only tangentially related, but that there wasn't a post specifically about the intent behind the vaccines.
So anyone with theories or thoughts related to the vaccine and the push for it, this is your discussion thread.
My personal thoughts: the ultimate intent is a combination of population control, and consolidation of power, for 3 reasons:
- most developed nations, both west and east, are facing an imminent unbalance in age demographics because the baby boomers are getting to the age where they already have (or are about to) retire en masse. This will put massive pressure on government programs, with too many takers and not enough working taxpayers. So they want the old people to die before this happens.
(As an aside, this was arguably the main reason why they recently tried to push mass migration, to get more taxpayers. But we all know how that went)
-
I've seen people argue (not unreasonably) along the lines of "why would they kill the most obedient ones?" Because right now, the dissidents are protected from the elite, by safety in numbers. They (we?) Can easily blend into a crowd to hide. But what happens if the elite kill the obedient, and there is no crowd left to hide in? They will much more easily be able to control people, when there are fewer people.
-
people behind vaccine development/distribution like Gates and the WEF, have openly stated population reduction to be a goal of theirs for various reasons.
That's the gist of my thoughts. Any other opinions are welcome
While actually straying off into actual conspiracy theory territory with this one here's an idea about an alternative method to do all of the above and yet make it not appear so,
Have the cause be increased comorbidity, not actual morbidity.
So it doesn't outright kill, it just increases the chances of other things eventually being more successful at a later date.
Works in a few ways because,
It eventually reaches the goal of number reduction, albeit over a greater timeframe but that brings us to point 2.
It reaches the goal over a greater timeframe which would displace focus around the time of implementation.
Increasing comorbidity rather than direct morbidity means laying the blame on a single thing is much more difficult and permits blaming the people who died instead of accepting responsibility.
e.g. They shouldn't have kept smoking/drinking/doing X which would over time mean things got worse
As an example of a direct yet delayed cause, Thalidomide was fine upon original application. It wasn't until long after clinical testing and use that the side effects became apparent because the effect was on pregnancy which unsurprisingly for ethical reasons are avoided during clinical trials. Now while it was eventually established that Thalidomide was the cause if the side effects this is still a direct link rather than what something like an increased comorbidity would cause. No Thalidomide = no adverse effects.
However increasing comorbidity creates a far more subtle approach. If Long-COVID exists in the various ways that people are claiming it does then those increased complications, while not immediately fatal on their own, may prove sufficient enough that additional experiences do prove fatal, like with how AIDS kills. AIDS doesn't kill, the pneumonia you catch after kills because you don't have an immune system anymore. So LCOVID enlarging someone's heart might cause discomfort for the rest of their life but in the short term it doesn't kill. Until something else happens to their heart that wouldn't have originally been fatal without the enlargening. Something that can commonly occur in older age for example. Likewise other organs affected may suffer sufficient damage from LCOVID that isn't immediately fatal but increased risk factors that come with an aging population could very well mean that overall LCOVID functions as a subtle means of elderly population control. Something that many countries now would benefit from as an aging boomer population retiring off en masse will cause widespread financial ruin to younger generations and existing financial infrastructures related to pensions and other services.
Now maybe the comorbidity was far more prominent than some realized it might be hence 13 year olds dropping dead with enlarged hearts however they may have been in a position where existing comorbidities existed and the slightly increase a COVID vaccine causes was enough to push into actual lethal conditions. With how varied a population of 8 billion can be that's still far within an acceptable error margin and a handful of deaths are far easier to downplay now with the right PR than entire age brackets suddenly spiking 5/10/15 years down the line.
Like I said though, actual conspiracy theory territory leaning more on tin-foil than anything else right now but as a slow burn it would be far more effective than a sudden culling of a population through a far more overt option.
tl;dr tin-foil hat go brrr
Interestingly enough, this is literally a conspiracy that's being questioned by doctors, including Dr. Malone, who wondered if perhaps the vaccines are killing more people than what we think, but due to "masking" (where co-morbidity, age, etc.,) are hiding the real numbers?
That's literally what some of the researchers believe is happening, which is why their accounts were banned from social media and a similar peer reviewed report was pulled from publication.
Heh, once again, this is also being queried by the rightfully skeptic practitioners within the medical community. I suspect this is also why the FDA and other health authorities are prohibiting the tracking of deaths from those who take the vaccine. Even with the self-reported VAERs submissions, there's a lot of trends popping up that seem to indicate that even if you don't suffer from blood clots, aneurysms, strokes, partial paralysis, or myocarditis, it could induce other chronic health complications over a period of time. A perfect cover for the orchestrators to throw up their hands and say it "wasn't the vaccines!"
Actually, this isn't as tin-foil as you think. Malone subtly framed questions that nearly asked exactly what you postulated and that's actually what led to him being suspend on social media. It's also why those within the medical community who actually want to do the right thing began setting up a new method of attempting to track death rates for the vaccines, or vaccine-related deaths for the long-term, even without the help of the FDA.
Whether or not that tracking will be reliable is anyone's guess, but for people who seem to understand what's actually going on, and for those who are attempting to thwart the opaque measures put into place by Big Pharma/FDA/government, they appear to be thinking very much in alignment with you.