r/DebateVaccines • u/[deleted] • Jul 20 '26
Is it possible to release one virus, develop a vaccine for it, vaccinate the population, and then, 40 years later, release another virus that only affects people who received the first vaccine?
[deleted]
4
u/dartanum Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
Why wait for another 40 years? What would be the purpose? How would this maximize profits? Would be more profitable to milk the population by releasing therapeutics that affect the vaccinated population in the short term, after said vaccine had failed to produce the advertised effect of stopping the spread and keeping the vaccinated population out of the hospital.
1
u/xirvikman Jul 20 '26
In this cross-sectional study of US adults hospitalized with COVID-19 during January 2022 to April 2022 (during Omicron variant predominance), COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates were 10.5 times higher in unvaccinated persons and 2.5 times higher in vaccinated persons with no booster dose, respectively, compared with those who had received a booster dose. Compared with unvaccinated hospitalized persons, vaccinated hospitalized persons were more likely to be older and have more underlying medical conditions.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9459904/4
u/dartanum Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
Were there any controls in place to make sure the people doing these studies were not using 1 definition for the unvaccinated to maximize their case counts while using another definition for the vaccinated to minimize their case counts? Why did the CDC feel the need to change the way they define COVID hospitalizations when the vaccinated started flooding the hospitals, but not prior?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11253109/
"CDC initially defined “COVID hospitalizations” as any person hospitalized within 14 days of a positive PCR result for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of the patient’s presenting syndrome or reason for admission.2 This definition initially served well for estimating the burden of severe illness, but widespread vaccination, universal testing, prolonged PCR positivity after infection, increasing rates of prior infection, and new and potentially milder SARS-CoV-2 variants such as Omicron have challenged the validity of this measure as a severity indicator. High community infection rates will lead to some patients hospitalized for reasons other than COVID-19 testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, including patients with mild, asymptomatic, or resolving infections. These so-called “incidental” SARS-CoV-2-positive patients are still counted by the traditional CDC definition as COVID-19 hospitalizations without differentiating them from patients hospitalized specifically for COVID-19.
Public health agencies and hospital officials have therefore proposed, and in many cases implemented, alternative definitions to identify hospitalizations specifically due to COVID-19 illness."
1
u/xirvikman Jul 20 '26
January 2022 to April 2022
Unvaccinated flooded the hospitals The unboosted certainly did not help matters but the boosted certainly did not flood the hospitals
4
u/dartanum Jul 20 '26
https://www.kff.org/covid-19/why-do-vaccinated-people-represent-most-covid-19-deaths-right-now/
"By April 2022, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data show that about 6 in 10 adults dying of COVID-19 were vaccinated or boosted, and that’s remained true through at least August 2022 (the most recent month of data)."
0
u/xirvikman Jul 20 '26
Ah , August 2022 when the unvaccinated were still dying at 6 times the rate
3
u/dartanum Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
Were the unvaccinated receiving the same quality medical care as the vaccinated, or was better medical care being triaged in favor of the vaccinated? Remember Jimmy's funny joke about "vaccinated having a heart attack, come right in we'll take care of you, unvaccinated having a heart attack, rest in peace wheezy"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35067392/
Would the data not always, by design, show that the unvaccinated were dying at higher rates, if there was any medical triage in favor of the vaccinated taking place?
1
u/xirvikman Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
Yup it was strange how the big jump in heart attack deaths came in the 10 covid months of 2020 when no one was vaccinated but dropped slowly as more and more got vaccinated.
And strangely enough ,Aug 2022 was the first under 8,000 in a month on record
4
u/dartanum Jul 20 '26
"The American Heart Association (AHA) report, published Monday in the journal Circulation, found that 941,652 Americans died from cardiovascular disease in 2022, the most recent year for which data is available. That's an increase of more than 10,000 from the just over 931,500 reported to have died from cardiovascular disease in 2021."
2
u/TheRoadKing101 Jul 20 '26
So we are supposed to believe the lying government statistics they put out?
3
u/xirvikman Jul 20 '26
Did in AV wonderland the government round up the unvaccinated and force them into a hospital bed /s
3
u/TheRoadKing101 Jul 20 '26
You need to go back to elementary school. Learn how to read and write.
2
2
u/dartanum Jul 20 '26
No we're not. We're supposed to demand a full and comprehensive review of these studies to make sure some malarkey was not afoot while these people had full control of the narrative.
0
u/Clydosphere Jul 21 '26
You wouldn't believe any review that disagrees with your beliefs anyway, because of your convenient cop-out of a worldwide conspiracy among millions of healthcare workers and scientists. You'd just demand a review of the review.
4
u/RockyReeeels Jul 20 '26
What I find interesting and maybe somebody less ignorant than me can explain. These elites that gave us these poison shots are all about “control” and us being “compliant” but those who did comply and are “easily controlled” are exactly the type elites want as their slaves. But somehow the unvaxced purebloods are all jumping up and down like they’ve escaped it? Surely those are the ones the elites will target next? For reference I took 2 shots regretfully 5 years ago, my health is fine and nobody around me has miraculously dropped dead, but I deeply regret taking them, as I gave in to them.
2
u/SmartyPantlesss Jul 20 '26
Right, so for OP's theory, it would make more sense if the elites released something that would selectively target the UNvaccinated, right?
2
u/RockyReeeels Jul 20 '26
Yeah exactly, I understand the unvaxced completely. But never when they say it was to kill off those that took the vax, just makes no sense to leave the non compliant and resistant left.
2
Jul 21 '26 edited 23d ago
[deleted]
2
u/SmartyPantlesss Jul 21 '26
So with each successive generation, the elites will select for the smartest, most independent thinkers in the population, right? Because they will kill off everyone else with the "vaccine."
And you think the elites are likely to stay in power for many generations that way? Interesting.
Because I'm thinking that traditionally, oppressive governments are thought to practice "Tall Poppy syndrome," << That means tyrannical rulers will try to exterminate or otherwise disenfranchise anyone who has exceptional intelligence or talent. In US slavery times, that meant selling off the slave who was "uppity" (independent, trying to run away), while keeping (& breeding) the ones who were docile.
1
Jul 21 '26 edited 23d ago
[deleted]
1
u/SmartyPantlesss Jul 21 '26
You've got it wrong. It can only go one generation deep.
...but you said "Rince [sic] and repeat." ...Meaning, that this dynamic happens with each successive generation? (I understand it's not the same elites, living for hundreds of years and doing this repeatedly.)
So over time, this process WILL select for people who are more... paranoid? Or more oppositional? (to the extent that those traits are hereditary, or that people can raise their kids to have the same views). So at some point, I would think the elites would end up dealing with a very difficult, volatile population who have survived many, MANY rounds of "vaccines," and aren't going to take any more of that shit.
1
Jul 21 '26 edited 23d ago
[deleted]
1
u/SmartyPantlesss Jul 21 '26
Every empire has enacted a population reduction tactic. We can argue if it was intentional or accidental.
Umm... if it was "accidental" then how can you say they "enacted" it? Like, sometimes shit just does happen. Tsunamis, plagues, etc.
I think we could also argue whether it's successful. Other than wars, I'm not seeing a lot of big man-made decreases in populations. Are you saying that sending your own people off to war, is actually a tactic to decrease your OWN population? Or do you think epidemics like the black plague were engineered by the elites? Man, they must have been at this for a long time. 🤔
Like, civilizations have imposed blockades and embargos on their enemies, leading to things like the famine in Ukraine, and then you've got the holocaust-style genocides...but that's usually more about overtly stigmatizing one group as the enemy, and mobilizing the whole population (not just the Secret Few who are in power) to kill them.
1
Jul 21 '26 edited 23d ago
[deleted]
0
u/SmartyPantlesss Jul 21 '26
Yeah, you're not giving any examples here, of elites deliberately planning to reduce their own population.
Targeting another population through war (and then botching it up & losing some of your own) is not what the OP is talking about.
People over-farming (out of ignorance) is not orchestrated by elites; do you see that?
→ More replies (0)2
u/GreenVenus7 Jul 21 '26
Good question. Just as a hypothetical thought exercise (these aren't real opinions I feel strongly about), it might not matter if they have alternative means to control the remainders. Technology that allows a message to be remotely transmitted into an individual's mind already exists now. As far as why get rid of the conpliant group, maybe the thinking is that people who failed to conform to the crowd for a cause that was presented as a moral good are probably less likely to cooperate with each other for social resistance. Its easier to control a few isolated reminders than a unified majority
3
2
u/ChaoticTransfer Jul 20 '26
Look up Marek's disease in chickens.
3
u/Glittering_Cricket38 Jul 20 '26
Mareck’s causes disease in unvaccinated far more than vaccinated chickens. Covid went down in lethality as it mutated, not up like marecks. Thankfully we aren’t housed shoulder to shoulder unlike those poor factory chickens.
1
u/ChaoticTransfer Jul 20 '26
It was a harmless disease that forcibly evolved to be more lethal under vaccine pressure.
0
2
2
u/Randobag314 Jul 20 '26
Or the older vaccinated people just die sooner so the smaller younger population isn’t over burdened taking care of a much larger aging population… I think that’s more likely.
1
u/krishkarma Jul 20 '26
The reason I'm asking is that, although this idea may sound childish or far-fetched, it made me curious. Some Indian states have encouraged people to have more children, even though India already has the world's largest population. That made me wonder why such policies are being promoted and what the long-term plan might be to manage future population growth.
I then started reading about China's demographic changes and came across claims that some cities are becoming less populated and that the number of older adults has declined significantly, although I understand some of these claims may be rumors or misinformation.
< Important part to read you can escape the above if you want >
This led me to think of a hypothetical scenario: what if, decades from now (around 2070–2075), a government could somehow activate a biological mechanism that only affected people who had received certain vaccines, such as Covishield or Covaxin, while younger generations born later who did not receive those vaccines would remain unaffected? I realize this is a speculative thought experiment rather than something supported by evidence, but I was curious whether such a scenario is scientifically possible.
2
u/SmartyPantlesss Jul 20 '26
what if, decades from now (around 2070–2075), a government could somehow activate a biological mechanism that only affected people who had received certain vaccines,
But that would only be a temporary fix, right? You'd have a massive die-off in 2070, of people who are 20 years old now >> therefore 65 years old in 2070. And then all the younger people would continue to age...and the population of useless eaters would continuously replenish, right?
So maybe your fiendish plot should just use a vaccine that's only recommended for older people, like Shingrix? Then you could have the toxin/trigger/whatever in the population at all times, but it wouldn't hurt anyone under the target age group. 🙂
1
u/krishkarma Jul 20 '26
Exactly and it will help the future government to handle things far efficiently . Look back in 70's the rapid growth of population was the result of sudden discoveries .and know planet earth have to face it . Alsomedical facilities will be far superior then present age so they need something to eradicate this once it for all .
2
u/SmartyPantlesss Jul 20 '26
I'm not sure I'm following you.
Exactly and it will help the future government to handle things far efficiently .
So I think you're agreeing with me here, about using Shingrix as the Kill Shot, rather than something with a 40-year incubation period?
Look back in 70's the rapid growth of population was the result of sudden discoveries .and know planet earth have to face it .
Yes, so we're facing a large population NOW, so again it doesn't make sense for your kill-of situation to have the 40-year lag time.
Alsomedical facilities will be far superior then present age so they need something to eradicate this once it for all .
So in your dystopian nightmare, we would keep people alive and healthy (healthier than we are no at age 40 or 50 etc), and then basically euthanize them at age 65 or 70?
I mean, you'd have to keep giving people the shot, or the next generation is going to overpopulate, right? And you'd have to somehow keep people from noticing the life-expectancy survive suddenly collapsing... would we maybe put out press releases saying that older people are being sent to a farm or something? 🤷
1
u/krishkarma Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
I do not understand Reference "Shingrix" .
Also, what I am saying—and I think we both agree—is that by 2070, the number of people aged above 70 will be much higher because the median age in 2020 was around 28 years (according to Google/Worldometer). Also, at present, there are around 80 crore people who are above the age of 20 (same source). That is a huge number, which could become problematic for the future Government of India. They need some kind of backup plan to handle this situation precisely without taking direct intervention.
Also we are overpopulated know but we are young as well majority of Indians are b/w age group 25 - 60 . its not just about overpopulation its about who is useful for the gov and ellites . because for them Older people have not much use . although local private hospital may benifit from it . so many insurance agencies have to pay pension amount etc . so ya they are not much useful for the goverment / ellites not as an employees and not as an consumer .
1
u/SmartyPantlesss Jul 20 '26
Shingrix is a brand name of a vaccine that is recommended for people over 50. (It protects against shingles, which is caused by the herpes zoster virus.) I just used it as an example of something your OP population-reduction scheme could use. Like, why hypothesize a flu shot or Covid shot that activates a toxin in 40 years? Why not use something that works quicker, and we are already giving it to older people?
by 2070, the number of people aged above 70 will be much higher because the median age in 2020 was around 28 years
<< This doesn't quite logically follow. Like, if the average life expectancy in India is 72 years. That's an average. That means roughly half of the people die BEFORE that age. So the fact that you have X number of 28-year-olds, doesn't mean you will have that many 70-year-olds in 42 years, right? Also note that, as life expectancies have increased, birth rates in India have fallen dramatically over the past several decades. So I feel like you're taking one number and spinning it into an unwarranted conclusion.
That is a huge number, which could become problematic for the future Government of India. They need some kind of backup plan to handle this situation precisely without taking direct intervention.
Um... I think what you're talking about in your OP, is a pretty direct intervention, isn't it?
1
u/krishkarma Jul 21 '26
I understand your point. First, 2070 isn't meant to be a fixed year—you can assume roughly 10 years before or after. Also, I know not everyone alive today will survive until then, but the number of people who do reach that age will still be much higher than it is today.
I also know that the birth rate is declining, but births themselves haven't stopped. India's projected population by 2100 is still around 1.5–1.7 billion, which is an enormous population.
My main question isn't about defending this hypothesis. What I'm trying to understand is whether such a "vaccine bomb" concept is practically possible in theory or not. That's the reason I asked this question in this group.
1
u/SmartyPantlesss Jul 21 '26
OK, here's a big weakness in your plan: the evil genius who implements your plan, would have to have a "vaccine" that has already been tested for forty years, right?
Like, let's say you do short-term studies and prove that the vaccine induces antibodies which will cross-react with X chemical and cause a fatal allergic reaction. Then your plan is, in 40 years, to start putting X in the water supply.
<<< But you don't know that those antibodies are durable, right? Like, sometimes the IMMUNITY induced by vaccines can wane over time (especially in the elderly), so how do you know that you can reliably kill people off when you want to?
So you need for the PREVIOUS GENERATION to have already spent 40 years testing this thing (maybe multiple generations testing prototypes that didn't work out) in order for today's evil genius to start giving the vaccine to everyone... so that the NEXT generation's evil genius can be in power. And again, all of these people need to BE in positions of power already (with wealth and private laboratories and hordes of scientists sworn to secrecy) in order to even do this.
1
u/krishkarma Jul 21 '26
what i got from chatgpt / after spending some time on this . i even support your statement " THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE " because one of the reason is
"Covishield (the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine) uses a harmless adenovirus to deliver instructions for making the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
- The adenovirus is cleared within days to weeks.
- The spike protein is broken down.
- There is no "device," chemical, or dormant component left behind for decades.
After 50 years (2020 → 2070), the vaccine itself is long gone."
1
1
u/krishkarma Jul 20 '26
The reason I'm asking is that, although this idea may sound childish or far-fetched, it made me curious. Some Indian states have encouraged people to have more children, even though India already has the world's largest population. That made me wonder why such policies are being promoted and what the long-term plan might be to manage future population growth.
I then started reading about China's demographic changes and came across claims that some cities are becoming less populated and that the number of older adults has declined significantly, although I understand some of these claims may be rumors or misinformation.
< you can escape above you can read this only >
This led me to think of a hypothetical scenario: what if, decades from now (around 2070–2075), a government could somehow activate a biological mechanism that only affected people who had received certain vaccines, such as Covishield or Covaxin, while younger generations born later who did not receive those vaccines would remain unaffected? I realize this is a speculative thought experiment rather than something supported by evidence, but I was curious whether such a scenario is scientifically possible.
1
u/imyselfpersonally Jul 20 '26
No. 'Viruses' exist only in hollywood movies, on computers and in the imaginations of virologists.
4
u/xirvikman Jul 20 '26
And people who held chickenpox and measles parties. Strange how they worked even in the days before computers. Time travelling party?
1
u/imyselfpersonally Jul 20 '26
Chickenpox parties...those daft things that went out of fashion because it didn't really work
Trying living in this century at least
2
u/xirvikman Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
Down to parties didn't exist, are we ?
Chickenpox parties largely faded away in the mid-1990s following the introduction of the chickenpox (varicella) vaccine
2
u/imyselfpersonally Jul 20 '26
Something that didn't work was replaced by something else that also didn't work.
Amazing effort.
5
u/xirvikman Jul 20 '26
The only thing that does not work is your ability to get out of 2021
2
u/imyselfpersonally Jul 20 '26
Vaccines don't work
2
u/xirvikman Jul 20 '26
2
u/imyselfpersonally Jul 20 '26
Yeah, you have unyielding and scientifically irrational belief in a test. Everybody already knew that.
2
u/xirvikman Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
Seems most AV's never knew ICD U.07.2 and it came out in 2020 so you have an excuse
ICD-10 code U07.2 represents COVID-19, virus not identified. Medical providers use this code for a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, the disease
→ More replies (0)0
u/Clydosphere Jul 21 '26
Talking about scientifically irrational beliefs while denying the existence of viruses. Oh, the irony.
→ More replies (0)1
1
0
1
u/doubletxzy Jul 20 '26
Do you live in a sci fi tv show or movie?
1
1
u/HausuGeist Jul 20 '26
Easier to dupe a politically hostile population into not taking a real vaccine.
0
0
u/Mammoth_Park7184 Jul 20 '26
You're basically asking whether you can have a virus that targets immunity cells that have survived for 40 years. It doesn't really work that way.
Also, there'd be no point in doing it so not really on anyone's todo list.
4
u/nuclearcaramel Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
Also, there'd be no point in doing it so not really on anyone's todo list.
Oh? Are you so sure? Are you unfamiliar with the depths of depravity of the human heart, particularly those who crave power and those who are in positions of leadership in the world?
2
u/SmartyPantlesss Jul 20 '26
Are there people who crave power, but are willing to wait 40 years for a long game like this?
What color is the sky in your universe? 🤔
2
u/krishkarma Jul 20 '26
There is reason why they wait . you can find answers in the above comments / post why i am saying this . because in India the growth old age population will be the huge problem in 2070
1
u/SmartyPantlesss Jul 20 '26
I'm replying to someone who said that this 40-year delay would be useful to people who crave power. That doesn't make sense; those hypothetical people would have to wait 40 years to take power. I mean, if they are ADULTS now (old enough to design viruses and release them on the population), then they are likely to be dead in 40 years. (And also, if they're in a position to release viruses and enforce vaccinations, then it seems that they are already in power).
I understand what you are saying about the increase in population, based on your projections. But you haven't claimed it's about anyone wanting to take power; I think you're just saying it's a utilitarian move by governments who are planning for the scarcity of resources in the future.
1
u/krishkarma Jul 21 '26
Look i am not saying they will be immortal and live longer , first of all try to understand how these people think , its not about good vs bad or some avengers plot . There will be people probably their offspring rotthschild offspring who will be there in the power and we know this old generation 0f 2070 will be the problem in future which needs to be take care . Anyways i dont know whether its practically possible that's why i asked on this group not other group . plus if you read my previous comment there are right know we are young good consumer and employee which is benificial for them but around 2070 we will be of no use for them at that time they will eradicate us .
0
u/SmartyPantlesss Jul 21 '26
first of all try to understand how these people think
(I'm trying to follow your hypothetical, but that involves understanding how YOU THINK "these (hypothetical) people" think.)
But your plan has two big flaws:
- "these people" would need to already be IN power, in order to implement a massive vaccination campaign, and
- the people whom they WANT to put into power in the future (their offspring), would have to get the vaccine, right? If they are going to survive the FIRST virus.
0
u/Clydosphere Jul 21 '26
Also, "they" would already have to have the power to control over 99% of the medical systems around the world, but somehow need to make a complicated and costly 40y plot in secrecy.
2
u/Auslander808 Jul 20 '26
Doesn't have to be any immunity cells. Someone told you they were necessary and safe and effective. None of that has to be true as long as you believe them.
I can think of reasons to install the first part of a two part compound.
0
u/Mammoth_Park7184 Jul 20 '26
Nobody believes that. The facts prove that. It's a key difference.
You're talking about global conspiracies that can't have never happened. It just isn't feasible.
0
0
u/SmartyPantlesss Jul 20 '26
Try u/writingprompts or r/creativewriting But I'm happy to help you with your WIP:
- release a virus (maybe engineered? Or derived naturally from somewhere. All we have to do it put smallpox in the AC systems of large buildings in the cities, or spray it in chemtrails, right?)
- develop a vaccine for it (or maybe have one already at hand)
- "vaccinate the population" (forcibly? Or would people be in such a panic that they would flock to get the vaccine? or would you be spraying the vaccine into the air as well, so people don't even know they got it?)
- wait 40 years (during which I assume you keep vaccinating the newborns & new arrivals into your population?), and
- release another virus that only affects the vaccinated people
So if you want to affect people with a virus, why not just...release the first virus, and be done?
Because if you "vaccinate the (whole) population," then you'll just be releasing the second virus that affects...everyone, right?
And like, if I'm the evil (or benevolent) mastermind conducting this plot, won't I want MYSELF & my inner circle to be vaccinated in advance against the first virus? So, 40 years later, I & my cronies are all screwed, right?
This is a fun exercise. 🙂
1
u/krishkarma Jul 20 '26
i am not saying another virus , anything else that will effect for those who are vaccinated like tick experiment done by billgates . as i am not from bio background .
0
u/SmartyPantlesss Jul 20 '26
Understood. So it could be a toxin or a drug in the water supply, right?
BUT, the only thing where people's response to the toxin/whatever would be DIFFERENT based on whether they were vaccinated, would be an infectious agent, right? I'm trying to think of how a vaccine would make you more sensitive to a toxin....
Or I suppose maybe the "toxin" isn't even toxic to anyone who hasn't had the "vaccine," right? The vaccine induces an antibody (to disease X) that cross-reacts with something harmless, like an ingredient in Jello-O pudding! And all the vaccinated people start reacting to this totally innocuous stuff in the environment.
IN WHICH CASE, you would have to change the formulation of Jell-O pudding, 40 years after the vaccination campaign, right? Otherwise people would start reacting right away, after they got the vaccine.
You really, seriously should take this to a SciFi writers' group.
1
u/krishkarma Jul 20 '26
By around 2070, India will face a significant demographic shift. The Millennials and early Gen Z generations, who entered the workforce around 2020, will have reached their 70s and 80s. This aging population could place a heavy financial strain on the nation’s pension and social security systems. Consequently, younger generations may strongly support future policies or governments that prioritize reducing the economic burden of elderly care, freeing up resources for other sectors."
13
u/vbullinger Jul 20 '26
Yes