you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Spanish Flu ought to be called something else, but what can you do?

Prior to the 1920's, diseases were assumed to come from " the lesser races" so "Spanish Flu" was deliberate.

About a decade later the medical community began blaming animals for transmission of animal viruses, after the Rockefellers co-opted and corrupted medicine.

They're back to their old shenanigans.

[–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Do you have some sort of list of things that set you off? Just so we might avoid them in conversation.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I'm not set off bro.

I agree with the majority of what you posted, and I agree the Spanish flu should be named something else.

I figured I'd toss in a bit of historical context because there's a history of naming illnesses after scapegoats.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The Spanish Flu wasn't even contagious as they did studies injected it into the blood of hundreds of healthy subjects and used mucus as well, none of them got it.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

In reality it wasn't "a flu". It was disease transmitted through vaccinations.

Contagion followed vaccination program. Rural areas weren't affected, because there weren't enough people to justify the travel.

Medieval plagues affected communities at random; large, and small.

The actual history has been censored.

I'll see what I can find for sources.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)