Commerce and shipping were already disrupted by the war, so treaties are not the right place to look for contemporary recognition of 1918 flu impacts. The military and civilian clinical records are abundant.
Commerce and shipping were already disrupted by the war, so treaties are not the right place to look for contemporary recognition of 1918 flu impacts. The military and civilian clinical records are abundant.
It wasn't the treaty that Mike means, it was a 1922 proceedings of the International Sanitary Convention (the predecessor to WHO). It was an international body negotiating rules around infectious diseases from 1851 to 1948, and it never once concerned itself with influenza or even mentioned it in any proceedings.
Right, I remember your post. It doesn't mention influenza, but the texts that do mention influenza... do...
Mention of "influenza" in England+Wales death records declines linearly in the late 19th century, and then suddenly spikes in 1889/90, again in 1900, again in 1918, with baseline higher than the previous decline in between. This is consistent with adults in 1957 and 1968 having antibodies to swine flu (1918), Asian flu (1957/1889), and Hong Kong flu (1900/1968) according to whether they were alive in 1889, 1900, or 1918. This validated the historical records for flu from 1889 - 1919, which number in the thousands in military, civilian, and local government sources.
For some reason, I can't post an answer to your previous comment. My reply about "antibodies" was in regard to claims that if someone has antibodies for X that means they have immunity to X. That's fake science that is propagandized by CDC. Regarding monoclonals, that's a different topic. Snake anti-venom is extremely hit and miss, snakes have large variability in venoms even within species or region, almost like they have zip codes, so it just depends on what is being stocked and how recently updated, and that is not "immunity" at all. Monoclonals for other things are also either ineffective or have large risks, like the ones for cancer have fulminant cancer as possible side effect for example.
Alright, so snake venom antitoxin is pseudo-science? Monoclonal antibodies, B Cells?
Masurel ran HI with donor blood from before 1957, dozens of samples for every year born. People born before 1900 could HI 1968 flu, people born before 1890 could HI 1957 flu. People born after couldn't HI either one. And the same thing was found earlier for swine flus, same thing still found today for flus. Donors match historical record of flus that were around when they were alive. I don't have to assert this "proves" anything, it's just a reality that exists regardless of what anyone wants to make of it.
Commerce and shipping were already disrupted by the war, so treaties are not the right place to look for contemporary recognition of 1918 flu impacts. The military and civilian clinical records are abundant.
It wasn't the treaty that Mike means, it was a 1922 proceedings of the International Sanitary Convention (the predecessor to WHO). It was an international body negotiating rules around infectious diseases from 1851 to 1948, and it never once concerned itself with influenza or even mentioned it in any proceedings.
Right, I remember your post. It doesn't mention influenza, but the texts that do mention influenza... do...
Mention of "influenza" in England+Wales death records declines linearly in the late 19th century, and then suddenly spikes in 1889/90, again in 1900, again in 1918, with baseline higher than the previous decline in between. This is consistent with adults in 1957 and 1968 having antibodies to swine flu (1918), Asian flu (1957/1889), and Hong Kong flu (1900/1968) according to whether they were alive in 1889, 1900, or 1918. This validated the historical records for flu from 1889 - 1919, which number in the thousands in military, civilian, and local government sources.
TheyтАЩre still fake because the alleged pandemic wasnтАЩt.
That's... not exactly a convincing historical thesis.
For some reason, I can't post an answer to your previous comment. My reply about "antibodies" was in regard to claims that if someone has antibodies for X that means they have immunity to X. That's fake science that is propagandized by CDC. Regarding monoclonals, that's a different topic. Snake anti-venom is extremely hit and miss, snakes have large variability in venoms even within species or region, almost like they have zip codes, so it just depends on what is being stocked and how recently updated, and that is not "immunity" at all. Monoclonals for other things are also either ineffective or have large risks, like the ones for cancer have fulminant cancer as possible side effect for example.
Antibodies are pseudo-science. They mean absolutely nothing and do not prove existence of pandemics or even epidemics.
Alright, so snake venom antitoxin is pseudo-science? Monoclonal antibodies, B Cells?
Masurel ran HI with donor blood from before 1957, dozens of samples for every year born. People born before 1900 could HI 1968 flu, people born before 1890 could HI 1957 flu. People born after couldn't HI either one. And the same thing was found earlier for swine flus, same thing still found today for flus. Donors match historical record of flus that were around when they were alive. I don't have to assert this "proves" anything, it's just a reality that exists regardless of what anyone wants to make of it.
Agreed. LetтАЩs go on believing the lies :)