97 Comments
May 26, 2023Liked by Martin Neil, Norman Fenton

Fantastic digging!

Expand full comment
author

Obvious really. Only surprise is that no one did it before.

Expand full comment

Now to get to the bottom of why... : )

Expand full comment
author

I will do the "how" next. I suspect people already know the why.

Expand full comment

If you'd like to dig really deep, find out how they upgraded the lab testing machines with SARS COV 2 TEST KIT. Some doctors, like dr. McCullaugh, claimed their Biofire testing machine could not distinguish flu from covid-19. Once they calibrated it, flu "vanished" and all cases became covid-19.

Expand full comment
author

A number of readers have mentioned this but we haven't been able to source any direct evidence.

Expand full comment

McCullough said it on Joe Rogan’s.

The only direct evidence you can hope to find is if you a whistleblower comes forward who knows how the “targeted sequences” where picked to make sure flu and other virus sequences belong to SARS Cov2 ONLY, so that even the so called co-infections are detected as COVID-19.

Expand full comment

Boom!

Expand full comment

Most only know or suspect a half of "why"- greed, the great reset, population control...

The other half is much more subtle...

Expand full comment

All your stuff seems obvious in retrospect - that’s why it’s so powerful

Expand full comment

I would like to contribute some information about what happened to the flu here in Germany.

My sister-in-law Marianne is working as a receptionist in a so called Sentinel-Klinik in south-west of Baden-Württemberg. A sentinel-clinic is a clinic which reports regularly to Robert Koch Institut (RKI) which is the federal authority of health. There are some 200 sentinel-clinics in Germany. On basis of these reports number of flu-cases and flu-deaths is estimated by RKI. Which ends up in quite an exact estimation.

Marianne told us in Winter 2020/21 "In former years when a patient was brought to us into our hospital who had respitorial problems we allways did a test on influenza. And we allways reported the result to RKI. This was obligatory. In this winter in case a patient arrives with respitorial problems we don't do any test on influenza. Not one!"

In other words: All of the flu-deaths in Germany have been mislabeled into corona-deaths. These deaths were urgently needed in order to fabricate the "second wave" of which people had been frightened so much. Without this trick no "second wave" of corona would have appeared and vaccine rollout would have been hampered.

Expand full comment
author

Stefan, you make a very important contribution here with this post. I may refer to it in a future post if you don't mind.

Expand full comment

dear Martin, thank you for comment. Feel free to refer to information I contributed in any way it seems usefull to you.

Expand full comment

That is very valuable information.

So are all the samples that make up the positivity rates in the RKI Weekly Reports tested locally? https://influenza.rki.de/Wochenberichte.aspx

I had been under the assumptions the RKI was testing them after they are sent in.

To be honest this really hasn't been my focus at all, but it seems important enough to understand what happened.

In their weekly reports the RKI states this about European countries (google translate):

"The ECDC points out that the results of the influenza surveillance should be interpreted with reservations, since the COVID-19 pandemic may have influenced the consultation behavior and the testing strategy in many countries.

Of 38 countries that submitted data to TESSy (The European Surveillance System) for 8 weeks 2021, 34 countries (including Germany) reported activity below the national threshold and four countries (Azerbaijan, Estonia, Slovakia and the Ukraine) reported low clinical influenza activity. Since only a few sentinel samples have been positive for influenza to date, clinical influenza activity in the four countries mentioned does not appear to be due to circulating influenza.

For the 8th week of 2021, influenza viruses were detected in three (0.3%) of the 1,045 sentinel samples. Since week 40, 2020, only 33 of 25,606 sentinel samples have been positive for influenza viruses, including 20 for influenza A viruses and 13 for influenza B viruses.

More information is available at: http://www.flunewseurope.org"

So Stefan, are these sentinel samples the very samples that are collected by the sentinel clinics? And they are only tested locally? Do you know if they are following any guidelines or is it up to the clinic to decide what to test for?

I had assumed "positivity rate" implies that each sample is actually screened for ALL listed pathogens. Anything else would make the results a joke in terms of reliability.

A geriatrician friend from a clinic in Hamburg told me something very similar in mid to late 2020. They weren't performing influenza tests, but for every sniffle they're testing for Corona. I had already forgotten about that statement of his.

Expand full comment

Hello Fabian,

I'm not sure whether I can answer your questions excactly. Probably it is useful I do give an exact citation of what Marianne said (in spring 2021): "Früher haben wir in solchen Fällen IMMER auf Influenza getestet. Und wir haben diese Ergebnisse auch immer ans RKI gemeldet. Jetzt testen wir gar nicht mehr auf Influenza." As she further said, former testing was about to find out whether it is Influenza A or Influenza B.

The meaning of "in solchen Fällen" (in such cases) is: a case in which a patient with respiratory problems arrived.

The clinic Marianne is working being a sentinel-clinic is an assuption of mine as they are regularly reporting to RKI. Maybe there is a reporting-routine only for Influenza in which a larger number of clinics are included. I'm not sure about that.

Hope explanation of mine is useful to you.

As she said testing was done inhouse. She didn't mention samples where sent to RKI.

Expand full comment

strangely my comment on that disappeared. So I'll try again.

The sentinels are mostly family doctors. It says "Sentinelpraxen". I assume the hospitals stopped testing for influenza, because of the obligatory "Covid" tests for any patient, admitted to the hospital. Monetary incentives for positive tests for Covid might have resulted in no further testing on influenza. Influenza is like Covid obligatory to report to the rki. Strangely the seasonal reports done by the Influenza working group are prensent until season 2018/19 but no reports for 2020/21 and 2021/22. The actual 22/23 is present. https://influenza.rki.de/Saisonbericht.aspx

Expand full comment

dear Helen, thank you for useful information you provide. That makes things quite clearer.

In case I am successful in getting more detailed information from my sister-in-law about how and why testing on influenza was paused I will add it here.

Expand full comment

Thank you both for your replies.

I guess there won't be any way around reading into the rules and regulations.

Expand full comment

Usually you take a single sample to run a test panel for a wide variety of viruses and bacteria

https://medlineplus.gov/lab-tests/respiratory-pathogens-panel/

Expand full comment
May 26, 2023Liked by Martin Neil

They will still explain it away because these search queries are due to convid-deniers, anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists who were googling the flu whereas in reality everything was the coof. That's what they'll say.

Expand full comment
author

Of course. But given the search signals are similar in amplitude to previous years then this means they would have to acknowledge there is a hell'uva lot of them!

Expand full comment

Nobody is even saying everything was due to COVID. There were tons of Rhinovirus infections, RSV, other seasonal coronavirii.

Just no Influenza B. There was more Influenza A going around than Influenza B.

The Google Trends searches are not specific to Influenza at all!

Expand full comment
May 27, 2023·edited May 27, 2023Liked by Martin Neil

The anomaly in all respiratory viruses (2020) here in NSW Australia has had me scratching my head for a long time. Martin’s hypothesis although not “robust” seems to fit as good if not better than any I’ve heard.

I’ve just created a thread if anyone’s interested in looking at what I mean because you can’t post images in the comments.

https://krap.substack.com/p/what-happed-to-the-flu/comments?justPublished=true&embeddedPostPublications=1229032

Please leave comments here on Martin’s post instead of on my thread. I created it for discussion here, it’s just so you can easily see what I mean without having to search the report.

Fabian, I’d really like to hear your opinion on the NSW data . I’ve seen your work and comments on other stacks and respect your opinion. The NSW data looks really odd to me.

Expand full comment

Well Ivo, I don't have any answers for you, but I do find it remarkable. We saw the same thing in Germany.

Nearly no Influenza B, slightly more Influenza A, but Rhinovirus and seasonal corona virus strains pretty much normal.

What's remarkable for 2020 is the lack of pneumonia in the death certificates I've seen.

There were a lot more pneumonias with bacterial superinfections in 2021 it seems.

If you want me to look at any data in particular, you can always send me raw data via email and I'll have a look.

https://gisaid.org/influenza-subtypes-dashboard/

I have been meaning to get access to these data, but GISAID will not approve my accounts. They claim they would approve non-institutional accounts, but they don't.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the reply and offering to have a look at the raw data but I don’t think it’s available in raw form, at least I haven’t seen any. Looks like a recurring theme, no easily obtainable data for the curious.

Expand full comment

Yes absolutely a recurring theme.

Another good example:

I don't know of a single country that offers historical vaccination rates and variant data by place of residence.

With both of these it'd be very easy to show how these vaccines kicked off epidemic after epidemic.

Expand full comment
May 26, 2023·edited May 26, 2023Liked by Martin Neil

Wish I had this back when I was being ridiculed for stating these facts. I went to the WHO website myself and saw the same thing in May 2020. It's not rocket science figuring out what they've done.

Expand full comment

So it's more likely than not that only a small proportion of "flu" is caused by the influenza virus (the rest is from a myriad of respiratory viruses - some unknown - including coronaviruses). I think it's best to call this syndrome "upper respiratory tract infection of various severity including flu like illness" - this includes COVID and influenza in with all the rest. It just makes more sense.

Expand full comment
author

Sure. Plenty of evidence HCOVs help the elderly over the line.

Expand full comment

Exactly. What the German RKI does.

They call them ARE's - Acute Respiratory Pathogens (Pathogens=Erreger).

Expand full comment

The "infection" (rather than "case") fatality rate of COVID 19 is strikingly low because everybody was exposed to the virus but few of working age died.

Expand full comment

Thanks. Well found. Flu net possibly "adjusted"?!

Expand full comment

September 8th 2020, ONS merged covid numbers with 'flu numbers. Why?

Expand full comment

To cover their asses!

Expand full comment

Not sure this is indicative of anything - people often can't distinguish between covid and "regular" flu based on symptoms, so the fact that they googled flu might simply mean they were trying to figure out if they had the flu or not. IOW people's subjective opinions about what virus they have and their google searches don't mean much, absent reliable tests.

Expand full comment
author

No one can distinguish between covid and flu based on symptoms so it's no surprise the general public would experience difficulty and would search for flu and covid together. I'm certainly not disputing that. However the pattern of searches match historical flu and yet when they have been propagandissed into everything being covid they have persisted with the thought it might be flu. That's interesting, no?

But this isn't the point. Flu surveillance is a standard piece in the armoury of public health and has been for many years, And they have used Google trends data because they have assumed it to be a reliable indicator or predictor of flu prevalence.

This isn't my decision. Its theirs and I'm not here to defend it.

If tracking flu searches was valid before and is now meaningless post covid why did the authorities continue with it in 2020? Which they did. DID THEY REPORT IT - NO.

BTW the same arguments can be made about the common cold and flu, but the authorities were still happy tracking flu. And were happy tracking covid searches as if it meant something precise.

And as many posters have pointed out if there is no difference between respiratory viruses then why all totalitarian fuss?

Expand full comment

"And as many posters have pointed out if there is no difference between respiratory viruses then why all totalitarian fuss?"

Precisely. We're in agreement there.

Expand full comment

Well there are differences, but nothing that google searches for symptoms would accurately capture.

Here is something you might find interesting:

Afaik Severe Acute Respiratory Distress is pretty specific for SARS-CoV-2. According to US death certificates from Massachusetts and Minnesota the rates of ARDS were much higher in 2020 than in 2021, but the rates for pneumonia and bacterial superinfections shot up by ~10% (proportional difference among deaths with U07.1) in 2021 compared to the previous year.

I am currently dedicating some time to describing the trends in diagnostic keys among U07.1 deaths.

Expand full comment

"Severe Acute Respiratory Distress is pretty specific for SARS-CoV-2." Thats's interesting, you've given me something else to look at. I'll have look back at the Australian mortality figures, I seem to remember laughing to myself at how low "Acute Respiratory Distress" actually was and how much it fluctuated in time among people that had died from a virus with the name SARS-CoV-2. I'd need to go back and look at the trends (if they're available) to see if it shot up off a low base.

Expand full comment

Do let me know if this reveals any new insights.

Expand full comment

COVID deaths really did not improve from Winter 2020 to Winter 2021 in Massachusetts. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/us/massachusetts. Even WITHOUT vaccination, some improvement would have been expected over the course of a year, due to lower severity of the later variants, at least slight treatment improvements, and most likely the development of at least "minimal" immunity levels in almost the entire population (from the inevitable minimal exposures even in those who didn't develop a full-blown infection). Minnesota did improve modestly, but many states with low vaccination rates also improved to a similar extent, and again, an improvement would have been expected REGARDLESS of vaccination.

I'm not yet sold on "negative vaccine efficacy" (but could change my mind)- my hypothesis for the "epic fail" in Massachusetts, etc. is that people got a false sense of security from vaccines which didn't work well at all, and took much more risks than they did before, and the end result was an "avalanche" of COVID deaths in Winter 2021-2022 in highly vaccinated places. Same story as Canada, Australia, Japan, etc.

Expand full comment

Also the reason why we cannot see the correlation between new doses and new cases is simple: New vaccinations and vaccination rates are strongly correlated and the inhibitory effects of vaccination rates outperforms the promotion of cases by new doses.

There are exceptions to this at the height of the initial agitation and propaganda campaigns. This is when new doses and vaccination rates diverge, which reveals what was really going on:

New doses promoted infections, old doses inhibited them.

Expand full comment

Exactly, this is what I always try to explain to people:

- More data leading to improved treatment protocols

- Advancing Immunity

- Reaping of the susceptible and the frail

- Vaccinations

SHOULD lead to less excess deaths. If excess mortality stayed the same, then the noxious influence must have become stronger.

However in Massachusetts this did happen to some degree. For quick reference look at usa.pervaers.com, a small tool I built for this purpose.

Massachusetts is in a group with NY, NJ, RI, CT... All of these regions that saw massive excess mortality in elders throughout 2020.

Here is my take on vaccine efficacy:

1.) Vaccine do reduce the risk of death AND transmission

2.) Only after a delay of a few weeks

3.) In the initial weeks they do the exact opposite

4.) This is kicking off waves

What you describe as "immunity" is not just immunity. It's a mix of immunity and reaping effect. I say that because the negative correlation between COVID deaths and excess mortality in Q3'2021 is weaker than it is for excess mortality in the 85+ cohort and excess mortality in Q3'2021.

I'll upload a quick MLR video which describes excess mortality during Q3'2021.

I am really not sure what epic fail you are referring to in Massachusetts. I am not that deeply into the MA data atm, but according to the website above (which is based on the public CDC datasets), there was no epic fail. MA is one of the states where immunity/reaping really reduced future excess mortality.

Here is a link to the video:

https://substack.pervaers.com/USA_Misc/52-104%3B2021EXM_Deaths2015-2019_Excess2020_8WkDoses_Lag8WkVax_Rate%3B21sec%3B1685187971424.mp4

And since I'm at it, I made another for cases as the independent. Notice how the significance of new doses increases. Otherwise, the independents are not tailored for this one, but still do a pretty good job at explaining the situation. No COVID variables needed at all.

https://substack.pervaers.com/USA_Misc/52-104%3B2021Cases_Deaths2015-2019_Excess2020_8WkDoses_Lag8WkVax_Rate%3B21sec%3B1685187967154.mp4

Expand full comment

Respectfully....if there wasn’t distinguishing differences, why was the world turned upside down?

Expand full comment

It was mainly a relatively mild illness for most people (much like a bad flu). It was different for the retired when it was significant.

Expand full comment

Whitty said for 80% of pop, no worries, other 20% may feel bad, take to bed a few days, tiny proportion going to hospital, some ICU and tiny proportion of those dying. Few weeks later, it was spoken of as a deadly disease! Diamond Princess proved low infection and mortality. No staff died.

Expand full comment

I have to correct you Keith. Bad flu is a shocking experience. I've sufferd it several times between 1968 & 2007.

Expand full comment

Yes I agree it can be very bad. The severity depends on your health and the virulence of the bug which infects you. When we are told we have flu we have an expectation that, although we feel awfull we will recover in a few days (but some remain unwell for weeks). We reacted differently to learning we had covid because we were told it had a high case fatality rate (which is untrue if you are under 55).

Expand full comment

Mass Formation. It's a real phenomenon and to some extent it is still going on.

Expand full comment

Exactly Susanna. This means nothing.

I'm really surprised there are only 3 or 4 critical thinkers among the commenters here who realize this.

I am also wondering whether you are misleading people on purpose, Martin, or are suffering from confirmation bias yourself.

Expand full comment
author

Id appreciate it if you would argue your case with good grace and without insult please. Thank you.

Expand full comment

I apologize if my tone was off here. I was however truly asking myself this question and would much rather see you argue against what I said than feel offended.

I'm very sensitive to criticism myself, but feeling offended won't get us anywhere. So please do respond to the things I said.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks appreciated.

This isnt a stand alone article. More to come so I'd prefer for it to be judged in the round. Happy for criticism and with continually being challenged. Also sometimes reflection takes time hence no instant response.

Expand full comment

Yes I know the process takes time. My last reply actually contained the sentence "maybe you'll just need some time to reflect on your conclusions", but I removed it because I figured it didn't sound very respectful either. Again, apologies. Looking forward to seeing what explanations you come up with.

Expand full comment

It's the scientific process, I mean I'm not a scientist but this is how it's supposed to work, right? I have the utmost respect for the authors of this Substack and would like to see their arguments be as airtight as possible.

Expand full comment

I think he was referring to me. I wasn't quite as respectful as you were.

Expand full comment

I second another commenter that it is not always assured to distinguish between the different viruses that cause flu like symptoms.

Without the neurological (e.g. loss of smell) and/or severe respiratory symptoms of Covid (which not everyone gets) or a laboratory test (which not everyone gets when they have the sniffles out effect fever) it is not a sure thing that people who searched for flu actually had the flu virus.

Maybe removing other confounding search trends (for Covid and RSV) might help.

Expand full comment
author

How do you suggest we do that? And why if it enough for the authorities to use this scheme with no adornment should we be expected to discriminate between viruses to a level of precision we don't think are obtainable?

Expand full comment

It’s been a while since I’ve looked at my statistics notes so I can’t tell you off the top of mind but I imagine taking the number of searches for Covid and RSV for that same period within the different regions and comparing them. We also have a longer dataset for historic RSV and the flu so we can correlate across time. Again I’m not sure what the exact statistical method to use, sorry. I would be interested to know if there is a way.

As for the authorities, we know that fudge and twist the data to fit their narrative so we can use it to say “look, according to your methodology we still have the flu” but if we really want to know (and can) maybe we can do better.

Expand full comment
author

When competing against a lie generator with near infinite resources , relatively speaking, you have to declare a stopping rule. One thing we can't do is assume the mantle of their responsibilities with zero funding.

Expand full comment

Always a glaring piece of nonsense, along with "cases," RT-PCR and RAT "tests." The 'disappearance' of 'flu in NZ is attributed to its low IQ. It couldn't figure how to get across the border. On the other hand, COVID was much smarter; it did.

https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/

Expand full comment
May 26, 2023·edited May 26, 2023

Excellent find. Now look at these Google Trends queries (set start date pre-COVID like 5/26/2019):

Example link for "heart failure": https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2019-05-26%202023-05-26&geo=US&q=heart%20failure

Heart failure

Atherosclerotic

Heart inflammation

Blood clot

No cause of death

Sudden death

Died unexpectedly

Found deceased

Sympathy message

Months after vaccine

Since vaccine

Note: we need not expect to see something "shocking" for every query- the key is to look for sustained increases on the order of 15-20% which was the extent of excess non-COVID deaths shown in the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials. Most of these queries seem to clearly show AT LEAST a 15-20% post-vaccine increase (more than that in many cases), and don't forget that 15-20% increases in deaths or serious adverse events still translate to hundreds of thousands of lives (millions worldwide).

Expand full comment

In late 2020, prior to the rollout of the covid vaccines, the British were being encouraged to take a flu vaccine under the basis that it "may help prevent covids". In late 2021, once they had been issued the covid vaccines, the British were then being encouraged to accept both. If the authorities were convinced that flu had disappeared, why were they encouraging the public to have both the flu vaccine AND the covid vaccines? They are in fact often administered together, the same time, same day, which strikes me a doubly risky... The only time in 21 years that I suffered an adverse reaction to my flu vaccine was the day in 2009 that I was given the swine-flu vaccine at the same time.

I describe my 21 year flu vaccine experiment on my Substack page in a post titled My 20 Years+ on The Flu Vaccine & Why I Gave it Up, link below. I describe how despite initially being enamoured, the benefits of the flu vaccine appeared to wane exactly through the time that the jab was commercialised & began being offered to everyone not just the vulnerable, like me.

Also in my article I describe my research into the flu vaccine as the covid "pandemic" raged which showed that not only was the flu vaccine of limited worth against flu itself, but also that priming the immune system for flu appears to leave it wide open to assault from other viruses, specially coronavirus. Folks who have been vaccinated against flu are not just susceptible to flu but should they come into contact with a coronavirus instead can be made considerably more unwell & enjoy an increased risk of hospitalisation.

Links supporting my claims follow.

My Substack. Please subscribe if you have not already done so - https://alternativenarrative.substack.com/p/my-twenty-years-on-the-flu-vaccine

DOD study. "Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference." - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19313647

"A randomized placebo-controlled trial in children showed that flu shots increased fivefold the risk of acute respiratory infections caused by a group of noninfluenza viruses, including coronaviruses."

https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m810/rr-0

Expand full comment

Syndromic surveillance is widely used. The Uk government reports this, and include a a group of people who weekly report any flu like symptoms, reporting of people going to GPs with flu like symptoms and internet searches. These are non-specific for any particular virus. More details here.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20220401215804/https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/annual-flu-reports

But at the same time patients were being tested in primary care and on admission to hospital for Flu A, flu B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2. The results for the testing is given above. So the tests were being done, but flu was not found.

One explanation might be the social distancing, masking, lock down especially of schools (which are known to be very important in flu spread) was effective at controlling flu. This is perhaps more likely than an international conspiracy to hide flu. It should be remembered that flu was expected by the health authorities and they did a lot of work on flu vaccination to prevent a surge in flu that never happened.

Expand full comment
author

Next article, already written, will cover this.

Expand full comment

I do believe that most of the reagents for the tests are made in China.

If the covid tests were provided with flu antigen markers they would have shown covid when it was only a flu.

Lots of room to inker with results is you can adjust the tests.

Expand full comment

Awesome because I wondered about this from the beginning, and I knew the FLU was being suppressed because the FLU was being renamed to SARS-2 C19 SARS was was more of a fund raiser, I mean money maker, I mean you cannot kill people the way they wanted to kill people with the FLU, uhhh you get the picture just look at the "flu not" graph LOL.. Everything was coordinated and planned ahead of time, and all the other so called outbreaks were simulations and practices by the same no good people..

Expand full comment