“Wayback Machine” Tampering?

I was reading this article from 2009 about the usage and definition of “Pandemic” https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/200/7/1018/903237. It’s pretty interesting and seems pretty well balanced. At the the end they seem* to support the notion of honing the usage of the word, to include basically all the ideas you’d expect the word to express including a high fatality rate.

However, I’m writing this short post for a different reason. 

In the third paragraph under ‘Conclusions’ the first sentence:

When epizootic circulation of a highly pathogenic avian H5N1 virus led, in 2003, to occasional human “spillover” cases associated with 60% fatality [21], the WHO developed a pandemic preparedness plan stipulating, in reference to influenza, that a pandemic agent must be infectious, must be new, must spread easily, and must cause serious illness [26].

Here they assert that WHO required a pandemic have the feature of “must cause serious illness”. Since this is different from how the term is used now (it’s 11/30/2020), I wanted to check that WHO source and see how exactly this word has changed.

[26]: http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/avian_faqs/en/ Unfortunately this is link is now dead. Sure it’s 2020, and this was written in August 2009, so that makes sense. At least they could read it in 2009! That’s what the web archive is for, eh?

http://web.archive.org/web/20201127180806/http://www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/avian_faqs/en/

Someone tried to archive it this year and for some reason archived the empty page. OK, so let’s go further back and find the actual page. Right? They were able to read it in 2009 so let’s jump back to the beginning:

http://web.archive.org/web/20111010051928/http://www.who.int:80/influenza/human_animal_interface/avian_faqs/en/

Oh… so the furtherest we can go back is 2011. Just two years after this JID article was written. But… there’s nothing there. ALL of the archived versions of this page are blank. Does that make any sense? It doesn’t make any sense to me. How many blank pages have you bothered to save? Were you wanting to show someone a blank page to prove a point?

I even tried changing the language. /fr/ for French, /es/ for Spanish, and /ar/ for Arabic. Also just blank archived pages. 

Anyway, I just thought that was extremely weird and wanted to draw attention to it. Has anyone else seen something similar?*

~

We can keep talking about WHO and it’s use of “pandemic” if you like. This page from 2010, is still on the Wayback Machine but it’s also still on WHO’s website, so I guess it’s still “relevant” to them: https://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/frequently_asked_questions/pandemic/en/

For both seasonal and pandemic influenza, the total number of people who get severely ill can vary. However, the impact or severity tends to be higher in pandemics in part because of the much larger number of people in the population who lack pre-existing immunity to the new virus. When a large portion of the population is infected, even if the proportion of those infected that go on to develop severe disease is small, the total number of severe cases can be quite large.

I think it’s easy to see how most people will read this and see how as support for the current Covid-19 nonsense as a “pandemic”, but that’s just the squishy language doing it’s job. Notice the phrases: “can vary”, “tends to”, “quite large”. And the last sentence is just silly. Logically it makes sense that if more people are infected then the number of severe cases will be higher. But this sentence uses that logic to support that idea that a small proportion of severe cases is still a big deal, worthy of being a pandemic. Though if you remove the ambiguity from the first part of the paragraph we can see that this likely wouldn’t be the case.

The final sentence of the next paragraph there also helps us see that Corona isn’t a big deal, compared to H1N1. “But as was seen with the current H1N1 pandemic, pandemics can have unusual epidemiological patterns and large outbreaks can occur in the summer months.” We did not have a spike in the Summer 2020. The allegedly biggest spike came in the fall when they reintroduced “lockdown”. So further proof this is just seasonal flu being way overblown. If you’re wondering why I say that then here: http://mileswmathis.com/covid.pdf 

On the way out, from the JID article:

Severity- Although disease severity has not been a conventional pandemic criterion [25], the term pandemic has been applied to severe or fatal diseases (eg, the Black Death, HIV/AIDS, and SARS) much more commonly than it has been applied to mild diseases. Diseases of low or moderate severity, such as AHC in 1981, and cyclic global recurrences of scabies (an infestation, not an infection), also have been called pandemic when they exhibit explosive (AHC) or widespread and recurrent (scabies) geographic spread.

*I suppose this is a bit geared toward getting us ready for the usage to refer to the spread and not the severity of the actual disease. 

Have you heard the phrase “PCR test pandemic”? Well that’s how our current ‘reality’ is described here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF3zO5evS4U and since the initial upload was deleted I feel I must give a second link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o98UoxP53T0. If either of those are now broken search “Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Crimes against humanity”.

*UPDATE 9/30/21

I found another deletion from the Wayback Machine. This Op-Ed contains an admission of CIA involvement in the NYT : https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22precede.html

I often share this link and I would use the web archive to read the full text since the NYT puts this behind a paywall. There are now no instances of this being archived but I know for a fact it was.

So this problem is obviously only to get worse.

Author: davidbehlman

Studied Math and Physics at University of Minnesota Morris. Studied 'hands-on' Film-making in 2007-08. Been an avid reader of many subjects for a while now. I feel very strongly that far too many writings wind-up ignoring their definitions and thereby forsake real content and logic. I hope to add to the sensible discourse.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s