Let's explore what happens if 98% of vax recipients (or more) are actually getting injected with only saline.
They get compliance, because the death/injury rate is artificially very low (less resistance).
They get large-scale test results, because they know who actually got the vax.
(This is the big one) --> In order to maximize societal and business disruption, the death/injury rate should be at a certain 'sweet spot' (just high enough to warn those that are awake, but low enough to keep the brainwashed masses asleep). If they add/reduce saline to artificially stay at that 'sweet spot', they create two (somewhat) equal camps -- continuously at war with one another.
Note: Once they get compliance, the booster program lets them 'finish off' the plan at any time they choose - (just stop giving out saline).
They may (or may not) be doing this, but it makes for a 'perfect evil plan'.
It can't be saline, I had an immune response, flu like symptoms both times.
The theory is that most are saline (not all).
And among the vax, it's possible some are 'watered down' so that there are lots of reports of 'just some flu symptoms'.
I appreciate your theory but at least in the UK it doesn't seem to hold water. Refer specifically to page 19 of this report.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf
They are definitely getting the Spike protein from the shots.
Interesting if true at face value.
So they say 98% of their Roche-S tests are positive for vaccine-induced antibodies - however I doubt that even the most enthusiastic pro-vaxxer would claim that 98% of the UK population have been injected.
The report says their data comes from only from blood donors; what if blood donors are more likely to have already accepted the vaccine? What if the blood donation service discourages or turns away unvaccinated donors?
The report says the data is from a weekly test of 250 "samples" per "English geographic region." What does that even mean?
The report is from the "UK Health Security Agency" which came into existence two weeks ago and to me has the smell of an organisation with a political rather than medical/clinical mission.