The same playbook for all vaccines and drugs. Create the fear, the dummies rush in to fill the void, and the profits magically appear over and over. The patient is further dumbed down by the toxic drugs and vaccines. The doctors are swimming in dollars and couldn't care less about the method of their madness.
Segueing from the poor, inbred, newborn clioquinol mice, and past Simon Flexner's 1910 monkey poisoning exercises, take a look at some more mouse torture from 1947....
....fast forward a few decades from Flexner's monkey business for another of the many examples of identical pseudoscience, into the Zika forest of Uganda, where three Rockefeller operatives claimed discovery of a new virus, Zika, in 1947. Their method? Hold monkeys in cages up in the forest canopy. Wait for one to become sick. Bring the sick monkey down, extract serum (blood) from the sick monkey, and inject the serum into the peritoneal cavity of one group of mice, and directly into the brains of another group. In spite of the gross insult to the first group of mice via the injection of monkey blood into their abdominal cavity, they do not get sick from this imagined virus. However, once again, a la Simon Flexner, the mice subjected to a direct toxic brain jab agree to get sick....and out of this scientific sham a new virus is created. All of this scientific fraud is written up by these Rockefeller boys in a paper called "Zika Virus (I). Isolations and Serological Specificity", published in 1952 in the "Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene" (https://web.archive.org/web/20161204082921/http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/papers/10889-ZikaVirusIsolationSerology.pdf) .....just as today, mosquitoes were blamed as the vector for this new fictitious virus (Zika).
One has to read (or scan at least) the article to get a real sense of how the belief in pathogenic viruses had led at this point (1947) to such patently ridiculous charades passed off as science. These Rockefeller boys were supposedly looking for more Yellow fever virus. But God's good luck was shining on them, he gave them a new one to play with. The paper is a torturous account of torturing mice and monkeys, and torturous logic employed, all based on repeated acts of laboratory poisoning. A quote from this paper should read something like this:
"We're gonna create a new virus here, another one of those mosquito ones. You know, sick monkey blood injected into the brains of inbred lab mice will get us some symptoms to play with. Symptoms are one key, 'cause they will vary between applications. This variance will allow us to make a bunch of different claims as to the virus's effects, and it will even let us make claims that this effect means Yellow fever, or this one means Dengue, or whatever else comes to mind... Ground up mosquito solutions into monks... monk blood into mouse brain... back and forth we go, it's actually great fun! Out of all these effects due to our different poisoning scenarios, we can then create some things like "neutralization tests", and here's a really good one, "neutralizing antibodies" (think vaccines, bro). By the time John Enders comes along with his cell culture poisoning device, the table will be all set for him. Maybe we can even get a nobel ourselves out of this African vacation."
If you choose not to read the "zika" paper linked above, here at least are a couple paragraphs from it that give a snapshot of the circular back and forth poisoning exercises upon which the claims of virus (or not) were made, and from which they ultimately declare Zika virus into existence. They use a phrase in the second paragraph that nicely sums up what they've done. "Intracerebral test technique". Yes, they actually say it with a straight face.
"Serological specificity.
Cross neutralization tests were made with Zika virus, with yellow fever and
Hawaii dengue viruses and with the FA and GD VII strains of Theiler's enceph-
alomyelitis virus. In the case of other viruses, known antisera were tested against
dilutions of Zika virus only."
"Yellow Fever. Soon after the isolation of the first strain of Zika virus from
Rhesus 766, it was shown that samples of serum taken from Rhesus 766 (a) before
it was sent to Zika, and (b) during convalescence, had no neutralizing effect on
the French neurotropic strain of yellow fever virus when these sera were tested
in the yellow fever neutralization test as modified by SMITHBURN(1945). Further-
more, yellow fever hyperimmune serum failed to neutralize early ,passage Zika
virus (766 strain) in tests employing the intracerebral test technique already
described. Similarly, pre-inoculation and convalescent sera from Rhesus 771
failed to show any neutralization of yellow fever virus and the E/1 strain of virus
was not neutralized by yellow fever hyperimmune serum. There was thus good
evidence that Zika virus was not related to yellow fever."
thanks for this very fine piece of work; you know, as I read it, I kept getting what Inspector Taggart called "that french feeling": his minions told him it was called "deja vu"
my deja vu feeling was I was wracking my head and thinking: I am sure I heard about this sort of stuff a while back; and indeed way back I had heard about another virus; one in the 1980s I think that presented as affecting a particular sub-set of people: I think it was young men who it seemed; led exciting lifestyles; fortunately medical "science" again tracked it down to a "virus" also; so it was all solved and sorted. That's science for you.
Thank you Jamie for detailing the real SMON story, partly to break down how they "proved" a virus that was NOT, but yet the identical (and fraudulent) methods continue to be used to prove all other viruses up to now. At least this particular virus story can be used to point to the toxic causes of disease, though all the usual virus chatter overwhelms in the end.... In his 1910 paper, Simon Flexner mentions the possibility that Landsteiner and Popper were unable to pass the disease (polio) to a second set of monkeys because some toxin may have been the original cause, but then decides to say that the "virus" had simply lost its "virulence" in passaging between monks.
So Rachel Carson writes "Silent Spring", having much to say about how this "organochlorine pesticide DDT" was hurting and killing the birds and bees and frogs...., and became an early champion of the growing environmental movement, railing against pesticides and eventually promoting the climate change narrative. No mention of DDT causing polio, the virus/vaccine story was sacrosanct. DDT was banned. This nervous system toxin was not banned because it caused nervous system disease in people, it was banned for hurting the birds and bees and frogs (killing flies was ok), and for being a "potential human carcinogen".
When I was a boy on our Ohio farm, I remember my older brother spraying ddt powder in the air over the backs of the cows while in the milking parlor. I watched my father using tractor and tanks to spray clouds of ddt in the orchard, coating the apple trees and fruit. I vividly remember one cow losing its ability to stand, repeatedly trying to rise, but falling down each time. She had to be put down..... here is the advertisement from Time magazine in 1947. https://thisisnotadvertising.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ddthouseholdpestsusdamar47c1.jpg
Hi Lance, As you point out the name (Anti- against) (Bio- Life).... they are certainly to be used with extreme caution. Like nearly all drugs they are designed to do damage and the claimed specificity to WHAT they damage is to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Bacteria are not the cause of disease but a product of the terrain being out of balance, things like TB are only really found in Prison systems or a disease of real poverty... basically if there is fungi and mold able to grow in the setting in which you live, it is an environment to grow on you. So always change your terrain first. The problem with bacteria is that they can metabolise nasty chemicals like Arsenic and heavy metals . Although in theory this is good if a person is poisoned (still the CAUSE of the disease) the by products can exacerbate disease in things like sepsis. In this scenario as emergency measures I beleive that antibiotics can be used effectively. Think of them like to be used like a scalpel in the event of choosing between that or amputation. So really there is no "decision", I would like to think of it as effectively if you are well enough to make the decision you should probably not take them..... hope that helps.
"Bacteria are not the cause of disease but a product of the terrain being out of balance" Thanks for that phrasing. Some toxic damage to the body can result in bacterial overgrowth.
So, is it fair to say that "infection" (a word loosely used by Rockefeller medicine to cover any internal bodily injury due to virus or any other cause) is typically the result of toxicity? That toxicity can then be dealt with by the common sense approach of reducing toxic exposure, combined with other healthy inputs to give our body what it needs to detox.... or, one can go the big medicine route and take in more poison via the recommended pills or jabs or other treatments, leading to increased toxic effects in the body, leading to, possibly.... sepsis?
I wasn't clear on what is called sepsis, so clicked on Mayo clinic. They start out with "Sepsis is a serious condition in which the body responds improperly to an infection." That's nicely vague (and uses the word infection to their advantage), and what really caught my attention is their list of risk factors for developing this "life-threatening condition", most of which point to the treatment itself.
Some factors that increase the risk infection will lead to sepsis include:
-People over age 65.
-Infancy
-People with lower immune response, such as those being treated for cancer or people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
-People with chronic diseases, such as diabetes, kidney disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
-Admission to intensive care unit or longer hospital stays.
-Devices that go in the body, such as catheters in the vein, called intravenous, or breathing tubes.
-Treatment with antibiotics in the last 90 days.
-A condition that requires treatment with corticosteroids, which can lower immune response.
To put it bluntly: sepsis is pus in the blood. That is, bacteria, dead/dying organic matter and the waste products of bacterial action in such large quantities that many parts of the organism can be poisoned.
Normally a well-kept body returns to health through innate homeostasis. Sepsis can be extreme and even a 'healthy terrain' may not be enough.
Jamie, you’ve excavated a story that we both suspect contains the basic telemetry for every one of these fake “viruses”.
I don’t know which came first, early on: the chicken of the industrial or agricultural poison, or the egg of the notion of “Let’s blame the toxicity on a fake “virus””.
In other words, did they start by making money with the alleged helpful chemical and only incidentally realise it was harming people? Or was the start of this the plan to “discover” a new pathogen, and the rollout of a toxic chemical merely to means to enable such as fraudulent discovery?
Either way, I think they’re all basically like this. I don’t think Ebola, if a real, defined illness at all, is caused by a submicroscopic, infectious particle. It’s caused by some outrageous act of industrial or agricultural poison, conveniently dropped into the river where the future “Ebola” victims lived. I recall reading that large numbers of people were then ordered to move away from the river, because they were told some vector was transmitting the alleged infectious agent to them. The authorities destroyed life in the river by hitting it with larger amounts of the injurious chemical. Meanwhile, the villagers perished in their new, inland home, because of starvation, since they couldn’t fish.
By the way, the re-use of a proven toxic chemical as an “anti-cancer drug” which you describe isn’t unique. Recall Thalidomide, a pill for morning sickness, widely prescribed in the late 1950s and early 1960s? It caused horrific birth defects and many unreported fetal deaths. A friend, my age, has one hand missing. We were both born in 1960. Her mum was prescribed thalidomide, mine wasn’t. It was never launched in the USA, because one FDA division toxicologist, Frances Kelsey, was unsatisfied with the rat reproductive toxicology, where results were mixed. This is probably the most celebrated cases of resolve and unwillingness to be pressured into changing her opinion. These days, she’d probably have an accident on her way home. Anyway, Thalidomide is responsible for all reproductive toxicology studies to inciude rabbits, in addition to a rodent, because it turned out that rabbits were a much more reliable model for humans of the reproductive harms than were rodents.
Anyway, decades later, a different drug company started running as a new anti-cancer drug, the long abandoned Thalidomide. I couldn’t believe it. I didn’t follow it, but it struck me as extraordinarily insensitive at best.
The same playbook for all vaccines and drugs. Create the fear, the dummies rush in to fill the void, and the profits magically appear over and over. The patient is further dumbed down by the toxic drugs and vaccines. The doctors are swimming in dollars and couldn't care less about the method of their madness.
Another out of the ballpark hit! The whole of virology is a sham! The pHARMa/mediKILL industry just loves the profit They get from the fear produced.
Thank You again, Jamie!
Segueing from the poor, inbred, newborn clioquinol mice, and past Simon Flexner's 1910 monkey poisoning exercises, take a look at some more mouse torture from 1947....
....fast forward a few decades from Flexner's monkey business for another of the many examples of identical pseudoscience, into the Zika forest of Uganda, where three Rockefeller operatives claimed discovery of a new virus, Zika, in 1947. Their method? Hold monkeys in cages up in the forest canopy. Wait for one to become sick. Bring the sick monkey down, extract serum (blood) from the sick monkey, and inject the serum into the peritoneal cavity of one group of mice, and directly into the brains of another group. In spite of the gross insult to the first group of mice via the injection of monkey blood into their abdominal cavity, they do not get sick from this imagined virus. However, once again, a la Simon Flexner, the mice subjected to a direct toxic brain jab agree to get sick....and out of this scientific sham a new virus is created. All of this scientific fraud is written up by these Rockefeller boys in a paper called "Zika Virus (I). Isolations and Serological Specificity", published in 1952 in the "Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene" (https://web.archive.org/web/20161204082921/http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/papers/10889-ZikaVirusIsolationSerology.pdf) .....just as today, mosquitoes were blamed as the vector for this new fictitious virus (Zika).
One has to read (or scan at least) the article to get a real sense of how the belief in pathogenic viruses had led at this point (1947) to such patently ridiculous charades passed off as science. These Rockefeller boys were supposedly looking for more Yellow fever virus. But God's good luck was shining on them, he gave them a new one to play with. The paper is a torturous account of torturing mice and monkeys, and torturous logic employed, all based on repeated acts of laboratory poisoning. A quote from this paper should read something like this:
"We're gonna create a new virus here, another one of those mosquito ones. You know, sick monkey blood injected into the brains of inbred lab mice will get us some symptoms to play with. Symptoms are one key, 'cause they will vary between applications. This variance will allow us to make a bunch of different claims as to the virus's effects, and it will even let us make claims that this effect means Yellow fever, or this one means Dengue, or whatever else comes to mind... Ground up mosquito solutions into monks... monk blood into mouse brain... back and forth we go, it's actually great fun! Out of all these effects due to our different poisoning scenarios, we can then create some things like "neutralization tests", and here's a really good one, "neutralizing antibodies" (think vaccines, bro). By the time John Enders comes along with his cell culture poisoning device, the table will be all set for him. Maybe we can even get a nobel ourselves out of this African vacation."
thank you very much for this Matt.
If you choose not to read the "zika" paper linked above, here at least are a couple paragraphs from it that give a snapshot of the circular back and forth poisoning exercises upon which the claims of virus (or not) were made, and from which they ultimately declare Zika virus into existence. They use a phrase in the second paragraph that nicely sums up what they've done. "Intracerebral test technique". Yes, they actually say it with a straight face.
"Serological specificity.
Cross neutralization tests were made with Zika virus, with yellow fever and
Hawaii dengue viruses and with the FA and GD VII strains of Theiler's enceph-
alomyelitis virus. In the case of other viruses, known antisera were tested against
dilutions of Zika virus only."
"Yellow Fever. Soon after the isolation of the first strain of Zika virus from
Rhesus 766, it was shown that samples of serum taken from Rhesus 766 (a) before
it was sent to Zika, and (b) during convalescence, had no neutralizing effect on
the French neurotropic strain of yellow fever virus when these sera were tested
in the yellow fever neutralization test as modified by SMITHBURN(1945). Further-
more, yellow fever hyperimmune serum failed to neutralize early ,passage Zika
virus (766 strain) in tests employing the intracerebral test technique already
described. Similarly, pre-inoculation and convalescent sera from Rhesus 771
failed to show any neutralization of yellow fever virus and the E/1 strain of virus
was not neutralized by yellow fever hyperimmune serum. There was thus good
evidence that Zika virus was not related to yellow fever."
thanks for this very fine piece of work; you know, as I read it, I kept getting what Inspector Taggart called "that french feeling": his minions told him it was called "deja vu"
my deja vu feeling was I was wracking my head and thinking: I am sure I heard about this sort of stuff a while back; and indeed way back I had heard about another virus; one in the 1980s I think that presented as affecting a particular sub-set of people: I think it was young men who it seemed; led exciting lifestyles; fortunately medical "science" again tracked it down to a "virus" also; so it was all solved and sorted. That's science for you.
Thank you Jamie for detailing the real SMON story, partly to break down how they "proved" a virus that was NOT, but yet the identical (and fraudulent) methods continue to be used to prove all other viruses up to now. At least this particular virus story can be used to point to the toxic causes of disease, though all the usual virus chatter overwhelms in the end.... In his 1910 paper, Simon Flexner mentions the possibility that Landsteiner and Popper were unable to pass the disease (polio) to a second set of monkeys because some toxin may have been the original cause, but then decides to say that the "virus" had simply lost its "virulence" in passaging between monks.
So Rachel Carson writes "Silent Spring", having much to say about how this "organochlorine pesticide DDT" was hurting and killing the birds and bees and frogs...., and became an early champion of the growing environmental movement, railing against pesticides and eventually promoting the climate change narrative. No mention of DDT causing polio, the virus/vaccine story was sacrosanct. DDT was banned. This nervous system toxin was not banned because it caused nervous system disease in people, it was banned for hurting the birds and bees and frogs (killing flies was ok), and for being a "potential human carcinogen".
When I was a boy on our Ohio farm, I remember my older brother spraying ddt powder in the air over the backs of the cows while in the milking parlor. I watched my father using tractor and tanks to spray clouds of ddt in the orchard, coating the apple trees and fruit. I vividly remember one cow losing its ability to stand, repeatedly trying to rise, but falling down each time. She had to be put down..... here is the advertisement from Time magazine in 1947. https://thisisnotadvertising.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ddthouseholdpestsusdamar47c1.jpg
Not sure if you'll see this Jamie, but would you consider looking into antibiotics? (the clue being the name :P)
Back in 2017 I had long, drawn out bad experiences with them and was it one of the (many) reasons I basically stopped taking almost all 'medicines'.
If I had sepsis would I take them? Maybe? Probably? I'm undecided whether they are a hand-grenade to kill mosquitoes or just plain poison.
Hi Lance, As you point out the name (Anti- against) (Bio- Life).... they are certainly to be used with extreme caution. Like nearly all drugs they are designed to do damage and the claimed specificity to WHAT they damage is to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Bacteria are not the cause of disease but a product of the terrain being out of balance, things like TB are only really found in Prison systems or a disease of real poverty... basically if there is fungi and mold able to grow in the setting in which you live, it is an environment to grow on you. So always change your terrain first. The problem with bacteria is that they can metabolise nasty chemicals like Arsenic and heavy metals . Although in theory this is good if a person is poisoned (still the CAUSE of the disease) the by products can exacerbate disease in things like sepsis. In this scenario as emergency measures I beleive that antibiotics can be used effectively. Think of them like to be used like a scalpel in the event of choosing between that or amputation. So really there is no "decision", I would like to think of it as effectively if you are well enough to make the decision you should probably not take them..... hope that helps.
Yes, thank you. It looks like our thinking is very similar to mine on this.
"Bacteria are not the cause of disease but a product of the terrain being out of balance" Thanks for that phrasing. Some toxic damage to the body can result in bacterial overgrowth.
So, is it fair to say that "infection" (a word loosely used by Rockefeller medicine to cover any internal bodily injury due to virus or any other cause) is typically the result of toxicity? That toxicity can then be dealt with by the common sense approach of reducing toxic exposure, combined with other healthy inputs to give our body what it needs to detox.... or, one can go the big medicine route and take in more poison via the recommended pills or jabs or other treatments, leading to increased toxic effects in the body, leading to, possibly.... sepsis?
I wasn't clear on what is called sepsis, so clicked on Mayo clinic. They start out with "Sepsis is a serious condition in which the body responds improperly to an infection." That's nicely vague (and uses the word infection to their advantage), and what really caught my attention is their list of risk factors for developing this "life-threatening condition", most of which point to the treatment itself.
Some factors that increase the risk infection will lead to sepsis include:
-People over age 65.
-Infancy
-People with lower immune response, such as those being treated for cancer or people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
-People with chronic diseases, such as diabetes, kidney disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
-Admission to intensive care unit or longer hospital stays.
-Devices that go in the body, such as catheters in the vein, called intravenous, or breathing tubes.
-Treatment with antibiotics in the last 90 days.
-A condition that requires treatment with corticosteroids, which can lower immune response.
To put it bluntly: sepsis is pus in the blood. That is, bacteria, dead/dying organic matter and the waste products of bacterial action in such large quantities that many parts of the organism can be poisoned.
Normally a well-kept body returns to health through innate homeostasis. Sepsis can be extreme and even a 'healthy terrain' may not be enough.
Jamie, you’ve excavated a story that we both suspect contains the basic telemetry for every one of these fake “viruses”.
I don’t know which came first, early on: the chicken of the industrial or agricultural poison, or the egg of the notion of “Let’s blame the toxicity on a fake “virus””.
In other words, did they start by making money with the alleged helpful chemical and only incidentally realise it was harming people? Or was the start of this the plan to “discover” a new pathogen, and the rollout of a toxic chemical merely to means to enable such as fraudulent discovery?
Either way, I think they’re all basically like this. I don’t think Ebola, if a real, defined illness at all, is caused by a submicroscopic, infectious particle. It’s caused by some outrageous act of industrial or agricultural poison, conveniently dropped into the river where the future “Ebola” victims lived. I recall reading that large numbers of people were then ordered to move away from the river, because they were told some vector was transmitting the alleged infectious agent to them. The authorities destroyed life in the river by hitting it with larger amounts of the injurious chemical. Meanwhile, the villagers perished in their new, inland home, because of starvation, since they couldn’t fish.
By the way, the re-use of a proven toxic chemical as an “anti-cancer drug” which you describe isn’t unique. Recall Thalidomide, a pill for morning sickness, widely prescribed in the late 1950s and early 1960s? It caused horrific birth defects and many unreported fetal deaths. A friend, my age, has one hand missing. We were both born in 1960. Her mum was prescribed thalidomide, mine wasn’t. It was never launched in the USA, because one FDA division toxicologist, Frances Kelsey, was unsatisfied with the rat reproductive toxicology, where results were mixed. This is probably the most celebrated cases of resolve and unwillingness to be pressured into changing her opinion. These days, she’d probably have an accident on her way home. Anyway, Thalidomide is responsible for all reproductive toxicology studies to inciude rabbits, in addition to a rodent, because it turned out that rabbits were a much more reliable model for humans of the reproductive harms than were rodents.
Anyway, decades later, a different drug company started running as a new anti-cancer drug, the long abandoned Thalidomide. I couldn’t believe it. I didn’t follow it, but it struck me as extraordinarily insensitive at best.