Positive Health Online

Before we go on this journey that will take us through the world of medicine, through the world of science and through the world of industry, I would like you to hang on to one certainty. In order to minimize the risk of losing our way or becoming confused by the road signs in different ‘languages’, we have to have this one certainty we can always rely on to bring us home again.

Science tries to build true knowledge of how the natural world works. Science provides us with ‘accurate’ and ‘reliable’ explanations, but it is not described as a search for truth. – Science studies nature and natural phenomena. Its main field of study is the outdoors. It never proclaims anything it discovers to be absolutely true.

Science uses a specific method in order to build this true knowledge;

1. Make an observation – Ask a question about your observation;
2. Do a background research on available knowledge – Construct a hypothesis;
3. Do many experiments to test the validity of the hypothesis;
4. the hypothesis is not validated by all the test results – communicate this to the scientific world – rethink – reformulate the hypothesis – retest;
5. The hypothesis is confirmed by all test results – construct even more tests;
6. Communicate your hypothesis and test results to the scientific world – others can now begin to test the hypothesis and communicate their result – one result that does not support the hypothesis invalidates it, excludes it from true scientific knowledge;
7. A confirmed hypothesis becomes a scientific theory – scientific truth does not exist as new discoveries are likely to overrule an existing theory at some point in the future;
8. The scientific method ensures that a wide range of researchers take a good and hard look at a hypothesis, trying to find the floor in it. Ultimately, every theory we hang onto will be shown not to be entirely true, so it is best to try not to adhere for too long to a belief that is withholding us from finding true knowledge.

Now that we are clear about this, we can begin our journey to find true knowledge in the field of infectious diseases and vaccinations. We will begin our journey long before vaccines, in a time where the focus of infectious diseases was mainly on smallpox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jenner_and_his_two_colleagues_seeing_off_three_anti-vaccinat_Wellcome_V0011075.jpg#/media/File:Jenner_and_his_two_colleagues_seeing_off_three_anti-vaccinat_Wellcome_V0011075.jpg

Jenner and his two colleagues seeing off three anti-vaccination opponents,
the dead are littered at their feet.

The most successful way of combating smallpox before the discovery of vaccination was inoculation. The word is derived from the Latin inoculare, meaning ‘to graft’. Inoculation refers to the subcutaneous instillation of smallpox virus into individuals. – It makes it sound as if people, over two hundred years ago, knew what the cause of the disease was. While the term ‘virus’ originates from the Latin word, meaning ‘poison’, its application to infectious agents smaller than bacteria was first formally made by Beijerinck (1898). His work built upon earlier research by Dmitri Ivanovsky, who had also discovered that the infectious agent of tobacco mosaic disease could pass through filters, and therefore must be very small. Beijerinck, however, went further by recognising it as a new type of infectious agent and coining the term ‘virus’. - In contrast to Asians and Africans who inoculated by blowing dried smallpox scabs up the nose, Europeans and their American cousins tended to inoculate by inserting material into a scratch or cut on the skin, whereby smallpox material, like pus or scabs, was introduced into a healthy person's body. – So it wasn’t smallpox virus that was introduced into the individual, but simply diseased tissue, obtained from a person suffering from what was believed to be smallpox.

It was the continued advocacy of the English aristocrat Lady Mary Wortley Montague that was responsible for the introduction of variolation (using smallpox diseased tissue) in England. Lady Montague was so determined to prevent the ravages of smallpox that she ordered the embassy surgeon, Charles Maitland, to variolate her 5-year-old son. The procedure was performed in March 1718. Upon their return to London in April 1721, Lady Montague had Charles Maitland variolate her 4-year-old daughter in the presence of physicians of the royal court. After these first professional variolation procedures, word of the practice spread to several members of the royal family. Maitland was given permission by King George I to conduct an experimental study on death-row convicts, Under Lady Mary’s enthusiastic endorsement, within a year variolation became a trend among the English aristocracy. Yet despite its evident popularity in high society, variolation was not immediately embraced by the medical community at large. Infecting a healthy person purposefully seemed against nature and contrary to the Hippocratic theory of balancing the humours that prevailed in Western medical education.

Lessons learned:

1. The rulers of society implement whatever they believe to be good or true.

Edward Jenner, in the official history version of vaccinations, was the first to make the link between smallpox and cowpox (1768). In fact, it was a common belief amongst dairymaids that they were in some way protected from smallpox, because they came in contact with cowpox,

Lessons learned:

1. The rulers of society implement whatever they believe to be good or true.
2. Being in a specific natural environment protects you against possible influences by that environment.

Jenner began to inoculate (using cowpox diseased tissue) people to provide them with protection against smallpox. Why didn't cowpox fascinate the doctors at that time in the way that it became an obsession for Jenner? In the first place, they felt that variolation with smallpox was well understood and that there was no need for a substitute. There was a second, and more compelling, reason why country doctors were not impressed by cowpox. It did not always protect against smallpox. However, Jenner persevered and history claims he was acting in a completely acceptable way believing he was providing protection against a disease. It reads as follows: “Since inoculation was a well-established and largely safe procedure that was widely used in England, there was no ethical issue with that part of the experiment. Inoculation would have been viewed as a necessary part of growing up for a child receiving parish support. Since cowpox was never fatal and had few systemic effects, there were unlikely to be any unexpected complications apart from failure to immunise.” - So, even though there is no evidence that a procedure is necessary, it is viewed as a failure not to proceed! The procedure is implemented because it is coupled to the help people are receiving from the parish council, from the authority.

Lessons learned:

1. The rulers of society implement whatever they believe to be good or true.
2. Being in a specific natural environment protects you against possible influences by that environment.
3. Writing history allows one to justify actions that are, at the time, deemed to be wrong, unnecessary.

 The smallpox history continues as follow:

1857 Vaccination in England enforced by fines. Smallpox epidemic begins in England that lasts until 1859. Over 14,000 die.

1871 In Birmingham, England, from 1871 to 1874 there were 7,706 cases of smallpox. Out of these, 6,795 had been vaccinated.

1871 In Bavaria, Germany, vaccination is compulsory and re-vaccination is commonplace. Out of             30,472 cases of smallpox, 29,429 had been vaccinated.

1871 Worldwide epidemic of smallpox begins. Claims 8 million people worldwide.

1909 New York Press, January 26,1909 publishes a report by WB. Clark which states, "cancer was      practically unknown until cowpox vaccination began to be introduced. I have seen 200 cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person."

When we read the history, the word ‘vaccine’, and consequently ‘vaccination’, appears in texts relating to research done in the 18^th and 19^th century. Surely that is very strange, as the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines a vaccine as ‘a suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms (e.g., bacteria or viruses), fractions of the agent, or genetic material‘. But history also tells us about the discovery of microorganisms. The existence of microscopic organisms was discovered during the period 1665–83 by two Fellows of The Royal Society, Robert Hooke and Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. In Micrographia (1665), Hooke presented the first published depiction of a microorganism, the microfungus Mucor. Later, Leeuwenhoek observed and described microscopic protozoa and bacteria. These important revelations were made possible by the ingenuity of Hooke and Leeuwenhoek in fabricating and using simple microscopes that magnified objects from about 25–fold to 250–fold. After a lapse of more than 150 years, microscopy became the backbone of our understanding of the roles of microbes in the causation of infectious diseases.

The microscope did dominate early science as it might have done, but the instrument did become popular in the homes of the wealthy. It became a sort of sophisticated toy to impress visitors along with one's family paintings and cabinet of curiosities. Better and much more powerful microscopes did eventually revive the scientific use of the instrument. Isaac Newton predicted "that instruments magnifying three or four thousand times might bring atoms into view" (Gleick, 94). The microscope returned to the forefront of science in the mid-19th century, which means that nobody busying themselves with inoculations or variolations before that time could have been ‘vaccinating’ anybody, not when we use the established definition of a vaccine. They would not have established any microorganism within the diseased tissue. And a vaccine simply is a suspension that can only be produced in a laboratory, made for the purpose to manipulate purified microorganisms and genetic material.

On the 16th of October, 1816, at Bassing, in the department of Bas-Rhein, (France, since ceded to Germany), was born a child by whose name in the nineteenth century came to be known as Antoine Béchamp, He should have been recognised in the same way as Copernicus, Galileo and Newton. Unfortunately the magnitude of what professor Béchamp’s decades of research had to offer was buried and discredited by a jealous and flamboyant student named Louis Pasteur.

In 1856 Béchamp showed that moulds transformed cane sugar into invert sugar (glucose) in the same manner as does the inverting ferment secreted by beer yeast. These moulds under the microscope are seen to be formed by a collection of molecular granulations which Béchamp named ‘microzymas’. Béchamp established that they were living beings capable of inverting sugar and some of them to make it ferment. He also showed that these granulations under certain conditions evolved into bacteria. Pasteur never understood either the process of digestion nor that of fermentation, A good analysis of who Pasteur was and what the value of his work was to the scientific community of his day, is to be found in the book “Louis Pasteur, Ses plagiats chimiel-physiologiques et Medicaux” (Chemical-physiological and medical plagiarism).

Béchamps – In 1854 he was appointed Professor of Chemistry at the University of Strasbourg. Béchamps received a Doctor of Science in 1853. In 1856, after receiving his medical degree, Béchamp took a position at the University of Montpellier, where he remained until 1876 when he was appointed Dean of the Catholic Faculty of Medicine at University Lille Nord de France. Ultimately he moved to Paris, where he was given a small laboratory at the University of Sorbonne. On April 15, 1908 one of the greatest scientists who ever lived passed away at the ripe old age of 91. Upon his death, it took eight entire 8-1/2"x11" pages of the French Moniteur Scientifique to list just the titles of his professionally published studies. That magazine was the equivalent publication to that of our National Academy of Sciences.

Pasteur – He earned a bachelor of arts degree (1840) and bachelor of science degree (1842) at the Royal College of Besançon. Pasteur obtained his master of science degree in 1845 and then acquired an advanced degree in physical sciences. He later earned his doctorate in sciences in 1847. Pasteur was appointed professor of physics at the Dijon Lycée (secondary school) in 1848 but shortly thereafter accepted a position as professor of chemistry at the University of Strasbourg, where he was replaced by Béchamps in 1854. On May 29, 1849, he married Marie Laurent, the daughter of the rector of the university.

Science - Pasteur concluded that each kind of pathogen produces one specific fermentation, while Béchamp proved that a microorganism might vary its fermentation effect in conformity with the surrounding medium. Bechamp’s assertion that these microforms, under varying conditions, might even change their shape was later proved conclusively by Felix Loehnis and N.R. Smith of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1916. – This means that microorganisms adapt their behaviour and conform to their surrounding circumstances, and not as Pasteur claimed that each variation produces a specific ferment that makes them into a different microorganism all together. The scientific truth has been turned on its head by Pasteur.

Béchamps: "All-natural organic matters (matters that once lived), absolutely protected from atmospheric germs, invariably and spontaneously alter and ferment, because they necessarily and inherently contain within themselves the agents of their spontaneous alteration, digestion, dissolution.” These ‘microzymas’ were later described in pleomorphic terms and renamed by such scientists as Gunther Enderlein, Ernst Almquist, Albert Calmette, Royal Raymond Rife, Lyda Mattman, E.C. Hort, Felix Lohnis, and more currently re-described and photographed by Gaston Naessens. Béchamp was able to show that all animal and plant cells contain these tiny particles which continue to live after the death of the organism and out of which microorganisms can develop. – This means that when tissue dies, microorganisms can spontaneously develop out of the disintegrating tissue material. - Béchamp claimed that microzymas routinely become forms normally referred to as bacteria, and that bacteria can revert or devolve to the microzymian state. This laid the foundation for the principle of pleomorphism, which is central to understanding the appearance of ‘infectious’ and degenerative disease symptoms in the body. This school of pleomorphic biology was in direct conflict with monomorphic theory, supported by Louis Pasteur.

Today most microbiologists have been trained within the monomorphic doctrine. They accept that, apart from minor variation, each bacterial cell is derived from a previously existing cell of practically the same size and shape. Cocci generally beget cocci, and rods give rise to rods. The monomorphic view is that by binary fission most bacteria divide transversely to produce two new cells which eventually achieve the same size and morphology of the original. In the same way, a single spore germinates to give rise to a vegetative cell essentially the same as the cell from which the spore originated. Exceptions to this rule are reported in certain so-called higher bacteria, but most pleomorphic observations are ignored and generally regarded as diagnostically insignificant staining artefacts or debris. – This means that scientific observations are being ignored in order to be able to stick to an accepted belief. The choice between a pleomorphic and a monomorphic view of life was made over one hundred and fifty years ago, when Pasteur was chosen over Béchamps. References to pleomorphism disappeared in biology textbooks starting in the 1920s up to the present date. The medical world, read ‘industry’, had made their choice as to what suited their aims and goals, rather than choosing what was true.

Why Pasteur and not Béchamps? Hold their views up against the light of infectious diseases and ‘the fight against’ those diseases. - Pasteur claimed that diseases come from outside the body, while Béchamp said that diseases arise from inside the body. Pasteur promoted the idea that microorganisms are the primary cause of disease. Béchamp, on the other hand, claimed that the deterioration of the host body caused disease.- If the disease is caused by an alteration inside the host body, nobody except the host himself can ‘fight’ the disease. If the disease is caused by an outside factor, such as a microorganism, this microorganism can be fought. - Pasteur believed that every disease is associated with one particular microorganism, while Béchamp countered that every disease is associated with a particular condition within the body. – Pasteur’s version means that there is potential to do battle with an almost limitless number of ‘disease causing agents’, while the version of Béchamp doesn’t offer any scope for a possible outside interference. - Pasteur’s ‘germ theory’ states that the body is sterile, and disease is caused by external germs (microbes). For Béchamp, microbes naturally exist in the body and it is the disease that reflects the deteriorating condition of the host and that changes the function and even the structure of the microbes. - During Béchamp’s and Pasteur’s time, in the 1800s, no one really knew the cause of disease, because they had no way of evaluating the effects of microorganisms being present in the tissues.

Science – In order to identify a disease-causing-agent as the real cause of that disease, Professor Koch put forward four postulates, following the scientific method, that needed to be concurred with (1890).

1. The microbe is present in each case of the disease and never in a healthy person.
2. The microbe can be taken from the infected host and grown independently.
3. The disease can be produced by introducing a pure culture of the microbe into a healthy host.
4. The microbe can be isolated and identified from the host infected in step 3.

To this day, nobody has been able to comply with these requirements in any study regarding infectious diseases or any named disease-causing microbial agents. In fact, even Professor Koch admitted it appeared impossible. The response from the medical ‘scientific’ community has been, and still is, that these postulates are no longer necessary.

Added to this, we must never forget that viruses have never been isolated, never have been purified, in a scientific way. And if you don’t have a pure culture, you can’t proceed with Koch postulates either.

A significant choice in history was made, which is affecting the daily lives of ordinary people even to this day. Pasteur was chosen over Béchamps. What does history tell us about the man Pasteur?

A more realistic description of this character has emerged, such as that offered by Patrice Debré, qualifying Pasteur as unfair, arrogant, haughty, contemptuous, dogmatic, taciturn, individualist, authoritarian, careerist, flatterer, greedy, and ruthless with his opponents. This was illustrated when he was administrator and director of scientific studies at the prestigious ‘École Normale Supérieure’ (ENS), which educates teachers and professors. His authoritarianism, his inflexible temperament, and his conflicting relationships with the students ended in the resignation of 73 students. This required the intervention of the Minister of Education and led to Pasteur’s resignation. But he was always well aware of what the social impact was of his claims and his demeanour. The aristocracy plays a significant role in lobbying the government. The French government, recognising the economic and practical implications of Pasteur's work, provided funding and support for his research, particularly after his work on wine diseases. The public also rallied behind his discoveries, as evidenced by the widespread adoption of pasteurisation and other preventative treatments.  The economy and practical implications of Pasteur’s work are of course the potential for industry and profit making. Soon this became the clear and powerful driving force behind the choices that were made.

At the bottom of what happens next lays a superb growth in the state funding for biomedical research, new psychiatric hospitals, and asylums, along with increasing health care support through company-based plans and state welfare insurance corporations emerging in the ‘American Progressive Era’ since the 1890s. These initiatives also included additional monetary support for biomedical research and medical education, and they were made possible by philanthropic foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in New York City. These foundations paid for hospitals, care centres, laboratories, insurance companies, universities, and for the formal education of doctors. Very philanthropic, but what did they get in return? On the instigation of John D. Rockefeller a US science administrator and politician Abraham Flexner published a report (1910) to put the final nail in the coffin of all traditional therapies that were still available on the Canadian and American market, such as naturopathy, traditional homoeopathy, chiropractic, osteopathic medicine, and eclectic forms of therapy. Flexner became adamant in his strive and polemics against all training facilities that offered education and postgraduate work in the above-mentioned fields and advocated for the closing of nearly eighty percent of all the contemporary programmes in homeopathy, naturopathy, eclectic therapy, physical therapy, osteopathy, and chiropractic. He had listed these programmes in his report under the pejorative titles of the ‘medical sects’ and stated that he openly aimed to ‘antagonise’ them through the publication of his report, since he saw no firm juridical way to discard these non-biomedical approaches on the American medical and psychiatric market. It was to be ‘biomedical’ or nothing!

Flexner, commissioned by Rockefeller, determined what medical schools would be approved, what the requirements were for entering the medical training programme and how long the training was going to last. They determined that medical schools should be part of university research centres, which would give them access to state funding. In addition, Flexner envisioned clinical teaching in academically oriented hospitals. There were demands for rigorous laboratory-based training in medicine. All of this also reflected broader social and political trends, such as an increasing utilitarianism in American society, the necessity to economise social subsidiaries in the health care system, and the strengthening of the performance of science and medicine in the USA for applications in industry, the agricultural sector, and the military. Governments everywhere agreed and willingly adopted the Flexner report into their policies. Effectively, only people trained by the medical schools approved by the American Medical Association would have the knowledge to oversee and manage the new medical system, while it was the task of the government to keep all other treatment modalities locked up under the premise that they were dangerous to the individual and the population.

The American Medical Association (AMA) was founded in 1847 with the goal of advancing medical science, improving medical education, and promoting public health. What that means in practice became obvious right from the start.

• One of the first major actions was the adoption of a national code of medical ethics, aiming to establish professional standards and to guide physician behaviour;
• The AMA actively worked to combat quackery and promote scientific medicine through education and advocacy;
• The organisation played a key role in advocating for and implementing reforms in medical education, including setting standards for medical schools and residency programmes;
• The AMA has been a powerful lobbying force, influencing healthcare policy and advocating for physician interests.

The Flexner report was the next step to establish a medical monopoly in the healthcare business, but one without any outside control or influence. A completely separate power unit that is capable of manipulating national policy and controlling policy making. Founded in 1947, the World Medical Association aimed to ensure the independence of physicians and promote high ethical standards in medical care. In general, medical associations worked to standardise medical education and training, ensuring a consistent level of competence among practitioners. They developed codes of conduct to guide medical practice. Medical associations played a role in advocating for public health measures and promoting public awareness about health issues. Medical associations were granted regulatory powers, overseeing the licensing and conduct of medical professionals. In short, they train and control their flock; they tell people what health is and how to gain it; and they license their own activities.

Lessons learned:

1. The rulers of society implement whatever they believe to be good or true;
2. Being in a specific natural environment protects you against possible influences by that environment;
3. Writing history allows one to justify actions that are, at the time, deemed to be wrong, unnecessary;
4. A new ruler of society has emerged – Now they can implement whatever they believe to be good or true.

The foundation has been laid for a world ruling faction that supersedes national governments and that is free of any controlling system. The population will be told what to believe and what to do with regards to the health of all individuals. A choice has been made, in name of every individual, that diseases are caused by outside interferences by invisible animals and invisible poisons, in spite of the scientifically proven fact that this is not the case. A choice has been made and measures are put in place to ensure all information that contradicts the chosen belief is suppressed and forbidden.

The next chapter in the history of infectious diseases is called the Polio Story. And this is where a version of the assumed story begins. Flexner and Lewis established a filterable virus as the causal agent in 1909, but more detailed study of this organism was hampered by the fact that monkey's and chimpanzees were, for a long time, the only susceptible animals in which the disease could be experimentally induced.

In 1824 the English scientist John Cooke stated: “The fumes of metals, such as lead, arsenic and mercury, or the receptance of them in the stomach often cause paralysis.” In 1878 the link between metal poisoning and palsy was strengthened by the work of Alfred Vulpian. The Russian Popow [also spelled Popov] demonstrated in 1883 that the same paralysis could occur as a result of ingesting arsenic. Since 1870, an arsenic-based pesticide, Paris Green, had been used widely to stop Codling moths ruining the apple crop. In 1892, Paris Green was replaced by an even more toxic pesticide, lead arsenate, in Massachusetts. Two years later the first recorded epidemic of infantile paralysis (polio) struck in the neighbouring state of Vermont. Dr Charles Caverly reported that it was caused by toxin rather than a microorganism. Further epidemics occurred in Massachusetts, but in spite of the evidence that exposure to toxins was the cause, the investigating health officials overlooked the newly introduced pesticides. These were considered to be essential in their war against bacteria and viruses, and to the financial health of the agricultural industry.

The World Health Organisation still credits Landsteiner and Popper (Austria 1908) with having found the polio virus. One year after their dubious experiment, Flexner and Lewis claimed the virus as the infectious agent causing infantile paralysis. - We know that viruses are quite diverse. Unlike all other biological entities, some viruses have RNA genomes and some have DNA genomes. Further, some viruses have single-stranded genomes, while others have double-stranded genomes. Their structures and replication strategies are equally diverse. Viruses, do, however, share a few features: First, they generally are quite small, with a diameter of less than 200 nanometres. Second, they can replicate only inside a host cell. Third, no known virus contains ribosomes, a necessary component of a cell's protein-making translational machinery. In other words, viruses, compared to all other biological entities, do not possess a normal structure, nor do they function normally. So much so, that they must be an anomaly of nature, so small that it is impossible for anyone to have done experiments with it over a century ago.- Flexner and Lewis reported: “We failed utterly to discover any bacteria that could account for the disease (paralysis). The infective agent of epidemic poliomyelitis probably belongs to the class of the minute and filterable viruses that have thus far not been demonstrated with certainty under the microscope.” – When the oracle says it is so, then it must be so! Who needs proof?

Lessons Learned:

1. The rulers of society implement whatever they believe to be good or true.
2. Being in a specific natural environment protects you against possible influences by that environment.
3. Writing history allows one to justify actions that are, at the time, deemed to be wrong, unnecessary.
4. A new ruler of society has emerged – Now they can implement whatever they believe to be good or true.
5. Science has been hijacked. – Scientific research aims to disprove a theory, while medical research aims to prove a theory.

US President Franklin D Roosevelt, himself a victim of infantile paralysis, set up in 1938 the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP). Its focus was on raising money for vaccine research by releasing horror stories of the disease. The advertising drive was very successful in terms of raising money and spreading fear. By the end of 1930s the vaccine scientists had tested various ‘virus isolates’ but when they were fed orally to monkeys the animals failed to fall ill. Very puzzling! In 1941 Dr John Toomey reported in the Journal of Paediatrics that it was not passed between individuals ‘no matter how intimately exposed’. If the disease was non-infective then it could not be caused by a virus (or any other infectious disease causing agent, for that matter) and no vaccine could ever be effective against the disease. But they raced on! And another snag appeared. Soon they discovered that it was possible for many different viruses to be present in the damaged nerve cells. If toxins caused the disease, this would be easy to explain. But that didn’t help their cause!

By 1954 Salk had his polio vaccine ready for testing. The theory was that children would gain immunity to living polio virus if dead polio virus was injected into them. – Nobody had ever come across a polio virus, dead or alive, but they pretended to be able to kill the virus and inject it into healthy human beings. – To kill the virus he poisoned it with formaldehyde. Only 112 children who received three jabs contracted the disease. He judged his experiment a success. But his safety test results omitted all cases of children who became paralysed after one or two doses, or within two weeks of receiving the third dose. These were all judged to be polio cases in the non-vaccinated. It is also not known if Salk even checked if children were already immune before he vaccinated them.

1954 – General vaccination programmes against polio begin in the United States.

1954 – Reward of $30,000 offered to anyone who proves polio vaccine is not a fraud. Not one person was able to claim the reward.

1955 – American Cancer Society advertising circular states "cancer will strike one of every four persons now living. More children from 3 to 15 years of age die of cancer than from any other disease." (50 years before, cancer was unheard of in children).

1955 – Vermont reports a 266% increase in polio since vaccinations began in 1954.

1955 – Rhode Island reports 454% increase in polio since vaccinations in 1954.

1955 – Massachusetts reports 642% increase in polio since vaccinations began in 1954 with vaccination of 130,000 children. In response, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis states that the increase in cases was due to the fact that "no children were vaccinated there”. Massachusetts bans the sale of Salk vaccine.

1956 – US government appropriates $53.6 million to ‘aid states in providing free vaccine to people under 20 years of age’.

1972 – World Health Organisation (WHO) Bulletin No.47 refers to the creation of an immune virus and suggests that a useful way to study the effects would be ‘to put it into a vaccination programme and observe the results’. It is theorised that WHO used the smallpox vaccination programme in Central Africa for this study, since the spread of HIV infection coincides precisely with the most intense and recent smallpox vaccination campaigns. Information on the Central African countries most infected with HIV precisely matches WHO figures indicating the number of people vaccinated in these areas.

1976 – Dr. Jonas Salk, creator of the polio vaccine, says that analysis indicates that the live virus vaccine in use since the 1960's is the principle, if not the sole, cause of all polio cases since 1961.

The medical authorities claim to be trustworthy and efficient because their approach to health issues is ‘evidence-based’. What they fail to emphasise is the fact that they choose what evidence to use.

• Experimenters have incubated cold viruses, placed them directly on the mucous lining of the nose, and found that their subjects came down with colds only 12% of the time. These odds could not be increased by exposing the subjects to cold drafts, putting their feet in ice water to give them chills, or anything else that was purely physical;
• Swine flu is a known viral infection, which was considered non-dangerous and normal, but for an unknown reason during an outbreak in the spring of 1918 in the US it mutated into a severe form that killed a large number of people. The medical authorities were pressurised into developing a vaccine in order to stop the spread of this now lethal disease. They conducted experiments on volunteers, which they recruited from a military prison on Deer Island in Boston harbour. The prisoners were promised complete pardon if they survived a series of rigorous tests. In order to infect the volunteers with the deadly virus they were injected with infected lung tissue taken from the dead. If this failed they had their eyes, nose and mouth sprayed with infectious aerosols. After that, they had their throats swabbed with discharges taken from the sick and dying. If all else failed, they were required to sit open-mouthed while a gravely ill person was sat up slightly and made to cough into their faces. There were sixty-two chosen volunteers. Not a single one caught the flu. The only person who did was the doctor who died soon afterwards.

Stories taken from their own archives. Observations that should tell us something about infections and the agents we are blaming it on. The idea of a virus causing an infectious disease is nothing more than an extension of the theory that a microbe from our environment invades the body and causes an infection. To start with, these theoretical microbes were unseen and unproven. When the microscope appeared on the scene, nobody was interested in actually using this tool to see if they could detect the villain. One hundred and fifty years past! But then they saw them and confirmed that the perpetrator was caught red-handed. He was, mostly, present within the diseased tissue. Now all they had to do is to provide evidence that the microbe present at the crime scene effectively committed the crime. They failed every time. Even worse, on many occasions they are unable to locate the named disease-causing-agent at the scene of the infection it is accused of having caused. And this is when the theory of a virus causing all this devastation really took roots in the medical thinking. A new unseen, so small it couldn’t be detected, ‘microbe’ was theorised to invade the body and cause infections. Whether detected or not, an invading ‘microorganism’ of some sort just had to be the cause of the disease. Why? Because they needed us to believe that. If the population ever became aware of the scientific truth, known for nearly two hundred years, the medical empire and the world domination dream would simply implode.

More research is needed, so they said. There are no independent laboratories. They are all owned by the medical industry and their research is aimed at finding proof, anything at all, that they are right. No evidence is considered when it indicates anything else, and no investigation is launched into any other possible explanation. Viruses are the prerogative of the medical research centres. Everything we know about viruses is what they have told us. The only thing science can do is to, now and again, point out where the medical research is contradicting science, and even those voices are drowned out. Here is a short selection of important scientific points made.

• Medical: A virus cannot survive outside a host cell. – How can it then be transferred via objects (as mentioned in AIDS, Covid) or floating water droplets?
• Koch Postulates: The disease-causing-agent must never be found in a healthy person. – How can a healthy person than be a disease carrier?
• A virus is not alive, as it doesn’t perform any of the basic functions of a living organism (eating/breathing, digesting/absorbing, excreting, procreating) and it doesn’t possess the necessary organelles for any of these functions either. - In other words, it hasn’t got a metabolism and it doesn’t possess the capacity for a metabolism;
• What has been called a virus has been photographed (electron microscopic pictures) around cells, seemingly attached to cells and inside cells. – These structures are called exosomes (outside the cell) and endosomes (inside the cell). These bubbles are known to contain broken bits of genetic cellular material that are being moved out of the cell, that are being disposed of. This effect is seen in tissues struggling to maintain a healthy function, whereby the cell is trying to clear up as much of its own debris as it can, in an effort to survive;
• Identification of a virus is done in a laboratory and can never be part of a medical consultation. Identification is a search for specific genetic sequences within cellular debris, whereby a specific sequences is, theoretically, linked to a virus. – If what is called a virus is in fact a small waste bag filled with short sequences of broken off cellular genetic material then the changes are one will find a particular sequence in tissue where many cells are breaking down. All one has to do is to keep looking for those ‘bits’;
• The virus load is the highest in the early stages of the disease, rapidly falling to very small numbers. – This is contradictory to a festering infection producing more and more viruses that spread around quickly and infect more and more cells. It is, however, consistent with the expulsion of lots of exosomes in a last ditch effort to save the cell;
• Medical research talks about viruses as if they meet up with them every day. Truth is that nobody has even managed to isolate or purify a virus, even though they made the claim as was done with regards to HIV and AIDS. Years later, Dr Luc Montagnier and others admitted they never truly isolated the virus, but that they thought they had.

Medical science serves a real purpose, and that is serving the demands of its owners. The medical system has been constructed with a particular short term aim, making large profits, and a particular long term aim, controlling the world. Its power reaches far beyond any national government. Its method is not scientific but mind manipulation. Controlling the narrative creates dependency. If the oracle is the only source of the right answer, then everybody must hear what the oracle has to say. The line of thinking is the line of action. The oracle subsidises the ‘right’ actions. After a while, people will demand that other people will follow the oracle too, and the tables can magically be reversed. The oracle now serves the demands of the people! What the people want, is what you told them they needed, wanted.

If you are interested, you take home the lessons we have learned today.

Lessons learned:

1. The rulers of society implement whatever they believe to be good or true;
2. Being in a specific natural environment protects you against possible influences by that environment;
3. Writing history allows one to justify actions that are, at the time, deemed to be wrong, unnecessary;
4. A new ruler of society has emerged – Now they can implement whatever they believe to be good or true;
5. Science has been hijacked. – Scientific research aims to disprove a theory, while medical research aims to prove a theory.

If you are interested, you can also take home some useful knowledge about infections and vaccinations.

• Infections are not caused via the invasion of the body by an outside microorganism. The tissues become ill, start to disintegrate, which may give rise to a microbe lifeform. The disintegration of the tissues is likely connected to some sort of poisoning of the tissues.
• Vaccinations against any organism will never work because the microorganism isn’t; involved in causing the infection. Hence, no form of vaccination is ever be required in any health matter;
• Viruses are an excuse for everything the medical research refuses to investigate. They are, very likely, simply small bags of cellular genetic waste, being expelled from an already diseased cell;
• Sequences of genetic material can be found, but their origin is always obscure because there is no such thing as a ‘purified’ viral culture. Sequences of genetic material will be found everywhere one cares to look for it. All it says is: “A living cell was here!”;
• Medical research stubbornly continues to look for explanations in places that have already proven to be barren of useful information. This indicates that they are driven by a different agenda, looking for something different from what they want you to believe they are looking for. They are looking to ensure your dependency upon their system, in the same way that any manufacturing industry needs you to believe you desperately need their products.