Engineering disease

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.

Re: Engineering disease

Postby SacredCowSlayer on Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:34 am

Dear ICfreely,

It’s great to see your posts here again. The expression “herd immunity” about says it all.

That is the institutional protection in place for the scourge of so-called vaccinations. I consider them to be a crime against humanity, with countless victims who will never be recognized as such.

Thank you for pointing out just how little (i.e. essentially zero) legal recourse is “available” to such people. Too much money and power, along with the (manufactured) tailwind of dogma to support it, should push come to shove.

Again, welcome back. :)

P.S. Please see the PM I sent you. If you have trouble sending me a PM, please email me at the address below.
scs

scs@cluesforum.info
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby aa5 on Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:05 am

Welcome back ICFreely, His example of depression is a hard one to do clinical trials for. Because how do you define improvement, how do you define severity of depression for the study participants, how are side effects weighed, etc. There is an argument that the anti-depressants really work well for a small group of people with severe depression, but not so well for people with more moderate depression.

Other diseases are easier to do clinical trials for. For example in psoriasis there has been a number of new drugs recently. And in the trials you put like 500 people on the active drug and 500 people on placebo. Then over 2 years the size of the psoriasis lesions on the skin are periodically measured. Neither the study participants nor the doctors examining them can know which participant is on placebo or the drug.

Some things I thought of reading Patrix's comment on vaccines. They say the new vaccines are tested against the old vaccines, and the new ones are better. But I thought the old vaccines were 100% protection with no side effects. So how can the new vaccines be better.

Also wouldn't the viruses evolve in the face of vaccines. Like that is the problem with antibiotics, is the bacteria evolve. Although they could use this argument to say why we need new vaccines.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Engineering disease

Postby ICfreely on Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:24 pm

Again, welcome back. :)

P.S. Please see the PM I sent you. If you have trouble sending me a PM, please email me at the address below.


Thanks, SCS. Will check my PM and reply hopefully sooner than later. Please don't take offense if I don't do so immediately.

There is an argument that the anti-depressants really work well for a small group of people with severe depression, but not so well for people with more moderate depression.


Yes, aa5, I know people who swear by them. They tell me that the drugs help "balance" them out. To each his own, I guess. Funny thing is severe depression and suicidal thoughts are two of the most common "side" effects of psychotropic medications. If i ever get around to it, I'd like to compose an in-depth post on the history of psychiatry and "chemical imbalance" at some point.

Other diseases are easier to do clinical trials for. For example in psoriasis there has been a number of new drugs recently. And in the trials you put like 500 people on the active drug and 500 people on placebo. Then over 2 years the size of the psoriasis lesions on the skin are periodically measured. Neither the study participants nor the doctors examining them can know which participant is on placebo or the drug.


Two things to keep in mind with these drugs:

1) Although they occasionally provide relief, they mask the signs/symptoms of conditions rather than addressing/eliminating the root causes.
2) They almost always have negative "side" effects causing new conditions to manifest which necessitate further research and more drugs.

Also wouldn't the viruses evolve in the face of vaccines. Like that is the problem with antibiotics, is the bacteria evolve. Although they could use this argument to say why we need new vaccines.


Right? They evolve at such a breakneck pace, lurking around every corner. Scary stuff.

Anyhow, I mentioned formaldehyde in my last post in passing and would like to elaborate on it.



THE EVOLUTION OF FORMALDEHYDE

Formaldehyde - its history, chemistry and uses

Formaldehyde is the simplest aldehyde with the chemical formula HCHO. Since its accidental production by Alexander Mikhailovich Butlerov in 1859 and subsequent discovery by A. W. Hofmann in 1868, formaldehyde has become a major industrial product.

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webprojects2002/robson/Home%20page.htm


Medical Definition of Formalin

Formalin: A 37% aqueous (water) solution of formaldehyde, a pungent gas, with the chemical formula HCHO, used as an antiseptic, disinfectant, and especially today as a fixative for histology (the study of tissues under the microscope).

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13314



Doesn’t sound too appetizing does it?


The Nation - Formalin in milk

Our Staff Reporter December 31, 2010

Recently milk samples from packed milk companies were sent to a laboratory in Germany by the Lahore High Court in response to a petitioner challenging the purity of milk. The laboratory declared the milk samples as fit for human consumption although they contained nearly 2 mg of formalin / formaldehyde per litre of milk. The Court accepted the test report of the German laboratory although formalin is not a constituent of milk and is a carcinogenic agent used as a bactericide in preservation of carcasses of dead persons and animals. Recently, surfing over the internet I found a report published in the New York Times of May 17, 1900 under the title Food Preservative Fatal wherein the Chief Milk Inspector Grady experimented on the feeding of formalin added milk and pure milk to cats. The formalin doctored milk killed the cats in 2 to 3 weeks while those fed on pure milk without formalin grew fat and healthy. We are at the same stage as U.S.A a century ago when milk in the absence of Chillers was preserved by adding formalin as done in our country to-day. DR MUHAMMAD YAQOOB BHATTI

https://nation.com.pk/31-Dec-2010/formalin-in-milk



The good doctor speaks the truth.


THE POISONED NEEDLE - Suppressed Facts About Vaccination By Eleanor McBean (1957)

COMMON POISONS THAT CAUSE POLIO

FORMALDEHYDE IN MILK has been reported as a cause of polio.

Australian Medical Gazette, (Aug. 24, 1897) states that "formalin," an aqueous solution of formaldehyde, caused paralysis in some who drank milk that contained it. Our U.S. Government permits the dairymen to add formaldehyde to milk so that stale, inferior milk may be sold as fresh milk. Formaldehyde is a poisonous embalming fluid that is, no doubt, one of the causes of the epidemics of diarrhea and death among the bottle fed infants in hospitals.

http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean.html



Americans, back then, were very concerned about all the toxic preservatives (poisons) that were being added to their food. Quelling that growing concern was the impetus for the formation of the Food and Drug Administration.


When and why was FDA formed?

Though FDA can trace its origins back to the creation of the Agricultural Division in the Patent Office in 1848, its origins as a federal consumer protection agency began with the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act. This law was the culmination of about 100 bills over a quarter-century that aimed to rein in long-standing, serious abuses in the consumer product marketplace.

Federal public health protection was vigorously advocated by Harvey Washington Wiley, who at the time was chief chemist of the Bureau of Chemistry of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, FDA’s predecessor. The 1906 Act was passed thanks to his efforts and in response to the public outrage at the shockingly unhygienic conditions in the Chicago stockyards that were described in Upton Sinclair’s book “The Jungle."
Eventually, the position of chief chemist of the Bureau of Chemistry evolved into that of the commissioner of food and drugs.

https://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/transparency/basics/ucm214403.htm



The official narrative, dear reader, is a pile of rubbish. But please don’t take my word for it. Read Dr. Wiley’s book and draw your own conclusions as to why the FDA was formed and what purpose it serves.


THE HISTORY OF A CRIME AGAINST THE FOOD LAW: THE AMAZING STORY OF THE NATIONAL FOOD AND DRUGS LAW INTENDED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE PERVERTED TO PROTECT ADULTERATION OF FOODS AND DRUGS - HARVEY W. WILEY, M.D.
http://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/0303critic/030305wylie/030305toc.html


For over a century the FDA has been assuring us that formaldehyde and a host of other toxins incorporated in our foods and drugs are perfectly safe for human consumption given the “right dosage” (which they and their “experts” arbitrarily determine).


Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

Vaccine Ingredients – Formaldehyde


Concerns about safety have focused on formaldehyde in part because high concentrations of formaldehyde can damage DNA (the building block of genes) and cause cancerous changes in cells in the laboratory. Although formaldehyde is diluted during the manufacturing process, residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in several current vaccines (see table below). While formaldehyde is a likely cause of nasopharyngeal cancer, the quantities contained in vaccines are not sufficient to cause cancer.

The average quantity of formaldehyde to which a young infant could be exposed at one time may be as high as 0.7 mg (see table below). This quantity of formaldehyde is considered to be safe for two reasons:

• Formaldehyde is essential in human metabolism and is required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids (the building blocks of protein). Therefore, all humans have detectable quantities of natural formaldehyde in their circulation (about 2.5 ug of formaldehyde per ml of blood). Assuming an average weight of a 2-month-old of 5 kg and an average blood volume of 85 ml per kg, the total quantity of formaldehyde found in an infant's circulation would be about 1.1 mg, a value about 1,500 times more than the amount an infant would be exposed to in any individual vaccine.
• Quantities of formaldehyde at least 600 times greater than the amount contained in vaccines have been fed safely to animals in drinking water.

Formaldehyde content of vaccines licensed for use in the United States

DTaP (Daptacel®, Infanrix®) Quantity per dose: ≤ 0.005 mg – ≤ 0.1 mg
DTaP-Hep B IPV (Pediarix®) Quantity per dose: ≤ 0.1 mg
DTaP-IPV (Kinrix®, Quadracel®)Quantity per dose: Kinrix: ≤ 0.1 mg, Quadracel: < 0.005 mg
DTaP-IPV-Hib (Pentacel®) Quantity per dose: < 0.005 mg
Hepatitis A (Havrix®, Vaqta®) Quantity per dose: Havrix: ≤ 0.05 mg (pediatric), ≤ 0.1 mg (adult), Vaqta: 0.0004 mg (pediatric), 0.0008 mg (adult)
Hepatitis A - Hepatitis B (Twinrix®) Quantity per dose: ≤ 0.1 mg
Hib (ActHIB®, HIBERIX®) Quantity per dose: < 0.005 mg
Hepatitis B (RECOMBIVAX®) Quantity per dose: < 0.0075 mg (pediatric); < 0.015 mg (adult and dialysis formulations)
Meningococcal vaccines Meningococcal ACWY: Menactra® quantity per dose: < 0.00266 mg, Menveo® quantity per dose: < 0.0003 mg
Polio (IPOL®) Quantity per dose: ≤ 0.02%
Japanese encephalitis vaccine (IXIARO®) Quantity per dose: < 200 ppm
Tdap (ADACEL®, Boostrix®) Quantity per dose: ADACEL: ≤ 0.005 mg Boostrix: ≤ 0.1 mg
Influenza Not all influenza vaccines contain formaldehyde, but some preparations contain amounts between < 0.005 – 0.1 mg.

https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/formaldehyde


Formaldehyde, when ingested, gets metabolized (to a certain extent). To infer that it’s somehow essential to the metabolic process is absurd.

Medical Research Council – Leading science for better health

Toxic formaldehyde is produced inside our own cells, scientists discover

17 Aug 2017

New research has revealed that most of the toxin formaldehyde in our bodies does not come from our environment – it is a by-product of essential reactions inside our own cells. This could provide new targets for developing cancer therapies, according to research led by scientists from the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology.

https://mrc.ukri.org/news/browse/toxic-formaldehyde-is-produced-inside-our-own-cells/


And the MRC’s “ground-breaking discovery” is beyond absurd.

To recap:

1) We were first exposed to this poison through the foods we ingested and were assured it was safe.

2) The illnesses we suffered as a result of our exposure to this poison were blamed on (invisible) “viruses” which we were told had to be counteracted with vaccines which contain the very same poison that made us sick in the first place.

3) Now we’re being told that due to the fact that this poison is detectable in our bodies it must be a natural component of our biochemical makeup. Moreover, it’s essential to the formation of (invisible) “DNA” and holds the key to promising future treatments.

We’ve come full circle; from toxic industrial product to natural/essential component of human biochemistry.

In "underdeveloped" countries vaccine peddlers use the "poor hygiene" marketing ploy to justify their products. Due to lackluster sanitation they're exposed to much more pathogens. In "developed" countries they use the "too hygienic" marketing ploy. We're too clean for our own good and aren't exposed to enough pathogens. Either way, we all need to be vaccinated.

Microscopic bacteria, fungi and (submicroscopic) "viruses" are the real culprits, you see. And we have to use pesticides, preservatives and pharmaceutical medications in order to win this War on Nature.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby ICfreely on Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:34 am

I’m posting the following because I think it adds to what aa5 & patrix had been discussing.

The David Bardens vs. Stefan Lanka law suit

In November 2011 the anti-immunization activist Stefan Lanka guaranteed a prize of €100,000 for proof of the existence of the measles virus and the determination of its diameter.[3] Lanka claims the measles are basically a skin irritation caused by a mixture of psychosomatic triggers and poisoning.[4] Bardens contacted Lanka on January 30, 2012 for confirmation of the contest and eventually provided six publications as an answer to the questions.

Legal procedures began on September 29, 2013 when Lanka declared that he would not accept the papers as the desired proof. A first court session took place in April 2014 and ended with the court’s decision to halt procedures in order to support its judgement with the scientific expertise of Andreas Podbielsky, virologist at the University of Rostock. The case was continued in March 2015 and ended with the decision in support of Bardens’ claims.[5]

The court’s ruling received global press attention in the light of the present heavy campaigning of anti-vaccination protesters on web forums and in books. Bardens told the press weeks after the court's ruling that he could no longer appear as a public speaker without the protection of bodyguards.[6]

Lanka eventually challenged the judgement.[7] The case was re-evaluated at the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Stuttgart on 16 February 2016 where the original judgement was reversed. Although six scientific publications were submitted showing the existence of measles, they failed to meet the contest requirements as set by Lanka.[1] Bardens commented on the case in an extensive interview on 5 May 2016 and announced his decision to appeal to Germany's Federal Court BGH. In December 2016 Bardens tried to get this ruling revised, but the court saw no reason for that.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bardens#The_David_Bardens_vs._Stefan_Lanka_law_suit



DISMANTLING THE VIRUS THEORY - Dr. Stefan Lanka

The “measles virus” as an example

Why should we doubt the existence of viruses? What are viruses and what are they not? How are viruses being scientifically demonstrated to exist?

The origins of the idea

The present notion of a virus is based on the ancient ideas that all diseases were caused by poisons (“toxins”) and that people would regain their health by producing “antitoxins” as an “antidote”. Indeed, a few diseases are caused by poisons. The subsequent idea, that the body can restore its health by producing or being given “antidotes”, was born when it was observed that people survived bigger amounts of poison (such as alcohol) when their body was trained by consuming slowly increasing amounts of that poison. However, in reality there are no antidotes, instead the body produces enzymes, which neutralize and eliminate the poisons (alcohol).

In 1858, Rudof Virchow, the founder of modern medicine, plagiarized the findings of other scientists, suppressed their essential discoveries and thus a false view on the cause of diseases was born and imposed as a dogma, which is in fact still in effect to date. According to this dogma, all diseases supposedly originate inside the cells.1 Virchow’s cellular pathology re-introduced into medicine the ancient and refuted the humoral doctrine and claimed that diseases develop from pathogenic poisons (in Latin: virus).
...

The introduction of the electron microscopy
led to the discovery of the structures resulting from the transformation of bacteria when these were suddenly dying or when the metabolism of the highly inbred germs was overwhelmed by processes triggered by the adding of “phages”. It was also discovered that there are hundreds of types of different-looking “phages”. The discovery of phages, the so-called bacterial “viruses”, reinforced the wrong assumption and the belief that there were human and animal viruses that looked the same and had the same structure. This is not and cannot be the case, for several different reasons.

After introducing chemical examination techniques in biology
, it was discovered that there are thousands of types of phages and that phages of one type always have the same structure. They consist of a particular molecule, made of nucleic acid, which is covered in a shell of proteins of a given number and composition. It was only later discovered that merely the bacteria which had been highly inbred in the test tube [in vitro] could turn into phages themselves, by contact with phages, but this never applied to natural bacteria or bacteria which had just been isolated from their natural environment. In this process, it was discovered that these “bacterial viruses” actually serve to provide other bacteria with important molecules and proteins, and that the bacteria themselves emerged from such structures.

Before it could be established that the “bacterial viruses” cannot kill natural bacteria, but they are instead helping them to live and that bacteria themselves emerge from such structures, these “phages” were already used as models for the alleged human and animal viruses
. It was assumed that the human and animal viruses looked like the “phages”, were allegedly killing cells and thereby causing diseases, while at the same time producing new disease poisons and in this way transmitting the diseases. To date, many new or apparently new diseases have been attributed to viruses if their origin is unknown or not acknowledged. This reflex found an apparent confirmation in the discovery of the “bacterial viruses”.

It is important to note that the theories of fight and infection were accepted and highly praised by a majority of the specialists only if and when the countries or regions where they lived were also suffering from war and adversity. In times of peace, other concepts dominated the world of science.2

It is very important to note that the theory of infection – starting from Germany – has only been globalized through the third Reich, when the Jewish researchers, most of which had opposed and refuted the politically exploited theories of infection, were removed from their positions.3


About the alleged proof of pathogenic viruses


The “bacteriophages”, correctly defined as incomplete mini spores and building blocks of the bacteria, have been scientifically isolated, while the supposed pathogenic viruses have never been observed in humans or animals or in their body fluids and have never been isolated and subsequently biochemically analysed. To date, none of the researchers involved in this kind of work seems to have realised this.

The use of the electron microscope and the biochemistry were very slowly returning to normal after 1945 and no one had realised that not one pathogenic virus had ever been isolated in humans or animals; thus, as of 1949 researchers started applying the same idea used for the (bacterio) phages, in order to replicate the human and animal “viruses”. John Franklin Enders, born in 1897 in the family of a rich financier, was active in various fraternities after having finished his studies, then he worked as a real estate agent and studied foreign languages for four years before turning to bacterial virology, which fascinated him.

He then simply transferred the ideas and concepts that he learned in this area of research to the supposed pathogenic viruses in humans. With his unscientific experiments and interpretations that he had never confirmed through negative controls, Enders brought the entire “viral” infectious medicine to a dead end. It is important to note at this point that Enders, like many infectious diseases specialists, worked for the U.S. military, which had always been and remains to date a huge victim of the fear of contagion. It was mainly the U.S. military which spread its erroneous belief that besides chemical weapons there were also biological weapons in the form of bacteria and viruses.

In 1949, Enders announced that he had managed to cultivate and grow the alleged polio virus in vitro on various tissues
. The American expert opinion believed everything immediately. What Enders did was to add fluids from patients with poliomyelitis to tissue cultures which he claimed to have had sterilized, then he alleged that the cells were dying because of the virus, that the virus was replicating in this way and that a vaccine could be harvested from the respective culture. At that time, summer polio epidemics (polio = flaccid paralysis) were very frequent during summer and they were believed to be caused by polio viruses. A vaccine was to help eradicate the alleged virus. After the polio vaccine was introduced, the symptoms were then re-diagnosed among other things as multiple sclerosis, flaccid acute paralysis, aseptic meningitis etc. and later polio was claimed to have been eradicated.

During his experiments, Enders et al. sterilised the tissue cultures in order to exclude the possibility of bacteria killing the cells. What he didn’t take into consideration was that the sterilisation and the treatment of the cell culture when preparing it for the alleged infection was exactly what was killing the cells. Instead, he interpreted the cytopathic effects as the existence and the action of polio viruses, without ever having isolated a single virus and described its biochemistry. The necessary negative control experiments, which would have shown that the sterilisation and the treatment of the cells prior to the “infection” in the test tube was killing the cells, have never been performed. However, for this “performance” Enders received the Nobel prize in 1954.


The measles virus as an example

The following explanations apply to all the so called (human or animal) “pathogenic viruses”
.

The six papers provided by Dr Bardens in the course of the “measles trial” as proof for the existence of the measles virus describe in a didactically way the various steps of the chain of misinterpretations up to the belief in the existence of a measles virus.

The first paper was published in 1954 by Enders et al.: “Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles” (Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun; 86 (2): 277–286). This publication can be found on the internet, like all the other publications presented at the measles trial.

In that experiment, Enders et al. cut down dramatically on the nutrient solution and added cell-destroying antibiotics to the cell culture before introducing the allegedly infected fluid. The subsequent dying of the cells was then misinterpreted as presence and also isolation of the measles virus. No control experiments were performed to exclude the possibility that it was the deprivation of nutrients as well as the antibiotics which led to the cytopathic effects. Enders’ and his colleagues’ blindness can be explained by the fact that he truly wanted to help people, while the virus hysteria was intensifying after the war and during the cold war. It can also be explained by the fact that Enders and many of his colleagues had no idea about medicine and they were competing with the Soviet Union for the development of the first measles vaccine.

Such a pressure for success can also explain why Enders and his colleagues ignored their own reservations and cautions expressed in 1954, when they had observed and noted that many cells also died after being treated normally (i.e. without being “infected”), which they thought to have been caused by unknown viruses and factors. All these facts and cautions were subsequently disregarded.

The second paper presented by the claimant in the measles trial was published in 19594 and, for the reasons presented above, the authors concluded that the technique introduced by Enders was not appropriate for the isolation of a virus. This rebuttal is not only NOT being discussed by all the other researchers, but it is being ignored.

[url]wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/Dismantling-the-Virus-Theory.pdf[/url]
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby Kham on Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:10 am

ICfreely,

pathogenic viruses have never been observed in humans or animals or in their body fluids and have never been isolated and subsequently biochemically analysed.


Excellent research.

Ha! Viruses have never been observed by humans, this also means viruses have never been seen under an electron microscope. All those fancy virus images as seen on tv (and on the internet and in medical journals and in pharmaceutical pamphlets) are merely artists renditions.

Vaccinations, a billion dollar industry backed by empire all based on imagination.

If stakeholders of empire can get away with that . . .
Kham
Admin
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Engineering disease

Postby ICfreely on Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:31 pm

Ha! Viruses have never been observed by humans, this also means viruses have never been seen under an electron microscope. All those fancy virus images as seen on tv (and on the internet and in medical journals and in pharmaceutical pamphlets) are merely artists renditions.


To be fair, Kham, just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Viruses existed (in the minds of men) long before the electron microscope. Instead of focusing on data that supports our favored theories we should try to keep an open mind and consider the possibility of other theories.

National Institutes of Health:
What Does Virus Evolution Tell Us about Virus Origins?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3094976/


National Geographic:
Could Giant Viruses Be the Origin of Life on Earth?
The ancestors of modern viruses may have laid the groundwork for cellular life as we know it.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140716-giant-viruses-science-life-evolution-origins/


Scientific American:
Where did viruses come from?

Ed Rybicki, a virologist at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, answers:

Tracing the origins of viruses is difficult because they don't leave fossils and because of the tricks they use to make copies of themselves within the cells they've invaded. Some viruses even have the ability to stitch their own genes into those of the cells they infect, which means studying their ancestry requires untangling it from the history of their hosts and other organisms. What makes the process even more complicated is that viruses don't just infect humans; they can infect basically any organism—from bacteria to horses; seaweed to people.

Still, scientists have been able to piece together some viral histories, based on the fact that the genes of many viruses—such as those that cause herpes and mono—seem to share some properties with cells' own genes. This could suggest that they started as big bits of cellular DNA and then became independent—or that these viruses came along very early in evolution, and some of their DNA stuck around in cells' genomes. The fact that some viruses that infect humans share structural features with viruses that infect bacteria could mean that all of these viruses have a common origin, dating back several billion years. This highlights another problem with tracing virus origins: most modern viruses seem to be a patchwork of bits that come from different sources—a sort of "mix and match" approach to building an organism.

Then there are the viruses whose genomes are so large that scientists can't quite figure out what part of the cell they would have come from. Take, for instance, the largest-ever virus so far discovered, mimivirus: its genome is some 50 times larger than that of HIV and is larger than that of some bacteria. Some of the largest known viruses infect simple organisms such as amoebas and simple marine algae. This indicates that they may have an ancient origin, possibly as parasitic life-forms that then adapted to the "virus lifestyle." In fact, viruses may be responsible for significant episodes of evolutionary change, especially in more complex types of organisms.

At the end of the day, however, despite all of their common features and unique abilities to copy and spread their genomes, the origins of most viruses may remain forever obscure.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-where-did-viruses-come-fr/



I must say Scientific American’s virus CGI is one of the finest ones I’ve ever seen. The colors really pop. Perhaps a collaborative multi-disciplinary approach can advance the viral evolution theories. Virologists and paleontologists could trace the origins of the Bird Flu Virus to the Chickenosaurus. The possibilities are limitless.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby SacredCowSlayer on Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:32 pm

[Kham:] Ha! Viruses have never been observed by humans, this also means viruses have never been seen under an electron microscope. All those fancy virus images as seen on tv (and on the internet and in medical journals and in pharmaceutical pamphlets) are merely artists renditions.


Indeed! And they are seared into most of our brains I’m sure. All sorts of visuals of what these alleged viruses look like, and what they are said to do.

It’s the micro version of man-made satellites. It requires faith built on little more than television imagery (repeated for many decades) along with a serious sounding voice. More on this point later.

In fact, I’ll ask Dani to post here, since she is more recently studied up on this particular topic (the “virus”).

[ICfreely:] To be fair, Kham, just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Viruses existed (in the minds of men) long before the electron microscope. Instead of focusing on data that supports our favored theories we should try to keep an open mind and consider the possibility of other theories.


[Continued by ICfreely]

National Institutes of Health:
What Does Virus Evolution Tell Us about Virus Origins?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3094976/


National Geographic:
Could Giant Viruses Be the Origin of Life on Earth?
The ancestors of modern viruses may have laid the groundwork for cellular life as we know it.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140716-giant-viruses-science-life-evolution-origins/


Scientific American:
Where did viruses come from?

Ed Rybicki, a virologist at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, answers:

Tracing the origins of viruses is difficult because they don't leave fossils and because of the tricks they use to make copies of themselves within the cells they've invaded. Some viruses even have the ability to stitch their own genes into those of the cells they infect, which means studying their ancestry requires untangling it from the history of their hosts and other organisms. What makes the process even more complicated is that viruses don't just infect humans; they can infect basically any organism—from bacteria to horses; seaweed to people.

Still, scientists have been able to piece together some viral histories, based on the fact that the genes of many viruses—such as those that cause herpes and mono—seem to share some properties with cells' own genes. This could suggest that they started as big bits of cellular DNA and then became independent—or that these viruses came along very early in evolution, and some of their DNA stuck around in cells' genomes. The fact that some viruses that infect humans share structural features with viruses that infect bacteria could mean that all of these viruses have a common origin, dating back several billion years. This highlights another problem with tracing virus origins: most modern viruses seem to be a patchwork of bits that come from different sources—a sort of "mix and match" approach to building an organism.

Then there are the viruses whose genomes are so large that scientists can't quite figure out what part of the cell they would have come from. Take, for instance, the largest-ever virus so far discovered, mimivirus: its genome is some 50 times larger than that of HIV and is larger than that of some bacteria. Some of the largest known viruses infect simple organisms such as amoebas and simple marine algae. This indicates that they may have an ancient origin, possibly as parasitic life-forms that then adapted to the "virus lifestyle." In fact, viruses may be responsible for significant episodes of evolutionary change, especially in more complex types of organisms.

At the end of the day, however, despite all of their common features and unique abilities to copy and spread their genomes, the origins of most viruses may remain forever obscure.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-where-did-viruses-come-fr/



[ICfreely]: I must say Scientific American’s virus CGI is one of the finest ones I’ve ever seen. The colors really pop. Perhaps a collaborative multi-disciplinary approach can advance the viral evolution theories. Virologists and paleontologists could track the origins of the Bird Flu Virus to the Chickenosaurus. The possibilities are limitless.


Wowsers! As thought-provoking as some of that may be, talk about premise upon premise (upon premise . . .).

Perhaps, one day, we will see a headline like this:

Time Magazine (that’s still a thing right?):

“The BockBockosaurus was previously thought to have gone extinct due to pre-historic shortages of the generally required Dino-vaccinations of the day, according to WHO(ville) Dr. Selene Obscurata.

Incidentally, the now extinct Dino-bird is widely thought to have evolved a brand new auto-viro-vaccination to protect itself from such shortages. Unfortunately it tried to crossbreed with monkeys and died of AIDS, and is thus extinct.

Please see our website for a full visual illustration of this journey through TIME.”


Alright, fine, maybe my satire could use improvement. But, my point is the same. These stories and (flawed/fabricated) premises simply build upon one another without hesitation.

And therein lies a terrible blind spot in the “ordinary” person’s thought process, which I submit is largely fostered (starting at very early ages) at the most basic institutional levels.

And then there is Cluesforum. . .
scs

scs@cluesforum.info
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby Kham on Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:26 pm

THE VIRUS AND THE TISSUE CULTURE

Dear Esteemed Readers,

I would like to highlight the following from the amazing excerpt by ICfreely. Viruses have been proven to exist by the use of tissue cultures. All viruses, every damn alleged one, is believed to exist because tissue cultures are killed in a Petri dish after dropping fluid from a vial on it.

The process, in simplified terms goes like the following. Some one had taken a sample of say chicken pox by scraping the crust on a few pustules of a person who is showing symptoms of chicken pox. This sample is then processed in a lab with certain fluids to help it grow to enlarge the sample for future study. This new fluid is processed perhaps several times. When finished growing and processing this fluid it is then put into a vial marked ‘chicken pox virus’.

Here lies a problem. Science has already assumed they have a virus in the vial. The vial should have been marked ‘processed pustule crust from chicken pox rash’.

Now here is the proof part that science uses to claim viruses exist. Another lab technician takes that vial and shoves a needle into it to retrieve some drops. Those drops are placed onto a Petri dish containing a growth of tissue that is either live human tissue or a growth of other tissue meant to simulate human tissue. After the drops from the vial which contain the processed chicken pox pustule crust land on the Petri dish with the tissue, the tissue is watched for signs of change. If the tissue dies then the chicken pox virus is said to exist.

Contrary to what the movies would have you believe, technicians are definitely NOT looking through microscopes watching viruses change and oh my gawd multiply. I’m repeating this because it’s the major fallacy of government officials and the lay person concerning the study of virology. The actual fact is that no virus has ever been seen through a microscope or even an electron microscope.

The entire study of virology is done with previously marked vials of fluid being dropped on live tissue to watch for change. Because of this procedure I cannot agree with current science and believe that viruses exist as explained. Sure, something caused the chicken pox rash, but what?
Kham
Admin
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Engineering disease

Postby ICfreely on Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:16 am

Sure, something caused the chicken pox rash, but what?


In my case it was the chickenpox vaccine. Shortly after getting a booster shot in the 4th grade I, lo and behold, came down with chickenpox and missed a week of school. I should be grateful, I was told, because had I not been vaccinated my symptoms would have been worse…

Trying to pinpoint what exactly causes a specific “disease” can be very difficult for several reasons.

1) Medical authorities fabricate disease names much like movie producers come up with film titles (come up with something visceral that captures the attention of the populace at large).

2) They also remake diseases like producers remake movies. The constant re-classification of disease names muddies the waters thereby making it harder to pinpoint specific causes and effects. The signs/symptoms of many diseases of yesteryear that have supposedly been eradicated are identical to modern diseases.

3) There are often many co-factors (for lack of a better term) that may contribute to a given illness (i.e. pesticides, preservatives/additives, medications, surgical removal of “vestigial organs,” etc.).

4) Psychosomatics – Perfectly healthy people, when told they have a serious disease, can (and have been known to) get very sick and die in short order.



Pesticides and Polio: A Critique of Scientific Literature – Jim West
...
Food for Thought

Polio outbreaks occurred most often during the summer and were blamed on viruses picked up in swimming pools. But summer was the time when DDT spraying was at its peak and exposure would have been greatest, either directly or through foods from animals eating sprayed crops. Summer foods like ice cream from DDT-sprayed dairy cows would have been a likely source.

In developing countries, polio is blamed on poor sanitation. But in the United States, polio was blamed on lack of immunity due to good sanitation!

Until the advent of AIDS, polio was the only disease whose cause was enshrined in legislation. US public health law stated that poliomyelitis was an “infectious contagious disease,” yet proof of poliovirus causation is astoundingly weak, and the obvious toxicology was entirely avoided.

The man most responsible for the view that poliomyelitis was contagious was Dr. Simon Flexner, author of the famous (or infamous) Flexner Report, which led the way to the closing of the naturopathic and homeopathic colleges in the United States. Said Flexner: “It was not easy to establish in an individual case precisely how the disease was acquired; it was difficult to bring evidence that was not at all convincing that this disease was contagious.”…

The World Health Organization directs both DDT application (for mosquito control) and polio vaccination worldwide.


https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/environmental-toxins/pesticides-and-polio-a-critique-of-scientific-literature/


The preceding article is just an example of a pattern I’ve noticed delving through medical history.

Take, for instance, malaria (mal=bad, aria=air). During the middle ages the prevailing sentiment was that this illness was caused by bad air. Modern medicine attributes it to mosquitoes (vectors). You can get infected with malaria from a mosquito bite if the mosquito bit someone who had malaria before biting you. How did that person get malaria? The same way you did, of course.

So how do we get rid of malaria? Try to reduce the mosquito population as much as possible. How do we do that? Pesticides (DDT, BHC, etc.). Mass use of pesticides first began in “developed” counties and malaria was claimed to have been nearly eradicated in the “developed world.” But a slew of new “diseases” sprung up in its place. These new “diseases” were attributed to bacteria, fungi and the dreaded, ever elusive and evolving, “viruses.” Mass vaccination campaigns commenced to “immunize” people from them. Shortly thereafter the same script was played out in “underdeveloped” countries and continues to this day.


In fact, I’ll ask Dani to post here, since she is more recently studied up on this particular topic (the “virus”).



My first line of inquiry would be:


Are Viruses Alive?

Issue: What is life?
10 May 2016

What does it mean to be ‘alive’? At a basic level, viruses are proteins and genetic material that survive and replicate within their environment, inside another life form. In the absence of their host, viruses are unable to replicate and many are unable to survive for long in the extracellular environment. Therefore, if they cannot survive independently, can they be defined as being ‘alive’?

Taking opposing views, two microbiologists discuss how viruses fit with the concept of being ‘alive’ and how they should be defined.

https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html


You can read Nigel Brown and David Bhella’s arguments if you’d like. But be forewarned, if you’re looking for substantive, fact-based scientific arguments you won’t find it here (or anywhere else in the microbiology world for that matter). They wax poetic with philosophical and existential arguments and use "highly complex" scientific verbiage to mask their unscientific rhetoric.

Anyhow, my point is, to this day biologists are still in disagreement as to whether or not “viruses” are even alive. Virology “gods” Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin didn’t have that problem.

Jonas Salk and Albert Bruce Sabin

In the 1950s Salk and Sabin developed separate vaccines—one from killed virus and the other from live virus—to combat the dreaded disease polio.

Jonas Salk became a national hero when he allayed the fear of polio with his vaccine, approved in 1955. Although it was the first polio vaccine, it was not to be the last; Albert Sabin introduced an oral vaccine in the 1960s that replaced Salk’s.

Polio Season
In the first half of the 20th century, summer was a dreaded time for children. Although they could enjoy the long days of unfettered play, summer was also known as “polio season.” Children were among the most susceptible to paralytic poliomyelitis (also known as infantile paralysis), a disease that affects the central nervous system and can result in paralysis…


Live-Virus versus Killed-Virus Controversy

During his lifetime Sabin staunchly defended his live-virus vaccine, refusing to believe any evidence that it could cause paralytic poliomyelitis. Salk, for his part, believed that killed-virus vaccine produced equivalent protection in individuals and in communities without any risk for causing paralysis. Despite Sabin’s belief, the risk for paralysis from the live-virus vaccine does exist, although it is slight. In 1999 a federal advisory panel recommended that the United States return to Salk’s vaccine because it cannot accidentally cause polio. On the basis of a decade of additional evidence, this recommendation was reconfirmed in 2009.

https://www.sciencehistory.org/historical-profile/jonas-salk-and-albert-bruce-sabin


Some of the scientific literature refer to Salk's vaccine as weakened-virus. Weakened and killed are used interchangeably.

Salk, Sabin and the Race Against Polio

As polio ravaged patients worldwide, two gifted American researchers developed distinct vaccines against it. Then the question was: Which one to use?


Neither!


On April 12, 1955, Dr. Thomas Francis Jr., who monitored the Salk trials, called a press conference at the University of Michigan. The conference was broadcast to to 54,000 physicians who gathered in movie theaters; millions of Americans tuned in by radio. After Francis declared Salk’s vaccine to be “safe and effective,” church bells rang out and tearful families embraced. The polio panic would soon be over, as pharmaceutical companies rushed to create hundreds of millions of doses of the new vaccine.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/salk-sabin-and-the-race-against-polio-169813703/


Seeing as Jonas Salk had the American market cornered with his “killed-virus” vaccine Albert Sabin had to go abroad with his “live-virus” vaccine. He went to Russia and collaborated with Viktor Zhdanov (Soviet health minister/director of biological warfare). Zhdanov, a virology “god” in his own right, is the man who called on the World Health Assembly (the governing forum of the World Health Organization) to eradicated the world of smallpox.

Russian–United States vaccine science diplomacy: Preserving the legacy

United States–Russia tensions over the hostilities in Ukraine, collapsed cease-fires and chemical weapons use in Syria, and accusations of alleged cyberattacks may require a diplomatic reset. To help ease growing strains and restore dialogue and cooperation, it is worth looking to a productive and extraordinary historical record of international scientific collaborations.

Throughout the last half of the 20th century, the United States and Soviet Union managed a complex Cold War foreign policy relationship by opening and maintaining channels in sports, the arts, literature, and other humanitarian endeavors. One of the most productive engagements was through a mostly clandestine joint initiative to develop, test, and deliver life-saving vaccines that targeted the ancient scourges of humankind. Ultimately, through Cold War vaccine diplomacy, smallpox was eradicated, and polio was mostly eliminated [1].

Throughout the late 20th century, joint US–Soviet or US–Russian health activities continued, with a major focus on HIV/AIDS prevention, as well as the prevention of other sexually transmitted diseases and tuberculosis (TB) [4]. Then, in 2009, a Bilateral Presidential Commission (BPC) between the US and Russia was established, which included joint cooperation in the areas of polio eradication, malaria control, studies on noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) related to alcohol and tobacco consumption, and expanding the use of mobile phone technology for maternal health care [4]. The BPC was subsequently strengthened in 2011 through a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace public–private task force [4].

Since the 1950s, joint US–Russian cooperation has shown a dual track record of improving both foreign relations and scientific collaborations. Vaccine science diplomacy is not a panacea for heightened tensions between the US and Russia, but the approach has proven valuable for promoting joint humanitarian efforts while simultaneously producing life-saving vaccines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5444589/


I’m probably getting a bit off topic here but I think Cold War vaccine diplomacy ranks right up there with the space race and nuclear disarmament.
Last edited by ICfreely on Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby SacredCowSlayer on Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:10 am

ICfreely » December 11th, 2018, 12:16 am wrote:. . .
In fact, I’ll ask Dani to post here, since she is more recently studied up on this particular topic (the “virus”).


My first line of inquiry would be:
. . .


Oh, rest assured, she began this research by challenging the premise that viruses exist.

That is one thing I’ve done well with my children.

I have taught them about common “blind spots” in the logical process that the vast majority of the world suffers from.

She has a beautiful mind at work to be sure.

And I was certain you would appreciate that approach. It’s the intellectually honest thing to do after all.

No pressure Dani. :wub:
scs

scs@cluesforum.info
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby patrix on Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:10 am

Excellent post ICfreely. Much appreciated /Patrik
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Engineering disease

Postby ICfreely on Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:45 am

That is one thing I’ve done well with my children.
...



Good for you, SCS. I'm sure you must be very proud. And, yeah, no pressure at all. We're not here to grade each other.


Some of the scientific literature refer to Salk's vaccine as weakened-virus. Weakened and killed are used interchangeably.



Correction: I meant to say weakened and live are used interchangeably for Sabin's "live-virus" vaccine not Salk's "killed-virus" vaccine. My apologies.


The constant re-classification of disease names muddies the waters thereby making it harder to pinpoint specific causes and effects. The signs/symptoms of many diseases of yesteryear that have supposedly been eradicated are identical to modern diseases.



In case anyone's interested, here's a more detailed breakdown of how this was done for polio before and after Salk's vaccine was introduced.


Polio – A Shot in the Dark by Janine Roberts

...

Medical Fraud

The triumph following the launch of the Salk vaccine was short-lived. The medical historian Dr M Beddow Baily recorded what happened next: ‘Only 13 days after the vaccine had been acclaimed by the whole of the US press and radio as one of the greatest medical discoveries of the century, and two days after the British ministry of health had announced it would go right ahead with the manufacture of the vaccine, came the first news of disaster. Children inoculated with one brand of the vaccine had developed poliomyelitis. In the following days more and more cases were reported, some of them after inoculation with other brands.’

Within two weeks of the launch the number of cases of polio in vaccinated children had nearly reached 200. This created near panic in the White House. President Eisenhower had publicly endorsed the vaccine at its launch, so he sent the US health secretary Oveta Hobby to make it very plain to the Surgeon General that the president needed to be spared the embarrassment of further such cases.

On 8 May 1955 the Surgeon General suspended the entire US production of the vaccine. After hurried meetings between Salk, manufacturers and the surgeon general, distribution of the vaccine was resumed five days later, with new regulations in place to ensure better standards in the vaccine laboratories. The general consensus was that these cases had been caused by viruses in the vaccine that had survived the formaldehyde, despite evidence that repeated injections can cause paralysis.

However, despite these new regulations, four months later more than 2,000 cases of infantile paralysis were recorded in Boston, despite the vaccination of 130,000 children in the city. The previous year it had seen only 273 cases. The number of cases doubled in vaccinated New York State and Connecticut, and tripled in Vermont. They increased by five times in both Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Many were paralysed in the injected arm.

It seemed that the vaccine would soon be totally discredited. So, to protect the President, Salk, the vaccine manufacturers and themselves from the humiliation of an unmitigated failure, the US health authorities had to dramatically slash the incidence of poliomyelitis. They managed this by simply changing the way they recorded the incidents of poliomyelitis. It worked like this:

Prior to 1956, the authorities recorded a patient as having paralytic polio (infantile paralysis if they suffered from paralytic symptoms for 24 hours.

After 1956 patients had to have these paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days to be counted as having polio. As many people recovered within 60 days, this measure alone dramatically cut the official number of cases. This ‘drop’ in polio cases was publicly credited to the vaccine. Furthermore, all cases of polio occurring within 30 days of vaccination (such as the first 200 cases that had so alarmed the White House) were in future not to be blamed on the vaccine but to be recorded as ‘pre-existing’.

But Salk continued to worry. Despite its regulatory and statistical ‘success’, the reputation of his vaccine was plummeting. In June 1955 the British doctors’ union the Medical Practitioners’ Union wrote: ‘These misfortunes would be almost endurable if a whole new generation were to be rendered permanently immune to the disease. In fact, there is no evidence that any lasting immunity is achieved.’

The following month Canada suspended its distribution of Salk’s vaccine. By November all European countries had suspended distribution plans, apart from Denmark. By January 1957 17 US states had stopped distributing the vaccine. The same year The New York Times reported that nearly 50 per cent of cases of infantile paralysis in children between the ages of five and 14 had occurred after vaccination.

So, more regulatory and statistical changes were needed in order to give the polio vaccine the appearance of a triumph of modern medicine. What better way to achieve this than to reclassify all the cases of polio into numerous other diseases resulting in a massive reduction in polio cases, and a host of other diseases to attract funding. And this is exactly what they did.

Prior to 1958 the definition of infantile paralysis (polio) included cases in which paralysis was minimal: perhaps manifesting itself as a very stiff neck, often accompanied by widespread pain. Polio also included cases of ‘meningitis’, or of inflammation of the membrane that protects the brain and spinal neurons. The CDC describes such cases as ‘serious but rarely fatal’.

Prior to 1958 these cases were scientifically referred to as ‘non-paralytic poliomyelitis’, or polio for short. Henceforward, they would be reclassified. The Los Angeles County health authorities stated: ‘Most cases reported prior to July 1 1958 of non-paralytic poliomyelitis are now reported as viral or aseptic meningitis.’ The incidence of meningitis soared as official polio cases declined, as the following table (compiled from national surveillance reports) shows.

Non-paralytic polio cases | Aseptic meningitis cases:

1951-1960: 70,083 | 0
1961-1982: 589 | 102,999
1983-1992: 0 | 117,366


(Jim West, Images of Poliomyelitis)

These classifications are still used today. Last year the US National Center for Infectious Diseases reported no cases of poliomyelitis but 30,000 to 50,000 cases of aseptic meningitis requiring hospitalisation. There are probably several times this number of incidents of aseptic meningitis that did not require hospitalisation, but statistics are no longer kept for such cases.

Then another scam was enacted to massage down the poliomyelitis figures. It took advantage of the 1951 discovery that different viruses could be present in cases of infantile paralysis. Prior to 1958 this did not matter. A doctor diagnosed a person with polio by taking note of their evident symptoms. They did not investigate to see if the poliovirus were present. In 1958 a new regulation was put in place requiring doctors to only register a patient as having polio if the poliovirus were present, something that was very difficult to establish for sure. For a start, it was impossible to tell by looking at symptoms. The Textbook of Child Neurology reported: ‘Coxsackie virus and echoviruses can cause paralytic syndromes that are clinically indistinguishable from paralytic poliomyelitis.’ This new requirement for doctors caused a vast drop in the number of cases registered as poliomyelitis – a drop that ever since has been credited solely to the vaccine.

So, when patients diagnosed as having polio in a 1958 epidemic in Detroit were re-tested as required by this new rule, 49 per cent were found to have no poliovirus. They had to be reclassified as having ‘non-poliomyelitis acute flaccid paralysis’ even though they were suffering from symptoms identical to poliomyelitis with the same paralysis and the same pain. Other polio cases were reclassified as ‘Guillian-Barré syndrome’, which some researchers now think is what crippled Roosevelt. Yet more cases are now referred to as ‘Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease’, which can also cause paralysis. And last year the Coxsackie virus was found in cases of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), which sometimes shows polio-like symptoms of muscle damage; in the past CFS might have been classified as a form of polio.

If this process of reclassification had not occurred, it would have been impossible to hide the fact that infantile paralysis cases had sharply increased after the introduction of Salk’s vaccine. Without the Coxsackie and aseptic meningitis reclassifications, for example, the number of reported cases of paralytic polio would have doubled from 2,500 in 1957 to 5,000 in 1959.

This deliberate fraud did not go entirely unnoticed, however. Dr Bernard Greenberg, the then head of the Department of Biostatistics at the University of North Carolina, testified at a 1962 Congressional hearing that infantile paralysis cases had increased after the introduction of the vaccine by 50 per cent from 1957 to 1958, and by 80 per cent from 1958 to 1959. He concluded that US health officials had manipulated the statistics to give entirely the opposite impression.

https://reducetheburden.org/polio-a-shot-in-the-dark/



Those kind of shenanigans aren't exclusive to polio and certainly not exceptions to the rule. I'm just using polio as a case study to highlight some of the disease engineering techniques deployed by medical authorities.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby aa5 on Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:16 pm

My hypothesis is chicken pox is a program in our dna. It only seems to run once. Many programs in our dna only run once, like you only grow wisdom teeth once.

Who knows what starts the program to run, it could be environmental, or it could simply be when the dna is set to run it. The thing is chicken pox is just short duration and it isn't fatal, so it wouldn't get selected out with evolution/adaptation. Chicken pox might even have some type of use for the body.

With the chicken pox program active in some cells, it could cause a different than normal chemical composition in those cells. Which could be identified with a petri dish test.

Also if it is environmental conditions that cause the program to run, it could explain why there is a bunch of people in the same place coming down with it at the same time. It would appear to be contagious.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Engineering disease

Postby ICfreely on Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:38 pm

Interesting musings, aa5. I think the common cold is the body's way of naturally detoxifying itself and cold medications (while relieving symptoms) suppress that process. Just a guess though. Can't be sure. You make a good point with regards to chickenpox being contagious. I remember parents hosting "chickenpox parties" when i was a kid. With regards to inoculation, there are direct correlations (if not causation) with chickenpox vaccination and the development of chickenpox, zoster, shingles...

I'm a vaccine dissident through & through. I'm neither an authority nor an expert on vaccines. I have nothing to sell. Whether or not you, the reader, get vaccinated or vaccinate your child/children is of no consequence to me. To each his own. But if vaccines, for the sake of argument, are as safe and beneficial as they're purported to be, then why does WHO feel the need to go to such lengths?


How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public – World Health Organization – Regional Office for Europe

Abstract

This guidance document provides basic broad principles for a spokesperson of any health authority on how to respond to vocal vaccine deniers. The suggestions are based on psychological research on persuasion, on research in public health, communication studies and on WHO risk communication guidelines.
...
The strategies presented in the following chapters convey two main rules that serve as guiding principles to rethink the way you debate and achieve the primary goal of a public discussion with a vocal vaccine denier, which is to make the public resilient against anti-vaccine rhetoric:

Rule 1 - The general public is your target audience, not the vocal vaccine denier

Rule 2 - Aim to unmask the techniques that the vocal vaccine denier is using AND correct the content

Goal - Make the public audience more resilient against anti-vaccine statements and stories; support the vaccine hesitants in their vaccine acceptance decision

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/315761/Best-practice-guidance-respond-vocal-vaccine-deniers-public.pdf


Shyster tactics if you ask me.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby Kham on Thu Dec 13, 2018 7:33 am

aa5,

Chicken Pox only once?

My son got chicken pox in the US and again in Jordan. I asked the pediatrician about this and he said it’s not possible to get chicken pox twice. Well, my son got it twice. I thought perhaps there might be different strains.
Kham
Admin
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

PreviousNext

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests