Fuchs
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2018
- Messages
- 2,452
Short Version:
"The pharmaceutical corporations were already making a huge amount of money with vaccines. And behind those corporations stood a few superrich people. In the documents, one name is mentioned over and over:
John Rockefeller.
The richest person of his time. He made very large financial contributions to the medical institutes, shaping the way medicine was done, that everybody should get vaccinated. And at the same time, the vaccine corporations belonged to him. Are there any parallels to the current situation?
They are the same structures, in the past, as in the present.
The details are different.
But the story is the same."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bFUf3ENO8M
See also below other sources (How Rockefeller Founded Big Pharma And Waged War On Natural Cures)
The video has english subtitles:
Long Version:
"The thesis I put forward today is the following:
100 years ago the Spanish Flu devastated the world.
100 million people died.
The official version of this event, that the cause was an influenza virus,
is a lie.
And in truth, the first global vaccinations of humanity were responsible for this mass extinction.
This is a provoking hypothesis, but I will support it with arguments in this video
and you will see, that the parallels with the current situation are frighteningly similar.
I want to begin by looking at the statistics.
Specifically the deaths caused by influenza infection.
Since the beginnings of record keeping, the numbers have resulted in a flowing wave.
In winter more people die, in summer less people die, and like this it continues.
There exists only one spike, which is the Spanish Flu,
where the line goes like this
and then it continues normally.
From a purely statistical point of view, this is already suspicous, having only one huge spike like that.
And when you now do research into this topic, aside from the official standard works,
you start discovering a totally different coverage of the events.
One of these sources is Doctor Eleanora McBean, a physician from the USA, who lived during World War I.
She paints a totally different picture of the situation.
What she talks about first are the Philippines.
At the time, this was something like the experimental laboratory of the pharmaceutical industry, like India today.
There they went first to test vaccines and conduct mass vaccinations.
They were hailed as a success.
Only shortly afterwards, an epidemic devastated the Philippines,
wiping off 3/4 of the population.
One doctor witnessing the events is quoted: "If what is happening here is ever to become public, the history of vaccination would be over. Nobody will ever want to vaccinate again."
Officially, no connection between the vaccination and the epidemic was established.
And the Philippines were far away. Things continued.
After the beginning of World War I, for the first time, soldiers received mandatory vaccinations.
Every soldier received between 10 and 24 injections.
Here doctor McBean quotes a variety of Army reports.
One doctor says: "Everytime I do a mass vaccination, I have to sign off 75% of the soldiers as sick afterwards."
Because the side effects are so severe.
Even later on, when they are at the front, 30% of the troops are constantly in the field hospitals, still fighting the after effects of the vaccinations.
It is reported that the soldiers had a proverb:
"More die of needles than of bullets."
There is another report of the US Army Headquarters,
stating that after one mass vaccination, 63 soldiers, still in the doctors office, collapsed and deceased.
They died immediatly after the inoculation.
Maybe there is reason for concern.
After some time, the military doctors started voicing their concerns and resistance mounted,
there has even been a reported soldiers uprising, where troops refused to undergo vaccination.
The vaccinations were partly stopped.
But the high command did not want to make the topic public.
As it would show weakness in front of the enemy.
Also the population back home would get scared and the men would not want to join the army anymore.
So these deaths were swept under the carpet.
There was also a world war going on, people did not have time for vaccine damage.
So the topic was lost.
But then the war was over.
Since a lot of vaccine dosages were left over,
they started to vaccinate the general populations.
And then it really started.
Another doctor is quoted:
"I could precisely see the effect in my village: everyone who was inoculated became sick, the ones who refused inoculation did not become sick."
From the ones who became sick, of those who went to the public hospitals, 33% died.
Of the ones who went to the clinics for alternative medicine, noone died.
Here also the phenomena of the different waves is explained.
Something atypical for an influenza, since people immunize and the virus also constantly changes.
The reasons for the different waves was that after the doctors vaccinated and people became sick, they later made a second vaccination with a higher dosage.
People became even more sick.
Afterwards they did the same again with an even higher dosage. Even more people died.
This way the whole misery continued for over 2 years.
At some point doctors started realizing what was going on.
And that is why a lot of doctors simply skipped the Spanish Flu in their writings.
They were responible for the killings themselves and did not want to talk about it anymore.
Another very good source is the Impf-Report, a German medical journal of the present.
They have published several special editions on the Spanish Flu.
These articles discuss the topic very comprehensively.
They first discuss the official hypothesis, that the pandemic was caused by a flu virus.
They present the argument for the official version.
But they also write that the influenza version did not come from that time. It is a modern hypothesis.
At the time people either were not sure what caused the pandemic, or they thought it was the vaccines.
It is a modern hypothesis and was only invented much later.
The argument is that researchers took old tissue samples from the deceased,
analyzed them and found an influenza virus within. In some of the samples, not in all of them.
So it is reasoned that due to the presence of this influenza virus, this is what caused the pandemic.
But this reasoning is insufficient.
Because people constantly carry influenza viruses within them.
Causally linking them to this mysterious sickness is a supposition.
And this is how it is today as well, with the corona virus.
There is a new corona virus, like in many years,
And the then there is a new lung disease in certain areas of the world.
That this disease is caused by the virus is only an assumption.
This has to be realized.
The Impf-Report then continues that even during the time of the "Spanish Flu", it was clear that the disease was not caused by a flu virus.
One argument is the age structure of the deceased.
The dead were predominantly young males between the ages of 20 and 40.
Something very atypical for an influenza.
Which first and foremost effects the old.
And why were young males effected so much?
Because those were the soldiers who were vaccinated the most.
Another argument against the flu is, it is quite a rough story,
during the pandemic, they tried infection experiments with people, out of desperation.
They took prison inmates,
told them they will get an amnesty
but first they have to go to the hospitals
get touched by patients
and get coughed in the face for 10 minutes.
This was performed with several hundreds of test persons
and not a single one got infected.
With this, the hypothesis of the influenza should be off the table.
The "Spanish Flu" did not even have anything to do with Spain.
It did not come from Spain and then slowly spread out.
At the time transportation was much slower, since there were no airplanes, one had to take a ship for weeks to get anywhere.
It broke out in several places at the same time, always the army bases, since the soldiers were vaccinated first.
When time passed, more and more people realized that the vaccines were responsible.
There were protests,
debates in the parliaments,
representatives called for an immediate cessation of the vaccinations since they killed people,
and the ones responsible have to be brought to justice.
Was anyone brought to justice?
All these social and political upheavels against the vaccinations,
in the modern official accounts, what is written about them?
Nothing.
The topic of vaccination is not mentioned once in the official accounts of the Spanish Flu.
Why?
Because then, same as today,
enormous financial interests stood behind this.
The pharmaceutical corporations were already making a huge amount of money with vaccines.
And behind those corporations stood a few superrich people.
In the documents, one name is mentioned over and over:
John Rockefeller.
The richest person of his time.
He made very large financial contributions to the medical institutes,
shaping the way medicine was done,
that everybody should get vaccinated.
And at the same time, the vaccine corporations belonged to him.
Are there any parallels to the current situation?
They are the same structures, in the past, as in the present.
The details are different.
But the story is the same.
This should give a moment of pause.
That is why you should not just fall in line with this.
Scrutinise the situation.
And take up some resistance, because what is happening now,
when in fall this second wave will be fabricated,
this suicide with the lockdowns
and the mass vaccinations
that could be the real danger - which is far worse.
Thank you for listening.
I wish you much love
take care."
Video description:
100 years ago, the first global mass vaccinations took place towards the end of the First World War.
Immediately afterwards, a hitherto unknown disease appeared that cost 100 million people their lives.
This later became known as "the Spanish flu". But if you read through the ancient books of doctors from that time, you get a completely different picture of the flu pandemic: in reality it was the vaccinations that caused the mass deaths.
Sources:
1.
Tolzin, Hans - The Spanish Flu
Tolzin, Hans - The American Vaccination Civil War of 1918
https://www.impf-report.de/download/impf-report_2005.pdf
2.
McBean, Eleonora - Swine Flu Expose
McBean, Eleonora - The Poisoned Needle
https://books.google.de/books/about/The_Poisoned_Needle.html?id=31QtmHLg77IC&redir_esc=y
3.
Morens & Taubenberger - 1918 Influenza, a Puzzle with Missing Pieces
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310470/
4.
Miller, Neil - Critical Vaccine Studies
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26717061-miller-s-review-of-critical-vaccine-studies
Free sources safe incase of censorship:
Source 3
1918 Influenza, a Puzzle with Missing Pieces
David M. Morenscorresponding author and Jeffery K. Taubenberger
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer
See the article "Pathogenic Responses among Young Adults during the 1918 Influenza Pandemic" in volume 18 on page 201.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Shanks and Brundage offer thought-provoking hypotheses about influenza pathogenesis during the catastrophic 1918–1919 pandemic (1). Although we neither agree nor disagree with their views, its central hypothesis of T-cell–mediated immunopathogenesis begs examination of past events in light of modern immunologic and virologic understanding. We also emphasize that effects of the pandemic virus should not be measured only by illness and death in 1918–1919, but should also take into account disease caused by its descendent seasonal and pandemic influenza viruses up to the present (2). Thus, for human influenza history to be better understood, it must be continually reevaluated.
Specifically, Shanks and Brundage hypothesize that high mortality rates in 1918 resulted from immunopathogenic effects of cell-mediated immune responses elicited by previously circulating influenza viruses. They also suggest that clues to immunopathogenic mechanisms are found in the unique, well-documented, W-shaped age-specific mortality curve of the 1918 pandemic (3) (Figure) in which the typical (U-shaped) curve of pandemic influenza, featuring mortality rate peaks in young and old persons, was augmented by an unprecedented third mortality rate peak in persons 20–40 years of age.
Figure
Combined influenza plus pneumonia (P&I) age-specific incidence, mortality, and case-fatality rates, per 1,000 persons/age group, US Public Health Service house-to-house surveys, 8 states, 1918, and US Public Health Service surveys during 1928–1929. A) P&I incidence for 1918; B) mortality rate for 1918 (ill and well persons combined); C) P&I case-fatality rates for 1918 (solid line) compared with a more typical curve of age-specific influenza case-fatality rates (dotted line) from 1928–1929. Reprinted from (3).
A complicating fact about 1918–1919 mortality patterns and pathogenesis hypotheses is that for ≈98% of infected persons, influenza was clinically unremarkable in its traditional signs and symptoms (fever, cough, myalgia) and severity (4). Clinical and epidemiologic differences were confined to 2 aspects: higher frequency of its long-appreciated post-illness complication—bacterial pneumonia (5)—and an unusual peak in fatal or nonfatal pneumonia cases in persons 20–40 years of age. In 1918, a higher percentage of persons of all ages, and especially those 20–40 years old, experienced influenza that led to cases of secondary bacterial pneumonia, which were caused by highly prevalent pneumopathogenic bacteria (especially pneumococci, streptococci, and staphylococci). These bacteria had been continuously causing primary pneumonia and pneumonia after influenza and other respiratory illnesses, and had long been exacting a substantial death toll.
These 1918 postinfluenza cases of pneumonia produced case-fatality rates similar to those of noninfluenza pneumonia caused by the same organisms. Moreover, antibacterial vaccines administered in 1918–1919 seem to have prevented postinfluenza deaths (6). Influenza mortality rates in 1918–1919 were most strongly associated with increased case incidence of, not increased severity of, common complicating bacterial pneumonia, and this finding was seen especially in persons 20–40 years of age. The epidemiology of 1918 influenza mortality is predominantly, almost entirely, the epidemiology of a single postonset complication: secondary bacterial pneumonia. Therefore, pathogenesis theories of severe or fatal 1918 influenza must account for why the 1918 virus predisposed more persons to secondary bacterial pneumonia, and also look beyond the virus to address bacterial cofactors. The hypotheses of Shanks and Brundage should be considered with these observations in mind.
An interesting aspect of the epidemiology of fatal 1918 influenza is demonstrated by epidemics in US military training camps, in which increased mortality rates were strongly associated with carriage epidemics of pneumopathogenic bacteria (5). An eerily analogous phenomenon had happened a year earlier (winter of 1917–1918) in deadly epidemics of measles/postmeasles bacterial pneumonia (5). Therefore, bacterial carrier status at the time of influenza virus introduction should be considered in interpreting mortality rate differences in soldiers and examined with respect to epidemiologic variables that could affect carriage (e.g., length of service, rural or urban differences, and health care worker status). Such simple exposure variables might explain at least some of the mortality rate differences pointed out by Shanks and Brundage.
With regard to possible immunoprotection afforded by earlier circulating influenza viruses, in our view, the picture is not fully interpretable. Epidemiologic information about the 1889 global pandemic suggests that the unidentified causative virus was novel in persons born after ≈1830 (4), if not before 1830. However, what the 1889 virus was, how long it may have circulated after 1889, in what form it may have drifted, and what level of population immunity in what age groups may have resulted are all speculative. Making various assumptions about post-1889 viral circulation patterns in an attempt to find epidemiologic evidence of protective or amplifying effects on incidence or mortality rates of 1918 influenza has not, to our knowledge, shown anything suggestive, let alone definitive.
Given that no age group in 1918 seems to have been protected by influenza exposures in 1889, some 1918 data are consistent with partial protection in persons >60 years of age (i.e., alive during and after the influenza pandemics of the 1830s and 1840s), even though the viruses involved in these pandemics had no discernible effect on 1889 influenza incidence (4). To further complicate the picture, major antigenic changes in the 1889 pandemic virus around 1900 have been postulated on the basis of epidemiologic/serologic evidence, and data from the 1957 (H2N2) and 1968 (H3N2) pandemics are each consistent with partial protection in persons alive during 1889–1918. Taken together, this information produces more questions than it answers, which suggests that only further virologic or serologic evidence based on examination of specimens from an earlier era can clarify the situation.
A related issue addressed by Shanks and Brundage concerns interpreting data on protection during the fatal October–November 1918 fall wave by influenza viruses circulating earlier in 1918 (we avoid the term spring wave on the grounds described below). In the 9 months before the 1918 fall wave, from which influenza (H1N1) viruses have been sequenced, 2 seemingly different types of influenza phenomena were observed. The first phenomenon was in January–May 1918 when scattered, explosive local outbreaks and epidemics of influenza-like illness occurred in various locations in Europe, and episodic outbreaks occurred in several other countries, which in virtually all cases showed lower than expected mortality rates for influenza. (Shanks and Brundage classify this spring activity, along with summer activity, as a spring wave.) If this wave was influenza, it was not a wave as the term had been used since 1889 to indicate global pandemic mortality.
The second phenomenon was a wave of moderate mortality rates that occurred not in the spring of 1918, but in the summer (July–August), mostly in a few countries in northern Europe. This summer wave seems consistent with a first major occurrence of the 1918 virus (H1N1), which may have found a tenuous foothold in the normally unfavorable summer months, predominantly in northern climes where temperature and humidity might be less restrictive of virus circulation. If this wave was the 1918 pandemic virus, simple arithmetic dictates that to have reached moderate explosiveness by July it must have been circulating for at least many weeks beforehand (7). Prepandemic circulation of virus (H1N1) in early 1918 could have caused at least some circumscribed outbreaks that elicited protection. However, if all winter–spring prepandemic 1918 activity had been caused by the pandemic virus, we are left with the conundrum of why it did not become pandemic then, when environmental circumstances were seemingly more favorable, and when it was being locally transmitted within the war zone in Europe at more explosive levels than the fall wave pandemic virus would later be. We must also explain the frustratingly contradictory protection data from spring or summer influenza-like illness during the fall occurrence of influenza.
Astute observers of the time considered the 1918 protection data uninterpretable (8). Because influenza viruses of different subtypes are now understood to protect against each other for prolonged periods (e.g., H1N1 against H2N2 and H2N2 against H3N2), interpreting 1918 protection data has become even more problematic. One or more viruses unrelated to the fall wave virus (H1N1) (e.g., an 1889 viral descendant) may have caused at least some of the observed protection and nonprotection phenomena in 1918. Less plausibly, the pandemic virus could have lost transmissibility while gaining pathogenicity after early 1918. However, in the absence of virologic evidence, the identity of early 1918 viruses that may have caused or failed to cause protection remains speculative.
Finally, despite whatever degree of immunopathogenesis or immunoprotection may have occurred in 1918, we see no particular reason to focus hypotheses on T-cell immunity over immunity conferred by antibody to viral antigens. The extremely high 1918 influenza infant mortality rate cannot easily be linked to cell-mediated immunity because infant T cells would presumably have never been exposed to influenza viruses. It is also noteworthy that mortality rates across the entire 1918 age spectrum were higher than in any other year between 1889 and the present time. In looking at the W-shaped mortality curve, we believe that the findings are striking for persons ≈5–14 years of age, the age range of persons with the lowest mortality rates in virtually all influenza pandemics and epidemics studied to date. In 1918, this age group appears to have had an ≈4-fold higher mortality rate than in 1889, conceivably indicating inherent viral virulence or, more correctly, viral–bacterial copathogenicity because most of the relatively few deaths in this age group seem also attributable to secondary bacterial pneumonia.
Although it is intriguing to speculate about the role of severe and fatal primary viral pneumonia, we are unaware of data suggesting that primary viral or viral immunopathogenic mechanisms accounted for high mortality rates in any 1918 age group; results of reported experimental animal studies are of uncertain relevance for humans. Almost all of the tens of thousands of autopsies reported in 1918 indicated classic bacterial pneumonia as the most prominent feature, which was different in frequency, but not in kind, from the familiar cases of pneumonia seen year in and year out, before and after 1918 (5,7). The data appear most consistent with some unidentified property of the 1918 virus (e.g., respiratory cell cytopathicity) that potentiated pneumonia with common bacteria carried in the upper respiratory tract (5). The cause of the middle peak of the W-shaped mortality curve remains a fascinating mystery that so far seems inexplicable by any hypothesis.
In summary, Shanks and Brundage have addressed 3 major mysteries of the 1918 influenza pandemic: high mortality rates/unexplained pathogenesis, unexplained age-specific mortality rate patterns, and evidence for wave-to-wave protection, with a unifying hypothesis. In our view, they justifiably point out that highly inconsistent wave-to-wave protection data from different 1918 observers represent essential clues to what happened 94 years ago. However, these clues have not yet led to satisfactory answers. They also draw attention to the W-shaped age-specific mortality curve, still unexplained we would argue, and hypothesize that it, as well as disease pathogenesis and protection, results from cell-mediated immune responses. Although we are not fully persuaded by all aspects of this hypothesis, it does suggest avenues for experimental and perhaps serologic and immunologic research. It should also stimulate us to rethink old mysteries in light of modern and evolving understanding of influenza. Questions about 1918 persist, and critical pieces of the puzzle, in our view, are still missing.
Go to:
Biographies
•
Dr Morens is senior advisor to the director at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. His research interests are viral disease epidemiology, disease pathogenesis, and medical history.
•
Dr Taubenberger is chief of the Viral Pathogenesis and Evolution Section, Laboratory of Infectious Diseases, at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. His research interests include influenza virus biology and pathophysiology.
Go to:
Footnotes
Suggested citation for this article: Morens DM, Taubenberger JK. 1918 Influenza, a puzzle with missing pieces. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2012 Feb [date cited]. http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1802.111409
Go to:
References
1. Shanks GD, Brundage JF Pathogenic responses among young adults during the 1918 influenza pandemic. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012. Feb. Epub 2012 Jan 4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Morens DM, Taubenberger JK, Fauci AS The persistent legacy of the 1918 influenza virus. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:225–9 10.1056/NEJMp0904819 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Taubenberger JK, Morens DM 1918 influenza: the mother of all pandemics. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:15–22 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Morens DM, Taubenberger JK Pandemic influenza: certain uncertainties. Rev Med Virol. 2011. Jun 27. Epub ahead of print. 10.1002/rmv.689 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Morens DM, Taubenberger JK, Fauci AS Predominant role of bacterial pneumonia as a cause of death in pandemic influenza: implications for pandemic influenza preparedness. J Infect Dis. 2008;198:962–70 10.1086/591708 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Chien Y-W, Klugman KP, Morens DM Efficacy of whole-cell killed bacterial vaccines in preventing pneumonia and death during the 1918 influenza pandemic. J Infect Dis. 2010;202:1639–48 10.1086/657144 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Sheng Z-M, Chertow DS, Ambroggio X, McCall S, Przygodzki RM, Cunningham RE, et al. Autopsy series of 68 cases dying before and during the 1918 influenza pandemic peak: virological and pathological findings. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:16416–21 10.1073/pnas.1111179108 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Other sources:
https://newspunch.com/rockefeller-big-pharma-natural-cures/
"How Rockefeller Founded Big Pharma And Waged War On Natural Cures
Western medicine has some good points, and is great in an emergency, but it’s high time people realized that today’s mainstream medicine (western medicine or allopathy), with its focus on drugs, drugs, radiation, drugs, surgery, drugs and more drugs, is at its foundation a money spinning Rockefeller creation.
People these days look at you like a weirdo if you talk about the healing properties of plants or any other holistic practices. Much like anything else, politics and money have been used to warp people’s minds and encourage them to embrace what is bad for them.
It all began with John D. Rockefeller (1839 – 1937) who was an oil magnate, a robber baron, America’s first billionaire, and a natural-born monopolist.
By the turn on the 20th century, he controlled 90% of all oil refineries in the U.S. through his oil company, Standard Oil, which was later on broken up to become Chevron, Exxon, Mobil etc.
World Affairs reports: At the same time, around 1900, scientists discovered “petrochemicals” and the ability to create all kinds of chemicals from oil. For example, the first plastic — called Bakelite — was made from oil in 1907. Scientists were discovering various vitamins and guessed that many pharmaceutical drugs could be made from oil.
This was a wonderful opportunity for Rockefeller who saw the ability to monopolize the oil, chemical and the medical industries at the same time!
The best thing about petrochemicals was that everything could be patented and sold for high profits.
But there was one problem with Rockefeller’s plan for the medical industry: natural/herbal medicines were very popular in America at that time. Almost half the doctors and medical colleges in the U.S. were practicing holistic medicine, using knowledge from Europe and Native Americans.
Rockefeller, the monopolist, had to figure out a way to get rid of his biggest competition. So he used the classic strategy of “problem-reaction-solution.” That is, create a problem and scare people, and then offer a (pre-planned) solution. (Similar to terrorism scare, followed by the “Patriot Act”).
He went to his buddy Andrew Carnegie – another plutocrat who made his money from monopolizing the steel industry – who devised a scheme. From the prestigious Carnegie Foundation, they sent a man named Abraham Flexner to travel around the country and report on the status of medical colleges and hospitals around the country.
This led to the Flexner Report, which gave birth to the modern medicine as we know it.
Needless to say, the report talked about the need for revamping and centralizing our medical institutions. Based on this report, more than half of all medical colleges were soon closed.
Homeopathy and natural medicines were mocked and demonized; and doctors were even jailed.
To help with the transition and change the minds of other doctors and scientists, Rockefeller gave more than $100 million to colleges, hospitals and founded a philanthropic front group called “General Education Board” (GEB). This is the classic carrot and stick approach.
In a very short time, medical colleges were all streamlined and homogenized. All the students were learning the same thing, and medicine was all about using patented drugs.
Scientists received huge grants to study how plants cured diseases, but their goal was to first identify which chemicals in the plant were effective, and then recreate a similar chemical – but not identical – in the lab that could be patented.
A pill for an ill became the mantra for modern medicine.
And you thought Koch brothers were evil?
So, now we are, 100 years later, churning out doctors who know nothing about the benefits of nutrition or herbs or any holistic practices. We have an entire society that is enslaved to corporations for its well-being.
America spends 15% of its GDP on healthcare, which should be really called “sick care.” It is focused not on cure, but only on symptoms, thus creating repeat customers. There is no cure for cancer, diabetes, autism, asthma, or even flu.
Why would there be real cures? This is a system founded by oligarchs and plutocrats, not by doctors.
As for cancer, oh yeah, the American Cancer Society was founded by none other than Rockefeller in 1913.
In this month of breast cancer awareness, it is sad to see people being brainwashed about chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. That’s for another blog post … but here is a quote from John D. Rockefeller that summarizes his New World Order vision for America…
"
"The pharmaceutical corporations were already making a huge amount of money with vaccines. And behind those corporations stood a few superrich people. In the documents, one name is mentioned over and over:
John Rockefeller.
The richest person of his time. He made very large financial contributions to the medical institutes, shaping the way medicine was done, that everybody should get vaccinated. And at the same time, the vaccine corporations belonged to him. Are there any parallels to the current situation?
They are the same structures, in the past, as in the present.
The details are different.
But the story is the same."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bFUf3ENO8M
See also below other sources (How Rockefeller Founded Big Pharma And Waged War On Natural Cures)
The video has english subtitles:
Long Version:
"The thesis I put forward today is the following:
100 years ago the Spanish Flu devastated the world.
100 million people died.
The official version of this event, that the cause was an influenza virus,
is a lie.
And in truth, the first global vaccinations of humanity were responsible for this mass extinction.
This is a provoking hypothesis, but I will support it with arguments in this video
and you will see, that the parallels with the current situation are frighteningly similar.
I want to begin by looking at the statistics.
Specifically the deaths caused by influenza infection.
Since the beginnings of record keeping, the numbers have resulted in a flowing wave.
In winter more people die, in summer less people die, and like this it continues.
There exists only one spike, which is the Spanish Flu,
where the line goes like this
and then it continues normally.
From a purely statistical point of view, this is already suspicous, having only one huge spike like that.
And when you now do research into this topic, aside from the official standard works,
you start discovering a totally different coverage of the events.
One of these sources is Doctor Eleanora McBean, a physician from the USA, who lived during World War I.
She paints a totally different picture of the situation.
What she talks about first are the Philippines.
At the time, this was something like the experimental laboratory of the pharmaceutical industry, like India today.
There they went first to test vaccines and conduct mass vaccinations.
They were hailed as a success.
Only shortly afterwards, an epidemic devastated the Philippines,
wiping off 3/4 of the population.
One doctor witnessing the events is quoted: "If what is happening here is ever to become public, the history of vaccination would be over. Nobody will ever want to vaccinate again."
Officially, no connection between the vaccination and the epidemic was established.
And the Philippines were far away. Things continued.
After the beginning of World War I, for the first time, soldiers received mandatory vaccinations.
Every soldier received between 10 and 24 injections.
Here doctor McBean quotes a variety of Army reports.
One doctor says: "Everytime I do a mass vaccination, I have to sign off 75% of the soldiers as sick afterwards."
Because the side effects are so severe.
Even later on, when they are at the front, 30% of the troops are constantly in the field hospitals, still fighting the after effects of the vaccinations.
It is reported that the soldiers had a proverb:
"More die of needles than of bullets."
There is another report of the US Army Headquarters,
stating that after one mass vaccination, 63 soldiers, still in the doctors office, collapsed and deceased.
They died immediatly after the inoculation.
Maybe there is reason for concern.
After some time, the military doctors started voicing their concerns and resistance mounted,
there has even been a reported soldiers uprising, where troops refused to undergo vaccination.
The vaccinations were partly stopped.
But the high command did not want to make the topic public.
As it would show weakness in front of the enemy.
Also the population back home would get scared and the men would not want to join the army anymore.
So these deaths were swept under the carpet.
There was also a world war going on, people did not have time for vaccine damage.
So the topic was lost.
But then the war was over.
Since a lot of vaccine dosages were left over,
they started to vaccinate the general populations.
And then it really started.
Another doctor is quoted:
"I could precisely see the effect in my village: everyone who was inoculated became sick, the ones who refused inoculation did not become sick."
From the ones who became sick, of those who went to the public hospitals, 33% died.
Of the ones who went to the clinics for alternative medicine, noone died.
Here also the phenomena of the different waves is explained.
Something atypical for an influenza, since people immunize and the virus also constantly changes.
The reasons for the different waves was that after the doctors vaccinated and people became sick, they later made a second vaccination with a higher dosage.
People became even more sick.
Afterwards they did the same again with an even higher dosage. Even more people died.
This way the whole misery continued for over 2 years.
At some point doctors started realizing what was going on.
And that is why a lot of doctors simply skipped the Spanish Flu in their writings.
They were responible for the killings themselves and did not want to talk about it anymore.
Another very good source is the Impf-Report, a German medical journal of the present.
They have published several special editions on the Spanish Flu.
These articles discuss the topic very comprehensively.
They first discuss the official hypothesis, that the pandemic was caused by a flu virus.
They present the argument for the official version.
But they also write that the influenza version did not come from that time. It is a modern hypothesis.
At the time people either were not sure what caused the pandemic, or they thought it was the vaccines.
It is a modern hypothesis and was only invented much later.
The argument is that researchers took old tissue samples from the deceased,
analyzed them and found an influenza virus within. In some of the samples, not in all of them.
So it is reasoned that due to the presence of this influenza virus, this is what caused the pandemic.
But this reasoning is insufficient.
Because people constantly carry influenza viruses within them.
Causally linking them to this mysterious sickness is a supposition.
And this is how it is today as well, with the corona virus.
There is a new corona virus, like in many years,
And the then there is a new lung disease in certain areas of the world.
That this disease is caused by the virus is only an assumption.
This has to be realized.
The Impf-Report then continues that even during the time of the "Spanish Flu", it was clear that the disease was not caused by a flu virus.
One argument is the age structure of the deceased.
The dead were predominantly young males between the ages of 20 and 40.
Something very atypical for an influenza.
Which first and foremost effects the old.
And why were young males effected so much?
Because those were the soldiers who were vaccinated the most.
Another argument against the flu is, it is quite a rough story,
during the pandemic, they tried infection experiments with people, out of desperation.
They took prison inmates,
told them they will get an amnesty
but first they have to go to the hospitals
get touched by patients
and get coughed in the face for 10 minutes.
This was performed with several hundreds of test persons
and not a single one got infected.
With this, the hypothesis of the influenza should be off the table.
The "Spanish Flu" did not even have anything to do with Spain.
It did not come from Spain and then slowly spread out.
At the time transportation was much slower, since there were no airplanes, one had to take a ship for weeks to get anywhere.
It broke out in several places at the same time, always the army bases, since the soldiers were vaccinated first.
When time passed, more and more people realized that the vaccines were responsible.
There were protests,
debates in the parliaments,
representatives called for an immediate cessation of the vaccinations since they killed people,
and the ones responsible have to be brought to justice.
Was anyone brought to justice?
All these social and political upheavels against the vaccinations,
in the modern official accounts, what is written about them?
Nothing.
The topic of vaccination is not mentioned once in the official accounts of the Spanish Flu.
Why?
Because then, same as today,
enormous financial interests stood behind this.
The pharmaceutical corporations were already making a huge amount of money with vaccines.
And behind those corporations stood a few superrich people.
In the documents, one name is mentioned over and over:
John Rockefeller.
The richest person of his time.
He made very large financial contributions to the medical institutes,
shaping the way medicine was done,
that everybody should get vaccinated.
And at the same time, the vaccine corporations belonged to him.
Are there any parallels to the current situation?
They are the same structures, in the past, as in the present.
The details are different.
But the story is the same.
This should give a moment of pause.
That is why you should not just fall in line with this.
Scrutinise the situation.
And take up some resistance, because what is happening now,
when in fall this second wave will be fabricated,
this suicide with the lockdowns
and the mass vaccinations
that could be the real danger - which is far worse.
Thank you for listening.
I wish you much love
take care."
Video description:
100 years ago, the first global mass vaccinations took place towards the end of the First World War.
Immediately afterwards, a hitherto unknown disease appeared that cost 100 million people their lives.
This later became known as "the Spanish flu". But if you read through the ancient books of doctors from that time, you get a completely different picture of the flu pandemic: in reality it was the vaccinations that caused the mass deaths.
Sources:
1.
Tolzin, Hans - The Spanish Flu
Tolzin, Hans - The American Vaccination Civil War of 1918
https://www.impf-report.de/download/impf-report_2005.pdf
2.
McBean, Eleonora - Swine Flu Expose
McBean, Eleonora - The Poisoned Needle
https://books.google.de/books/about/The_Poisoned_Needle.html?id=31QtmHLg77IC&redir_esc=y
3.
Morens & Taubenberger - 1918 Influenza, a Puzzle with Missing Pieces
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310470/
4.
Miller, Neil - Critical Vaccine Studies
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26717061-miller-s-review-of-critical-vaccine-studies
Free sources safe incase of censorship:
Source 3
1918 Influenza, a Puzzle with Missing Pieces
David M. Morenscorresponding author and Jeffery K. Taubenberger
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer
See the article "Pathogenic Responses among Young Adults during the 1918 Influenza Pandemic" in volume 18 on page 201.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Shanks and Brundage offer thought-provoking hypotheses about influenza pathogenesis during the catastrophic 1918–1919 pandemic (1). Although we neither agree nor disagree with their views, its central hypothesis of T-cell–mediated immunopathogenesis begs examination of past events in light of modern immunologic and virologic understanding. We also emphasize that effects of the pandemic virus should not be measured only by illness and death in 1918–1919, but should also take into account disease caused by its descendent seasonal and pandemic influenza viruses up to the present (2). Thus, for human influenza history to be better understood, it must be continually reevaluated.
Specifically, Shanks and Brundage hypothesize that high mortality rates in 1918 resulted from immunopathogenic effects of cell-mediated immune responses elicited by previously circulating influenza viruses. They also suggest that clues to immunopathogenic mechanisms are found in the unique, well-documented, W-shaped age-specific mortality curve of the 1918 pandemic (3) (Figure) in which the typical (U-shaped) curve of pandemic influenza, featuring mortality rate peaks in young and old persons, was augmented by an unprecedented third mortality rate peak in persons 20–40 years of age.
Figure
Combined influenza plus pneumonia (P&I) age-specific incidence, mortality, and case-fatality rates, per 1,000 persons/age group, US Public Health Service house-to-house surveys, 8 states, 1918, and US Public Health Service surveys during 1928–1929. A) P&I incidence for 1918; B) mortality rate for 1918 (ill and well persons combined); C) P&I case-fatality rates for 1918 (solid line) compared with a more typical curve of age-specific influenza case-fatality rates (dotted line) from 1928–1929. Reprinted from (3).
A complicating fact about 1918–1919 mortality patterns and pathogenesis hypotheses is that for ≈98% of infected persons, influenza was clinically unremarkable in its traditional signs and symptoms (fever, cough, myalgia) and severity (4). Clinical and epidemiologic differences were confined to 2 aspects: higher frequency of its long-appreciated post-illness complication—bacterial pneumonia (5)—and an unusual peak in fatal or nonfatal pneumonia cases in persons 20–40 years of age. In 1918, a higher percentage of persons of all ages, and especially those 20–40 years old, experienced influenza that led to cases of secondary bacterial pneumonia, which were caused by highly prevalent pneumopathogenic bacteria (especially pneumococci, streptococci, and staphylococci). These bacteria had been continuously causing primary pneumonia and pneumonia after influenza and other respiratory illnesses, and had long been exacting a substantial death toll.
These 1918 postinfluenza cases of pneumonia produced case-fatality rates similar to those of noninfluenza pneumonia caused by the same organisms. Moreover, antibacterial vaccines administered in 1918–1919 seem to have prevented postinfluenza deaths (6). Influenza mortality rates in 1918–1919 were most strongly associated with increased case incidence of, not increased severity of, common complicating bacterial pneumonia, and this finding was seen especially in persons 20–40 years of age. The epidemiology of 1918 influenza mortality is predominantly, almost entirely, the epidemiology of a single postonset complication: secondary bacterial pneumonia. Therefore, pathogenesis theories of severe or fatal 1918 influenza must account for why the 1918 virus predisposed more persons to secondary bacterial pneumonia, and also look beyond the virus to address bacterial cofactors. The hypotheses of Shanks and Brundage should be considered with these observations in mind.
An interesting aspect of the epidemiology of fatal 1918 influenza is demonstrated by epidemics in US military training camps, in which increased mortality rates were strongly associated with carriage epidemics of pneumopathogenic bacteria (5). An eerily analogous phenomenon had happened a year earlier (winter of 1917–1918) in deadly epidemics of measles/postmeasles bacterial pneumonia (5). Therefore, bacterial carrier status at the time of influenza virus introduction should be considered in interpreting mortality rate differences in soldiers and examined with respect to epidemiologic variables that could affect carriage (e.g., length of service, rural or urban differences, and health care worker status). Such simple exposure variables might explain at least some of the mortality rate differences pointed out by Shanks and Brundage.
With regard to possible immunoprotection afforded by earlier circulating influenza viruses, in our view, the picture is not fully interpretable. Epidemiologic information about the 1889 global pandemic suggests that the unidentified causative virus was novel in persons born after ≈1830 (4), if not before 1830. However, what the 1889 virus was, how long it may have circulated after 1889, in what form it may have drifted, and what level of population immunity in what age groups may have resulted are all speculative. Making various assumptions about post-1889 viral circulation patterns in an attempt to find epidemiologic evidence of protective or amplifying effects on incidence or mortality rates of 1918 influenza has not, to our knowledge, shown anything suggestive, let alone definitive.
Given that no age group in 1918 seems to have been protected by influenza exposures in 1889, some 1918 data are consistent with partial protection in persons >60 years of age (i.e., alive during and after the influenza pandemics of the 1830s and 1840s), even though the viruses involved in these pandemics had no discernible effect on 1889 influenza incidence (4). To further complicate the picture, major antigenic changes in the 1889 pandemic virus around 1900 have been postulated on the basis of epidemiologic/serologic evidence, and data from the 1957 (H2N2) and 1968 (H3N2) pandemics are each consistent with partial protection in persons alive during 1889–1918. Taken together, this information produces more questions than it answers, which suggests that only further virologic or serologic evidence based on examination of specimens from an earlier era can clarify the situation.
A related issue addressed by Shanks and Brundage concerns interpreting data on protection during the fatal October–November 1918 fall wave by influenza viruses circulating earlier in 1918 (we avoid the term spring wave on the grounds described below). In the 9 months before the 1918 fall wave, from which influenza (H1N1) viruses have been sequenced, 2 seemingly different types of influenza phenomena were observed. The first phenomenon was in January–May 1918 when scattered, explosive local outbreaks and epidemics of influenza-like illness occurred in various locations in Europe, and episodic outbreaks occurred in several other countries, which in virtually all cases showed lower than expected mortality rates for influenza. (Shanks and Brundage classify this spring activity, along with summer activity, as a spring wave.) If this wave was influenza, it was not a wave as the term had been used since 1889 to indicate global pandemic mortality.
The second phenomenon was a wave of moderate mortality rates that occurred not in the spring of 1918, but in the summer (July–August), mostly in a few countries in northern Europe. This summer wave seems consistent with a first major occurrence of the 1918 virus (H1N1), which may have found a tenuous foothold in the normally unfavorable summer months, predominantly in northern climes where temperature and humidity might be less restrictive of virus circulation. If this wave was the 1918 pandemic virus, simple arithmetic dictates that to have reached moderate explosiveness by July it must have been circulating for at least many weeks beforehand (7). Prepandemic circulation of virus (H1N1) in early 1918 could have caused at least some circumscribed outbreaks that elicited protection. However, if all winter–spring prepandemic 1918 activity had been caused by the pandemic virus, we are left with the conundrum of why it did not become pandemic then, when environmental circumstances were seemingly more favorable, and when it was being locally transmitted within the war zone in Europe at more explosive levels than the fall wave pandemic virus would later be. We must also explain the frustratingly contradictory protection data from spring or summer influenza-like illness during the fall occurrence of influenza.
Astute observers of the time considered the 1918 protection data uninterpretable (8). Because influenza viruses of different subtypes are now understood to protect against each other for prolonged periods (e.g., H1N1 against H2N2 and H2N2 against H3N2), interpreting 1918 protection data has become even more problematic. One or more viruses unrelated to the fall wave virus (H1N1) (e.g., an 1889 viral descendant) may have caused at least some of the observed protection and nonprotection phenomena in 1918. Less plausibly, the pandemic virus could have lost transmissibility while gaining pathogenicity after early 1918. However, in the absence of virologic evidence, the identity of early 1918 viruses that may have caused or failed to cause protection remains speculative.
Finally, despite whatever degree of immunopathogenesis or immunoprotection may have occurred in 1918, we see no particular reason to focus hypotheses on T-cell immunity over immunity conferred by antibody to viral antigens. The extremely high 1918 influenza infant mortality rate cannot easily be linked to cell-mediated immunity because infant T cells would presumably have never been exposed to influenza viruses. It is also noteworthy that mortality rates across the entire 1918 age spectrum were higher than in any other year between 1889 and the present time. In looking at the W-shaped mortality curve, we believe that the findings are striking for persons ≈5–14 years of age, the age range of persons with the lowest mortality rates in virtually all influenza pandemics and epidemics studied to date. In 1918, this age group appears to have had an ≈4-fold higher mortality rate than in 1889, conceivably indicating inherent viral virulence or, more correctly, viral–bacterial copathogenicity because most of the relatively few deaths in this age group seem also attributable to secondary bacterial pneumonia.
Although it is intriguing to speculate about the role of severe and fatal primary viral pneumonia, we are unaware of data suggesting that primary viral or viral immunopathogenic mechanisms accounted for high mortality rates in any 1918 age group; results of reported experimental animal studies are of uncertain relevance for humans. Almost all of the tens of thousands of autopsies reported in 1918 indicated classic bacterial pneumonia as the most prominent feature, which was different in frequency, but not in kind, from the familiar cases of pneumonia seen year in and year out, before and after 1918 (5,7). The data appear most consistent with some unidentified property of the 1918 virus (e.g., respiratory cell cytopathicity) that potentiated pneumonia with common bacteria carried in the upper respiratory tract (5). The cause of the middle peak of the W-shaped mortality curve remains a fascinating mystery that so far seems inexplicable by any hypothesis.
In summary, Shanks and Brundage have addressed 3 major mysteries of the 1918 influenza pandemic: high mortality rates/unexplained pathogenesis, unexplained age-specific mortality rate patterns, and evidence for wave-to-wave protection, with a unifying hypothesis. In our view, they justifiably point out that highly inconsistent wave-to-wave protection data from different 1918 observers represent essential clues to what happened 94 years ago. However, these clues have not yet led to satisfactory answers. They also draw attention to the W-shaped age-specific mortality curve, still unexplained we would argue, and hypothesize that it, as well as disease pathogenesis and protection, results from cell-mediated immune responses. Although we are not fully persuaded by all aspects of this hypothesis, it does suggest avenues for experimental and perhaps serologic and immunologic research. It should also stimulate us to rethink old mysteries in light of modern and evolving understanding of influenza. Questions about 1918 persist, and critical pieces of the puzzle, in our view, are still missing.
Go to:
Biographies
•
Dr Morens is senior advisor to the director at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. His research interests are viral disease epidemiology, disease pathogenesis, and medical history.
•
Dr Taubenberger is chief of the Viral Pathogenesis and Evolution Section, Laboratory of Infectious Diseases, at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. His research interests include influenza virus biology and pathophysiology.
Go to:
Footnotes
Suggested citation for this article: Morens DM, Taubenberger JK. 1918 Influenza, a puzzle with missing pieces. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2012 Feb [date cited]. http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1802.111409
Go to:
References
1. Shanks GD, Brundage JF Pathogenic responses among young adults during the 1918 influenza pandemic. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012. Feb. Epub 2012 Jan 4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Morens DM, Taubenberger JK, Fauci AS The persistent legacy of the 1918 influenza virus. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:225–9 10.1056/NEJMp0904819 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Taubenberger JK, Morens DM 1918 influenza: the mother of all pandemics. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:15–22 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Morens DM, Taubenberger JK Pandemic influenza: certain uncertainties. Rev Med Virol. 2011. Jun 27. Epub ahead of print. 10.1002/rmv.689 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Morens DM, Taubenberger JK, Fauci AS Predominant role of bacterial pneumonia as a cause of death in pandemic influenza: implications for pandemic influenza preparedness. J Infect Dis. 2008;198:962–70 10.1086/591708 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Chien Y-W, Klugman KP, Morens DM Efficacy of whole-cell killed bacterial vaccines in preventing pneumonia and death during the 1918 influenza pandemic. J Infect Dis. 2010;202:1639–48 10.1086/657144 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Sheng Z-M, Chertow DS, Ambroggio X, McCall S, Przygodzki RM, Cunningham RE, et al. Autopsy series of 68 cases dying before and during the 1918 influenza pandemic peak: virological and pathological findings. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:16416–21 10.1073/pnas.1111179108 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Other sources:
https://newspunch.com/rockefeller-big-pharma-natural-cures/
"How Rockefeller Founded Big Pharma And Waged War On Natural Cures
Western medicine has some good points, and is great in an emergency, but it’s high time people realized that today’s mainstream medicine (western medicine or allopathy), with its focus on drugs, drugs, radiation, drugs, surgery, drugs and more drugs, is at its foundation a money spinning Rockefeller creation.
People these days look at you like a weirdo if you talk about the healing properties of plants or any other holistic practices. Much like anything else, politics and money have been used to warp people’s minds and encourage them to embrace what is bad for them.
It all began with John D. Rockefeller (1839 – 1937) who was an oil magnate, a robber baron, America’s first billionaire, and a natural-born monopolist.
By the turn on the 20th century, he controlled 90% of all oil refineries in the U.S. through his oil company, Standard Oil, which was later on broken up to become Chevron, Exxon, Mobil etc.
World Affairs reports: At the same time, around 1900, scientists discovered “petrochemicals” and the ability to create all kinds of chemicals from oil. For example, the first plastic — called Bakelite — was made from oil in 1907. Scientists were discovering various vitamins and guessed that many pharmaceutical drugs could be made from oil.
This was a wonderful opportunity for Rockefeller who saw the ability to monopolize the oil, chemical and the medical industries at the same time!
The best thing about petrochemicals was that everything could be patented and sold for high profits.
But there was one problem with Rockefeller’s plan for the medical industry: natural/herbal medicines were very popular in America at that time. Almost half the doctors and medical colleges in the U.S. were practicing holistic medicine, using knowledge from Europe and Native Americans.
Rockefeller, the monopolist, had to figure out a way to get rid of his biggest competition. So he used the classic strategy of “problem-reaction-solution.” That is, create a problem and scare people, and then offer a (pre-planned) solution. (Similar to terrorism scare, followed by the “Patriot Act”).
He went to his buddy Andrew Carnegie – another plutocrat who made his money from monopolizing the steel industry – who devised a scheme. From the prestigious Carnegie Foundation, they sent a man named Abraham Flexner to travel around the country and report on the status of medical colleges and hospitals around the country.
This led to the Flexner Report, which gave birth to the modern medicine as we know it.
Needless to say, the report talked about the need for revamping and centralizing our medical institutions. Based on this report, more than half of all medical colleges were soon closed.
Homeopathy and natural medicines were mocked and demonized; and doctors were even jailed.
To help with the transition and change the minds of other doctors and scientists, Rockefeller gave more than $100 million to colleges, hospitals and founded a philanthropic front group called “General Education Board” (GEB). This is the classic carrot and stick approach.
In a very short time, medical colleges were all streamlined and homogenized. All the students were learning the same thing, and medicine was all about using patented drugs.
Scientists received huge grants to study how plants cured diseases, but their goal was to first identify which chemicals in the plant were effective, and then recreate a similar chemical – but not identical – in the lab that could be patented.
A pill for an ill became the mantra for modern medicine.
And you thought Koch brothers were evil?
So, now we are, 100 years later, churning out doctors who know nothing about the benefits of nutrition or herbs or any holistic practices. We have an entire society that is enslaved to corporations for its well-being.
America spends 15% of its GDP on healthcare, which should be really called “sick care.” It is focused not on cure, but only on symptoms, thus creating repeat customers. There is no cure for cancer, diabetes, autism, asthma, or even flu.
Why would there be real cures? This is a system founded by oligarchs and plutocrats, not by doctors.
As for cancer, oh yeah, the American Cancer Society was founded by none other than Rockefeller in 1913.
In this month of breast cancer awareness, it is sad to see people being brainwashed about chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. That’s for another blog post … but here is a quote from John D. Rockefeller that summarizes his New World Order vision for America…
