Two key memorandums from WHO, discovered by Patrick Jordan, prove WHO has intentionally created the three-shot killer vaccine that people in the USA and other countries could soon be forced to take.
1972 WHO Bulletin 47, No 2 Memordanda #1 and #2 Virus-associated immunopathology:
Animal models and implications for human disease * technically outline the ability to create biological weapons in the form of vaccines that:
1) First totally disable the Immune System.
2) Load every cell of the Victim’s body up with Infection.
3) Switch the Immune System on causing the host to kill themselves in a Cytokine Storm.
One, Two, Three, Dead.
These WHO Memorandas describe the three-stage impact of the three "shots" many people will be forced to take this fall to allegedly treat a virus that WHO also helped create and release.
This is a crucial piece of evidence of WHO's long-term genocidal intentions that could stand in any court of law because these memorandums give the best and fullest explanation WHO's and affiliated labs (such as the CDC) current activities, such as their patenting of the most lethal bird flu viruses, their sending that virus to Baxter's subsidiary in Austria, which weaponised it and sent out 72 kilos to 16 labs in four countries almost triggering a global pandemic.
For every crime, there needs to be motive, an indication that it was deliberate, planned. The WHO memorandums provide the evidence of just that deliberate, long-term planning to kill people by weakening their immune system by use of the first vaccine, injecting a live virus into their body by a second, and creating a cytokine storm using squalene in a third.
Whether this season’s swine flu turns out to be deadly or mild, most experts agree that it’s only a matter of time before we’re hit by a truly devastating flu pandemic—one that might kill more people worldwide than have died of the plague and aids combined. In the U.S., the main lines of defense are pharmaceutical—vaccines and antiviral drugs to limit the spread of flu and prevent people from dying from it. Yet now some flu experts are challenging the medical orthodoxy and arguing that for those most in need of protection, flu shots and antiviral drugs may provide little to none. So where does that leave us if a bad pandemic strikes?
by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer
Drive too fast along Red Lion Road, beside Philadelphia’s Northeast Airport, and you will miss the low-rise cement building where the biotech company MedImmune has been quietly pumping out swine flu vaccine at about a million doses a week. Through the summer and fall, workers wearing protective gear that covered them from head to toe brewed up batches of live, genetically modified flu virus. Robots then injected tiny doses of virus-laden fluid into glass vials, which were mounted into nasal spritzers, labeled, and readied for shipment at the direction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta, which is helping to coordinate the nation’s pandemic-preparedness plan. In the most ambitious vaccination program the nation has mounted since the anti-polio campaign in the 1950s, the federal government has commissioned MedImmune and four other companies to produce enough vaccine to cover the entire U.S. population.
Vaccination is central to the government’s plan for preventing deaths from swine flu. The CDC has recommended that some 159 million adults and children receive either a swine flu shot or a dose of MedImmune’s nasal vaccine this year. Shots are offered in doctors’ offices, hospitals, airports, pharmacies, schools, polling places, shopping malls, and big-box stores like Wal-Mart. In August, New York state required all health-care workers to get both seasonal and swine flu shots. To further protect the populace, the federal government has spent upwards of $3billion stockpiling millions of doses of antiviral drugs like Tamiflu—which are being used both to prevent swine flu and to treat those who fall ill.
Also see: Q&A: “Facts About Swine Flu” The authors answer practical questions about H1N1 diagnosis and immunity.
But what if everything we think we know about fighting influenza is wrong? What if flu vaccines do not protect people from dying—particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu? And what if the expensive antiviral drugs that the government has stockpiled over the past few years also have little, if any, power to reduce the number of people who die or are hospitalized? The U.S. government—with the support of leaders in the public-health and medical communities—has put its faith in the power of vaccines and antiviral drugs to limit the spread and lethality of swine flu. Other plans to contain the pandemic seem anemic by comparison. Yet some top flu researchers are deeply skeptical of both flu vaccines and antivirals. Like the engineers who warned for years about the levees of New Orleans, these experts caution that our defenses may be flawed, and quite possibly useless against a truly lethal flu. And that unless we are willing to ask fundamental questions about the science behind flu vaccines and antiviral drugs, we could find ourselves, in a bad epidemic, as helpless as the citizens of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.
The term influenza, which dates back to the Middle Ages, is taken from the Italian word for occult or astral influence. Then as now, flu seemed to appear out of nowhere each winter, debilitating or killing large numbers of people, only to vanish in the spring. Today, seasonal flu is estimated to kill about 36,000 people in the United States each year, and half a million worldwide.
Yet the flu, in many important respects, remains mysterious. Determining how many deaths it really causes, or even who has it, is no simple matter. We think we have the flu anytime we fall ill with an ailment that brings on headache, malaise, fever, coughing, sneezing, and that achy feeling as if we’ve been sleeping on a bed of rocks, but researchers have found that at most half, and perhaps as few as 7 or 8 percent, of such cases are actually caused by an influenza virus in any given year. More than 200 known viruses and other pathogens can cause the suite of symptoms known as “influenza-like illness”; respiratory syncytial virus, bocavirus, coronavirus, and rhinovirus are just a few of the bugs that can make a person feel rotten. And depending on the season, in up to two-thirds of the cases of flu-like illness, no cause at all can be found.
Nobody knows precisely why we are much more likely to catch the flu in the winter months than at other times of the year. Perhaps it’s because flu viruses flourish in cool temperatures and are killed by exposure to sunlight. Or maybe it’s because in winter, people spend more time indoors, where a sneeze or a cough can more easily spread a virus to others. What is certain is that influenza viruses mutate with amazing speed, so each flu season sees slightly different genetic versions of the viruses that infected people the year before. Every year, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collect data from 94 nations on the flu viruses that circulated the previous year, and then make an educated guess about which viruses are likely to circulate in the coming fall. Based on that information, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues orders to manufacturers in February for a vaccine that includes the three most likely strains.
Every once in a while, however, a very different bug pops up and infects far more people than the normal seasonal flu variants do. It is these novel viruses that are responsible for pandemics, defined by the World Health Organization as events that occur when “a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity” and which can sweep around the world in a very short time. The worst flu pandemic in recorded history was the “Spanish flu” of 1918–19, at the end of World WarI. A third of the world’s population was infected, with at least 40million and perhaps as many as 100million people dying—more than were killed in World Wars I and II combined. (Some scholars suggest that one reason World WarI ended was that so many soldiers were sick or dying from flu.) Since then, two other flu pandemics have occurred, in 1957 and 1968, neither of which was particularly lethal.
In August, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology projected that this fall and winter, the swine flu, H1N1, could infect anywhere between one-third and one-half of the U.S. population and could kill as many as 90,000 Americans, two and a half times the number killed in a typical flu season. But precisely how deadly, or even how infectious, this year’s H1N1 pandemic will turn out to be won’t be known until it’s over. Most reports coming from the Southern Hemisphere in late August (the end of winter there) suggested that the swine flu is highly infectious, but not particularly lethal. For example, Australian officials estimated they would finish winter with under 1,000 swine flu deaths—fewer than the usual 1,500 to 3,000 from seasonal flu. Among those who have died in the U.S., about 70 percent were already suffering from congenital conditions like cerebral palsy or underlying illnesses such as cancer, asthma, or AIDS, which make people more vulnerable.
Public-health officials consider vaccine their most formidable defense against the pandemic—indeed, against any flu—and on the surface, their faith seems justified. Vaccines developed over the course of the 20th century slashed the death rates of nearly a dozen infectious diseases, such as smallpox and polio, and vaccination became one of medicine’s most potent weapons. Influenza virus was first identified in the 1930s, and by the mid-1940s, researchers had produced a vaccine that was given to soldiers in World WarII. The U.S. government got serious about promoting flu vaccine after the 1957 flu pandemic brought home influenza’s continuing potential to cause widespread illness and death. Today, flu vaccine is a staple of public-health policy; in a normal year, some 100 million Americans get vaccinated.
But while vaccines for, say, whooping cough and polio clearly and dramatically reduced death rates from those diseases, the impact of flu vaccine has been harder to determine. Flu comes and goes with the seasons, and often it does not kill people directly, but rather contributes to death by making the body more susceptible to secondary infections like pneumonia or bronchitis. For this reason, researchers studying the impact of flu vaccination typically look at deaths from all causes during flu season, and compare the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
Such comparisons have shown a dramatic difference in mortality between these two groups: study after study has found that people who get a flu shot in the fall are about half as likely to die that winter—from any cause—as people who do not. Get your flu shot each year, the literature suggests, and you will dramatically reduce your chance of dying during flu season.
Yet in the view of several vaccine skeptics, this claim is suspicious on its face. Influenza causes only a small minority of all deaths in the U.S., even among senior citizens, and even after adding in the deaths to which flu might have contributed indirectly. When researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases included all deaths from illnesses that flu aggravates, like lung disease or chronic heart failure, they found that flu accounts for, at most, 10 percent of winter deaths among the elderly. So how could flu vaccine possibly reduce total deaths by half? Tom Jefferson, a physician based in Rome and the head of the Vaccines Field at the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international network of researchers who appraise medical evidence, says: “For a vaccine to reduce mortality by 50 percent and up to 90 percent in some studies means it has to prevent deaths not just from influenza, but also from falls, fires, heart disease, strokes, and car accidents. That’s not a vaccine, that’s a miracle.”
The estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction is based on “cohort studies,” which compare death rates in large groups, or cohorts, of people who choose to be vaccinated, against death rates in groups who don’t. But people who choose to be vaccinated may differ in many important respects from people who go unvaccinated—and those differences can influence the chance of death during flu season. Education, lifestyle, income, and many other “confounding” factors can come into play, and as a result, cohort studies are notoriously prone to bias. When researchers crunch the numbers, they typically try to factor out variables that could bias the results, but, as Jefferson remarks, “you can adjust for the confounders you know about, not for the ones you don’t,” and researchers can’t always anticipate what factors are likely to be important to whether a patient dies from flu. There is always the chance that they might miss some critical confounder that renders their results entirely wrong.
When Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center, in Seattle, began wondering aloud to colleagues if maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine, the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science. “People told me, ‘No good can come of [asking] this,’” she says. “‘Potentially a lot of bad could happen’ for me professionally by raising any criticism that might dissuade people from getting vaccinated, because of course, ‘We know that vaccine works.’ This was the prevailing wisdom.”
Nonetheless, in 2004, Jackson and three colleagues set out to determine whether the mortality difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated might be caused by a phenomenon known as the “healthy user effect.” They hypothesized that on average, people who get vaccinated are simply healthier than those who don’t, and thus less liable to die over the short term. People who don’t get vaccinated may be bedridden or otherwise too sick to go get a shot. They may also be more likely to succumb to flu or any other illness, because they are generally older and sicker. To test their thesis, Jackson and her colleagues combed through eight years of medical data on more than 72,000 people 65 and older. They looked at who got flu shots and who didn’t. Then they examined which group’s members were more likely to die of any cause when it was not flu season.
Jackson’s findings showed that outside of flu season, the baseline risk of death among people who did not get vaccinated was approximately 60 percent higher than among those who did, lending support to the hypothesis that on average, healthy people chose to get the vaccine, while the “frail elderly” didn’t or couldn’t. In fact, the healthy-user effect explained the entire benefit that other researchers were attributing to flu vaccine, suggesting that the vaccine itself might not reduce mortality at all. Jackson’s papers “are beautiful,” says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology. “They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done.”
The results were also so unexpected that many experts simply refused to believe them. Jackson’s papers were turned down for publication in the top-ranked medical journals. One flu expert who reviewed her studies for the Journal of the American Medical Association wrote, “To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat!” When the papers were finally published in 2006, in the less prominent International Journal of Epidemiology, they were largely ignored by doctors and public-health officials. “The answer I got,” says Jackson, “was not the right answer.”
The history of flu vaccination suggests other reasons to doubt claims that it dramatically reduces mortality. In 2004, for example, vaccine production fell behind, causing a 40 percent drop in immunization rates. Yet mortality did not rise. In addition, vaccine “mismatches” occurred in 1968 and 1997: in both years, the vaccine that had been produced in the summer protected against one set of viruses, but come winter, a different set was circulating. In effect, nobody was vaccinated. Yet death rates from all causes, including flu and the various illnesses it can exacerbate, did not budge. Sumit Majumdar, a physician and researcher at the University of Alberta, in Canada, offers another historical observation: rising rates of vaccination of the elderly over the past two decades have not coincided with a lower overall mortality rate. In 1989, only 15 percent of people over age 65 in the U.S. and Canada were vaccinated against flu. Today, more than 65 percent are immunized. Yet death rates among the elderly during flu season have increased rather than decreased.
Vaccine proponents call Majumdar’s last observation an “ecological fallacy,” because he fails, in their view, to consider changes in the larger environment that could have boosted death rates over the years—even as rising vaccination rates were doing their part to keep mortality in check. The proponents suggest, for instance, that influenza viruses may have become more contagious over time, and thus are infecting greater numbers of elderly people, including some who have been vaccinated. Or maybe the viruses are becoming more lethal. Or maybe the elderly have less immunity to flu than they once did because, say, their diets have changed.
Or maybe vaccine just doesn’t prevent deaths in the elderly. Of course, that’s the one possibility that vaccine adherents won’t consider. Nancy Cox, the CDC’s influenza division chief, says flatly, “The flu vaccine is the best way to protect against flu.” Anthony Fauci, a physician and the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIH, where much of the basic science of flu vaccine has been worked out, says, “I have no doubt that it is effective in conferring some degree of protection. To say otherwise is a minority view.”
Majumdar says, “We keep coming up against the belief that we’ve reduced mortality by 50 percent,” and when researchers poke holes in the evidence, “people pound the pulpit.”
The most vocal—and undoubtedly most vexing—critic of the gospel of flu vaccine is the Cochrane Collaboration’s Jefferson, who’s also an epidemiologist trained at the famed London School of Tropical Hygiene, and who, in Lisa Jackson’s view, makes other skeptics seem “moderate by comparison.” Among his fellow flu researchers, Jefferson’s outspokenness has made him something of a pariah. At a 2007 meeting on pandemic preparedness at a hotel in Bethesda, Maryland, Jefferson, who’d been invited to speak at the conference, was not greeted by any of the colleagues milling about the lobby. He ate his meals in the hotel restaurant alone, surrounded by scientists chatting amiably at other tables. He shrugs off such treatment. As a medical officer working for the United Nations in 1992, during the siege of Sarajevo, he and other peacekeepers were captured and held for more than a month by militiamen brandishing AK-47s and reeking of alcohol. Professional shunning seems trivial by comparison, he says.
“Tom Jefferson has taken a lot of heat just for saying, ‘Here’s the evidence: it’s not very good,’” says Majumdar. “The reaction has been so dogmatic and even hysterical that you’d think he was advocating stealing babies.” Yet while other flu researchers may not like what Jefferson has to say, they cannot ignore the fact that he knows the flu-vaccine literature better than anyone else on the planet. He leads an international team of researchers who have combed through hundreds of flu-vaccine studies. The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. “Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it’s the term that applies.” Only four studies were properly designed to pin down the effectiveness of flu vaccine, he says, and two of those showed that it might be effective in certain groups of patients, such as school-age children with no underlying health issues like asthma. The other two showed equivocal results or no benefit.
Flu researchers have been fooled into thinking vaccine is more effective than the data suggest, in part, says Jefferson, by the imprecision of the statistics. The only way to know if someone has the flu—as opposed to influenza-like illness—is by putting a Q-tip into the patient’s throat or nose and running a test, which simply isn’t done that often. Likewise, nobody really has a handle on how many of the deaths that are blamed on flu were actually caused by a flu virus, because few are confirmed by a laboratory. “I used to be a family physician,” says Jefferson. “I’ve never seen a patient come to my office with H1N1 written on his forehead. When an old person dies of respiratory failure after an influenza-like illness, they nearly always get coded as influenza.”
There’s one other way flu researchers may be fooled into thinking flu vaccine is effective, Jefferson says. All vaccines work by delivering a dose of killed or weakened virus or bacteria, which provokes the immune system into producing antibodies. When the person is subsequently exposed to the real thing, the body is already prepared to repel the bug completely or to get rid of it after a mild illness. Flu researchers often use antibody response as a way of gauging the effectiveness of vaccine, on the assumption that levels of antibodies in the blood of people who have been vaccinated are a good predictor—although an imperfect one—of how well they can ward off the infection.
There’s some merit to this reasoning. Unfortunately, the very people who most need protection from the flu also have immune systems that are least likely to respond to vaccine. Studies show that young, healthy people mount a glorious immune response to seasonal flu vaccine, and their response reduces their chances of getting the flu and may lessen the severity of symptoms if they do get it. But they aren’t the people who die from seasonal flu. By contrast, the elderly, particularly those over age70, don’t have a good immune response to vaccine—and they’re the ones who account for most flu deaths. (Infants with severe disabilities, such as leukemia and congenital lung disease, and people who are immune-compromised—from AIDS, or diabetes, or cancer treatment—make up the rest. As of August8, only 36 deaths from swine flu had been confirmed among children in the U.S., and the overwhelming majority of those children had multiple, severe health disorders.)
In Jefferson’s view, this raises a troubling conundrum: Is vaccine necessary for those in whom it is effective, namely the young and healthy? Conversely, is it effective in those for whom it seems to be necessary, namely the old, the very young, and the infirm? These questions have led to the most controversial aspect of Jefferson’s work: his call for placebo-controlled trials, studies that would randomly give half the test subjects vaccine and the other half a dummy shot, or placebo. Only such large, well-constructed, randomized trials can show with any precision how effective vaccine really is, and for whom.
In the flu-vaccine world, Jefferson’s call for placebo-controlled studies is considered so radical that even some of his fellow skeptics oppose it. Majumdar, the Ottawa researcher, says he believes that evidence of a benefit among children is established and that public-health officials should try to protect seniors by immunizing children, health-care workers, and other people around them, and thus reduce the spread of the flu. Lone Simonsen explains the prevailing view: “It is considered unethical to do trials in populations that are recommended to have vaccine,” a stance that is shared by everybody from the CDC’s Nancy Cox to Anthony Fauci at the NIH. They feel strongly that vaccine has been shown to be effective and that a sham vaccine would put test subjects at unnecessary risk of getting a serious case of the flu. In a phone interview, Fauci at first voiced the opinion that a placebo trial in the elderly might be acceptable, but he called back later to retract his comment, saying that such a trial “would be unethical.” Jefferson finds this view almost exactly backward: “What do you do when you have uncertainty? You test,” he says. “We have built huge, population-based policies on the flimsiest of scientific evidence. The most unethical thing to do is to carry on business as usual.”
Just after 6 p.m. on a warm Friday evening in July, Dr. David Newman is only minutes into a 10-hour shift in the emergency room of New York City’s St. Luke’s Hospital, and already he has assumed responsibility for 11 patients. The young Italian tourist sitting on the bed in front of the doctor has meningitis, and through an interpreter, Newman tells him he almost certainly has the viral form of the disease, which will do nothing more than make him feel ill for a few days. There is a tiny chance, says Newman, that the illness is caused by a bacterium, which can be deadly, but he is almost positive that’s not what the tourist has. He says to his patient, “I can’t tell you with 100 percent certainty that you don’t have it, but if you do, you’ll begin to feel worse and you’ll need to come back.” The tourist, on learning that he might be infected with a potentially lethal disease, looks down at his feet and confesses that he is much more worried about another illness: swine flu. Newman smiles patiently. “It would be nice if you had swine flu,” he says. “Compared to bacterial meningitis, swine flu is safe.”
Late last spring, as headlines and airwaves warned of a possible pandemic, patients like Newman’s began clogging emergency rooms across the country, a sneezing, coughing, infectious tide of humanity more worried than truly sick, but whose mere presence in the emergency room has endangered the lives of others. “Studies show that when there is ER crowding, mortality goes up, because patients who need immediate attention don’t get it,” says Newman, the director of clinical research in the Department of Emergency Medicine at the hospital, which is affiliated with Columbia University. In an average year the ER at St. Luke’s, a sprawling 1,076-bed hospital on 113th Street, takes in 110,000 patients, some 300 a day. At the height of the summer swine flu outbreak, that number doubled. The vast majority of panicky patients who came in the door at St. Luke’s and other emergency departments didn’t actually have the virus, and of those who did, most were not sick enough to need hospitalization. Even so, says Newman, when patients with even mild flu symptoms show up in the hospital, they vastly increase the spread of the virus, simply because they inevitably sneeze and cough in rooms that are jammed with other people.
Many of the worried sick come to St. Luke’s and other hospitals in search of antiviral drugs. The CDC recommends the use of two drugs against H1N1: oseltamivir and zanamivir, better known by their brand names, Tamiflu and Relenza, which together form the second pillar of the government’s anti-pandemic-flu strategy. Public-health officials at the state and local levels are also recommending the drugs. Guidelines issued by the New York City Department of Health, says Newman, “encourage us to give a prescription to just about every patient with the sniffles,” a practice that some experts worry will quickly lead to resistant strains of the virus.
Indeed, that’s already happening. Daniel Janies, an associate professor of biomedical informatics at Ohio State University, tracks the genetic mutations that allow flu virus to develop resistance to drugs. Flu can become resistant to Tamiflu in a matter of days, he says. Handing out the drug early in the pandemic, when H1N1 poses only a minimal threat to the vast majority of patients, strikes him as “shortsighted.” Indeed, samples of resistant H1N1 were cropping up by midsummer, increasing the likelihood that come late fall, many people will be infected with a resistant strain of swine flu. Alarmed at that prospect, the World Health Organization issued an alert on August 21, recommending that Tamiflu and Relenza be used only in severe cases and in patients who are at high risk of serious complications. By mid-August, two U.S. swine flu patients had developed Tamiflu-resistant strains.
The U.S. first began stockpiling Tamiflu and Relenza back in 2005, in the wake of concern that an outbreak in Southeast Asia of bird flu, a far more deadly form of the disease, might go global. On November 1, 2005, President George W.Bush pronounced pandemic flu a “danger to our homeland,” and he asked Congress to approve legislation that included $1billion for the production and stockpiling of antivirals. This was after Congress had already approved $1.8billion to stockpile Tamiflu for the military, a decision that was made during the tenure of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. (Before joining the Bush Cabinet, Rumsfeld was chairman for four years of Gilead Sciences, the company that holds the patent on Tamiflu, and he held millions of dollars’ worth of stock in the company. According to Roll Call, an online newspaper covering events on Capitol Hill, Rumsfeld says he recused himself from all government decisions involving Tamiflu. Gilead’s stock price rose more than 50 percent in 2005, when the government’s plan was announced.)
As with vaccines, the scientific evidence for Tamiflu and Relenza is thin at best. In its general-information section, the CDC’s Web site tells readers that antiviral drugs can “make you feel better faster.” True, but not by much. On average, Tamiflu (which accounts for 85 to 90 percent of the flu antiviral-drug market) cuts the duration of flu symptoms by 24hours in otherwise healthy people. In exchange for a slightly shorter bout of illness, as many as one in five people taking Tamiflu will experience nausea and vomiting. About one in five children will have neuropsychiatric side effects, possibly including anxiety and suicidal behavior. In Japan, where Tamiflu is liberally prescribed, the drug may have been responsible for 50 deaths from cardiopulmonary arrest, from 2001 to 2007, according to Rokuro Hama, the chair of the Japan Institute of Pharmacovigilance.
Such side effects might be worth risking if the antivirals prevented serious complications of flu, such as pneumonia, hospitalization, and death. Roche Laboratories, the company licensed to manufacture and market Tamiflu, says its drug does just that. In two September2006 press releases, the company announced, “Tamiflu significantly reduces the risk of death from influenza: New data shows treatment was associated with more than a two third reduction in deaths,” and “Children with influenza [are] 53 percent less likely to contract pneumonia when treated with Tamiflu.” Once again cohort studies (the same kind of potentially biased research that led to the conclusion that flu vaccine cuts mortality by 50 percent) are behind these claims. Tamiflu costs $10 a pill. It is possible that people who take it are more likely to be insured and affluent, or at least middle-class, than those who do not, and a large body of evidence shows that the well-off nearly always fare better than the poor when stricken with an infectious disease, including flu. In both 2003 and 2009, reviews of randomized placebo-controlled studies found that the study populations simply weren’t large enough to answer the question: Does Tamiflu prevent pneumonia?
As late as this August, the company’s own Web site contained the following statement, which was written under the direction of the FDA: “Tamiflu has not been proven to have a positive impact on the potential consequences (such as hospitalizations, mortality, or economic impact) of seasonal, avian, or pandemic influenza.” An FDA spokesperson said recently that the agency is unaware of any data submitted by Roche that would support the claims in the company’s September 2006 news release about the drug’s reducing flu deaths.
Why, then, has the federal government stockpiled millions of doses of antivirals, at a cost of several billion dollars? And why are physicians being encouraged to hand out prescriptions to large numbers of people, without sound evidence that the drugs will help? The short answer may be that public-health officials feel they must offer something, and these drugs are the only possible remedies at hand. “I have to agree with the critics the antiviral question is not cut-and-dried,” says Fauci. “But [these drugs are] the best we have.” The CDC’s Nancy Cox also acknowledges that the science is not as sound as she might like, but the government still recommends their use. And as with vaccines, she considers additional randomized placebo-controlled trials of the antiviral drugs to be “unethical” and thus out of the question.
This is the curious state of debate about the government’s two main weapons in the fight against pandemic flu. At first, government officials declare that both vaccines and drugs are effective. When faced with contrary evidence, the adherents acknowledge that the science is not as crisp as they might wish. Then, in response to calls for placebo-controlled trials, which would provide clear results one way or the other, the proponents say such studies would deprive patients of vaccines and drugs that have already been deemed effective. “We can’t just let people die,” says Cox.
Students of U.S. medical history will find this circular logic familiar: it is a long-recurring theme in American medicine, and one that has, on occasion, had deadly consequences. In 1925, Sinclair Lewis caricatured a medical culture that allowed belief—and profits—to distort science in his Pulitzer Prize–winning book, Arrowsmith. Based on the lives of the real-life microbiologists Paul de Kruif and Jacques Loeb, Lewis tells the story of Martin Arrowsmith, a physician who invents a new vaccine during a deadly outbreak of bubonic plague. But his efforts to test the vaccine’s efficacy are frustrated by an angry community that desperately wants to believe the vaccine works, and a profit-hungry institute that rushes the vaccine into use prematurely—forever preempting the proper studies that are needed.
The annals of medicine are littered with treatments and tests that became medical doctrine on the slimmest of evidence, and were then declared sacrosanct and beyond scientific investigation. In the 1980s and ’90s, for example, cancer specialists were convinced that high-dose chemotherapy followed by a bone-marrow transplant was the best hope for women with advanced breast cancer, and many refused to enroll their patients in randomized clinical trials that were designed to test transplants against the standard—and far less toxic—therapy. The trials, they said, were unethical, because they knew transplants worked. When the studies were concluded, in 1999 and 2000, it turned out that bone-marrow transplants were killing patients. Another recent example involves drugs related to the analgesic lidocaine. In the 1970s, doctors noticed that the drugs seemed to make the heart beat rhythmically, and they began prescribing them to patients suffering from irregular heartbeats, assuming that restoring a proper rhythm would reduce the patient’s risk of dying. Prominent cardiologists for years opposed clinical trials of the drugs, saying it would be medical malpractice to withhold them from patients in a control group. The drugs were widely used for two decades, until a government-sponsored study showed in 1989 that patients who were prescribed the medicine were three and a half times as likely to die as those given a placebo.
Demonstrating the efficacy (or lack thereof) of vaccine and antivirals during flu season would not be hard to do, given the proper resources. Take a group of people who are at risk of getting the flu, and randomly assign half to get vaccine and the other half a dummy shot. Then count the people in each group who come down with flu, suffer serious illness, or die. (A similarly designed trial would suffice for the antivirals.) It might sound coldhearted, but it is the only way to know for certain whether, and for whom, current remedies actually work. It would also be useful to know whether vaccinating healthy people—who can mount an immune response on their own—protects the more vulnerable people around them. For example, immunizing nursing-home staff and healthy children is thought to reduce the spread of flu to the elderly and the immune-compromised. Pinning down the effectiveness of this strategy would be a bit more complex, but not impossible.
In the absence of such evidence, we are left with two possibilities. One is that flu vaccine is in fact highly beneficial, or at least helpful. Solid evidence to that effect would encourage more citizens—and particularly more health professionals—to get their shots and prevent the flu’s spread. As it stands, more than 50 percent of health-care workers say they do not intend to get vaccinated for swine flu and don’t routinely get their shots for seasonal flu, in part because many of them doubt the vaccines’ efficacy. The other possibility, of course, is that we’re relying heavily on vaccines and antivirals that simply don’t work, or don’t work as well as we believe. And as a result, we may be neglecting other, proven measures that could minimize the death rate during pandemics.
“Vaccines give us a false sense of security,” says Sumit Majumdar. “When you have a strategy that [everybody thinks] reduces death by 50 percent, it’s pretty hard to invest resources to come up with better remedies.” For instance, health departments in every state are responsible for submitting plans to the CDC for educating the public, in the event of a serious pandemic, about hand-washing and “social distancing” (voluntary quarantines, school closings, and even enforcement of mandatory quarantines to keep infected people in their homes). Putting these plans into action will require considerable coordination among government officials, the media, and health-care workers—and widespread buy-in from the public. Yet little discussion has appeared in the press to help people understand the measures they can take to best protect themselves during a flu outbreak—other than vaccination and antivirals.
“Launched early enough and continued long enough, social distancing can blunt the impact of a pandemic,” says Howard Markel, a pediatrician and historian of medicine at the University of Michigan. Washing hands diligently, avoiding public places during an outbreak, and having a supply of canned goods and water on hand are sound defenses, he says. Such steps could be highly effective in helping to slow the spread of the virus. In Mexico, for instance, where the first swine flu cases were identified in March, the government launched an aggressive program to get people to wash their hands and exhorted those who were sick to stay home and effectively quarantine themselves. In the United Kingdom, the national health department is promoting a “buddy” program, encouraging citizens to find a friend or neighbor willing to deliver food and medicine so people who fall ill can stay home.
In the U.S., by contrast, our reliance on vaccination may have the opposite effect: breeding feelings of invulnerability, and leading some people to ignore simple measures like better-than-normal hygiene, staying away from those who are sick, and staying home when they feel ill. Likewise, our encouragement of early treatment with antiviral drugs will likely lead many people to show up at the hospital at first sniffle. “There’s no worse place to go than the hospital during flu season,” says Majumdar. Those who don’t have the flu are more likely to catch it there, and those who do will spread it around, he says. “But we don’t tell people this.”
All of which leaves open the question of what people should do when faced with a decision about whether to get themselves and their families vaccinated. There is little immediate danger from getting a seasonal flu shot, aside from a sore arm and mild flu-like symptoms. The safety of the swine flu vaccine remains to be seen. In the absence of better evidence, vaccines and antivirals must be viewed as only partial and uncertain defenses against the flu. And they may be mere talismans. By being afraid to do the proper studies now, we may be condemning ourselves to using treatments based on illusion and faith rather than sound science.
#2) Where, then, is the so-called "science" backing the idea that flu vaccines work at all?
Answer: Other than "cohort studies," there isn't any. And the cohort studies have been thoroughly debunked. Scientifically speaking, there isn't a scrap of honest evidence showing flu vaccines work at all.
#3) How can methyl mercury (Thimerosal, a preservative used in flu vaccines) be safe for injecting into the human body when mercury is an extremely toxic heavy metal?
Answer: It isn't safe at all. Methyl mercury is a poison. Along with vaccine adjuvants, it explains why so many people suffer autism or other debilitating neurological side effects after being vaccinated.
#4) Why do reports keep surfacing of children and teens suffering debilitating neurological disorders, brain swelling, seizures and even death following flu vaccines or HPV vaccines?
Answer: Because vaccines are dangerous. The vaccine industry routinely dismisses all such accounts -- no matter how many are reported -- as "coincidence."
#5) Why don't doctors recommend vitamin D for flu protection, especially when vitamin D activates the immune response far better than a vaccine? (http://www.naturalnews.com/027231_V...)
Answer: Because vitamin D can't be patented and sold as "medicine." You can make it yourself. If you want more vitamin D, you don't even need a doctor, and doctors tend not to recommend things that put them out of business.
#6) If human beings need flu vaccines to survive, then how did humans survive through all of Earth's history?
Answer: Human genetic code is already wired to automatically defend you against invading microorganisms (as long as you have vitamin D). (http://www.naturalnews.com/027231_V...)
#7) If the flu vaccine offers protection against the flu, then why are the people who often catch the flu the very same people who were vaccinated against it?
Answer: Because those most vulnerable to influenza infections are the very same people who have a poor adaptive response to the vaccines and don't build antibodies. In other words flu vaccines only "work" on people who don't need them. (And even building antibodies doesn't equate to real-world protection from the flu, by the way.)
#8) If the flu vaccine really works, then why was there no huge increase in flu death rates in 2004, the year when flu vaccines were in short supply and vaccination rates dropped by 40%? (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_v...)
Answer: There was no change in the death rate. You could drop vaccination rates to zero percent and you'd still see no change in the number of people dying from the flu. That's because flu vaccines simply don't work.
#9) How can flu vaccines reduce mortality by 50% (as is claimed) when only about 10% of winter deaths are related to the flu in the first place?
They can't. The 50% statistic is an example of quack medical marketing. If I have a room full of 100 people, then I take the 50 healthiest people and hand them a candy bar, I can't then scientifically claim that "candy bars make people healthy." That's essentially the same logic behind the "50% reduction in mortality" claim of flu vaccines. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_v...).
#10) If flu vaccines work so well, then why are drug makers and health authorities so reluctant to subject them to scientific scrutiny with randomized, placebo-controlled studies?
Answer: Although they claim such studies would be "unethical," what's far more unethical is to keep injecting hundreds of millions of people every year with useless, harmful vaccines that aren't backed by a shred of honest evidence.
Vaccine voodoo? The vaccine industry is about making money, not actually offering immune protection against the flu. Whether people get the flu or not is irrelevant to the bottom-line profits of the drug companies. What matters most is that people continue to take the flu shots, and making that happen depends entirely on pushing the vaccine mythology that infects the minds of doctors and health authorities today.
There was a time when all "good" doctors believed in bloodletting. Sickness was caused by evil spirits, they thought, and releasing pints of blood from the patient would clear the evil spirits and accelerate healing. Any doctor who questioned the science behind bloodletting was called a "denier." All the "good" doctors said, "We know bloodletting works, so we don't need science to back it up."
Today, you hear the exact same thing about vaccines. "We know they work," doctors claim, "so we don't need any real science to back it up." Anyone who questions the safety of flu vaccines (or H1N1 vaccines) is branded a "denier." Anyone who asks for solid scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of vaccines is called a troublemaker. They don't need any evidence. They already know vaccines work.
With that being the case, why bother calling it medicine at all? Why not just call it VOODOO? Why not accompany vaccines with the wave of a magic wand and some shamanic chanting? Maybe doctors should tell their patients to cross their fingers before being injected with a vaccine because "that makes it work better."
Seriously. Everything that doctors accuse "quacks" of doing with homeopathy, or herbs, or energy medicine is now being done by the doctors themselves when it comes to vaccines. They are following the exact same "quackery" they accuse other of pursuing.
This brings me to an important observation about modern medicine: MY quackery is okay, but YOUR quackery isn't!
That's the attitude of vaccine-pushing doctors and health authorities. As long as the quackery is widely agreed upon by the medical masses, then to heck with actual scientific evidence.
Quackery only needs good company, not good science, to be accepted as true.
Why natural medicine is inherently safer Of course, these vaccine devotees might say, well, you don't have any good evidence to support your anti-viral herbs, or your medicinal teas, or your vitamin D nutrition either. But in saying that, they miss the whole point: Foods, herbs and nutrition are all natural, biocompatible healing elements that have been part of the human experience for as long as humans have roamed this planet. A chemical injection with a sharp needle that pierces the skin, on the other hand, is extremely interventionist. It's unnatural and in many ways quite radical. As such, it demands a higher burden of scientific proof than something that human beings have evolved with over time.
Foods, herbs and natural medicines have been around for millions of years. Vaccines have existed for less than a hundred years, and routine season flu vaccinations have really only been pushed hard for less than twenty years. They have no track record of success. They aren't natural, they aren't compatible with human biology, and they contain extremely toxic substances that clearly do not belong in the human body.
Given such extremes, the burden of proof for both safety and efficacy of vaccines falls onto those who would advocate them. And yet, to this day, no such proof has been offered... or is even pursued. There isn't even a plan in place to someday find out if flu vaccines really work. The whole plan is to just pursue "business as usual" and keep injecting people whether it really works or not.
Vaccine needles would be far more honest if they were shaped like question marks.
Flu vaccines are the voodoo of modern medicine.
Seriously. You would have the same level of protection from the flu if you brought your own personal voodoo doll to the clinic and had them inject that with the vaccine instead of you!
That's an interesting idea, actually. We could really reduce national health care costs if we just administered western medicines to our voodoo dolls instead of our actual bodies. Got cancer? Just poison your voodoo doll with chemotherapy. Side effects are almost non-existent. Need heart bypass surgery? Just have them operate on the doll (it's far less complicated). Want some protection from the winter flu? Just vaccinate the doll. It's quick and painless.
The results would be no worse than what people are experiencing right now. In fact, in most cases they might actually be better.
In all of history there has been but one successful protest against an income tax. It is little understood in that light, primarily because the remnants of protest groups still exist, but no longer wish to appear to be "anti-government." They don’t talk much about these roots. Few even know them. We need to go back in time about 400 years to find this success. It succeeded only because the term "jurisdiction" was still well understood at that time as meaning "oath spoken." "Juris," in the original Latin meaning, is "oath." "Diction" as everyone knows, means "spoken." The protest obviously didn’t happen here. It occurred in England. Given that the origins of our law are traced there, most of the relevant facts in this matter are still applicable in this nation. Here’s what happened.
The Bible had just recently been put into print. To that time, only the churches and nobility owned copies, due to given to the extremely high cost of paper. Contrary to what you’ve been taught, it was not the invention of movable type that led to printing this and other books. That concept had been around for a very long time. It just had no application. Printing wastes some paper. Until paper prices fell, it was cheaper to write books by hand than to print them with movable type. The handwritten versions were outrageously costly, procurable only by those with extreme wealth: churches, crowns and the nobility. The wealth of the nobility was attributable to feudalism. "Feud" is Old English for "oath." The nobility held the land under the crown. But unimproved land, itself, save to hunter/gatherers, is rather useless. Land is useful to farming. So that’s how the nobility made their wealth. No, they didn’t push a plow. They had servants to do it. The nobility wouldn’t sell their land, nor would they lease it. They rented it. Ever paid rent without a lease? Then you know that if the landlord raised the rent, you had no legal recourse. You could move out or pay. But what if you couldn’t have moved out? Then you’d have a feel for what feudalism was all about.
A tenant wasn’t a freeman. He was a servant to the (land)lord, the noble. In order to have access to the land to farm it, the noble required that the tenant kneel before him, hat in hand, swear an oath of fealty and allegiance and kiss his ring (extending that oath in that last act to the heirs of his estate). That oath established a servitude. The tenant then put his plow to the fields. The rent was a variable. In good growing years it was very high, in bad years it fell. The tenant was a subsistence farmer, keeping only enough of the produce of his labors to just sustain him and his family. Rent was actually an "income tax." The nobleman could have demanded 100% of the productivity of his servant except . . . under the common law, a servant was akin to livestock. He had to be fed. Not well fed, just fed, same as a horse or cow. And, like a horse or cow, one usually finds it to his benefit to keep it fed, that so that the critter is productive. Thus, the tenant was allowed to keep some of his own productivity. Liken it to a "personal and dependent deductions."
The freemen of the realm, primarily the tradesmen, were unsworn and unallieged. They knew it. They taught their sons the trade so they’d also be free when grown. Occasionally they took on an apprentice under a sworn contract of indenture from his father. His parents made a few coins. But the kid was the biggest beneficiary. He’d learn a trade. He’d never need to become a tenant farmer. He’d keep what he earned. He was only apprenticed for a term of years, most typically about seven. The tradesmen didn’t need adolescents; they needed someone strong enough to pull his own weight. They did not take on anyone under 13. By age 21 he’d have learned enough to practice the craft. That’s when the contract expired. He was then called a "journeyman." Had he made a journey? No. But, if you pronounce that word, it is "Jur-nee-man." He was a "man," formerly ("nee"), bound by oath ("jur)." He’d then go to work for a "master" (craftsman). The pay was established, but he could ask for more if he felt he was worth more. And he was free to quit. Pretty normal, eh? Yes, in this society that’s quite the norm. But 400 some years ago these men were the exceptions, not the rule. At some point, if the journeyman was good at the trade, he’d be recognized by the market as a "master" (craftsman) and people would be begging him to take their children as apprentices, so they might learn from him, become journeymen, and keep what they earned when manumitted at age 21! The oath of the tenant ran for life. The oath of the apprentice’s father ran only for a term of years. Still, oaths were important on both sides. In fact, the tradesmen at one point established guilds (means "gold") as a protection against the potential of the government attempting to bind them into servitudes by compelled oaths.
When an apprentice became a journeyman, he was allowed a membership in the guild only by swearing a secret oath to the guild. He literally swore to "serve gold." Only gold. He swore he’d only work for pay! Once so sworn, any other oath of servitude would be a perjury of that oath. He bound himself for life to never be a servant, save to the very benevolent master: gold! (Incidentally, the Order of Free and Accepted Masons is a remnant of one of these guilds. Their oath is a secret. They’d love to have you think that the "G" in the middle of their logo stands for "God." The obvious truth is that it stands for "GOLD.")
Then the Bible came to print. The market for this tome wasn’t the wealthy. They already had a handwritten copy. Nor was it the tenants. They were far too poor to make this purchase. The market was the tradesmen - and the book was still so costly that it took the combined life savings of siblings to buy a family Bible. The other reason that the tradesmen were the market was that they’d also been taught how to read as part of their apprenticeship. As contractors they had to know how to do that! Other than the families of the super-rich (and the priests) nobody else knew how to read.
These men were blown away when they read Jesus’ command against swearing oaths (Matt 5: 33-37). This was news to them. For well over a millennia they’d been trusting that the church - originally just the Church of Rome, but now also the Church of England - had been telling them everything they needed to know in that book. Then they found out that Jesus said, "Swear no oaths." Talk about an eye-opener. Imagine seeing a conspiracy revealed that went back over 1000 years. Without oaths there’d have been no tenants, laboring for the nobility, and receiving mere subsistence in return. The whole society was premised on oaths; the whole society CLAIMED it was Christian, yet, it violated a very simple command of Christ! And the tradesmen had done it, too, by demanding sworn contracts of indenture for apprentices and giving their own oaths to the guilds. They had no way of knowing that was prohibited by Jesus! They were angry. "Livid" might be a better term. The governments had seen this coming. What could they do? Ban the book? The printing would have simply moved underground and the millennia long conspiracy would be further evidenced in that banning. They came up with a better scheme. You call it the "Reformation."
In an unprecedented display of unanimity, the governments of Europe adopted a treaty. This treaty would allow anyone the State-right of founding a church. It was considered a State right, there and then. The church would be granted a charter. It only had to do one very simple thing to obtain that charter. It had to assent to the terms of the treaty.
Buried in those provisions, most of which were totally innocuous, was a statement that the church would never oppose the swearing of lawful oaths. Jesus said, "None." The churches all said (and still say), "None, except . . ." Who do you think was (is) right?
The tradesmen got even angrier! They had already left the Church of England. But with every new "reformed" church still opposing the clear words of Christ, there was no church for them to join - or found. They exercised the right of assembly to discuss the Bible. Some of them preached it on the street corners, using their right of freedom of speech. But they couldn’t establish a church, which followed Jesus’ words, for that would have required assent to that treaty which opposed what Jesus had commanded. To show their absolute displeasure with those who’d kept this secret for so long, they refused to give anyone in church or state any respect. It was the custom to doff one’s hat when he encountered a priest or official. They started wearing big, ugly black hats, just so that the most myopic of these claimed "superiors" wouldn’t miss the fact that the hat stayed atop their head. Back then the term "you" was formal English, reserved for use when speaking to a superior. "Thee" was the familiar pronoun, used among family and friends. So they called these officials only by the familiar pronoun "thee" or by their Christian names, "George, Peter, Robert, etc." We call these folk "Quakers." That was a nickname given to them by a judge. One of them had told the judge that he’d better "Quake before the Lord, God almighty." The judge, in a display of irreverent disrespect replied, "Thee are the quaker here." They found that pretty funny, it being such a total misnomer (as you shall soon see), and the nickname stuck. With the huge membership losses from the Anglican Church - especially from men who’d been the more charitable to it in the past - the church was technically bankrupt. It wasn’t just the losses from the Quakers. Other people were leaving to join the new "Reformed Churches." Elsewhere in Europe, the Roman Church had amassed sufficient assets to weather this storm. The far newer Anglican Church had not.
But the Anglican Church, as an agency of the State, can’t go bankrupt. It becomes the duty of the State to support it in hard times. Parliament did so. It enacted a tax to that end. A nice religious tax, and by current standards a very low tax, a tithe (10%). But it made a deadly mistake in that. The Quakers, primarily as tradesmen, recognized this income tax as a tax "without jurisdiction,’ at least so far as they went. As men unsworn and unallieged, they pointed out that they didn’t have to pay it, nor provide a return. Absent their oaths establishing this servitude, there was "no jurisdiction." And they were right. Despite laws making it a crime to willfully refuse to make a return and pay this tax, NONE were charged or arrested.
That caused the rest of the society to take notice. Other folk who’d thought the Quakers were "extremists" suddenly began to listen to them. As always, money talks. These guys were keeping all they earned, while the rest of the un-sworn society, thinking this tax applied to them, well; they were out 10%. The Quaker movement expanded significantly, that proof once made in the marketplace. Membership in the Anglican Church fell even further, as did charity to it. The taxes weren’t enough to offset these further losses. The tithe (income) tax was actually counterproductive to the goal of supporting the church. The members of the government and the churchmen were scared silly. If this movement continued to expand at the current rate, no one in the next generation would swear an oath. Who’d then farm the lands of the nobility? Oh, surely someone would, but not as a servant working for subsistence. The land would need to be leased under a contract, with the payment for that use established in the market, not on the unilateral whim of the nobleman. The wealth of the nobility, their incomes, was about to be greatly diminished. And the Church of England, what assets it possessed, would need to be sold-off, with what remained of that church greatly reduced in power and wealth. But far worse was the diminishment of the respect demanded by the priests and officials. They’d always held a position of superiority in the society. What would they do when all of society treated them only as equals?
They began to use the term "anarchy." But England was a monarchy, not an anarchy. And that was the ultimate solution to the problem, or so those in government thought. There’s an aspect of a monarchy that Americans find somewhat incomprehensible, or at least we did two centuries ago. A crown has divine right, or at least it so claims. An expression of the divine right of a crown is the power to rule by demand. A crown can issue commands. The king says, "jump." Everyone jumps.
Why do they jump? Simple. It’s a crime to NOT jump. To "willfully fail (hey, there’s a couple of familiar terms) to obey a crown command" is considered to be a treason, high treason. The British crown issued a Crown Command to end the tax objection movement.
Did the crown order that everyone shall pay the income tax? No, that wasn’t possible. There really was "no jurisdiction." And that would have done nothing to cure the lack of respect. The crown went one better. It ordered that every man shall swear an oath of allegiance to the crown! Damned Christian thing to do, eh? Literally!
A small handful of the tax objectors obeyed. Most refused. It was a simple matter of black and white. Jesus said "swear not at all." They opted to obey Him over the crown. That quickly brought them into court, facing the charge of high treason. An official would take the witness stand, swearing that he had no record of the defendant’s oath of allegiance. Then the defendant was called to testify, there being no right to refuse to witness against one’s self. He refused to accept the administered oath. That refusal on the record, the court instantly judged him guilty. Took all of 10 minutes. That expedience was essential, for there were another couple hundred defendants waiting to be tried that day for their own treasons against the crown. In short order the jails reached their capacity, plus. But they weren’t filled as you’d envision them. The men who’d refused the oaths weren’t there. Their children were. There was a "Stand-in" law allowing for that. There was no social welfare system. The wife and children of a married man in prison existed on the charity of church and neighbors, or they ceased to exist, starving to death. It was typical for a man convicted of a petty crime to have one of his kid's stand in for him for 30 or 90 days. That way he could continue to earn a living, keeping bread on the table, without the family having to rely on charity. However, a man convicted of more heinous crimes would usually find it impossible to convince his wife to allow his children to serve his time. The family would prefer to exist on charity rather than see him back in society. But in this case the family had no option. The family was churchless. The neighbors were all in the same situation. Charity was non-existent for them. The family was destined to quick starvation unless one of the children stood- in for the breadwinner. Unfortunately, the rational choice of which child should serve the time was predicated on which child was the least productive to the family earnings.
That meant nearly the youngest, usually a daughter. Thus, the prisons of England filled with adolescent females, serving the life sentences for their dads. Those lives would be short. There was no heat in the jails. They were rife with tuberculosis and other deadly diseases. A strong man might last several years. A small girl measured her remaining time on earth in months. It was Christian holocaust, a true sacrifice of the unblemished lambs. (And, we must note, completely ignored in virtually every history text covering this era, lest the crown, government and church be duly embarrassed.) Despite the high mortality rate the jails still overflowed. There was little fear that the daughters would be raped or die at the brutality of other prisoners. The other prisoners, the real felons, had all been released to make room. Early release was premised on the severity of the crime. High treason was the highest crime. The murderers, thieves, arsonists, rapists, etc., had all been set free. That had a very profound effect on commerce. It stopped. There were highwaymen afoot on every road. Thugs and muggers ruled the city streets. The sworn subjects of the crown sat behind bolted doors, in cold, dark homes, wondering how they’d exist when the food and water ran out. They finally dared to venture out to attend meetings to address the situation. At those meetings they discussed methods to overthrow the crown to which they were sworn! Call that perjury. Call that sedition. Call it by any name, they were going to put their words into actions, and soon, or die from starvation or the blade of a thug. Here we should note that chaos (and nearly anarchy: "no crown") came to be, not as the result of the refusal to swear oaths, but as the direct result of the governmental demand that people swear them! The followers of Jesus’ words didn’t bring that chaos, those who ignored that command of Christ brought it. The crown soon saw the revolutionary handwriting on the wall and ordered the release of the children and the recapture of the real felons, before the government was removed from office under force of arms. The courts came up with the odd concept of an "affirmation in lieu of oath." The Quakers accepted that as a victory. Given what they’d been through, that was understandable. However, Jesus also prohibited affirmations, calling the practice an oath "by thy head." Funny that He could foresee the legal concept of an affirmation 1600 years before it came to be. Quite a prophecy!
When the colonies opened to migration, the Quakers fled Europe in droves, trying to put as much distance as they could between themselves and crowns. They had a very rational fear of a repeat of the situation. That put a lot of them here, enough that they had a very strong influence on politics. They could have blocked the ratification of the Constitution had they opposed it. Some of their demands were incorporated into it, as were some of their concessions, in balance to those demands. Their most obvious influence found in the Constitution is the definition of treason, the only crime defined in that document. Treason here is half of what can be committed under a crown. In the United States treason may only arise out of an (overt) ACTION. A refusal to perform an action at the command of the government is not a treason, hence, NOT A CRIME. You can find that restated in the Bill of Rights, where the territorial jurisdiction of the courts to try a criminal act is limited to the place wherein the crime shall have been COMMITTED. A refusal or failure is not an act "committed" - it’s the opposite, an act "omitted." In this nation "doing nothing" can’t be criminal, even when someone claims the power to command you do something. That concept in place, the new government would have lasted about three years. You see, if it were not a crime to fail to do something, then the officers of that government would have done NOTHING - save to draw their pay. That truth forced the Quakers to a concession.
Anyone holding a government job would need be sworn (or affirmed) to support the Constitution. That Constitution enabled the Congress to enact laws necessary and proper to control the powers vested in these people. Those laws would establish their duties. Should such an official "fail" to perform his lawful duties, he’d evidence in that omission that his oath was false. To swear a false oath is an ACTION. Thus, the punishments for failures would exist under the concept of perjury, not treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath of office, who were in office only by their oaths. And that’s still the situation. It’s just that the government has very cleverly obscured that fact so that the average man will pay it a rent, a tax on income. As you probably know, the first use of income tax here came well in advance of the 16th amendment. That tax was NEARLY abolished by a late 19th century Supreme Court decision. The problem was that the tax wasn’t apportioned, and couldn’t be apportioned, that because of the fact that it rested on the income of each person earning it, rather than an up-front total, divided and meted out to the several States according to the census. But the income tax wasn’t absolutely abolished. The court listed a solitary exception. The incomes of federal officers, derived as a benefit of office, could be so taxed. You could call that a "kick back" or even a "return." Essentially, the court said that what Congress gives, it can demand back. As that wouldn’t be income derived within a State, the rule of apportionment didn’t apply. Make sense?
Now, no court can just make up rulings. The function of a court is to answer the questions posed to it. And in order to pose a question, a person needs standing." The petitioner has to show that an action has occurred which affects him, hence, giving him that standing. For the Supreme Court to address the question of the income of officers demonstrates that the petitioner was such. Otherwise, the question couldn’t have come up.
Congress was taxing his benefits of office. But Congress was ALSO taxing his outside income, that from sources within a State. Could have been interest, dividends, rent, royalties, and even alimony. If he had a side job, it might have even been commissions or salary. Those forms of income could not be taxed. However, Congress could tax his income from the benefits he derived by being an officer.
That Court decision was the end of all income taxation. The reason is pretty obvious. Rather than tax the benefits derived out of office, it’s far easier to just reduce the benefits up front! Saves time. Saves paper. The money stays in Treasury rather than going out, then coming back as much as 15 or 16 months later. So, even though the benefits of office could have been taxed, under that Court ruling, that tax was dropped by Congress. There are two ways to overcome a Supreme Court ruling. The first is to have the court reverse itself. That’s a very strange concept at law. Actually, it’s impossibility at law. The only way a court can change a prior ruling is if the statutes or the Constitution change, that changing the premises on which its prior conclusion at law was derived. Because it was a Supreme Court ruling nearly abolishing the income tax, the second method, an Amendment to the Constitution, was used to overcome the prior decision. That was the 16th Amendment. The 16th allows for Congress to tax incomes from whatever source derived, without regard to apportionment. Whose incomes? Hey, it doesn’t say (nor do the statues enacted under it). The Supreme Court has stated that this Amendment granted Congress "no new powers." That’s absolutely true. Congress always had the power to tax incomes, but only the incomes of officers and only their incomes derived out of a benefit of office. All the 16th did was extend that EXISTING POWER to tax officers’ incomes (as benefits of office) to their incomes from other sources (from whatever source derived). The 16th Amendment and the statutes enacted thereunder don’t have to say whose incomes are subject to this tax. The Supreme Court had already said that: officers. That’s logical. If it could be a crime for a freeman to "willfully fail" to file or pay this tax, that crime could only exist as a treason by monarchical definition. In this nation a crime of failure may only exist under the broad category of a perjury. Period, no exception.
Thus, the trick employed by the government is to get you to claim that you are an officer of that government. Yeah, you’re saying, "Man, I’d never be so foolish as to claim that." I’ll betcha $100 I can prove that you did it and that you’ll be forced to agree. Did you ever sign a tax form, a W-4, a 1040? Then you did it.
Look at the fine print at the bottom of the tax forms you once signed. You declared that it was "true" that you were "under penalties of perjury." Are you? Were you? Perjury is a felony. To commit a perjury you have to FIRST be under oath (or affirmation). You know that. It’s common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you’d need to be under oath, right? Right. There’s no other way, unless you pretend to be under oath. To pretend to be under oath is a perjury automatically. There would be no oath. Hence it’s a FALSE oath. Perjury rests on making a false oath. So, to claim to be "under penalties of perjury" is to claim that you’re under oath. That claim could be true, could be false. But if false, and you knowingly and willingly made that false claim, then you committed a perjury just by making that claim.
You’ve read the Constitution. How many times can you be tried and penalized for a single criminal act? Once? Did I hear you right? Did you say once; only once? Good for you. You know that you can’t even be placed in jeopardy of penalty (trial) a second time.
The term "penalties" is plural. More than one. Oops. Didn’t you just state that you could only be tried once, penalized once, for a single criminal action? Sure you did. And that would almost always be true. There’s a solitary exception. A federal official or employee may be twice tried, twice penalized. The second penalty, resulting out of a conviction of impeachment, is the loss of the benefits of office, for life. Federal officials are under oath, an oath of office. That’s why you call them civil servants. That oath establishes jurisdiction (oath spoken), allowing them to be penalized, twice, for a perjury (especially for a perjury of official oath). You have been tricked into signing tax forms under the perjury clause. You aren’t under oath enabling the commission of perjury. You can’t be twice penalized for a single criminal act, even for a perjury. Still, because you trusted that the government wouldn’t try to deceive you, you signed an income tax form, pretending that there was jurisdiction (oath spoken) where there was none.
Once you sign the first form, the government will forever believe that you are a civil servant. Stop signing those forms while you continue to have income and you’ll be charged with "willful failure to file," a crime of doing nothing when commanded to do something!
Initially, the income tax forms were required to be SWORN (or affirmed) before a notary. A criminal by the name of Sullivan brought that matter all the way to the Supreme Court. He argued that if he listed his income from criminal activities, that information would later be used against him on a criminal charge. If he didn’t list it, then swore that the form was "true, correct and complete," he could be charged and convicted of a perjury. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. The Supreme Court could only agree. It ruled that a person could refuse to provide any information on that form, taking individual exception to each line, and stating in that space that he refused to provide testimony against himself. That should have been the end of the income tax. In a few years everyone would have been refusing to provide answers on the "gross" and "net income" lines, forcing NO answer on the "tax due" line, as well. Of course, that decision was premised on the use of the notarized oath, causing the answers to have the quality of "testimony."
Congress then INSTANTLY ordered the forms be changed. In place of the notarized oath, the forms would contain a statement that they were made and signed "Under penalties of perjury." The prior ruling of the Supreme Court was made obsolete. Congress had changed the premise on which it had reached its conclusion. The verity of the information on the form no longer rested on a notarized oath. It rested on the taxpayer’s oath of office. And, as many a tax protestor in the 1970s and early 1980s quickly discovered, the Supreme Court ruling for Sullivan had no current relevance.
There has never been a criminal trial in any matter under federal income taxation without a SIGNED tax form in evidence before the court. The court takes notice of the signature below the perjury clause and assumes the standing of the defendant is that of a federal official, a person under oath of office who may be twice penalized for a single criminal act of perjury (to his official oath). The court has jurisdiction to try such a person for a "failure." That jurisdiction arises under the concept of perjury, not treason.
However, the court is in an odd position here. If the defendant should take the witness stand, under oath or affirmation to tell the truth, and then truthfully state that he is not under oath of office and is not a federal officer or employee, that statement would contradict the signed statement on the tax form, already in evidence and made under claim of oath. That contradiction would give rise to a technical perjury. Under federal statutes, courtroom perjury is committed when a person willfully makes two statements, both under oath, which contradict one another.
The perjury clause claims the witness to be a federal person. If he truthfully says the contrary from the witness stand, the judge is then duty bound to charge him with the commission of a perjury! At his ensuing perjury trial, the two contradictory statements "(I’m) under penalties of perjury" and "I’m not a federal official or employee" would be the sole evidence of the commission of the perjury. As federal employment is a matter of public record, the truth of the last statement would be evidenced. That would prove that the perjury clause was a FALSE statement. Can’t have that proof on the record, can we? About now you are thinking of some tax protester trials for "willful failure" where the defendant took the witness stand and testified, in full truth, that he was not a federal person. This writer has studied a few such cases. Those of Irwin Schiff and F. Tupper Saussy come to mind. And you are right; they told the court that they weren’t federal persons. Unfortunately, they didn’t tell the court that while under oath. A most curious phenomenon occurs at "willful failure" trials where the defendant has published the fact, in books or newsletters, that he isn’t a federal person. The judge becomes very absent-minded - at least that’s surely what he’d try to claim if the issue were ever raised. He forgets to swear-in the defendant before he takes the witness stand. The defendant tells the truth from the witness stand, but does so without an oath. As he’s not under oath, nothing he says can constitute a technical perjury as a contradiction to the "perjury clause" on the tax forms already in evidence. The court will almost always judge him guilty for his failure to file. Clever system. And it all begins when a person who is NOT a federal officer or employee signs his first income tax form, FALSELY claiming that he’s under an oath which if perjured may bring him a duality of penalties. It’s still a matter of jurisdiction (oath spoken). That hasn’t changed in over 400 years. The only difference is that in this nation, we have no monarch able to command us to action. In the United States of America, you have to VOLUNTEER to establish jurisdiction. Once you do, then you are subject to commands regarding the duties of your office. Hence the income tax is "voluntary," in the beginning, but "compulsory" once you volunteer. You volunteer when you sign your very first income tax form, probably a Form W-4 and probably at about age 15. You voluntarily sign a false statement, a false statement that claims that you are subject to jurisdiction. Gotcha! Oh, and when the prosecutor enters your prior signed income tax forms into evidence at a willful failure to file trial, he will always tell the court that those forms evidence that you knew it was your DUTY to make and file proper returns. DUTY! A free man owes no DUTY. A free man owes nothing to the federal government, as he receives nothing from it. But a federal official owes a duty. He receives something from that government - the benefits of office. In addition to a return of some of those benefits, Congress can also demand that he pay a tax on his other forms of income, now under the 16th Amendment, from whatever source they may be derived. If that were ever to be understood, the ranks of real, sworn federal officers would diminish greatly. And the ranks of the pretended federal officers (including you) would vanish to zero. It’s still the same system as it was 400 years ago, with appropriate modifications, so you don’t immediately realize it. Yes, it’s a jurisdictional matter. An Oath-spoken matter. Quite likely you, as a student of the Constitution, have puzzled over the 14th Amendment. You’ve wondered who are persons "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and in the alternative, who are not. This is easily explained, again in the proper historical perspective.
The claimed purpose of the 14th was to vest civil rights to the former slaves. A method was needed to convert them from chattel to full civil beings. The Supreme Court had issued rulings that precluded that from occurring. Hence, an Amendment was necessary. But it took a little more than the amendment. The former slaves would need to perform an act, subjecting themselves to the "jurisdiction" of the United States. You should now realize that an oath is the way that was/is accomplished.
After the battles of the rebellion had ceased, the manumitted slaves were free, but rightless. They held no electoral franchise - they couldn’t vote. The governments of the Southern States were pretty peeved over what had occurred in the prior several years, and they weren’t about to extend electoral franchises to the former slaves. The Federal government found a way to force that.
It ordered that voters had to be "registered." And it ordered that to become a registered voter, one had to SWEAR an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. The white folks, by and large, weren’t about to do that. They were also peeved that the excuse for all the battles was an unwritten, alleged, Constitutional premise, that a "State had no right to secede." The former slaves had no problem swearing allegiance to the Constitution. The vast majority of them didn’t have the slightest idea of what an oath was, nor did they even know what the Constitution was!
Great voter registration drives took place. In an odd historical twist, these were largely sponsored by the Quakers who volunteered their assistance. Thus, most of the oaths administered were administered by Quakers! Every former slave was sworn-in, taking what actually was an OATH OF OFFICE. The electoral franchise then existed almost exclusively among the former slaves, with the white folks in the South unanimously refusing that oath and denied their right to vote. For a while many of the Southern State governments were comprised of no one other than the former slaves. The former slaves became de jure (by oath) federal officials, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" by that oath. They were non-compensated officials, receiving no benefits of their office, save what was then extended under the 14th Amendment. There was some brief talk of providing compensation in the form of 40 acres and a mule, but that quickly faded.
Jurisdiction over a person exists only by oath. Always has, always will. For a court to have jurisdiction, some one has to bring a charge or petition under an oath. In a criminal matter, the charge is forwarded under the oaths of the grand jurors (indictment) or under the oath of office of a federal officer (information). Even before a warrant may be issued, someone has to swear there is probable cause. Should it later be discovered that there was NOT probable cause, that person should be charged with a perjury. It’s all about oaths. And the one crime for which immunity, even "sovereign immunity," cannot be extended is ... perjury.
You must understand "jurisdiction." That term is only understandable when one understands the history behind it. Know what "jurisdiction" means. You didn’t WILLFULLY claim that you were "Under penalties of perjury" on those tax forms you signed. You may have done it voluntarily, but you surely did it ignorantly! You didn’t realize the import and implications of that clause. It was, quite frankly, a MISTAKE. A big one. A dumb one. Still it was only a mistake. Willfulness rests on intent. You had no intent to claim that you were under an oath of office, a perjury of which could bring you dual penalties. You just didn’t give those words any thought. What do you do when you discover you’ve made a mistake? As an honest man, you tell those who may have been affected by your error, apologize to them, and usually you promise to be more careful in the future, that as a demonstration that you, like all of us, learn by your mistakes. You really ought to drop the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States a short letter, cc it to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Explain that you never realized that the fine print on the bottom of all income tax forms meant that you were claiming to be "under oath" a perjury of which might be "twice" penalized. Explain that you’ve never sworn such an oath and that for reasons of conscience, you never will. You made this mistake on every tax form you’d ever signed. But now that you understand the words, you’ll most certainly not make that mistake again! That’ll be the end of any possibility that you’ll ever be charged with "willful failure to file." Too simple? No, it’s only as simple as it’s supposed to be. Jurisdiction (oath spoken) is a pretty simple matter. Either you are subject to jurisdiction, by having really sworn an oath, or you are not. If you aren’t under oath, and abolish all the pretenses, false pretenses you provided, on which the government assumed that you were under oath, then the jurisdiction fails and you become a freeman. A freeman can’t be compelled to perform any act and threatened with a penalty, certainly not two penalties, should he fail to do so. That would constitute a treason charge by the part of the definition abolished here.
It’s a matter of history. European history, American history, and finally, the history of your life. The first two may be hidden from you, making parts of them difficult to discover. But the last history you know. If you know that you’ve never sworn an oath of office, and now understand how that truth fits the other histories, then you are free. Truth does that. Funny how that works.
Jesus was that Truth. His command that His followers "Swear not at all." That was the method by which He set men free. Israel was a feudal society. It had a crown; it had landlords; they had tenant farmers bound by oath to them. Jesus scared them silly. Who’d farm those lands in the next generation, when all of the people refused to swear oaths? Ring a bell? And what did the government do to Jesus? It tried to obtain jurisdiction on the false oath of a witness, charging Him with "sedition" for the out-of-context, allegorical statement that He’d "tear down the temple" (a government building). At that trial, Jesus stood mute, refusing the administered oath. That was unheard of!
The judge became so frustrated that he posed a trick question attempting to obtain jurisdiction from Jesus. He said, "I adjure you in the name of the Living God, are you the man (accused of sedition)." An adjuration is a "compelled oath." Jesus then broke his silence, responding, "You have so said."
He didn’t "take" the adjured oath. He left it with its speaker, the judge! That bound the judge to truth. Had the judge also falsely said that Jesus was the man (guilty of sedition)? No, not out loud, not yet. But in his heart he’d said so. That’s what this trial was all about. Jesus tossed that falsehood back where it belonged as well as the oath. In those few words, "You have so said," Jesus put the oath, and the PERJURY of it, back on the judge, where it belonged. The court couldn’t get jurisdiction.
Israel was occupied by Rome at that time. The court then shipped Jesus off to the martial governor, Pontius Pilate, hoping that martial power might compel him to submit to jurisdiction. But Pilate had no quarrel with Jesus. He correctly saw the charge as a political matter, devoid of any real criminal act. Likely, Pilate offered Jesus the "protection of Rome." Roman law extended only to sworn subjects. All Jesus would need do is swear an oath to Caesar, then Pilate could protect him. Otherwise, Jesus was probably going to turn up dead at the hands of "person or persons unknown" which would really be at the hands of the civil government, under the false charge of sedition. Pilate administered that oath to Caesar. Jesus stood mute, again refusing jurisdiction. Pilate "marveled at that." He’d never before met a man who preferred to live free or die. Under Roman law the unsworn were considered to be unclean - the "great unwashed masses." The elite were sworn to Caesar. When an official errantly extended the law to an unsworn person that "failure of jurisdiction" required that the official perform a symbolic act. To cleanse himself and the law, he would "wash his hands." Pilate did so. Under Roman law, the law to which he was sworn, he had to do so. The law, neither Roman law nor the law of Israel, could obtain jurisdiction over Jesus. The law couldn’t kill Him, nor could it prevent that murder. Jesus was turned over to a mob, demanding His death. How’s that for chaos? Jesus was put to death because He refused to be sworn. But the law couldn’t do that. Only a mob could do so, setting free a true felon in the process. Thus, Jesus proved the one failing of the law - at least the law then and there - the law has no ability to touch a truly free man. A mob can, but the result of that is chaos, not order.
In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or fails to protect a man of conscience who refuses it, the result is chaos. That government proves itself incapable of any claimed powers as the result, for the only purpose of any government should be to defend the people establishing it - all of those people - and not because they owe that government any duty or allegiance, but for the opposite reason, because the government owes the people its duty and allegiance under the law. This nation came close to that concept for quite a few decades. Then those in federal office realized that they could fool all of the people, some of the time. That "some of the time" regarded oaths and jurisdiction. We were (and still are) a Christian nation, at least the vast majority of us claim ourselves to be Christian. But we are led by churchmen who still uphold the terms of that European treaty. They still profess that it is Christian to swear an oath, so long as it’s a "lawful oath." We are deceived. As deceived as the tenant in 1300, but more so, for we now have the Words of Jesus to read for ourselves.
Jesus said, "Swear no oaths," extending that even to oaths which don’t name God. If His followers obeyed that command, the unscrupulous members of the society in that day would have quickly realized that they could file false lawsuits against Jesus’ followers, suits that they couldn’t answer (under oath). Thus, Jesus issued a secondary command, ordering His followers to sell all they had, making themselves what today we call "judgement proof." They owned only their shirt and a coat. If they were sued for their shirt, they were to offer to settle out-of-court (without oath) by giving the plaintiff their coat. That wasn’t a metaphor. Jesus meant those words in the literal sense!
It’s rather interesting that most income tax protestors are Christian and have already made themselves virtually judgement proof, perhaps inadvertently obeying one of Jesus’ commands out of a self-preservation instinct. Do we sense something here? You need to take the final step. You must swear no oaths. That is the penultimate step in self-preservation, and in obedience to the commands of Christ. It’s all a matter of "jurisdiction" (oath spoken), which a Christian can’t abide. Christians must be freemen. Their faith, duty and allegiance can go to no one on earth. We can’t serve two masters. No one can. As Christians our faith and allegiance rests not on an oath. Our faith and allegiance arise naturally. These are duties owed by a child to his father. As Children of God, we must be faithful to Him, our Father, and to our eldest Brother, the Inheritor of the estate. That’s certain.
As to what sort of a society Jesus intended without oaths or even affirmations, this writer honestly can’t envision. Certainly it would have been anarchy (no crown). Would it have also been chaos? My initial instinct is to find that it would lead to chaos. Like the Quakers in 1786, I can’t envision a functional government without the use of oaths. Yet, every time a government attempts to use oaths as a device to compel servitudes, the result is CHAOS. History proves that. The Dark Ages were dark, only because the society was feudal, failing to advance to enlightenment because they were sworn into servitudes, unwittingly violating Jesus’ command. When the British crown attempted to compel oaths of allegiance, chaos certainly resulted. And Jesus’ own death occurred only out of the chaos derived by His refusal to swear a compelled oath and an offered oath.
The current Internal Revenue Code is about as close to legislated chaos as could ever be envisioned. No two people beginning with identical premises will reach the same conclusion under the IRC. Is not that chaos? Thus, in every instance where the government attempts to use oaths to bind a people, the result has been chaos.
Hence, this writer is forced to the conclusion that Jesus was right. We ought to avoid oaths at all costs, save our own souls, and for precisely that reason. Yet, what system of societal interaction Jesus envisioned, without oaths, escapes me. How would we deal with murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. present in the society without someone bringing a complaint, sworn complaint, before a Jury (a panel of sworn men), to punish them for these criminal actions against the civil members of that society? Perhaps you, the reader, can envision what Jesus had in mind. Even if you can’t, you still have to obey His command. That will set you free. As to where we go from there, well, given that there has never been a society, neither civil nor martial, which functioned without oaths, I guess we won’t see how it will function until it arrives.
Meanwhile, the first step in the process is abolishing your prior FALSE claims of being under oath (of office) on those income tax forms. You claimed "jurisdiction." Only you can reverse that by stating the Truth. It worked 400 years ago. It’ll still work. It’s the only thing that’ll work. History can repeat, but this time without the penalty of treason extended to you (or your daughters). You can cause it. Know and tell this Truth and it will set you free. HONESTLY. Tell the government, then explain it to every Christian you know. Most of them will hate you for that bit of honesty. Be kind to them anyhow. Once they see that you are keeping what you earn, the market will force them to realize that you aren’t the extremist they originally thought! If only 2% of the American people understand what is written here, income taxation will be abolished - that out of a fear that the knowledge will expand. The government will be scared silly. What if no one in the next generation would swear an oath? Then there’d be no servants! No, the income tax will be abolished long before that could ever happen. That’s only money. Power comes by having an ignorant people to rule. A government will always opt for power. That way, in two or three generations, the knowledge lost to the obscure "between the lines" of history, they can run the same money game. Pass this essay on to your Christian friends. But save a copy. Will it to your grandchildren. Someday, they too will probably need this knowledge. Teach your children well. Be honest; tell the truth. That will set you free - and it’ll scare the government silly.
This guy deserves a medal for telling the truth. How long before they ruin his life with false accusations and have him killed?
The amount of mercury contained in a multi-dose flu shot is 250 times higher in mercury than what is legally classified as hazardous waste.
Vaccines contain? Polysorbate 80 as an emulsifier. This highly toxic agent can seriously lower the immune system and cause anaphylactic shock which can kill.
There is growing evidence that flu shots cause Alzheimer's disease due to the aluminum and formaldehyde combined with mercury
Believing what governments say can be hazardous to your health. It's even truer from corporate-sponsored studies on the benefits of their products. Thus, be very leery about the new CSL Ltd. one on the effectiveness of taking one Swine Flu dose. More to the point, any Swine Flu shot as, in single or multiple doses, they're all extremely toxic, dangerous, and must be avoided to protect human health from the pathogenic onslaught vaccines are designed to unleash.
CSL is "Australia's leading biopharmaceutical company (and) the only commercial manufacturer of influenza vaccines in the Southern Hemisphere." It's currently producing "a pandemic influenza vaccine called Panvax H1N1 which uses the proven technology that has enabled us to provide Australia with seasonal flu vaccines over the last 40 years."
The New England Journal of Medicine published "the welcome news," claiming to show one shot produced the same immune response protection as annual flu vaccines. More on their ineffectiveness and hidden dangers below.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of the US National Institutes of Health) also claims its early trials and studies confirm one dose provides protection eight to ten days after inoculation. Again beware - their advice endangers your health, especially about Swine Flu and the vaccines designed for it. They advise everyone take them voluntarily. Later, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius may mandate them if enough people don't comply, and individual states may follow suit.
Separating Facts from Government and Industry Disinformation
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), annual flu shots are advised for "all children from 6 months through 18 years of age," everyone over 50, pregnant women, and individuals with "long-term health problems" like heart, lung, kidney or liver disease, HIV/AIDS, other immune system diseases or persons with weakened immune systems, asthma, diabetes, anemia, certain muscle or nerve disorders, residents of nursing homes or chronic care facilities, and certain others.
Warning about "seasonal epidemics," the World Health Organization's (WHO) advice is much the same, adding that "Seasonal influenza spreads easily and can sweep through schools, nursing homes or businesses and towns....The most effective way to prevent the disease or severe outcomes from the illness is vaccination." The WHO claims "Among healthy adults, influenza vaccine can prevent 70% to 90% of influenza-specific illness. Among the elderly, the vaccine reduces severe illnesses and complications by up to 60%, and deaths by 80%."
Information below shows WHO claims are false and misleading. So are the CDC's and NIH's and doubly so for the new Swine Flu vaccines.
All Vaccines Are Ineffective and Unsafe
Gary Null is a leading health and nutrition expert, author, documentary filmmaker, founder of the Progressive Radio Network, and syndicated host of the longest running health program in America, Natural Living with Gary Null.
On September 18, 2009, he interviewed Dr. Viera Scheibner, "arguably one of the world's most respected scientists and scholars on vaccine medical data....Her investigations uncover how the vaccine industrial complex (and complicit government regulatory bodies produce) pseudo-science that is fraught with inconsistencies, poorly designed studies, erroneous interpretations, and conclusions that are patently false" - by design, not chance.
She calls vaccinations "an illness industry," causing a "pandemic (of) degenerative diseases (and) behavioral problems."
From her research and writings on vaccine science and history, she said:
"Ever since the turn of the (last) century, medical journals published dozens and dozens of articles demonstrating that injecting vaccines (can) cause anaphylaxis, meaning harmful, inappropriate immunological responses, which is also called sensitization. (This) increase(s) susceptibility to the disease which the vaccine is supposed to prevent, and to a host of related and other unrelated infections."
"We see it in vaccinated children within days, within two or three weeks. (Most of them) develop runny noses, ear infections, pneumonitis, (and) bronchiolitis. It is only a matter of degrees, which indicates immuno-suppression, (not immunity). It indicates the opposite. So I never use the word immunization because that is false advertising. It implies that vaccines immunize, which they don't. The correct term is either vaccination or sensitization."
In addition, "Vaccines (can) damage internal organs, particularly the pancreas," so everyone vaccinated, including for seasonal flu, is vulnerable to contracting severe "autoimmune diseases like diabetes," Addison's Disease, Arthritis, Asthma, Guillian-Barre Syndrome, Hepatitis, Lou Gehrig's Disease, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, Osteoporosis, Polio, and dozens of others.
Some can kill. Others produce a lifetime of disability and pain because autoimmune disease happens when the "body attacks itself," or more accurately "is attacked" by an unhealthy lifestyle, stress, and various harmful ingestible substances; that is, toxins in drugs, food, air, water, and other liquids. According to immunologist, Dr. Jesse Stoff, human health is compromised four ways:
-- by poor nutrition;
-- man-made environmental toxins;
-- disease-causing organisms and their toxins; and
-- immune system trauma from factors like x-ray radiation and stress.
Other factors include a lack of sleep and exercise, smoking, heavy alcohol consumption, and various excesses that throw the body out of balance, making it susceptible to a host of debilitating illnesses.
Known Toxins in Seasonal Flu and Other Vaccines
Millions voluntarily take annual flu shots not knowing their harmful ingredients. With variations by producer, they contain numerous stabilizers, neutralizers, carrying agents, and preservatives, including:
-- 25 micrograms of mercury (thimerosal), a known neurotoxin; one microgram is considered toxic; according to the NIH, "mercury and all of its compounds are toxic, exposure to excessive levels can permanently damage or fatally injure the brain and kidneys;" even "exposures to very small amounts" can also cause "allergic reactions, neurological damage and death;" it's also linked to autism;
-- aluminum hydroxide and phosphate, known to be linked to some neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease; the Office of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reports x-ray evidence of pulmonary fibrosis among workers studied; it also reports that patients undergoing long-term kidney dialysis develop speech disorders, dementia, or convulsions;
-- formaldehyde, a known carcinogen according to the National Cancer Institute; it's also linked to upper respiratory tract problems and effects on lymphatic and hematopoietic systems (relating to human blood cells);
-- gelatin, polysorbate 80 and resin - ingredients causing severe allergic reactions;
-- ammonium sulfate, a suspected gastrointestinal, liver, and respiratory toxicant and neurotoxicant;
-- sorbitol, a suspected gastrointestinal and liver toxicant;
-- phenoxyethanol (antifreeze), a suspected developmental and reproductive toxicant;
-- beta-propiolactone, a known carcinogen and suspected gastrointestinal, liver, respiratory, skin and sense organ toxicant;
-- gentamycin, an antibiotic;
-- triton X100, a strong detergent;
-- animal tissues and fluids, including potentially contaminated horse blood, rabbit brain, dog kidney, monkey kidney, chick embryo, chicken egg, duck egg, pig blood, and porcine (pig) protein/tissue;
-- calf and fetal bovine serum;
-- macerated cancer cells;
-- diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue; and/or
-- other ingredients varying by producer.
Contrary to industry and government agency advice, annual flu shots are dangerous and ineffective. According to Croft Woodruff, president of the EDTA Chelation Association of British Columbia:
"Statistically, you'd be more likely to avoid the flu if you took nothing at all. So why are we subjected to the flu vaccine media blitz each year?" In a word, profits assured annually as long as enough people take them - for all vaccines (besides the enormous bonanza from the Swine Flu vaccines), billions of dollars in annual revenues, according to leading producer estimates.
On September 29, Wall Street Journal writers Jonathan Rockoff and Peter Loftus explained that the industry believes vaccines:
"will become an increasingly important source of growth to replace aging blockbusters that are poised to lose patent protection. Vaccine sales are growing faster than sales of other prescription medicines and are largely immune to the generic competition that is already cost drug makers billions of dollars in revenues on their top-selling treatments. Moreover, government agencies both in the US and around the world are increasingly reliable buyers of vaccines as they seek to stockpile medicines that could help protect the public in case of a major flu outbreak."
Or perhaps, in the case of Swine Flu, infect it as part of a sinister depopulation scheme through involuntary male and/or female sterilization and future deadly illnesses while rewarding producers with hundreds of billions in profits from global inoculations over the next few years. For what may be planned, it doesn't get any better than that. As a result, the public is cautioned to ignore media and official hype and stay safe by refusing all vaccines, especially the new Swine Flu ones that may, in fact, be bioweapons.
More Disclaimers about Flu Vaccine Effectiveness and the Truth about Their Dangers
First the worst news. Annual flu shots may induce one or more of the above-mentioned annoying to life-threatening autoimmune diseases, including severe allergies, diabetes, and the Guillan-Barre Syndrome (GBS) nerve disorder that causes progressive muscle weakness, paralysis, and at times death. They can also cause encephalitis, an acute inflammation of the brain; various neurological disorders; and thrombocytopenia, a serious blood disorder.
Now the bad news. Annual flu shots don't work, except to enhance producer profits, which is why the industry, complicit regulatory bodies, and the media tell unsuspecting people to take them.
Each year, government health agencies guess which viral strain(s) are most worrisome. Usually they're wrong. For example, New York Times writer Lawrence Altman headlined his January 15, 2004 article, "Vaccine Is Said to Fail to Protect Against Flu Strain" in reporting that the CDC said its most recent recommended flu vaccine had "no or low effectiveness" against that season's Fujian threat, based on study results from its first ever health providers survey. Other studies report similar findings, and so do reliable scientists from their research.
The Lancet reported that a 2008 study on "immunocompetent elderly people aged 65 - 94 years enrolled in Group Health (a health maintenance organisation) during 2000, 2001, and 2002" found that "influenza vaccination was not associated with a reduced risk of community-acquired pneumonia during the influenza season." Influenza predisposes individuals to contracting pneumonia.
In understated terms, the prestigious medical journal concluded that "The effect of influenza vaccination on the risk of pneumonia in elderly people during the influenza seasons might be less than previously estimated." Yet doctors keep recommending them based on misleading industry and government information.
In October 2007, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health reported on the "mortality benefits of influenza vaccination in elderly people: an ongoing controversy" and concluded:
"frailty selection bias and use of non-specific endpoints such as all-cause mortality have led cohort studies to greatly exaggerate vaccine benefits. The remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive from the vaccination programme."
On May 1, 2003, The New England Journal of Medicine reported on the largest ever study to determine the effectiveness of pneumococcal pneumonia vaccine inoculations - based on medical data for 47,365 people aged 65 or older from 1998 - 2001. It found no significant association between vaccination and a reduced pneumonia risk in concluding:
"alternative strategies are needed to prevent nonbacteremic pneumonia, which is a more common manifestation of pneumococcal infection in elderly persons." In other words, flu shots don't work, so why take them.
An October 2008 published study in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine had similar conclusions based on doctor visits during the two most recent flu seasons. It reported:
"In 2 seasons with suboptimal antigenic match between vaccines and circulating strains, we could not demonstrate VE in preventing influenza-related inpatient/ED or outpatient visits in children younger than 5 years. Further study is needed during years with good vaccine match."
In September 2008, the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine reported that the Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Alberta concluded as follows from "clinical, laboratory, and functional data" collected on 1,813 adults "with community-acquired pneumonia admitted to six hospitals outside of influenza season" in Alberta:
"mortality benefits of influenza vaccination" are "overestimated" even though the population inoculated increased from 15% in 1980 to 65% in 2008.
In the October 2006 British Medical Journal, Dr. Tom Jefferson wrote about "Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence" and concluded:
"Evidence from systematic reviews shows that inactivated vaccines have little or no effect on the effects measured. (In addition), Little comparative evidence exists on the safety of these vaccines....The optimistic and confident tone of some predictions of viral circulation and the impact of inactivated vaccines, which are at odds with the evidence, is striking. The reasons are probably complex and may involve a messy blend of truth and conflicts of interest making it difficult to separate factual disputes from value disputes."
In other words, influenza vaccination programs are ineffective and worthless. They're also dangerous.
In 2006, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews reported on an Oxford University, Institute of Health Sciences examination of "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children" and concluded from the results of 51 studies involving 263,987 subjects aged 23 months to six years that vaccines are little more effective than placebos. It added that:
"If immunisation in children is to be recommended as a public-health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently needed."
FDA-Approved Swine Flu (H1N1) Vaccines
On September 15, the FDA:
"announced today that it has approved four vaccines against the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus. The vaccines will be distributed nationally after the initial lots become available, which is expected to be within the next four weeks....Based on preliminary data from adults participating in multiple clinical trials, the 2009 H1N1 vaccines induce a robust immune response in most health adults eight to 10 days after a single dose, as occurs with the seasonal influenza vaccine."
The FDA warned that "People with severe or life-threatening allergies to chicken eggs, or to any other substance in the vaccine, should not be vaccinated."
Approved US vaccines are produced by CSL Ltd., Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Ltd., Sanofi Pasteur (a division of Sanofi-Aventis Group), and AstraZeneca's MedImmune LLC. According to the FDA, "All four firms manufacture the H1N1 vaccines using the same processes, which have a long record of producing safe seasonal influenza vaccines."
Meanwhile, other governments have placed large orders for Baxter's CELVAPAN A/H1N1 vaccine, Novavax's VLP, and GlaxoSmithKline PLC's versions to assure all the major vaccine producers share in the enormous profit bonanza.
Sanofi Pasteur's vaccine proved ineffective with one shot, and Medscape Medical News reported that while it will have fewer side effects it may not protect against the 2009 H1N1 strain.
Novartis' version contains its proprietary squalene adjuvant MF59, linked to annoying to potentially deadly autoimmune and other diseases, including paralysis, autism, Alzheimer's disease, and Gulf War Syndrome. Glaxo's ASO3 poses the same risks and will be available in America through CSL Ltd.'s vaccine.
Squalene in vaccines has been secretly used for years, but according to Dr. Rima Laibow, Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation:
"Never before has (it) been (officially) approved for use in a drug in the United States. But once before, when it was allowed in certain military vaccines, more than 60,000 soldiers were hospitalized (by what became) known as 'Gulf War Syndrome.' (In Doe v. Rumsfeld, a) Federal Court in 2004, forbade its involuntary use by United States troops."
"This new (Swine Flu) vaccine has, literally, 1,000,000 time more squalene than the experimental military vaccine, known as 'Vaccine A.' The attempt to rush this dangerous vaccine into the bodies of the public without safety testing is a violation of US law, regulation and medical ethics and must be condemned."
Glaxo (GSK) will distribute CSL Ltd.'s vaccine with its own proprietary high potency squalene adjuvant MPL (monophosphoryl lipid A) system ASO3 that exponentially enhances its dangers as Dr. Laibow explained.
After being linked to Gulf War Syndrome, Army scientists concluded from over two dozen post-war animal studies that nanodoses dangerously compromise the human immune system and may also kill.
MedImmune says it FluMist is a "gentle nasal mist. It's a quick spray in each nostril, one of the places where the flu virus enters the body. (It) helps your body develop proteins called antibodies that help protect you from the flu."
Dr. Rima Laibow calls FluMist a "recipe for pandemic. (It) contains 3 live viruses. You shoot it up your nose and your immune system gets a chance to make antibodies to three live, weakened viruses while the manufacturer hopes against hope that one of these three actually causes a disease this year....Of course, if you are immune compromised or go near someone who is, you will get sick or infect them with the virus and they can get the flu."
Laibow and others also warn that Flu Mist risks potential brain damage, making it an extremely hazardous drug. The nasal passage olfactory tract is a direct pathway to the brain. Ingesting viruses through it risks encephalitis, a viral-induced acute brain inflammation.
British geneticist and bilphysicist Dr. Mae-Wan and biologist Joe Cummins add that:
"Vaccines can be dangerous, especially live, attenuated viral vaccines or the new recombinant nucleic acid vaccines, that have the potential to generate virulent viruses by recombination and the recombinant nucleic acids could cause autoimmune diseases."
According to Medimmune, "FluMist is a (nasal administered) vaccine approved for the prevention of certain types of influenza disease in children, adolescents, and adults 2 - 49 years of age," except for:
-- children and adolescents regularly taking aspirin or products containing it; or persons with certain:
-- sensitivities,
-- health problems,
-- illnesses,
-- malignancies,
-- immunodeficiencies,
-- nutritional deficiencies,
-- abnormalities,
-- allergies, or
-- infections - categories applying to the majority of the population, including many in it unaware it means them.
MedImmune's product information states:
"Administration of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal, a live virus vaccine, to immunocompromised persons should be based on careful consideration of potential benefits and risks. Safety has not been established in individuals with underlying medical conditions predisposing them to wild-type influenza infection complications."
"Appropriate medical treatment and supervision must be available to manage possible anaphylactic (life-threatening allergic) reactions following administration of the vaccine....Hypersensitivity, including anaphylactic reaction, has been reported during post-marketing experience with FluMist....Intranasal may not protect all individuals receiving the vaccine."
Each producer lists numerous adverse reactions to its vaccines. Those MedImmune reported included:
-- "Congenital, familial and genetic disorder: Exacerbation of symptoms of mitochondrial encephalomyopathy (Leigh syndrome);
-- Gastrointestinal disorders: Nausea, vomiting and diarrhea;
-- Immune system disorders: Hypersensitivity reactions (including anaphylactic reaction, facial edema and urticaria);
-- Nervous system disorders: Guillain-Barre syndrome, Bell's Palsy;
-- Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders: Epistaxis;" and
-- "Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders: Rash."
The FDA has not approved nasal vaccine sprays for children under two, adults over 49, or pregnant women. Product instructions also warn that:
"FluMist recipients should avoid close contact with immunocompromised individuals for at least 21 days," that should include health care workers but it doesn't. It suggests the likelihood that the vaccine's live virus will spread among immune-weakened hospital patients and elsewhere through close contact with their providers.
In their article titled, Vaccines' Dark Inferno, Gary Null and Richard Gale warn that:
"The vast majority of scientists, physicians, nurses and public health educators' trust that the ingredients in a vaccine have been individually and synergistically proven safe and effective." So do most people, even though commonly held beliefs are wrong, including by professionals who should know better. Because they don't, their patients' are endangered by the array of above toxins that in combination with new ones can trigger "a pandemic of Vaccine Disease, manifesting in myriad illnesses (including the new H1N1) dependent upon each vaccinated person's genetic predisposition and the robustness of (their) immune system(s to withstand) any epidemic threat posed by wild infectious pathogens (that) could unfold in so-called developed, hygienic society."
Since most governments sacrifice human health for business profits, who are the guardians to protect us from the coming pathogenic onslaught that may weaken or destroy the immune systems of millions of unsuspecting people, and likely sterilize and/or kill them. Something to consider before submitting to dangerous vaccines that everyone has a legal, ethical and for many a medical right to refuse.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.
This Documentary is about the origin of Planned parent hood & its goal in the eradication of the black population of the earth. After the emancipation of slavery in the USA. It show undeniable proof of government involvement funding from the rich elite that exists till this day in corporate America. This vid will show planned Parenthood's true agenda in "Population Control
LOS ANGELES, CA -- Drug-industry investigators have uncovered documents exposing an international drug ring, operating from New York City, is behind the H1N1 swine flu fright and vaccination preparations.
Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz and Sherri Kane, an investigative journalist, have released evidence in legal affidavits that leaders of a private global biotechnology "trust" are behind the pandemic flu, including its origin and alleged prevention via vaccinations. Their documents, being sent by attorneys to the FBI this week, evidence industrialists are operating a crime ring within the "Partnership for New York City" (PNYC), and are behind the pandemic's creation, media persuasions, vaccination preparations, and health official promotions.
"David Rockefeller's trust, that engages several powerful partners on Wall Street, including media moguls Ruppert Murdock, Morton Zuckerman, Thomas Glocer, and former Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Jerry Speyer, are implicated in advancing global genocide," Dr. Horowitz wrote to FBI directors.
"This 'partnership' controls biotechnology research and development globally. Health commerce internationally is also controlled virtually entirely by this trust that also exercises near complete control over mainstream media to promote/propagandize its products and services for the drug cartel's organized crime. This trust, in essence, makes or breaks medical and natural healing markets, primarily through the mass media companies and propaganda it wields for social engineering and market building," Dr. Horowitz wrote.
Among the revelations from the Horowitz-Kane research are those linking Larry Silverstein of Silverstein Properties, Inc., and the 9-11 terrorist attacks, to the drug cartel's geopolitical, economic, and population reduction activities. Mr. Silverstein, leaser of the World Trade Center who authorized to have Building-7 "pulled" [detonated] is a chief suspect in the "9-11 truth" investigation. Silverstein is currently landlord and co-partner in the biotechnology trust founded by David Rockefeller and implicated by these new discoveries.
Given the unprecedented nature and urgency of these findings, Dr. Horowitz has posted his affidavit for public review on FLUscam.com, hoping wide spread dissemination will prompt governments worldwide to cease mass vaccination preparations to avoid becoming accessories.
"The last time I contacted the FBI I warned them about the impending anthrax attacks one week before the first mailings were announced in the press," Dr. Horowitz recalled. "It took them 6 months to respond. When they did, they made me a suspect in the mailings. This time I am warning the Justice Department a month before the deadliest genocide in history. I'm praying they'll take kindly to my appeal for a PNYC investigation, and Court-ordered injunction, to stop the vaccinations for public protection Comments
Today, the MSM are not talking about this case any more. Yesterday, they wanted us to believe that Joseph Moshe was a nutcase and a terrorist, arrested for threatening to bomb the White House. Interesting detail about his arrest (the “Westwood standoff”) was that he seemed to be immune to the 5 cans of tear gas and 5 gallons of law-enforcement grade pepper spray they pumped into his face. He very calmly remained in his car, as the video footage of his arrest shows.
Professor Moshe had called into a live radio show by Dr. A. True Ott, broadcast on Republic Broadcasting claiming to be a microbiologist who wanted to supply evidence to a States Attorney regarding tainted H1N1 Swine flu vaccines being produced by Baxter BioPharma Solutions. He said that Baxter’s Ukrainian lab was in fact producing a bioweapon disguised as a vaccine. He claimed that the vaccine contained an adjuvant (additive) designed to weaken the immune system, and replicated RNA from the virus responsible for the 1918 pandemic Spanish flu, causing global sickness and mass death.
Sources tell us that Bar-Joseph Moshe made no threat against the President or the White House. He did not mention any bomb or attack. He then proceeded to inform the White House he intended to go public with this information. When he noticed men in suits in front of his house and feared that the FBI was about to detain him, he packed some belongings into his car and, him being a dual Israeli citizen, tried to reach the Israeli consulate located in close proximity to the federal building where the standoff took place. The FBI and the bomb squad prevented him from reaching it. Who is this man? His profile on biomedexperts.com says he is a plant disease expert with many publications on his name involving the genetic manipulation of virii. Photographic evidence that Moshe is who he says he is can be found here.
Joseph Moshe was soon after his arrest sent or let go to Israel. Nothing has been heard from him since. The Secret Service was not the agency involved in the surveillance of Moshe at his home in California. This was done by the FBI, who had orders to detain or arrest him. Mounted on top of a large black vehicle used in his arrest was a microwave weapon that possibly damaged the electronics in Moshe’s car as well as any communication devices he had which might have been used to contact the media or others who could help him.
Moshe did not suffer the same effects of the gas and pepper spray that others would have because he had built up an immunity to such weapons as a by-product of his Mossad training. Moshe was not handcuffed because he was not placed under arrest.
Does this sound like an insane conspiracy theory? Sure it does. Due to the scarcity and anonimity of the sources we would dismiss it as exactly that, if it weren’t for some uncomfortable facts: Baxter Pharmaceutical has been caught, red-handed, in spreading a live, genetically engineered H5N1 Bird flu vaccine as a lethal biological weapon all over the world, destined to be used for human vaccinations. This happened just a few months ago. And only luck prevented a global catastrophe of epic proportions.
Baxter International Inc. had mixed live, genetically engineered avian flue viruses in vaccine material shipped to 18 countries. Only by sheer luck, a Czech laboratory decided to test the vaccine on a dozen ferrets, which all died in days. The World Health Organization was notified and catastrophe was averted. This was clearly a deliberate act on Baxter’s part, because they adhere to BS3, bio-safety level three. Baxter admitted a “mistake”. Such monumental screwups are totally impossible at that level. Many safety systems would have needed to be sabotaged, many key personell would have needed to be bribed. It simply can’t be done without direction from the inside. They did not send out the wrong vial – they produced dozens of gallons of biological-weapon agent (genetically engineered live H5N1 / Bird flu virus), then sent it out as a “vaccine”.
Baxter knew full well that their vaccine was lethal, because the year before they had tested it on a few hundred homeless Polish people – dozens died as a result.
Where’s the meat? Well – Baxter is now being sued for the deliberate, repeated contamination of vaccines with biological weapons designed – by them – to mass-murder people. Here is the complaint (PDF). By some kook nutcase? Not likely – Jane Burgermeister is an experienced, respected journalist. She is not the only one suing Baxter for planning and executing a plan for global genocide: Other are filing complaints as well. Read a well-researched complaint here (PDF).
Motive? The latter complaint alludes to it. Have you heard of the Georgia Guidestones? An enormous monument loaded with Masonic symbolism costing millions of dollars, it has been erected by unknown, powerful elites (multimillionaires with the clout to erect monuments wherever they please, obviously) around 30 years ago. It gives an “alternative ten commandments”, of which the first is the extermination of six and a half billion people from the face of the Earth. Half a billion will remain. This is the number of people the planet can sustain indefinitely, so that the descendents of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers can live in peace and affluence indefinitely. Slaves are needed to produce that luxury, but 500 million will do just fine. But how does one go about killing off most of the world?
“Vaccinating” the planet with a bioweapon with near-100% mortality would do the trick. Baxter would provide both the bioweapon as well as the vaccine against it to “civilized” Western peoples. Result: We can plunder Africa, we have no more competition from SE Asia, the oil is for our taking and only Western and perhaps Chinese sheeple remain.
Rockefeller said this in 1994 at a U.N. dinner: “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.” PNAC said something similar right before 9/11.
TORONTO — An unpublished Canadian study that suggests seasonal flu shots raise a person's risk of catching swine flu is causing a lot of concern internationally, a senior official of the World Health Organization said Thursday.
Dr. Marie-Paule Kieny, who heads the WHO's vaccine research initiative, said there's a keen interest, internationally, to go through the data in the study and see whether the research is correct or flawed.
"There's really intense international discussions on that," Kieny told The Canadian Press in an interview.
"Because now that it's out, everybody feels that we must go to the bottom of it and see what's real there."
She noted in a news conference that Canadian officials are trying to put together an expert panel to assess the data.
Drawn from a series of studies from British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, the findings appear to suggest that people who got a seasonal flu shot last year are about twice as likely to catch swine flu as people who didn't.
A scientific paper has been submitted to a journal and the lead authors - Dr. Danuta Skowronski of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control and Dr. Gaston De Serres of Laval University - are constrained about what they can say about the work. Journals bar would-be authors from discussing their results before they are published.
Skowronski, who at first declined to speak after news of the findings hit the media Wednesday, said it's important that the work gets the expert scrutiny the journal peer-review system provides.
"Good scientists know that methods can influence results," she said from Vancouver.
"For me, it's very important that we respect the peer-review process as good scientists. Because the implications ... are important. And if there are methodologic flaws, we need to be assured that every stone was turned over to make sure what we're reporting is valid."
The findings are already having implications, with public health officials across the country grappling with whether to delay, reduce or scrap altogether seasonal flu shot programs this year.
Officials from Saskatchewan said Thursday they are leaning towards suspending seasonal flu shot efforts for this fall. But Dr. Joel Kettner, chief medical officer of health for Manitoba, said his province is moving ahead with planning for a rollout soon, though the planning makes room for the possibility they may need to stop the program "on a dime."
Earlier this week officials from Quebec raised publicly the possibility of dropping or delaying seasonal flu shot efforts, saying at the time they hoped for a pan-Canadian approach.
Kettner said he continues to hope all provinces and territories will go the same way on this. But he acknowledged that may not be possible.
While few people appear to have actually read the study, the troubling findings have been a poorly kept secret and many in the public health community in Canada have heard about them.
So have many influenza researchers abroad. Kieny said British, American and Australian researchers have looked for and haven't found similar findings in their data. On Thursday, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control confirmed that via email.
"It is difficult to speak about a study that has yet to be published, however, as this is an important issue involving the subject of seasonal influenza and the fast moving global pandemic of 2009 H1N1 influenza it is important to note the scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have not seen this effect in systems we have reviewed in the United States," spokesperson Joe Quimby said.
The Public Health Agency of Canada was informed of the findings some time ago and has been seeking help to try to figure out if the effect is real or the result of flaws in the research.
"An arms-length review of the various methods is currently underway to assess the validity of the studies relative to that observation," Dr. David Butler-Jones, Canada's chief public health officer, said via email.
Kieny said it is important to study the data with an open mind.
"If there is something, it's better that it comes out," she said. "I think one needs to keep open eyes and a fresh mind and look in all fairness to the results."
Still, she, like others, struggled to come up with a reason for why getting a seasonal flu shot would elevate a person's risk of catching swine flu, noting there is no evidence to suggest that getting the flu shot one year raises a person's risk of catching flu the next.
"The plausibility seems sort of in question," she said.
"It may be a study bias. It may be that something is real," Kieny said during the news conference.
"But certainly the WHO as well as the regulators in all of these countries are looking forward to be able to see the data, to study the data and come with a better understanding of whether this has any chance of indeed putting people at risk, the fact that they have received a seasonal vaccination."
September 10, 2009 (LPAC)—The Royal Family and panicky City of London financiers began implementing, in 2008, a new program to kill elderly and other sick people, precisely repeating the opening phase of Hitler's 1939 T-4 euthanasia program. Under the Liverpool Care Pathway adopted for general use by the National Health Service, those showing symptoms that might foreshadow death are targeted to be killed by heavy narcotics and the withdrawal of fluids and nutrition. The new policy reportedly accounted for about one sixth of all deaths in Britain last year, according to a study by Dr. Clive Seale, of the prestigious Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry.
When the world financial system meltdown began in 2007, British imperial leaders pursued drastic shifts in funds away from public services and into bailouts of the London-Wall Street axis. They rushed into general practice an all-out euthanasia policy, that had been introduced as a pilot project in 2003-2004 by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair and royal health adviser Simon Stevens.
This British fascist "health-care reform" agenda was at the same time exported to the United States for adoption by the incoming Obama Administration.
The King's Fund is the official agency driving the new euthanasia. A government-funded charity, called alternatively Marie Curie Cancer Care or Marie Curie Hospice, is the operations center tasked with shaping the killing program.
Prince Charles has been president of the King's Fund since 1986, and president of the Marie Curie Hospice organization since about 2000.
What is today called the King's Fund was created in the late 19th Century by the Prince of Wales. After he became King Edward VII, the agency was incorporated in 1907 as King Edward's Hospital Fund for London. This was the Royal Family's planning center for the reform of health care, in accord with the Empire's innovation of the time, eugenics or race-purification theory.
To start up the new killing program in 2008, the Queen became the Patron, the agency was re-incorporated under the shorter name, King's Fund, and Prince Charles and his retainers went into overdrive.
The King's Fund and the Marie Curie Hospice were merged for action with the June 24, 2008 announcement that King's Fund Policy and Development Director Steve Dewar would simultaneously lead the two agencies, to "develop the contribution of both organizations to the further improvement of end-of-life services across the U.K." In July 2008, the National Health Service published its End of Life Care Strategy, developed by an NHS Strategy unit set up for the new euthanasia program.
The Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool is one of two centers for experimental killing regimes. Out of this has come the procedure called the Liverpool Care Pathway, with its Continuous Deep Sedation, which has recently broken into the headlines in Britain due to a public protest against the murders by physicians.
Marie Curie Chief Executive Tom Hughes-Hallett, a King's Fund Senior Associate, chairs the "external Implementation Advisory Board" for the national End of Life Care Strategy. In his forward to the killers' first annual report, published by the National Service in July, 2009, Hughes-Hallett wrote,
"We're trying to change the way this country thinks about and responds to the idea of death. We're trying to change the way the medical and social care professions think about and respond to death. We're trying to change the way end of life care services are commissioned."
Being a City of London financier (with J. Henry Schroeder, and then chairman of Robert Fleming Securities), Hughes-Hallett wrote further on the urgency of getting the killing program going full blast, now: "One thing that has changed quickly, and unexpectedly, is the financial climate. For this financial year and the next, the NHS has new money for this strategy. After that things are much less certain...."
In that national Strategy Report, the "end of life care pathway" starts with "Step One: Identifying people who are approaching the end of life"; it proceeds to "Step Five: Last days of life," in which the Liverpool Care Pathway is the means of termination. After this comes "Step Six: Care after death," or what to do with the bodies and the survivors, and proposed methods for falsifying death certificates to show a natural cause rather than homicide — precisely as was done in the Hitler T-4 program.
A National Health Service-commissioned report by McKinsey and Company, calling for saving $32 billon per year by drastic cuts in health care, was leaked to the press last week. King's Fund chief economist John Appleby (quoted in Time magazine, Sept. 9, 2009) responded that these savings must be accomplished by finding "ways to counter rising health-care costs associated with an aging population, expensive new medical treatments and rising patient expectations." King's Fund chief executive Niall Dickson chimed in that, rather than doing more with less resources, "Doing less with less seems a more realistic scenario."
The Royal euthanasia program was introduced as a pilot project in 2003 and 2004 by Simon Stevens, Blair's chief adviser on health policy from 2001 to 2004. In 2007, Stevens went to the United States to spread the euthanasia project there. Stevens became vice president of Minnesota-based UnitedHealth, the massive private health insurance company for the U.S. and Britain. Stevens' official job is to advise all private health insurers to get behind the new agenda for health-care reform.
Continuing as a trustee of the King's Fund for Prince Charles in London, Simon Stevens connects President Obama with the London-Wall Street axis, for implementation of the urgent strategy in the face of financial catastrophe.
George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush were active in the leadership of the eugenics societies that were popular among the wealthy classes in the first half of the twentieth century. Prescott Bush was the Connecticut director of the Mental Hygiene Society which originated at Yale University in 1908. The headquarters of the American Eugenics Society was also at Yale (also home of the Order of Skull & Bones)until its relocation to and merger in 1952 with the Population Council, which was founded by John D. Rockefeller and John Foster Dulles, lawyer for Brown Brothers Harriman.
The Mental Hygiene Society of which Prescott Bush was a director was a project of the Order of Skull and Bones. The society "would evolve into the CIA's cultural engineering effort of the 1950s, the drugs and brainwashing adventure known as 'MK-Ultra'...an anti-American project which poured drugs into the country and worked to fabricate the drug-sex youth culture." 8.
"A behavior control research project was begun in the 1950s, coordinated by the British psychological warfare unit called the Tavistock Institute, with the Scottish Rite Masons, the Central Intelligence Agency, and other British, U.S., Canadian, and United Nations agencies. The project became famous in the 1970s under a CIA code name, 'MK-Ultra.' Its notoriety for brainwashing by drugs, hypnosis, electroshock, and other tortures caused many books to be written about the project, and the U.S. Senate conducted hearings which exposed many of its abusive features. President Gerald Ford appointed a commission headed by Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, to correct the CIA's misconduct. There was a widespread anti-establishment view at the time, that here was the fox appointed to guard the hen house." 9.
The Mental Hygiene movement was organized into the World Federation of Mental Health by none other than Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England who, with Hjalmar Schacht, the financial engineer of the Nazi rearmament program and member of the British Round Table, and Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, conspired to precipitate the Great Depression. Under Adolf Hitler, Hjalmar Schacht was appointed Minister of Economics. [See: Eugenics: All in the Family]
"The Mental Hygiene movement was organized into the World Federation of Mental Health by Montagu Norman, former Brown Brothers partner and Bank of England Governor. Norman had appointed as the federation's chairman, Brigadier John Rawlings Rees, director of the Tavistock Psychiatric Clinic, chief psychiatrist and psychological warfare expert for the British intelligence services... "The world financial crisis led to the merger of the Walker-Harriman bank with Brown Brothers in 1931. Former Brown partner Montagu Norman and his protégé Hjalmar Schacht paid frantic visits to New York that year and the next, preparing the new Hitler regime for Germany." 10.
The interaction between the British, American and German Eugenics societies laid the foundation for implementation of the race purification ideology behind Hitler's Third Reich. In 1912, the First International Congress of Eugenics was held at the University of London. The president of the Congress was Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin and one of the first English vice presidents was Sir Winston Churchill, later Prime Minister of England. In 1921, the Second International Congress of Eugenics was held in New York City. The sponsoring committee included Herbert Hoover, later President of the U.S., and the Carnegie Institute of Washington (Rockefeller). Madison Grant, a director of the American Eugenics Society, was the treasurer. The event was held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, where Averell Harriman served on the Board of Directors.
In 1932, the Third International Congress on Eugenics elected as its president Dr. Ernst Rudin, a psychiatrist who directed the various branches of the Rockefeller-founded/funded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Germany, and designated Rudin president of the worldwide Eugenics Federation. In 1933, Rudin was commissioned by Hitler's Minister of the Interior to write a sterilization law for Germany. Rudin's Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseases in Posterity was modeled on statutes already passed in Virginia and other states in the U.S. When Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, Ernst Rudin praised Hitler, giving credit to him because "the dream we have cherished for more than thirty years of seeing racial hygiene converted into action has become reality."
"The most important American political event in those preparations for Hitler was the infamous 'Third International Congress on Eugenics,' held at New York's American Museum of Natural History August 21-23, 1932, supervised by the International Federation of Eugenics Societies. 9 This meeting took up the stubborn persistence of African-Americans and other allegedly 'inferior' and 'socially inadequate' groups in reproducing, expanding their numbers, and amalgamating with others. It was recommended that these 'dangers' to the 'better' ethnic groups and to the 'well-born,' could be dealt with by sterilization or 'cutting off the bad stock' of the 'unfit.' "Italy's fascist government sent an official representative. Averell Harriman's sister Mary, director of 'Entertainment' for the Congress, lived down in Virginia fox-hunting country; her state supplied the speaker on 'racial purity,' W.A. Plecker, Virginia commissioner of vital statistics. Plecker reportedly held the delegates spellbound with his account of the struggle to stop race-mixing and inter-racial sex in Virginia. "The Congress proceedings were dedicated to Averell Harriman's mother; she had paid for the founding of the race-science movement in America back in 1910, building the Eugenics Record Office as a branch of the Galton National Laboratory in London. She and other Harrimans were usually escorted to the horse races by old George Herbert Walker--they shared with the Bushes and the Farishes a fascination with 'breeding thoroughbreds' among horses and humans. 10 "Averell Harriman personally arranged with the Walker/Bush Hamburg-Amerika Line to transport Nazi ideologues from Germany to New York for this meeting. 11 The most famous among those transported was Dr. Ernst Rudin, psychiatrist at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy and Demography in Berlin, where the Rockefeller family paid for Dr. Rudin to occupy an entire floor with his eugenics 'research.' Dr. Rudin had addressed the International Federation's 1928 Munich meeting, speaking on 'Mental Aberration and Race Hygiene,' while others (Germans and Americans) spoke on race-mixing and sterilization of the unfit. Rudin had also led the German delegation to the 1930 Mental Hygiene Congress in Washington, D.C. "At the Harrimans' 1932 New York Eugenics Congress, Ernst Rudin was unanimously elected president of the International Federation of Eugenics Societies. This was recognition of Rudin as founder of the German Society for Race Hygiene, with his co-founder, Eugenics Federation vice president Alfred Ploetz. "As depression-maddened financiers schemed in Berlin and New York, Rudin was now official leader of the world eugenics movement. Components of his movement included groups with overlapping leadership, dedicated to: -sterilization of mental patients ('mental hygiene societies'); -execution of the insane, criminals and the terminally ill ('euthanasia societies'); and -eugenical race-purification by prevention of births to parents from 'inferior' blood stocks ('birth control societies'). "Before the Auschwitz death camp became a household word, these British-American-European groups called openly for the elimination of the 'unfit' by means including force and violence. 12." 11.
Behind the Tavistock Institute and its brainchild, MK-Ultra, was the largesse of the Rockefeller Foundation, "a global instrument for radical social change, using American money and British strategy." British psychiatry: from eugenics to assassination by Anton Chaitkin reveals John D. Rockefeller's interest in psychiatric genetics, which "applied to psychiatry the concepts of eugenics (otherwise known as race purification, race hygiene, or race betterment) developed in London's Galton Laboratory and its offshoot Eugenics Societies in England and America." Besides Rockefeller and the British Crown, the families of Warburg and Harriman were the primary funders of eugenics internationally.
"The foundation's 'German centers combined the search for organic signs of mental illness with eugenic projects.... The [Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry in Munich] had initially been endowed with 11 million marks, contributed by Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach [head of the Krupp steel and arms family] and James Loeb [Paul Warburg's brother-in-law], an expatriate American of the Kuhn-Loeb banking family. Loeb mobilized his American-Jewish friends to support the institute,' and they invited the foundation to reorganize and expand the Munich enterprise. Loeb also continued financing the institute. Loeb's relatives, the Warburgs, owners of Kuhn Loeb bank, were the intimate banking partners of William Rockefeller. Together with him they had set up the Harriman family in big business, using capital supplied by the British royal family's personal banker, Sir Ernst Cassell. The three families, Rockefeller, Warburg, and Harriman, together with British Crown agencies, jointly sponsored much of the social engineering enterprise we shall describe here. The Rockefeller Foundation made an initial grant of $2.5 million in 1925 to the Psychiatric Institute in Munich, gave it $325,000 for a new building in 1928, and continuously sponsored the institute and its Nazi chief Rudin through the Hitler era. The foundation paid for a 1930-35 anthropological survey of the 'eugenically worthwhile population' by Nazi eugenicists Rudin, Verschuer, Eugen Fischer, and others." 12.
Through funding the "research" of Ernst Rudin and Otmar Von Verschuer, they also financed the horrific experimentation of Verschuer's medical commandant, Josef Mengle, the "Angel of Death" of Auschwitz whose experiments on children, especially twins, provided scientific data for the Kaiser Wilhem Institute:
"Of the 3000 twins who passed through Mengele's labs, only 200 survived the war. Depending on the type of experiment endured by the twins, they were driven to various labs at Auschwitz or neighboring Birkenau camp. Most received routine blood and x-ray tests, often on a daily basis... Mengele's experiments both physical and psychological; experimental surgeries performed without anesthesia, transfusions of blood from one twin to another, isolation endurance, reaction to various stimuli, injections with lethal germs, sex change operations, the removal of organs and limbs, incestuous impregnations... Mengele injected chemicals into the eyes of children in an attempt to change their eye color... Unfortunately a strict veil of secrecy over the experiments enabled Mengele to do his work more effectively, and 'twins who were subjected to the most grusome procedures took his secrets to their graves.' The full extent of his grusome work will never be known because the records he sent to Dr. Von Verschuer at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute were shipped out 'in two truckloads' and destroyed by the latter. Any remaining notes Mengele carried with him on his escape to South America and those were never found." 13.
According to Fritz Springmeier, Josef Mengele was used by the Illuminati to develop trauma-based mind control by experimenting on Jewish victims in the Holocaust, and after the war Mengele was smuggled to the U.S. to put mind control into practice as one of the CIA's main mind control programmers. The author of "Mind Control The Ultimate Terror" credits Mengele with development of the MK Ultra mind control program:
"Dr. Joseph Mengele of Auschwitz notoriety was the principle developer of the MK Ultra and Monarch mind control programs. Mengele and hundreds of other high ranking Nazis were secretly moved into the United States and South America in the aftermath of World War II in an Operation designated Paperclip. The Nazis continued their work in developing mind control and rocketry technologies in secret underground military bases. The only thing we were told about was the rocketry work with former Nazi star celebrities like Warner Von Braun. The killers, torturers, and mutilators of innocent human beings were kept discretely out of sight, but busy in their underground military facilities which soon became home to thousands upon thousands of kidnapped American children snatched off the streets and placed into iron bar cages stacked from floor to ceiling. These children would be used to further refine and perfect Mengele's mind control technologies. These children (at least the ones who survived the 'training') would become future mind controlled slaves who could be used for anything from sexual blackmail to assassinations."
Recently some people have claimed that the Sun
is entering a new Maunder Minimum—a decades-long period
of few sunspots—and that this will cause the Earth's
atmosphere to cool. The Sun is certainly quiet in 2008,
but this is the normal quiet of a minimum in the 11 year
sunspot cycle. Clearly the tendency to interpret normal
variations as fundamental changes is not confined to the
global warming alarmists.
The structure of a brown dwarf is set by
degeneracy pressure. Unlike a star, where the mass
sets both the radius and the photospheric temperature,
a brown dwarf has a radius and temperature that is nearly
independent of its mass. All brown dwarfs are about
the same size as Jupiter. The photospheric temperature
of a brown dwarf is set by its age, although the lifetime
of a brown dwarf is set by the mass. Because the
low-mass brown dwarfs cool much faster than the
high-mass brown dwarfs, infrared surveys preferentially
find the more-massive brown dwarfs.
