Wow.
I finished reading the Edward Haslam book last night. Amazing stuff! -His interview was also quite informative, (thank-you for the link), covering many of the book's key material points, -though as noted, the book provides a deeper source.
The internet seems to have this wide buffer-zone. Dozens, if not hundreds of websites and discussion forums all bouncing around ideas from within a very controlled debate which one can skim through for hours and hours without learning anything of substance, but wherein one has many opportunities to pick one of two sides and become hopelessly embroiled in the contained sandbox and never realize that there is a larger pool of knowledge available.
Getting out of the sandbox really seems to be a challenge.
I really got a sense of it recently with the "Russia Invades Ukraine" propaganda steam roller over the last couple of weeks. If a seeker didn't know to dig, then it would be easy to fall into sync with the make-believe wavelength, pick a pre-defined side and never see the light of day. I could barely believe just how pervasive the propaganda was, how far it reached, and how quickly it was established. No wonder the Black Hats knocked the SOTT site down when it was launching this campaign!
Anyway, with regard to vaccinations, after learning the astonishing state of things in the 50's and 60's, I found myself trying to work out what the medical scene looked like today. I had/have plenty of semi-informed opinions and educated bias, but not enough information to actually speak with certainty on the subject.
-The point being, (among others), I have several dear friends who have very recently given birth. While I am not in a strong advisory position, nor would I presume to push unsolicited advice upon them, I DO want to know what's going on just in case somebody does ask for my thoughts. I want to be informed enough to discuss things rationally and hopefully be of some help in forming healthy choices for the new little ones.
So in trying to work out what was what today, I started looking. I took with me the idea of general issues of environmental toxic loads (including vaccines) as well as this (new for me) concept of the retrovirus contamination question. -The idea of rogue viruses hiding in vaccination shots pulls together a lot of hanging questions about weird effects which are not necessarily explained by toxins alone. Doctor Tent's lecture (linked in the first post in this thread), opened up a can of worms for me. But aside from his claims about quality issues with modern vaccinations, and the source material from
Doctor Mary's Monkey, I wanted to know...
Are today's vaccines "Clean" of retroviral contamination? Pro-vaccination people assure us that, Yes! Things are much better today! On the other hand, others have disclosed shocking details which say otherwise.
Further searching, however, got me to wondering if I was even asking the right question, if it was framed correctly and not full of assumptions.
In trying to answer
that I ran across various reproductions of a certain meant-to-be-confidential memorandum, (excerpt, third paragraph):
Roberts found a 2001 CDC report showing that RT investigative studies for both the ALV and EAV retroviruses were conducted in 100 patients receiving the MMR vaccine. They found undesirable “RT activity in all measles vaccine lots from different manufacturers tested.” Their conclusion is that “this occurrence is not sporadic and that vaccine recipients may be universally exposed to these [chicken] retroviral particles.” In a separate National Institutes of Health transcript of a meeting, Dr. Conroy of the World Health Organization stated that EAV viruses are found in all fertilized chicken eggs. There appears to be little change in the scientific protocol for making the influenza, MMR and yellow fever vaccines. The current release of intramuscular H1N1 vaccines for the global market relies on the use of fertilized chicken embryos. These include each of the approved vaccines by CSL, Medimmune, Novartis and Sanofi-Pasteur, as well as GlaxoSmithKlines if and when it is approved in the US.
A late meeting of the FDA’s Scientific and Regulatory Perspective Workshop, without the press, was convened on September 7, 1999 in Washington DC, and attended by “representatives from all the largest public health institutions in the West.” The following are summaries of key points and statements raised during this meeting as recorded in Janine Roberts invaluable book Fear of the Invisible.
It was reconfirmed that vaccines are “widely contaminated by viral and DNA genetic code fragments, many viruses and proteins. There was expressed concern that these may also contain prions (tiny proteins responsible for incurable diseases and neurological disorders in both humans and animals) and oncogenes (a gene that turns normal cells into cancerous ones). One attendee, Dr. Goldberg, stated, “There are countless thousands of undiscovered viruses, proteins and similar particles. We have only identified a very small part of the microbial world—and we can only test for those we have identified. Thus the vaccine cultures could contain many unknown particles.”
Taken from _http://www.globalresearch.ca/vaccines-dark-inferno/15452 (the memorandum itself can be found in full in numerous places).
Curious about the journalist responsible for this, one
Janine Roberts, I did some looking around. It seems she wrote an extensive book on the subject.
_http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Invisible-Janine-Roberts/dp/0955917727
The reviews on both Amazon and elsewhere looked promising, so I've just ordered a copy. It ought to be arriving in a week or so.
One of the more detailed reviews and descriptions of the material she covers can be found here:
_http://davidpratt.info/roberts.htm
It's a long essay. Following are some excerpts from it which stood out.
Roberts attempts to answer the question, "What are viruses?"
"To those who argue that HIV has never been isolated free from cellular contaminants and debris, proponents of the official HIV=AIDS theory put forward an extraordinary argument: no pathogenic virus has ever been isolated in the manner demanded by their opponents, so if HIV doesn’t exist, that would mean that the same would apply to the viruses said to cause polio, measles, flu, mumps, etc. (theperthgroup.com). When Janine Roberts came across this argument, instead of concluding that since ‘everyone knows’ that other viruses exist and cause disease therefore HIV must exist and cause AIDS (an argument devoid of logic), she decided to take a closer look at what we really know about other viruses. She was shocked by what she discovered."
Polio vaccine success artificially inflated:
"To make it look like the polio vaccine was being effective, the health authorities rewrote the rules for polio diagnosis. Previously, doctors had diagnosed polio if a patient had paralytic symptoms for 24 hours, but this period was now increased to at least 60 days. It was also decreed that all cases of polio occurring within 30 days of vaccination were to be recorded as ‘preexisting’ – rather than as possibly caused by the vaccine. Cases involving muscular weakness and widespread pain but not paralysis were henceforth diagnosed as viral or aseptic meningitis rather than polio – even if traces of the polio virus were found. Other cases previously diagnosed as polio were reclassified as cerebral palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, or muscular dystrophy. The authorities also decided that patients with the classic symptoms of paralytic polio were to be diagnosed as having acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) if no poliovirus could be found in two of their turds. These tests revealed that the virus could not be found in about half the cases. Roberts describes the polio vaccine saga as 'an incredible case of medical fraud', and says that the new rules for polio diagnosis are a perfect way to hide vaccine failure (p. 66)."
How are viruses isolated for study and vaccine production?
"In 1909 Landsteiner and Popper took the spinal cord from a 9-year-old polio victim, minced it up and mixed it with water. Presuming that the resulting suspension contained the poliovirus, they injected a cup of it into two monkeys; one of them was killed immediately and the other was slowly paralyzed. This experiment was hailed as proof that a virus, or ‘filterable agent’, caused polio – despite the fact that the liquid injected would also have contained cell debris, blood, DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes, toxins, and possibly a variety of viruses. The suffering inflicted on the animals involved in such experiments was, and still is, widely considered an acceptable price to pay for ‘advancing’ human knowledge – which says a lot about our civilization.
"In 1910 Simon Flexner and Paul Lewis succeeded in apparently passing paralysis from one monkey to another by injecting a suspension of ground-up human backbone from a polio victim into a monkey’s brain, then extracting fluid from its brain and injecting this into another monkey’s brain, and so on. They, too, did not consider the multitude of other contaminants that could have been in this toxic stew, or ask themselves why the monkeys only became paralyzed if it was injected directly into their brains, thereby bypassing their immune systems. Nor did they consider that since the human material being put into the monkeys was alien to them, this could also be what was poisoning them. Yet this experiment was celebrated as further evidence that polio is caused by an infectious virus (pp. 45-6).
"In 1948, in another famous experiment, two scientists injected the diluted excrement of polio victims into the brains of suckling mice (3-7 days old), resulting in them becoming paralyzed. Although hailed as the successful ‘isolation’ of a virus that had been proved to cause polio in humans, this experiment proved only that paralysis could be induced in baby mice by injecting diseased human excrement into their brains. The hunt for the poliovirus began in the 1890s but by the 1950s no virus had been isolated and proved to cause polio: ‘What were being experimented with, and named as polio viruses, were fluids from cultures, and filtered extracts from diseased tissues and even from the excrement of sick children’ (p. 54).
"The tale of how the measles virus was first discovered and processed to make measles vaccines is equally disturbing (pp. 84-5). In the 1950s a team of scientists led by John Enders obtained some fluid – throat washings and blood – from a boy with measles called David Edmonston. When this was added to human post-natal cells in the lab, the cells became ill. This was taken to mean that a measles virus might be present. When this fluid was added to human cervical cancer cells and human carcinoma cells, the cells became even sicker. Under the microscope, giant multinuclear cells could be seen in the cultures, which was interpreted as a sign that the measles virus had distorted them, not that the cancers might be getting more malignant.
"After the fluid had been ‘passaged’ 23 times from one culture of human kidney cells to another and then 19 times through cultures of human amnion cells, the cells in the cultures began to assume highly deformed shapes. The team then tested the resulting cell culture fluid on monkeys and some got a mild illness in some respects resembling measles. This was taken as evidence that this toxic mix of mutant cells was a measles virus ‘isolate’ – known as the ‘Edmonston isolate’. Next, the culture with highly disordered cells was passaged nine times through amnion cells and then added to fertilized eggs. Some of the chick cells took on similar deformed shapes to those observed earlier. This Edmonston strain – containing mutated particles from poisoned bird cells – became the basis for some of our major measles vaccines.
Yikes! But how do they do it today? Are things any better?
"In case anyone thinks that virus isolation procedures have improved since the 1950s, here is the procedure for isolating the measles virus recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (pp. 84, 252): Prepare a culture of cells from marmoset monkeys by ‘immortalizing’ them, i.e. making them cancerous. (To save money, measles and MMR vaccine manufacturers use cells from mashed chicken embryos instead.) Wearing rubber gloves and splash goggles, add a toxin called trypsin, which poisons the cells and causes some to fall away. Add nutrients and glucose and leave the cells alone for two or three days.
"Next add to the cell culture a small sample of urine or fluid from the nose or mouth from a measles patient, and place the culture in an incubation chamber. After an hour, inspect the cells under the microscope to see if any are rounded, distorted, or floating free, as they were immediately after trypsin was added. If they are, the CDC calls this proof that measles virus is present and is causing this illness. There is apparently no need to see the virus or to isolate it from the rest of the poisoned cell culture. The CDC says that if 50% of the cells are now distorted, the culture can be labelled ‘isolated measles-virus stock’. If less than 50% are ill at this stage, two antibiotics are added and if, when viewed a day later under the microscope, there are signs that cells have died or floated free, the culture can then be labelled ‘isolated measles-virus stock.’
"This procedure is astounding. The CDC makes no mention of the need to have a control culture, to isolate the measles virus from particles or toxins produced by the poisoned monkey cells, or to observe the virus with an electron microscope. No measles-like symptoms are looked for in the culture. There is no consideration of how the virus may cause cell deformation, let alone the specific symptoms of measles, or of the role played by the toxin added, or the fact that all cells placed under stress readily mutate.
"The fluid filtered off from a culture of this ‘isolate’ is used as a vaccine. The children vaccinated will produce antibodies against all the numerous contaminants and toxins it contains, not just any measles virus present. So the filth contained in vaccines certainly ‘stimulates’ the immune system, but it may also overstimulate or overwhelm it. Measles in humans usually does little harm, but some cases are very serious. It is said to kill in the manner of ‘HIV’, by damaging the immune system so that other diseases linked to bacteria, particularly pneumonia and diarrhoea, make the child seriously ill. But there is no proof as yet that a virus is in any way involved.
Do we even know if we've identified the right viruses in the first place?
"If viruses (or fragments of them) cannot be found in studies of illnesses blamed on them, they are said to be ‘clever at mutating’.
"Virologists rarely attempt the very difficult task of identifying the presence of a whole virus. When they say they have found SV40 in a patient, or the bird flu virus in a dead bird (klein-klein-aktion.de), or any other virus, they do not mean they have found a whole virus – merely a tiny fragment of genetic code said to be unique to a viral species. But it is virtually impossible to prove uniqueness when so many viral species have mutating codes and so many remain to be discovered – experts say we have studied at most 0.4% of those that exist.
"Even when a genetic segment is reliably proved to be part of the genetic code of a protein belonging to a particular virus, this only indicates the protein’s prior presence, not that of the whole virus. It is strange that SV40 genetic code is only found in cancer cells whereas if they really are invading, and not produced locally, they would need to travel through other cells to get there. Sometimes cancer arises without them being present at all. In one experiment all the female rats got breast cancer after being injected with a filtered laboratory culture containing SV40, but no SV40 code was found in those cancers. It is worth remembering that Nixon’s ‘war on cancer’ in the 1970s was based on the theory that viruses cause cancers, but it flopped badly, finding practically no viruses linked to human cancers."
-That last bit would seem at first blush to run counter to one of the founding contentions in
Doctor Mary's Monkey, but I think rather than discrediting the idea, it demonstrates the width and complexity of the issue.
For instance, the full article, (linked above) details a number of other fascinating insights;
one of the main being that cells produce what we recognize as viral components as a means of normal communication and information sharing with each other. Say what...??? That concept by itself is so new and astonishing to me that I'm going to have to do some serious thinking about all of this!
-Anyway, if any of the above is accurate, then it appears the understanding and image we carry wrt virus and disease activities going on deep in our cells is a great deal less cut & dried than the simple version we have all been taught to believe, -and which we see as the foundation of assumptions upon which the entire pro/anti-vaccination debate is fought.
