You will doubtless recall from school and many television documentaries that, in the early twentieth century, the invention guaranteed to bring fame and fortune was to make and fly a fixed wing motorised aircraft.
Although the Wright brothers are generally credited with being the first to do so, it was an almost forgotten Englishman, Sir George Cayley who, half a century earlier, was actually the first.
Almost completely forgotten today is that which drove the imagination in the latter half of the nineteenth century. In that period, the discovery guaranteed to bring fame a fortune was to discover the cause of the diseases which plagued the world at that time.
Although we still celebrate Louis Pasteur (and, in Germany, Robert Koch) for making such a discovery, their reputations have been crumbling for many years as more and more of their cheating and deliberate misinforming comes to the light.
Pierre Béchamp, the professor at the University of Paris from whom Pasteur took most of his ideas, told Pasteur quite categorically that his theory of infectious disease is total nonsense.
In a similar way, Koch’s medical colleagues laid irrefutable proof before him that the theory cannot possibly be true.
Both Pasteur and Koch decided that fame and fortune at the cost of setting back research into the causes of disease for more than a century were much more important to them than integrity, honesty and ethics. It was their use of their carefully cultivated contacts amongst the rich and politically well-connected which enabled them to pull off this con job.
Thus is the basis of our modern so called “health systems”.
Based upon Pasteur’s absurd preposition, one of the three largest money earners for the pharmaceutical cartel is the sale of vaccines. Now, according to the marketing departments of the pharmaceutical manufacturers, if you inject anyone with a weakened strain of a particular virus, they will develop antibodies to it so that when they come into contact with the “real” virus, they will already have the relevant antibodies and will not become ill. Sounds good and the pharmaceutical manufacturers claim a large number of successes in eliminating or drastically reducing the instances many diseases. What, however, does the science tell us?
Turning now to the scientific evidence, we note that the theory that disease is caused by external contact with some “germ” has a number of problems. One is that more than 95% of the people who, according to theory, contract the germ are completely unaffected by it. Another is that almost all known “disease germs” are present in your body since your birth but cause no problems until something triggers them into high activity.
Quite apart from the problems already mentioned in the paragraph above this one, we note that the only evidence as to the efficacy of vaccines proffered by the manufacturers are statistics which do not bear close inspection - claims that vaccination has lead to a dramatic reduction in the incidence of a disease are shown here to be untrue as the diseases were already strongly in decline before the vaccines were introduced. Further, government statistics, as shown here, clearly demonstrate that vaccination at the very best had no effect and, more usually, lead to an increase in the incidence of the diseases they were supposed to prevent.
That this transpires is actually not in the least surprising once it has been grasped how human immunity to disease actually works.
An intact, fully functional, natural immunity will create antibodies to any virus and trigger antibacterial activity upon first contact. This is why most people don’t get ill. A weakened immunity will only partially succeed in doing so or even completely fail.
Artificially adding a virus to a human body will, if the immunity is fully functional, do nothing that would not happen if the virus were met naturally. Adding the virus to a weakened immune system will, probably, cause the disease to break out. This is why it is universally experienced that the incidence of a particular disease is always higher in a vaccinated population than in a vaccine free one.
When we add to this that modern vaccines not only contain immune suppressants but also large quantities of the nerve poison, mercury (added to increase shelf life) then we see why vaccinated populations are, generally, much less healthy than unvaccinated ones.
The last word on this I would like to leave to Prof. Lipton who kindly wrote the forward to the book “The ‘Flu Fairy Tale”.