The History & Fraud of the Contagion Myth
In this post I'm going to explain how an error turned into a fraud, a fraud turned into a crime, and how through the industrialization of this crime, madness developed, a kind of madness that endangers all of us, the entire human race.
How did it get to this?
In ancient Greece, which is the progenitor of modern western medicine, any changes in the body or physique were perceived in a very negative way. It was believed that the sick person was unclean, that they had angered the gods, and were possessed by a demon. That person could not have any contact with other people, because it was thought that contact with an ‘unclean’ person could defile healthy people; and the punishment of the gods would extend to them as well.
It was this ancient Greek superstition that formed the basis of the modern idea of contagion.
It is important to note that in the most ancient forms of medicine, such as Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurveda, there is no concept of disease transmission. They never associated disease with punishment.
It was a western superstition that served as a great way to generate fear, in order to establish control. In other words, it made it possible to label undesirable individuals as sick, dangerous, incurable and contagious, in order for them to disappear or/and quarantine.
Anyone who has anything to do with the creation and design of prisons knows that most prisons originated on the basis of hospitals.
The same thing continued in the middle ages. It was a religiously motivated idea that sickness was punishment for sin.
The symptoms of any kind were interpreted as the result of a lack of faith and the subsequent wrath of god.
Since then, disease began to be explained by a purely materialistic interaction. Doctors took the same position that priests used to occupy before. As a result, the demon of disease was gradually materialized. The same idea of the “demon of disease” was transformed into the idea of the “toxin of disease.” People began to believe that diseases were caused by so-called “toxin of disease,” which in Latin means “virus,” and that a person recovered because their body produced an antidote to the “toxin of disease.”
It was believed from experience, that the administration of small amounts of poisons would cause the body to produce an ‘antidote’ or ‘anti-poison’. The subsequent idea, that the body can restore its health by producing or being given “antidotes”, was born when it was observed that people survived bigger amounts of poison (such as alcohol) when their body was trained by consuming slowly increasing amounts of that poison.
However, in reality there are no antidotes, instead the body produces enzymes, which neutralize and eliminate the poisons (alcohol).
That is why Rasputin and Napoleon allegedly took different kinds of toxins frequently in small quantities in order to be immune against a poison attack (this can be measured in the hair).
It was this misconception that gave rise to the idea of immunity to disease. Inoculation and vaccinations were both introduced on the same beliefs and superstitions, not on the basis of science.
ㅤ
The Two Charlatans
Pasteur on the left and Koch on the right.
The French plagiarist Louis Pasteur and the German fraudster Robert Koch popularized the germ theory of disease – the hypothesis that diseases are caused by infectious agents called germs.
ㅤ
Louis Pasteur
During his lifetime, Pasteur permitted absolutely no one – not even his closest co-workers – to inspect his notes. And “Tricky Louis” arranged with his family for the books to remain closed to all even after his death. However, his grandson, Louis Pasteur Vallery-Radot, who apparently didn’t care for Pasteur much, donated the notebooks to the French national library, which published them. In the late 20th century, Gerald Geison, medical historian at Princeton University, was first given the opportunity to go through Pasteur’s records meticulously, and he made the fraud public in 1995. His analysis of these notebooks revealed that Pasteur had committed massive fraud in all his studies. Geison's book is called The Private Science of Louis Pasteur.
“The conclusion is unavoidable: Pasteur deliberately deceived the public, including especially those scientists most familiar with his published work.”
– Gerald Geison, medical historian.
Pasteur was unable to make animals sick by injecting them with the microbe associated with the disease he was studying, such as anthrax.
In the case of anthrax, to make healthy animals sick and die, he had to inject them with what he called "virulent anthrax." Pasteur made "pathogenic" microbes more virulent by what he called "serial passage” of the organism through other animals. In regards to anthrax, he injected guinea pigs with the microorganism he associated with anthrax, then sacrificed the animal and injected its blood or tissue into another guinea pig, and always mixed with toxic antiseptics such as carbolic acid or potassium bichromate.
This process was repeated through several Guinea pigs. In this way he came up with what he called "virulent anthrax."
The magic [anthrax] vaccine was elusive and Pasteur had “exceptionally little experimental basis for announcing the "discovery" of an anthrax vaccine in January 1880.” (Geison, page 167).
In Pasteur: Plagiarist, Imposter, R B Pearson relates a number of incidents that demonstrate the failure of the Pasteur anthrax vaccine to protect animals from the disease. In a particularly clear example, he describes the use of the Pasteur vaccine in Russia, where 4,564 sheep were vaccinated, after which 3,696 sheep died; a phenomenally high failure rate.
The vaccine was later discontinued.
For Rabies, Pasteur was able to produce the symptoms of disease by injecting "cerebral matter… extracted from a rabid dog under sterile conditions and then inoculated directly onto the surface of the brain of a healthy dog through a hole drilled into its skull" (Geison, page 189).
This treatment did sometimes make dogs foam at the mouth and die.
You can read more about Pasteur's unethical rabies fraud here.
Pasteur was the inventor of the idea of a smaller pathogen that cannot be seen in the optical microscope, a virus. This supported the standard model of illness which was used for centuries, a model that is based on the premise of war, not on the premise of symbiosis, as is the real workings of Nature.
Germ theory of disease became the new religion.
ㅤ
Robert Koch
In 1905, Dr. Koch received the Nobel Prize for allegedly proving that tuberculosis was an infectious disease. He had a hard time finding the bacteria; in fact, he could find an organism in infected tissue only by using special staining methods after the tissue was heated and dehydrated with alcohol. The stain was a toxic dye, methylene blue, and the solution he used contained another toxin – potassium hydroxide (lye).
This poisoned brew was passed through guinea pigs several generations, using a lot of disinfectants which were toxic. This sterile [poisoned] injection was then injected into experimental animals which then developed nodules around the injection, and he called those tubercles. However, in reality they were simply some kind of irritation.
Robert Koch later came out with a tuberculosis cure which was a total failure. It resulted with him getting ejected from germany.
But why did the German government employ Robert Koch again? He already had to flee Germany because he had killed thousands with his “magic drug” tuberculin against tuberculosis. Otto von Bismarck called him back since he desperately needed a pretext against the British who had seized the Suez canal. Thus they had significant military and political advantages; for they didn’t have to sail around Africa. The British came through the Suez canal from India with their troops and goods instead.
The German tried to deprive the English from this advantage with the allegation they were bringing home diseases like anthrax, smallpox and the black plague from India. Thus, quarantine was demanded, and they weren’t allowed to dock at any Mediterranean port, and at Gibraltar they were shot at.
Therefore, Robert Koch, who was on the run, was called back and was offered 100,000 Reichsmark in order to create the argument that the English would bring in various ’contagious’ diseases.
Anthrax, another example: Koch killed mice with toxins. This poison you can easily make at home: leave a potato salad standing outside in the summer for a week. Bacteria spores which are floating in the air everywhere will settle, grow and reproduce. The bacteria are going to consume the oxygen and transfer into an anaerobic state; and then toxins are produced.
Just as the yeast changes its metabolism under exclusion of oxygen to produce the toxic alcohol, in this way these bacteria produce their toxins, but only under complete exclusion of oxygen.
Koch produces these toxins in a meat broth, as you can replicate at home. He injects them into the vein of a mouse. The mouse dies and the spleen gets swollen, he extracts the spleen of the mouse, and transplants it under the skin of a frog. The frog convulses and dies; and this is called skin anthrax.
Now you can imagine which animal experiments were made to claim lung anthrax: parts of the spleen of the killed mouse were implanted into the lungs of the frog.
Koch and his wife, Emmy, upon receiving the Nobel Prize in 1905.
But how did Robert Koch get such a reputation? The question is easily answered. Robert Koch managed to make photography adaptable to visual microscopy and to make photographs of bacteria. This brought him much reputation deservedly.
Photography was considered to be sacred; no one could imagine that a negative could be retouched, that double exposures could be used, that it could be manipulated. It was deemed as inherently scientific and objective.
He simply made claims along with photography, and this acted in a very hypnotic way, much like television today, so people just accepted these claims. However, he simply photographed bacteria that can be found everywhere.
ㅤ
A Nobel Prize and its disastrous consequences
In the early 1950’s, virology was on its deathbed after decades of failing miserably in the attempts to purify and isolate the assumed viral particles in order to directly prove the existence and pathogenicity of these invisible entities.
In all of the years of experimentation, virologists had nothing to show but indirect evidence of decay from human and animal tissue culture experiments claimed to be caused by the “virus” in question.
However, virology got a booster in the form of a new method purporting to establish the existence of these invisible entities. This was the cell culture method which was introduced in 1954 by John Franklin Enders during his attempts to identify a measles “virus.” As virologists could still not properly purify nor isolate the assumed “virus” particles directly from the fluids of a sick host, it was decided that the particles had to be grown in a culture instead, as it was claimed that there were not enough particles present within the fluids.
The “virus,” which could not be found directly inside the fluids in order to be studied properly, was somehow determined to need a host cell in order to replicate itself so that it could then be found and studied. For this he was awarded a Nobel Prize.
Rather than calling the time of death on virology as should have been done by anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty, those in charge doubled down on the invalid cell culture method as the standard that every virologist must adhere to in order to confirm the presence of a “virus” within a sample.
This reliance on the cell cultures flawed indirect “evidence,” built upon a fraudulent foundation cemented the entire field of virology even further into the mad world of pseudoscience as the scientific method continued to be forsaken.
The whole field of modern virology is built upon Enders fraudulent paper; and is therefore fraudulent as well, which is the very nature of “virology” and “science” today.
ㅤ
Conclusion: I have highlighted the false grounds on which the germ theory of disease was elevated to its current status as a dogma, and beyond question. With this knowledge you will understand that there are powerful interests and agendas that have prevailed over genuine science. This information will serve as a reminder of the powers which control the pharmaceutical and regulatory industries to this day.
Posted Jan 19, 2023, 10:34 AM UTC · edited
I stopped reading at some point, so forgive me is this was answered: how is it that if a member of my household is Ill there’s a better chance I end up with the same symptoms?
"Time".
Time is the trigger [see: "seasonal influence"]. Shared environmental toxins lead to timely expression of any locally-affected body's symptomatic toxin purge.
I don't know, but maybe it's the same phenomena causing bees being jerks described as "group genetics".
The symptoms associated with what are called ‘infectious diseases’ represent the body’s efforts to expel toxins, repair damage and restore health.
It is therefore important to recognise that the symptoms each person experiences will be unique to them because of their unique exposures to the ‘injurious substances and influences’ that affect their bodies. However, within a household or work environment for example, many people may experience common exposures to the same ‘injurious substances and influences’, which is the main reason that they may experience similar symptoms when their bodies initiate the expulsion of those substances and influences.
We are all exposed to such a variety of toxins on a daily basis, although mostly at levels that are small enough to not produce obvious symptoms immediately. But many of these toxins are bio-accumulative and therefore slowly build up within the body to a level that requires expulsion. At this point, the body will initiate the appropriate symptoms to expel the toxins.
People may not all experience the same severity and duration of their symptoms, which will depend on their unique health status that will, in turn, depend on any other factors that may affect their health, whether beneficially or adversely.
Since humans are social creatures, we tend to go through cleansing processes in sync – therefore sometimes the appearance of contagion.
Quoting u/zombie_dave :
So you’ve essentially described germ theory without pointing at what exactly the “injurious substances and influences” are
Edit what mechanism is syncing the “appearance of contagion”? Eg for people who just encounter each other on a flight but otherwise live totally distinct lives
It is impossible to provide examples that can be applied equally to everyone to explain their experience of symptoms in common with other people. But a few examples may help to illustrate the kind of exposures we may experience to assist the contemplation of those that may apply to you.
One example involves the cleaning products used in the home, office, school or other workplace environment. The harsh chemicals in cleaning products used to clean a school during the summer period for example, may explain the onset of symptoms experienced by many children soon after the start of the new school term. Extremely harsh chemicals are among the ingredients of products used by many industries for purposes such as degreasing machinery.
A further example involves new carpets, furniture or furnishings that may ‘off-gas’ chemicals used in their manufacture for various purposes, such as acting as ‘flame retardants’. Many of these chemicals are known as VOCs (volatile organic compounds).
Other examples may involve products used in agriculture that are toxic by intent, such as pesticides, that people may inhale whilst they are out in the countryside.
Another example of common exposures to ‘injurious influences’ involve EMFs that are similarly difficult to sense, but can be equally harmful to a number of people when they are exposed to an area of high electromagnetic frequencies, whether at home or in the workplace or in the external environment.
These examples, although few in number, should help to illustrate how groups of people may experience similar symptoms at a similar time that gives the appearance of ‘contagion’ when it is in fact the result of a common exposure to ‘injurious substances or influences’.
These examples still feel wholly inadequate to me to explain all cases of transmission of illness between people, but I guess you say it’s not possible to explain all illnesses? I guess I’d respond, at least virology has attempted to find a unified model to explain non bacterial infections. It might behoof the anti virus people to offer a similarly unified model rather than solely nitpicking aspects of virology.
[deleted]
A single common instance: The majority of people wash in toxic petrochemcals that are absorbed by the skin. That's a lot of people awaiting a toxin purge. Nature runs on cycles. There are specifically sync'ed times for all naturally occurring activity.
Our bodies do still communicate triggers outside of our sensory perception.
Is yawning - immediately after someone in your vicinity yawns - evidence of germ theory contagion?
If someone displays strong emotion in a TV show/movie, do some observers exhibit similar emotion? - yet the conveyance device is merely an illusion of lights and sound. This is also not evidence of the medical interpretation of germs/contagion.
Yawning is an obvious visual cue, that’s not at all comparable or “outside our sensory perception”. Ditto being able to empathise with film portrayals. These examples feel to me like you’re saying all illnesses can be transmitted through psychogenic means?