Search This Blog

Wednesday, 20 October 2021

The Immune System. Why Conventional Medicine wants to Re-educate us

The Conventional Medical Establishment is trying to "re-educate" us about our immune system. The new medical understanding is that the immune system protects us best only after we have been vaccinated, and even questions whether there is any such thing as "natural immunity". 

These are some comments I have seen recently on the Quora website, responses to a question about whether "young children have a natural immunity to Covid-19, even if they do not catch it". What these responses describe appears to be an entirely new understanding of what the immune system is, what it does, and how it does it.

        "No human of any age has immunity until infected or vaccinated."

        "I don't think they could have any natural immunity....."

        "No. No one has any immunity to COVID 19. We/Humans have never had it before; therefore, we have never developed any immunity."

        "No, Next question please". 

        "One cannot have a “natural” immunity to a non-preexisting entity. First, one has to be exposed."

        "No. To have an immune response to a specific virus your immune system has to see the virus, either by catching ir or being vaccinated against it...."

        " No. There is no such thing as “natural immunity”.

        "There is no natural immunity".

        "The coronavirus that causes Covid-19 is novel to the human race, so no one is immune to it, especially children."

        "No human has 'natural immunity' until they are infected and their immune system responds.

        "No, haven't you seen any local news? The hospitals are filled with children with Covid.

Most of the responses the questioner received were in the same vein. To date the questioner has received 53 similar responses. Perhaps this should not come as too much of a surprise. During the Covid-19 pandemic conventional medical 'experts' have been given free-rein, both by government and the mainstream media (MSM), to inform us about this entirely new understanding of our immune systems. 

"We have no immunity, we are all at risk, we all need the vaccine" has become part of the official narrative being incessantly forced on us.

Only vaccines can safe us from Covid-19!

So what you will now hear from me will be described by the conventional medical establishment as disinformation! However, I will quote only from conventional medical websites to describe what we used to believe the immune system is, and what it does. This 'misinformation', for examples, is taken from the John Hopkins Medicine website.

        "The immune system protects your child's body from outside invaders, such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, and toxins (chemicals produced by microbes). It is made up of different organs, cells, and proteins that work together. There are two main parts of the immune system:

  • The innate immune system, which you are born with.
  • The adaptive immune system, which you develop when your body is exposed to microbes or chemicals released by microbes."
THE INNATE IMMUNE SYSTEM. This is your child's rapid response system. It patrols your child’s body and is the first to respond when it finds an invader. The innate immune system is inherited and is active from the moment your child is born. When this system recognizes an invader, it goes into action immediately. The cells of this immune system surround and engulf the invader. The invader is killed inside the immune system cells. These cells are called phagocytes." (also from the JHM website, my emphasis).

THE ACQUIRED IMMUNE SYSTEM. The acquired immune system, with help from the innate system, produces cells (antibodies) to protect your body from a specific invader. These antibodies are developed by cells called B lymphocytes after the body has been exposed to the invader. The antibodies stay in your child's body. It can take several days for antibodies to develop. But after the first exposure, the immune system will recognize the invader and defend against it. The acquired immune system changes throughout your child's life." (also from the JHM website, with my emphasis).

The JHM website only then adds that "immunizations train your child's immune system to make antibodies to protect him or her from harmful diseases." It is almost an after-thought. But it is an after-thought that does not explain why the child's immune system should not work; why it should fail in its primary task; or what has compromised our 'natural immunity' so that we need vaccines.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases describes the function of the immune system as follows"

        "The overall function of the immune system is to prevent or limit infection..... The immune system can distinguish between normal, healthy cells and unhealthy cells by recognizing a variety of "danger" cues called danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). Cells may be unhealthy because of infection or because of cellular damage caused by non-infectious agents like sunburn or cancer. Infectious microbes such as viruses and bacteria release another set of signals recognized by the immune system called pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs)." 

Let's try one more description of the immune system this time described by the NCBI, the National Centre for Biotechnology Information .

        "The immune system has a vital role: it protects your body from harmful substances, germs and cell changes that could make you ill. It is made up of various organs, cells and proteins. As long as your immune system is running smoothly, you don’t notice that it’s there. But if it stops working properly - because it’s weak or can't fight particularly aggressive germs - you get ill. Germs that your body has never encountered before are also likely to make you ill. Some germs will only make you ill the first time you come into contact with them. These include childhood diseases like chickenpox."

        "Without an immune system, we would have no way to fight harmful things that enter our body from the outside or harmful changes that occur inside our body. The main tasks of the body’s immune system are: 
  • to fight disease-causing germs (pathogens) like bacteria, viruses, parasites or fungi,
  • to remove them from the body, 
  • to recognize and neutralize harmful substances from the environment, and 
  • to fight disease-causing changes in the body, such as cancer cells.

This is how the immune system has been understood for a very long time. Thucydides, an Athenia historian and general, said this about acquired immunity in 430bce, during the Athenian Plague.

        "Yet it was with those who had recovered from the disease that the sick and the dying found most compassion. These knew what it was from experience and had no fear for themselves; for the same man was never attacked twice - never at least fatally."

So nothing in any of these conventional medical descriptions, pre-Covid-19, talk about the inability of the immune system to recognise new, or strange viruses, whether artificially produced in a Chinese laboratory, or not. They do not support what conventional medicine now seems to be saying. To the contrary, we have been told, and we have been aware for many millenia, that the immune system is designed to protect us against 'foreign substances'.

Nowhere, in any of these descriptions, is it suggested that we have NO immunity UNTIL we have CAUGHT the infection; and certainly not UNTIL we have been vaccinated.

  • So who is spreading disinformation?
  • Has conventional medicine been wrong about the immune system for centuries - until now? If so, where is the science?
  • Or perhaps our former understanding of innate and acquired immunity (= natural immunity?) does not lead to the financial rewards that 'vaccine acquired' immunity provides for the pharmaceutical industry?

I do not know who the young person was who asked the question. But the responses he/she received will have left him/her in little doubt that he/she was completely unprotected against the Covid-19 virus, and that he/she would either have to subject himself/herself to the virus, or get the vaccine.

Of course the immune system does not protect everyone from everything; if it could do that no-one would ever be ill. We have known this for a long time too. But the problem is not the immune system - it is our treatment and abuse of our immune system. If we eat badly, if we don't exercise properly, if we smoke, if we drink to access, if we take pharmaceutical drugs, et al., we can undermine, or compromise our immune system. When we abuse our bodies our immune system will not function so well; it will not give us the protection it should; we will succumb to illness.

The Covid-19 narrative has, at least (and to a very limited extent) been honest about this. We have been told that those people most at risk of infection, hospitalisation and death are people with compromised immune systems. However, the narrative has never gone on to develop this further. Conventional medicine should have been telling us how best we can support natural immunity but it has signally failed to do so.

So the pharmaceutical industry might want to promote their vaccines. It might want to downplay the importance of innate and acquired immunity - natural immunity. It might want to suggest that vaccine immunity is best.

But nobody needs to believe this blatant promotional sales pitch!

Natural immunity is alive and well; and unless we abuse it it will continue to protect us from most infections, and keep us well, just as it has always done.

Monday, 18 October 2021

Neurodiversity. A valuable concept: but it has an inherent danger

When faced with a failing, but still powerful and highly manipulative medical system, it is necessary to examine any new terminology that suddenly appears with regard to health. One such medical term is "Neurodiversity". It has been variously described, but the 'Genius Within' website provides a good comprehensive definition.

    "Neurodiversity is the concept that all humans vary in terms of our neurocognitive ability. Everyone has talents and things they struggle with. However, for some people the variation between those strengths and weaknesses is more pronounced, which can bring talent but can also be disabling.

    "Neurodiverse / neurodivergent people tend to find some things very easy and other things incredibly hard. This usually leads to an inconsistent performance at school or work.

    "Neurodiversity can be a competitive advantage when the individuals are in the right environment, making use of their strengths, instead of constantly trying to overcome challenges. To achieve this we must create inclusive spaces to work and learn that reduce disabling factors and amplify diverse abilities.

Given this definition I have no problem with the concept of Neurodiversity. Indeed, it is an approach to life that seeks to adopt a positive view towards all people, focusing what what every person has to offer than any deficit they may have. It seeks to avoid the problem of dealing with people as a merely a member of a 'minority' group, and all the stigma this can entail. Genius Within say that its aim "is to work towards a world where all variations in the rich tapestry of human cognition are accepted and enabled."

Yet Neurodiversity has been controversial among disability advocates. Those opposed to, or have doubts about the concept point out that it does not reflect the realities of individual lives, especially those people who have high support needs. I share this concern; but my issue is somewhat different.

I wholeheartedly applaud any other effort to avoid and overcome the problem of stigmatising minority groups whether this be through sociability, learning difficulties, attention span, changeability of mood, and other issues regarding mental functioning. Indeed I welcome anything that removes the social barriers to the acceptance and full involvement in social life of any individual.

Genius Within says that neurodiverse, or neurodivergent conditions include a variety of physically 'invisible', but ever-growing conditions such as:

  • ADHD (affecting 5% of the population)
  • Autism (2% of the population)
  • Dyslexia (10% of the population)
  • Dyspraxia (5% of the population)
  • Tourette syndrome (2% of the population)
They add that 7% of the population now have mental health needs, and 5% of the population have an acquired brain injury. So the neurodiverse population is a significant, and a growing one.

My quite specific problem with the definition of neurodiversity is given by the 'Understood' website which states that:
 
    "Neurodiversity is a viewpoint that brain differences are normal, rather than deficits."

The conditions listed above as neurodivergent are not "normal" conditions. They have a relatively modern rise to prominence. They are essentially new diseases, either previously unknown, or whose incidence have become more widespread in recent decades. Why is this? What is the pathology. Something has caused them. And my argument is that it is always vital we seek to find the causation of any illness.

So if neurodiversity is used to challenge the view that neurodevelopmental disorders are pathological, that knowing about the causation is not important, if we accept that they are "normal", medicine will be unable to progress.

My first contact with the concept of neurodiversity was in response to a blog I wrote, several years ago now, on the link between autism and childhood vaccines. I was taken to task by someone who told me that autism was NOT a disease, or an illness, but a gift. She said that she loved her son, and did not want him to be associated with being sick, or in any way abnormal. 

This made me realise that we were speaking about two quite different things. She was talking about the love she had for her son, and how he should be treated. I was talking about the pathology of the condition with which her son had been diagnosed.

There should be no conflict between these two approaches, the one can progress alongside the other. She should be able to love her autistic son, and I should be able to look at the cause of her son's condition. The two tasks were not mutually exclusive.

Treating the person as "normal" is important. Treating the condition itself as 'normal' risks failing to examine the cause of the condition - and doing away with it.

I understand that neurodiversity is especially popular within the autism rights movement. And this is my worry. My concern is that 'neurodiversity' will be used by the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) to deflect attention away from the causation of these conditions, not least autism. 

The CME already denies vehemently any connection between autism and childhood vaccination. The rise of autism has been alarming, and it continues to rise. Yet when asked about the cause of the autism epidemic the CME says (quoting the UK's NHS):

          "The exact cause of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is currently unknown. It's a complex condition and may occur as a result of genetic predisposition (a natural tendency), environmental or unknown factors."

How a disease, unknown prior to the 1940's, can have a 'genetic' cause is not explained. Yet it would appear that the CME does know that it is NOT childhood vaccines. It dismisses any link out of hand!

          "In the past, a number of things were linked to ASD, but extensive research has found no evidence to suggest that any of these contribute to the condition."

Yet there are, in fact, 160 research papers that supports the vaccine / autism link.

I would hate to think that the neurodiversity movement would be taken over by the CME. There is a real danger that the pharmaceutical industry might want to 'support' the neurodiversity movement, another part of its programme to deny medical harm caused by adverse drug and vaccine effects. It provides them with an attractive argument. "Autistic children are lovely, loveable people; we should spend our time loving them, not asking questions about why they developed autism".

So Neurodiversity could become an excuse for pharmaceutical denial. We don't need to look at the pharmaceutical causes of autism, in case links are found with vaccines, or paracetamol, or antidepressants, or any other drug. We do not need to look at the pharmaceutical causes of Tourette's, in case links are found with drugs like Amphetamine Sulfate, Benzphetamine Hydrochlorideor, Cylert, Pemolline, or vaccines.  

And the same applies to any of the other conditions under the umbrella of neurodiversity.

The CME message would be clear. "We have to accept that we will all be ill, and that there is no treatment for these conditions. We don't need to know about causation. It is sufficient just to love people, don't bother to look at cause. And if you (the neurodiversity movement) do this, we will support you movement with money."  This is exactly what it has done with many health charities, and patient support groups. 

The pharmaceutical industry is highly profitable, the most highly profitable industry of all; and it uses its money to divert attention from its direct culpability in the causation of illness.

I have never known anybody who has purposely set out to have a child who suffers from any condition, neurological or any other, because they are lovable. Good parents will love them, of course; and value them, of course.

But causation should never be dismissed; we should not allow anyone who has caused any medical condition to deflect attention away from their culpability; we should not allow drug companies to get away with any patient harm that may have been caused by their highly profitable drugs and vaccines.



Thursday, 14 October 2021

Mandatory vaccination or Forced Drugging. Is it happening?

Mandatory vaccination or forced drugging is something people around the world are now facing.

I have had several conversations recently with people who told me that there was no mandating of vaccines, or forced drugging. Their reasoning was that no-one was being forcibly held down and injected. This kind of semantic obfuscation has become typical of what we are being told by doctors and politicians, and the rest of the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME). 

No politician (within the democratic world) is likely to admit to physically forcing vaccination on people: but politicians are seeking to ensure that non-compliance with vaccination will lead to losing their employment, and severe restrictions of social life. According these these 'double-speaking' politicians, this does not constitute mandating vaccines, as this video (from New Zealand) demonstrates (click here, https://www.facebook.com/raewyn.howes/videos/414242080260286, for as long as it remains uncensored on Facehook). Basically, the video shows New Zealand politicians saying there will be no mandating of vaccines, followed by government statements mandating them, and individuals whose jobs and livelihoods have been threatened!

This is typical of what is happening at the moment - politicians following policies that enforce drugging but having to deny it because it might be unpopular.

This is not the first time that the CME has tried to force drugs and vaccines on us. I have written about two of these occasions recently, the mandating of the smallpox vaccination, and the mandating of the polio vaccines. Both ended badly, not because of the objections of 'democratic' politicians, but in both cases the vaccines were so harmful they were ultimately rejected by the people.

I expect this will be the outcome of the mandating of Covid-19 vaccines - but unfortunately not until they have continued to cause untold patient harm, or before sufficient numbers of people realise how dangerous the vaccines are.

Politicians, and doctors around the world are being led by the nose by the pharmaceutical companies, which stand to profit enormously from forcing these vaccines on unwilling people. Both politicians and doctors are now part and parcel of the CME, entirely willing to be their bidding. And they are enforcing vaccines that have NOT been fully tested, have been 'approved' for emergency use only, and patients have not been fully informed about the serious adverse vaccines reactions that have been reported.

Moreover, politicians (and doctors) are willing to do so quite regardless of many political and medical principles that have been adopted over the years. I list some of them here.

1. Hippocrates oath (-460 // 377): "I will not give anyone poison, if asked, nor take the initiative of such a suggestion."

2. Code of Medical Ethics, Article 36:
Article R4127- 36 of the Public Health Code:  "The consent of the person examined or treated must be sought in all cases. When the patient, in a state of expressing his will, refuses the investigation or treatment proposed, the doctor must respect this refusal after informing the patient of his consequences.′′

3. Nuremberg Code (1947): "The consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights resumed this ban against unintentional experimentation, in its 1966 text, which states: no one may be  subjected without his consent to medical or scientific experiment."

4. Geneva statement for doctors (1948): "I will respect the autonomy and dignity of my patient. I will not use my medical knowledge to infringe human rights and civil liberties, even under force. I will keep absolute respect for human life, from conception. I will consider my patient's health as my first concern."

5. Helsinki Declaration (1996) signed by 45 countries:
Article 25: "The participation of persons capable of giving informed consent to medical research must be a voluntary act. No person capable of giving their informed consent can be involved in a search without giving their free and informed consent.′

 6) Oviedo Convention (1997) signed by 29 countries:

Article 5: "An intervention in the field of health can only be carried out after the data subject has given free and informed consent. This person is given prior adequate information about the purpose and nature of the intervention, as well as its consequences and risks. The data subject may, at any time, freely withdraw his consent."

7. Loi Kouchner (March 4, 2002):
Article 111-4: "Every person shall make decisions concerning his health with the healthcare professional and taking into account the information he provides him / her. The doctor must respect the will of the person after informing them of the consequences of their choices. If the person's willingness to refuse or discontinue treatment puts his or her life at risk, the doctor must do everything to convince him or her to accept the much needed care. No medical or treatment can be practiced without the free and informed consent of the person and this consent can be withdrawn at any time."

8. Salvetti stop (2002): No medical treatment is mandatory in the European Union:  "As a non-voluntary medical treatment, mandatory vaccination is an interference with the right to privacy, guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms." (Salvetti v Italy-ECHR decision of 9 July 2002; No. 42197/98)

9. French Civil Code:
Article 16-1: ′′ Everyone has the right to respect their own bodies. The body is inviolable."

10. Council of Europe resolution 2361 (28 January 2021): advisory opinion: the Assembly urges member states and the European Union:
    Article 731:  "To ensure that citizens are informed that vaccination is not mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to get vaccinated, if he or she does not wish to do so personally."
    Article 732:  "To ensure that no one is discriminated against for not being vaccinated, due to potential health risk or not wanting to get vaccinated.′′

(A word of apology here. I have used a source that put this information together that I can no longer find. If/when I can reference this source I will be delighted to do so).

On the grounds of these political and medical principles alone, mandatory or forced drugging should not be carried out. The fact that doctors are willing to do so today, aided, abetted and supported by the CME; and that politicians of every political persuasion, not least the 'liberal' left, are prepared to sanction it; is utterly and completely disgraceful.

Forcing people to accept pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines does not require the forcible holding down of a patient. It is simply the action of ignoring what someone tells you!

I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE THIS PHARMACEUTICAL TREATMENT

Wednesday, 13 October 2021

WE WILL BE ALL FREE BY FEBRUARY!

How good a memory do you have? Can you remember back to those bad old days when we were all "locked down", unable to have a social or work life.

The official Covid-19 narrative (provided in unison by government, conventional medical authorities, and the mainstream media (MSM) was that Covid-19 was a killer disease; there was no medical treatment, we were all at risk; it was killing thousands of people around the world: so we all had to sacrifice our lives in order to safe; and we had to save the NHS.

After nearly a year of this blanket message, the official narrative changed. There was hope. We could spur ourselves on. Help was at hand. This was the new message.

Daily Express
20th December 2020
"WE WILL BE FREE BY FEBRUARY"

The new Astra Zenica vaccine, with its "new winning formula" would be approved early that week. Two million jabs would be ready for the most vulnerable and elderly within a fortnight. Let me quote from this heroic front page article.

            "Britain could be free from severe Covid restrictions by February thanks to a new ‘winning formula’ vaccine. The “game-changing” Oxford AstraZeneca jabs expected to be approved as early as today, paving way for a massed vaccination blitz. Insiders say that the perfected vaccine works better than hoped and will match the best on offer. A source said: “The path to liberation is finally becoming clear".

This message was to help us through the misery of lockdown. And as has always been the case with the official narrative, everyone was singing, in unison, from the same hymn-sheet.

The Sun
27th December 2020

            "The UK could be free of lockdowns by February - after Government officials drew up a list of 15million vulnerable Brits who need the vaccine first. It comes amid news that the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab could get the green light for use as early as Monday - with roll-out beginning in just a week.

So it spurred on on, the worst was over, in just a couple of months we would all be free to resume our normal lives again.

Yet by February 2021, when we should have all been free, the official narrative had been forced to change. The optimism had faded. The vaccine was not working, as we had been promised. So the story changed again.

Mail Online
4th February
Britain could vaccinate its way out of lockdown by April 7th


             "That's the latest date the UK will finish injecting all over-50s if vaccine drive keeps up pace - as ministers claim it's the key to ending restrictions and infections drop again.... MPs are pressing for a road map out of lockdown as Boris Johnson and his advisers continue to act cautiously. Schools look set to begin fully reopening on March 8 but it could be weeks or months until lockdown ends

I could continue with this rather depressing tale; but sadly I would very quickly get bored; and in any case you know what has happened. Hope faced into reality. Freedom has been regularly postponed: this had to happen first: > or that: > we needed two doses of the vaccine; > the NHS still needed to be protected because from unsustainable pressures: > we need a boaster vaccine: > it's all the fault of those nasty anti-vaxxers: > we now need an annual jab; > we need vaccine passports: > we need to force more people to compliance: > we need to have flu vaccines too. And so it goes on.

Whenever we listen to people who speak to us we have to determine whether (i) they are telling the truth; (ii) they really know what they are talking about; (iii) whether we can trust what they are saying; (iv) whether they are lying. We have to do this all the time but we now need to do it over the Covid-19 narrative.

The Covid-19 narrative in the narrative of the Pharmaceutical Industry. It might appear that the drug companies have been silent during this pandemic; but they speak through the government, through official medical channels, and throughout the MSM. This is the measure of Big Pharma's control of the Covid-19 narrative, and health messages generally.

As Marshal McLuhan once told us, "The medium is the message". And the medium through which public information is now coming is controlled by the conventional medical establishment (CME). This is why, at any one time, the dominant message reaching the public is the same. No matter the platform, the source is the same - the CME. And anything outside the official CME narrative has to be dismissed as "misinformation", and censored on social media.

So what is the official narrative telling us today? Is it any more truthful, or more accurate, then the message we were being given in December 2020; or in February 2021?

There are, perhaps, more important questions to ask.

  • is conventional, drug-based medicine, really any closer now to having any sort of control over this virus?
  • more, does it have any control over the epidemic levels of chronic diseases?
  • and why is the official narrative still fail to tell the public about the patient damage that the Covid-19 vaccines are now known to be causing?

Covid-19 will subside. All infectious disease subside - eventually. This is NOT the work of vaccines, it is the work of our innate and natural immunity. Yet. as soon as it can, the CME will claim that it was their vaccines that were triumphant. This always happens; it happened with measles, with polio, and with smallpox, and many more. This might be a lie, but the CME will state it through governments, conventional medical authorities, and the MSM, and they will repeat it often enough for most people to believe it.

Pharmaceutical medicine is not setting us free. It really has no intention of setting us free. If two vaccinations had been sufficient to set us free we would now be enjoying our freedom. If the boaster shots are capable of setting us free, they will set us free. But why should the pharmaceutical companies want to do this, even if they were capable of doing it (and they are not). Setting us 'free' from illness and disease is not a good financial strategy for the drug companies. If they were capable of making us well, if they could cure illness and disease, we would no longer want, or need their drugs. It would be bad for business. They want us sick.

For them, setting us free is a really bad idea!

If we really want of liberty, we will have to look elsewhere!

Saturday, 9 October 2021

The Myths of Conventional Medical Success. Conquering Polio.

Polio is a disease that has been conquered by conventional medicine. 

Or so the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) claims; and such has been the propaganda success of this claim, most people now believe it was the polio vaccines that achieved this outstanding success.

This is the third in a series of blogs on the theme "The Myths of Conquering Disease"

The polio vaccines, alongside the smallpox and measles vaccines, lay at the heart of the widespread faith most people have in vaccines. What becomes clear, when the history of polio vaccines are concerned, is that their role overcoming polio is equally misplaced. Much of the information I will use here is taken from Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History: Suzanne Humphries & Roman Bystrianyk. ISBN 1480216895. The authors provide a comprehensive view of the history of polio vaccinations, and their failure.

Poliomyelitis is a description of spinal pathology, the inflammation of the brainstem and spinal cord. It is not an old disease. Humphries and Bystrianyk (H&B) provides a graph outlining in incidence in the USA between 1912 and 1970; and asks whether a disease that became known as‘the great, or the vicious crippler' came to be known as such an infamous monster.

            "Naturally existing poliovirus was a common bowel inhabitant for millennia, always there, continuously circulating through humans, but never causing paralysis under later when something changed". 

H&B ask the question about what changed, what opportunities arose to afford poliovirus the ability to cause epidemics from the early 20th century, and why paralytic poliomyelitis become an epidemic disease only in the 1940's and 1950's. They conclude that the factors contributing to the polio epidemics were:

  • refined sugar, white flour, 
  • alcohol and tobacco,
  • tonsillectomies,
  • vaccines,
  • antibiotics, DDT,
  • and arsenic.

            "Many thousands of people were needlessly paralyzed because the medical system refused to look at the consequence of these.... and concentrated solely on vaccine research".

H&B also state that polio, as diagnosed in the 1950's, was a number of distinct diseases, including enteroviruses, undiagnosed congenital syphilis, arsenic and DDT toxicity, transverse myelitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and lead poisoning. Specific polio diagnosis was not pursued with laboratory testing before 1958, and that before the first vaccine was deployed, diagnosis of polio was "very loose". But this soon changed - after the introduction of the vaccine.

            "The practice among doctors before 1954 was to diagnose all patients who experienced even short-term paralysis (24 hours) with 'polio'. In 1955, the year the Salk vaccine was released, the diagnostic criteria became much more stringent. If there was no residual paralysis 60 days after onset, the disease was not considered to be paralytic polio".

So one simple change in diagnostic criteria brought about a major reduction in the number of paralytic cases in 1955-1957 "whether or not any vaccine was used". Such are the wonders of medical science, and the manipulation of medical statistics!

Moreover, after the vaccine, "there was a concerted effort to distinguish cases with poliovirus from cases without it", thereby, in another stroke, removing cases of transverse myelitis, viral or aseptic meningitis, Guillain- Barre, and many others. Suddenly, there wasn't as much polio around now! What a wonderful thing the vaccine was! 

Polio was by this time considered to be a dreadful disease, with images of polio victims "locked into our collective memory" in iron lung machines. There were very few such cases, but this was what polio beacme to mean to most people.

There were other images of polio which were the result of other conventional medical treatments that were used prior to the vaccines.

            "We'd take the children to the operating room in those days, straighten them out under anaesthetic, and put them in plaster casts. When they wake up, they screamed. The next day they still cried from the pain. That was the accepted and universal treatment virtually all over the world".

Little wonder, then, that most people were pleased to see the vaccine, and were prepared to welcome it as a brilliant new treatment.

The problem was, however, that poliomyelitis was not a virus!

The disease never acted like a virus. It occurred mainly in summer (most viruses are most most active during the winter),  and affected mainly middle-class and wealthy children (most effect children from poorer families). Unusually the poor seemed to be largely immune to polio. It occurred in local clusters, in certain schools or towns. Nor was the infectiousness of Polio ever demonstrated.

However Louis Pasteur's ‘germ theory’ was in vogue in the 1940's and 1950's, so the CME searched for a virus to blame for the epidemic, even an innocent one, to the virtual exclusion of all other causes and explanations. And this was so even when there was clear evidence that polio was not a viral disease. 

So the conventional medical approach, from the very beginning, was heading in the wrong direction. As usually, the motivation was the pursuit of profit. Potentially there were enormous financial gains for anyone who could isolate the virus, and produce a vaccine. So the voices that questioned this dominant narrative, doctors like Ralph Scobey and Morton Biskind, were ignored.

The research done by Scobey and Biskind was published in medical journals, and presented to the USA Congress in 1951 and 1952. It detailed the evidence that Polio, the ‘summer plague’, was the result of poisoning, and linked polio outbreaks to children who had played downstream from cotton mills, and fields sprayed with chemicals, or exposed in some way to eating chemically-sprayed orchard fruit.

            "The main chemical offenders of the time were mercury, lead, arsenic, cyanide and phosphorous which had been demonstrably linked to various degrees of paralysis as well as death in workers and artisans throughout Europe who had been exposed to these chemicals during the progressive industrialisation of these areas. In addition, further afield in Australia, a ‘polio epidemic’ was linked to the widespread use of a phosphorous-containing fertilizer."

But this evidence was ignored. The search for a virus, and for a vaccine to destroy it, continued unabated. Any other cause of polio was dismissed. So the epidemics continued, and worsened. Then another culprit was discovered.

            "(DDT) was thought to be a safe and effective insecticide - even safe enough to spray at public beaches and directly onto children in an effort to halt the spread of polio".

Eventually, DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane) was implicated. DDT is now infamous, but at this time it was being heavily promoted by the manufacturer, Monsanto. It was routinely sprayed on crops, animals, even on adults (for example, soldiers) and children. It was considered to be entirely safe.

             "They sprayed towns, crops and orchards with deadly poison DDT insecticide, suggesting that polio might be caused by flies. The chemical companies reaped the benefits but the orchards were seriously damaged, crops were ruined and people were killed by this wild and unwarranted experiment."

So the polio epidemic escalated. Research soon demonstrated the link between DDT and polio, but the race for a vaccines had already started, and could not be diverted.

THE VACCINES

According to the CME, the paralysis from polio was caused by a common stomach virus that had lived in our stomachs for millennia. The vaccine race was ultimately won by Jonas Salk. 17,000 monkeys were herded out of the jungles of India, Africa and Asia, and shipped to the USA to take part in Salk’s vaccine experiments. By 1955 his polio vaccine (which contained the poison formaldehyde, used to 'attenuate' the virus, and several other toxic chemicals) was released to a public already in fear of polio, and so willing to accept anything that might be a 'solution' to the disease. 

What was discovered later was that the formaldehyde was not only a poison, but was unsuccessful in 'attenuating' the polio virus. Salk had been warned - but he did not heed the warnings. His vaccine also contained Merthiolate, a mercury-based compound, that supposedly had a virus-killing effect. So the vaccine was a cocktail of poisons - and all of them were to be injected into the bloodstream

The Salk vaccine was an unmitigated disaster. After it was introduced, polio rates rocketed, particularly in those US states that had the highest vaccination rates. The following states are examples of their polio cases before and after the vaccine.

  • Massachusetts:   from 273 to 2,027,
  • Wisconsin:         from 326 to 1655,
  • New York state: from 469 to 764.

This fiasco became known as "the Cutter Incident", after the vaccine manufacturer, Cutter Laboratories. Within days of vaccination 40,000 children had contracted polio, 200 with severe paralysis, as well as 10 deaths. Even Paul Offit has admitted that at least 220,000 people were infected with live polio virus contained in Cutter vaccine; he said that 70,000 developed muscle weakness, 164 were severely paralyzed, and 10 people were killed. 

A detailed description of this incident can be found in Eleanor McBean's book, ‘The Poisonous Needle’. This was an almost contemporaneous account of the incident, written in 1957 - an amazing document. She talks of the doubts amongst doctors about the efficacy of the Salk vaccine, for several reasons:

  1. English Authorities in July, 1955, cancelled the Salk vaccine programs as too dangerous. 
  2. All European countries, with the exception of Denmark, have discontinued their programs. Even Denmark is reported to have found live virus in the Salk Vaccine. 
  3. Canada decided, as of July 29, 1955, to postpone its vaccination program until the early part of 1956, to take advantage of the expected advances in the development of safe and effective poliomyelitis vaccine.
  4. Two Nobel Prize winners, Dr. John Enders and Dr. Wendell M. Stanley, both have publicly indicated their uncertainties about the Salk vaccine.
  5. The Polio Advisory Committee and health officials of at least one state, Massachusetts, have advised against public inoculations and have withheld approval of the use of the vaccine until at least Jan. 1, 1956. 
  6. One of the two major pharmaceutical houses connected with the production of Salk Vaccine since the 1954 field trials has recently found it necessary to withdraw their product from the market’."

The Cutter Incident resulted in massive public concern. Although initially dismissed as ‘a bad batch’, trust in the vaccine never recovered. As McBean wrote:

            "Many doctors, and public authorities as well as individual laymen are not only questioning the safety of the Salk vaccine but are denouncing it. Even the Journal of the American Medical Association in a recent (1956) "Report on Rate of Use of Poliomyelitis Vaccine" expresses concern about the dropping off of sales of this product in the "announcement by the Public Health Service that states are not using their vaccine supplies at the rate the serum is being released."

Only about 45% of the 7,000,000 doses available had been used. And although the vaccination programme continued until 1963 it was on a much smaller scale. Public trust never recovered. The Salk vaccine was certainly not a vaccine that conquered polio.

But the Salk vaccine did cause unprecedented harm. It has been estimated that as many as 100 million people were injected with this 'contaminated' vaccine. One doctor is quoted saying that vaccination in the USA caused as many cases of poliomyelitis as it prevented in 1955, bad enough, but the situation was far worse than this. The following is a brief outline of some of the adverse effects caused by the SV40 vaccine, in America alone:

  • 38% of bone cancers were identified with SV40 (Loyola university Medical Center), 
  • 58% of mesotheliomas (lung cancer) had SV40, Osteosarcomas (a type of bone cancer) – 10 times higher in states where the contaminated vaccine was used, 
  • Cancer Research identified SV40 in 23% blood samples and 45% semen samples confirming that SV40 could be sexually transmitted, 
  • The New England Journal of Medicine published two studies demonstrating that SV40 could be passed onto infants from vaccinated mothers and those children had a 13 times greater incidence of brain tumours.

Fortunately for the CME other things happened to save its reputation. The change in polio diagnosis helped, of course. There was an apparent reduction in cases. But the realisation that DDT was unsafe grew, and it was phased out in the USA, Canada, and elsewhere in the 1960's. In addition, H&B outlined how several other contributory factors to the polio epidemic were tackled at the same time, including the reduction in the use of tonsilectomy, the use of arsenic, including its use in some pharmaceutical drugs (for example, neorsphenamine and neosalvarsan).

The Salk vaccine was a tragic failure, but it was a tragedy successfully covered up by the dishonesty of pharmaceutical propaganda. The public were lied to, misinformed to the extent that most people continue to believe that it was the vaccine that conquered polio. Today, few people know about about the Cutter disaster. So the CME, as it has done so often (for instance, with measles and smallpox), not only rescued the reputation of vaccines, but eventually had the audacity to claim credit for the reduction in polio cases.

As H&B even discovered why the public were not information about the failure of the Salk vaccine, quoting a Congressman, Percy Priest, who said this in 1956.

            "If word ever got out that the Public Health Service had actually done something damaging to the health of the American people, the consequences would be terrible ..... We felt that no lasting good could come to science or the public if the Public Health Services were discredited".

As H&B commented: "So much for evidence-based medicine and scientific truth"!

The story has continued, polio has not been conquered. In places where DDT was not banned, for example, in some states of India, polio continued to be, and still is, an endemic disease. In 1995, an immunisation programme called Pulse Polio was established, with the aim of eradicating polio by 2005. It would appear that the CME still believed its own propaganda about the effectiveness of vaccines. The goal was not achieved, and has still not been achieved.

            "A major oversight on the part of the press and the medical establishment .... is that massive "Pulse' vaccination campaigns have done nothing to eliminate childhood paralysis, and, in fact, there is strong evidence pointing to the likelihood that experimental polio vaccination is related to the sharp rise in AFP (Acute Flacid Paralysis). It has been reported in the Lancet that the incidence of AFP, especially non-polio AFP, increased drastically in India after an experimental, high potency polio vaccine was introduced. Worse still is that children identified with non-polio AFP are more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection."

So what does the CME do in response to this rise in AFP resulting from a vaccine campaign. They increase the vaccination programme! They claim that India is now been free of paralysis from 'wild polio virus. No cases since 2010, they tell us. But they don't tell us about  the rise of AFP, caused by the polio vaccines. As H&B ask, "Isn't vaccination really about eliminating paralysis ... or is it simply to replace wild virus with a vaccine virus regardless of outcome."

At least H&B re now reporting that there was "a new resistance coming from the 'educated middle class people" and that "one family claimed that their five year old child had received pulse polio vaccination 32 times".

And so it continues. More and more vaccines, and so-called philanthropists pouring endless amounts of money into vaccination programmes that do not work, and which cause an equally deadly condition. It's not polio, we are told, it is AFP. Conquering polio by changing the name!

There has been little or no effort to find why the vaccines don't work, why they cause problems, and whether there might be a better strategy - reducing the impact of chemicals, like DDT, arsenic; improved nutrition, clean, chemical free water, "and the luxury of being free from war, famine, and spiritual persecution".

So the idea that "polio was conquered by vaccines" is a fairy tale, a fig-leaf that has been brilliantly constructed by the CME, and cleverly sold to the public. The vaccines were a triumph that never happened. The CME has persuaded us that the vaccines as the saviour, they had vanquished polio, and this claim continues serving as a prime example of 'vaccine success' 60 years later!

Everyone should now start asking some key question. The ultimate question is why the CME want to claim that conquering polio (plus measles and smallpox) with vaccines has been one of their greatest achievements? If they had a real achievement to tell us about they would surely be telling us about it - rather than focusing on these three fairy tales!

The reason for this is simple. Apart from the mythical achievements of an ineffective, often lethal vaccine legacy, conventional medicine has little else to brag about. It has failed to achieve anything more effective or more successful. It is a failed medical system!


Would you like to read more information about the propaganda myth surrounding the eradication of polio as a 'killer' disease? If so, please read this brilliant and insightful book which provides a comprehensive historical and statistical account of the decline of the disease, and the role of the vaccine.

Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History: Suzanne Humphries & Roman Bystrianyk. ISBN 1480216895.


Wednesday, 6 October 2021

The Covid-19 Pandemic. How can the disinformation be stopped? If there is a dispute how can we determine who is correct? "Follow the money"?

Controversy surrounds the Covid-19 Pandemic; and whether we like it or not, the controversy continues, and will continue - unabated.

In most of the world it is a medical matter. In the USA it has also become a political matter. So let's examine both sides of this equation, and see if there is a simple way of determining which side of the argument is "Following the Money", and which side is more interested in health outcomes.

  • On one side there is the well known "narrative", promoted by government, conventional medicine, and the mainstream media (MSM): that the virus is deadly; that it is a threat to everyone; that millions of people have died, and are dying of it; that there is no medical treatment for it; that washing hands, social distancing, the wearing of masks, test and trace, and lockdown are the only effective responses to it; that ultimately only Covid-19 vaccines will save us from the virus, that it is essential for everyone to accept the vaccine, and that it is anti-social for anyone to refuse to be vaccinated.
  • On the other side there are the arguments that the 'narrative' dismisses and describes as "misinformation": that Covid-19 is not a pandemic; that people are dying 'with' it, not 'of' it; that innate and natural immunity is more effective than vaccines; and that vaccines are causing serious patient harm. In this respect, the 'misinformation campaigns' accuse the official narrative of "information blight" - that is, that information  has been censored, that people are not been properly or accurately informed about what is really happening.

So how does "following the money" help us to differentiate between these two polar extremes, and what they are arguing for? Let's do an analysis on this basis.

The virus is (or is not deadly), a threat to everyone alike.

If Covid-19 is a deadly virus, and can strike down anyone at anytime, people will be concerned, fearful, willing to do anything to protect themselves, and so ready to accept whatever treatment is offered to them. Fear of the virus has been one of the major means for selling not only medical treatment, even to the most reluctant patient, but the loss of freedom and liberty that this has entailed.

However, if Covid-19 is not such a deadly virus, if it will not effect everyone, then people will be less concerned, less willing to accept the need for medical treatment, or the loss of freedom and liberty this entails. The absence of fear will sell less medical treatment, patients will be more reluctant to accept it.

  • The 'narrative' is better designed to sell pharmaceutical vaccines.
  • It is uncertain that the 'misinformation' agenda is selling anything.

Millions of people have die, and are dying, of the Covid-19 virus

A similar argument can be used here, that is, the more people we believe to be dying, the more medical treatment (vaccines) can be sold. Therefore it is in the interests of pharmaceutical medicine to emphasise, even exaggerate, the number of deaths being caused by the virus. Hence, mortality has been counted in a way that have exaggerated the deaths caused by the virus, that is, anyone who tests positive for the virus, and dies within 28 days of that test, is automatically assumed to have died of the virus.

The 'misinformation' agenda has pointed out, from the early days of the pandemic, that initially the government, medical authorities, and the MSM accepted that deaths being attributed to Covid-19 were actually people with "serious underlying health conditions". In other words, the death count included those who died "of" Covid-19, and those who died "with" it. It no longer mentions this.

  • Again, the 'narrative' is better designed to sell pharmaceutical vaccines.
  • The 'misinformation' agenda appears to be selling anything.

There is no treatment for Covid-19

During the early days of the pandemic conventional medicine admitted that there was "no treatment" for the virus. This further exacerbated the fears the virus generated. There was no protection. This statement was undeniably true, although only if a single word was added. There was no conventional medical treatment for the virus. The lack of effective treatment also contributed to the fear of the virus, and over time, increased the demand for, and people's willingness to take, any treatment that was to be offered later.

The "misinformation" campaign (if it ever had a single voice) pointed to our immune system, that this was capable of protecting people from the virus, and that medicine should be placing more emphasis on supporting and strengthening the innate and natural immunity that we all had. 

  • The lack of conventional medical treatment increased public fear, and thereby people's willingness to accept the 'narrative', the loss of jobs and livelihoods, the loss of social intreraction, the damage to our emotional lives, and the loss freedom and liberty, etc., and ultimately, of course, to take the vaccines that we were being told would be our only salvation.
  • The problem the disinformation argument, when it focused on the immune system, was that it did not sell anything - except perhaps for a few more oranges, some exercise footwear, and some exposure to the sun. 
  • Natural therapists, homeopaths, naturopaths, nutritionists, acupuncturists, et al, always placed natural immunity at the heart of their treatment. But this was not allowed within the narrative. Natural medicine was never mentioned, nor was any mention allowed. The therapists, by and large, merely got on with their work with their patients, who had in most part accepted the 'misinformation' message of their therapists.

Public Health Measures

The narrative placed its emphasis on public health measures, hand washing, social distancing, the wearing of masks, test and trace systems, and lockdown. They were important, not least to people with a 'compromised' immune system, and they offered conventional medicine an excuse: they may have no treatment, but at least something, however damaging, was being done.

Those people plying "misinformation" however were arguing that whilst these measures were important for some immunocompromised people, people with strong natural immunity should continue leading their lives normally, keeping social life and the economy moving.

  • During the lockdown periods the narrative told people that vaccines were on the way, and might be available within a short time. It emphasised that these vaccines would save lives, provide 90% protection, and return life to normal very quickly. It was, therefore, a lengthy promotion campaign for the Covid-19 vaccines.
  • The misinformation message pointed out that the measures being adopted by government, on the advice of conventional medicine, was caused damage to business, industry, social life, mental health, and family relationships. Other than having an interest to maintain normal life, whilst protecting the immuno-compromised, it was not selling anything.

The Introduction of Covid-19 Vaccines 

The ultimate message of the pandemic narrative was that only Covid-19 vaccines could save us from the Covid-19 virus, that only vaccination would protect us, and return us to normal life. So experimental vaccines were quickly rushed to the market, and offered immediately to the most vulnerable. 

  • Drug companies are notoriously reluctant to develop new drugs and vaccines, unless and until they know there are large profits to be made. The Covid-19 vaccines were developed, tested, approved, and came to the market within a year of the start of the pandemic, and it was the official narrative, the promotion of vaccines as the means of returning to normal life, that paved the way for their widespread acceptance.
  • Those people spreading 'misinformation' were concerned that the vaccines had been introduced too quickly, that they were insufficiently tested, and therefore it was not possible to ensure their effectiveness and safety, and to properly protect the public. They warned of the potential harm that might be caused to those who accepted the vaccines.

The Roll-Out of Covid-19 Vaccines

Once the vaccines became available the narrative engaged in a frantic programme of sales promotion. It was quick to point out that it was essential for everyone to accept vaccination; indeed, it promoted the novel ideas that it was anti-social for anyone to refuse to be vaccinated as this would put vaccinated people at risk. We were told that a double vaccination was required, and that this would give people 95% protection from the virus.

The die-hard spreaders of 'misinformation' continued to offer caution, that the vaccines were 'experimental' and had not been properly tested. They wanted to slow, even to stop the roll-out of the vaccines until they were properly tested; and for doing so they were were roundly condemned for continuing to resist the narrative.

  • The narrative has been hugely successful in persuading the larger majority of people to accept the Covid-19 vaccines. These vaccines are proving to be a very profitable enterprise for the companies involved in their manufacture and distribution; and the medical staff who put the vaccines into the arms of patients.
  • The 'misinformation' campaign was not trying to sell anything, nor was it paid by anyone for its views, or its advice. It gained no financial advantage to from opposing the vaccines. Its only interest, from the beginning, was patient safety, and the use of innate and natural immunity to deal with the virus.

Reports of Serious Adverse Reactions to the Vaccines

The Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out very quickly, supported by the official narrative. However, national drug regulators soon began to publish reports of serious adverse reactions to the vaccines, including a large and growing number of deaths. It was important that the official narrative censored this information. It was, after all, the reason for most people accepting the vaccines. Moreover, the vaccine manufacturers had insisted on government giving them immunity from prosecution for any patient harm caused by the vaccines. 

So the drug companies had ensured their own safety; but it meant that the public should not know about the serious adverse reactions being caused by the vaccines. If people knew it would almost certainly restrict future vaccine sales. 

For its part, governments would have realised that they had assumed liability for any patient harm caused by the vaccines, so it was in their interests to avoid the public getting to know about them.

So the narrative was not changed. Adverse vaccine reactions have not been mentioned by government, the conventional medical authorities, or the MSM - except on a few occasions when it could not avoid doing so.

  • The official narrative continues to censor information about adverse vaccine reactions. They were not good for the promotion and sale of the vaccines. The public would not be told. Medical authorities would discount the seriousness of the reports. The MSM would not question or investigate what was going on. So most people would never know; and the profitable vaccine roll-out could continue, unabated.
  • The 'misinformation' campaign continued to threaten the sale of the vaccines, and drug company profitability. It has remained largely unheard. It was not speaking for any vested interest.

Information Blight

The peddlers of misinformation did see the growing number of adverse vaccine reactions in the official reports by national drug regulators. They had the audacity to insist that the public should be warned about them, without realising what this information could do to vaccines sales, and drug company profitability. They continued to criticise the government's narrative, the lack of concern of conventional medical authorities (who either denied or discounted the reports of patient harm), and the refusal of the MSM to inform the public, or challenge the government, or the conventional medical establishment. 

Indeed, the misinformation campaign began to talk about information blight, and claimed that their message was being censored, dismissed without justification as 'misinformation'. Their message was not conducive to selling vaccines, or indeed to the reputation of government, the honesty of conventional medical authorities, or the professionalism of the MSM. 

So they had to be stopped. They were spreading their misinformation through social media, so it was important that social media organisations, like Facebook, Instagram, Linkedin, YouTube, Twitter, et al., had to be brought into compliance with the official narrative. They must begin to censor the disinformation that was threatening the roll-out of profitable vaccines, and risking the standing of government, public health bodies, and the MSM, alike.

The Need for Boaster Vaccination

The misinformation campaign had been right it's opposition to safety of the Covid-19 vaccines. Then it became apparent that the Covid-19 vaccines were not as effective as previously promised by the narrative. Vaccinated people were going down with the virus. The virus was actually 'spiking' in the most highly vaccinated countries (Israel, Iceland, Singapore, and others). 

Suddenly the narrative was telling us that a 'boaster' vaccine was necessary. Again, follow the money! This was not because of the disinformation - that the vaccines were ineffective. A boaster was necessary. Better still, perhaps an annual injection might be necessary. And the narrative would pave the way to the acceptance of this new awareness. 

This would, of course, increase the sales of the vaccines, whilst at the same time hiding the ineffectiveness of the vaccines. If the vaccine was to be given annually in future this would certainly be ideal for the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry.

Yet the misinformation peddlers continued to suggest the Covid-19 vaccines were not effective, that if they were failing to stop vaccinated people contracting the virus, or to stop vaccinated people passing the virus on to other people, in what way could they be considered useful? Again, vaccine misinformation was putting vaccine promotion in serious jeopardy.

Vaccine Mandates and Health Passports

Vaccine passports were the ultimate goal of the narrative, and the financial prize for the pharmaceutical industry, and the conventional medical establishment generally. The passports would ensure that more people could be cajoled, obliged, forced to take the vaccines if they wanted to continue their employment, and their social life. The  narrative framed them within the guise of 'public health', but they would greatly boast pharmaceutical sales. After all, the vaccine passports would need to be kept up-to-date: first the double dose; then the 'boaster' shots; then annual top-ups - all deemed necessary in order to qualify for the passport. Moreover, other vaccines could be added in time. And then pharmaceutical drugs for other illnesses too. The introduction of vaccine mandates, and health passports was prove to be an unprecedented commercial coup d'etat for the drugs industry.

The 'misinformation' campaign, in contrast, continued to talk about personal liberty, patient choice, health freedom, even mentioning the Nuremberg Trials, and other concepts that made absolutely no money for anyone!

So when we "follow the money", does the narrative, or the disinformation campaign have most to gain from the Covid-19 pandemic? It's really not such a difficult question! Is it?