Thoughts On Vaccines From The Island Of Dr. Moreau

There is much discussion of the dangers of vaccines today, as well as concerns of their efficacy.  But what if the underlying theory of vaccines itself was wrong?  What if Jenner’s ‘discoveries’ in 1793 were just magical thinking that has NEVER been proven scientifically in double blind studies?  What if blaming ‘viruses’ for disease made as much sense as blaming firemen for the blaze they are battling, or paramedics for the pileup on the highway they are frantically attending?

If you wish to delve into the shaky foundations of this hypothesis treated as medical fact in our supposedly modern world, a really good place to start is Janine Roberts’ book Fear Of The Invisible.  She devotes a lot of attention to the Gallo fraud surrounding HIV – and its pretty damning – but also delves into the specific methods used to isolate ‘viruses’, as well as how some of the first vaccines were made and proven to be legitimate.  Think along the lines of bleeding people with leeches because they are ‘too wet’ – the science involved would be shocking to a janitor.

You can find a lot of excerpts on her site – I always suggest people start here :

There is much new information in the field of molecular biology that in fact puts into serious question the underlying theory of vaccines as a whole, never mind the way they are now made.

The key point to grasp is that so called ‘viral’ particles found in the bodies of humans and animals are not identified by their behavioural characteristics, rather they are defined by their molecular size and weight.  Thus, when looking for a ‘virus’ in the vicinity of a ‘diseased’ cell, material is simply filtered for these purely physical characteristics, and that is said to be the offending ‘virus’.

However, the original viral hypothesis points to these identifiable particles as inducing illness simply due to their presence in much greater quantities near and around a cell in distress or ‘dis-ease’.  Now it is being discovered that these particles are also in fact integral to cell function, communication, and even cell repair.  Thus their increasing numbers near sick cells may well be the body’s response and attempt to address the issues present, NOT their actual cause.

So this brings us to one of Ms. Roberts’ key findings – that no vaccine can be filtered of anything smaller than the ‘viral’ particles seen to be required to produce ‘immunity’.  Thus ALL vaccines are rife with errant ‘viruses’, cell debris and random genetic material.  It might be noted here that there is no such thing as a ‘live’ or ‘dead’ virus – all are inert genetic material, and require a living cell to utilize them.  Thus to say they ’cause’ some of the horrors we now see is like saying dumping a handful of nuts and bolts into your car’s engine the next time you top up your oil, produces a ‘disease’ of which one ‘symptom’ is broken valves and metal shards throughout your cylinders and transmission.

Furthermore, many vaccines are incubated in monkey kidneys (!?!?!)  thus, it clearly follows that they contain much errant simian DNA, which is often said to be genetically very similar to human DNA.  So firing this toxic soup past your body’s firewall is pretty much madness on the level of The Island Of Dr. Moreau – I don’t think it is a stretch to say this, as the body might easily misidentify these ‘viral’ sized materials as coming from another cell in your body.  Thus, we are talking about perhaps an attempt to foster genetic regression – if it can be said to foster anything.  Personally, I think it would be like trying to make your Chevy engine into a Ford by dumping the aforementioned handful of bolts into it, or putting in the wrong pistons or something.  In other words, it’s nonsense to claim predictable effects other than rampant damage and reduced function.

Now, here is the punchline.  Look up the definition of ‘Innoculate’.  It comes from Latin ‘to graft’.  In other words, the grafting of two plant species to create a third, hybrid species.

Etymology: L, inoculare, to graft

(medical term) the introduction of a substance (inoculum) into the body to produce or to increase immunity to the disease or condition associated with the substance. It is performed by making multiple scratches in the skin after placement of a drop of the substance on the skin, by puncture of the skin with an implement bearing multiple short tines, or by intradermal, subcutaneous, or intramuscular injection. Introduction can also be intranasal or oral. -inoculate, v.

Talk about ‘hide in plain sight’, huh?  What do you think about ‘vaccines’ now?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: