Since we’ve already been introduced to Margaret Sanger— elitist population control advocate responsible for the first birth control clinic in the US that became Planned Parenthood– I won’t rehash her entire worldview and plan for the world. Rather, I’ll remind us via this excerpt from her 1920, Woman and the New Race:
Woman’s passivity under the burden of her disastrous task was almost altogether that of ignorant resignation. She knew virtually nothing about her reproductive nature and less about the consequences of her excessive childbearing… Even as birth control is the means by which woman attains basic freedom, so it is the means by which she must and will uproot the veil she has wrought through her submission. As she has unconsciously and ignorantly brought about social disaster, so much and will she consciously and intelligently undo that disaster and create a new and better order… By her failure to withhold the multitudes of children who have made inevitable the most flagrant of our social evils, she incurred a debt to society. Regardless of her own wrongs, regardless of her lack of opportunity and regardless of all other considerations, she must pay that debt.
Society, in dealing with the feminine spirit, has its choice of clearly defined alternatives. It can continue to resort to violence in an effort to enslave the elemental urge of womanhood, making of woman a mere instrument of reproduction and punishing her when she revolts. Or, it can permit her to choose whether she shall become a mother and how many children she will have. It can go on trying to crush that which is uncrushable, or it can recognize woman’s claim to freedom, and cease to impose diverting and destructive barriers. If we choose the latter course, we must not only remove all restrictions upon the use of scientific contraceptives, but we must legalize and encourage their use.
This problem comes home with peculiar force to the people of America. Do we want the millions of abortions performed annually to be multiplied? Do we want the precious, tender qualities of womanhood, so much needed for our racial development, to perish in these sordid abnormal experiences? Or do we wish to permit woman to find her way to fundamental freedom through safe, unobjectionable, scientific means? We have our choice. Upon our answer to these questions depends in tremendous degree the character and the capabilities of the future American race.
Each of us has an ideal of what the American of the future should be. We have been told times without number that out of the mixture of stocks, the intermingling of ideas and aspirations, there is to come a race greater than any which has contributed to the population of the United States. What is the basis for this hope that is so generally indulged in? If the hope is founded upon realities, how may it be realized? To understand the difficulties and the obstacles to be overcome before the dream of a greater race in America can be attained, is to understand something of the task before the women who shall give birth to that race.
As I demonstrated in The Flexner Report (part 1), Humanism– the deification of humanity in celebration of our own achievements– perfectly complements Eugenics– population control, particularly to weed out non-approved genes– both of which do nothing to contradict racial supremacist ideals. But regardless of the reason for attempting to distill humanity into a new superior race that will bring forth a new world order, birth control, sterilization, abortion, euthanasia and genocide seem justified for the betterment of humanity.
As I explained in The Flexner Report (part 2) and The Flexner Report (part 3), these aforementioned elites– under the guise of Transcendentalism and/or Unitarianism– have systematically dismantled traditional collective ethics for a relative, subjective fluctuating notion of truth as determined by the very same elites, whose monopolies remodeled, consolidated and continue to fund Medicine, Science and Technology. Consequently, they indoctrinate students with their own personal eugenics worldview, thus perpetuating a dangerously self-serving educational system.
Recall from my post on the Endocrine System that behind the bridge of your nose is the pea-sized pituitary gland, a “master gland” attached to the base of your brain. Immediately above it is the hypothalamus, which sends it messages. The hypothalamus influences temperature regulation, hunger, thirst, sleep and wake patterns, emotional behavior and memory. Incidentally, in 1979, the US State Department reported that removal of the pituitary gland– in humans and many animals– adversely impacts the Morphine-like pain alleviating effects of acupuncture (see my prior post regarding this treatment).
As Adolph Hitler pointed out, “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” Keeping all this in mind…
Growth hormone (GH) treatment started in the 1940s when children with GH deficiencies were given GH from from subprimates (rodents/ pigs/ dogs/ cats/ birds) and later from bovines (cows). Cables from the 1970s show the US Department of Agriculture approved the importation of pituitary glands from possums/ bandicoots for research provided they weren’t from any species endangered in Australia and outlined requirements for imports, such as pituitary glands from spiny anteaters. Additionally, a Secretary/ Dept. of State cable from 1973 shows frozen penguin glands– the title specifies pineal (a.k.a. “the 3rd eye,” a pinecone– shaped gland which produces melatonin to help maintain circadian rhythm and regulate reproductive hormones)– were shipped from Buenos Aires, Argentina to New York via Boston, Massachusetts (USA). The US government has had particular interest in glands for a long time. Supplementing low growth hormone in those who lack it is helpful, right?
Well, in 1985, the US Food and Drug Administration and US National Institute of Health verified that young adults who reported having a fatal, slow viral illness had in fact had been treated with GH in the 1960s. Their cases of Creuzfeldt Jacob Disease(CJD) was mediated by prions (short for proteinaceous infectious particles), a unique type of infectious agent made only of protein. In a 2004 report on Mad Cow Disease, specialists in social legislation for US Congress’ Domestic Social Policy Division addressed issues regarding transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), such as CJD.
…Transmission of the agent may occur during procedures performed on the nervous system (including the eyes), especially when tissue transplantation is involved. Procedures linked with later development of CJD include neurosurgery, corneal transplant, and injection of growth hormone derived from the pituitary gland in the brain of human cadavers. Abnormal prions are not affected by most chemical disinfectants and the few chemicals that are effective may be too harsh for delicate surgical instruments. Prions are also very heat-resistant and are not destroyed by autoclaving (high temperature and pressure), the standard procedure for sterilizing instruments…
Perhaps they just didn’t realize the problems it would cause later. That seems reasonable to assume, doesn’t it? But consider a 1978 cable from the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which advised the Indian Counsel of Medical Research (New Delhi) referenced a proposal seven years prior:
…THE EMBASSY IS REQUESTED TO INFORM DR. GOPALAN AND OTHER APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS OF THE ICMR OF THE FOLLOWING NIH POSITION AND DECISION. THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL WAS SUBMITTED IN APRIL 1971. IT IS UNREALISTIC TO ASSUME THAT A RESEARCH PROPOSAL ACTUALLY WRITTEN MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS AGO IS STILL TECHNICALLY CURRENT, AND GIVES CONSIDERATION TO ADVANCES OCCURRING DURING THIS INTERIM IN THE FIELD OF RESEARCH PROPOSED, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS AMENABLE TO REVISION AS OFFERED IN NIH LETTER TO THE PRINCIPALS OCTOBER 1977 TO WHICH NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED. SUCH A PATCHWORK PROPOSAL, PARTICULARLY SINCE THE PRINCIPALS ARE NO LONGER AT THE INSTITUTE FROM WHICH THE APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED, CANNOT REPEAT CANNOT, BE ACCEPTED BY NIH REGARDLESS OF ITS CONFORMANCE TO RECENT DHEW REGULATIONS ON PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS AND USE OF ABORTED FETAL TISSUE AND THE REGULATION ISSUED JANUARY 13, 1978 APPLICABLE TO RESEARCH INVOLVING CHILDREN. THERE ARE NO COPIES OF THE VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL ORIGINALLY REVIEWED BY NIH PENDING BEFORE THE ICMR. THE ICMR RETURNED THESE TO THE EMBASSY WHICH RETURNED THEM TO NIH…
So aborted fetal tissue wasn’t allowed to be used in any treatments given to children… Yet, about a week and a half later, another cable was sent questioning whether the US was STILL importing aborted human fetal tissue, especially since the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act of 1968 allows for the donation of bodies and/or parts of deceased individuals. First, how does the State Department not already know the source of their own country’s research samples?? Second, dead people’s body parts– including fetuses (once they’re well-developed are removed via Caesarian section)– are allowed to be donated, so that’s a ready source of human tissue regardless of whether or not its additionally imported.
1. DEPT… HAS RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE CITING ARTICLE… ASSERTING THAT US COMPANIES ARE IMPORTING HUMAN FETAL PARTS SPECIFICALLY, IN MOST CASES, KIDNEYS FROM KOREA, SINGAPORE AND SWITZERLAND FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES. KOREA HAS REPORTEDLY CEASED THE PRACTICE, BUT DID EXPORT TISSUE CULTURES AND PREPARED MICROSCOPIC SLIDES (BUT NOT FETUSES) IN THE PAST. FETUSES OBTAINED THROUGH ABORTION PRACTICES (SALINE SOLUTION ETC.) ARE NOT SUITABLE AND CAESARIAN SECTION ABORTION, PROBABLY IN THE THIRD TRIMESTER IS USED…
2. THE US HAS DEVELOPED UNIFORM DONOR REGULATIONS (US UNIFORM ANATOMICAL GIFT ACT) WHICH INVOLVE THE PERMISSION OF THE MOTHER IN THE CASE OF DONATIONS OF FETAL TISSUE FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES.
3. IN ORDER TO RESPOND TO CRITICAL QUERIES, DEPT WOULD APPRECIATE EMBASSY ASCERTAINING WHETHER A) SINGAPORE CURRENTLY EXPORTS FETAL TISSUE TO THE UNITED STATES FOR PURPOSES OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, B) WHETHER SINGAPOREAN LAW REQUIRES THAT THE MOTHER GIVE CONSENT TO THE USE OF FETUSES FOR SUCH PURPOSES, AND C) WHETHER IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A LAW, THE MOTHER IN FACT IS ASKED TO GIVE CONSENT. IN ADDITION, IF ANY STATISTICS CAN BE READILY OBTAINED IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO KNOW THE NUMBER OF CAESARIAN SECTION ABORTIONS PERFORMED ANNUALLY IN SINGAPORE PARTICULARLY THE PROPORTION IN THE THIRD TRIMESTER.
Twenty-three years later, a legislative attorney (American Law Division) presented a report to US Congress in 2001 on “Federal and State Regulation of Research Involving Human Fetal Tissue.”
From Summary: This report discusses federal and state regulation of research involving human fetal tissue. The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 and the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 regulate the federal funding of fetal research and fetal tissue transplantation. The National Organ Transplant Act restricts the receipt or transfer of fetal organs. Additional fetal research statutes exist at the state level, but have been subject to challenges in federal courts. In general, the courts have found the state fetal research statutes to be unconstitutionally vague.
From Report: Research involving human fetal tissue has provided significant medical developments. Fetal tissue research assisted with the creation of vaccines for polio and rubella. Transplantation studies with human fetal tissue have shown promise in treating juvenile diabetes and other ailments. However, despite these accomplishments, research involving human fetal tissue remains controversial. Because human fetal tissue is derived from aborted fetuses, such research is often entangled with the politics of abortion. Those who believe that a fetus is a human
being consider research involving human fetal tissue to be unethical…
In 1988, a group of scientists at the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) sought
approval from the Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to use human fetal tissue for transplantation in a research protocol. In response to the request, the Assistant Secretary issued a temporary moratorium on the federal funding of fetal tissue transplantation research. The moratorium was intended to last until an NIH advisory panel could study and report on the ethical, legal, and scientific issues associated with fetal tissue transplantation research. Although the panel eventually recommended continued funding for fetal tissue transplantation research pursuant to certain guidelines, the moratorium was extended indefinitely by the Secretary of HHS in 1989. The Secretary maintained that fetal tissue transplantation research would increase the incidence of induced abortions. Legislative attempts to override the Secretary’s decision were either not enacted or were vetoed by President Bush.
Shortly after assuming office, President Clinton instructed the Secretary of HHS to lift the ban on federal funding. On February 5, 1993, the moratorium was officially rescinded. In March, 1993, NIH published interim guidelines for research involving the transplantation of human fetal tissue. These guidelines were later incorporated into the NIH Act.
“Those who believe the fetus is a human…”? Recall from my prior post on fallacy and cognitive dissonance that obfuscating (unnecessarily complicating) an otherwise simple fact is a classic means by which attention can be drawn away from an uncomfortable truth like a magician performing an illusion. According to Science, a fetus’/ embyro’s heart begins to form immediately after conception. By the 5th week of pregnancy/ the 3rd week after conception, it has an outer layer of skin, central and peripheral nervous systems, eyes, inner ears and a heart. The development of its heart is complete by 8 week’s gestation. If it isn’t yet a person, what else could it be? I suppose that’s the origin of the question: fetal tissue is assumed to be an entirely separate species. But that still doesn’t explain how it could cause such problems. After all, GH from human cadavers caused the same medical conditions as GH from animals. The only logical conclusion is that, though not yet fully formed, a fetus has DNA, which– in combination with a beating heart– makes it a live human being.
Speaking of obfuscating, according to a specialist in Social Legislation for the Domestic Social Policy Division in a report to US Congress just four years later (2005), “There is no central federal authority for vaccine policy.” The agencies/ government departments listed as involved in various aspects of related activities are the Dept. of Health and Human Services, the National Vaccine Program Office, the Food and Drug Administration and other components of HHS (e.g., the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Health Resources and Services Administration), the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security, and the US Agency for International Development. Whew! Does anybody have a flow chart?
So as not to base the rest of this post on a false premise– in anticipation of criticism that I’m ignorantly misunderstanding what a vaccine is– let’s use the aforementioned report on human fetal tissue research as a definition before we continue:
…Vaccines are biologics– their basic components begin as living material– that introduce “weakened or killed disease-causing bacteria, viruses, their components’ (such as proteins, recombinant proteins, or polysaccharides) or toxoids into a person or animal to stimulate an immune reaction that the body will remember if exposed to the same pathogen in the future”… Although many people use the words vaccination, immunization, and inoculation interchangeably, the terms are not technically synonymous. Vaccination is “the physical act of administering any vaccine…” and immunization is a “more inclusive term denoting the process of inducing or providing immunity artificially by administering an immunobiologic.” Inoculation also involves introducing a microorganism but not necessarily intentionally…
In summary, there’s no way for any department to know what any other is doing and yet they trust in and defer to each other, giving the illusion they work in tandem. Don’t forget what I repeatedly mention: the United States’ Center for Disease Control (CDC) is public agency, who’s privately funded. Furthermore, since they’re staffed as a government agency, they have authority to require– not just those in need of a particular treatment or vaccine; everyone regardless of any other factors– medical facilities to use the substances/ brands for which they own the patents. Incidentally, certain donors– each with a specific stake in pharmaceuticals and/or vaccines fund the CDC, the National NIH and the World Health Organization (WHO). I wish I could provide a link without risking at least censorship, if not my own safety!
To quote Hitler again, “The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.” Thus the invention of the “anti-vaxxer” label to support flimsy arguments. The notion that issues of vaccine safety are over-hyped is laughable. As the report on Mad Cow Disease pointed out,
Many groups have a stake in vaccine-related issues, including the government entities responsible for research and development, licensing, post-licensing surveillance of adverse reactions, provision of health care, protection of the population, interstate and international trade, intellectual property protections, and homeland security. There is no central authority for vaccine policy within the federal government…
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which is jointly administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration, where it is located, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Department of Justice, “provides compensation for injuries judged to have been caused by certain vaccines.” Also administered from HRSA is the Smallpox Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, set up in 2003. Vaccine responsibilities lie outside of HHS as well. The Department of Defense maintains research and development programs for vaccines against both naturally occurring infectious diseases and bioweapons.
The report goes on to note problems faced by the vaccine industry, such as production costs, production failures, liability, market and planning. What caught my attention is the issue of liability. Surely the risk cannot be minimal; isolated occurrences for which damages are awarded wouldn’t necessitate the establishment of ongoing programs designated for compensation of injuries that are supposedly rare. Moreover, the report’s author points out, “Why go to the trouble for a product that does not promise the sales volume common to pharmaceuticals– particularly when manufacturers may be liable if vaccines cause injury? The huge claims for compensation that followed the swine flu immunization program in the mid-1970s have made the vaccine industry wary…”
Are the injured seeking compensation to blame? A 2009 email (part of correspondence between Syrian political figures, ministries and associated companies posted to Wikileaks) states,
An outbreak of swine flu occurred in Mexico this spring… Thanks to air travel and the failure of public health officials to control travel from Mexico, the virus spread worldwide. Despite predictions of massive numbers of deaths and the arrival of doomsday, the virus has remained a relatively mild disease, something we know happens each year with flu epidemics… It is helpful to recall that the Centers for Disease Control with the collusion of the media, constantly tell us that 36,000 people die from the flu each year, a figure that has been shown to be a lie. In this case, we are talking about 300 plus deaths for the entire world.
This virus continues to be an enigma for virologists. In the April 30, 2009 issue of Nature, a virologist was quoted as saying,”Where the hell it got all these genes from we don’t know.” Extensive analysis of the virus found that it contained the original 1918 H1N1 flu virus, the avian flu virus (bird flu), and two new H3N2 virus genes from Eurasia. Debate continues over the possibility that swine flu is a genetically engineered virus.
Naturally, vaccine manufacturers have been in a competitive battle to produce the first vaccine. The main contenders have been Baxter Pharmaceuticals and Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the latter of which recently acquired the scandal-ridden Chiron vaccine company. Both of these companies have had agreements with the World Health Organization to produce a pandemic vaccine.
The Baxter vaccine, called Celvapan, has had fast track approval. It uses a new vero cell technology, which utilizes cultured cells from the African green monkey. This same animal tissue transmits a number of vaccine-contaminating viruses,
including the HIV virus. The Baxter company has been associated with two deadly scandals. The first event occurred in 2006 when hemophiliac components were contaminated with HIV virus and injected in tens of thousands of people, including thousands of children. Baxter continued to release the HIV contaminated vaccine even after the contamination was known.
The second event occurred recently when it was discovered that Baxter had released a seasonal flu vaccine containing the bird flu virus, which would have produced a real world pandemic, to 18 countries. Fortunately, astute lab workers in the Czech Republic discovered the deadly combination and blew the whistle before a worldwide disaster was unleashed. Despite these two deadly events, WHO maintains an agreement with Baxter Pharmaceuticals to produce the world’s pandemic vaccine.
Novartis, the second contender, also has an agreement with WHO for a pandemic vaccine. Novartis appears to have won the contract, since their vaccine is near completion. What is terrifying is that these pandemic vaccines contain ingredients,
called immune adjuvants that a number of studies have shown cause devastating autoimmune disorders, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and lupus. Animal studies using this adjuvant have found them to be deadly. A study using 14 guinea pigs found that when they were injected with the special adjuvant, only one animal survived. A repeat of the study found the same deadly outcome.
So, what is this deadly ingredient? It is called squalene, a type of oil. The Chiron company, maker of the deadly anthrax vaccine, makes an adjuvant called MF-59 which contains two main ingredients of concern– squalene and gp120. A number of studies have shown that squalene can trigger all of the above-mentioned autoimmune diseases when injected. The MF-59 adjuvant has been used in several vaccines. These vaccines, including tetanus and diphtheria, are the same vaccines frequently associated with adverse reactions.
I reviewed a number of studies on this adjuvant and found something quite interesting. Several studies done on human test subjects found MF-59 to be a very safe immune adjuvant. But when I checked to see who did these studies, I found– to no surprise– that they were done by the Novartis Pharmaceutical Company and Chiron Pharmaceutical Company, which have merged. They were all published in “prestigious” medical journals. Also, to no surprise, a great number of studies done by independent laboratories and research institutions all found a strong link between MF-59 and autoimmune diseases. Squalene in vaccines has been strongly linked to the Gulf War Syndrome…
SOURCES CITED / ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: