September 28, 2011 By Joseph P. Farrell

Well...a few nights ago, I was interviewed by my friend George Ann Hughes, a process which took longer than usual because my internet connection was very spotty all night. We finally were able to complete our interview, and upon its conclusion, I decided - not knowing any better - to turn on Faux News and find out what "They" want us to think is going on. Much to my appalled horror, I found myself watching the tail end (and believe me, it gives a bad name to tail ends) of the Republithug Presidential Candidates' "Debates".

Just before I was able to turn to See No News (CNN) and the latest blither from President B.O., I suddenly heard a bizarre controversy being reviewed by Sean Vannity as he was interviewing Congresswoman Michelle What's-Her-Name, over accusations she had apparently made against Governor What's-His-Name from Texas requiring women to take some sort of vaccine.

Now, this rankles me, for I started to do a little digging, and the ever-helpful Wikipedia article just about sums it up best:


Now, what I want to know is, why should we assume that vaccines are automatically safe just because some corrupt government agency says it is, and why should we assume, given that proposition, that government should require everyone to get one? That raises the sticky question: are they safe? Well, in the case of smallpox vaccines, by and large, yes. With the Salk polio vaccine, not so much. With Sabin's, a bit better. (And I survived the polio vaccine problems because my parents read up on Salk, and refused to expose me to that particular vaccine). But we seem to be getting a slew of new "drugs" on the market whose side effects, judging from the quickly-rattled-off "adverse reactions" we hear on TV commercials ("this drug INSERT NAME HERE may be associated with stroke, heart attack, liver cancer, terminal diarrhea or otherwise sudden death from inexplicable causes in some patients, consult your physician before taking INSERT NAME HERE)... you get the picture.

But again, it never seems to occur to people to ask why is mercury, in minute and "harmless" amounts (so we're told), used in so many vaccines? Where, indeed, does this whole idea of a vaccine originate? Well, once again, part of the answer is alchemy, where the Philosophers' Mercury, a code for the tincture of life, was to be ingested. The other part, again, comes from alchemical practice. A little digging into the name "Paracelsus" and mumia will reveal that in short order. I may sound completely nuts here, but I have never placed much stock in "modern" medicine, for much of it does seem to me, like Paracelsus' mumia, to be nothing but alchemical mummery. And perhaps that's the whole point: alchemy, the social engineering of man, the transformation of man, to get us all popping more and more pills to "see what happens" and to modify our behavior. If that sounds nuts, let's not forget it was our good friends at I.G. Farben who supposedly began the process of fluoridating water. The cover story was to help our dental health (yea, right! This is the Third Reich, after all, where a human being's health, dental or otherwise, was hardly the main concern). THe real reason was to create a docile population.

So, in spite of my not wanting to see a bunch of Republithugs or Dummycrooks when I turned on my TV (a rare occurrence in any case), I nonetheless have to applaud those candidates who even dared raise the issue of why a debate did not occur over the governor's order to force Texas women to take this thing. As Wikipedia points out, even the Texas legislature overrode his decision, and rightly so.

If I had anything above sheer cynicism for the "two" political parties in this country, you would've just lost my vote, Mr. Perry.