I am increasingly alarmed at the amount of power people are willing to surrender to big corporations, and to the GMO-pharmaceutical complex. Over the years I've been attempting to alert people not only to the dangers of these products, but more importantly, to the dangers of the mercantilist policies and corporate-government linkage that has been erected to protect them. Recently, one commentator on one of my blogs on this subject pointed out that one of my blogs contained an error: I had maintained a speculative scenario in which big pharma could be sued. The individual pointed out that vaccine makers cannot be sued under current law. Well, to be frank, I knew that, though I was not clear about that in my blog. But the commentator raised the point I was trying to make anyway: such a policy enshrined as a "law" is another case of the same mercantilism at work; and in the absence of the protection of law, and without recourse in complaints before the courts, phramceutical companies can, in effect, put whatever they please into their vaccines (and it appears they've been doing just that), and turn entire populations into their lab rats. They then control the discussion through control of journals and paid-for "science", and work to mandate vaccinations in the general population.
The question is why? What's the purpose, beyond keeping people sick and selling pharmaceutical "cures" to problems which they very well may have created (think of the vaccines-autism link)? Many would argue it's because vaccines are viewed as a surreptitious way of enforcing population control, and indeed, there are some suggestive statements from vaccine advocates to this effect:
It's hard to follow Mr. Gates' logic here: he seems, on the one hand, to be genuinely concerned to reduce childhood mortality from illnesses via vaccinations, but at the same time is heard advocating "reproductive health services," a convenient euphemism for you-know-what, and is also heard implying that this will cut down on population growth. To be sure, in areas where infant and childhood mortality is high, people tend to have more children. And this appears to be Mr. Gates' real point, taken out of context in the video clips. Nonetheless, when billionaire busybodies smile reassuringly, I tend to shudder, for like it or not, he does couple vaccination with population reduction. In any case, I use these remarks merely to illustrate what many out there believe the real covert agenda to be: population control and reduction through vaccination, and that implies covert ingredients to do just that. Another theory is that vaccines are being used as a wealth-harvesting mechanism: make people sick - with autism for example - and then harvest that family's wealth thereafter by selling the expensive drugs that "treat" the condition.
However, there may be yet another agenda, suggested to me for today's high octane speculation by the following article by Mr. Jon Rappaport, and shared by Mr. S.F.:
Mr. Rappaport states something quite profound, and quite disturbing:
“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”
“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”
“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was nearly two years ago.]
“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”
Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”
Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.”
Alteration of the human genetic makeup.
Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence. And once a person’s DNA is changed, doesn’t it follow that he/she will pass on that change to the next generation of children, and so on, down the line? (Emphases added)
So where's my high octane speculation? In my book Genes, Giants, Monsters and Men I pointed out that the prospect of genetic engineering and the current legal practice literally allows corporations to own their genetic patents. I argued that, because of this, it is conceivable that someone receiving or experiencing a genetic modification to their DNA via one of these patented programs could, conceivably, end up having to pay for the privilege of such modification by becoming a permanent rentier of the modification, paying, in effect, a royalty or license fee to the company that owned the patent on it, for as long as that person exhibited the modification, and potentially for the rest of their lives. Think of it as the genetic version of what the GMO companies have managed to do with their seeds. Add to this the possibility that this modification could be passed to their children, and one gets the idea. A massive system of serfdom and wealth-harvesting could be introduced via gene-altering vaccines. Such a draconian system would, in effect, make everyone vassals to the company for their modifications; indeed, it is conceivable that so long as their DNA alterations exhibit the patented modifications, that they in effect become the property of the patent-holder.
Call it: "Slavery through genetic modification via vaccines."
As Mr. Rappaport says at the end of his article:
If you’re going to alter humans, for example, to make many of them more docile and weak, and some of them stronger, in order to restructure society, you want everyone under the umbrella. No exceptions. No exemptions.
The freedom and the right to refuse vaccines has always been vital. It is more vital than ever now.
And I would argue, that the sinister toad squatting in the middle of all of this is precisely current patent law, and what that might imply for the long-term goals of billionaire busybodies and their vaccine advocacy: it's another way of "perfecting slavery collateral" in reducing everyone to feudal vassals, and increasing their own wealth. But this is all high octane speculation, to be sure. We'll know if it's true if, in fact, these billionaire busybodies and pharmaceutical companies start talking about "individual health care savings accounts" - which will be mandated of course - to pay for long term medical care and fees, which would cover payments of permanent royalty fees for the privilege of having one's DNA modified by (mandated) vaccines.
What's next to roll off the assembly line of designer drugs, therapies, and humans? Watch for it: cannibalism: in the form of stem cells being included in vaccines. And while we're at it, let's make them oral vaccines, just for good measure.
See you on the flip side...