HOW HEPATITIS B VACCINE WAS ADDED TO THE VACCINE SCHEDULE

And now onto our main discussion, regarding “The War Against Pharmaceutical Evil: and Zeroing In on the Hepatitis B Vaccine”. Now, when you investigate the historical origins or perspective regarding a particular subject matter, you discover so much that clarifies or demystifies the present, and this certainly applies when we consider the history of how the hepatitis b vaccine was added to the vaccine schedule.

In essence, the post-1989 vaccines (which are vaccines that came after the childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which gave a protection from liability to vaccine manufacturers), and even include the Hepatitis B vaccine – these were primarily driven more by pharmaceutical profits than public health imperatives. As such, the entrance of the Hepatitis B vaccine into the vaccine schedule is a story of regulatory capture, where Merck pharmaceutical’s commercial struggles prompted the CDC to mandate universal infant dosing, while sidelining medical rationale. 

In more detail, the saga begins in the mid-20th century, rooted in the quest to combat a stealthy liver virus. Hepatitis B, identified in the 1960s by Dr Baruch Blumberg spreads primarily through blood, or other bodily fluids—via sexual contact, shared needles, or perinatal transmission from mother to child. And unlike acute hepatitis A, Hepatitis B can become chronic, silently scarring the liver and raising risks for cirrhosis and cancer. Dr Blumberg and colleague Irving Millman created the first vaccine prototype in the 1970s, using heat-treated surface antigens from infected human plasma. It was this risky approach, harvested from high-risk donors like intravenous drug users and men who have sexual relations with other men, that then yielded Merck’s Heptavax-B vaccine, which was licensed by the FDA in 1981. 

Now, what this tells us is that this Hepatitis B vaccine was primarily developed for those high risk populations. This is further evidenced by the fact that in June 1982, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—which we established earlier is the CDC’s vaccine advisory arm – it then issued its first recommendations, targeting (again) high-risk adults: and this then included healthcare workers, injection drug users, sexually active gay and bisexual men, multiple sexual partners, and household contacts of carriers. 

Yet, uptake of the vaccine collapsed. By 1989, only about 2.5 million doses had been administered, mostly to healthcare workers—who accounted for just 5% of cases. And the reason is that high-risk groups evaded vaccination largely due to stigma – which was a fairly foreseeable issue, in that high risk persons were made into a specific category in society (although factually accurate) but that is a very concerning this in a world with a historical backdrop provided by the discourse surrounding eugenics and the discourse that led to the Nuremberg Laws, both of which constantly warn us that so-called medical interventions for a specific category of people are to raise suspicion. In any case, as the high risk groups were not taking the vaccine, Merck told regulators in the US that (quote): “Nobody is buying it”. Even official records (by the way) confirm this impasse: where despite aggressive promotion, adult immunization rates hovered below 10% in targeted cohorts. 

Then, enter the recombinant era, which was claimed to be a safer pivot. Concerns over plasma-derived vaccines’ potential for blood-borne contaminants like HIV influenced this recombinant era. As such, in 1986, Merck’s Recombivax HB and SmithKline’s Engerix-B debuted as genetically engineered versions, which were said to use yeast cells to produce surface proteins. HOWEVER, these new hepatitis B vaccines did NOT salvage the sales issue for pharmaceutical companies – in other words, people were still not interested. Well, here’s where this history matters for our discussion: Robert Kennedy Jr, highlighted Merck Pharmaceutical’s efforts to change their sale’s misfortunes. He states that Merck lobbied the FDA and CDC, prompting a seismic shift. The outcome was that the CDC then began to recommend the Hepatitis B vaccine for children, through a 1991 ACIP decision.

And so, Merck pharmaceuticals had essentially corrupted the regulatory process to secure a profit streak. From the beginning, they had a defined target market (of people who genuinely were at risk of hepatitis B infection, and included homosexual men, injection drug users and healthcare providers, as the hepatitis B spreads primarily through blood, or other bodily fluids. But, since this group was categorised, it formed a stigma which dismayed them from taking the vaccine. Their answer was not a focus on preventive or alternative, non-vaccine remedial efforts; no, their answer to the lack of uptake on their Hepatitis B vaccine – by the targeted high risk group – was to make infants (who do not have the same exposure to Hepatitis B as that high risk group) to take the vaccine as default customers at birth – and this is despite the fact that a mother is tested for Hepatitis B before giving birth. [PAUSE] And so, no one can convince me that pharmaceutical corporations exist to help people – not with historical files like this.

Now, there was also a 1986 clinical trial that was used to justify the insertion of the Hepatitis B vaccine into the vaccine schedule. The clinical trial involved 147 infants with safety monitoring 5 days after each dose, BUT no saline placebo.

WHAT IS STATED AS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE GIVING THE HEPATITIS VACCINE TO NEWBORNS

Now that we’ve established the historical context on how the hepatitis B vaccine got into the vaccine schedule, let’s contrast that with what is stated to be the justification for giving infants (who are not even born to mothers with Hepatitis B) the vaccine, and we’re hearing this from Dr Sallie Permar, who is the Chairman of the Department of Paediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine.

So, the primary justification from Dr Sallie Permar is that infants can get Hepatitis B from the mom, or through the screening process. At the very core of her justification is the claim that the hepatitis B vaccine provides infants with the necessary protection from this potential infection from the mother and screening process. Let’s directly address her remarks, and to do this, I’d like to bring in a question that was asked by Attorney Aaron Siri in his testimony to the ACIP on the 5th of December, as the Hepatitis B vaccine was being discussed. He asked, in essence: Why do we need the 1986 act if vaccines are so safe and effective? Why does a product need immunity if it doesn’t cause harm? Why do products that have been on the market for decades, like the hepatitis B vaccine, still need immunity?

Now this enquiry is crucial. The vaccine schedule correlates with a surge in chronic childhood illnesses from under 10% in the 1980s to over 40% today. There clearly is an inadequacy of pre-licensure safety testing. No routine childhood vaccine has been licensed based on randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials using inert substances like saline. Instead, controls often consisted of other vaccines or adjuvants, confounding results. For instance, the Hepatitis B vaccines Recombivax HB and Engerix-B—administered to newborns despite low perinatal risk in the US—lack placebo arms in trials involving just 122 and 128 children, respectively, with follow-up limited to 4-5 days.

Similarly, DTaP formulations like Infanrix used prior DTP vaccines as controls, ignoring a 2014 review linking whole-cell DTP to increased mortality in girls. PCV13 (or Prevnar) trials, enrolling fewer than 5,000 infants, monitored adverse events for only 30-60 days, far short of the six-year pediatric follow-up deemed essential to capture developmental impacts. These studies, he noted, are chronically underpowered—lacking statistical strength to detect rare events like anaphylaxis or Guillain-Barré syndrome—and fail ethical standards, as withholding placebos from children is justified only by proven safety, creating a circular logic.

Meanwhile, vaccines OFTEN fail to confer durable, transmission-blocking protection. Acellular pertussis components in the DTaP vaccine, for example, target serum antibodies but neglect mucosal immunity, allowing asymptomatic colonisation and sustained outbreaks despite 90 percent plus coverage. Similarly, pertussis inter-epidemic intervals remain unchanged since the 1990s switch to acellular formulations, undermining herd immunity claims. Also, the inactivated polio vaccine is said to prevent paralysis but not gut infection, which enables fecal-oral spread. Even the live-attenuated varicella vaccine wanes over time, with breakthrough cases fueling community transmission.

So, it appears that while a case for potential infection of infants exists, there is not a strong case for giving the Hepatitis vaccine to infants because the Hepatitis B vaccines lack placebo arms in trials that prove their efficacy and safety. Additionally, vaccines OFTEN fail to confer durable, transmission-blocking protection anyways, and without placebo trials, there is no evidence that the Hepatitis B vaccine provides durable protection.

THE INCONSISTENCIES FROM CRITICS OF THE ACIP VOTE

Now, as alluded to earlier, there have been some critics to the ACIP recommendation against the Hepatitis B vaccine being given at birth, and president Trump calling for a revaluation of the childhood vaccination schedule. One of them is Senator Bill Cassidy. So, he noted in a tweet, that (quote): “As a liver doctor who has treated patients with hepatitis B for decades, this change to the vaccine schedule is a mistake. The hepatitis B vaccine is safe and effective. The birth dose is a recommendation, NOT a mandate.”

Well, this would sound like the words of a genuinely concerned physician, except they are quite contradictory to his earlier remarks, in which Senator Cassidy said if a mother’s Hepatitis B status is definitively known then the vaccine “can be safely delayed”, which is exactly what ACIP voted for. SO, why is he now outraged?

QUESTION EVERYTHING: IT IS CRUCIAL TO HAVE A FUNDAMENTALIST APPROACH TO VACCINES

Understanding that many people think of health not as a partisan matter, but a question that speaks primarily to their wellbeing and that of their family, I would ask that if you aren’t a Trump supporter, kindly put aside for a moment the fact that these changes are happening through the Trump administration, and through the Trump-appointed Secretary RFK Jr, and the RFK Jr appointed ACIP. Kindly consider the substance of what they are saying, and the track-record of their accuracy on these matters. And here’s why I allude to this.

What should matter is the consequence of these decisions on your wellbeing; and that of your family. Of course it matters who is making them, but if the tendency is to assume that anything from the Trump administration is erroneous, then pivot and consider the message. This is crucial because when it comes to health it is important to question EVERYTHING, and have a fundamentalist approach, where you do not rely on existent medical literature, and even enquire about modern changes.

THE HEPATITIS B VACCINE VOTE SHOWS WHY IT WAS KEY TO CHANGE PERSONNEL IN ACIP

Then, finally, for our discussion, part of the reason we are having this discussion is because on the 5th of December, the CDC’s ACIP confirmed, through a vote, that the Hepatitis B vaccine is not required at birth for newborns. In terms of the vote, what emerged is that “For infants born to Hepatitis B Surface Antigen-negative women: ACIP recommends individual-based decision- making, in consultation with a health care provider, for parents deciding when or if to give the HBV vaccine, including the birth dose. (A] Parents and health care providers should consider vaccine benefits, vaccine risks, and infection risks. For those not receiving the HBV birth dose, it is suggested that the initial dose is administered no earlier than 2 months of age.” 

This reveals why the change in the personnel in ACIP was necessary. The ACIP used to have financial conflicts of interest and rubber stamp almost all vaccines for consideration. In contrast with the RFK Jr appointed new ACIP, we see a far more vaccine critical approach. For instance, you’d recall that there was a bombshell admission from within the ACIP committee that exposed a foundational flaw in vaccine safety science. During a discussion on MMRV and Hepatitis B vaccines, committee member Dr Retsef Levi pointedly questioned the confident “safe and effective” declarations made in the absence of gold-standard evidence.

Now, Dr Retsef Levi’s statement cuts to the core of a decade-long demand from transparency advocates: which is a demand for an answer to the question on why none of the vaccines on the CDC’s routine schedule have been licensed based on placebo-controlled trials using an inert saline placebo. This revelation is now forcing a public defense of this practice. A recent PBS article quotes experts arguing that placebo trials are apparently “unethical” once a vaccine exists, as the so-called “standard of care” is the older vaccine. Let’s directly respond to this. Simply, the problem with this is that this logic creates an unsolvable circular problem, where new vaccines are only tested against older vaccines, and NOT a true placebo, which then means that the original safety benchmark for the first vaccine in a class of vaccines is never established against a neutral control. As a result, the entire schedule rests on a pyramid of relative comparisons, with no absolute baseline for safety. And yet, this is what they are propping up as the gold standard of vaccine safety science – just relative comparisons to previous vaccines, which probably also had inherent flaws, as taught to us by the history of the smallpox vaccine. In any case, that is the response to the claim made in the PBS article, arguing that placebo trials are apparently “unethical” once a vaccine exists.

Millions of newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine on their first day of life, a practice long justified by public health authorities despite the vaccine not undergoing pre-licensure testing against a true saline placebo in infants. For babies born to mothers who test negative for the virus, the individual risk of infection is extremely low, as perinatal transmission is the primary concern only when the mother is infected. Now, if doctors bound by the Hippocratic oath of “first, do no harm” and public officials tasked with safeguarding citizens have prioritised pharmaceutical interests over rigorous, ethical scrutiny, then administering this vaccine to healthy newborns raises profound questions about true medical necessity versus institutional routine.

I say this because the Nuremberg Code emerged from the ashes of horrific medical experiments to ensure that no one—especially the vulnerable—could be subjected to unconsented or inadequately tested interventions under the guise of “public health.” Injecting a newborn with a product whose long-term safety in this population relies on post-marketing data rather than gold-standard placebo trials, particularly when personal risk is minimal, challenges the ethical boundaries the world vowed never to cross again.

Therefore, it is incredibly important that parents retain the right to decline. Anything less is tyranny dressed up as care. Additionally, we need to see more accountability in the medical and pharmaceutical industries: we should see manufacturers AND regulators conduct proper, transparent safety studies with inert placebos. Additionally, regulators in particular should also hold accountable those who have compromised ethical standards.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The need to persist in the war against the vaccine enterprise, and (again) the purpose of this discussion is to directly respond to the politicisation of the perception on vaccines, where some political leaders have vaccines as an integral part of their national health policy, purely because it presents good political optics, or because they have not looked at the information for themselves. And so, today, we have to zoom in on scientific and medical literature, and what it actually reveals about the claimed settled science on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. In doing this, let’s start at the very beginning, with the first ever vaccine – being the smallpox vaccine; because this is where the fundamental “science” behind vaccines was built.

The smallpox vaccine was introduced by Dr. Edward Jenner in 1796. The story of this first vaccine started with a belief among milkmaids that cowpox infection could prevent smallpox. Inspired by this belief, Dr. Jenner experimented on an 8-year-old boy, James Phipps. Dr. Jenner used material from a dairymaid’s cowpox lesions and scratched it onto James. When James didn’t develop smallpox after exposure, Dr. Jenner concluded that the cowpox vaccination was effective. This process was later termed “vaccination,” derived from the Latin word “vacca,” for cow; and “vaccinia,” for cowpox. Dr. Jenner’s 1798 paper claimed lifelong immunity from smallpox through this method.

This SINGLE-PERSON STUDY evolved into the modern narrative being told in our textbooks for hundreds of years that “inspired by milkmaids, Dr. Jenner invented the smallpox vaccine consisting of the so-called cowpox virus, conferring cross-protection against smallpox.” Furthermore, lesser-known details in this story spread for more than 200 years. There are a number of points that are not true about this narrative. One of them is that the virus contained in Dr. Jenner’s original smallpox vaccine is supposed to be a type of cowpox virus. Whether this is factually correct is relatively obscure. Instead, rather than the cowpox virus, evidence actually supports that Dr. Jenner might have used the vaccinia or the horsepox virus, which stands as the biggest mystery in Jenner’s vaccine story.

JENNER’S VACCINATION CONCEPT WAS BASED ON A SUPERSTITION

Continuing to examine the smallpox vaccine origins, at least from Jenner’s narrative, it is said that smallpox results from the variola virus, a DNA virus belonging to the Orthopoxvirus genus. Furthermore, it is said that this virus only infects humans. Unique to humans, who are its only known reservoir, it spreads primarily through inhaling respiratory droplets or through direct contact with infected material on mucous membranes. Importantly, it is not transmitted from cows. On the other hand, cowpox is said to be caused by the cowpox virus, which mainly resides in wild mammals like cattle and cats without causing obvious symptoms. In humans, the infection is usually mild and self-limiting, characterised by fever, aches, and a red blister that evolves into a pus-filled lesion. Moreover, the horsepox virus further complicated the story, as Dr. Jenner had also used lymph from horsepox lesions to prepare the smallpox vaccine in 1813 and 1817. Horsepox causes pustular lesions in horses and horse handlers.

The cowpox virus, horsepox virus, and smallpox virus are all different viruses. Even so, Dr. Jenner used various sources, including cows and horses, to create vaccine substances. This practice then led to the development of multiple vaccine concoctions, often used without a full understanding of their composition. Furthermore, a 2018 paper in The Lancet Infectious Diseases by Clarissa Damaso carefully revisited the complex and obscure history of smallpox vaccines and concluded that the virus strains used by Dr. Jenner remain a mystery (i.e., cowpox, horsepox, or vaccinia viruses). In 1823 when Dr. Jenner died, there were already three distinct types of smallpox vaccines: cowpox, described as “pure lymph from the calf,” horse grease, described as “the true and genuine life-preserving fluid,” and horse grease variants. The vaccines were commonly applied by scratching the arms or thighs, then using the material to vaccinate others, a method known as arm-to-arm vaccination. Dr. Jenner’s vaccine lacked standardisation and safety testing.

Despite the uncertainties, lack of quality standards, and inadequate investigation of ingredients, nobody knew exactly what was inside the cocktail derived from different sources—like a broth of hundreds of thousands of microbes. Nevertheless, Jenner’s vaccination concept was widely adopted based on a superstition. And it is not difficult to appreciate that it was The idea that injecting a contaminated fluid or tissue into a human from a diseased animal to “prevent” another disease in humans, defies common sense and logic and creates scientific scepticism among contemporary physicians. This is how the vaccine was made.

THE COVER-UP OF THE MEDICAL SCEPTICISM THAT FOLLOWED THE SMALLPOX VACCINE

Now, Dr Jenner’s vaccines met early challenges. British physician and medical author, Dr Charles Creighton, was highly regarded for his scholarly writings on medical history; for instance, his book “History of Epidemics in Britain” (written from 1891 to 1894), has been described as a “classic of unimpeachable accuracy.” Well, in his other book titled “Jenner and Vaccination: A Strange Chapter of Medical History,” Dr Creighton critiques Dr Jenner’s vaccine theory as focusing on four main claims without scientific proof: specifically the claims that the smallpox vaccine, firstly prevents smallpox; secondly isn’t contagious; thirdly doesn’t cause outbreaks; and, fourthly, that it is safe. Dr. Creighton emphasises the need for more detailed research in pathology to truly understand vaccines. Similarly, other prominent medical professionals of the time, including Sir Erasmus Wilson, often referred to as the “father of dermatologists,” Dr John D. Hillis, Dr Liveing, Sir Ranald Martin, Professor W.T. Gairdner, Dr Tilbury Fox, and Dr Gavin Milroy, have all testified that the original smallpox vaccination was the vehicle for the dissemination of leprosy. IN FACT, Dr. Robert Hall Bakewell, a physician who treated leprosy, and others have pointed out the risks associated with vaccination. He cited examples where vaccination was spreading diseases such as leprosy rather than preventing infection, thus challenging the notion of vaccination.

So, clearly, the scepticism of these doctors was not merely based on abstract critiques: rather, it was based on a necessary suspicion of the scientific method used, and also evidence of harm from the vaccine. But, perhaps, the most damning evidence against the smallpox vaccine and the fundamental “science” behind it, was In 1799, shortly after Jenner published his paper on using cowpox to get lifelong protection from smallpox. A Dr Drake, who was a surgeon from England, conducted a vaccination experiment on three children with a vaccine obtained DIRECTLY from Dr Edward Jenner. Unfortunately, when challenged with smallpox inoculation all three vaccinated children developed smallpox. Meaning that the vaccine had failed, and the rationale behind the vaccine was fallacious. This should have been the study and experiment that ended it all, and yet – all of this was buried so vaccines could be heralded as a medical and scientific miracle.

So, why should this matter for governments around the world like the one in Ghana, where vaccines still feature in their national health policy? Simply, it should matter because it presents the evidence that they are making central a so-called medical intervention that has no provable efficacy because it is based on fallacious science; that only because mainstream through covering up the views of those who exposed its shortcomings. Secondly, it should also encourage governments never to make vaccination mandatory, not only in respecting bodily autonomy but also because there are no objective benefits associated with vaccines.

SO, WHY DID GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE WORLD ADOPT THE SMALLPOX VACCINE?

In any case, let’s take this discussion a step further: while still refuting the so-called science behind vaccines – and thus proving why they should not be central to national health policy, and here, we then have to talk about how the smallpox vaccine campaign was ALSO an unmitigated disaster which severely injured people across the world, while making smallpox worse not better—which is a situation with numerous uncanny parallels to what we observed throughout COVID-19, particularly since both of those vaccines had similar “inexplicable” ways of injuring the body. BUT… despite this, the vaccine was adopted. So, why?

Now, as we’ve established, when the smallpox vaccine was created in 1796, it was met with widespread skepticism by the medical profession initially because it had almost no supporting data and then because it simply did NOT work. Well, nonetheless, governments around the world rapidly adopted it; and the reason was POLITICS! More specifically, governments adopted this provably harmful smallpox vaccine because it provided a simple top down solution for smallpox. And the world solution here is loosely used, because it was a solution in that in made governments appear to be pro-active in dealing with smallpox, and not because they had results that proved the vaccine was a solution – and so, not only was their embrace of the vaccine about politics, it was also about political optics. Similarly, the medical profession gradually got behind the same smallpox that was effectively critiqued by their colleagues because of both the political power and money they received from the vaccinations.

Thankfully, we still know about all of this, because many doctors still spoke out against the vaccine, with many providing robust data to support their objections (e.g., large cohorts showed the vaccine did not prevent smallpox and erysipelas, which is an agonising and sometimes fatal skin infection, that was commonly observed in vaccinated individuals). Sadly, these dissident doctors became a smaller and smaller minority, paralleled by reports of doctors in the early hospitals falsifying medical records in order to conceal the vaccine’s dangers and its ineffectiveness in preventing smallpox.

VACCINES TODAY STILL CAUSE FAR MORE HARM THAN GOOD

Then finally, here’s a crucial piece of context for governments to consider in light of vaccines, and it is that they cause far more harm than any of the claimed good they do. In fact, the largest problems with the smallpox vaccine was that vaccination tended to increase rather than decrease the occurrence of smallpox! But, when this happened, governments tended to respond to that emergency by viewing it as a result of not enough people being vaccinated and doing what they could to increase vaccination rates. On top of that, since the working class was well aware of both the dangers of the smallpox vaccine and its ineffectiveness, harsher and harsher mandates needed to be implemented to continue meeting the vaccination quotas.

At the same time increasingly draconian mandates were being enacted, many early activists argued that smallpox and many other infectious diseases were primarily due to the common people living in absolute squalor (it’s hard to even begin to describe just how bad their living conditions were). After decades of work, activists were able to improve the basic living conditions of the working class (e.g., through public sanitation so people no longer slept next to infectious microbes) and a massive benefit was seen in the reduction of deaths from all infectious diseases. [PAUSE] So, not only did governments opt for the smallpox vaccine for political optics, they also imposed draconian mandates to force this ineffective solution on people, under the guise of acting in the greater good. So, clearly, everything we saw with COVID can be traced back to the creation and rollout campaign of the smallpox vaccine. Evidently, this becomes crucial for governments to consider because when they are ignorant of these historical facts, they repeat history.

But, then the unrelenting vaccine enterprise furthered its ambitions beyond the smallpox vaccine. More specifically, in the 1800s and early 1900s, a variety of early vaccines (e.g., rabies, typhoid, diphtheria, tuberculosis) and horse-generated antiserums (for most of the common infections at the time) entered the market. Since many of these vaccines were produced in small independent labs, there were a variety of quality control issues with these products, which frequently led to hot lots being released that severely injured or killed a group of people. Additionally, many of those vaccines had a high degree of toxicity. Because of this, a variety of new and severe medical conditions emerged, many of which were deemed to be due to brain inflammation (ence-phalitis) or brain damage (ence-phalopathy) and observed to occur in conjunction with cranial nerve damage. Most of these conditions in turn mirrored the myriad of injuries we now too see from modern vaccinations!

But, now, in addition to the injuries, two major issues stood out during this period: First, in addition to sometimes being directly contaminated with the disease causing organism (e.g., yellow fever or tuberculosis) and causing the illness, vaccines would often cause a temporary immune suppression which lead to disease outbreaks in those vaccinated (discussed here). However, each time this happened, rather than it being seen as a sign we needed to dial back vaccination, it was interpreted as not enough people being vaccinated and harsher and harsher vaccine mandates being instituted to enact that policy or new vaccines being created to address the existing damage of vaccination (we note this when observing the example of how the DPT vaccine frequently caused polio outbreaks).

Then the second issue that stood out is that public health officials and vaccine designers were well aware of the injuries vaccines were causing, but since it was said that no other treatments existed for the disease, regrettably deemed this to be a necessary sacrifice for the greater good and hence covered the injuries up so the public would continue to vaccinate. However, this medical doctrine rested on a faulty premise because effective treatments did IN FACT exist for the illnesses (e.g., in 1920 it was known IV hydrogen peroxide could treat severe infections and in 1928 it was known that ultraviolet blood irradiation could treat many otherwise incurable infections). And so, the scientific religion and vaccine enterprise has always operated with a willingness to sacrifice lives, while covering it up as acts of necessity, which is why aborted foetuses are used even today for the development of vaccines.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso