In a diabolical new development, scientists have unveiled a controversial method for delivering mRNA vaccines using dental floss instead of needles. Dental floss, of all things, has become the latest delivery system for “vaccines,” bypassing injectables and entering uncharted territory in mRNA technology. In light of this, a study published in Nature Biomedical Engineering reveals how researchers laced dental floss with mRNA components and flu vaccine ingredients. They then applied it to the gums of mice. What was said to follow was an immune response that the scientists claim could revolutionise how vaccines are administered in the future. But as with everything involving mRNA technology and vaccines, the stakes are high, and so are the questions.

But, let’s start with the invention itself. So, the scientists behind this invention were said to be a group led by a Dr Rohan S. J. Ingrole of the Department of Chemical Engineering at Texas Tech University. Meanwhile, Texas Tech University, which is based in Lubbock, Texas, also receives funding from self-proclaimed philanthro-capitalist Bill Gates himself, through a grant offered through the Gates Foundation.

Now, this new dental floss “vaccine” method is further said to take advantage of the gingival sulcus, which is the tiny trench between your gums and teeth. The researchers believe this delivery method offers a unique, highly permeable entry point into the bloodstream. The gumline’s permeability could allow for vaccine molecules to be absorbed directly into the body, bypassing the complications of traditional oral methods or injections. And while the concept may seem far-fetched, it’s rooted in research that’s getting increasing attention from the vaccine enterprise and its collaborators. This is primarily because the idea is that by using floss laced with “vaccine” components, medical researchers could provide an alternative to traditional “vaccination” methods, without the need for needles, specialised medical staff, or even consent from the public!

This is to say that if the floss-based “vaccines” become widespread, there’s a real concern about consent, transparency, and safety; because this technology could be used for mass “vaccination” campaigns without the public being aware that it is being administered! In fact, given how quickly government entities and corporations have adopted new health policies in the past (particularly during the COVID plandemic), this development is likely to serve as a conduit for efforts at mass vaccination!

Secondly, this invention also raises questions of how this technology could be adapted (or – more accurately – weaponised) to add mRNA “vaccines” to other basic necessities, such as toothpaste or even drinking water. This is considering that entities such as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (or the CDC) and even other public health bodies have pushed for easier, more accessible vaccination methods – again , like we saw during the COVID plandemic.

Well, in response to these concerns, which have been highlighted by others, even before the release of this study, the argument from supporters of floss-based mRNA delivery make a jarringly a-contextual argument. They state simply that floss-based “vaccines” could be delivered by mail, making them accessible to people anywhere without the need for a doctor or health professional to administer the shot; and that this could be convenient for mass vaccination campaigns.

The first problem with this is that it is utterly a-contextual in that it assumes that there is consensus of the plausibility of vaccines, and therefore, a corresponding need to access them with greater ease. And yet, vaccines are easily one of the most controversial inventions till date. Their claimed efficacy, benefits, and the impact they have had in enabling big pharma, while corrupting governments are a constant focus in the status quo – with examples ranging from autism discourse in the US, and Ursula von der Leyen Pfizergate scandal in the EU. But, then the second problem with the argument from supporters of the floss based mRNA delivery system is that they deliberately ignore how this mRNA delivery system opens up a massive door for coercion, whether overt or subtle. Because imagine receiving a package in the mail with instructions to simply floss your teeth to “protect yourself” from the latest health crisis. It may sound harmless to some, until you consider the implications of who’s making those decisions and how much oversight you’d really have over what’s going into your body.

And by the way, this indirect coercion is intrinsic to the vaccine enterprise’s modus operandi – affecting even the medical industry at large. For instance, Dr Daniel Neides, a respected educator at Lerner College of Medicine and Case Western Reserve University, has raised urgent concerns about the lack of vaccine education in medical schools.

He reveals a troubling reality: medical students are not taught about vaccine contents, safety records, informed consent, or the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Instead, they are required to memorize vaccine schedules to pass exams, with no discussion of the nearly $4 billion paid to vaccine-injured patients since 1992.

Neides calls this a failure to provide the fair balance expected in medical practice. Neides also highlights conflicts of interest, noting that providers are often paid to complete vaccine schedules, which may pressure them to prioritize compliance over patient concerns.

What’s more, the use of mRNA technology for this floss-based delivery method comes with its own set of concerns. And this takes place against a backdrop where we’ve already seen the risks associated with Covid mRNA “vaccines,” and the long-term effects remain uncertain and far from positive… For instance, Dr Jordan Vaughn, a clinician overseeing 170,000 patients annually, testified before the Senate, revealing critical insights on the spike protein’s dangers. As a doctor and researcher, he has witnessed the devastating impact of COVID and mRNA vaccines on millions.

He revealed that the spike protein (or S1 subunit) is far from benign. It triggers inflammation, disrupts blood vessels, promotes clotting, and forms amyloid aggregates, impairing oxygen delivery and damaging organs. Patients that he’s seen reported experiencing heart racing, brain fog, shortness of breath, and severe fatigue. In his Alabama clinic, Dr Vaughn uses immunofluorescent microscopy to detect these aggregates in patients—teenagers unable to stand and adults suffering strokes without clear causes.

Furthermore, long COVID and vaccine injuries affect 10-15 million Americans. Dr Vaughn’s clinic has treated approximately 4,000 such patients, many young and previously healthy. Their struggles are real, life-altering, and often ignored by the system, while researchers develop more mRNA delivery systems.

WHY mRNA VACCINES ARE CATEGORICALLY HARMFUL AND DANGEROUS

But, here’s why mRNA interventions are categorically harmful and dangerous – irrespective of how they are delivered into the body. In essence, mRNA vaccines use lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to deliver modified mRNA, instructing cells to produce spike protein. Unlike traditional vaccines (which are also bad), as proven by how they have often caused or worsened the illnesses they claim to solve, the spike protein produced through the instruction given to cells from mRMA causes uncontrolled spike protein production for unknown durations, spreading to the heart, brain, vasculature, ovaries, and testes. In fact, the EMA’s assessment of Pfizer’s vaccine confirmed biodistribution beyond the injection site, contradicting claims it “stays in the arm.”

For instance, in 2021, Dr Vaughn treated a 69-year-old patient with unexplained shortness of breath after a second Pfizer dose. Tests ruled out typical causes, but anti-clotting therapy brought rapid relief. This case led him to study how spike protein induces fibrin resistant to breakdown, activates platelets, and damages blood vessels—explaining this case and thousands more.

Additionally, myocarditis signals emerged in spring 2021, particularly in young males post-mRNA vaccination. The DoD confirmed cases, studies detected spike protein in myocarditis patients, and autopsies linked fatal cases to vaccines. Yet, federal mandates intensified, sidelining these concerns. Subsequently, the CDC and FDA’s inaction—and vaccine promotion—eroded public trust. Meanwhile, the patients coerced by 2021 mandates despite prior infections or health risks, now face disability if they have not been killed by those vaccines already. And all this because Informed consent, which should be a cornerstone of medicine, was undermined – much like will be done with floss based mRMA delivery systems… But, the truth is that this is yet another step into uncharted territory, where science (or scientism) is rapidly evolving but leaving important ethical and safety considerations behind. Especially considering that no one asked for this, and natural immunity was always better.

FORCING mRNA HAS BECOME THE VACCINE ENTERPRISE’S OBSESSION

But, the reality is that not only is the vaccine enterprise aware of the dangers of mRNA vaccines, but forcing mRNA on the general public has become something of an obsession for them. For instance, you’d recall that in 2023, a team of researchers was reported to have developed what they call an inhalable vaccine against the COVID virus. It actually also makes it possible to deliver other messenger RNA therapeutics for gene replacement therapy. Now, for the so-called vaccine, the researchers demonstrated that two intranasal doses of the treatment, made with nanoparticles carrying mRNA Covid vaccine, is effective in mice. It also apparently demonstrates that an inhalable delivery system allows for minimally invasive and lung-targeted mRNA delivery, potentially applicable for numerous pulmonary diseases in addition to covid.

In their new study, the researchers showed that the shot isn’t necessary to provide protection. They state that there is no intramuscular injection, they just gave two doses, a prime and a boost, intranasally. They also state that based on their research, this method enables them to deliver different kinds of mRNA; meaning that it’s not just used for a vaccine, but potentially also for gene replacement therapy in diseases like cystic fibrosis and gene editing. Therefore, they used a vaccine-based study to show how an aereosolised mRNA vaccine works, but admit that it opens the door to doing all these other kinds of interventions… Well, this then explains the attraction of an aereosolised mRNA vaccine to the propagators of the covid debacle and vaccine enterprise at large; which is that an aerosolised mRNA vaccine is actually a tool to execute airborne interventions, such as gene editing; without having to deal with objections and dissent, or the responsibility to respect the bodily autonomy of people. Now here is how they detail aerosolisable lipid nanoparticles for a pulmonary delivery of mRNA.

Similarly, reports indicate that the vaccine enterprise and associates are spraying airborne mRNA on dense urban populations and rural areas with low vaccine uptake according to a commercial airlines pilot who has come forward to blow the whistle on chemtrails operations in North America and Europe. As the globalist so-called elite find it harder to convince humanity to submit to Covid mRNA shots and endless boosters, they are having to find deceitful new ways to force their mRNA.

According to pilots familiar with the scheme, the new airborne mRNA, known as Air Vax, is designed to deliver the vaccine right into people’s lungs, bypassing the need for injections – and the need for consent.

Then, on top of that, seemingly because it was not enough to try to forcefully vaccinate humans, the vaccine enterprise extended its efforts even to animals with the vaccination of cattle. As you can imagine, Bill Gates is also an advocate of vaccinating animals; in particular cows, and he says it is with the aim to eliminate the bacteria in their stomachs that produces methane. Meanwhile, nations like Australia and Kenya inclined themselves towards this agenda!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The interview comes as the world marks five years since the global rollout of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines a campaign that, according to critics like Dalgleish, may become known as one of the most consequential and controversial public health decisions in modern history.

“We were told the vaccines were safe and effective, yet there was no transparency,” said Prof. Dalgleish, who has been a vocal critic of COVID-19 vaccine policy, particularly around the mRNA platform. “Many respected researchers and physicians raised early concerns but were silenced, defunded, or discredited.”

A Veteran Voice in Oncology and Ethics

Professor Dalgleish, best known for his work in cancer immunology and HIV research, has more recently gained public attention for challenging mainstream COVID-19 narratives. In this sit-down with Yvonne Katsande, he offers what he calls a “scientific and ethical post-mortem” of the COVID response from vaccine mandates to the suppression of alternative treatments.

Yvonne Katsande, known for her bold interviews on topics often ignored by legacy media, did not hold back.

“We are not here to provoke fear,” she said“We are here to uncover truth, challenge systems, and spark conversations that matter.

Looking Back: Five Years Since the Global Rollout

As governments and institutions mark five years since the first vaccines were administered, public opinion is still deeply divided. In the interview, Prof. Dalgleish asserts that many of the warnings from independent scientists have since come to light, and that the global narrative may have deliberately excluded crucial long-term safety data.

He also argued that the comparative health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should prompt serious re-evaluation of public health policies moving forward.

A Call for Accountability

This calls for greater transparency in pharmaceutical regulation, media reporting, and governmental public health decisions.

As many countries begin reviewing their pandemic response strategies, conversations like these are expected to shape how history judges the actions of institutions during the COVID era.

The full interview is now available:

EU’s Financial Entanglement with Gavi: A Pharma Pipeline

The European Union’s (EU) partnership with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, particularly during this Gavi Global Summit in Brussels, is a glaring example of centralized power and conflicts of interest that undermine public trust and individual autonomy. The EU, a major funder and co-host of the summit, has poured billions into Gavi’s mission. While pitched as a humanitarian effort, this collaboration raises serious concerns about Big Pharma profiteering, lack of transparency, and the suppression of vaccine skepticism, all of which threaten personal freedom and informed consent.

EU’s Financial Entanglement with Gavi: A Pharma Pipeline

The EU’s financial commitment to Gavi—$1.7 billion pledged for 2021–2025, with more expected for 2026–2030— exposes the EU’s troubling alignment with pharmaceutical giants. Gavi’s board includes representatives from vaccine manufacturers like Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), who directly benefit from EU taxpayer funds funnelled through Gavi’s vaccine procurement. This creates a clear conflict of interest: the EU, as a public entity, should prioritize citizens’ interests, yet it supports a system where public money subsidizes private profits. Wasn’t Ursula Von De Leyen recently exposed for that?.

EU Court Orders Release of Pfizer Texts

In  the month of May, a groundbreaking ruling by the European Court of Justice ordered the European Commission to release the private text messages between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, after four years of secrecy and controversy surrounding a massive €35 billion vaccine deal. The EU Commission is now required to make these texts public, which allegedly contain details of the clandestine negotiations for the lucrative vaccine contract, paid for by European taxpayers. Investigations by Investigate Europe have uncovered that the cost per dose was a staggering 15 times the production cost, potentially resulting in billions of euros being overpaid. Furthermore, it revealed that Bourla failed to appear for his scheduled testimony before the EU Parliament in 2022, while von der Leyen’s husband holds a prominent position as Medical Director of Orgenesis, a biotech firm that receives EU funding and has a significant partnership with Pfizer. This complex web of relationships and dealings raises serious concerns about potential corruption at the highest levels of the European Union, with possible conflicts of interest that directly benefit von der Leyen’s family and may have resulted in the misappropriation of billions of euros in public funds through clandestine agreements. The situation was a clear case of alleged fraud on a massive scale, and the European public is still eagerly awaiting the release of the incriminating texts, which could shed light on the truth behind this scandal. As the European Union watches with bated breath, the release of these texts is expected to have significant implications for von der Leyen’s tenure and the future of the EU.

The EU’s involvement in Gavi’s COVAX program during the COVID-19 pandemic further exposes this cozy relationship. COVAX, backed by €1 billion from the EU, aimed to distribute vaccines globally but prioritized Western pharmaceutical companies, sidelining generics and non-Western alternatives. The EU’s refusal to support patent waivers for COVID vaccines, despite pleas from developing nations, suggests its loyalty lies with corporate interests over global equity. This is evidence of a rigged system where public health is a pretext for enriching Big Pharma, with the EU acting as a complicit partner.

Bill Gates and the EU: Unelected influence Health Policy

The EU’s partnership with Gavi is inseparable from the influence of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gavi’s largest private donor, contributing over $6.1 billion since 1999. Gates’ role in shaping global health policy, including the EU’s, is deeply concerning and we have cut it off. His foundation’s funding of Gavi and the World Health Organization (WHO)—$1.4 billion alongside Gavi and Wellcome Trust during COVID—gave him outsized control, effectively bypassing democratic accountability. The EU’s alignment with Gates, evident in their co-hosting of this 2025 summit, raises questions about who really calls the shots. Why is an unelected billionaire, with ties to Microsoft and vaccine passport initiatives like ID2020, steering EU health policy?

Vaccine Risks and Suppressed Dissent

the EU’s uncritical embrace of Gavi’s Gates-backed agenda dismisses legitimate concerns about vaccine safety and coercion, alienating those of us who question the narrative. The EU-Gavi partnership ignores the inherent dangers of vaccines. Gavi’s focus on mass immunization—1.1 billion children vaccinated since 2000—downplays adverse effects, especially in low-income countries with weak healthcare systems. The EU’s endorsement of Gavi’s one-size-fits-all approach disregards these concerns, prioritizing compliance over caution. Worse, the EU’s broader censorship efforts, like the 2021 Digital Services Act, have stifled vaccine skepticism online, framing it as “misinformation.” This suppresses dissenting voices, including those of us who question Gavi’s vaccine-centric model or Gates’ influence. The EU’s collaboration with Gavi is a top-down imposition, silencing debate and eroding the right to refuse medical interventions—a core tenet of bodily autonomy.

Conflicts of Interest: A System Rigged Against Freedom

The EU-Gavi partnership exemplifies a conflict-ridden system. The EU’s funding of Gavi, which in turn enriches vaccine manufacturers while killing maiming people, creates a feedback loop where public money serves private interests. Gavi’s governance, with Big Pharma on its board, ensures corporate priorities shape its agenda, while the EU’s political clout amplifies this influence globally. Add Gates’ billions and his ties to tech and health surveillance, and you have a structure that marginalizes individual choice and local needs.

This is a betrayal of public trust. The EU should be the one to scrutinize Gavi’s spending, demand transparency, and prioritize non-vaccine solutions like clean water and nutrition, which often save more lives without the risks. Instead, it doubles down on a vaccine orthodoxy that dismisses skeptics as conspiracy theorists. This partnership isn’t just a financial conflict—it’s a threat to freedom, informed consent, and the right to question medical mandates.

The EU’s deep ties to Gavi, being cemented at the 2025 Brussels summit, reflect a dangerous confluence of corporate greed, unaccountable philanthropy, and bureaucratic overreach. This alliance epitomizes everything wrong with global health: it prioritizes Big Pharma profits, ignores vaccine risks, and silences dissent, all while eroding personal sovereignty.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

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