Louis Pasteur, a vaccine, and some fake numbers; a familiar tale

DAVID MAJOR
dmajor@adistantmirror.com


A clear case of déjà vu: how some creative number-crunching that worked like a charm in the 1880s is being used again.

September 2021. The world is in the grip of an epidemic attributed to a virus which has not been isolated, and the test for which was described by its creator as essentially useless in the context of Covid, and not fit for purpose.

The mRNA vaccines (it is disputed that they are technically ‘vaccines’, but since that is the term that is used everywhere, we will use it here) are being promoted heavily in many countries, with increasing levels of coercion and pressure being used to get the vaccination rates above certain magical thresholds (‘70% double dose’, in this part of the world).

Some countries (for example India, Indonesia, Japan, and several African and South & Central American nations) have taken to using other drugs, notably Ivermectin, and have speedily achieved the results which the vaccine promoters had promised, but are clearly not delivering. In some of these countries, the Covid panic has essentially disappeared, as the virus — or whatever it is — has been crushed.

India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh (pop. 241 million) has declared itself Covid-free, thanks to widespread use of treatments which featured Ivermectin. The government of El Salvador distributes kits which include Ivermectin and zinc to all its citizens. Cases in Indonesia have collapsed, and Ivermectin is being taken seriously there.

Everywhere that Ivermectin is used, it works. And yet while ignoring these clear results, countries which have the highest vaccination rates, such as Israel, France, Iceland, Australia, and many parts of the USA, are experiencing swiftly growing outbreaks of the disease.

Israel’s third-dose rollout has seen hospitalisations rise in an interesting lock-step, and the link between the vaccines and the contagion is being recognised. In terms of Covid, Israel is a trainwreck. The evidence is growing, as the reports of problems there increase. There are alarming numbers here also.

Also Singapore, despite being 80% vaccinated, is seeing increasing spread of hospitalisations.

Why does the media in these countries continue to condemn Ivermectin as useless horse medicine, and dangerous for humans, when the data clearly shows that it is highly effective, and perfectly safe when used properly?

And yet here we are, with steadily increasing case numbers, and authorities claiming that there is ‘an epidemic of the unvaccinated’.

If this were true — if the hospitals were actually being overrun with the unvaccinated — it would be a compelling argument in favour of the vaccines.

But it’s not true.

Instead, nursing staff in the hospitals dealing with these outbreaks tell a different story. They talk of dealing with quantities of vaccinated, not unvaccinated, patients. They describe people who are presenting with serious complications that began after being vaccinated, and they are also describing what are described as ‘breakthrough cases’; full blown cases of the disease among the vaccinated.

Stew Peters is interviewing nurses and medical workers who describe the state of American hospitals. They are seeing mainly vaccinated cases, and hospitals are shutting down departments because they are losing so many staff who are refusing to be injected. The military is not being spared; the damage is being seen overwhelmingly among the vaccinated.

More reports are appearing every day, and the situation is steadily getting worse. The only place this ‘epidemic of the unvaccinated’ seems to exist is on the media.

How could this be possible? How could cases which medical staff know to be either reactions to the vaccines, or full-blown cases of Covid, be described in the statistics as ‘unvaccinated’, when the individual has received the injection? How could there be so many problem cases, so much damage occuring, yet there’s no hint of it in the official statistics?

Let’s rewind, and see if there’s a clue in the 1880s.

In the mid-nineteenth century, the fear of rabid animals and hydrophobia was endemic across Europe. You had only to be so much as licked by an animal, and you could be quarantined as the centre of a medical emergency, with the onset of hydrophobia and subsequent death a virtual certainty. If your pet or co-worker was bitten but you were not, you were suspect. If your clothing was torn but your skin undamaged, you were suspect.

This was a panic for the most part. The vast majority of cases investigated turned out to be not rabies, but cantankerous beasts. In 1880, an army veterinary surgeon presented Louis Pasteur with two sick dogs, and so Pasteur’s association with the disease began.

Four years later, Pasteur made his first announcement on the issue at a medical congress in Copenhagen. By weakening the virus by transmitting it through monkeys and then strengthening it again by passing it through rabbits, he claimed to have created a vaccine which would eradicate rabies forever.

Then on October 26th 1885, he presented his full findings to the Academy of Science, with the chairman, M. Bouley, describing the occasion as “memorable in the history of medicine, and glorious for French science.”

Pasteur was in full agreement with this assessment, declaring: “I call my method perfect”.

Amid this acclamation, no word of dissent was tolerated. Members of the Academy who wished to speak in criticism of Pasteur’s conclusions, such as Drs Guérin and Colin, were denied the right to do so.

The test for rabies which Pasteur had devised was a simple one. It involved taking a sample of liquid from the suspect animal; it could be saliva, blood, part of the brain or spinal cord, but was usually cerebral-spinal fluid.

The material was then injected into a living rabbit. If the rabbit responded by developing paralysis of the hind quarters, or of course dying, the test result, according to Pasteur, was positive.

Pasteur also described to the Academy his method for treating the disease. He took the spinal cords of rabbits which had been injected with the virus, pulverised them, and then cooked them up in a soup. This liquid was then injected into the patient, daily for ten days.

Professor Antoine Béchamp’s view of this was that introducing any material from one species into a different one is generally injurious. One study, performed by a Doctor Vulpian (who happened to be a supporter of Pasteur) even saw rabbits killed just as quickly by inoculations of healthy human saliva as they were by the saliva of a child who had died from hydrophobia.

Hume, in Béchamp or Pasteur?, describes the case of a French postman who received Pasteur’s vaccine. It was a sign of trouble coming.

“A notable failure was that of a French postman named Pierre Rascol who, along with another man, was attacked by a dog supposed to be mad. He was not actually bitten, for the dog’s teeth did not penetrate his clothing; but his companion received severe bites. The latter, despite his injuries, refused to go to the Pasteur Institute, and remained in perfect health despite being bitten; but unfortunate Rascol was forced by the postal authorities to undergo the treatment, which he did, from the 9th to the 14th March. On the following 12th April, severe symptoms set in, with pain at the points of inoculation – not at the place of a bite, for remember that he had never been bitten. On the 14th April, he died of paralytic hydrophobia, the new disease brought into the world by Pasteur.”

It is reasonable for us, obviously, to wonder whether the dog was rabid at all, and whether the postman, who had not been bitten, might have actually died of a disease caused by the vaccine.

That there were other similar cases is suggested by the fact that the average number of deaths from hydrophobia in France in the years before the introduction of Pasteur’s rabbit spinal cord broth was 30, and after the introduction of the treatment, the figure rose to 45. In Italy, the corresponding figures were 65 and 85.

Soon, people were beginning to question the safety of Pasteur’s vaccine. The National Anti-Vivisection Society and other groups collected lists of victims, and found that there was a strong correlation of death with the use of the vaccine, but that this was only part of the story. In his submission to the Royal Commission on Vivisection, Dr George Wilson said:

“Pasteur carefully screened his statistics, after some untoward deaths had occurred during treatment or immediately after, by ruling that all deaths should be excluded from the statistical returns which occurred either during treatment or within fifteen days of the last injection.”

So, there were 25 days of exposure to the vaccine – the ten days of the course itself followed by 15 more days – during which the patient was to be regarded by the data collectors as unvaccinated.

In 1910, the Kisauli Institute reported the following, relating to 2,073 incidences of attack by animals:

“…there were 26 deaths from hydrophobia. Of these, 14 died during the treatment, eight within 15 days of completion of treatment, and four later than 15 days after completion of treatment. Only the last four are counted as failures of the treatment according to Pasteur’s definition of a failure, and it is on this number that the percentage failure rate is calculated.”

One death which this manoeuvre saw omitted from the figures was King Alexander of Greece, who had been bitten by a monkey. Undergoing Pasteur’s treatment, he was injected every day, but his condition progressively worsened, and he died during the course of the treatment. It was too soon for his death to be described as a failure of the vaccine. And as with the other cases, there was therefore no necessity to admit that the vaccine itself might be the cause of his illness and death. The King had died in a state of official unvaccination, despite being injected every day.

But there was more. The director of the Pasteur Institute of Morocco, Dr. P. Remlinger, in a report entitled Paralysis of Anti-rabies Treatment, writes of

“… the discrepancy between the number of observations published by the Directors of Institutes, and the number of cases orally acknowledged by them to have actually occurred. Such occurrences were commonly kept secret, as if they were a reflection on the Pasteurian method, or a reflection on the doctor who applied it. Such a policy appeared to us to be clumsy, and the reverse of scientific.”

   And again:

“We have come to the conclusion that certain Institutes conceal their cases. On various occasions we have found in medical literature observations concerning paralysis of treatment, and we have afterwards failed to find in the report and statistics of the Institutes concerned any mention of these unfortunate cases.”

So, here we have a perfect storm of deception, concocted for reasons simple enough to imagine:

1. The use of a 25 day ‘buffer period’, during which any deaths or reactions that occur are counted as ‘unvaccinated’, thus avoiding suspicion of the vaccines, and also adding to the toll of the rabies ‘epidemic of the unvaccinated’ – thus allowing for the pressure on the population to vaccinate to be increased;

2. The under-reporting of problems caused by the vaccines, to the extent that they were deliberately kept secret; and

3. The testing of many cases which in all likelihood had no chance of infection with rabies. Horse bites, human bites, even just physical contact with animals as diverse as elephants, pigs, deer and donkeys all apparently required testing. The sense of panic in the population was maintained, and the fortunes of the pharmaceutical industry were augmented by a constant stream of rabbits dying after being injected with biological materials foreign to their species, as a ‘test’.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should.

Let’s return to 2021

The U.S. Centre for Disease Control page at SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Hospitalizations Among Persons Aged ≥16 Years, by Vaccination Status — Los Angeles County, California reveals the method of how some important definitions are established.

Let’s look at the criteria the CDC uses to define ‘fully vaccinated,’ ‘partially vaccinated,’ and ‘unvaccinated.’

“Persons were considered:
Fully vaccinated ≥14 days after receipt of the second dose in a 2-dose series (Pfizer or Moderna vaccines) or after 1 dose of the single-dose Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine¶;
Partially vaccinated ≥14 days after receipt of the first dose and <14 days after the second dose in a 2-dose series; and
Unvaccinated <14 days after receipt of the first dose of a 2-dose series or 1 dose of the single-dose vaccine.”

So, for 14 days after receiving the injection, you are counted as ‘unvaccinated’. If you are hospitalized, admitted to ICU, require mechanical ventilation, or even die within two weeks of receiving the vaccine, you are officially ‘unvaccinated.’

This is important: using this method of defining ‘unvaccinated’, we have no way of measuring the actual, real, number of people being hospitalised who have not received the vaccine. In other words, we are not seeing how the truly unvaccinated are faring.

The CDC have taken their whole play from Pasteur’s deception, and for the same reason. This trick allows the media to use headlines such as:

Unvaccinated people are about 29 times more likely to be hospitalized with Covid-19 than those who are fully vaccinated, according to a CDC study released Tuesday.”
&
Unvaccinated people were 11 times more likely to die of covid-19, CDC report finds.”

And we are reminded again of the medical staff who are reporting that they are seeing many vaccinated people in the hospitals. It is these people, who took the shot and then found themselves suffering with either a case of Covid or a reaction to the vaccine, who are being counted as ‘unvaccinated’.

This shows every sign of being an epidemic of the vaccinated, and it is being deliberately concealed.

David Major
A Distant Mirror

Be the first to comment

Comments