Hippocrates v Hypocrite  



See http://whale.to/a/b/pearson.html



I am going to reproduce the whole of Chapter 7 from this book published in 1942, because I find it fascinating that the issues with vaccines (which he refers to as ‘biologicals’)  that Mr Pearson discusses nearly 80 years ago are NO DIFFERENT from the issues we are confronting with the roll out of the COVID vaccines . The same issues pertain

1 Reports of myocarditis, i.e heart inflammation and disease , particularly in young people

See https://www.bitchute.com/video/uGZlkn6Y7mMN

2 The annihilation of red blood cells

See https://stopwrongfulconvictions.wordpress.com/tag/covid-vaccines-damage-blood-cells

3 The allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) when anybody who has already encountered the live virus or a toxin present in the vaccine is forced to re-encounter

See https://www.bitchute.com/video/nVkCTNgXnVNI

4 The extreme toxicity of alien animal tissue when introduced to another species

See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15986492

5 The capacity for the toxins to cross the blood brain barrier

See https://www.bitchute.com/video/DFtHaGWo3z9N

6 How vaccines create mutant strains

See https://www.bitchute.com/video/X0WB7SUKEMz1


You’ll find highlighted in red those sections that relate to the issues listed above in this book penned 80 years ago


After a lengthy section outlining the disastrous consequences of Robert Koch’s Tuberculin vaccine against tuberculosis Pearson proceeds to the subject of:



"Guerin, Richart and Bossiera studied a large number of cattle on a farm. On this farm in 1915 in a herd of 67 head, 47 per cent reacted positively to the tuberculin test. Year after year, the positive animals were slaughtered. In 1918, 38 per cent were still positive to the tuberculin test. In 1920, the number of reactors was 41.7 percent. Vaccination in the newborn cattle started on Jan. 1, 1921. In 1922, one year after the vaccination, 20 cattle gave a definitely positive and nine a very suspicious tuberculin reaction, or a total of 45 percent of 64 head. Many of these animals were vaccinated and revaccinated. In 1923 there remained 26 of the 1919-1920 year animals, all giving a positive tuberculin reaction."


Note that after 47% were slaughtered in 1915, as were all animals testing positive in the following years, 38% were tubercular in 1918, and a full 100% of those animals which remained from the 1919-20 vaccinated group all gave a positive 'test'. This was undoubtedly due either to the vaccines used or the 'tests' themselves, which confirms the opinions of the authorities quoted above! Could any dairyman survive such a loss?


They continue:


"In the meantime, the second generation of these vaccinated animals were revaccinated, and the vaccination repeated each following year ... there is no record of how many of the vaccinated cattle became infected, as the tuberculin test was omitted on Calmettes' suggestion, as he believes that it is of doubtful value, giving no information as far as exogenous (outside) infection is concerned.


Furthermore if in the vaccinated cattle an implantation of virulent organisms has taken place, setting up only a benign tuberculosis, tuberculin administered may bring about a violent allergic reaction disseminating the virulent organisms. In such an event, progressive disease may follow ...


Gradually the animal becomes resistant to this particular organism. However, as soon as a new organism is introduced into the herd, the occurrence of the disease is much more marked than before."


They do not mention the fact that these "implantations" may also occur in your child; nor do they realise that they can come through a change of the germ in the vaccine, but such is the case, as I showed in Germ Mutation (now out of print).


As occurred with 'flu' in the war, which was merely a mutation of the typhoid germ in the vaccines used against typhoid and paratyphoid, every vaccine may produce a 'new' form of germ which, as noted above, may "make the occurrence of the disease much more marked than previously".


This is why we had the 1918 flu epidemic, with the highest death rate on record. It is the reason Koch had so many deaths, and also the reason for the large increases in the death rates of other diseases as noted in Chapter 9.


Koch found 43 varieties or strains of tuberculosis and there are probably as many strains of any other disease. The very multiplicity of these strains, and the ease with which modification can occur on the shelf or in the tissues, is the fundamental reason why biologicals can never be used successfully.


F. Loehnis, soil biologist, and N. R. Smith, U.S. Department of Agriculture, have discussed this variability of germs at considerable length and conclude that any germ can break down into a filterable fluid and then develop into new forms that may be radically different from the original germ, their new characteristics depending mostly upon their environment. They believe this change is constantly going on in all groups of germs.


Hence new strains are always being formed and are usually more virulent than the old.


Doctors Petroff and Branch add:


"It seems that in spite of the vaccinations with B.C.G., and the sociological measures, the implantation with violent tubercle has taken place...


Lakhms of Lithuania, studying 472 vaccinated infants, reports that he obtained 10 times more positive reactions in the vaccinated children than in the unvaccinated."


The real fact is that tuberculin never had any diagnostic value. It was not offered as a test on animals until its failure as a cure on humans caused the German government to forbid such use; in other words, the manufacturers 'discovered' or invented this new use for it to preserve a market. The 'test' on cattle circumvented both the prohibition and its ill-repute as a cure, thus continuing the profits, which is all it is good for.


Read the account of the United States Agricultural Department's 'tests' on animals infected with the hoof-and-mouth disease from vaccines, in Chapter 8.


In Fasting and Man's Correct Diet, The Tuberculin Test a Fraud (out of print), Immunity (also out of print), and Drugless Cures, I give additional evidence that the use of tuberculin was a fraud, utterly useless, and that more recent serums are no better.





It has also been found that the soluble ferments of many animal serums will, in some humans at least, dissolve the red-blood corpuscles.


Elie Metchnikoff, the famous Russian scientist, says:


"It has long been known, however, that the serum of the blood of many animals will destroy the red corpuscles of a different species. This demonstration was afforded during the period when attempts were being made to transfuse the defibrinated blood of mammals, especially of the sheep, into man. This practice had to be abandoned in consequence of the difficulties resulting from the solution of the human red corpuscles."


Later, Buchner compared the action of alexine (the name given to the substance found to cause this action) to that of soluble ferments and referred it to the category of the digestive diastases."


This alexine is probably the same thing described by Bechamp as the liquid ferment mentioned in Chapter 2, and it should not destroy or even injure perfectly healthy blood or tissues, but who is perfectly healthy?


Dr M. R. Leverson says in the preface to his translation of The Third Element of the Blood that Bechamp isolated a series of soluble ferments which he called zymases, but which plagiarists renamed diastases to obscure his discoveries. Likewise, Bechamp discovered the reason for the coagulation of the blood.


Metchnikoff continues:


"According to him the same alexine is capable of dissolving the red blood corpuscles of several species of vertebrates. Bordet,56 in a series of researches made in the Pasteur Institute, confirmed this view. He came to the conclusion that the alexines of the various species of animals differ from one another. Thus the alexine of the blood serum of the rabbit is not the same as that found in the serum of the guinea-pig or dog. Nevertheless each of these alexines is capable of exerting a solvent action on the red blood corpuscles of several species."


He continues, on page 95:


"It may, however, be admitted that the action of alexine (complement) comes under the category of phenomena that are produced by soluble ferments. The substance which dissolves the red blood corpuscles of mammals or a portion only of those of birds, undoubtedly presents great analogies to the digestive ferments. As has been mentioned repeatedly, it is very sensitive to the action of heat and is completely destroyed by heating for one hour at 55 degrees (C). In this respect, it closely resembles the macrocytase of macrophagic organs which also dissolves red corpuscles. As it is the macrophages which ingest and digest the red blood corpuscles in the organism, it is evident that alexine is nothing but the macrocytase which has escaped from the phagocytes during the preparation of the serums."


On page 401 of the same book, discussing artificial immunity against toxins rather than microbes, he says:


"When micro-organisms, living or dead, are introduced into an animal, it is found that anti-toxins do not as a rule, appear in the fluids; in these cases, the reaction is set up mainly by the microphages. The microphages represent the principal source of anti-toxins."


Is this point clear? All animal blood serums can dissolve the red blood corpuscles of several other species of animals, and many of them, for example that of the sheep, can dissolve the red blood corpuscles of man!


It is also possible that due to the wide variations in the character of the blood and blood serum, etc., both in the animals used and in the patients treated, due to both individual and possibly also racial differences, the serum from any particular animal might have a very injurious effect on the blood or other body fluids of a percentage of human patients treated, as indicated by the many deaths that follow the use of anti-toxin, even though it might not be injurious to all.


Note that they compare this stuff to a soluble ferment, which can go through a china filter, and eat red blood corpuscles, pink dynamite and other things; and this is "the principal source of anti-toxins."


It may be true that most horses' blood serum will not dissolve human red blood corpuscles, but how can we know, with all the variations possible, both in the horse, and in man, that some particular horse serum will not dissolve the red blood corpuscles of one or more children in any school which the serum squirters choose to 'protect', as they call it?.....




Some authorities have considered the leucocytes to be an essential part of the blood, in which case their dissolution should be a dangerous loss to the person concerned. In my opinion, however, the leucocytes are nothing more than body waste or refuse in the process of elimination, and their dissolution immediately places a liquid toxic poison in the blood with no means of preventing it being absorbed, wherever the blood goes, into any and all tissues. Hence the possibility that the brain, the heart, or other organs not intended to handle these toxic poisons might absorb some of them.


Have you ever seen two leucocytes that were the same size or shape? They appear to vary widely in both characteristics - looking, in fact, more like crumbled cheese than living tissues.




Other authorities have described other dangers in the use of serums, for instance Dr E. C. Rosenow, then of the Mayo Clinic, said over 25 years ago that certain varieties of germs in serums used in his experiments had "an affinity for the heart valves"!


He describes experiments in which he found that the green-producing variety of germs in the serums attacked the valves of the heart, while a certain hemolyzing variety attacked the body joints, thus causing rheumatism!


In November 1925, the Chicago Health Department stated that:


"...more children of the ages of 10 to 14 die of heart disease in Chicago than of all other children's diseases put together!"


If Dr Rosenow's statements are true, do you wonder that Chicago children are dropping dead on the street, with all the serumization that is practised in our schools? In the olden days, it was very rare for a child of 10 to 14 years of age to die of heart disease.


Dr Frederick Hoffman, Ll.D., Consulting Statistician of the Prudential Insurance Company of America, said:


"Heart diseases in all civilized countries are the leading cause of death and of a vast amount of physical impairment. As far as it is possible to judge, the relative frequency of heart disease in proportion to population has everywhere been increasing during the last two decades, although evidence to this effect is more or less conflicting."


While most diseases that kill mankind off have gone down at an almost wonderful pace since sanitation was first introduced to the world, this particular one is increasing, for some reason the authorities profess not to understand.


Note that those immigrants from countries having compulsory vaccination die off at a rate three to four times higher than immigrants from countries not having compulsory vaccination.


There is no doubt that there are other causes to be considered, such as sanitation, living conditions, diet, and that the relative vitality of the different races may vary, so why should these death rates seem to divide simply on their vaccinal conditions? And granting this, why does heart disease lead all other diseases in the difference between the high rates and the low?


It seems to me that this chart alone is very conclusive evidence that the statements we have quoted in this chapter, as to biologicals causing both tuberculosis and heart disease, are correct.


In regard to Italy, which passed a law for the compulsory vaccination of infants in 1888, we still class it in the 'without' column, because in 1910, the time of this census, probably not over 25% of the immigrants in New York State would be under 22 years of age and thus affected by the law, and it is very likely that the law was inefficiently enforced for the earlier years, thus allowing many to escape. Furthermore, all of those vaccinated would still be too young for the full effects of any injurious biologicals to become fully developed by 1910, hence Italy's inclusion in the unvaccinated column.


Statistics of later years seem to indicate that Italy now has death rates comparable with other countries having compulsory vaccination, which can only serve to strengthen the idea that the fad for serums is the cause!


Dr Rosenow also speaks of other troubles that may follow the use of biologicals.


In a series of articles based on the influenza epidemic of 1918 and published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases, and also in the Collected Papers of the Mayo Clinic, Vols 10, 11, and 12, he describes many changes in serums or in patients which rendered the serum useless.


In Vol. 10, page 919, he observes of the pneumococcus-streptococcus group, of which he thought mutation forms were responsible for the 1918 pandemic:


"... marked changes in morphology, growth characteristics, infective powers, and immunological reactions. Many of these changes appear to be true mutations."


On page 949 of the same volume, he ascribed deaths following the use of certain serums to some change or mutation in either the serum or patient.


While, I believe, a serum is supposed to cure by 'agglutinating' all germs of that exact kind which it finds in the body, when there is a slight difference in germs, or changes occur, either in the patient's germs or in those in the serum, no "agglutination" takes place, and the patient is apt to die, unless sanitary or other measures are taken to save him.


Most regular physicians will say in such a condition that there is no hope, but if drugless physicians are called in, or if enemas are given, there is more than hope. In fact I believe two or three enemas a day and an exclusive fruit juice diet for a while would save the great majority of these cases.


However, this is not meant to be a discussion of the treatment of disease, which is covered in other books.


That this change or mutation of germs is a very serious handicap in treating diseases by means of serums or vaccines is indicated all through the series of ten papers that Dr Rosenow published in Vol. 12 of the Mayo Clinic papers.


He says in Vol. 12, page 920, that the serum used on some guinea pigs "tended to localize in the lungs".


In Vol. 12, page 1001, he says:


"Moreover, marked changes in the immunological condition as measured by agglutination tests have occurred in a number of strains following successive (intratracheal) animal passages."


He added that when the changes occurred, "no good effects were noted".


If passage through animal tissue will cause "marked changes in the immunological condition", how can anyone know that passage through human tissues, for example from the arm into the body, will not do the same?


And where can you find a serum or vaccine that has not had an animal passage at some previous time? They are nearly all propagated in animals at present and a substantial percentage of all "passages" seem to cause a change. In table 4 he shows 35 changes in 44 cases, and one of the other nine had changed in a previous experiment; that makes changes in over 81% of the tests!


So you see, this change is no minor accident; in fact, it occurs with great frequency, as Bechamp proved many years ago.


And these changes in the germs mentioned are of vital importance, as they often merely substitute a new disease for the one vaccinated against.


Pasteur seemed to recognize the importance of this point as he vehemently denied its possibility to the very last, and made bitter personal attacks on Bechamp and other colleagues who opposed his ideas for this reason.


Now that this has been proven so overwhelmingly, we can see how a vaccine for any one disease could start some other disease through these mutation forms. We shall then need more serums for the new disease, or more likely, several new diseases may develop, and so on, ad infinitum.


In the pamphlets Germ Mutation and Immunity, Artificial vs Natural, I give some important evidence indicating that the 1918 influenza epidemic was caused by mutation in vaccines used to 'prevent' typhoid in the armies in Europe.


When they inoculated against typhoid, they soon found that they had a para-typhoid on their hands, and the percentage of paratyphoid in those inoculated was identical to the second decimal place with the percentage of typhoid in those not inoculated.


And when they gave two "shots", one for each of these, they discovered a second paratyphoid, so to be scientific they called them 'A' and 'B.'


And, as scientists must always be 'scientific', they then gave the boys three shots, one for each of the above diseases, whereupon they found a fourth 'disease' - influenza - and the world's highest recorded death rate at that! The Surgeon General of the A.E.F. said of this 'influenza':


"The ordinary clinical picture of typhoid paratyphoid is frequently profoundly modified in vaccinated individuals ... intestinal types of supposed influenza should always be considered as possible typhoid until proven otherwise. Vaccination is a partial protection only, and must be reinforced by sanitary measures."


Furthermore, supposing that there is no change and that a serum or vaccine 'agglutinates' perfectly, what proof have we that it will either prevent or cure any disease?


Elie Metchnikoff, says:


"The most carefully studied case of the relations between natural immunity and agglutination is of that encountered in the anthrax bacillus. We owe it to Gengou, who at the Liege Bacteriological Institute carried out a very detailed investigation of this question.


He showed that the bacillus of Pasteur's first anthrax vaccine is agglutinated by the blood serum of a great number of animals. But he also showed that the serums which have the greatest agglutinative action on this bacillus do not come from the most refractory species. Human serum agglutinates most strongly the bacillus of the first vaccine (in the proportion of one part of serum to 500 parts of culture) but man is far from being exempt from anthrax.


Pigeons' serum, on the other hand, is completely without any agglutinative power, although this species resists not only the first vaccine but very often virulent anthrax. The serum of the ox, a species susceptible to anthrax, is more agglutinative (1:120) than that of the refractory dog (1:100).


All these facts fully justify the conclusion formulated by Gengou that we cannot establish any relation between the agglutinating power and the refractory state of the animals to anthrax ... this conclusion may be extended to the phenomena of the agglutination of micro-organisms and to those of natural immunity in general."


It is quite likely that most physicians will acknowledge that when the changes in a germ as described above occur, there is practically no possibility of it preventing or curing any disease, and while these changes may not run as high as 80% with all biologicals, nevertheless we have shown that it can and does occur with sufficient frequency to render all such methods utterly unworthy of confidence, and unfit to rely on to any degree.


And Professor Metchnikoff's statement that agglutination is of no value as an indication of immunity or curing power seems to wipe out any small remaining chance that serums can be beneficial, under any conditions.


In other words, it seems that when we get vaccinated and fail to catch any disease afterwards, it is either only an accident, or is due more to our natural immunity than to the serum.

See: THE DREAM & LIE OF LOUIS PASTEUR by R. B. Pearson (originally Pasteur, Plagiarist, Imposter 1942)   http://whale.to/a/b/pearson.html