“Doctors are men who prescribe medicines of which they know little, to cure diseases of which they know less, in human beings of whom they know nothing.”
In Part 1 of this series, I discussed the CDC’s nonsensical “reconstruction” of the influenza virus that supposedly sparked the 1918 “Spanish Flu” pandemic. Interestingly, the CDC and NIH both admitted that the primary cause of death was actually secondary bacterial pneumonia that was purportedly superimposed upon the initial viral infection. However, the claims of a so-called “superinfection” of secondary bacterial pneumonia on top of primary influenza infection are highly dubious. Instead, it is highly likely that bacterial pneumonia itself was being entirely caused by another source. In order to solve this mystery, we first need to determine the supposed source of this “outbreak.” Some entries in the corrupt and controlled literature appear to reluctantly admit that the outbreak may have originated in Fort Riley, Kansas.
The United States declared war in April 1917, and the US military subsequently conducted its first draft. The US Army expanded to six million men during the war years of 1918-19. Two million of these men were sent overseas. This resulted in the fledgling pharmaceutical industry suddenly having a huge supply of human test subjects.
It was none other than the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now known as Rockefeller University) that took advantage of this huge new pool of human guinea pigs to conduct crude vaccine experiments. This is where the modern pharmaceutical industry was born.
The Experiments at Fort Riley
Interestingly enough, one such experiment was conducted at the Base Hospital in Fort Riley, Kansas—the same Fort Riley that various controlled studies and articles reluctantly admit to as being a possible source of the outbreak. The experiment was reported by Dr. Frederick L. Gates in a 1918 article published by Rockefeller University Press in the Journal of Experimental Medicine.
“Following an outbreak of epidemic meningitis at Camp Funston, Kansas, in October and November, 1917, a series of antimeningitis vaccinations was undertaken on volunteer subjects from the camp…In order to cover the two pathogenic types of meningococci and variants of them, it has become the practice in this country, following the methods of Flexner and Jobling and Amoss and Wollstein, to prepare highly polyvalent therapeutic sera by the repeated injection of a number of representative strains with the object of producing a serum which would protect against any pathogenic strain that might be encountered.”
Dr. Gates conducted his vaccine experiments from January 21 – June 4, 1918. The vaccine serum was a bacterial meningococcal vaccine cultured in horses. The vaccination schedule included “increasing doses of vaccine in a series of three injections at 4 to 10 day intervals according to the schedule in Table I.”
The vaccine was made by Lieutenant Peter K. Olitsky at The Rockefeller Institute and subsequently shipped to Fort Riley in bulk. Bottles of the vaccine, diluted in isotonic salt solution, were distributed to regimental surgeons. A total of 4,792 men received the first dose. However, this fell to 4,257 for the second dose. Only 3,702 men completed the entire schedule by receiving all three doses.
Gates reports that several of the vaccine volunteers experienced flu-like symptoms after receiving the vaccine, including coughs, vomiting, and diarrhea. Feel free to read through the report for yourself just to get a sense of how crude and reckless these vaccine experiments truly were. Another article from PBS sheds further light on the first wave and how Fort Riley may have been the “source” of the pandemic (while conveniently avoiding any mention of the Rockefeller Institute vaccine experiments). The timing of the vaccine experiments at Fort Riley seems to coincide perfectly with the start of the first wave reported in the PBS article:
“Shortly before breakfast on Monday, March 11, the first domino would fall signaling the commencement of the first wave of the 1918 influenza. Company cook Albert Gitchell reported to the camp infirmary with complaints of a ‘bad cold.’ Right behind him came Corporal Lee W. Drake voicing similar complaints. By noon, camp surgeon Edward R. Schreiner had over 100 sick men on his hands, all apparently suffering from the same malady.
Any evidence of an influenza epidemic in the spring of 1918 was furnished by those institutions that kept a close eye on those under their watch: the military and prisons. In April and May, over 500 prisoners at San Quentin in California came down with the same condition that had struck soldiers at Camp Riley, as well as camps Hancock, Lewis, Sherman, Fremont, and several others. Influenza spreading amongst men living in close quarters did not particularly alarm the public health officials of the day. Little data existed at the time to indicate a sizable spread among the civilian population. Besides, the nation had bigger matters on its mind. There was a war to win.”
84,000 American troops referred to as “dough-boys” set out for Europe in March 1918, followed by another 118,000 the next month. The article seems to indicate that the soldiers were “carrying” a deadly virus with them to the warzone in Europe while providing no conclusive evidence that this was actually the case. Nevertheless, it appears that influenza—whatever it may be—significantly ravaged numerous soldiers on the battlegrounds of Europe. The article claims that the supposed virus proved “to be more deadly than the rifles they carried.” For example, Great Britain recorded 31,000 cases of influenza in June 1918 alone.
Even at the time of the 1918 outbreak, most microbiologists were convinced that influenza was caused by a bacterium, as evidenced by an article in Science. It’s tempting to draw the conclusion that the virus wasn’t real, and that there was an infectious bacterium, instead, that was being spread by soldiers who received the Rockefeller Institute’s bacterial vaccine at Fort Riley (and surely other military outposts). However, this is incorrect, as it once again reflects the false notion that this pandemic was due to any “infectious” pathogen at all—which may come as a shock to most people.
The Pfeiffer Bacillus
In 1890, German physician and bacteriologist Richard Pfeiffer allegedly isolated what he believed to be the causative agent of influenza—a small rod-shaped bacterium isolated from the noses of patients infected with the flu. Pfeiffer dubbed the rod-shaped bacterium Bacillus influenzae (B. influenzae, or Pfeiffer’s bacillus). However, it is now known as Haemophilus influenzae.
By the time Pfeiffer isolated the bacterium, most “communicable” diseases were assumed to be caused by bacteria. The word “virus” had been used for many years to describe a non-specific, hypothetical communicable agent. An article published by Oxford University Press in The Journal of Infectious Diseases explicitly declares Pfeiffer’s bacillus to be the primary cause of influenza.
“The Pfeiffer bacillus is the primary cause of epidemic influenza for the reason that sufficient postulates in the recognition of its etiology can be fulfilled.”
However, it becomes clear that the above quote is misleading when digging deeper into the article. Nevertheless, the other noteworthy aspect of this article that I wanted to highlight is its description of yet another set of vaccine experiments conducted on influenza patients, this time from various hospitals in New Orleans.
“In conjunction with the work approximately 5,000 persons were vaccinated with the protein of killed influenza cultures and as the results have some bearing on the etiologic relationship of B. influenzae, certain aspects will be discussed.”
The study authors admitted to using a stock culture of killed B. influenzae in their vaccine, provided by none other than the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. The researchers had maintained this stock culture for five years prior to utilizing it in this study. The fact that the Rockefeller Institute shows up yet again in another vaccination experiment during the period from 1918-1919 is a huge red flag with regards to the official narrative.
As a result of Pfeiffer’s purported isolation of Haemophilus influenzae in 1890, medical practitioners during the 1918 pandemic focused on administering bacterial vaccinations, since no viral cause for influenza had been detected at the time. The Oxford University Press study above provides further evidence of this.
Due to this, it is very likely that more than a million bacterial vaccines were produced during the pandemic years from 1918-1919. Due to the crudeness of these vaccines and the rapidity with which they were produced, they likely had the opposite of their intended effect and almost certainly exacerbated the severity and deadliness of the pandemic—if not being the primary cause altogether.
Regardless, there is credible written evidence to indicate the outbreak originated in Fort Riley, Kansas, due to a vaccine that originated at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. Was it a bioweapon that the organization released on purpose? Well, considering the deeply nefarious history of the Rockefellers, it is entirely possible that they utilized the new crop of American soldiers as their guinea pigs with which to spread a bacterial bioweapon in the form of crude vaccines, prior to these soldiers’ deployment in World War I.
The Origins of Virology
Why have the Rockefeller Institute’s crude vaccine experiments escaped scrutiny up until now? Perhaps it may have to do with the overlap in symptoms of bacterial meningitis, bacterial pneumonia, and the bacteria that caused influenza. Could it be that the virus claim was tacked on much later, just to hide the Rockefeller Institute’s obvious involvement in causing this devastating outbreak? That does indeed appear to be the case.
According to an article from the Rockefeller University entitled “The Birth of Modern Virology,” the field of virology was not yet an established discipline in the 1920s. The definition of a virus was still a subject of debate. There were no criteria available to describe viruses chemically, despite the fact that researchers were able to study the effects of viral diseases in living organisms. However, in 1926, the director of the Rockefeller Hospital, Thomas M. Rivers, made a bold statement about viruses: “Viruses appear to be obligate parasites in the sense that their reproduction is dependent on living cells.” This statement contradicted many workers in the field at the time. Nevertheless, the following passage from the Rockefeller article raises many suspicions about the validity of Rivers’ work:
“Several observations on the problem of growing viruses in the laboratory led him to his conclusion: the difficulty of cultivating viruses on artificial media could not be explained; although viruses were small, size should not prevent their cultivation; viruses were not particularly delicate or susceptible to destruction during laboratory procedures; nor had any viruses been found multiplying free in nature.”
In 1928, Rivers published a landmark book on the subject of virology, entitled “Filterable Viruses.” Eventually, he became director of the Rockefeller Institute Hospital, a position he held from 1937 to 1953. There is no doubt that he continued to mold the field of virology during this time. In that sense, he was nothing more than a puppet of the sinister Rockefeller medical cartel, pushing a eugenics agenda.
There was another influenza epidemic at the beginning of 1933, although not nearly as severe as the 1918 pandemic. This afforded researchers the opportunity to potentially isolate the supposed virus that caused the disease. A 1933 article in The Lancet describes this procedure. The researchers obtained throat-washings from a group of patients affected by the disease. They proceeded to try and infect a variety of different animal species with influenza from these patients’ throat-washings; however, they were unsuccessful until they tried it on ferrets.
In the successful experiment, two ferrets received a filtrate of human throat-washings (basically gargling) via subcutaneous injection as well as insertion into the nasal passage. The researchers claim that multiple ferrets became sick after receiving the throat-washings. Nevertheless, this experiment is flawed right from the start, because the researchers did not test the throat washings on other humans—they only attempted to infect a variety of different animal species, all of which were unsuccessful aside from ferrets. The following passage describes the researchers’ highly questionable attempt to essentially isolate the virus from the nasal passages of the ferrets:
“The infected animal is killed when showing symptoms, often at the beginning of the second temperature rise. The turbinates are scraped out, ground up with sand, and emulsified in about 20 c.cm. of equal parts of broth and saline. The emulsion is lightly centrifuged, and about 1 c.cm. of the supernatant fluid is dropped into the nostrils of another ferret. In this way 26 serial passages of one strain of virus have been made, and every animal of the series has shown the typical temperature response together with definite symptoms of the disease. A hundredfold dilution of the usual preparation has also been found to be regularly infective.”
It is important to note that we don’t know the particular details of how these ferrets’ living conditions were, e.g., how they were housed, or what other contaminants and toxins they may have been exposed to. For example, the human throat-washings used were fundamentally composed of water. What if the water itself had toxic chemicals that somehow made the ferrets feel sick, as opposed to an “infectious” virus?
Hence, it could have simply been a coincidence that some of the ferrets managed to get sick from the garglings. There are other possible variables to consider which weren’t described in the report. The following chart from the study raises further questions about its legitimacy, as it showcases a strange relapse in the temperature of the ferrets after supposedly being “infected” with the virus.
As the chart indicates, the relapse is “very unusual,” which suggests that there could have been something else at work here. The following passage from the study also raises massive red flags about the validity of the experiment in general:
“The method we are forced to employ has the serious disadvantage that it is impossible to make accurate quantitative experiments. The concentration of virus in the emulsion is unknown and it is impossible to determine what proportion of the amount instilled into the nose is retained, but no other route of inoculation has yet proved successful and other tissues tested—e.g., spleen, lymph glands, and blood—have been uniformly non-infective.”
If it is “impossible to make accurate quantitative experiments,” how on Earth could the study authors be certain that they extracted any sort of virus from the ferrets’ nasal passages? The experiment is highly crude and inconclusive at best. Furthermore, the fact that the other tissues were “uniformly non-infective” essentially invalidates the entire study by itself. That is, perhaps, the biggest red flag concerning this experiment.
“Decisive evidence on this point, and indeed on the importance of the virus we have described, can, we feel, only be secured by intensive study during an influenza epidemic, since direct experiments on man are fraught with difficulties.”
This statement also basically invalidates the entire study, which was already shaky from the get-go. I would not consider this as proof that the purported viral cause of influenza was definitively isolated at this time. Nevertheless, this was one of the critical turning points in the early history of virology that enabled it to gain momentum as a legitimate field of medical science, while also accelerating the widespread adoption of vaccines by the mainstream medical establishment.
The Deer Island Experiments
Let me draw your attention to an American Heritage article published in June 1976, entitled “The Great Flu Epidemic of 1918.” This article also touches on Fort Riley as being the possible source of the so-called outbreak. The author asks the following apt question: “What was this unseen destroyer that was taking life in unprecedented numbers? What caused it? How did it travel? Why did it kill?” The article continues:
“Dr. Simon Flexner, brilliant head of the department of pathology and bacteriology at the Rockefeller Institute, directed one of his key researchers to devote all her attention to detecting the cause of the disease. Despite a valiant effort, she and her colleagues were unable to isolate or identify the agent, concluding only that the epidemic was indeed influenza, caused by some unknown germ.”
Interestingly enough, even the Rockefeller Institute was unable to definitively determine the cause of the disease. The eye-opening article admits that medical scientists did not know the true identity of the enemy. For this reason, medical scientists were “hard-pressed” to come up with a vaccine, experimenting with things such as a mixture of organisms drawn from influenza patients, diphtheria antitoxin with an antitetanus and antimeningitis sera, and a mixed vaccine that included Pfeiffer’s bacillus, among others. However, the Massachusetts State Board of Health determined that the vaccines were ineffective at treating influenza. Nevertheless, I want to highlight the key part of this article, which describes a set of experiments conducted at Boston Harbor’s Deer Island while the influenza pandemic was raging.
“Even attempts to verify the way the disease spread were frustrated. On a parade ground at the naval prison in Boston Harbor’s Deer Island, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, a public-health physician, stood before a thousand deserters, insubordinates, brawlers, and other delinquent sailors. The doctor needed volunteers for an influenza experiment. The epidemic had stricken nearly a quarter of the total personnel and was on its way to taking the lives of 5,000 men.”
The set of experiments conducted—four in total—were dangerously crude, yet incredibly revealing. Volunteers were instructed to do the following:
- Inhale a pure culture of Pfeiffer influenza bacillus, which was thought to be the cause of influenza at the time.
- Then, if this didn’t infect them, they would be injected with lung matter from dead influenza victims.
- Next, secretions from influenza patients would be directly sprayed into their eyes and nostrils, as well as swabbed inside their throats.
- Finally, a seriously ill influenza patient would be assigned to each volunteer and cough directly into his face.
The reward for the volunteers’ participation in this “gauntlet with death,” as the article describes it, was a pardon and restoration to active duty (for those who survived, of course). Amazingly, one week after sniffing, being injected, having their throats swabbed, and inhaling the coughs of influenza victims, not a single one of the guinea pig volunteers contracted the illness.
However, the article states that the volunteers may have already possessed “natural immunity,” which is a highly dubious claim. Regardless, the author makes the following critical observation: “But as for the experiment itself, it failed to verify the one point that the doctors previously had thought they were sure of—how the disease was transmitted.” Further along, the article also highlights that the worst of the influenza pandemic ended at roughly the same time as the end of World War I.
“Thus, with an irony that surpasses man’s understanding, the plague faded almost simultaneously with the ending of the Great War. Except for a few belated stabs into remote corners of the earth, the worst of the Spanish-influenza epidemic was over. It seemed almost as though nature had determined to show man who still reigned supreme in the giving and taking of life: the war had killed over 21 million people in four years of dogged conflict; the influenza epidemic took approximately the same toll in about four months.”
This point is extremely important because it also implies that soldiers fighting on the European battlegrounds were the most heavily affected by the disease. As the author indicates, the influenza epidemic killed roughly 21 million people in just four months. What do we know about the soldiers—at least the American ones—fighting in Europe? They were a huge source of guinea pigs for the Rockefeller vaccine experiments. It seems very likely that a large chunk of soldiers was vaccinated with crude bacterial vaccines, similar to the kind administered to the troops at Fort Riley. Either way, the article concludes with the following incredible revelation:
“Why it began, why it ended, where it went, no one knows to this day. Like a malign comet, the Spanish-influenza epidemic of 1918 sped over the earth, took 21 million lives, and vanished.”
I suggest you ponder the implications of this profound statement within the context of all the dubious official claims surrounding the 1918 influenza pandemic. You can access the official U.S. Public Health Service document that details the Deer Island experiments here.
The conclusions derived from the Boston Deer Harbor Experiments should have delivered a huge blow to the Rockefeller medical cartel and Big Pharma. Unfortunately, however, this did not turn out to be the case. The Rockefeller criminals seized control of medical school curriculums all across the USA and weaponized them for their eugenics purposes, while largely eliminating homeopathic treatments and cures in favor of toxic and unnatural pharmaceuticals. If you want a primary reason as to why we are experiencing déjà vu over 100 years later, look no further than the Rockefeller takeover of medicine in the early 20th century—as well as their push to establish virology as a legitimate science (within the context of “infectious” viruses, of course).