WHO memos 1972 explains how to turn vaccines into a means of killing

I got this on Facebook, it say : WHO memos 1972 explains how to turn vaccines into a means of killing ...

vv

Two key memorandums from WHO, discovered by Patrick Jordan, prove WHO has intentionally created the three-shot killer vaccine that people in the USA and other countries could soon be forced to take.

1972 WHO Bulletin 47, No 2 Memordanda #1 and #2 Virus-associated immunopathology:

Animal models and implications for human disease * technically outline the ability to create biological weapons in the form of vaccines that:

1) First totally disable the Immune System.

2) Load every cell of the Victim’s body up with Infection.

3) Switch the Immune System on causing the host to kill themselves in a Cytokine Storm.

One, Two, Three, Dead.

Easy as 1,2,3. Reaad on..

These WHO Memorandas describe the three-stage impact of the three "shots" many people will be forced to take this fall to allegedly treat a virus that WHO also helped create and release.

This is a crucial piece of evidence of WHO's long-term genocidal intentions that could stand in any court of law because these memorandums give the best and fullest explanation WHO's and affiliated labs (such as the CDC) current activities, such as their patenting of the most lethal bird flu viruses, their sending that virus to Baxter's subsidiary in Austria, which weaponised it and sent out 72 kilos to 16 labs in four countries almost triggering a global pandemic.

For every crime, there needs to be motive, an indication that it was deliberate, planned. The WHO memorandums provide the evidence of just that deliberate, long-term planning to kill people by weakening their immune system by use of the first vaccine, injecting a live virus into their body by a second, and creating a cytokine storm using squalene in a third.

As I have heard, the Jab have been reduced to two jabs, not three, unless the third comes later,they tell you it was not enough with two, and you must take the third to be safe.. Who knows.

In this page below, scroll down to Memoranda.
Memoranda

Virus-associated immunopathology: animal models and implications for human disease: 1. Effects of viruses on the immune system, immune-complex diseases, and antibody-mediated immunologic injuryBull World Health Organ. 1972; 47(2): 257–264. PMCID: PMC2480894| Summary | Page Browse | PDF–1.2M | Virus-associated immunopathology: animal models and implications for human disease: 2. Cell-mediated immunity, autoimmune diseases, genetics, and implications for clinical researchBull World Health Organ. 1972; 47(2): 265–274. PMCID: PMC2480896| Summary | Page Browse | PDF–1.5M |

Thats interesting to say the least, what business does the WHO have with creating memos about potencial biological weapons?

Hi Chembreather.

I'm sorry to say but what's being claimed and what these memos say don't match up.

The memos are part of a eleven chapter bulletin, so you need to take the full bulletin into account not just part of it.

Summaries of the memos can be found here:

part 1 Summary:

The tissue damage caused by virus infection has been traditionally explained by the ability of viruses to multiply in cells and thereby injure or destroy them. Recent evidence suggests, however, that lesions may also be caused by the host's immune response to viral antigens and that the immune system itself may be perturbed by some viruses. This memorandum reviews recent developments in viral immunopathology, with special reference to animal model systems, and indicates the possible relevance of the new concepts and techniques for certain diseases of man. Certain viruses, notably the leukaemia viruses and some of those causing persistent infections, depress the host's ability to mount an antibody response to antigens, while other viruses may enhance the antibody response. Cell-mediated immunity may also be depressed. Another immunopathological manifestation of virus infection is immune-complex disease. When viruses or their antigens persist in the circulation they combine with specific antibody, and the resulting complexes lodge in various sites, especially the kidney. Further combination with complement leads to the release of tissue-damaging substances. A third condition associated with virus infection is antibody-mediated immunologic injury. Both oncogenic and non-oncogenic viruses frequently induce new antigens on the surface of the cells they invade. When antibody attaches to these antigens in the presence of complement, the cells are destroyed.

part 2 Summary:

Part 2 of this memorandum describes further mechanisms whereby the interaction of a virus with the host's immune system may lead to tissue damage. Cell-mediated immunity plays a vital role in promoting recovery from virus infections, but under some circumstances tissue damage may be caused by the reaction of immune cells with viral antigens. When mice are infected with lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus neonatally or as adults while receiving immunosuppressive drugs, widespread invasion of cells is seen but there is little overt disease. If, however, normal adults are infected or if immune cells are transfused into tolerant mice, cell injury and death follow. Viruses have long been suspected of contributing to the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases. Antibodies directed against normal cell constituents have been reported in several virus infections. Viruses may conceivably unmask or release host antigens, alter host antigens and act as “helper determinants”, or perhaps in other ways provoke immune responses against normal body constituents. The immunopathological manifestations caused by viruses may also be influenced by the host's genetic makeup. Certain observations indicate that, in addition to controlling susceptibility to virus infection, genetic factors partly determine the effectiveness of the immune response. The memorandum calls attention to the possible implications of these concepts and findings for clinical research. Some of the diseases of animals and man that serve as models for studies of virus-associated immunopathology are briefly described.

From what I can gather from these memos, a study was carried out on mice to study the effects of viruses on the immune system and their role in immunological injury.

Can you point us to where it says the things your source mentions?

Because, as a good researcher you would have double checked your sources first, before posting them up on ATS right?


[edit on 1/11/09 by Chadwickus]

So this is why they are saying children need two shots to get the full vaccine?
Meanwhile the outbreak is all around them...

reply to post by Chadwickus


Sorry, but I'm unsure of your question.
This shows that they know how to create cytokin storm, which in turn shows up as pneumonia, in short, if some one dies of this overload of the immune system, the diagnose will most likely just be published as 'death by pneumonia' and not as killed by vaccine triggering your bodies antibodies to attack your own cells.

you probably just on your derailing agenda, that is your job right ?

You just think it cant be used in faulplay, I think they wouldnt nudge one bit killing 2 billion people ...

reply to post by ChemBreather


Read at least the summary I posted and tell me where you get the theory that this proof of something nefarious.

I'm not derailing I'm trying to find out how these documents are proof of what has been claimed in your OP.

reply to post by AccessDenied


Hard to say, I think is wierd they want to inject pregnant woman and children in a hurry.

They say it is safe and tested, buy a test takes 6 monts and longer to get some results that are reliable.

And implementing Emergency gives them the 'back door' to give out untested vaccines..

We dont have Emergency here in Norway yet, but the Dept.of Health keeps saying on the News ; Every body should take the vaccine..

If the people say no, you bet they gonna go to emergency and people will freak out and basicly kill eachother to get killed by the vaccine.

reply to post by Cloudsinthesky


Excuse me?

Why don't you tell us how this can be perceived as way to create a biological weapon then, instead of rolling out the BS ad hom attack?

reply to post by Chadwickus


I dont understand you Chad, I see the documents as proof by them self, by explanation on how these viruses and antigens behave in the bodies.

That is telling me atleast, as I believe they would use this knowledge to create bioweapons,just to use that word..

By knowing how to 'kill' or make people 'ill' thru bioengenering viruses based on 'at hand' knowledge, shows that WHO have that knowledge.

Uhmm. I cant even respond very well as I am still unsure what you are after.. Sorry man..

Just ranting here: if they had this documents in 72, they sure as pigflu had been working on it before that time, and maybe the 76 outbreak at Fort Dick(?) was an early test run.. the company MedImmune who makes FluMist is located just a block away from the Fort Dick, you think coincidence, I think not...

[edit on 1/11/2009 by ChemBreather]

reply to post by ChemBreather


As I said before, it was a study was carried out on mice to study the effects of viruses on the immune system and their role in immunological injury.

Meaning, besides the viral effects, what physiological effects it has on the body, like scar tissue etc.


I'm no expert but this is what I'm getting from it.

[edit on 1/11/09 by Chadwickus]

I'll have to agree with Chadwickus, what I see is medical research being taken out of context. Besides that, the vaccine is now only one shot or nasal spray.

I'm no fan of the vaccine, and I refuse to get it based on it's including mercury, but it's way too easy for non-medical researchers to jump to the wrong conclusions when viewing the research that led to it. I'm sure you could make any current medical practice used today look sinister if you took out of context the research that led to it's development.

Explanation: RE: "By knowing how to 'kill' or make people 'ill' thru bioengenering viruses based on 'at hand' knowledge, shows WHO have that knowledge."

I learned exactly the same or similar techniques in High School when I was in yr8 Biology class! Its not that hard in fact and that is what makes it so scary..the stuff can be brewed in someones kitchen or laundry etc. and all it basically requires is the starter culture such as an agar plate and the biological "device" that's being weaponized and a large brewing vat etc. and some extreme health and safety protocols enforced! Its not to hard to work out dispersal methods using such things like aerosol nozzels and air compressors etc.

That WHO has this knowledge is a moot point as most of its representatives I'm sure are source from the medical and pharmacological demographics and it is not like these technical "experts" wouldn't know the intricacies involved!

Personal Disclosure: So Dr's know how to kill us! WHO'd a thunk it?
:shk:

reply to post by Chadwickus


Omg.



The Memos are Jpg's, so I cant c/p it over here..
It is not just talking about mice.
Also on humans, atleast on page 257..

Well, here in Norway the flu jab is two (2) shots, and again, this documents tells me they have done extensive research on the behavior on viruses and anti-pathogenes etc.

They know have to make it so patients get pneumonia..
okey, ofcourse the documents are not titled : WHO's recepie for mass murder....

I bet it is done in good intent, but when evil people get ahold of good things, it can be used in bad deeds also...

What it is doing, is shutting down the immune responce so that the Virus can attack and infect the healthy cells with minimall interuption by your body. When the immune system get back on, it attack all the cells because the are all infected by the virus, this creates an overload of white blood cells and fills the lungs with fluids and the patient drowns, dead of pneumonia..Atleast that will be the official cause of death..

It is obviouse some people see 'good' in everything and evil people would never do such athing to create a virus and a vaccine that ends up causing alot of trouble... just my take on it.

And since we dont see the same info here, i'm not going to try to explain it more either, cause it is all in the documents.

They know how to make bombs too, and they do infact use them...

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Your just talking nonsense, aerosol nozzles, haha..

Next thing you say is that some one might have put something into something which these nozzles are attached too..

Where does it say about using VACCINES to do this?
Or is the title of the thread supposition, not fact?
And no I'm not an 'disinfo agent' so don't give me any of that old crock. I just check on sources.

reply to post by ChemBreather
Explanation: Nonsense?

Is this nonsense?....

www.medscape.com...

Specifically "Spray formulations consist of readily available ingredients that can be obtained from agricultural supply stores, and these formulations do not clog spray nozzles. And while most of the droplets in the spray are large, in the range of 100 to 150 microns, a significant amount of small droplet aerosolization occurs."

or this?....

www.freepatentsonline.com...

Specifically "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of Endeavor

The present invention relates to the detection and treatment of chemical and biological agents, and more particularly, to a system for protecting a building or other enclosed airspace from harmful aerosol particles."

or how about this?....

en.wikipedia.org...

Specifically "Dry-type biologicals resemble talcum powder, and can be disseminated as aerosols using gas expulsion devices instead of a burster or complex sprayer"

Personal Disclosure: RE:"Next thing you say is that some one might have put something into something which these nozzles are attached too..".

How nice of you to put words in my mouth...they taste cheesy, just like the cheesy whip in the areosol can! Phew! that was a close shave!
Now where is that spraycan of paint?...I believe I was painting a picture for members so that they can see this issue very clearly!



P.S.

Originally posted by unicorn1
Where does it say about using VACCINES to do this?
Or is the title of the thread supposition, not fact?
And no I'm not an 'disinfo agent' so don't give me any of that old crock. I just check on sources.

You put it in away that a terrorist uses a t-shirt saying 'I am a terrorist' or else ther is no such thing as a terrorist.

Do you expect the documents to say ' this is documentation on how to kill people by using the findings of this research to kill people' or else it cant be used by any one as a BioWeapon ?

That is like thinking you cant kill some one with a butter knife for the simple reason you think you need to go out and buy a 'murder knife', isnt it ?

Its funny how they are giving the vaccine to Gitmo detainees with the "shortage". Makes you wonder if they are choosing where to deploy the vaccine. Im not convinced there is a shortage, I think its a ploy to get people to line up faster to get it.

He acknowledged there may be an "emotional response" from critics who argue that terror suspects should not be allocated swine-flu medications while members of the U.S. public are still waiting due to a vaccine shortage.
But he said U.S. military officials are "responsible for the health and care of the detainee population."

Linky

This whole thing stinks and makes no sense. There is conflicting information across the board from professionals in the business. That combined with there being two kinds of vaccines from Baxter and GSK.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by Digital_Reality]