All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 24, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:08:21
The Truth About Smallpox - Documentary by Katie Sugak
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good news from Geneva.
The World Health Organization has made it official.
Smallpox throughout the world has been virtually eliminated.
Smallpox is the first, and to date, the only human disease to be eradicated globally.
The eradication of smallpox is one of the most significant events in the 20th century.
For me, it would be up there with the moon landing.
Well, you should know by now that it goes into people.
Yes, people in hospitals and clinics and schools, not only in Nyasaland, but as far south as southern Rhodesia, get protection from the vaccine produced at Zumba.
And not only people who live in towns, for if they don't go to clinics, the vaccine comes to them.
Smallpox could flare up anywhere at any time, leaving death in its wake, were it not for the simple weapon that Edward Jenner placed in the hands of medical science.
Thank you.
On May 8, 1980, the World Health Organization announced the complete global elimination of the smallpox virus.
The last human case of smallpox was reported in 1977.
This is considered to be the greatest medical accomplishment achieved through vaccination.
Ever since we were children, we have been told that if it were not for the mass vaccination campaign against smallpox, people would still be suffering from this terrible disease.
But what if smallpox was never really eradicated?
And furthermore, what if our idea of smallpox is fundamentally wrong?
Today, we will examine this question in detail, and to do so, we will look at the scientific and historical facts that will help us gain a clear view of the situation.
Most people believe that throughout our history, the term "smallpox" has always meant some specific condition.
That is, it can easily be distinguished from any other disease by its unique and specific symptoms.
In fact, this is not the case.
Throughout history, the term smallpox has been used to refer to a wide variety of conditions.
The same is true for such terms as leprosy and plague.
In ancient Greece, which is the progenitor of modern western medicine, any changes in the body or in the human psyche were perceived in a very negative way.
Diseases were called defilement, which in Greek means miasma.
It was believed that the sick person was unclean, that they had angered the gods, and were possessed by a demon.
That person could not have any contact with other people because it was thought that contact with an unclean person could defile healthy people, and the punishment of the gods would extend to them as well.
It was this ancient Greek superstition that formed the basis of the modern idea of contagion.
It is important to note that in the most ancient forms of medicine, such as traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurveda, There is no concept of disease transmission because they never associated disease with punishment.
At the time, it was a Western superstition that, among other things, served as a great way to generate fear, not only for material gain, but also to achieve political ends.
In other words, it made it possible to label undesirable individuals as sick, dangerous, incurable, and contagious in order to make them disappear in quarantine, in a plague hut, or in a hospital.
Anyone who has had anything to do with the creation and design of prisons knows that most prisons originated on the basis of hospitals.
The same thing continued in the Middle Ages.
In those days, just as in ancient Greece, in society prevailed the religiously motivated idea that sickness was punishment for sin.
The popular term for this at the time was leprosy.
The symptoms of what was then called leprosy were constantly changing, to the point where a person without any symptoms could be called a leper.
The attitude towards so-called lepers always remained the same.
A leper was considered unclean and dangerous and therefore excluded from society.
They were tattooed and forced to wear special distinctive clothing and a bell around their neck to make their presence known to everyone.
As an outcast, a leper lost all their societal rights as well as the protection of the community.
The leper could no longer have any social contact.
They had to leave their family.
A funeral mass was conducted for the leper, because socially they were considered dead, even though they were still alive.
This is why the German word for leprosy, Assatz, translates as exile.
How was leprosy diagnosed at that time?
For this purpose, they used medical tribunals, which were common throughout Europe.
They are described by books containing urban chronicles from the 11th century.
It was at these tribunals that priests and city counselors decided whether a person was a leper and whether they should be expelled or placed in a leper colony.
Leprosy was not an independent or unique disease.
Leprosy, at that time, meant almost any disease, whether respiratory or skin disease.
You could be declared a leper for absolutely any reason, even for conditions like hair loss, acne, swelling, or goose bumps in response to a draft.
One of the tests for leprosy was whether you got goose bumps on your skin.
Because of things like nightmares, if you didn't please someone, that person could denounce you, saying you were screaming in your sleep because a demon called you.
You could be convicted if you laughed or sang too much.
Another notable test that was done to diagnose leprosy was the singing test.
You could also have been accused if you were suspected of witchcraft or if you had had contact with someone who had been declared a leper.
If you had any symptoms, you were doomed, but if you didn't have any, you could still have been declared a leper.
In the 13th century, the term leprosy was replaced by the term plague, which meant exactly the same thing.
Just like leprosy, plague included a variety of conditions.
The plague never had a clear symptomatology.
It varied from region to region and from year to year, depending on which symptoms were most common.
Even now, when you read about plague, you can see so many forms of plague pneumonic, bubonic, septicemic, and so on.
You'll also see that not all epidemics named in historical sources the plague were epidemics of the very disease that today is called the plague.
All of this allowed the church, which at that time had all the power in its hands, to use the plague to control the population.
For example, they could quell rebellion simply by closing entire neighborhoods and towns to quarantine, starving and killing people with the excuse that they were all sinners.
In addition, people were subjected to forced treatment with mercury compounds of all kinds.
So it is not surprising that medical historians tell us that in those days, people did everything possible to hide their symptoms, so as not to fall into the hands of the Inquisition, since sickness—the symptoms of any kind—were interpreted as the result of a lack of faith and the subsequent wrath of God.
Consequently, people were treated only by authorized persons whose secret art was reserved for them alone, so that serious or dangerous illnesses could be treated only by them, the priests and the formed cast of doctors who still perform this function today.
State power in Western countries has always taken care of the leadership and training of these elites, as is evidenced by their enormous power, especially today.
The state suppressed and still suppresses all therapists who are independent, especially those whose therapeutic approaches work.
Subsequently, the term plague was smoothly transformed into the term smallpox.
Significantly, it was called smallpox or petit vérole, lesser evil, as opposed to great pox or grosse vérole, greater evil, which meant syphilis.
The term syphilis, like leprosy, plague and smallpox, was a collective term but applied to people who were committing the greatest sin from the Church's perspective.
The Vatican, with its virginity dogma, as well as Roman Catholic theology, which teaches the immaculate conception of Mary and thus declares all other people, especially women and sexuality as such, defiled, have concretized all these ideas in the concept of syphilis.
The term syphilis is a collective concept and is a concretization of God's punishment for defiled people.
If it became known that a person had an extramarital affair and had any actual or even merely presumed disease, pregnancy outside wedlock being on the list of diseases and considered a sin of the worst kind, they were especially stigmatized.
Not only by mercury treatments that disfigured and stained their skin, but also by exclusion from society.
It was this concept that gave birth to the so-called venereal diseases, the so-called sexually transmitted diseases, which all governments are reverently guarding to this day, all the way up to modern-day AIDS.
The term smallpox was used for conditions unrelated to sexuality or extramarital relations and applied to any skin symptoms, and in some regions, this term was also used for respiratory conditions and even cancerous tumors.
In this connection, it should not surprise us that illustrations from the 13th to the 16th century did not clearly and unambiguously depict the so-called epidemic diseases.
Modern medical historians often disagree on whether the artist intended to depict leprosy, smallpox, or plague.
And in one of the earliest books on smallpox, dating from the early 16th century, one can see a depiction of the biblical character Job.
In the biblical texts, Job was a righteous man who fell ill with leprosy, so his image was often used in texts about leprosy.
Those symptoms with which we associate smallpox today are not observed here.
Gradually, as the power of the Vatican waned, after all the abuse and arbitrariness that came from the Church and the Inquisition, people ceased to have any trust for the religiously motivated explanations.
Since then, diseases began to be explained by a purely materialistic interaction, and doctors took the same position that priests used to occupy before.
As a result, the demon of disease was gradually materialized.
The same idea of the demon of disease was transformed into the idea of the toxin of disease.
People began to believe that diseases were caused by the so-called toxin of disease, which in Latin means virus.
And that a person recovered because their body produced an antidote to the toxin of disease.
This idea was supported by the fact that if a person regularly and systematically consumed poisons, such as alcohol, they could not be killed by a bigger quantity of this poison.
So people who were afraid that someone might poison them took poisons as a preventive measure, believing that they were invulnerable because their bodies were now producing an antidote to the poison.
But in fact, as it turned out later, the body does not produce an antidote.
Our liver produces enzymes to break down and neutralize these toxins.
This is why a person who has never had alcohol can die if they drink a large amount of alcoholic beverage.
Their liver is not used to producing enzymes to neutralize alcohol.
But if a person drinks alcohol systematically little by little and gradually increases the dose, they will not die if they suddenly drink even more alcohol.
This is something that people of the past did not understand.
They didn't understand that our liver simply produces enzymes to neutralize alcohol and other poisons.
They believed in the idea that their body produces an antidote.
Because of this, they practiced such things as injecting pus and secretions from sick people through incisions on healthy people to form an antidote to the disease, thus protecting themselves from the disease.
It was this misconception that gave rise to the idea of immunity to disease, the modern idea of antibodies and vaccination.
For the same reason, they practiced bloodletting.
This was supposed to drain and dilute the toxins of disease in the body.
Because of this, however, a lot of people died, like Mozart, and especially hemophiliacs, people whose blood lacks clotting agents for certain reasons.
Since it was observed that during famines and wars many people fell ill, before wars and other crises, people were treated with poisons or artificially produced so-called antidotes, such as mercury, which I have already mentioned.
This is why mercury is still used in vaccines.
The one and a half liters of salivation per day, cost by treatment with mercury was considered favorable because it was interpreted that the body was releasing the poison of the disease.
Johan Wolfgang von Goethe, in his work, Faust, describes precisely and understandably how Faust and his father, as doctors, killed thousands of people with a mercury mixture, and the survivors miraculously praised them as saviors.
Gerda in the first part of Faust.
They're a mercurial suitor, the red lion, would in a tepid bath be married to the lily, then both be driven by tormenting flames out of one bridal chamber to another.
When in the beaker the young queen at last appeared, a mass of color, that was our medicine, the patients died, and no one thought to ask if anyone was healed.
And so, with diabolical electuaries, we ravaged in these hills and valleys with greater fury than the plague.
I have myself dosed thousands with the poison.
They waste it away, and I must live to hear the brazen murderers adulated.
The point is that the materialization of the demon of disease into the concept of the toxin of disease, which in Latin means virus, gave rise to the idea of variolation, since it was thought that introducing the secretions of sick people to healthy people would cause the body to form an antidote to smallpox.
Subsequently, the concept of the poison of disease was transformed into the modern idea of viruses and pathogenic bacteria, and variolation was replaced by vaccination.
It was this that led doctors to the need to divide the nonspecific term smallpox, which was a single term for conditions accompanied by rashes, into many different small labels.
Because this was the only way to show the effectiveness of variolation and vaccination against smallpox.
Therefore, when people who had undergone variolation and subsequently vaccination developed symptoms that would previously have been called smallpox, instead of recognizing the ineffectiveness of vaccination, doctors began looking for minute difference in symptoms on the basis of which they created new diagnoses.
The truth is that so-called smallpox has never been eradicated.
The only thing that has happened is that the symptoms previously associated with smallpox have simply been relabeled and reclassified under new labels.
The creation of many new labels is the only method of manipulation used to this day, with the help of which the medical establishment demonstrates to us its success in eliminating the so-called epidemics.
In addition, it is a mega-lucrative business model, because for each individual label they can create separate drugs, therapies, and vaccines.
Only through this reclassification, the so-called smallpox was eradicated.
What today we call chicken pox, monkey pox, tana pox, scarlet fever, measles, rubella, herpes zoster, erythema multiforme, molluscum contagiosum, impetigo, dermatitis, and so on, are the labels that were created to separate the previously unified term smallpox four conditions accompanied by rashes.
All of these labels are simply different stages of the same detoxification process in which the skin is involved.
As a consequence, there has been incredible confusion because it has been very difficult, if not impossible, for doctors to differentiate smallpox from its newly created subspecies.
We will now look at three examples of labels into which the term smallpox was divided, measles, chickenpox, and monkeypox.
And I want to emphasize that we will not discuss the laboratory methods of diagnosis now, because at the time of the creation of these labels, physicians relied only on diagnosis based on symptoms.
We will discuss laboratory diagnosis afterwards.
The first person who had the idea to create a differential diagnosis for measles and smallpox, that is, to separate measles and smallpox as two different conditions, was a Persian physician named Rhazes in the 9th century.
His treatise on smallpox and measles is considered a masterpiece of clinical medicine and, according to some writers, describes the clinical difference between the two diseases so vividly that nothing has been added.
Let's see how he thinks measles is different from smallpox.
The eruption of the smallpox is preceded by a continued fever, pain in the back, itching in the nose and terrors in the sleep.
These are the more peculiar symptoms of its approach, especially a pain in the back with fever, then also a pricking which the patient feels all over his body.
A fullness of the face, which at times comes and goes, an inflamed color, and vehement redness in both cheeks, a redness of both the eyes, heaviness of the whole body, great uneasiness, the symptoms of which are stretching and yawning, A pain in the throat and chest, with slight difficulty in breathing and cough.
A dryness of the breath, thick spittle and hoarseness of the voice, pain and heaviness of the head, inquietude, nausea, and anxiety.
With this difference that the inquietude, nausea, and anxiety are more frequent in the measles than in the smallpox.
while on the other hand, the pain in the back is more peculiar to the smallpox than to the measles, heat of the whole body, an inflamed colon, and shining redness, especially an intense redness of the gums.
When, therefore, you see these symptoms, or some of the worst of them, such as pain of the back and the terrors of sleep, with the continued fever, then you may be assured that the eruption of one or the other of these diseases in the patient is nigh at hand.
Except that there is not in the measles so much pain of the back as in smallpox, nor in the smallpox so much anxiety and nausea as in measles, unless the smallpox be of a bad sort.
As we can see, according to Reizes, the most important differences between measles and smallpox are the possible differences in the severity of back pain, nausea, and restlessness.
Based on his treatise on measles and smallpox, apart from these minor differences in the severity of certain symptoms, both smallpox and measles share common symptoms of the disease.
A Persian physician named Ibn Sina lived a century later than Reyes's, and experts agreed that in his book entitled The Canon of Medicine, he largely copied Reyes's treatise on smallpox and measles, and also separated measles and smallpox as separate diseases, in no way referring to Reyes's or acknowledging his work.
He wrote, The physical signs of measles are almost the same as those of smallpox, but nausea and inflammation are more severe, although the back pain is less.
Another Persian physician named Masoudi died in 994, about 70 years after Reyes's.
In the 14th chapter of the first volume of his book treatise on the art of medicine, he talked about smallpox, but he considered smallpox and measles the same disease.
Another physician named Ibn Zirr lived in Al-Andalus and died there in 1162.
His book on medicine was translated into Hebrew and then Latin and was published many times under the title Facilito Adjumentum.
In the second volume of this book, Ibn Zirr devoted a chapter to smallpox and measles, considering them the same disease.
As we can see, there was no consensus among Persian physicians as to whether measles and smallpox were completely different diseases or simply different expressions of the same process.
Difficulties in the differential diagnosis of measles and smallpox continued until smallpox was declared eradicated.
In the article Smallpox and Measles, Historical Aspects and Clinical Differentiation, published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases Clinics of North America, we can read the following.
Because smallpox was not differentiated readily from other febrile exanthems, for example measles, the contagious potential of smallpox probably was not appreciated in antiquity.
In the ancient world, measles and smallpox existed together.
Measles, also known as morbilli, is the diminutive Italian term derived from morbillo.
The term morbilli was used to differentiate the small plague of measles from the great plague, referred to as Ion Lorbo.
For centuries, scarlet fever, rubella, measles, and smallpox were undifferentiated, that is, considered to be the same, febrile diseases with rashes.
The terminology of measles is confusing, as is the clinical differentiation between measles and chickenpox.
Sir William Mossler, the famous Canadian clinician, in the late 19th century described the difficulty doctors had trying to distinguish between measles and smallpox.
I found in the ward one morning a young man who had been sent in on the previous evening with a diagnosis of smallpox.
He had a fading macular rash with distinct small papules, which had not, however, the shoddy hardness of variola.
In the evening this rash was less marked, and as I felt sure that a mistake had been made, he was disinfected and sent home.
In another instance a child believed to have smallpox was admitted, but it proved to have simply measles.
In a third case, which I saw at the city hospital, the model popular rash was mistaken for smallpox and the young man sent to the hospital.
I saw him the day after admission, when there was no question that the disease was measles and not variolea.
Less fortunate than the other cases, he took smallpox in a very severe form.
The general condition of the patient and the nature of the prodromal symptoms are often better guides than the character of the rash.
In a 1988 who document entitled Smallpox and its Eradication, we read, Historically, measles did not present a problem in countries with endemic smallpox, that is, in countries where smallpox was common, but in non-endemic countries, where smallpox was rare.
An early case of smallpox was sometimes diagnosed as measles, with possibly serious consequences in terms of secondary cases.
On the other hand, in countries in which smallpox was endemic, physicians were often prone to diagnose all outbreaks of rash associated with deaths as smallpox and to report them as such to the health authorities.
Some of these outbreaks later proved to be due to measles.
So, we can clearly see that on the basis of symptoms alone, which were nonspecific and overlapping, doctors had great difficulty in diagnosing measles and smallpox.
Now let's see how easy it was for doctors to tell the difference between smallpox and chickenpox.
In a 1979 publication entitled Smallpox and the Evolution of Ideas on Acute Viral Infections, published in the Journal of Medical History, we can read, In trying to assess the influence wielded by smallpox on social and political history, or just to determine the chronology of the disease, one is hampered by the inability to identify the disease with any degree of certainty from extant descriptions before A.D.
900 and sometimes much later.
The virus of smallpox is known to vary in virulence, that is, to produce symptoms of varying severity.
And inaccurate or inadequate descriptions of the clinical picture offer rich opportunities for confusion with a number of other fevers accompanied by rashes and pustules.
Here they say that throughout history the term smallpox has been used without describing a clear clinical picture, making it difficult to know which set of symptoms should be called smallpox.
The quote continues, Dixon has provided a sober account of the known early history of the disease and of the difficulties inherent in attempts to identify it in retrospect.
He points out that the abundant lesions on the face and body of the mummified Ramesses V, who died about 1100 BC of an acute infectious disease, are very similar to those of malignant smallpox.
It is therefore curious that there is no mention of smallpox in Hippocrates' otherwise copious volumes of clinical descriptions, nor elsewhere in the Greek and Roman medical literature according to Dixon, although some other authors have attempted to identify destructive epidemics which contributed to the decline of the Roman Empire in the 3rd and 4th centuries as outbreaks of smallpox.
Nor does contemporary terminology in any way clarify the issue.
Even when the term variola, from the Latin smallpox, first appeared, it was not accompanied by a clinical description, and we have no way of knowing whether or not it referred to smallpox.
For several hundred years after the introduction of the terms variola and morbilli, from Italian measles, The diseases they refer to can in no certain way be distinguished as smallpox and measles, respectively, on the basis of the inadequate clinical descriptions.
In the case of smallpox, the confusion with chickenpox further clouds retrospective epidemiological considerations.
This source goes on to say that the first person who decided to classify smallpox and chickenpox as separate entities was an English physician, William Heberden, in 1767.
Before him, no one even had such an idea.
The term chickenpox, or varicella in Latin, has been around for a long time, it comes from the Latin virila, which as we know means smallpox and was applied to smallpox with a mild course.
William Heberden's idea of separating smallpox and chickenpox as two different entities was not accepted until over a century later in the early 1900s.
And even then many physicians and researchers disagreed with it.
In their opinion, it was much more logical to view smallpox and chickenpox as different expressions of the same disease.
As Heberden pointed out, he chose to do this in order to prevent the public from confusing chickenpox with regular smallpox and assuming that they were now immune to smallpox and therefore did not need the smallpox vaccine.
So, let's see if Heberden has provided an actual proof of two different diseases caused by two different viruses.
Keep in mind that in those days viruses could not be seen and their existence as well as their role in disease were based on conjecture rather than on concrete evidence, just as today.
William Heberden published his report on the clinical differences between smallpox and chickenpox in 1767, and after reading it, the following points can be distinguished.
One, he wrote that chickenpox can occur without any preceding disease or signs, but in many cases, as in smallpox, it is preceded by symptoms such as chills, fatigue, cough, insomnia, migratory pains, loss of appetite, and fever for three days.
2.
Most pustules in chickenpox are the same size as those in smallpox, but sometimes smaller.
3.
At maturity, a yellowish fluid appears, which is very similar to smallpox.
4.
Heberden tried to distinguish chickenpox from smallpox by claiming that the rash does not leave scars, but he concedes that if it is scratched too much or the rash is more pronounced, an ulcer will form on the skin, as in the case of smallpox.
5.
Heberden argued that chickenpox differs from smallpox in two main ways.
1.
The appearance, on the second or third day after eruption, of a vesicle filled with serum on top of the pustule.
2.
A crest covering the pustule on the fifth day.
At this time, in smallpox, the pustules are not in the midst of festering and there is no crest.
In other words, the difference in the time of maturation and appearance of the crest on the pustules was his main difference.
6.
Heberden claims that foreign medical writers almost never mention the term chickenpox, and writers in his country hardly mention anything about it except its name.
7.
Heberden stated that because of the great similarity between the two diseases, it was likely that some people had been inoculated against chickenpox instead of smallpox, and that the disease had been mistaken for smallpox by hasty or inexperienced observers.
Eight, he claimed that many foreigners did not seem to pay attention to the specific characteristics of smallpox, especially the length of time it takes for it to fully mature.
So he felt that their view of the unity of the two diseases might be called into question.
Nine, Heberden stated that there is a more aggressive form of chickenpox, which he believes is mistaken for smallpox.
After examining his report, it is not entirely clear why Heberden believed that these were two separate diseases.
He provided no evidence of an actual difference in symptoms, only some slight variations.
The best evidence Heberden could provide were his statements about the difference in appearance of the pustules on Day 2 and 3 after appearance on the skin and whether the crust on the pustule appeared by Day 5.
He admitted that the pustules were of the same size as in smallpox and contained a yellow fluid that also resembled smallpox.
He tried to state that chickenpox pustules would not become scars as in smallpox, but then acknowledged that they might if the pustules were regularly scratched or if they were severe enough.
He spoke of many experts in his field who claimed that chickenpox and smallpox were the same condition.
He also believed that because of the great similarity, many cases of chickenpox were mistaken for smallpox.
Not only did Heberden fail to meet the burden of proof, he made the best argument that chickenpox and smallpox are the same and not differing diseases.
Perhaps his inconclusive proof is the very reason why many have been unwilling to distinguish between these nearly identical disease symptoms for more than a century after he labeled them.
When his ideas were finally accepted in the early 1900s, medical journals devoted whole chapters to how difficult it was to distinguish chickenpox from smallpox.
Doctors had to look out for minute differences in the distribution of the rash, the rate at which the pustules matured, how deep they were in the skin, how the patient felt, and so on.
This went against the instincts of many physicians, who clearly saw that these are the same condition.
And that the rate of maturation of the pustules and the duration of the fever could not be considered as factors on the basis of which a completely different diagnosis could be made.
And even those physicians who did not particularly practice critical thinking and believed that these were two completely different conditions, often wrote about their difficulties in diagnosis.
For example, in this 1923 letter published in the British Medical Journal, a doctor writes how difficult it was to distinguish smallpox from chickenpox while he was working in Sudan.
Sir, in the British Medical Journal of December 1st, 1923, there was a leading article on elastrim and mild smallpox, and in the last paragraph you asked for someone to compare epidemics in other countries with the mild form of smallpox recently met with in England.
I regret I cannot do this, but in 1922, I was in charge of a very curious and somewhat extensive outbreak of smallpox, an account of which I included in my annual report for the year ending September 30, 1922.
I have no doubt in my mind that I have seen an epidemic which has passed through these three stages, indistinguishable from chickenpox, and that often of a mild type, elastrim, and finally typical smallpox.
In the past it has been upheld that chickenpox and smallpox were but different forms of the same disease, but I think every medical man of the present day, if he takes into consideration the scientific investigation of the last 50 years, will consider this as a mistaken view, and that the two diseases are separate entities, but, personally having been through this epidemic, I can fully realize how this view was upheld in the days gone by.
I am now convinced smallpox can appear in such a form that any doctor would diagnose it as chickenpox, basing his diagnosis on distribution, the appearance in crops, the presence of all stages of the eruption at one and the same time, and the absence of severe constitutional or pyretic symptoms in patients unprotected by previous vaccination.
That chickenpox and smallpox were running concurrently was most carefully considered and ruled out of court.
Further, the mild chickenpox types and previously unvaccinated persons, though treated with annexed to undoubted smallpox cases, failed to take smallpox, and further failed to take vaccination from potent lymph.
In another letter published in this journal, one physician responds to another.
Sir, the importance and value of the diagnostic signs in varicella cannot be overestimated at any time, and never so much as now, when chickenpox and smallpox coexist.
Many so-called distinguishing characteristics are quoted in textbooks, but all of them may fail and leave one in perplexity.
Others are more reliable, such as the absence of lumbar pain, the presence of one or more elliptical or oval vesicles, the continued fever after the appearance of the eruption, the fact that vesicles collapse on being punctured in one place only, showing them to be unilocular.
After reading this letter alone, one wonders why.
If chickenpox and smallpox are such different conditions, we need to look out for such minor differences, such as how exactly the vesicles collapse when punctured.
In this 1923 article entitled Diagnosis of Smallpox and Chickenpox, a contrast, published in the British Medical Journal, we see pictures of three children.
Since we are told that smallpox has been eradicated through mass vaccination, today each of these three children would be diagnosed as a normal case of chickenpox.
Since 1980, no doctor in the world considers smallpox in the differential diagnosis.
But in 1923, two out of three children were diagnosed as cases of smallpox.
This source tells the story of the Canadian diagnostician William Osler, whom I have already mentioned.
Several prominent physicians at Johns Hopkins University diagnosed one man as a severe case of chickenpox.
Intrigued, William Osler gathered 30 or 40 students and doctors and went to have a look.
When they showed him the patient, a frightened Dr. Osler exclaimed, My God!
Futcher, don't you know smallpox when you see it?
As you can see, even the most experienced and eminent physicians could not agree with each other.
In the 1988 WHO document I have already mentioned, entitled Smallpox and its Eradication, in the chapter on chickenpox we can read, This disease of worldwide occurrence was the single most important infection to be considered in the differential diagnosis and was particularly important in three circumstances.
In countries in which varroa minor was endemic, in vaccinated individuals, and in situations in which chickenpox occurred rather frequently in adults, often as a severe disease.
As in several parts of India.
For example, in post-eradication searches in India in 1976, 63% of the suspected smallpox cases were in fact cases of chickenpox.
Difficulties arose with severe chickenpox in adults, a disease found especially in some parts of India.
Indeed, some severe cases of chickenpox in adults were associated with such an extensive rash, including lesions on the palms and soles, that it was impossible to be certain at any stage of the disease as to whether it was chickenpox or smallpox.
During the eradication program, all such cases were regarded as smallpox and appropriate control measures were undertaken.
As we can see, until 1767, when William Heberden created the first differential diagnosis of chickenpox and smallpox, all cases of chickenpox were classified as cases of smallpox.
It was not until the early 1900s that doctors began to actively separate what they thought to be chickenpox from smallpox.
And after the eradication of smallpox in 1980, those cases that would previously have been called smallpox began to be called chickenpox and other terms as well.
I think it now becomes more clear to you how smallpox was actually eradicated.
Chickenpox or varicella is nothing more than a convenient label that was created in 1767 and finally adopted only 100 years ago in order to attribute to it what would formerly have been called smallpox and thus mislead the population about the success of the smallpox vaccination.
Now, let's take a look at the monkeypox that has been so much talked about lately and decide whether it is an independent disease or just another label to mask the symptoms that used to be called smallpox.
The answer to this question becomes clear once you look at the history of the discovery of monkeypox.
The World Health Organization announced its campaign to eradicate smallpox through mass vaccination in 1958.
And by a strange or not-so-strange-anymore coincidence, that same year a new disease was discovered, monkeypox.
In 1970, the monkey pox virus decided to jump to humans, which happened in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where smallpox had been considered eradicated for two years thanks to vaccination.
The 1988 WHO document, Smallpox and its Eradication, states that monkeypox in humans usually presents as smallpox and that the obvious clinical sign that distinguishes monkeypox from smallpox is the enlargement of the lymph nodes seen in most cases of monkeypox, sometimes only in the neck or groin area, but more often generalized.
In other words, the WHO states that the main difference between monkeypox and smallpox is that monkeypox causes enlarged lymph nodes, while smallpox does not.
That is, according to the WHO, monkeypox has no specific symptoms that distinguish it from smallpox, other than enlarged lymph nodes.
However, the following publications refute this claim.
The first publication from November 2020 states that lymph nodes are not always enlarged in monkeypox.
Quote, human monkeypox resemble smallpox, with a rash and constitutional signs, but the symptoms are generally milder and, unlike smallpox, the lymph nodes are usually, though not always, enlarged.
And this 2018 publication says that swollen lymph nodes are not usually seen in smallpox.
That is, cases where lymph nodes enlarged during what used to be called smallpox have nevertheless been observed.
In humans, the signs and symptoms of monkeypox are similar to those of smallpox, but they are usually milder.
Monkeypox causes fever, headache, backache, swollen lymph nodes, not usually seen in smallpox, sore throat, and cough.
And this 2012 publication says that lymphadenopathy has not been well described for smallpox because little attention has been paid to this symptom in the examination.
And that hypertrophy, enlargement and hyperemia, excess blood, of the lymph nodes were observed in smallpox.
It also says here that cases of monkeypox were most likely diagnosed as smallpox, and that monkeypox was not even recognized as a separate disease until 1970.
That is, it was the same disease until then.
Regarding lymphadenopathy and chickenpox, a publication entitled, The Clinic of Chickenpox in Adults and Children, compares the incidence and clinical course of chickenpox in hospitalized patients.
202 children and 55 adults.
Quote, lymphadenopathy in children was generalized, but was detected less frequently than in patients older than 18 years.
That is, lymphadenopathy is also seen in chickenpox.
So we understand that the term smallpox, like leprosy and plague, was used to refer to absolutely all diseases, including respiratory diseases and cancerous tumors.
Then, the use of this term was narrowed to refer to all conditions accompanied by rashes.
After the introduction of variolation against smallpox in Europe, this term was further fragmented into multiple separate labels.
We have discussed some of them, such as measles, chickenpox, and monkeypox, but in reality, there are many more.
The first chapter of the 1988 WHO publication, Smallpox and Its Eradication, contains a long list of labels with which smallpox was confused at the time of diagnosis and recognizes that smallpox cannot be diagnosed based on symptoms alone because there are other labels too, which these same symptoms can be attributed.
After the WHO began mass vaccinating our global population against smallpox in 1958, when vaccinated people subsequently developed symptoms that would previously have been called smallpox, doctors would simply diagnose them differently.
That's how smallpox was actually eradicated, just by playing with terminology.
The same play with terminology was used to create the illusion that polio vaccines were effective.
The symptoms of polio were originally thought to be quite extensive.
But on May 12, 1955, in the United States, with the introduction of polio vaccination, these symptoms were grouped under other labels, such as meningitis and encephalitis.
And doctors received new guidelines for diagnosing polio, which stated that polio was only paralysis, and only if present for more than 60 days.
Thus, polio cases in the U.S.
dropped from 50,000 to 60,000 a year to just several hundred cases.
So-called epidemics are brought to an end by splitting up one collective term into many different labels.
And they are started by the opposite method, that is, by combining these labels into one single collective term.
The COVID-19 pandemic was created by reclassifying all the respiratory symptoms that used to be grouped under separate labels under one single collective term, COVID-19.
In the case of the current monkeypox story, the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control recently stated that, The nature of monkeypox rashes in recent cases has differed from what doctors have observed in the past in Africa, where the virus is endemic in 11 countries.
In some of the new cases, monkeypox has caused people to develop what looks like a pimple or blister rather than a widespread rash, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in a briefing.
In other cases, tiny bumps on the skin are the first or only indication of an infection.
If you notice any new rash or skin condition that you're just not sure about anywhere on your body, including in your mouth, go get it checked out.
Demetra Daskalakis, Director of the CDC's Division of HIV-AIDS Prevention, said during a Thursday media call, This is not the time to hold back, even if you don't think it's that serious.
We have seen presentations of monkeypox that are mild and sometimes only in limited areas of the body, which differs from the classic presentations seen in endemic countries in West and Central Africa, Walensky said.
This has prompted concern that some cases may go unrecognized or undiagnosed.
For all of these reasons I have decided that the global monkeypox outbreak represents a public health emergency of international concern.
As you can see, in their own words, almost any rash on the skin and even in the mouth can now be a symptom of monkeypox.
They are taking us back to the old definition of smallpox, so any single pimple on your face or body can be called monkeypox, not to mention more extensive rashes.
If there is a positive PCR test for the monkeypox virus, and we know that the PCR test cannot prove the presence of the virus because the monkeypox and smallpox viruses, just like all the other viruses, have never been isolated, which means they were never found.
Their existence has not been scientifically proven.
I have many videos that explain in detail the subject of the lack of isolation of viruses, which you can find in the description to this video.
Today, just as in the 18th century, the idea that viruses exist remains at the level of hypothesis.
As I said earlier, the term virus originally referred to a poison or toxin that causes disease.
In fact, this term was used to refer to any, actual or potential disease-causing substance or agent.
In the 1887 book Ferreira and Bactinia, a study of their life and history, Dr. John Buist describes attempts to see with a microscope the Bactinia virus, while assuming it to be a bacterium.
The modern idea that a virus is a tiny particle measured in nanometers with nucleic acid inside did not appear until 1954.
But it wasn't scientifically proven because no one was ever able to find such particles in humans, animals, or plants.
The current field of virology is based only on assumptions and claims without any evidence, since virologists have never been able to find viruses that they say cause disease.
If the virus existed, it would be very easy to isolate it directly, that is, to extract it from blood, lung fluid, saliva, or any other sample of a sick patient.
Instead, virologists conduct pointless experiments with tissue cultures in a test tube or chicken embryos, which are not directly, but indirectly, supposed to show us that a particular virus is present in a sick person.
Make sure to watch my short and very detailed video, The Final Refutal of Virology, on how virologists conduct their experiments with tissue cultures in the laboratory and how these experiments have been completely disproved by control experiments.
You will find a link to this video in the description.
As for experiments with chicken embryos, they were used before virologists had access to laboratory cell lines.
This is a publication from 1947 called The Isolation and Cultivation of the Ariola Virus on the Coriolantellus of Chick Embryos.
The title of this publication states that the authors isolated, which means they extracted the virus, obtained a pure sample of the virus in the form of purified viral particles from a sick patient.
And that they grew or multiplied this virus on the chorioallantoic membrane of the chicken embryo.
However, a close reading of this publication reveals that they did not even attempt to isolate the virus.
Instead, they took a sample from sick people, mixed that sample with beef broth and antibiotics, then they drilled a hole in the eggshell with a live embryo inside.
Injected all that mixture into the chorioallantoic membrane, then sealed the hole with wax and paraffin, and after 72 hours opened the egg to remove the chorioallantoic membrane of the embryo, which they then fixed with mercury and other heavy metals for histological examination of the paraffin sections.
When they saw that the chorioallantoic membrane of the embryo showed these white dot lesions, they concluded that this proved the presence of smallpox virus in the sample.
They did not even attempt to isolate anything, that is, to obtain the sample of the virus.
The only thing they've done is try to show indirect signs of the presence of the virus.
But this unethical experiment does not prove the presence of the virus, because these dots on the membrane could have appeared for many reasons.
They could have appeared because of toxic antibiotics, toxic heavy metals, and because the embryo was opened up and some foreign material was injected.
Since the authors don't do any controls, for example, they don't do the exact same experiment using material from a healthy person or saline to demonstrate whether the choroalentoic membrane will show any difference when using a sample that definitely cannot have the virus, these experiments are completely anti-scientific.
The demonstration of the existence and pathogenicity of the virus is carried out by direct extraction of the virus from a sample of a sick patient.
What virologists do is nothing more than strange egg divination, which they present to us as a scientific fact.
This is a publication from 1993, which states that a group of Russian scientists were the first to sequence the genome of the smallpox virus.
They say that Ferreira Major Virus India 1967 was isolated by specialists of the WHO Collaborating Center on Smallpox and Related Infections in Moscow by titration of the material from a patient from India on chorioallantoic membranes of chicken embryos in 1967.
In this meager description, they simply make the claim that they isolated something by the method we discussed earlier, which is not an isolation.
They do not provide us with any evidence of the real isolation of viral particles.
Further in the section on how they got the smallpox virus genome, they write that, variola virus was propagated on chicken embryo CAM.
The virions were purified by differential centrifugation and viral DNA was isolated by phenol chloroform extraction.
Again, a scant description and no demonstration of what they actually found.
They provided no actual evidence of purified virions.
They simply suggest to take their word for it, let alone any control experiments, which are necessary to understand where the genetic sequences they called viral came from.
Apart from the field of virology, this behavior does not exist anywhere else in biology.
It does not even come close to reflecting the true meaning and understanding of the isolation and sequencing processes.
To create a diagnostic test, reference samples or standards are needed to calibrate the tests and equipment.
Reference standards can only be obtained from isolated and carefully characterized pure viral particles.
If no pure virus has ever been isolated, there are no reference standards or calibrators for the tests.
Hence, all reported tests and experiments related to them become scientifically invalid.
Any tests on orthopoxviruses and any other viruses prove nothing and are pure fraud.
In 2001, under the pretext of a possible terrorist attack using the smallpox virus as a biological weapon, European countries and the United States began purchasing millions of doses of smallpox vaccines to quickly and forcibly vaccinate the population.
In 2001, Dr. Stefan Lonka made a request to the World Health Organization.
He asked the organization for pictures of the smallpox virus taken on a sample of a sick patient.
In its response, WHO referred to two publications.
In these publications, we see images of some kind of white dots.
The authors claim that these are virions of the smallpox virus, but they have not done any biochemical analysis to show that they really are a virus.
Therefore, it is absolutely unclear what they actually photographed.
This is how low the level of evidence contained in the publications to which the WHO referred in its response was.
Since the WHO did not provide Dr. Lonko with any evidence of the virus, on January 1, 2003, he announced 10,000 euros as a reward to anyone who provides the scientific proof that smallpox and vaccinia viruses exist.
The vaccinia virus is the virus we are told is contained in the smallpox vaccine and makes it effective in keeping us from getting smallpox.
Required proof of the existence of the smallpox virus and or proof of the existence of the vaccinia virus.
Remuneration 10,000 euros for scientific proof of the existence of one of these viruses at the current level of science and technology.
The first one to submit to me, Dr. Stefan Lanca, a scientific publication describing the isolation of the smallpox virus and Ravaccinia virus, purified of all foreign components.
The biochemical characterization of the nucleus and the virus shell as well as a photograph of the isolated viruses taken as part of this procedure for documentation purposes, and which are scientifically verified and understood, will receive 10,000 Euros.
As you can see, in order to get this reward, it was enough to submit a scientific publication with evidence for the existence of one of these viruses.
Namely, isolation and purification of viral particles, biochemical analysis, and a reliable photograph.
Of course, there must be thousands, if not even hundreds of thousands of such publications, especially considering that in 2003, the vaccinia virus was one of the most studied viruses in the world.
Therefore, in order to receive the reward, a virological laboratory worker or any other person needed to spend only five minutes to pick up the publication and fax it to Stefan.
But as you might expect, not a single person volunteered to do so.
And by the way, if you have not yet heard about the 1.5 million euros reward for providing the scientific evidence of the existence of the COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 virus, you will be interested to know that in more than two years not a single person has shown up to claim these rewards, because no one has any evidence that these viruses exist.
So, if the smallpox virus doesn't exist, then what causes the skin rashes that we associate with smallpox today?
We have already discussed at length that the symptoms that used to be called smallpox have not really gone anywhere, but have simply been relabeled under other names.
Let's take another look at a few examples, but first, let's put aside the blatantly fake images created to scare people.
This is the most popular image used to illustrate the supposedly eradicated smallpox.
Yes, it looks very scary, but if you look closely at this picture, you will immediately see the inconsistency.
We are told that this child is covered from head to toe with huge pustules, so there isn't even a blank spot on her body.
If you've ever had a pustule or a pus-filled boil on your skin, you know how painful they are.
What is pictured here should be not much different from a chemical burn in terms of painfulness.
A child in this condition, suffering what we are told is a disease with a 30% mortality rate, would be in agony and exhaustion, losing weight rapidly, and would be impossible to pick up in arms, as the pain from touching the pustules would be very severe.
In contrast, the girl's face in this picture looks calm and does not express any suffering from pain.
She has normal weight, and her mother has no problem holding her in her arms, despite the skin lesions.
Obviously, this picture does not look believable.
In all likelihood, it is theatrical makeup.
So let's look at more realistic pictures of what used to be called smallpox.
Today, we are usually shown these types of skin rashes as illustrations of supposedly eradicated smallpox.
The first type is the most common type of smallpox, called elastrim, which is absolutely indistinguishable from classic chickenpox.
The second type we are shown is the so-called ordinary type smallpox.
You can see that the pustules on this patient are larger than in a patient with elastom smallpox.
Today, this condition would be classified as a more severe case of chickenpox or monkeypox.
And the third type is what is called a flat-type smallpox.
In flat-type smallpox, pustules do not develop and remain flat.
Instead, the upper part of the epidermis flakes off like during a skin burn.
Today, this condition has nothing to do with so-called viruses and is classified as toxic epidermal acrolysis.
It is caused by toxic pharmaceuticals and other toxic substances.
Just like smallpox, toxic epidermal acrolysis begins with fever and flu-like symptoms, and the mortality rate is usually as high as 30 to 70 percent.
Thus, if we understand that the smallpox virus does not exist, it becomes obvious that flat-type smallpox is nothing more than a consequence of severe intoxication, that is, poisoning.
In this connection, we cease to wonder why in the pictures depicting flat-type smallpox we see such symptoms mainly in people from former colonial countries, such as India, Pakistan and African countries.
Poverty, chronic malnutrition, exhaustion, psychological stress, water and food contamination, toxic drugs, the medical experiments to which they have been subjected, and other toxicological factors which are often present in these countries can lead to such consequences in large groups of people.
And the legend of the virus and contagion is used as a cover for all these crimes and negligence.
The same applies to the first two types of rashes, now called chickenpox and monkeypox.
Chickenpox and monkeypox viruses have never been isolated, neither has the smallpox virus.
In fact, they don't exist.
This is why you can never eradicate smallpox, but only mask the same symptoms under a new label.
Skin rashes are never the result of exposure to a mythical virus.
They are the consequence of a detoxification mechanism that involves the skin.
What happens is that waste products are thrown into our interstitial fluid, which enter the blood plasma due to hydrostatic pressure.
This happens due to the accumulation of nutritional and metabolic acidic wastes, as well as various toxic substances.
If these wastes and toxins have not been properly eliminated by our lymphatic system and the four main channels of excretion, urination, defecation, sweating, and breathing, our body removes these wastes through the skin tissue.
This begins a process in which the skin fibers become tangled and bulging, creating congestion and swelling in the glands and lymph vessels, and then the waste begins to be expelled through the skin.
The nature of the rash depends on what the body is trying to get out.
For example, if you open a medical reference book on toxicology and look at the skin symptoms that occur with intoxication caused by various substances, it will become obvious to you how much our skin is involved in the detoxification process of these substances and you can see the different nature of the rashes when exposed to different toxins.
The tendency for children to exhibit skin rashes comes from the fact that the bone growth process is a rather complex mechanism that naturally produces a lot of metabolic waste in children.
In addition to this, during bone growth, skin tissue does not keep up with bone tissue, so it is quite typical for children to have low levels of collagen in their skin.
Because of this, it is easier and preferable for the body to eliminate these wastes through the skin, and as a consequence, We will see a strong tendency for children to exhibit skin rashes as they grow up.
If, in addition to metabolic waste, the child's body has to deal with waste products and toxins from an improper diet lifestyle, such as not spending enough time in sunlight and producing little vitamin D, a bad ecological environment, or psychological stress, and if the rest of the child's excretory organs are weakened, these symptoms will be more severe.
The fact that these symptoms often occur in some children in the same family or group at the same time is because these particular children not only share the same growth process, but also many other physical and psychosomatic factors that give toxic strain to the body, and since humans are social creatures, they tend to go through such and since humans are social creatures, they tend to go through such processes
But those children who don't have to deal with such a toxic load and emotional stress, who spend a lot of time outdoors, eat differently, and so on, will be able to cope with the removal of waste from the body without any noticeable symptoms.
So no matter how much contact they have with children with chickenpox, they will not get it.
If we look back to the 1700s, when skin rashes were very common in Europe, which motivated Edward Jenner to create a smallpox vaccine, which of course was absolutely useless.
We see that people in that time faced not only grueling wars, but also natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions which delayed sunlight for months at a time.
All this led to mass starvation and deficiencies of vitamin D, iron, and potassium, which are essential for optimal skin function.
Combined with increased intoxication and psychological stress, it is not surprising that, at the time, the manifestation of severe skin symptoms, especially in children, was quite common.
The medical establishment sells us the unscientific and never proven idea of the immune system that constantly fights the invisible terrorists that want to attack us in the form of bacteria, fungi, and viruses.
We don't have an immune system.
We have a cleansing and regenerative system.
Our body is in a constant process of cleansing and repairing our tissues.
This is one of the main biological programs we have, and bacteria and fungi are directly involved in this process, helping us to cleanse and repair our tissues.
Public health will only improve as the quality of life improves.
Your health is directly related to your quality of life.
The fact that we continue to believe in the existence of viruses and in contagion does not allow us to look at the situation adequately and analyze why we actually exhibit certain symptoms.
We don't know how to recognize the factors, both physical and psychological, that affect us negatively so we can't eliminate them.
We spend billions of dollars on mass vaccination programs only to have those same symptoms then relabeled under a different label because the real cause of those symptoms has never been eliminated.
To understand what caused any symptoms, whether it is just one person or a large group of people, we have to analyze what toxicological and psychosomatic factors were affecting people before the symptoms began.
The more time you spend in daylight, the cleaner your diet is, the more fruits and vegetables you eat, and the fewer medications you take, the less your expiratory organs will be overloaded.
If you follow circadian rhythms, eat correctly, and lead as healthy a lifestyle as possible, you will notice that you get sick much less often.
And you don't get sick when other people around you get sick.
It is important to pay close attention to your emotional state.
I highly recommend to have a look to the new German medicine materials if you want to learn to recognize the psychosomatic factors that affect your health.
So, let's summarize.
We realized that the term smallpox, like leprosy and plague, had been used in the past to refer to absolutely all diseases, including respiratory diseases and cancerous tumors.
Then, the use of the term was narrowed and it was used to refer to all conditions accompanied by rashes.
The introduction of the variolation procedure against smallpox in Europe caused an even greater fragmentation of this term into multiple separate labels.
We have discussed a few of them such as measles, chickenpox, and monkeypox, but in fact there are many more.
We discussed exactly how the so-called epidemics are created by introducing one big collective term and how they are brought to an end not through vaccination, but by splitting up this collective term into many different labels and changing diagnostic criteria.
We also talked about the lack of evidence of the existence of the smallpox virus.
Due to the absence of the virus, any claim that smallpox is transmitted from person to person has no basis in fact.
The same goes for smallpox virus tests and claims about the benefits of vaccination.
Finally, we talked about the pictures that are used today to promote smallpox vaccination and what really causes these skin lesions.
Any additional material that might be helpful to you can be found in the description to this video.
▲
Export Selection