Is your pastor getting paid not to bad-mouth vaccines?

Is your pastor getting paid not to bad-mouth vaccines?

Now, before you start thinking I’m abandoning my whole belief system and going pro-immunization, I’ve got to clear the air. The following report should do the trick:

“The government is saying that the body’s own immune defenses cannot resist disease-the child or adult must receive his shots in order to gain protection,” I read recently.

This is true–if the population at risk has no natural immunity to the disease. And, unfortunately, there is no immunity to smallpox in this country.

But can the government protect you effectively against a biological attack? My feeling is that they have already concluded, from simulated attacks that have been conducted, that they cannot.

Does that mean that they won’t attempt to implement a compulsory immunization program against smallpox (and possibly anthrax, which would be even more reckless and just as uncertain)? Not at all. But it wouldn’t have much (if anything) to do with concern for public safety. The purpose in using force when it can be plausibly applied-in this case through forced immunizations -is to condition the people for more of the same. After all, the mission of government is control of the masses and self-aggrandizement, nothing else.

The government is saying that citizen resistance to receiving vaccines is futile because the state is ready to back up its mandate with quarantines (a euphemism for “prison camp”), child protective services (a euphemism for “child snatching”), and, if necessary, the courts (a euphemism for “at gunpoint”).

But it would make life much easier for the government if they could sway public opinion about vaccination to their side before they’re “forced” to take such extreme measures. But how do you influence public opinion? You buy it, of course.

The new secular battle: separation of church and medicine

Ah, the seductive power of money; there is nothing like it. You subsidize someone, with just 25 percent of his income, and within six months, you have a slave. If they have loved ones to feed and clothe, it may take even less time. This phenomenon applies to organizations as well, from the FDA, to the American Cancer Society, to the church. And the smaller the church is, the easier it is to buy.

I don’t mean a particular church will throw over all principle and start running a whorehouse. But if a house of ill repute is opened across the street on property the church owns, and “the house” supplies 50 percent of the income of the church, well, it would be difficult for the church to pursue the case against the despised enterprise with extreme vigor.

You’re probably wondering what this hypothetical situation has to do with forced vaccination. Well, you might be appalled by what I’m about to tell you.

One of the largest forces of opposition in the vaccination debate is the Christian religion, or at least certain sects and churches within it.

With that in mind, consider some of the recent financial support offered to religious groups:

September 2002: The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship received a $2 million grant.

August 2002: The National Council of Churches-$500,000. Ultimately, in this case, we are talking about 140,000 local congregations.

October 2002: The Church Extension of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)-$1.6 million.

Yale Divinity School-$835,000.

Luther College-$2 million.

The super “hand-cleaning” power of coincidence

The company giving out this largess is Eli Lilly, the largest vaccine maker in the world.

Most, if not all, of these grants from the good and godly folks at Eli Lilly came during the current Bush administration. Surely it is only by chance that former President George Bush was on the board of directors of Eli Lilly. And certainly it is just a fantastic coincidence that Mitch Daniels, the former Eli Lilly vice-president, is now head of the office of federal-budget management.

Even though these grants are in no way DIRECTLY involved with eliciting support for vaccine programs, would there be at least some subliminal effect IF the granting foundation was in some way connected to vaccines? It is strange that the Christian churches are the targets of all this money and that they have, in the past, been vociferously opposed to immunizations. Aw, shucks, must just be another coincidence.

Of course, the “Lilly Endowment” makes it quite clear that the Endowment is ENTIRELY separate from the drug company of the same name. And legally, on paper, I’m sure that assertion is correct. But if you had all that money and a very large and influential group -like, oh, I don’t know the church, for instance-was threatening your very lucrative business, what would you do? Shoot them? Nah, too many of them, messy-somebody would probably notice. The answer: Hook them on massive amounts of cash. It works every time. RH

Reference: (a highly recommended site, produced by Jon Rappaport)