The apparent reduction in chickenpox cases that occured after the introduction of the chickenpox vaccine may have nothing to do with the vaccine itself.
In the case of measles, public health statisticians do not count as measles any pox cases in which the poxed has been vaccinated for measles. The reasoning is measles vaccinations prevent measles, so the pox case must therefore be categorized as a different-than-measles pox condition. This argument seems to work for virus enthusiasts, because much of the time various pox conditions are indistinguishable clinically. The properties assigned to measles pox are supposed to differ from those assigned to chicken or small or monkey pox etc. This assumption is derived from the idea that every particular "disease" (of which I've read there are said to be like 25,000!) is caused by its own special "virus". But usually there is nothing noteworthy and objective to distinguish one from another of about 15 different pox "diseases".
My suspicion is chicken pox went away because it has been arbitrarily defined out of existence among the vaccinated, who can only get other pox conditions, according to public health geniuses, never chickenpox. The outbreak of measles in Texas "among the unvaccinated" occurs because thee vaccinated by definition cannot get measles. Tom Cowan discussed this in the last few months on a livestream.
You could be right. But if 95% of kids were getting chickenpox before the vaccine, there would still be a huge amount of “pox” diseases happening among children. I just wonder where they are—what are they being diagnosed as? Certainly not measles, or there would be many more “outbreaks." Also the fact from a number of studies that there’s a difference between those who had chickenpox as kids and those who didn’t in their susceptibility to glioma and other tumors also argues that somehow, the chickenpox health benefit has been at least partially deleted. If not by the vaccine, then how? I’m very curious and trying to understand. It’s fascinating.
I have not researched this issue, except superficially, so I do not know. I have suspicions, only.
How would virologists identify a pox condition that 95% of children used to get, or supposedly came down with.
They can't search for particular viral molecules or antibodies, because both molecular categories presuppose virus existence which has never been proven. So molecular detection is fantasy. Therefore, chicken pox "infection" can only be diagnosed clinically, but that's guesswork and not reliable. A doctor has to examine a kid with a pox outbreak, a rash, or "something similar" and then try to categorize the condition as a particular pox "disease", selecting one from a pretty long list of poxes. But this a problem.
As I tried to explain in a subsequent comment in this thread below, the various pox conditions are not identifiable like car parts or numbers. There is a lot of overlap in clinical conditions, so clinical diagnosis is uncertain. When a doctor diagnoses a particular pox "disease", the diagnosis is almost always arbitrary, because there is no sure fire list of markers that reliably show up in cases to distinguish one pox type for rash or skin outbreak from another. Some markers they want to be there are not; other markers they don't want to be there, are.
I suspect the crux lies on the level of definitions. "Isolation" has been redefined, viruses have been defined, redefined and re-invented over and over in the history. The official claim that vaccines protect against and virtually eliminate their targeted "viral illnesses" almost requires a that "virus officials" instruct clinicians to scratch the type of illness a person-case has been vaccinated against from the list of pox possibilites.
Maybe a two fold claim has been made somewhere: 1) That chicken pox been nearly eliminated in the wake of chicken pox vaccination campaigning. 2) And that other pox conditions ("diseases") deemed not to be chicken pox rarely occur in kids these days, (excluding Texas-New Mexico, another similar subject now in the news). Before I could accept the claim of very few pox conditions of any kind in children today, I would want to read the study. Because it sounds bogus to me. I'm suspicious, that's all.
I'm not asking you to show me a study or anything else. Don't have much time for reading studies now. You may well know a lot more about this than I do, thanks.
I appreciate your thoughts very much. I am no expert either and I mostly just scan papers. Even though I know that "pox" diseases are all detoxes via the skin and are only differentiated for purposes of selling more vaxes or claiming the spread or the elimination of one or another, I somehow had not applied that to chickenpox.
The idea of there being an "upgrade" of the terrain that happens around 7 years old is very appealing to me and seems to align with other ways that our bodies change to make way for more growth--or that the growing body faces challenges to overcome that make it stronger, and this is part of our maturation process. Going through things that are hard does strengthen us. Chickenpox seems to fit that so well.
And then the poison in the vax stops that process so the kids grow into adulthood a little weaker and less vibrant. I can even imagine that the vax is actually designed to do this--its purpose is to weaken people. Just like industrial foods, toxic spraying in the air, fluoride in the water, etc. All to sicken us further.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your perspective. It is exciting to me that we get to broaden our views on how our own bodies work in light of the utter falseness of virology and germ theory, and search for truth ourselves.
Betsy, again, there have been shown to be many many conditions that cause generalized symptoms of rashes, or more inflammed rashes, called poxes. The simplest explanation is the medical priesthood defines a case of rash or pox as any one from a group of "disease possibilities". The list of rash or pox "disease possibilities" are defined as anything with those general symptoms not vaccinated against. Fpr the Priesthood operates on the basis of faith in the effectiveness of protection by vaccination. if the vaccinated could come down with the same gunk all over again, that would discombobulate the Priesthood.
So measles vaccinated can get small or chicken or monkey pox, but not measles. The MDsonly have to try to come up with plausible (to them) guesswork.
There are lots of studies, many of such, that demonstrate that vaccinations increase the statistical incidence of the diseases--or I should say, to be Correct--the disease symptoms the naive were vaccinated against. This makes sense, because the vaccine is supernatent taken from sick people with those symptoms and loaded up with chemical toxins, heavy metal adjuvants and so forth. Swallowing such poison is no good; injecting it is far worse. Chicken pox does not disappear because of a mystery formula that somehow suppresses a stressful condition of childhood maturation. The vaccine defines chicken pox out of statistical existence. I'd bet there are lots of other rashes and pox conditions and variations, mumps etc. kids still come down with, but none of those are allowed to use the word "chicken" in their title.
A good source on vaccines and their effects by Dr Susanne Humphries and Roman Bystriank...name is wrong but title is Dissolving Illusions.
Listening again tonight to the video lecture by Katie Sugak, I was struck dumb (and that takes something!) on reading this quotation from George Bernard Shaw, 1906: "During the last considerable epidemic at the turn of the century, I was a member of the Health Committee Lyndon Burrough Council, and I learned how the crdit of vaccination was kept up statistically by diagnosing all the revaccination cases (of small pox) as pustular exzema or varioloid or what not--anything except small pox."
In the book Dissolving Illusions, by Dr. Susanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, chapters are devoted to proving small pox outbreaks were dramatically worsened by small pox vaccinations, forced on everyone, with the requirement of revaccination every year or so. The statistics and accounts of small pox outbreaks among populations forced to vaccinate repeatedly are astonishing and sobering. This mn caused epidemic preceded the practice developed later of attributing subsequent illness of the kind vaccinated against to some other "category of that broad symptomology". Small pox was always then loosely defined and viewed as encomapssing a wide range of symptoms and conditions.
Is it surprising that people injected with poisons taken from other sick people would be more prone themselves to become sick with a similar condition. This spread of sickness by mandatory vaccinating of everyone, often every year, motivated political uprising and massive rioting. France was an epicenter of vaccination madness. The French army was forced to vaccinate annually and huge percentages got sick with small pox.
Thank you for the excellent oral tutorial on the history of thinking about diseases from the Dark Ages, in which symptoms were designated by powers within the Church as evidence of spiritual rot, sin and punishment by demons. I was astonished by this, because Church dogma about illness and demons is the same supposition I dreamed up about witches. Witches get angry at some stupid mortal, whom they destroy or make miserable with illness; and whose assoicates and family also get punished for hanging out with the slob that pissed off the witches in the first place. Ha Ha Ho Ho funny, this was my sarcastic refutation of virology, meant to infuriate True Believers in The Science. But it turns out small pox and leprosy were very broad terms and without symptom specificity, used to blacklist unpoplar people (as accusations of witchcraft were used in 16th century New England and Massachusetts).
There are many conditions of illness that cause rashes and poxes, including of coruse syphylis, poison ivy, and many named poxes, and others I have not thought of nor heard of. I will try to listen to the podcast past the first 17 minutes soon, take notes, use it sometime in an article. I hope.
What is astonishing about Ms Sugat's lesson is the attitude of the Priesthood about disease in the Middle Ages is remarkably like prevalent attitudes today. MDs are the new Priesthood, never to be questioned, much less challenged on pain of imprisonment. ,
Anyone with time to listen and learn will appreciate this lesson in medical superstitions.
Pete, serology tests search for antibodies or molecules associated by virologists with chicken pox virus (whatever its named). Serology tests cannot detect or prove the presence of the virus because no virus of any kind has ever been isolated from a biological sample from a sick person. This is not made up nor controversial; they use instead indirect methods of detecting viral presence that have been many times proven invalid (cell culturing). So no one has ever attained a pure isolated specimen of chicken pox virus, which means no one can know what molecules would be associated with a never-proven-to-exist, imagined "virus particle". Since they cannot find "the virus", they cannot find its "anti-virus" (antibody) which is only an imagined derivative of the presumably non-existent virus.
I have read that of the 12 or 15 pox conditions, none can usually be objectively identified by clinicians. For each pox condition, there is an invented template or standard as to the physical symptoms clinicians should rely on to diagnose that particular pox condition, whether small pox, or chicken pox, or measles, or monkey pox and so forth. I use "invented" because the pox conditions that virus enthusiasts call diseases (for every boy, a girl; for every disease, a virus) overlap most of the time, in a few or numerous ways. A "perfect" case of small pox might appear in which every box can be checked that is supposed to be a marker for small pox. But usually, some boxes can be checked but others; and some markers will appear supposedly associated with a different pox condition. This is the norm.
Therefore, chicken pox symptoms are not obviously distinguished, much of the time, from measles or small pox or monkey pox and or other pox conditions. The markers of the many poxes overlap and or are not all present to confirm clinical dianosis. This is why most of the time, assigning a name to a pox is arbitrary. Uncertain. Not scientific.
So when kids have been vaccinated for chicken pox "virus", I suspect clinicians are instructed by the CDC or other to rule out chicken pox diagnostically. If this is true, then the large fall in chicken pox "cases" mirrors the large numbers vaccinated and "protected."
Chickenpox is patently obvious no problem distinguishing it from measles or sneeezles or anything else and nobody sends out for serology to verify if it's really chickenpox - becuz the rash is so distinct.
So where did the chicken go to? Is the quackzine just suppressing the rash, so the doctors see less 'chickenpox'?
Pete, sorry, but you're mistaken about "patently obvious" diagnosis clinically of chickenpox. Here is a study from the CDC (that's an American tax funded vaccine marketing organization named the Center for Disease Control).
Here is headline related to diagnosis of chickenpox from CDC: Clinical case definition
In the absence of a more likely alternative diagnosis:
An acute illness with a generalized rash with vesicles (maculopapulovesicular rash), OR
An acute illness with a generalized rash without vesicles (maculopapular rash)
If chickenpox were objectively different from all other pox and rash conditions, then CDC would not be offering an escape clause for cases borderline or difficult to diagnose clinically.
Further comment from CDC
Diagnosis of breakthrough varicella is important because these cases are infectious. Clinical diagnosis is especially challenging in cases with mild rashes, few lesions, or no vesicles. Consequently, laboratory confirmation of varicella is becoming increasingly necessary to understand the true burden of disease and is now routinely recommended.
More CDC:
Confirmatory Epidemiologic Linkage Evidence:
Exposure to or contact with a laboratory-confirmed varicella case,
OR
Can be linked to a varicella cluster or outbreak containing ≥1 laboratory-confirmed case,
OR
Exposure to or contact with a person with herpes zoster (regardless of laboratory confirmation).
Presumptive Epidemiologic Linkage Evidence:
Exposure to or contact with a probable varicella case that had a generalized rash with vesicles
Note, please, in the epidemiological discussion that: 1) exposure to a lab confirmed varicella case is bad news; but why the need for a lab confirmed case if chicken pox is, as you have claimed, obvious and simple to recognize, like differentiating between numeral 7 and numeral 11, or a shrub versus a redwood tree? The lab test is important because clinical distinctions are fuzzy. Note also that since variecella cases are somewhat subjective in clinical diagnosis, no one can know with certainty whether or not someone has been near a case of chicken pox, poison ivy, other poxes etc. That is more subjectivity. Finally, note that last statement above ..."contact with a probable varicella case that had a generalized rash with vesicles." What about probable cases that turn out to be other non-varicella "cases"? What about probable variceella cases that had a generalized rash with no vesicles? Or vesicles that look different from "usual varicella cases?"
Here is another funny claim from CDC:
Case Classification
Probable
Meets clinical evidence with a generalized rash with vesicles,
OR
Meets clinical evidence with a generalized rash without vesicles AND:
Confirmatory or presumptive epidemiologic linkage evidence, OR
Supportive laboratory evidence.
They reference a rash with or without vesicles! Seriously, I will bet good cash money there are other rashes without vesicles in both kids and adults.
Last CDC quote because it is so stupid I cannot resist:
"Based on studies of transmission among household members, about 90% of susceptible close contacts will get varicella after exposure to a person with disease." This is a non-refutable claim, since anyone who did not get chickenpox from a family member is defined by CDC as "non-susceptible". If they get CP they're "susceptible; if they don't get CP they are non-susceptible. "Foller the Science!"
Post Script" For fans of AI, here is part of the response to my query abaout overlapping pox conditions and clinical diagnostic problems:
"You're absolutely right—pox illnesses can have overlapping symptoms, making clinical diagnosis tricky. Chickenpox, for example, can sometimes be confused with other rash-causing conditions. Here are some sources that discuss the challenges of diagnosing chickenpox and differentiating it from other diseases:
- The CDC provides detailed clinical features of chickenpox, including how breakthrough varicella can be difficult to diagnose based on symptoms alone. You can check it out here.
- Verywell Health explains how chickenpox is diagnosed, including when additional testing might be needed to confirm the illness. Read more here.
- WikiDoc offers a differential diagnosis guide, comparing chickenpox with other conditions like Coxsackievirus, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, measles, rubella, and syphilis. This might be useful for understanding overlapping symptoms. Find it here.
These sources should give you a solid foundation for exploring the complexities of pox disease diagnosis. Let me know if you need more specific studies or abstracts!"
I should write an article after doing investigation into establishment claims about chicken pox and measles. I still do not know how vaccinated versus unvaccinated status affects CDC assumptions about proper diagnostic methods and supposition. Theey calim people who have been vaxed always have very mild cases of less than 50 vesicles (but wait! Remember rash cases with no vesicles?). But I suspect there are plenty of cases of extensive rashes in vaxxed kids. I suspect such cases being oofficially "impossible" among the vaxxed,are assigned other pox and rash disease names...maybe lyme disease? How about covid? any or no symptoms are said to charactrize this "viral disease".
It must have been around 1957 or 58 that I got the chicky pox. I was 7 or 8 and no party. I don't recall ever hearing about this until a few years ago. I think my brother got them around the time I did.
I recall that one of the pustules on my right arm near the elbow got infected. I think I needed several injections but not sure of what. I can still barely see the scar 67 years later. So I got the mumps but never the measles despite my brother having them. No measles vaccine either.
I do not believe in viruses, vaccines and 99% of the medical mafia's medical nonsense.
If, "X" is really a disease/problem, then great. Many times, the idea that "X" is a problem comes from a faulty starting point, and I believe there are many within modern medicine.
I like that idea about chickenpox being a preparatory phase for problems down the road.
The decline in chickenpox cases, in my view, closely mirrors changes in the childhood vaccine schedule. Routine smallpox vaccination ended in 1972, and by the early 1990s, the older, more reactive DTP shot was replaced with the milder DTaP. It’s noteworthy that this drop in chickenpox incidence aligns with these vaccine transitions.
This also raises a deeper question: Could it be that chickenpox appeared to offer long-term health benefits—such as lower cancer risk—not because the virus itself was beneficial, but because the body was using the illness as a way to detoxify from earlier vaccine exposure? After all, many childhood rashes are understood as excretory responses.
Perhaps chickenpox wasn’t simply a rite of passage for children—it was a symptom of the broader impact of the vaccine schedule they were subjected to.
That is one of the theories I have heard, too. I know that the medical establishment has no incentive to explore these questions, since its main purpose is to continue selling us vaccines and programming us to "trust the science." But maybe someday there will be scientific investigation of all this. Or maybe someday the vaccine schedule will disappear--when enough people see through the lie of viruses and vaxes--and then we'll see what happens with these childhood diseases, whether they disappear too.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on chickenpox! It’s understandable to feel skeptical about what mainstream medicine tells us regarding childhood diseases, especially given the inconsistencies that have come to light over the years. You might be interested in exploring Demi Pitchell's article "Virology: Unmasking a 100+ Year Old Lie" on Starfire Codes insightful. It delves into the issues surrounding our understanding of viruses and public health narratives. Here’s the link: [Starfire Codes Article](https://www.starfirecodes.com/p/virology-unmasking-a-100-year-old?utm_source=post-banner&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true).
I remember hearing the idea of chicken pox parties when I was a kid. It was a fear based story, if you got the pox as kid it was no big deal, but if you got it as an adult it was horrible or even deadly. So kids were encouraged to be around others with the pox and adults who had never had it fled with fear. I never thought to question these tales, even if I did I didn't know who to ask or where to look.
The apparent reduction in chickenpox cases that occured after the introduction of the chickenpox vaccine may have nothing to do with the vaccine itself.
In the case of measles, public health statisticians do not count as measles any pox cases in which the poxed has been vaccinated for measles. The reasoning is measles vaccinations prevent measles, so the pox case must therefore be categorized as a different-than-measles pox condition. This argument seems to work for virus enthusiasts, because much of the time various pox conditions are indistinguishable clinically. The properties assigned to measles pox are supposed to differ from those assigned to chicken or small or monkey pox etc. This assumption is derived from the idea that every particular "disease" (of which I've read there are said to be like 25,000!) is caused by its own special "virus". But usually there is nothing noteworthy and objective to distinguish one from another of about 15 different pox "diseases".
My suspicion is chicken pox went away because it has been arbitrarily defined out of existence among the vaccinated, who can only get other pox conditions, according to public health geniuses, never chickenpox. The outbreak of measles in Texas "among the unvaccinated" occurs because thee vaccinated by definition cannot get measles. Tom Cowan discussed this in the last few months on a livestream.
You could be right. But if 95% of kids were getting chickenpox before the vaccine, there would still be a huge amount of “pox” diseases happening among children. I just wonder where they are—what are they being diagnosed as? Certainly not measles, or there would be many more “outbreaks." Also the fact from a number of studies that there’s a difference between those who had chickenpox as kids and those who didn’t in their susceptibility to glioma and other tumors also argues that somehow, the chickenpox health benefit has been at least partially deleted. If not by the vaccine, then how? I’m very curious and trying to understand. It’s fascinating.
I have not researched this issue, except superficially, so I do not know. I have suspicions, only.
How would virologists identify a pox condition that 95% of children used to get, or supposedly came down with.
They can't search for particular viral molecules or antibodies, because both molecular categories presuppose virus existence which has never been proven. So molecular detection is fantasy. Therefore, chicken pox "infection" can only be diagnosed clinically, but that's guesswork and not reliable. A doctor has to examine a kid with a pox outbreak, a rash, or "something similar" and then try to categorize the condition as a particular pox "disease", selecting one from a pretty long list of poxes. But this a problem.
As I tried to explain in a subsequent comment in this thread below, the various pox conditions are not identifiable like car parts or numbers. There is a lot of overlap in clinical conditions, so clinical diagnosis is uncertain. When a doctor diagnoses a particular pox "disease", the diagnosis is almost always arbitrary, because there is no sure fire list of markers that reliably show up in cases to distinguish one pox type for rash or skin outbreak from another. Some markers they want to be there are not; other markers they don't want to be there, are.
I suspect the crux lies on the level of definitions. "Isolation" has been redefined, viruses have been defined, redefined and re-invented over and over in the history. The official claim that vaccines protect against and virtually eliminate their targeted "viral illnesses" almost requires a that "virus officials" instruct clinicians to scratch the type of illness a person-case has been vaccinated against from the list of pox possibilites.
Maybe a two fold claim has been made somewhere: 1) That chicken pox been nearly eliminated in the wake of chicken pox vaccination campaigning. 2) And that other pox conditions ("diseases") deemed not to be chicken pox rarely occur in kids these days, (excluding Texas-New Mexico, another similar subject now in the news). Before I could accept the claim of very few pox conditions of any kind in children today, I would want to read the study. Because it sounds bogus to me. I'm suspicious, that's all.
I'm not asking you to show me a study or anything else. Don't have much time for reading studies now. You may well know a lot more about this than I do, thanks.
I appreciate your thoughts very much. I am no expert either and I mostly just scan papers. Even though I know that "pox" diseases are all detoxes via the skin and are only differentiated for purposes of selling more vaxes or claiming the spread or the elimination of one or another, I somehow had not applied that to chickenpox.
The idea of there being an "upgrade" of the terrain that happens around 7 years old is very appealing to me and seems to align with other ways that our bodies change to make way for more growth--or that the growing body faces challenges to overcome that make it stronger, and this is part of our maturation process. Going through things that are hard does strengthen us. Chickenpox seems to fit that so well.
And then the poison in the vax stops that process so the kids grow into adulthood a little weaker and less vibrant. I can even imagine that the vax is actually designed to do this--its purpose is to weaken people. Just like industrial foods, toxic spraying in the air, fluoride in the water, etc. All to sicken us further.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your perspective. It is exciting to me that we get to broaden our views on how our own bodies work in light of the utter falseness of virology and germ theory, and search for truth ourselves.
Betsy, again, there have been shown to be many many conditions that cause generalized symptoms of rashes, or more inflammed rashes, called poxes. The simplest explanation is the medical priesthood defines a case of rash or pox as any one from a group of "disease possibilities". The list of rash or pox "disease possibilities" are defined as anything with those general symptoms not vaccinated against. Fpr the Priesthood operates on the basis of faith in the effectiveness of protection by vaccination. if the vaccinated could come down with the same gunk all over again, that would discombobulate the Priesthood.
So measles vaccinated can get small or chicken or monkey pox, but not measles. The MDsonly have to try to come up with plausible (to them) guesswork.
There are lots of studies, many of such, that demonstrate that vaccinations increase the statistical incidence of the diseases--or I should say, to be Correct--the disease symptoms the naive were vaccinated against. This makes sense, because the vaccine is supernatent taken from sick people with those symptoms and loaded up with chemical toxins, heavy metal adjuvants and so forth. Swallowing such poison is no good; injecting it is far worse. Chicken pox does not disappear because of a mystery formula that somehow suppresses a stressful condition of childhood maturation. The vaccine defines chicken pox out of statistical existence. I'd bet there are lots of other rashes and pox conditions and variations, mumps etc. kids still come down with, but none of those are allowed to use the word "chicken" in their title.
A good source on vaccines and their effects by Dr Susanne Humphries and Roman Bystriank...name is wrong but title is Dissolving Illusions.
My 50 cents used up about $5.00 ago. Thank you.
Here’s an excellent documentary by Katie Sugak which explains how diseases don’t disappear thanks to vaccines but simply are renamed as you suspected: https://archive.org/details/sugak-the-truth-about-smallpox-with-english-voiceover
Listening again tonight to the video lecture by Katie Sugak, I was struck dumb (and that takes something!) on reading this quotation from George Bernard Shaw, 1906: "During the last considerable epidemic at the turn of the century, I was a member of the Health Committee Lyndon Burrough Council, and I learned how the crdit of vaccination was kept up statistically by diagnosing all the revaccination cases (of small pox) as pustular exzema or varioloid or what not--anything except small pox."
In the book Dissolving Illusions, by Dr. Susanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, chapters are devoted to proving small pox outbreaks were dramatically worsened by small pox vaccinations, forced on everyone, with the requirement of revaccination every year or so. The statistics and accounts of small pox outbreaks among populations forced to vaccinate repeatedly are astonishing and sobering. This mn caused epidemic preceded the practice developed later of attributing subsequent illness of the kind vaccinated against to some other "category of that broad symptomology". Small pox was always then loosely defined and viewed as encomapssing a wide range of symptoms and conditions.
Is it surprising that people injected with poisons taken from other sick people would be more prone themselves to become sick with a similar condition. This spread of sickness by mandatory vaccinating of everyone, often every year, motivated political uprising and massive rioting. France was an epicenter of vaccination madness. The French army was forced to vaccinate annually and huge percentages got sick with small pox.
Brilliant! I was trying to find the link - saw it a while ago and makes so much sense.
Thank you for the excellent oral tutorial on the history of thinking about diseases from the Dark Ages, in which symptoms were designated by powers within the Church as evidence of spiritual rot, sin and punishment by demons. I was astonished by this, because Church dogma about illness and demons is the same supposition I dreamed up about witches. Witches get angry at some stupid mortal, whom they destroy or make miserable with illness; and whose assoicates and family also get punished for hanging out with the slob that pissed off the witches in the first place. Ha Ha Ho Ho funny, this was my sarcastic refutation of virology, meant to infuriate True Believers in The Science. But it turns out small pox and leprosy were very broad terms and without symptom specificity, used to blacklist unpoplar people (as accusations of witchcraft were used in 16th century New England and Massachusetts).
There are many conditions of illness that cause rashes and poxes, including of coruse syphylis, poison ivy, and many named poxes, and others I have not thought of nor heard of. I will try to listen to the podcast past the first 17 minutes soon, take notes, use it sometime in an article. I hope.
What is astonishing about Ms Sugat's lesson is the attitude of the Priesthood about disease in the Middle Ages is remarkably like prevalent attitudes today. MDs are the new Priesthood, never to be questioned, much less challenged on pain of imprisonment. ,
Anyone with time to listen and learn will appreciate this lesson in medical superstitions.
That is an excellent explanation. More elegant than trying to explain how they knew what to put in the vaccine to prevent chickenpox.
Not clear how many kids still get the typical chickenpox rash, the diagnosis of which doesn't depend upon serology tests,
Pete, serology tests search for antibodies or molecules associated by virologists with chicken pox virus (whatever its named). Serology tests cannot detect or prove the presence of the virus because no virus of any kind has ever been isolated from a biological sample from a sick person. This is not made up nor controversial; they use instead indirect methods of detecting viral presence that have been many times proven invalid (cell culturing). So no one has ever attained a pure isolated specimen of chicken pox virus, which means no one can know what molecules would be associated with a never-proven-to-exist, imagined "virus particle". Since they cannot find "the virus", they cannot find its "anti-virus" (antibody) which is only an imagined derivative of the presumably non-existent virus.
I have read that of the 12 or 15 pox conditions, none can usually be objectively identified by clinicians. For each pox condition, there is an invented template or standard as to the physical symptoms clinicians should rely on to diagnose that particular pox condition, whether small pox, or chicken pox, or measles, or monkey pox and so forth. I use "invented" because the pox conditions that virus enthusiasts call diseases (for every boy, a girl; for every disease, a virus) overlap most of the time, in a few or numerous ways. A "perfect" case of small pox might appear in which every box can be checked that is supposed to be a marker for small pox. But usually, some boxes can be checked but others; and some markers will appear supposedly associated with a different pox condition. This is the norm.
Therefore, chicken pox symptoms are not obviously distinguished, much of the time, from measles or small pox or monkey pox and or other pox conditions. The markers of the many poxes overlap and or are not all present to confirm clinical dianosis. This is why most of the time, assigning a name to a pox is arbitrary. Uncertain. Not scientific.
So when kids have been vaccinated for chicken pox "virus", I suspect clinicians are instructed by the CDC or other to rule out chicken pox diagnostically. If this is true, then the large fall in chicken pox "cases" mirrors the large numbers vaccinated and "protected."
Chickenpox is patently obvious no problem distinguishing it from measles or sneeezles or anything else and nobody sends out for serology to verify if it's really chickenpox - becuz the rash is so distinct.
So where did the chicken go to? Is the quackzine just suppressing the rash, so the doctors see less 'chickenpox'?
Pete, sorry, but you're mistaken about "patently obvious" diagnosis clinically of chickenpox. Here is a study from the CDC (that's an American tax funded vaccine marketing organization named the Center for Disease Control).
You can read about the difficulty of diagnosing chickenpox based on clinical observations. https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/hcp/clinical-signs/index.html
Here is headline related to diagnosis of chickenpox from CDC: Clinical case definition
In the absence of a more likely alternative diagnosis:
An acute illness with a generalized rash with vesicles (maculopapulovesicular rash), OR
An acute illness with a generalized rash without vesicles (maculopapular rash)
If chickenpox were objectively different from all other pox and rash conditions, then CDC would not be offering an escape clause for cases borderline or difficult to diagnose clinically.
Further comment from CDC
Diagnosis of breakthrough varicella is important because these cases are infectious. Clinical diagnosis is especially challenging in cases with mild rashes, few lesions, or no vesicles. Consequently, laboratory confirmation of varicella is becoming increasingly necessary to understand the true burden of disease and is now routinely recommended.
More CDC:
Confirmatory Epidemiologic Linkage Evidence:
Exposure to or contact with a laboratory-confirmed varicella case,
OR
Can be linked to a varicella cluster or outbreak containing ≥1 laboratory-confirmed case,
OR
Exposure to or contact with a person with herpes zoster (regardless of laboratory confirmation).
Presumptive Epidemiologic Linkage Evidence:
Exposure to or contact with a probable varicella case that had a generalized rash with vesicles
Note, please, in the epidemiological discussion that: 1) exposure to a lab confirmed varicella case is bad news; but why the need for a lab confirmed case if chicken pox is, as you have claimed, obvious and simple to recognize, like differentiating between numeral 7 and numeral 11, or a shrub versus a redwood tree? The lab test is important because clinical distinctions are fuzzy. Note also that since variecella cases are somewhat subjective in clinical diagnosis, no one can know with certainty whether or not someone has been near a case of chicken pox, poison ivy, other poxes etc. That is more subjectivity. Finally, note that last statement above ..."contact with a probable varicella case that had a generalized rash with vesicles." What about probable cases that turn out to be other non-varicella "cases"? What about probable variceella cases that had a generalized rash with no vesicles? Or vesicles that look different from "usual varicella cases?"
Here is another funny claim from CDC:
Case Classification
Probable
Meets clinical evidence with a generalized rash with vesicles,
OR
Meets clinical evidence with a generalized rash without vesicles AND:
Confirmatory or presumptive epidemiologic linkage evidence, OR
Supportive laboratory evidence.
They reference a rash with or without vesicles! Seriously, I will bet good cash money there are other rashes without vesicles in both kids and adults.
Last CDC quote because it is so stupid I cannot resist:
"Based on studies of transmission among household members, about 90% of susceptible close contacts will get varicella after exposure to a person with disease." This is a non-refutable claim, since anyone who did not get chickenpox from a family member is defined by CDC as "non-susceptible". If they get CP they're "susceptible; if they don't get CP they are non-susceptible. "Foller the Science!"
Post Script" For fans of AI, here is part of the response to my query abaout overlapping pox conditions and clinical diagnostic problems:
"You're absolutely right—pox illnesses can have overlapping symptoms, making clinical diagnosis tricky. Chickenpox, for example, can sometimes be confused with other rash-causing conditions. Here are some sources that discuss the challenges of diagnosing chickenpox and differentiating it from other diseases:
- The CDC provides detailed clinical features of chickenpox, including how breakthrough varicella can be difficult to diagnose based on symptoms alone. You can check it out here.
- Verywell Health explains how chickenpox is diagnosed, including when additional testing might be needed to confirm the illness. Read more here.
- WikiDoc offers a differential diagnosis guide, comparing chickenpox with other conditions like Coxsackievirus, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, measles, rubella, and syphilis. This might be useful for understanding overlapping symptoms. Find it here.
These sources should give you a solid foundation for exploring the complexities of pox disease diagnosis. Let me know if you need more specific studies or abstracts!"
I should write an article after doing investigation into establishment claims about chicken pox and measles. I still do not know how vaccinated versus unvaccinated status affects CDC assumptions about proper diagnostic methods and supposition. Theey calim people who have been vaxed always have very mild cases of less than 50 vesicles (but wait! Remember rash cases with no vesicles?). But I suspect there are plenty of cases of extensive rashes in vaxxed kids. I suspect such cases being oofficially "impossible" among the vaxxed,are assigned other pox and rash disease names...maybe lyme disease? How about covid? any or no symptoms are said to charactrize this "viral disease".
Chat GPT is now saying that the doctors can't tell the difference between chickenpox & lyme disease?
It must have been around 1957 or 58 that I got the chicky pox. I was 7 or 8 and no party. I don't recall ever hearing about this until a few years ago. I think my brother got them around the time I did.
I recall that one of the pustules on my right arm near the elbow got infected. I think I needed several injections but not sure of what. I can still barely see the scar 67 years later. So I got the mumps but never the measles despite my brother having them. No measles vaccine either.
I do not believe in viruses, vaccines and 99% of the medical mafia's medical nonsense.
Big Pharma Fanboy - "Look this treatment has suppressed ____X_____"
Me - "The only question is what is, "X?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, "X" is really a disease/problem, then great. Many times, the idea that "X" is a problem comes from a faulty starting point, and I believe there are many within modern medicine.
I like that idea about chickenpox being a preparatory phase for problems down the road.
Thank you, Betsy!!!!
The decline in chickenpox cases, in my view, closely mirrors changes in the childhood vaccine schedule. Routine smallpox vaccination ended in 1972, and by the early 1990s, the older, more reactive DTP shot was replaced with the milder DTaP. It’s noteworthy that this drop in chickenpox incidence aligns with these vaccine transitions.
This also raises a deeper question: Could it be that chickenpox appeared to offer long-term health benefits—such as lower cancer risk—not because the virus itself was beneficial, but because the body was using the illness as a way to detoxify from earlier vaccine exposure? After all, many childhood rashes are understood as excretory responses.
Perhaps chickenpox wasn’t simply a rite of passage for children—it was a symptom of the broader impact of the vaccine schedule they were subjected to.
That is one of the theories I have heard, too. I know that the medical establishment has no incentive to explore these questions, since its main purpose is to continue selling us vaccines and programming us to "trust the science." But maybe someday there will be scientific investigation of all this. Or maybe someday the vaccine schedule will disappear--when enough people see through the lie of viruses and vaxes--and then we'll see what happens with these childhood diseases, whether they disappear too.
Maybe I'm wrong...I will have to read studies regarding your claim later to know more.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on chickenpox! It’s understandable to feel skeptical about what mainstream medicine tells us regarding childhood diseases, especially given the inconsistencies that have come to light over the years. You might be interested in exploring Demi Pitchell's article "Virology: Unmasking a 100+ Year Old Lie" on Starfire Codes insightful. It delves into the issues surrounding our understanding of viruses and public health narratives. Here’s the link: [Starfire Codes Article](https://www.starfirecodes.com/p/virology-unmasking-a-100-year-old?utm_source=post-banner&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true).
I remember hearing the idea of chicken pox parties when I was a kid. It was a fear based story, if you got the pox as kid it was no big deal, but if you got it as an adult it was horrible or even deadly. So kids were encouraged to be around others with the pox and adults who had never had it fled with fear. I never thought to question these tales, even if I did I didn't know who to ask or where to look.
What is in the vaccines?
Ingredients
In the current National Vaccine Schedule, in the first 6 years of life your child receives the following Vaccine Ingredients:
• 17,500 mcg 2-phenoxyethanol (Insecticide)
• 5,700 mcg aluminum (a known neurotoxin)
• Unknown amounts of fetal bovine serum (aborted calf's blood)
• 801.6 mcg formaldehyde (carcinogen, embalming agent)
• 23,250 mcg gelatin (ground up animal carcasses)
• 500 mcg human albumin (human blood)
• 760 mcg of monosodium L-glutamate (causes obesity & diabetes)
• Unknown amounts of MRC-5 cells (aborted human babies)
• Over 10 mcg neomycin (antibiotic)
• Over 0.075 mcg polymyxin B (antibiotic)
• Over 560 mcg polysorbate 80 (carcinogen)
• 116 mcg potassium chloride (used in lethal injection to shut down the heart and stop breathing)
• 188 mcg potassium phosphate (liquid fertilizer agent)
• 260 mcg sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)
• 70 mcg sodium borate (Borax, used for cockroach control-infertility in male primates)
• 54,100 mcg of sodium chloride (table salt)
• Unknown amounts of sodium citrate (food additive)
• Unknown amounts of sodium hydroxide (Danger! Corrosive)
• 2,800 mcg sodium phosphate (toxic to any organism)
• Unknown amounts of sodium phosphate monobasic monohydrate (toxic to any organism)
• 32,000 mcg sorbitol (Not to be injected)
• 0.6 mcg streptomycin (antibiotic)
• Over 40,000 mcg sucrose (cane sugar)
• 35,000 mcg yeast protein (fungus)
• 5,000 mcg urea (metabolic waste from human urine)
• Other chemical residuals
(From the book, "What The Pharmaceutical Companies Don't Want You To Know About Vaccines" - By Dr Todd M. Elsner)
http://vaccines.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005206#sources
Even if viruses existed, I don't see how any of that would be "healthy" to inject into any living organism.
👍🤓👏🏻👏🏻
https://tinyurl.com/PoxPoison