Vaccines for pregnancy – Pro and con – The battle for humanity’s future

By Nathan Barton

A “vaccine against pregnancy” which supposedly makes muscle cells block a hormone (GnRH), is supposed to work on multiple species (“all vertebrates”) by preventing sperm and eggs from developing and maturing. It is administered by injection, and called “vectored contraception.”

This story comes from TrueActivist.com, but because I do not trust that site, I vetted it carefully. The actual publication is found here at Cell.com [pdf]. True Activist waxes poetically over how this will reduce the 70,000 cats and dogs born each day, and reduce the need to put 3,000 unwanted cats and dogs down each day. That is, of course, a very good thing. But there is, as always, a dark side to this. Remember, ANY thing can be used for good or for evil: such things are not evil in and of themselves.

I’ve asked a number of friends for their thoughts on this, and shared my own with them.

Nathan: Now, maybe I’m just weird. But to me, it seems that this could mean the process of genocide just got a WHOLE lot easier (even “more humane”, and that the entire world could be massively impacted. Obviously, there is a lot to figure out, but it seems that if it works on cats, dogs, mice, rats, and deer, it can work on humans – and livestock.

For example, let us say that PETA (or Earth First, or Greenpeace) decided to “inoculate” the cattle of a few ranchers in, oh, Texas… or concoct a plan to do it to as many of the cattle as possible in a county or five… Or JUST those cattle that are grazed on public land in some place in New Mexico or Montana. Could enough activists sneak onto the pastures and grazing land to inoculate a significant amount of cattle? I mean, we can’t keep border jumpers and rustlers from doing it. Ranchers cannot watch all their cattle all the time, even with modern technology, and when they are grazing on public lands (BLM, USFS, State lands, etc.) they share the land with other users. It could mean instant bankruptcy for the ranchers, and then the communities that depend on those ranches.

Another point was raised: can vaccines be passed on through intimate contact? If your cat or dog bites you, could their saliva transmit the vaccine? I don’t think this is likely and may not even be possible, but…

Can the vaccine be reversed?  Or could it be administered orally?  What next?  Look now at humans: can this vaccine be mixed with others?  Could, for example, a DPT or a new “swine flu” or ‘bird flu” vaccine also contain the vaccine against GnRH and in essence permanently sterilize infants?  And who would know until, suddenly, there were no pregnancies?

Mama Liberty thinks that might not be possible, but she raises a LOT of other issues that bear on the impact of this vaccine.

Mama Liberty: As you point out, and anything can be used for good or for ill. Things like this will be good when people are free to choose, and held accountable by their neighbors for deliberate or accidental misuse that harms others. I don’t see any more of a potential for this to be used on all humanity than for sarin gas or nuclear weapons.

Nathan: I guess I DO see more potential, because this can be done by stealth: nukes cannot, and chemical warfare is very difficult to do by stealth. And today, we do NOT hold people accountable for deliberate or accidental misuse that harms other people. Especially when those people doing something are government, and when the “other people” are not politically correct or out of favor. Also, the effect of this would not be immediately apparent: it might be years before the effects were recognized AND the cause identified. And even if it WERE recognized, could we be sure that more attempts were not made with it in the future? We constantly have the eugenicists with us.

Mama Liberty: The question is, why would PETA be allowed to inoculate cattle? Someone coming on my property with loaded syringes, without my permission, may find themselves seriously ventilated…

Nathan: Obviously, and that would certainly work with one or two milch cows on 10 or even 20 acres, but NOT even with a few dozen head grazing on several sections of Wyoming or Colorado grazing land, much less 1000 or 2000 acres of Black Hills or Medicine Bow forestland. The rancher can’t keep 24-hour surveillance on his herd. And no one is saying that PETA would be “allowed” to do it: people are not “allowed” to murder people (unless they work for the government, of course). It would not require 100% inoculation of a herd to wipe out the rancher: even a 5 or 10 percent drop in new calves (or colts, or baby emus) can be the difference between success and failure for a rancher.

Mama Liberty: On the other hand, people are free to inject themselves, their own animals, or children, with whatever they please. They simply must live with the expense and the consequences… not palm them off on others. That’s what we must fight against. Nobody can kill us all unless we sit back and let them. And, even then, they can’t get to all of us.

Nathan: No, of course (and thankfully), they cannot get to all of us. But this isn’t “killing” us: it may not even be something that we can recognize for years? How many of us check to see if our GnRH is blocked or not? A couple who can’t conceive, after other efforts have failed, might go to a fertility specialist who might think to run whatever test is required, and might report to the couple what the problem is … or might not, if they are part of the conspiracy. And it would be so easy to inoculate someone without them knowing about it, especially if it can be administered orally.

Mama Liberty raised a very critical point, regarding the efficacy and side-effects of the vaccine: A great “tell” in the article is the assurance that this stuff can’t harm the body… an almost guaranteed lie of epic proportions. Any damage done to the body’s ability to produce the hormones and proteins it is designed to produce and use… is a serious red flag. Most of the “approved” drugs given to do things like this – the “statin” class of drugs to destroy the body’s ability to produce cholesterol, for example – are simply no good or outright poisons. They are an “answer in search of a problem,” and given where no real problem exists. It’s taking a little more time than I thought, but people are beginning to recognize this and it is getting harder and harder for the big pharma drug pushers to sell this stuff… even when it is “free” to the patient.

Nathan: All excellent points, but also facts that have been ignored in hundreds of other cases.  Consider the drugs for ADHD and ADD, and all the various vaccines for childhood diseases, and the fact that statins are one of the most prescribed drugs today. And to those Tranzis and environists that think that mankind is a blot upon the planet (except of course for those “elite” like themselves), the potential for severe damage is not going to be a big factor in their decision. It might even encourage them to do it.

Mama Liberty: I’d be very interested to see the clinical trials on it… but, of course, we know there won’t be any honest ones. So, those who trust the government may try it and live with the consequences… or not. Lots of that trust eroding these days.

Nathan: IF, indeed, any trials were ever conducted on humans. Most likely the stuff will be approved quickly for animal (pet) use, and will be readily available for illicit distribution. I certainly would not expect any government agency to officially approve it readily for use on humans. It is not that I expect any more than a very small percentage of humans would voluntarily take it, or give it to THEIR children. As the next correspondent notes, it is far more likely to be given secretly.

Mama Liberty: Any of those [methods of inoculating on the sly] “might” be in their plans… but it doesn’t mean they would have any real success at it. People choose, however, and some might go for it… I don’t see any possibility of the results being hidden for very long. And then, people would have to go on choosing…

Nathan: “Very long” might only need to be a few months or a few years, if it is not reversible and if there are not some severe side-effects that can’t be covered up. But the point is not that people would CHOOSE to take this vaccine themselves, but that they might be given it by some “do-gooder” who is going to “save the planet” from the “infestation of humans,” or livestock, or pets. I can, for instance, see more “progressive” cities (and counties) mandating that ALL homeless animals in shelters be given the vaccine before allowing them to be adopted, or even requiring the vaccine in order to register the pet with the local authorities, as they already do for rabies – unless the pet owner is willing to pay and apply for a “breeding” permit. Spaying and neutering pets is relatively expensive and so they’ve not had the votes necessary (in most places) to require it, but if this is relatively inexpensive (say, the cost of a feline leukemia shot, $15-$20), then expect a LOT of local governments to mandate it for pets. And if the vaccine is readily available through veterinary supply sources, it can be obtained for illicit use. But let us consider some other things:

Mama Liberty: In the first place, it isn’t likely possible to give this to a great many people, let alone everyone quickly. It would take years to produce enough to inoculate one large city. The compliance rates for vaccines is high in cities, but not total. This would not succeed for the same reasons that gun confiscation is not actually possible. It can’t be done in total secret either…

Nathan: Right now, all we can do is speculate, but if they think enough can be produced on a regular basis to inoculate millions of pet dogs and cats each year (the article quoted 70,000 pets per day, or 25.5 million a year, apparently just in the US), it might not be that hard or costly or lengthy to produce. And full compliance is not necessary, or full coverage if administered in some other way. Secrecy would only be necessary for a few months, or a year or two at best, and even if only 50% of the target population was inoculated, the impact would be enormous. (Since Israel is a favorite hate-target of so many people, let us consider if Israel decided to inoculate the population of Gaza, and delivered it sub-rosa through the water supply. Say that only half of those Arabs in Gaza actually were inoculated. What would that do in a matter of 2-3 years to the population growth that sustains the “Palestinian” cause?)

Mama Liberty: Remember the thing about trying to squeeze a handful of jello to contain all of it in the closed fist. Does not work… the harder you squeeze, the more of the jello that jets out through your fingers. The more people who took this, the more people would see and hear about the terrible things it does to the body… Really hard to sell poison that destroys the body and the children, I think.

Nathan: except, according to the organic food activists and “food rangers” and the likes, the big agri-industrial and food companies DO sell poison to us constantly, in the form of GMO and highly-refined sugar and all the rest. Why would this be any different? And who would know until, suddenly, there were no pregnancies?

Mama Liberty: Absolutely could not be done “suddenly.” And it would much more likely result in a rash of nasty birth defects, or something like that. It is not actually possible to prevent all production or expression of a hormone. The body has any number of redundant pathways to produce essential hormones and proteins, and you can be sure that reproduction has the highest priority. The “scientists” don’t really understand how such things work, let alone how the body would react to such an insult… so that’s another big can of worms.

Nathan: Yes, indeed. It might not work on animals as they claim it will, also. But when we are dealing with the Earth-First and PETA types, we are NOT dealing with people with a full deck. It is likely that someone would ignore the potential for failure and go ahead with it anyway.

MamaLiberty: I’m still trying to get a grasp of why anyone would think this pitifully small group of bat-poop crazy idiots would suddenly take over the world. The idea that such a thing could be introduced in food or the water supply is also pretty much impossible. As for inclusion in current vaccine mixtures, perhaps, but I don’t see that happening either unless the PETA people have suddenly gained control of the AMA and the rest of the medical establishment, not to mention government. I don’t see that happening either.

Nathan: I had asked, could a “rogue state” (a Caliphate) decide to vaccinate all “christians” or all from other sects of Islam? This could, as my son immediately pointed out, be an extinction-level event.

Mama Liberty: Only if everyone, or nearly everyone in the world accepted it, and allowed it… and in a short time frame. I don’t see that as possible. Look at how long the vaccine pushers have been working at it, and they are no closer to universal acceptance now than they were 10 years ago… and in many ways more and more people reject it each year.

Nathan: The Caliphate, or some neo-Communist regime, would see no need or reason for “acceptance” by the world – or at least no more acceptance than their mass executions of christians, other sects, and anyone else they don’t like, by beheading and crucifixion and the like, has received. Again, I am not seeing inoculation being in any way voluntary: either forced (at gun or sword point) or by stealth.

MamaLiberty: I think that is a separate issue. The “caliphate,” or any other group of tyrants, can just as easily use guns or bombs or missiles as some sort of “vaccine.” And usually a lot more easily. It is up to the intended victims to defend themselves and stop it – whatever it is. And anyone who wishes to help them. I feel sorry for the victims, of course, but it is not my responsibility to save them.

I think that Mama did answer one concern, that if it is able to be administered orally, could it easily end up in water supplies and become “wild,” and itself grow rogue? (Supposedly, GMOs are doing this.)

Mama Liberty: I seriously doubt it. If that were possible, other things would have gone that route already. I can’t think of any. Anything is possible, but so far nothing like this happens… and most of the scares, like “chemtrails,” are pitted against the laws of nature and physics to start with. I suspect this is one of them. So, maybe, that’s something to think about… why it doesn’t happen and what we might be able to do to encourage understanding of that fact.

Another correspondent, a retired pharmacist and WW2 veteran in his 90s, also had some thoughts. He understands, of course, that hoplophobia and hoploclasty is NOT just a matter of genetics, but used that to make his point.

Just think about how this would work. Say that I am a gun activist (which I am) and the power in control of Washington decided that all activists should be eliminated. I would get a shot of the vaccine and would generate no children who would follow my gun inclination. Soon (perhaps 50 years) there would be no gun activists. What a way to control the population. Gareth’s prediction would come true. A few people would control the world and the populace that was left would agree with the perpetrators.

This would have been the aim of the Nazis before WW2. This would also allow someone to control the population of certain states or countries so as to reduce hunger and starvation in overpopulated areas. (this would be touted as the good side of the vaccine). But who makes the decision on who to inject?

Obviously, at this time, all we can do is speculate on much of this. But we DO know that technology CAN be used for both good and evil, and it is obvious, imperative even, that we work and create a world in which the potential to use something like this for evil is kept as low as possible: in general, that means a world in which governments – involuntary governments – have little or no power, and which people, individuals, families, and communities, have the opportunity to know as much as possible about what they ingest and get injected, and have the CHOICE to decide both. Where people can defend themselves against ALL kinds of tyranny, including that of the do-gooders and the “benevolent” crowd.

Mama’s Note: I finally got a chance to finish reading the original articles, especially the pdf from Cell.com, and it only reinforces my original opinions. The thing that stands out is the fact that this could only be given by injection, since it involves a virus carrier and the effect is seriously dose dependent. Putting it in the water would be useless. Furthermore, the destruction of a particular hormone sequence would most definitely have other and far more obvious effects… The pdf article indicates strongly that it would also interfere with other sex linked development and behavior. People might accept infertility in some measure, but emasculation is not ever going to be really popular.

So no, I think this needs to be put in the same category as the “chem trails,” and all the other bugaboos people so often frighten themselves with. All such schemes require, ultimately, that people sit back and accept being helpless victims. If that’s what happens, then perhaps it is truly time for an “extinction event.” The human race wouldn’t be worth saving. Only time will tell.

About tpolnathan

Follower of Christ Jesus (christian), Pahasapan, Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer.
This entry was posted in Nathan's Rants. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Vaccines for pregnancy – Pro and con – The battle for humanity’s future

  1. Pingback: RRND - 10/27/15 - Thomas L. Knapp - Liberty.me

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s