I think I'm starting to see a pattern. It's about passing laws and later on distorting the definition of the terms in the texts of these laws.
First laws were passed years ago in case of a public health emergency. These laws state that vaccination can be made mandatory under a public health emergency, including a pandemic. But a real killer pandemic is a messy and risky business venture, and quite hard to manage. You have this virus everywhere that can kill even the people who released it. If you could have the powers granted by the law without a real pandemic that would be better for business.
So in May the WHO changed the definition of a pandemic to remove the mortality factor. Now even a seasonal flu is a pandemic with this new definition, but the laws stayed the same. Very good for business! Now you can really manage your pandemic.
An economic crisis also brings a public health emergency because of food shortages. One solution could be a new centralized electronic money system with a chip under the skin. But the law only permits forced inoculation of a vaccine in case of a public health emergency, not any kind of inoculation.
So what about changing the definition of what a vaccine is so that it's used for any kind of inoculation, whether to fight an infectious disease or not? Sounds silly? Not really when you read in the mainstream medias that GSK is making a vaccine against smoking:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/...eement-with-n/
Quote:
|
The vaccine is designed to stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies that bind to the nicotine molecules. Once bound together, they are too large to cross the blood-brain barrier. In this way, the nicotine is blocked from reaching the receptors in the brain that cause the highly-addictive pleasure sensation experienced by smokers and users of nicotine products.
|
Of course they managed to mention the immune system in their bogus explanation of why a vaccine could help to stop smoking. So what we are witnessing now is the removal of the disease requirement from the vaccine definition. Next step is to remove the immune system or maybe change the definition of what the immune system is. Who cares? People don't understand science, it's the new religion. People trust experts to tell them what science is. And experts can say anything for money, while the medias can make or break experts. If the removal of the disease requirement from the vaccine definition fails, no problem, psychiatrists can turn anything into a disease! The possibilities are infinite to get a law to do what you want.
Why make people accept new laws and new forms of control when you can just use the laws they already accepted and interpret these to fit your needs? Sooner or later, the public perception of what a vaccine is is going to be so distorted that any inoculation will be a vaccine, including a microchip.
The evil plan is to chip people so under no circumstances any interpretation of any law should allow a government to inoculate people by force. But it's already too late for that. And now it's just a matter of time and interpretation before these laws can be used to inoculate a chip and get rid of cash money, which is the real reason why these public health emergency laws were pushed for in the first place, but we didn't know. Ahh! Checkmate!
I think we're just seeing the beginning of this thing. The vaccine industry is going to become so huge with so many public relations campaigns distorting the original definition of a vaccine that before we notice it, inoculations by the government will be a trivial thing. One more inoculation for a chip will seem normal and people objecting it will be cast as extremists or mental patients to be ignored or jailed. Like the vaccines, chips will also make their way into laws and public opinion, slowly but surely.