Interesting stuff.

The first thing I would like to point out is that we can agree that whatever was the cause(s) of Spanish Flu, it was not a virus. At least, there has never been any actual evidence that it was, so alternative explanations should be explored.

Second, the electrical current in the atmosphere also makes sense. I have not read the book, "Invisible Rainbow," but it claims electricity was the cause, or one of the causes. Edison created the light bulb in 1896, so the Spanish Flu would have been around the time that the world was becoming electrified, which the human body had never been subjected to. Plausible.

Third, the vaccine harm also seems very plausible. According to the info in this video, the Spanish Flu was first in the USA, near US Army bases, where they just so happen to have been injecting massive amounts of multiple vaccines (up to 25 per soldier), which had never been done before. It makes sense that this could have been a cause or at least contributor.

Regarding the psychological factor of your hypothesis, it makes sense that fear could produce something in the body that leads toward illness.

We should check when people first started getting sick. WW1 started in 1914. The US did not get involved until 1917. If the "Spanish Flu" started in the US in 1917/1918, then why didn't the fear first affect the European soldiers who were already fighting and dying in the trenches in Europe?

Second, note that there was no early deaths, nor did these soldiers die during active engagement in the war.

Those are a couple of interesting points. Would be interesting to see stats on the timing of these deaths vs. vaccine vs. war vs. electric bulb installations, etc.

It's also important to note that the excess lung alveoli were actually improving their ability to fight. They were, in effect, more alert and more athletically adept due to this increase in oxygen.

IF you can prove that, it would be quite interesting.

It's also important to note that deaths attributed to "Spanish Flu" were skewed massively toward "fighting age men, ages 18-40".

Of course, the younger ones were the test subjects for the vaccines, too. Would be interesting to see the age ranges of the Army-only vaxxed vs. the public-at-large vaxxed once the military were all vaxxed.

And don't forget, there were millions of mis-attributed deaths then, just as there are today.

Would not be surprising, but probably very difficult or impossible to parse out now, 100 years later -- unless someone was keeping track of some sort.

Even Dr. Death (Fauci) has admitted on record that autopsies of bodies of these soldiers from 1918-19 showed the vast majority died of "bacterial pneumonia". This supports my theory.

"Dr. Death." KEK. (Accurate, but KEK.)

I am leaning towards there is no such thing as "bacterial pneumonia." Bacteria exists, yes. Pneumonia happens, yes. But does the bacteria CAUSE the condition of pneumonia.

Just because bacteria are PRESENT in the fluid samples does NOT mean they caused it. Correlation is not causation. I suspect the bacteria are there to save the day, not cause the harm. But I am open to evidence that proves otherwise.

Now, the war ends and the soldiers start shipping back home. What has changed? Did they all get vaxxed before they came home? The answer is "no", they did not.

But the breakouts occured BEFORE they returned home from war. The US Army experiment was November 1917. So ...

April 1917 - US enters WW1

November 1917 -- US Army vaccine experiment

March 1918 - First case of Spanish Flu, at Fort Riley, Kansas

June 1919 - End of WW1

Can't find a real "end date" of Spanish Flu, but all sources seem to point to some time in 1919.

Not sure this timetable lines up with your thesis.

What has changed is, the soldiers are no longer fearing death.

What about the civilians who are claimed to have (a) got sick from and (b) died from "Spanish Flu?"

Overall, I don't think your thesis lines up with the timeframes, as I understand them.

1914-1916: War for Europeans, but not Americans, and no Spanish Flu (not even in Spain).

April 1917 - March 1918: War for Americans, but no Spanish Flu

March 1918 - 1919???: Spanish Flu first breaks out in Kansas (not Spain or anywhere else in Europe, and not among soldiers at war in Europe), but starting 4 months after the max vaccinations.

1918 - 1919: Civilians also getting the vaxx, and also getting sick and dying, but not at war (but many had loved ones at war).

June 1919 - Later: No more war, and no more Spanish Flu (don't know a specific "end date").

For the first time in years, they begin to feel safe again.

For American soldiers, it was 26 months (April 1917 to June 1919). Would be interesting to know if OTHER illnesses were affecting European soldiers and civilians BEFORE Spanish Flu. If so, would lend credibility to your thesis.

Also, what about Polio? Was that fear-based, as well? Did lead arsenic and DDT sprayed on food and people directly have more of an impact than fear?

What we call "lung cancer" today, is what they called "Tuberculosis" 100 years ago. All we had was a deceptive name change, which they do ALL THE TIME to keep us fooled. The TB phase is the healing/restoration phase of lung cancer.

In a lung cancer patient, you can often see a tumor (or whatever it is) in an xray. Can you with TB, as well?

excess lung alveoli

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. Has this been shown in patients? Could this have been a factor in the Covid patients, especially early on?

Secondly, the TB bacteria require a tremendous amount of protein to do their jobs. And high-protein diets were very rare after the war. For those who ran the longest and most intense "fear of death programs" but were poor and had little access to protein, their prognosis would be grim to say the least.

Not sure I follow here. If TB needs protein, wouldn't a lack of protein in the diet be harmful and destructive of TB?

Also, again I am not convinced that bacteria cause TB, but if so, my understanding is that the proteins that bacteria might eat are those that are not needed by the body. They wouldn't be eating protein from fresh meat, for example, as the digestive tract would assimilate that into amino acids and create quality human proteins for the body. Bacteria are the janitors, cleaning up the toxins and unwanted proteins. As I understand it.

WWII ...

Post-WW2, we have an added complication: MANY more people were smoking cigarettes, starting in about the 1920's-1930's. Smoking increases risk of lung cancer (and heart disease). So, were the post-WW2 vets getting lung cancer from smoking or from your thesis? Dunno.

Lung cancer is the #1 "Secondary cancer", meaning it arises after a person has been diagnosed with another form of cancer (in another organ). And "secondary cancers" amount to 90% of what western medicine attributes cancer deaths to (only 10% "die from" their original cancer diagnosis). And why is this? It's a diagnosis shock. Metastases has never been proven, nor does it make any sense when you stop and rethink things. If it were true, the red cross would screen donated blood for "cancer cells".

I don't know much about lung cancer. But I do know a fair about amout follicular lymphoma, because I had it. Based on my personal experience, conversations with others who have or had it, oncologists (who basically know nothing other than certain treatments seem to work for some people), and non-mainstream ideas (of a wide variety), I am currently of this opinion:

• Cancer, in general, is a malfunction of the mitocondria of cells. This is from work done by Thomas Seyfried, which was originally related to work done by Otto Warburg
• Why it malfunctions is the million-dollar question
• I think the "why" gets back to toxic overload of some sort
• In my case, it was one night at a cheap motel, where I was bitten more than 300 times by bed bugs ... about 8 months later, the lumps appeared
• I think it was the toxins in the bites that caused the mitocondria in the lymph cells to malfunction due to overload
• There was no secondary cancer that I know of in my case, and I have not come across anyone else with lymphoma who mentioned such a thing, but then I also never asked
• Receiving a diagnosis of cancer certainly IS a "diagnosis shock." I can attest to that.
• Metastases, according to Seyfried, is misunderstood by mainstream quack doctors. It is not the "disease getting worse and spreading." Rather, it is that certain cancer cells can travel through the blood stream, and therefore through the body.
• If we pair Thomas Seyfried's work with Tom Cowan's work, we get a logical picture of cancer: Some sort of toxic condition is present in the body for some reason; due to this toxic condition it causes certain cells to have their mitochondria malfuction; this malfunction causes the cells to change shape and other cellular properties to also change; the resulting cancer cells are not able to do their proper job, but they continue to exist in place of cells that could do the proper job, which causes the body to function at a sub-optimal level; this is "cancer."

My responses here are not meant to dismiss any of your thesis. Just to challenge certain points. Overall, it is interesting, but I can't say I fully understand all the important points you make, and don't know enough about some of these to really reach a conclusion. I would have to know more.

This GAW message board is a tough venue for that type of in-depth conversation. A 2-hour conversation over some beers would be a lot easier. KEK.

Interesting stuff.

The first thing I would like to point out is that we can agree that whatever was the cause(s) of Spanish Flu, it was not a virus. At least, there has never been any actual evidence that it was, so alternative explanations should be explored.

Second, the electrical current in the atmosphere also makes sense. I have not read the book, "Invisible Rainbow," but it claims electricity was the cause, or one of the causes. Edison created the light bulb in 1896, so the Spanish Flu would have been around the time that the world was becoming electrified, which the human body had never been subjected to. Plausible.

Third, the vaccine harm also seems very plausible. According to the info in this video, the Spanish Flu was first in the USA, near US Army bases, where they just so happen to have been injecting massive amounts of multiple vaccines (up to 25 per soldier), which had never been done before. It makes sense that this could have been a cause or at least contributor.

Regarding the psychological factor of your hypothesis, it makes sense that fear could produce something in the body that leads toward illness.

We should check when people first started getting sick. WW1 started in 1914. The US did not get involved until 1917. If the "Spanish Flu" started in the US in 1917/1918, then why didn't the fear first affect the European soldiers who were already fighting and dying in the trenches in Europe?

Second, note that there was no early deaths, nor did these soldiers die during active engagement in the war.

Those are a couple of interesting points. Would be interesting to see stats on the timing of these deaths vs. vaccine vs. war vs. electric bulb installations, etc.

It's also important to note that the excess lung alveoli were actually improving their ability to fight. They were, in effect, more alert and more athletically adept due to this increase in oxygen.

IF you can prove that, it would be quite interesting.

It's also important to note that deaths attributed to "Spanish Flu" were skewed massively toward "fighting age men, ages 18-40".

Of course, the younger ones were the test subjects for the vaccines, too. Would be interesting to see the age ranges of the Army-only vaxxed vs. the public-at-large vaxxed once the military were all vaxxed.

And don't forget, there were millions of mis-attributed deaths then, just as there are today.

Would not be surprising, but probably very difficult or impossible to parse out now, 100 years later -- unless someone was keeping track of some sort.

Even Dr. Death (Fauci) has admitted on record that autopsies of bodies of these soldiers from 1918-19 showed the vast majority died of "bacterial pneumonia". This supports my theory.

"Dr. Death." KEK. (Accurate, but KEK.)

I am leaning towards there is no such thing as "bacterial pneumonia." Bacteria exists, yes. Pneumonia happens, yes. But does the bacteria CAUSE the condition of pneumonia.

Just because bacteria are PRESENT in the fluid samples does NOT mean they caused it. Correlation is not causation. I suspect the bacteria are there to save the day, not cause the harm. But I am open to evidence that proves otherwise.

Now, the war ends and the soldiers start shipping back home. What has changed? Did they all get vaxxed before they came home? The answer is "no", they did not.

But the breakouts occured BEFORE they returned home from war. The US Army experiment was November 1917. So ...

April 1917 - US enters WW1

November 1917 -- US Army vaccine experiment

March 1918 - First case of Spanish Flu, at Fort Riley, Kansas

June 1919 - End of WW1

Can't find a real "end date" of Spanish Flu, but all sources seem to point to some time in 1919.

Not sure this timetable lines up with your thesis.

What has changed is, the soldiers are no longer fearing death.

What about the civilians who are claimed to have (a) got sick from and (b) died from "Spanish Flu?"

Overall, I don't think your thesis lines up with the timeframes, as I understand them.

1914-1916: War for Europeans, but not Americans, and no Spanish Flu (not even in Spain).

April 1917 - March 1918: War for Americans, but no Spanish Flu

March 1918 - 1919???: Spanish Flu first breaks out in Kansas (not Spain or anywhere else in Europe, and not among soldiers at war in Europe), but starting 4 months after the max vaccinations.

1918 - 1919: Civilians also getting the vaxx, and also getting sick and dying, but not at war (but many had loved ones at war).

June 1919 - Later: No more war, and no more Spanish Flu (don't know a specific "end date").

For the first time in years, they begin to feel safe again.

For American soldiers, it was 26 months (April 1917 to June 1919). Would be interesting to know if OTHER illnesses were affecting European soldiers and civilians BEFORE Spanish Flu. If so, would lend credibility to your thesis.

Also, what about Polio? Was that fear-based, as well? Did lead arsenic and DDT sprayed on food and people directly have more of an impact than fear?

What we call "lung cancer" today, is what they called "Tuberculosis" 100 years ago. All we had was a deceptive name change, which they do ALL THE TIME to keep us fooled. The TB phase is the healing/restoration phase of lung cancer.

In a lung cancer patient, you can often see a tumor (or whatever it is) in an xray. Can you with TB, as well?

excess lung alveoli

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. Has this been shown in patients? Could this have been a factor in the Covid patients, especially early on?

Secondly, the TB bacteria require a tremendous amount of protein to do their jobs. And high-protein diets were very rare after the war. For those who ran the longest and most intense "fear of death programs" but were poor and had little access to protein, their prognosis would be grim to say the least.

Not sure I follow here. If TB needs protein, wouldn't a lack of protein in the diet be harmful and destructive of TB?

Also, again I am not convinced that bacteria cause TB, but if so, my understanding is that the proteins that bacteria might eat are those that are not needed by the body. They wouldn't be eating protein from fresh meat, for example, as the digestive tract would assimilate that into amino acids and create quality human proteins for the body. Bacteria are the janitors, cleaning up the toxins and unwanted proteins. As I understand it.

WWII ...

Post-WW2, we have an added complication: MANY more people were smoking cigarettes, starting in about the 1920's-1930's. Smoking increases risk of lung cancer (and heart disease). So, were the post-WW2 vets getting lung cancer from smoking or from your thesis? Dunno.

Lung cancer is the #1 "Secondary cancer", meaning it arises after a person has been diagnosed with another form of cancer (in another organ). And "secondary cancers" amount to 90% of what western medicine attributes cancer deaths to (only 10% "die from" their original cancer diagnosis). And why is this? It's a diagnosis shock. Metastases has never been proven, nor does it make any sense when you stop and rethink things. If it were true, the red cross would screen donated blood for "cancer cells".

I don't know much about lung cancer. But I do know a fair about amout follicular lymphoma, because I had it. Based on my personal experience, conversations with others who have or had it, oncologists (who basically know nothing other than certain treatments seem to work for some people), and non-mainstream ideas (of a wide variety), I am currently of this opinion:

• Cancer, in general, is a malfunction of the mitocondria of cells. This is from work done by Thomas Seyfried, which was originally related to work done by Otto Warburg
• Why it malfunctions is the million-dollar question
• I think the "why" gets back to toxic overload of some sort
• In my case, it was one night at a cheap motel, where I was bitten more than 300 times by bed bugs ... about 8 months later, the lumps appeared
• I think it was the toxins in the bites that caused the mitocondria in the lymph cells to malfunction due to overload
• There was no secondary cancer that I know of in my case, and I have not come across anyone else with lymphoma who mentioned such a thing, but then I also never asked
• Receiving a diagnosis of cancer certainly IS a "diagnosis shock." I can attest to that.
• Metastases, according to Seyfried, is misunderstood by mainstream quack doctors. It is not the "disease getting worse and spreading." Rather, it is that certain cancer cells can travel through the blood stream, and therefore through the body.
• If we pair Thomas Seyfried's work with Tom Cowan's work, we get a logical picture of cancer: Some sort of toxic condition is present in the body for some reason; due to this toxic condition it causes certain cells to have their mitochondria malfuction; this malfunction causes the cells to change shape and other cellular properties to also change; the resulting cancer cells are not able to do their proper job, but they continue to exist in place of cells that could do the proper job, which causes the body to function at a sub-optimal level; this is "cancer."

My responses here are not meant to dismiss any of your thesis. Just to challenge certain points. Overall, it is interesting, but I can't say I fully understand all the important points you make, and don't know enough about some of these to really reach a conclusion. I would have to know more.

This is a tough venue for that. A 2-hour conversation over some beers would be a lot easier. KEK.

Interesting stuff.

The first thing I would like to point out is that we can agree that whatever was the cause(s) of Spanish Flu, it was not a virus. At least, there has never been any actual evidence that it was, so alternative explanations should be explored.

Second, the electrical current in the atmosphere also makes sense. I have not read the book, "Invisible Rainbow," but it claims electricity was the cause, or one of the causes. Edison created the light bulb in 1896, so the Spanish Flu would have been around the time that the world was becoming electrified, which the human body had never been subjected to. Plausible.

Third, the vaccine harm also seems very plausible. According to the info in this video, the Spanish Flu was first in the USA, near US Army bases, where they just so happen to have been injecting massive amounts of multiple vaccines (up to 25 per soldier), which had never been done before. It makes sense that this could have been a cause or at least contributor.

Regarding the psychological factor of your hypothesis, it makes sense that fear could produce something in the body that leads toward illness.

We should check when people first started getting sick. WW1 started in 1914. The US did not get involved until 1917. If the "Spanish Flu" started in the US in 1917/1918, then why didn't the fear first affect the European soldiers who were already fighting and dying in the trenches in Europe?

Second, note that there was no early deaths, nor did these soldiers die during active engagement in the war.

Those are a couple of interesting points. Would be interesting to see stats on the timing of these deaths vs. vaccine vs. war vs. electric bulb installations, etc.

It's also important to note that the excess lung alveoli were actually improving their ability to fight. They were, in effect, more alert and more athletically adept due to this increase in oxygen.

IF you can prove that, it would be quite interesting.

It's also important to note that deaths attributed to "Spanish Flu" were skewed massively toward "fighting age men, ages 18-40".

Of course, the younger ones were the test subjects for the vaccines, too. Would be interesting to see the age ranges of the Army-only vaxxed vs. the public-at-large vaxxed once the military were all vaxxed.

And don't forget, there were millions of mis-attributed deaths then, just as there are today.

Would not be surprising, but probably very difficult or impossible to parse out now, 100 years later -- unless someone was keeping track of some sort.

Even Dr. Death (Fauci) has admitted on record that autopsies of bodies of these soldiers from 1918-19 showed the vast majority died of "bacterial pneumonia". This supports my theory.

"Dr. Death." KEK. (Accurate, but KEK.)

I am leaning towards there is no such thing as "bacterial pneumonia." Bacteria exists, yes. Pneumonia happens, yes. But does the bacteria CAUSE the condition of pneumonia.

Just because bacteria are PRESENT in the fluid samples does NOT mean they caused it. Correlation is not causation. I suspect the bacteria are there to save the day, not cause the harm. But I am open to evidence that proves otherwise.

Now, the war ends and the soldiers start shipping back home. What has changed? Did they all get vaxxed before they came home? The answer is "no", they did not.

But the breakouts occured BEFORE they returned home from war. The US Army experiment was November 1917. So ...

April 1917 - US enters WW1

November 1917 -- US Army vaccine experiment

March 1918 - First case of Spanish Flu, at Fort Riley, Kansas

June 1919 - End of WW1

Can't find a real "end date" of Spanish Flu, but all sources seem to point to some time in 1919.

Not sure this timetable lines up with your thesis.

What has changed is, the soldiers are no longer fearing death.

What about the civilians who are claimed to have (a) got sick from and (b) died from "Spanish Flu?"

Overall, I don't think your thesis lines up with the timeframes, as I understand them.

1914-1916: War for Europeans, but not Americans, and no Spanish Flu (not even in Spain).

April 1917 - March 1918: War for Americans, but no Spanish Flu

March 1918 - 1919???: Spanish Flu first breaks out in Kansas (not Spain or anywhere else in Europe, and not among soldiers at war in Europe), but starting 4 months after the max vaccinations.

1918 - 1919: Civilians also getting the vaxx, and also getting sick and dying, but not at war (but many had loved ones at war).

June 1919 - Later: No more war, and no more Spanish Flu (don't know a specific "end date").

For the first time in years, they begin to feel safe again.

For American soldiers, it was 26 months (April 1917 to June 1919). Would be interesting to know if OTHER illnesses were affecting European soldiers and civilians BEFORE Spanish Flu. If so, would lend credibility to your thesis.

Also, what about Polio? Was that fear-based, as well? Did lead arsenic and DDT sprayed on food and people directly have more of an impact than fear?

What we call "lung cancer" today, is what they called "Tuberculosis" 100 years ago. All we had was a deceptive name change, which they do ALL THE TIME to keep us fooled. The TB phase is the healing/restoration phase of lung cancer.

In a lung cancer patient, you can often see a tumor (or whatever it is) in an xray. Can you with TB, as well?

excess lung alveoli

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. Has this been shown in patients? Could this have been a factor in the Covid patients, especially early on?

Secondly, the TB bacteria require a tremendous amount of protein to do their jobs. And high-protein diets were very rare after the war. For those who ran the longest and most intense "fear of death programs" but were poor and had little access to protein, their prognosis would be grim to say the least.

Not sure I follow here. If TB needs protein, wouldn't a lack of protein in the diet be harmful and destructive of TB?

Also, again I am not convinced that bacteria cause TB, but if so, my understanding is that the proteins that bacteria might eat are those that are not needed by the body. They wouldn't be eating protein from fresh meat, for example, as the digestive tract would assimilate that into amino acids and create quality human proteins for the body. Bacteria are the janitors, cleaning up the toxins and unwanted proteins. As I understand it.

WWII ...

Post-WW2, we have an added complication: MANY more people were smoking cigarettes, starting in about the 1920's-1930's. Smoking increases risk of lung cancer (and heart disease). So, were the post-WW2 vets getting lung cancer from smoking or from your thesis? Dunno.

Lung cancer is the #1 "Secondary cancer", meaning it arises after a person has been diagnosed with another form of cancer (in another organ). And "secondary cancers" amount to 90% of what western medicine attributes cancer deaths to (only 10% "die from" their original cancer diagnosis). And why is this? It's a diagnosis shock. Metastases has never been proven, nor does it make any sense when you stop and rethink things. If it were true, the red cross would screen donated blood for "cancer cells".

I don't know much about lung cancer. But I do know a fair about amout follicular lymphoma, because I had it. Based on my personal experience, conversations with others who have or had it, oncologists (who basically know nothing other than certain treatments seem to work for some people), and non-mainstream ideas (of a wide variety), I am currently of this opinion:

• Cancer, in general, is a malfunction of the mitocondria of cells. This is from work done by Thomas Seyfried, which was originally related to work done by Otto Warburg
• Why it malfunctions is the million-dollar question
• I think the "why" gets back to toxic overload of some sort
• In my case, it was one night at a cheap motel, where I was bitten more than 300 times by bed bugs ... about 8 months later, the lumps appeared
• I think it was the toxins in the bites that caused the mitocondria in the lymph cells to malfunction due to overload
• There was no secondary cancer that I know of in my case, and I have not come across anyone else with lymphoma who mentioned such a thing, but then I also never asked
• Receiving a diagnosis of cancer certainly IS a "diagnosis shock." I can attest to that.
• Metastases, according to Seyfried, is misunderstood by mainstream quack doctors. It is not the "disease getting worse and spreading." Rather, it is that certain cancer cells can travel through the blood stream, and therefore through the body.
• If we pair Thomas Seyfried's work with Tom Cowan's work, we get a logical picture of cancer: Some sort of toxic condition is present in the body for some reason; due to this toxic condition it causes certain cells to have their mitochondria malfuction; this malfunction is causes the cell to change shape and other properties to also change; the result is "cancer."

My responses here are not meant to dismiss any of your thesis. Just to challenge certain points. Overall, it is interesting, but I can't say I fully understand all the important points you make, and don't know enough about some of these to really reach a conclusion. I would have to know more.

This is a tough venue for that. A 2-hour conversation over some beers would be a lot easier. KEK.

Interesting stuff.

The first thing I would like to point out is that we can agree that whatever was the cause(s) of Spanish Flu, it was not a virus. At least, there has never been any actual evidence that it was, so alternative explanations should be explored.

Second, the electrical current in the atmosphere also makes sense. I have not read the book, "Invisible Rainbow," but it claims electricity was the cause, or one of the causes. Edison created the light bulb in 1896, so the Spanish Flu would have been around the time that the world was becoming electrified, which the human body had never been subjected to. Plausible.

Third, the vaccine harm also seems very plausible. According to the info in this video, the Spanish Flu was first in the USA, near US Army bases, where they just so happen to have been injecting massive amounts of multiple vaccines (up to 25 per soldier), which had never been done before. It makes sense that this could have been a cause or at least contributor.

Regarding the psychological factor of your hypothesis, it makes sense that fear could produce something in the body that leads toward illness.

We should check when people first started getting sick. WW1 started in 1914. The US did not get involved until 1917. If the "Spanish Flu" started in the US in 1917/1918, then why didn't the fear first affect the European soldiers who were already fighting and dying in the trenches in Europe?

Second, note that there was no early deaths, nor did these soldiers die during active engagement in the war.

Those are a couple of interesting points. Would be interesting to see stats on the timing of these deaths vs. vaccine vs. war vs. electric bulb installations, etc.

It's also important to note that the excess lung alveoli were actually improving their ability to fight. They were, in effect, more alert and more athletically adept due to this increase in oxygen.

IF you can prove that, it would be quite interesting.

It's also important to note that deaths attributed to "Spanish Flu" were skewed massively toward "fighting age men, ages 18-40".

Of course, the younger ones were the test subjects for the vaccines, too. Would be interesting to see the age ranges of the Army-only vaxxed vs. the public-at-large vaxxed once the military were all vaxxed.

And don't forget, there were millions of mis-attributed deaths then, just as there are today.

Would not be surprising, but probably very difficult or impossible to parse out now, 100 years later -- unless someone was keeping track of some sort.

Even Dr. Death (Fauci) has admitted on record that autopsies of bodies of these soldiers from 1918-19 showed the vast majority died of "bacterial pneumonia". This supports my theory.

"Dr. Death." KEK. (Accurate, but KEK.)

I am leaning towards there is no such thing as "bacterial pneumonia." Bacteria exists, yes. Pneumonia happens, yes. But does the bacteria CAUSE the condition of pneumonia.

Just because bacteria are PRESENT in the fluid samples does NOT mean they caused it. Correlation is not causation. I suspect the bacteria are there to save the day, not cause the harm. But I am open to evidence that proves otherwise.

Now, the war ends and the soldiers start shipping back home. What has changed? Did they all get vaxxed before they came home? The answer is "no", they did not.

But the breakouts occured BEFORE they returned home from war. The US Army experiment was November 1917. So ...

April 1917 - US enters WW1

November 1917 -- US Army vaccine experiment

March 1918 - First case of Spanish Flu, at Fort Riley, Kansas

June 1919 - End of WW1

Can't find a real "end date" of Spanish Flu, but all sources seem to point to some time in 1919.

Not sure this timetable lines up with your thesis.

What has changed is, the soldiers are no longer fearing death.

What about the civilians who are claimed to have (a) got sick from and (b) died from "Spanish Flu?"

Overall, I don't think your thesis lines up with the timeframes, as I understand them.

1914-1916: War for Europeans, but not Americans, and no Spanish Flu (not even in Spain).

April 1917 - March 1918: War for Americans, but no Spanish Flu

March 1918 - 1919???: Spanish Flu first breaks out in Kansas (not Spain or anywhere else in Europe, and not among soldiers at war in Europe), but starting 4 months after the max vaccinations.

1918 - 1919: Civilians also getting the vaxx, and also getting sick and dying, but not at war (but many had loved ones at war).

June 1919 - Later: No more war, and no more Spanish Flu (don't know a specific "end date").

For the first time in years, they begin to feel safe again.

For American soldiers, it was 26 months (April 1917 to June 1919). Would be interesting to know if OTHER illnesses were affecting European soldiers and civilians BEFORE Spanish Flu. If so, would lend credibility to your thesis.

Also, what about Polio? Was that fear-based, as well? Did lead arsenic and DDT sprayed on food and people directly have more of an impact than fear?

What we call "lung cancer" today, is what they called "Tuberculosis" 100 years ago. All we had was a deceptive name change, which they do ALL THE TIME to keep us fooled. The TB phase is the healing/restoration phase of lung cancer.

In a lung cancer patient, you can often see a tumor (or whatever it is) in an xray. Can you with TB, as well?

excess lung alveoli

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. Has this been shown in patients? Could this have been a factor in the Covid patients, especially early on?

Secondly, the TB bacteria require a tremendous amount of protein to do their jobs. And high-protein diets were very rare after the war. For those who ran the longest and most intense "fear of death programs" but were poor and had little access to protein, their prognosis would be grim to say the least.

Not sure I follow here. If TB needs protein, wouldn't a lack of protein in the diet be harmful and destructive of TB?

Also, again I am not convinced that bacteria cause TB, but if so, my understanding is that the proteins that bacteria might eat are those that are not needed by the body. They wouldn't be eating protein from fresh meat, for example, as the digestive tract would assimilate that into amino acids and create quality human proteins for the body. Bacteria are the janitors, cleaning up the toxins and unwanted proteins. As I understand it.

WWII ...

Post-WW2, we have an added complication: MANY more people were smoking cigarettes, starting in about the 1920's-1930's. Smoking increases risk of lung cancer (and heart disease). So, were the post-WW2 vets getting lung cancer from smoking or from your thesis? Dunno.

Lung cancer is the #1 "Secondary cancer", meaning it arises after a person has been diagnosed with another form of cancer (in another organ). And "secondary cancers" amount to 90% of what western medicine attributes cancer deaths to (only 10% "die from" their original cancer diagnosis). And why is this? It's a diagnosis shock. Metastases has never been proven, nor does it make any sense when you stop and rethink things. If it were true, the red cross would screen donated blood for "cancer cells".

I don't know much about lung cancer. But I do know a fair about amout follicular lymphoma, because I had it. Based on my personal experience, conversations with others who have or had it, oncologists (who basically know nothing other than certain treatments seem to work for some people), and non-mainstream ideas (of a wide variety), I am currently of this opinion:

• Cancer, in general, is a malfunction of the mitocondria of cells. This is from work done by Thomas Seyfried, which was originally related to work done by Otto Warburg
• Why it malfunctions is the million-dollar question
• I think the "why" gets back to toxic overload of some sort
• In my case, it was one night at a cheap motel, where I was bitten more than 300 times by bed bugs ... about 8 months later, the lumps appeared
• I think it was the toxins in the bites that caused the mitocondria in they lymph system to malfunction due to overload
• There was no secondary cancer that I know of in my case, and I have not come across anyone else with lymphoma who mentioned such a thing, but then I also never asked
• Receiving a diagnosis of cancer certainly IS a "diagnosis shock." I can attest to that.
• Metastases, according to Seyfried, is misunderstood by mainstream quack doctors. It is not the "disease getting worse and spreading." Rather, it is that certain cancer cells can travel through the blood stream, and therefore through the body.
• If we pair Thomas Seyfried's work with Tom Cowan's work, we get a logical picture of cancer: Some sort of toxic condition is present in the body for some reason; due to this toxic condition it causes certain cells to have their mitochondria malfuction; this malfunction is causes the cell to change shape and other properties to also change; the result is "cancer."

My responses here are not meant to dismiss any of your thesis. Just to challenge certain points. Overall, it is interesting, but I can't say I fully understand all the important points you make, and don't know enough about some of these to really reach a conclusion. I would have to know more.

This is a tough venue for that. A 2-hour conversation over some beers would be a lot easier. KEK.

Interesting stuff.

The first thing I would like to point out is that we can agree that whatever was the cause(s) of Spanish Flu, it was not a virus. At least, there has never been any actual evidence that it was, so alternative explanations should be explored.

Second, the electrical current in the atmosphere also makes sense. I have not read the book, "Invisible Rainbow," but it claims electricity was the cause, or one of the causes. Edison created the light bulb in 1896, so the Spanish Flu would have been around the time that the world was becoming electrified, which the human body had never been subjected to. Plausible.

Third, the vaccine harm also seems very plausible. According to the info in this video, the Spanish Flu was first in the USA, near US Army bases, where they just so happen to have been injecting massive amounts of multiple vaccines (up to 25 per soldier), which had never been done before. It makes sense that this could have been a cause or at least contributor.

Regarding the psychological factor of your hypothesis, it makes sense that fear could produce something in the body that leads toward illness.

We should check when people first started getting sick. WW1 started in 1914. The US did not get involved until 1917. If the "Spanish Flu" started in the US in 1917/1918, then why didn't the fear first affect the European soldiers who were already fighting and dying in the trenches in Europe?

Second, note that there was no early deaths, nor did these soldiers die during active engagement in the war.

Those are a couple of interesting points. Would be interesting to see stats on the timing of these deaths vs. vaccine vs. war vs. electric bulb installations, etc.

It's also important to note that the excess lung alveoli were actually improving their ability to fight. They were, in effect, more alert and more athletically adept due to this increase in oxygen.

IF you can prove that, it would be quite interesting.

It's also important to note that deaths attributed to "Spanish Flu" were skewed massively toward "fighting age men, ages 18-40".

Of course, the younger ones were the test subjects for the vaccines, too. Would be interesting to see the age ranges of the Army-only vaxxed vs. the public-at-large vaxxed once the military were all vaxxed.

And don't forget, there were millions of mis-attributed deaths then, just as there are today.

Would not be surprising, but probably very difficult or impossible to parse out now, 100 years later -- unless someone was keeping track of some sort.

Even Dr. Death (Fauci) has admitted on record that autopsies of bodies of these soldiers from 1918-19 showed the vast majority died of "bacterial pneumonia". This supports my theory.

"Dr. Death." KEK. (Accurate, but KEK.)

I am leaning towards there is no such thing as "bacterial pneumonia." Bacteria exists, yes. Pneumonia happens, yes. But does the bacteria CAUSE the condition of pneumonia.

Just because bacteria are PRESENT in the fluid samples does NOT mean they caused it. Correlation is not causation. I suspect the bacteria are there to save the day, not cause the harm. But I am open to evidence that proves otherwise.

Now, the war ends and the soldiers start shipping back home. What has changed? Did they all get vaxxed before they came home? The answer is "no", they did not.

But the breakouts occured BEFORE they returned home from war. The US Army experiment was November 1917. So ...

April 1917 - US enters WW1

November 1917 -- US Army vaccine experiment

March 1918 - First case of Spanish Flu, at Fort Riley, Kansas

June 1919 - End of WW1

Can't find a real "end date" of Spanish Flu, but all sources seem to point to some time in 1919.

Not sure this timetable lines up with your thesis.

What has changed is, the soldiers are no longer fearing death.

What about the civilians who are claimed to have (a) got sick from and (b) died from "Spanish Flu?"

Overall, I don't think your thesis lines up with the timeframes, as I understand them.

1914-1916: War for Europeans, but not Americans, and no Spanish Flu (not even in Spain).

April 1917 - March 1918: War for Americans, but no Spanish Flu

March 1918 - 1919???: Spanish Flu first breaks out in Kansas (not Spain or anywhere else in Europe, and not among soldiers at war in Europe), but starting 4 months after the max vaccinations.

1918 - 1919: Civilians also getting the vaxx, and also getting sick and dying, but not at war (but many had loved ones at war).

June 1919 - Later: No more war, and no more Spanish Flu (don't know a specific "end date").

For the first time in years, they begin to feel safe again.

For American soldiers, it was 26 months (April 1917 to June 1919). Would be interesting to know if OTHER illnesses were affecting European soldiers and civilians BEFORE Spanish Flu. If so, would lend credibility to your thesis.

Also, what about Polio? Was that fear-based, as well? Did lead arsenic and DDT sprayed on food and people directly have more of an impact than fear?

What we call "lung cancer" today, is what they called "Tuberculosis" 100 years ago. All we had was a deceptive name change, which they do ALL THE TIME to keep us fooled. The TB phase is the healing/restoration phase of lung cancer.

In a lung cancer patient, you can often see a tumor (or whatever it is) in an xray. Can you with TB, as well?

excess lung alveoli

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. Has this been shown in patients? Could this have been a factor in the Covid patients, especially early on?

Secondly, the TB bacteria require a tremendous amount of protein to do their jobs. And high-protein diets were very rare after the war. For those who ran the longest and most intense "fear of death programs" but were poor and had little access to protein, their prognosis would be grim to say the least.

Not sure I follow here. If TB needs protein, wouldn't a lack of protein in the diet be harmful and destructive of TB?

Also, again I am not convinced that bacteria cause TB, but if so, my understanding is that the proteins that bacteria might eat are those that are not needed by the body. They wouldn't be eating protein from fresh meat, for example, as the digestive tract would assimilate that into amino acids and create quality human proteins for the body. Bacteria are the janitors, cleaning up the toxins and unwanted proteins. As I understand it.

WWII ...

Post-WW2, we have an added complication: MANY more people were smoking cigarettes, starting in about the 1920's-1930's. Smoking increases risk of lung cancer (and heart disease). So, were the post-WW2 vets getting lung cancer from smoking or from your thesis? Dunno.

Lung cancer is the #1 "Secondary cancer", meaning it arises after a person has been diagnosed with another form of cancer (in another organ). And "secondary cancers" amount to 90% of what western medicine attributes cancer deaths to (only 10% "die from" their original cancer diagnosis). And why is this? It's a diagnosis shock. Metastases has never been proven, nor does it make any sense when you stop and rethink things. If it were true, the red cross would screen donated blood for "cancer cells".

I don't know much about lung cancer. But I do know a fair about amout follicular lymphoma, because I had it. Based on my personal experience, conversations with others who have or had it, oncologists (who basically know nothing other than certain treatments seem to work for some people), and non-mainstream ideas (of a wide variety), I am currenting of this opinion:

• Cancer, in general, is a malfunction of the mitocondria of cells. This is from work done by Thomas Seyfried, which was originally related to work done by Otto Warburg
• Why it malfunctions is the million-dollar question
• I think the "why" gets back to toxic overload of some sort
• In my case, it was one night at a cheap motel, where I was bitten more than 300 times by bed bugs ... about 8 months later, the lumps appeared
• I think it was the toxins in the bites that caused the mitocondria in they lymph system to malfunction due to overload
• There was no secondary cancer that I know of in my case, and I have not come across anyone else with lymphoma who mentioned such a thing, but then I also never asked
• Receiving a diagnosis of cancer certainly IS a "diagnosis shock." I can attest to that.
• Metastases, according to Seyfried, is misunderstood by mainstream quack doctors. It is not the "disease getting worse and spreading." Rather, it is that certain cancer cells can travel through the blood stream, and therefore through the body.
• If we pair Thomas Seyfried's work with Tom Cowan's work, we get a logical picture of cancer: Some sort of toxic condition is present in the body for some reason; due to this toxic condition it causes certain cells to have their mitochondria malfuction; this malfunction is causes the cell to change shape and other properties to also change; the result is "cancer."

My responses here are not meant to dismiss any of your thesis. Just to challenge certain points. Overall, it is interesting, but I can't say I fully understand all the important points you make, and don't know enough about some of these to really reach a conclusion. I would have to know more.

This is a tough venue for that. A 2-hour conversation over some beers would be a lot easier. KEK.

Interesting stuff.

The first thing I would like to point out is that we can agree that whatever was the cause(s) of Spanish Flu, it was not a virus. At least, there has never been any actual evidence that it was, so alternative explanations should be explored.

Second, the electrical current in the atmosphere also makes sense. I have not read the book, "Invisible Rainbow," but it claims electricity was the cause, or one of the causes. Edison created the light bulb in 1896, so the Spanish Flu would have been around the time that the world was becoming electrified, which the human body had never been subjected to. Plausible.

Third, the vaccine harm also seems very plausible. According to the info in this video, the Spanish Flu was first in the USA, near US Army bases, where they just so happen to have been injecting massive amounts of multiple vaccines (up to 25 per soldier), which had never been done before. It makes sense that this could have been a cause or at least contributor.

Regarding the psychological factor of your hypothesis, it makes sense that fear could produce something in the body that leads toward illness.

We should check when people first started getting sick. WW1 started in 1914. The US did not get involved until 1917. If the "Spanish Flu" started in the US in 1917/1918, then why didn't the fear first affect the European soldiers who were already fighting and dying in the trenches in Europe?

Second, note that there was no early deaths, nor did these soldiers die during active engagement in the war.

Those are a couple of interesting points. Would be interesting to see stats on the timing of these deaths vs. vaccine vs. war vs. electric bulb installations, etc.

It's also important to note that the excess lung alveoli were actually improving their ability to fight. They were, in effect, more alert and more athletically adept due to this increase in oxygen.

IF you can prove that, it would be quite interesting.

It's also important to note that deaths attributed to "Spanish Flu" were skewed massively toward "fighting age men, ages 18-40".

Of course, the younger ones were the test subjects for the vaccines, too. Would be interesting to see the age ranges of the Army-only vaxxed vs. the public-at-large vaxxed once the military were all vaxxed.

And don't forget, there were millions of mis-attributed deaths then, just as there are today.

Would not be surprising, but probably very difficult or impossible to parse out now, 100 years later -- unless someone was keeping track of some sort.

Even Dr. Death (Fauci) has admitted on record that autopsies of bodies of these soldiers from 1918-19 showed the vast majority died of "bacterial pneumonia". This supports my theory.

"Dr. Death." KEK. (Accurate, but KEK.)

I am leaning towards there is no such thing as "bacterial pneumonia." Bacteria exists, yes. Pneumonia happens, yes. But does the bacteria CAUSE the condition of pneumonia.

Just because bacteria are PRESENT in the fluid samples does NOT mean they caused it. Correlation is not causation. I suspect the bacteria are there to save the day, not cause the harm. But I am open to evidence that proves otherwise.

Now, the war ends and the soldiers start shipping back home. What has changed? Did they all get vaxxed before they came home? The answer is "no", they did not.

But the breakouts occured BEFORE they returned home from war. The US Army experiment was November 1917. So ...

April 1917 - US enters WW1

November 1917 -- US Army vaccine experiment

March 1918 - First case of Spanish Flu, at Fort Riley, Kansas

June 1919 - End of WW1

Can't find a real "end date" of Spanish Flu, but all sources seem to point to some time in 1919.

Not sure this timetable lines up with your thesis.

What has changed is, the soldiers are no longer fearing death.

What about the civilians who are claimed to have (a) got sick from and (b) died from "Spanish Flu?"

Overall, I don't think your thesis lines up with the timeframes, as I understand them.

1914-1916: War for Europeans, but not Americans, and no Spanish Flu (not even in Spain).

April 1917 - March 1918: War for Americans, but no Spanish Flu

March 1918 - 1919???: Spanish Flu first breaks out in Kansas (not Spain or anywhere else in Europe, and not among soldiers at war in Europe), but starting 4 months after the max vaccinations.

1918 - 1919: Civilians also getting the vaxx, and also getting sick and dying, but not at war (but many had loved ones at war).

June 1919 - Later: No more war, and no more Spanish Flu (don't know a specific "end date").

For the first time in years, they begin to feel safe again.

For American soldiers, it was 26 months (April 1917 to June 1919). Would be interesting to know if OTHER illnesses were affecting European soldiers and civilians BEFORE Spanish Flu. If so, would lend credibility to your thesis.

Also, what about Polio? Was that fear-based, as well? Did lead arsenic and DDT sprayed on food and people directly have more of an impact than fear?

What we call "lung cancer" today, is what they called "Tuberculosis" 100 years ago. All we had was a deceptive name change, which they do ALL THE TIME to keep us fooled. The TB phase is the healing/restoration phase of lung cancer.

In a lung cancer patient, you can often see a tumor (or whatever it is) in an xray. Can you with TB, as well?

excess lung alveoli

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. Has this been shown in patients? Could this have been a factor in the Covid patients, especially early on?

Secondly, the TB bacteria require a tremendous amount of protein to do their jobs. And high-protein diets were very rare after the war. For those who ran the longest and most intense "fear of death programs" but were poor and had little access to protein, their prognosis would be grim to say the least.

Not sure I follow here. If TB needs protein, wouldn't a lack of protein in the diet be harmful and destructive of TB?

Also, again I am not convinced that bacteria cause TB, but if so, my understanding is that the proteins that bacteria might eat are those that are not needed by the body. They wouldn't be eating protein from fresh meat, for example, as the digestive tract would assimilate that into amino acids and create quality human proteins for the body. Bacteria are the janitors, cleaning up the toxins and unwanted proteins. As I understand it.

WWII ...

Post-WW2, we have an added complication: MANY more people were smoking cigarettes, starting in about the 1920's-1930's. Smoking increases risk of lung cancer (and heart disease). So, were the post-WW2 vets getting lung cancer from smoking or from your thesis? Dunno.

Lung cancer is the #1 "Secondary cancer", meaning it arises after a person has been diagnosed with another form of cancer (in another organ). And "secondary cancers" amount to 90% of what western medicine attributes cancer deaths to (only 10% "die from" their original cancer diagnosis). And why is this? It's a diagnosis shock. Metastases has never been proven, nor does it make any sense when you stop and rethink things. If it were true, the red cross would screen donated blood for "cancer cells".

I don't know much about lung cancer. But I do know a fair about amout follicular lymphoma, because I had it. Based on my person experience, conversations with others who have or had it, oncologists (who basically know nothing other than certain treatments seem to work for some people), and non-mainstream ideas (of a wide variety), I am currenting of this opinion:

• Cancer, in general, is a malfunction of the mitocondria of cells. This is from work done by Thomas Seyfried, which was originally related to work done by Otto Warburg
• Why it malfunctions is the million-dollar question
• I think the "why" gets back to toxic overload of some sort
• In my case, it was one night at a cheap motel, where I was bitten more than 300 times by bed bugs ... about 8 months later, the lumps appeared
• I think it was the toxins in the bites that caused the mitocondria in they lymph system to malfunction due to overload
• There was no secondary cancer that I know of in my case, and I have not come across anyone else with lymphoma who mentioned such a thing, but then I also never asked
• Receiving a diagnosis of cancer certainly IS a "diagnosis shock." I can attest to that.
• Metastases, according to Seyfried, is misunderstood by mainstream quack doctors. It is not the "disease getting worse and spreading." Rather, it is that certain cancer cells can travel through the blood stream, and therefore through the body.
• If we pair Thomas Seyfried's work with Tom Cowan's work, we get a logical picture of cancer: Some sort of toxic condition is present in the body for some reason; due to this toxic condition it causes certain cells to have their mitochondria malfuction; this malfunction is causes the cell to change shape and other properties to also change; the result is "cancer."

My responses here are not meant to dismiss any of your thesis. Just to challenge certain points. Overall, it is interesting, but I can't say I fully understand all the important points you make, and don't know enough about some of these to really reach a conclusion. I would have to know more.

This is a tough venue for that. A 2-hour conversation over some beers would be a lot easier. KEK.

Interesting stuff.

The first thing I would like to point out is that we can agree that whatever was the cause(s) of Spanish Flu, it was not a virus. At least, there has never been any actual evidence that it was, so alternative explanations should be explored.

Second, the electrical current in the atmosphere also makes sense. I have not read the book, "Invisible Rainbow," but it claims electricity was the cause, or one of the causes. Edison created the light bulb in 1896, so the Spanish Flu would have been around the time that the world was becoming electrified, which the human body had never been subjected to. Plausible.

Third, the vaccine harm also seems very plausible. According to the info in this video, the Spanish Flu was first in the USA, near US Army bases, where they just so happen to have been injecting massive amounts of multiple vaccines (up to 25 per soldier), which had never been done before. It makes sense that this could have been a cause or at least contributor.

Regarding the psychological factor of your hypothesis, it makes sense that fear could produce something in the body that leads toward illness.

We should check when people first started getting sick. WW1 started in 1914. The US did not get involved until 1917. If the "Spanish Flu" started in the US in 1917/1918, then why didn't the fear first affect the European soldiers who were already fighting and dying in the trenches in Europe?

Second, note that there was no early deaths, nor did these soldiers die during active engagement in the war.

Those are a couple of interesting points. Would be interesting to see stats on the timing of these deaths vs. vaccine vs. war vs. electric bulb installations, etc.

It's also important to note that the excess lung alveoli were actually improving their ability to fight. They were, in effect, more alert and more athletically adept due to this increase in oxygen.

IF you can prove that, it would be quite interesting.

It's also important to note that deaths attributed to "Spanish Flu" were skewed massively toward "fighting age men, ages 18-40".

Of course, the younger ones were the test subjects for the vaccines, too. Would be interesting to see the age ranges of the Army-only vaxxed vs. the public-at-large vaxxed once the military were all vaxxed.

And don't forget, there were millions of mis-attributed deaths then, just as there are today.

Would not be surprising, but probably very difficult or impossible to parse out now, 100 years later -- unless someone was keeping track of some sort.

Even Dr. Death (Fauci) has admitted on record that autopsies of bodies of these soldiers from 1918-19 showed the vast majority died of "bacterial pneumonia". This supports my theory.

"Dr. Death." KEK. (Accurate, but KEK.)

I am leaning towards there is no such thing as "bacterial pneumonia." Bacteria exists, yes. Pneumonia happens, yes. But does the bacteria CAUSE the condition of pneumonia.

Just because bacteria are PRESENT in the fluid samples does NOT mean they caused it. Correlation is not causation. I suspect the bacteria are there to save the day, not cause the harm. But I am open to evidence that proves otherwise.

Now, the war ends and the soldiers start shipping back home. What has changed? Did they all get vaxxed before they came home? The answer is "no", they did not.

But the breakouts occured BEFORE they returned home from war. The US Army experiment was November 1917. So ...

April 1917 - US enters WW1

November 1917 -- US Army vaccine experiment

March 1918 - First case of Spanish Flu, at Fort Riley, Kansas

June 1919 - End of WW1

Can't find a real "end date" of Spanish Flu, but all sources seem to point to some time in 1919.

Not sure this timetable lines up with your thesis.

What has changed is, the soldiers are no longer fearing death.

What about the civilians who are claimed to have (a) got sick from and (b) died from "Spanish Flu?"

Overall, I don't think your thesis lines up with the timeframes, as I understand them.

1914-1916: War for Europeans, but not Americans, and no Spanish Flu (not even in Spain).

April 1917 - March 1918: War for Americans, but no Spanish Flu

March 1918 - 1919???: Spanish Flu first breaks out in Kansas (not Spain or anywhere else in Europe, and not among soldiers at war in Europe), but starting 4 months after the max vaccinations.

1918 - 1919: Civilians also getting the vaxx, and also getting sick and dying, but not at war (but many had loved ones at war).

June 1919 - Later: No more war, and no more Spanish Flu (don't know a specific "end date").

For the first time in years, they begin to feel safe again.

For American soldiers, it was 26 months (April 1917 to June 1919). Would be interesting to know if OTHER illnesses were affecting European soldiers and civilians BEFORE Spanish Flu. If so, would lend credibility to your thesis.

Also, what about Polio? Was that fear-based, as well? Did lead arsenic and DDT sprayed on food and people directly have more of an impact that fear?

What we call "lung cancer" today, is what they called "Tuberculosis" 100 years ago. All we had was a deceptive name change, which they do ALL THE TIME to keep us fooled. The TB phase is the healing/restoration phase of lung cancer.

In a lung cancer patient, you can often see a tumor (or whatever it is) in an xray. Can you with TB, as well?

excess lung alveoli

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. Has this been shown in patients? Could this have been a factor in the Covid patients, especially early on?

Secondly, the TB bacteria require a tremendous amount of protein to do their jobs. And high-protein diets were very rare after the war. For those who ran the longest and most intense "fear of death programs" but were poor and had little access to protein, their prognosis would be grim to say the least.

Not sure I follow here. If TB needs protein, wouldn't a lack of protein in the diet be harmful and destructive of TB?

Also, again I am not convinced that bacteria cause TB, but if so, my understanding is that the proteins that bacteria might eat are those that are not needed by the body. They wouldn't be eating protein from fresh meat, for example, as the digestive tract would assimilate that into amino acids and create quality human proteins for the body. Bacteria are the janitors, cleaning up the toxins and unwanted proteins. As I understand it.

WWII ...

Post-WW2, we have an added complication: MANY more people were smoking cigarettes, starting in about the 1920's-1930's. Smoking increases risk of lung cancer (and heart disease). So, were the post-WW2 vets getting lung cancer from smoking or from your thesis? Dunno.

Lung cancer is the #1 "Secondary cancer", meaning it arises after a person has been diagnosed with another form of cancer (in another organ). And "secondary cancers" amount to 90% of what western medicine attributes cancer deaths to (only 10% "die from" their original cancer diagnosis). And why is this? It's a diagnosis shock. Metastases has never been proven, nor does it make any sense when you stop and rethink things. If it were true, the red cross would screen donated blood for "cancer cells".

I don't know much about lung cancer. But I do know a fair about amout follicular lymphoma, because I had it. Based on my person experience, conversations with others who have or had it, oncologists (who basically know nothing other than certain treatments seem to work for some people), and non-mainstream ideas (of a wide variety), I am currenting of this opinion:

• Cancer, in general, is a malfunction of the mitocondria of cells. This is from work done by Thomas Seyfried, which was originally related to work done by Otto Warburg
• Why it malfunctions is the million-dollar question
• I think the "why" gets back to toxic overload of some sort
• In my case, it was one night at a cheap motel, where I was bitten more than 300 times by bed bugs ... about 8 months later, the lumps appeared
• I think it was the toxins in the bites that caused the mitocondria in they lymph system to malfunction due to overload
• There was no secondary cancer that I know of in my case, and I have not come across anyone else with lymphoma who mentioned such a thing, but then I also never asked
• Receiving a diagnosis of cancer certainly IS a "diagnosis shock." I can attest to that.
• Metastases, according to Seyfried, is misunderstood by mainstream quack doctors. It is not the "disease getting worse and spreading." Rather, it is that certain cancer cells can travel through the blood stream, and therefore through the body.
• If we pair Thomas Seyfried's work with Tom Cowan's work, we get a logical picture of cancer: Some sort of toxic condition is present in the body for some reason; due to this toxic condition it causes certain cells to have their mitochondria malfuction; this malfunction is causes the cell to change shape and other properties to also change; the result is "cancer."

My responses here are not meant to dismiss any of your thesis. Just to challenge certain points. Overall, it is interesting, but I can't say I fully understand all the important points you make, and don't know enough about some of these to really reach a conclusion. I would have to know more.

This is a tough venue for that. A 2-hour conversation over some beers would be a lot easier. KEK.

Interesting stuff.

The first thing I would like to point out is that we can agree that whatever was the cause(s) of Spanish Flu, it was not a virus. At least, there has never been any actual evidence that it was, so alternative explanations should be explored.

Second, the electrical current in the atmosphere also makes sense. I have not read the book, "Invisible Rainbow," but it claims electricity was the cause, or one of the causes. Edison created the light bulb in 1896, so the Spanish Flu would have been around the time that the world was becoming electrified, which the human body had never been subjected to. Plausible.

Third, the vaccine harm also seems very plausible. According to the info in this video, the Spanish Flu was first in the USA, near US Army bases, where they just so happen to have been injecting massive amounts of multiple vaccines (up to 25 per soldier), which had never been done before. It makes sense that this could have been a cause or at least contributor.

Regarding the psychological factor of your hypothesis, it makes sense that fear could produce something in the body that leads toward illness.

We should check when people first started getting sick. WW1 started in 1914. The US did not get involved until 1917. If the "Spanish Flu" started in the US in 1917/1918, then why didn't the fear first affect the European soldiers who were already fighting and dying in the trenches in Europe?

Second, note that there was no early deaths, nor did these soldiers die during active engagement in the war.

Those are a couple of interesting points. Would be interesting to see stats on the timing of these deaths vs. vaccine vs. war vs. electric bulb installations, etc.

It's also important to note that the excess lung alveoli were actually improving their ability to fight. They were, in effect, more alert and more athletically adept due to this increase in oxygen.

IF you can prove that, it would be quite interesting.

It's also important to note that deaths attributed to "Spanish Flu" were skewed massively toward "fighting age men, ages 18-40".

Of course, the younger ones were the test subjects for the vaccines, too. Would be interesting to see the age ranges of the Army-only vaxxed vs. the public-at-large vaxxed once the military were all vaxxed.

And don't forget, there were millions of mis-attributed deaths then, just as there are today.

Would not be surprising, but probably very difficult or impossible to parse out now, 100 years later -- unless someone was keeping track of some sort.

Even Dr. Death (Fauci) has admitted on record that autopsies of bodies of these soldiers from 1918-19 showed the vast majority died of "bacterial pneumonia". This supports my theory.

"Dr. Death." KEK. (Accurate, but KEK.)

I am leaning towards there is no such thing as "bacterial pneumonia." Bacteria exists, yes. Pneumonia happens, yes. But does the bacteria CAUSE the condition of pneumonia.

Just because bacteria are PRESENT in the fluid samples does NOT mean they caused it. Correlation is not causation. I suspect the bacteria are there to save the day, not cause the harm. But I am open to evidence that proves otherwise.

Now, the war ends and the soldiers start shipping back home. What has changed? Did they all get vaxxed before they came home? The answer is "no", they did not.

But the breakouts occured BEFORE they returned home from war. The US Army experiment was November 1917. So ...

April 1917 - US enters WW1

November 1917 -- US Army vaccine experiment

March 1918 - First case of Spanish Flu, at Fort Riley, Kansas

June 1919 - End of WW1

Can't find a real "end date" of Spanish Flu, but all sources seem to point to some time in 1919.

Not sure this timetable lines up with your thesis.

What has changed is, the soldiers are no longer fearing death.

What about the civilians who are claimed to have (a) got sick from and (b) died from "Spanish Flu?"

Overall, I don't think your thesis lines up with the timeframes, as I understand them.

1914-1916: War for Europeans, but not Americans, and no Spanish Flu (not even in Spain).

April 1917 - March 1918: War for Americans, but no Spanish Flu

March 1918 - 1919???: Spanish Flu first breaks out in Kansas (not Spain or anywhere else in Europe, and not among soldiers at war in Europe), but starting 4 months after the maxx vaccinations.

1918 - 1919: Civilians also getting the vaxx, and also getting sick and dying, but not at war (but many had loved ones at war).

June 1919 - Later: No more Spanish Flu (don't know a specific "end date").

For the first time in years, they begin to feel safe again.

For American soldiers, it was 26 months (April 1917 to June 1919). Would be interesting to know if OTHER illnesses were affecting European soldiers and civilians BEFORE Spanish Flu. If so, would lend credibility to your thesis.

Also, what about Polio? Was that fear-based, as well? Did lead arsenic and DDT sprayed on food and people directly have more of an impact that fear?

What we call "lung cancer" today, is what they called "Tuberculosis" 100 years ago. All we had was a deceptive name change, which they do ALL THE TIME to keep us fooled. The TB phase is the healing/restoration phase of lung cancer.

In a lung cancer patient, you can often see a tumor (or whatever it is) in an xray. Can you with TB, as well?

excess lung alveoli

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. Has this been shown in patients? Could this have been a factor in the Covid patients, especially early on?

Secondly, the TB bacteria require a tremendous amount of protein to do their jobs. And high-protein diets were very rare after the war. For those who ran the longest and most intense "fear of death programs" but were poor and had little access to protein, their prognosis would be grim to say the least.

Not sure I follow here. If TB needs protein, wouldn't a lack of protein in the diet be harmful and destructive of TB?

Also, again I am not convinced that bacteria cause TB, but if so, my understanding is that the proteins that bacteria might eat are those that are not needed by the body. They wouldn't be eating protein from fresh meat, for example, as the digestive tract would assimilate that into amino acids and create quality human proteins for the body. Bacteria are the janitors, cleaning up the toxins and unwanted proteins. As I understand it.

WWII ...

Post-WW2, we have an added complication: MANY more people were smoking cigarettes, starting in about the 1920's-1930's. Smoking increases risk of lung cancer (and heart disease). So, were the post-WW2 vets getting lung cancer from smoking or from your thesis? Dunno.

Lung cancer is the #1 "Secondary cancer", meaning it arises after a person has been diagnosed with another form of cancer (in another organ). And "secondary cancers" amount to 90% of what western medicine attributes cancer deaths to (only 10% "die from" their original cancer diagnosis). And why is this? It's a diagnosis shock. Metastases has never been proven, nor does it make any sense when you stop and rethink things. If it were true, the red cross would screen donated blood for "cancer cells".

I don't know much about lung cancer. But I do know a fair about amout follicular lymphoma, because I had it. Based on my person experience, conversations with others who have or had it, oncologists (who basically know nothing other than certain treatments seem to work for some people), and non-mainstream ideas (of a wide variety), I am currenting of this opinion:

• Cancer, in general, is a malfunction of the mitocondria of cells. This is from work done by Thomas Seyfried, which was originally related to work done by Otto Warburg
• Why it malfunctions is the million-dollar question
• I think the "why" gets back to toxic overload of some sort
• In my case, it was one night at a cheap motel, where I was bitten more than 300 times by bed bugs ... about 8 months later, the lumps appeared
• I think it was the toxins in the bites that caused the mitocondria in they lymph system to malfunction due to overload
• There was no secondary cancer that I know of in my case, and I have not come across anyone else with lymphoma who mentioned such a thing, but then I also never asked
• Receiving a diagnosis of cancer certainly IS a "diagnosis shock." I can attest to that.
• Metastases, according to Seyfried, is misunderstood by mainstream quack doctors. It is not the "disease getting worse and spreading." Rather, it is that certain cancer cells can travel through the blood stream, and therefore through the body.
• If we pair Thomas Seyfried's work with Tom Cowan's work, we get a logical picture of cancer: Some sort of toxic condition is present in the body for some reason; due to this toxic condition it causes certain cells to have their mitochondria malfuction; this malfunction is causes the cell to change shape and other properties to also change; the result is "cancer."

My responses here are not meant to dismiss any of your thesis. Just to challenge certain points. Overall, it is interesting, but I can't say I fully understand all the important points you make, and don't know enough about some of these to really reach a conclusion. I would have to know more.

This is a tough venue for that. A 2-hour conversation over some beers would be a lot easier. KEK.

Interesting stuff.

The first thing I would like to point out is that we can agree that whatever was the cause(s) of Spanish Flu, it was not a virus. At least, there has never been any actual evidence that it was, so alternative explanations should be explored.

Second, the electrical current in the atmosphere also makes sense. I have not read the book, "Invisible Rainbow," but it claims electricity was the cause, or one of the causes. Edison created the light bulb in 1896, so the Spanish Flu would have been around the time that the world was becoming electrified, which the human body had never been subjected to. Plausible.

Third, the vaccine harm also seems very plausible. According to the info in this video, the Spanish Flu was first in the USA, near US Army bases, where they just so happen to have been injecting massive amounts of multiple vaccines (up to 25 per soldier), which had never been done before. It makes sense that this could have been a cause or at least contributor.

Regarding the psychological factor of your hypothesis, it makes sense that fear could produce something in the body that leads toward illness.

We should check when people first started getting sick. WW1 started in 1914. The US did not get involved until 1917. If the "Spanish Flu" started in the US in 1917/1918, then why didn't the fear first affect the European soldiers who were already fighting and dying in the trenches in Europe?

Second, note that there was no early deaths, nor did these soldiers die during active engagement in the war.

Those are a couple of interesting points. Would be interesting to see stats on the timing of these deaths vs. vaccine vs. war vs. electric bulb installations, etc.

It's also important to note that the excess lung alveoli were actually improving their ability to fight. They were, in effect, more alert and more athletically adept due to this increase in oxygen.

IF you can prove that, it would be quite interesting.

It's also important to note that deaths attributed to "Spanish Flu" were skewed massively toward "fighting age men, ages 18-40".

Of course, the younger ones were the test subjects for the vaccines, too. Would be interesting to see the age ranges of the Army-only vaxxed vs. the public-at-large vaxxed once the military were all vaxxed.

And don't forget, there were millions of mis-attributed deaths then, just as there are today.

Would not be surprising, but probably very difficult or impossible to parse out now, 100 years later -- unless someone was keeping track of some sort.

Even Dr. Death (Fauci) has admitted on record that autopsies of bodies of these soldiers from 1918-19 showed the vast majority died of "bacterial pneumonia". This supports my theory.

"Dr. Death." KEK. (Accurate, but KEK.)

I am leaning towards there is no such thing as "bacterial pneumonia." Bacteria exists, yes. Pneumonia happens, yes. But does the bacteria CAUSE the condition of pneumonia.

Just because bacteria are PRESENT in the fluid samples does NOT mean they caused it. Correlation is not causation. I suspect the bacteria are there to save the day, not cause the harm. But I am open to evidence that proves otherwise.

Now, the war ends and the soldiers start shipping back home. What has changed? Did they all get vaxxed before they came home? The answer is "no", they did not.

But the breakouts occured BEFORE they returned home from war. The US Army experiment was November 1917. So ...

April 1917 - US enters WW1

November 1917 -- US Army vaccine experiment

March 1918 - First case of Spanish Flu, at Fort Riley, Kansas

June 1919 - End of WW1

Can't find a real "end date" of Spanish Flu, but all sources seem to point to some time in 1919.

Not sure this timetable lines up with your thesis.

What has changed is, the soldiers are no longer fearing death.

What about the civilians who are claimed to have (a) got sick from and (b) died from "Spanish Flu?" Of course, if it was like Covid and they just lied about it, then we can't really get a handle on which illnesses/deaths were of soldiers and which of civilians, and how the fear factor played into one or both.

Fear of a loved one dying in war, of course, would also cause stress.

Overall, I don't think your thesis lines up with the timeframes, as I understand them.

1914-1916: War for Europeans, but not Americans, and no Spanish Flu (not even in Spain).

April 1917 - March 1918: War for Americans, but no Spanish Flu

March 1918 - 1919???: Spanish Flu first breaks out in Kansas (not Spain or anywhere else in Europe, and not among soldiers at war in Europe), but starting 4 months after the maxx vaccinations.

1918 - 1919: Civilians also getting the vaxx, and also getting sick and dying, but not at war (but many had loved ones at war).

June 1919 - Later: No more Spanish Flu (don't know a specific "end date").

For the first time in years, they begin to feel safe again.

For American soldiers, it was 26 months (April 1917 to June 1919). Would be interesting to know if OTHER illnesses were affecting European soldiers and civilians BEFORE Spanish Flu. If so, would lend credibility to your thesis.

What we call "lung cancer" today, is what they called "Tuberculosis" 100 years ago. All we had was a deceptive name change, which they do ALL THE TIME to keep us fooled. The TB phase is the healing/restoration phase of lung cancer.

In a lung cancer patient, you can often see a tumor (or whatever it is) in an xray. Can you with TB, as well?

excess lung alveoli

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. Has this been shown in patients? Could this have been a factor in the Covid patients, especially early on?

Secondly, the TB bacteria require a tremendous amount of protein to do their jobs. And high-protein diets were very rare after the war. For those who ran the longest and most intense "fear of death programs" but were poor and had little access to protein, their prognosis would be grim to say the least.

Not sure I follow here. If TB needs protein, wouldn't a lack of protein in the diet be harmful and destructive of TB?

Also, again I am not convinced that bacteria cause TB, but if so, my understanding is that the proteins that bacteria might eat are those that are not needed by the body. They wouldn't be eating protein from fresh meat, for example, as the digestive tract would assimilate that into amino acids and create quality human proteins for the body. Bacteria are the janitors, cleaning up the toxins and unwanted proteins. As I understand it.

WWII ...

Post-WW2, we have an added complication: MANY more people were smoking cigarettes, starting in about the 1920's-1930's. Smoking increases risk of lung cancer (and heart disease). So, were the post-WW2 vets getting lung cancer from smoking or from your thesis? Dunno.

Lung cancer is the #1 "Secondary cancer", meaning it arises after a person has been diagnosed with another form of cancer (in another organ). And "secondary cancers" amount to 90% of what western medicine attributes cancer deaths to (only 10% "die from" their original cancer diagnosis). And why is this? It's a diagnosis shock. Metastases has never been proven, nor does it make any sense when you stop and rethink things. If it were true, the red cross would screen donated blood for "cancer cells".

I don't know much about lung cancer. But I do know a fair about amout follicular lymphoma, because I had it. Based on my person experience, conversations with others who have or had it, oncologists (who basically know nothing other than certain treatments seem to work for some people), and non-mainstream ideas (of a wide variety), I am currenting of this opinion:

• Cancer, in general, is a malfunction of the mitocondria of cells. This is from work done by Thomas Seyfried, which was originally related to work done by Otto Warburg
• Why it malfunctions is the million-dollar question
• I think the "why" gets back to toxic overload of some sort
• In my case, it was one night at a cheap motel, where I was bitten more than 300 times by bed bugs ... about 8 months later, the lumps appeared
• I think it was the toxins in the bites that caused the mitocondria in they lymph system to malfunction due to overload
• There was no secondary cancer that I know of in my case, and I have not come across anyone else with lymphoma who mentioned such a thing, but then I also never asked
• Receiving a diagnosis of cancer certainly IS a "diagnosis shock." I can attest to that.
• Metastases, according to Seyfried, is misunderstood by mainstream quack doctors. It is not the "disease getting worse and spreading." Rather, it is that certain cancer cells can travel through the blood stream, and therefore through the body.
• If we pair Thomas Seyfried's work with Tom Cowan's work, we get a logical picture of cancer: Some sort of toxic condition is present in the body for some reason; due to this toxic condition it causes certain cells to have their mitochondria malfuction; this malfunction is causes the cell to change shape and other properties to also change; the result is "cancer."

My responses here are not meant to dismiss any of your thesis. Just to challenge certain points. Overall, it is interesting, but I can't say I fully understand all the important points you make, and don't know enough about some of these to really reach a conclusion. I would have to know more.

This is a tough venue for that. A 2-hour conversation over some beers would be a lot easier. KEK.

Interesting stuff.

The first thing I would like to point out is that we can agree that whatever was the cause(s) of Spanish Flu, it was not a virus. At least, there has never been any actual evidence that it was, so alternative explanations should be explored.

Second, the electrical current in the atmosphere also makes sense. I have not read the book, "Invisible Rainbow," but it claims electricity was the cause, or one of the causes. Edison created the light bulb in 1896, so the Spanish Flu would have been around the time that the world was becoming electrified, which the human body had never been subjected to. Plausible.

Third, the vaccine harm also seems very plausible. According to the info in this video, the Spanish Flu was first in the USA, near US Army bases, where they just so happen to have been injecting massive amounts of multiple vaccines (up to 25 per soldier), which had never been done before. It makes sense that this could have been a cause or at least contributor.

Regarding the psychological factor of your hypothesis, it makes sense that fear could produce something in the body that leads toward illness.

We should check when people first started getting sick. WW1 started in 1914. The US did not get involved until 1917. If the "Spanish Flu" started in the US in 1917/1918, then why didn't the fear first affect the European soldiers who were already fighting and dying in the trenches in Europe?

Second, note that there was no early deaths, nor did these soldiers die during active engagement in the war.

Those are a couple of interesting points. Would be interesting to see stats on the timing of these deaths vs. vaccine vs. war vs. electric bulb installations, etc.

It's also important to note that the excess lung alveoli were actually improving their ability to fight. They were, in effect, more alert and more athletically adept due to this increase in oxygen.

IF you can prove that, it would be quite interesting.

It's also important to note that deaths attributed to "Spanish Flu" were skewed massively toward "fighting age men, ages 18-40".

Of course, the younger ones were the test subjects for the vaccines, too. Would be interesting to see the age ranges of the Army-only vaxxed vs. the public-at-large vaxxed once the military were all vaxxed.

And don't forget, there were millions of mis-attributed deaths then, just as there are today.

Would not be surprising, but probably very difficult or impossible to parse out now, 100 years later -- unless someone was keeping track of some sort.

Even Dr. Death (Fauci) has admitted on record that autopsies of bodies of these soldiers from 1918-19 showed the vast majority died of "bacterial pneumonia". This supports my theory.

"Dr. Death." KEK. (Accurate, but KEK.)

I am leaning towards there is no such thing as "bacterial pneumonia." Bacteria exists, yes. Pneumonia happens, yes. But does the bacteria CAUSE the condition of pneumonia.

Just because bacteria are PRESENT in the fluid samples does NOT mean they caused it. Correlation is not causation. I suspect the bacteria are there to save the day, not cause the harm. But I am open to evidence that proves otherwise.

Now, the war ends and the soldiers start shipping back home. What has changed? Did they all get vaxxed before they came home? The answer is "no", they did not.

But the breakouts occured BEFORE they returned home from war. The US Army experiment was November 1917. So ...

April 1917 - US enters WW1

November 1917 -- US Army vaccine experiment

March 1918 - First case of Spanish Flu, at Fort Riley, Kansas

June 1919 - End of WW1

Can't find a real "end date" of Spanish Flu, but all sources seem to point to some time in 1919.

Not sure this timetable lines up with your thesis.

What has changed is, the soldiers are no longer fearing death.

What about the civilians who are claimed to have (a) got sick from and (b) died from "Spanish Flu?" Of course, if it was like Covid and they just lied about it, then we can't really get a handle on which illnesses/deaths were of soldiers and which of civilians, and how the fear factor played into one or both.

Fear of a loved one dying in war, of course, would also cause stress.

Overall, I don't think your thesis lines up with the timeframes, as I understand them.

April 1917 - March 1918: No Spanish Flu

March 1918 - 1919???: Spanish Flu, starting 4 months after the maxx vaccinations ... AND civilians also being sick.

June 1919 - Later: No more Spanish Flu (don't know a specific "end date").

For the first time in years, they begin to feel safe again.

For American soldiers, it was 26 months (April 1917 to June 1919). Would be interesting to know if OTHER illnesses were affecting European soldiers and civilians BEFORE Spanish Flu. If so, would lend credibility to your thesis.

What we call "lung cancer" today, is what they called "Tuberculosis" 100 years ago. All we had was a deceptive name change, which they do ALL THE TIME to keep us fooled. The TB phase is the healing/restoration phase of lung cancer.

In a lung cancer patient, you can often see a tumor (or whatever it is) in an xray. Can you with TB, as well?

excess lung alveoli

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. Has this been shown in patients? Could this have been a factor in the Covid patients, especially early on?

Secondly, the TB bacteria require a tremendous amount of protein to do their jobs. And high-protein diets were very rare after the war. For those who ran the longest and most intense "fear of death programs" but were poor and had little access to protein, their prognosis would be grim to say the least.

Not sure I follow here. If TB needs protein, wouldn't a lack of protein in the diet be harmful and destructive of TB?

Also, again I am not convinced that bacteria cause TB, but if so, my understanding is that the proteins that bacteria might eat are those that are not needed by the body. They wouldn't be eating protein from fresh meat, for example, as the digestive tract would assimilate that into amino acids and create quality human proteins for the body. Bacteria are the janitors, cleaning up the toxins and unwanted proteins. As I understand it.

WWII ...

Post-WW2, we have an added complication: MANY more people were smoking cigarettes, starting in about the 1920's-1930's. Smoking increases risk of lung cancer (and heart disease). So, were the post-WW2 vets getting lung cancer from smoking or from your thesis? Dunno.

Lung cancer is the #1 "Secondary cancer", meaning it arises after a person has been diagnosed with another form of cancer (in another organ). And "secondary cancers" amount to 90% of what western medicine attributes cancer deaths to (only 10% "die from" their original cancer diagnosis). And why is this? It's a diagnosis shock. Metastases has never been proven, nor does it make any sense when you stop and rethink things. If it were true, the red cross would screen donated blood for "cancer cells".

I don't know much about lung cancer. But I do know a fair about amout follicular lymphoma, because I had it. Based on my person experience, conversations with others who have or had it, oncologists (who basically know nothing other than certain treatments seem to work for some people), and non-mainstream ideas (of a wide variety), I am currenting of this opinion:

• Cancer, in general, is a malfunction of the mitocondria of cells. This is from work done by Thomas Seyfried, which was originally related to work done by Otto Warburg
• Why it malfunctions is the million-dollar question
• I think the "why" gets back to toxic overload of some sort
• In my case, it was one night at a cheap motel, where I was bitten more than 300 times by bed bugs ... about 8 months later, the lumps appeared
• I think it was the toxins in the bites that caused the mitocondria in they lymph system to malfunction due to overload
• There was no secondary cancer that I know of in my case, and I have not come across anyone else with lymphoma who mentioned such a thing, but then I also never asked
• Receiving a diagnosis of cancer certainly IS a "diagnosis shock." I can attest to that.
• Metastases, according to Seyfried, is misunderstood by mainstream quack doctors. It is not the "disease getting worse and spreading." Rather, it is that certain cancer cells can travel through the blood stream, and therefore through the body.
• If we pair Thomas Seyfried's work with Tom Cowan's work, we get a logical picture of cancer: Some sort of toxic condition is present in the body for some reason; due to this toxic condition it causes certain cells to have their mitochondria malfuction; this malfunction is causes the cell to change shape and other properties to also change; the result is "cancer."

My responses here are not meant to dismiss any of your thesis. Just to challenge certain points. Overall, it is interesting, but I can't say I fully understand all the important points you make, and don't know enough about some of these to really reach a conclusion. I would have to know more.

This is a tough venue for that. A 2-hour conversation over some beers would be a lot easier. KEK.

Interesting stuff.

The first thing I would like to point out is that we can agree that whatever was the cause(s) of Spanish Flu, it was not a virus. At least, there has never been any actual evidence that it was, so alternative explanations should be explored.

Second, the electrical current in the atmosphere also makes sense. I have not read the book, "Invisible Rainbow," but it claims electricity was the cause, or one of the causes. Edison created the light bulb in 1896, so the Spanish Flu would have been around the time that the world was becoming electrified, which the human body had never been subjected to. Plausible.

Third, the vaccine harm also seems very plausible. According to the info in this video, the Spanish Flu was first in the USA, near US Army bases, where they just so happen to have been injecting massive amounts of multiple vaccines (up to 25 per soldier), which had never been done before. It makes sense that this could have been a cause or at least contributor.

Regarding the psychological factor of your hypothesis, it makes sense that fear could produce something in the body that leads toward illness.

We should check when people first started getting sick. WW1 started in 1914. The US did not get involved until 1917. If the "Spanish Flu" started in the US in 1917/1918, then why didn't the fear first affect the European soldiers who were already fighting and dying in the trenches in Europe?

Second, note that there was no early deaths, nor did these soldiers die during active engagement in the war.

Those are a couple of interesting points. Would be interesting to see stats on the timing of these deaths vs. vaccine vs. war vs. electric bulb installations, etc.

It's also important to note that the excess lung alveoli were actually improving their ability to fight. They were, in effect, more alert and more athletically adept due to this increase in oxygen.

IF you can prove that, it would be quite interesting.

It's also important to note that deaths attributed to "Spanish Flu" were skewed massively toward "fighting age men, ages 18-40".

Of course, the younger ones were the test subjects for the vaccines, too. Would be interesting to see the age ranges of the Army-only vaxxed vs. the public-at-large vaxxed once the military were all vaxxed.

And don't forget, there were millions of mis-attributed deaths then, just as there are today.

Would not be surprising, but probably very difficult or impossible to parse out now, 100 years later -- unless someone was keeping track of some sort.

Even Dr. Death (Fauci) has admitted on record that autopsies of bodies of these soldiers from 1918-19 showed the vast majority died of "bacterial pneumonia". This supports my theory.

"Dr. Death." KEK. (Accurate, but KEK.)

I am leaning towards there is no such thing as "bacterial pneumonia." Bacteria exists, yes. Pneumonia happens, yes. But does the bacteria CAUSE the condition of pneumonia.

Just because bacteria are PRESENT in the fluid samples does NOT mean they caused it. Correlation is not causation. I suspect the bacteria are there to save the day, not cause the harm. But I am open to evidence that proves otherwise.

Now, the war ends and the soldiers start shipping back home. What has changed? Did they all get vaxxed before they came home? The answer is "no", they did not.

But the breakouts occured BEFORE they returned home from war. The US Army experiment was November 1917. So ...

April 1917 - US enters WW1

November 1917 -- US Army vaccine experiment

March 1918 - First case of Spanish Flu, at Fort Riley, Kansas

June 1919 - End of WW1

Can't find a real "end date" of Spanish Flu, but all sources seem to point to some time in 1919.

Not sure this timetable lines up with your thesis.

What has changed is, the soldiers are no longer fearing death.

What about the civilians who are claimed to have (a) got sick from and (b) died from "Spanish Flu?" Of course, if it was like Covid and they just lied about it, then we can't really get a handle on which illnesses/deaths were of soldiers and which of civilians, and how the fear factor played into one or both.

Fear of a loved one dying in war, of course, would also cause stress.

For the first time in years, they begin to feel safe again.

For American soldiers, it was 26 months (April 1917 to June 1919). Would be interesting to know if OTHER illnesses were affecting European soldiers and civilians BEFORE Spanish Flu. If so, would lend credibility to your thesis.

What we call "lung cancer" today, is what they called "Tuberculosis" 100 years ago. All we had was a deceptive name change, which they do ALL THE TIME to keep us fooled. The TB phase is the healing/restoration phase of lung cancer.

In a lung cancer patient, you can often see a tumor (or whatever it is) in an xray. Can you with TB, as well?

excess lung alveoli

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. Has this been shown in patients? Could this have been a factor in the Covid patients, especially early on?

Secondly, the TB bacteria require a tremendous amount of protein to do their jobs. And high-protein diets were very rare after the war. For those who ran the longest and most intense "fear of death programs" but were poor and had little access to protein, their prognosis would be grim to say the least.

Not sure I follow here. If TB needs protein, wouldn't a lack of protein in the diet be harmful and destructive of TB?

Also, again I am not convinced that bacteria cause TB, but if so, my understanding is that the proteins that bacteria might eat are those that are not needed by the body. They wouldn't be eating protein from fresh meat, for example, as the digestive tract would assimilate that into amino acids and create quality human proteins for the body. Bacteria are the janitors, cleaning up the toxins and unwanted proteins. As I understand it.

WWII ...

Post-WW2, we have an added complication: MANY more people were smoking cigarettes, starting in about the 1920's-1930's. Smoking increases risk of lung cancer (and heart disease). So, were the post-WW2 vets getting lung cancer from smoking or from your thesis? Dunno.

Lung cancer is the #1 "Secondary cancer", meaning it arises after a person has been diagnosed with another form of cancer (in another organ). And "secondary cancers" amount to 90% of what western medicine attributes cancer deaths to (only 10% "die from" their original cancer diagnosis). And why is this? It's a diagnosis shock. Metastases has never been proven, nor does it make any sense when you stop and rethink things. If it were true, the red cross would screen donated blood for "cancer cells".

I don't know much about lung cancer. But I do know a fair about amout follicular lymphoma, because I had it. Based on my person experience, conversations with others who have or had it, oncologists (who basically know nothing other than certain treatments seem to work for some people), and non-mainstream ideas (of a wide variety), I am currenting of this opinion:

• Cancer, in general, is a malfunction of the mitocondria of cells. This is from work done by Thomas Seyfried, which was originally related to work done by Otto Warburg
• Why it malfunctions is the million-dollar question
• I think the "why" gets back to toxic overload of some sort
• In my case, it was one night at a cheap motel, where I was bitten more than 300 times by bed bugs ... about 8 months later, the lumps appeared
• I think it was the toxins in the bites that caused the mitocondria in they lymph system to malfunction due to overload
• There was no secondary cancer that I know of in my case, and I have not come across anyone else with lymphoma who mentioned such a thing, but then I also never asked
• Receiving a diagnosis of cancer certainly IS a "diagnosis shock." I can attest to that.
• Metastases, according to Seyfried, is misunderstood by mainstream quack doctors. It is not the "disease getting worse and spreading." Rather, it is that certain cancer cells can travel through the blood stream, and therefore through the body.
• If we pair Thomas Seyfried's work with Tom Cowan's work, we get a logical picture of cancer: Some sort of toxic condition is present in the body for some reason; due to this toxic condition it causes certain cells to have their mitochondria malfuction; this malfunction is causes the cell to change shape and other properties to also change; the result is "cancer."

My responses here are not meant to dismiss any of your thesis. Just to challenge certain points. Overall, it is interesting, but I can't say I fully understand all the important points you make, and don't know enough about some of these to really reach a conclusion. I would have to know more.

This is a tough venue for that. A 2-hour conversation over some beers would be a lot easier. KEK.

Interesting stuff.

The first thing I would like to point out is that we can agree that whatever was the cause(s) of Spanish Flu, it was not a virus. At least, there has never been any actual evidence that it was, so alternative explanations should be explored.

Second, the electrical current in the atmosphere also makes sense. I have not read the book, "Invisible Rainbow," but it claims electricity was the cause, or one of the causes. Edison created the light bulb in 1896, so the Spanish Flu would have been around the time that the world was becoming electrified, which the human body had never been subjected to. Plausible.

Third, the vaccine harm also seems very plausible. According to the info in this video, the Spanish Flu was first in the USA, near US Army bases, where they just so happen to have been injecting massive amounts of multiple vaccines (up to 25 per soldier), which had never been done before. It makes sense that this could have been a cause or at least contributor.

Regarding the psychological factor of your hypothesis, it makes sense that fear could produce something in the body that leads toward illness.

We should check when people first started getting sick. WW1 started in 1914. The US did not get involved until 1917. If the "Spanish Flu" started in the US in 1917/1918, then why didn't the fear first affect the European soldiers who were already fighting and dying in the trenches in Europe?

Second, note that there was no early deaths, nor did these soldiers die during active engagement in the war.

Those are a couple of interesting points. Would be interesting to see stats on the timing of these deaths vs. vaccine vs. war vs. electric bulb installations, etc.

It's also important to note that the excess lung alveoli were actually improving their ability to fight. They were, in effect, more alert and more athletically adept due to this increase in oxygen.

IF you can prove that, it would be quite interesting.

It's also important to note that deaths attributed to "Spanish Flu" were skewed massively toward "fighting age men, ages 18-40".

Of course, the younger ones were the test subjects for the vaccines, too. Would be interesting to see the age ranges of the Army-only vaxxed vs. the public-at-large vaxxed once the military were all vaxxed.

And don't forget, there were millions of mis-attributed deaths then, just as there are today.

Would not be surprising, but probably very difficult or impossible to parse out now, 100 years later -- unless someone was keeping track of some sort.

Even Dr. Death (Fauci) has admitted on record that autopsies of bodies of these soldiers from 1918-19 showed the vast majority died of "bacterial pneumonia". This supports my theory.

"Dr. Death." KEK. (Accurate, but KEK.)

I am leaning towards there is no such thing as "bacterial pneumonia." Bacteria exists, yes. Pneumonia happens, yes. But does the bacteria CAUSE the condition of pneumonia.

Just because bacteria are PRESENT in the fluid samples does NOT mean they caused it. Correlation is not causation. I suspect the bacteria are there to save the day, not cause the harm. But I am open to evidence that proves otherwise.

Now, the war ends and the soldiers start shipping back home. What has changed? Did they all get vaxxed before they came home? The answer is "no", they did not.

But the breakouts occured BEFORE they returned home from war. The US Army experiment was November 1917. So ...

April 1917 - US enters WW1

November 1917 -- US Army vaccine experiment

March 1918 - First case of Spanish Flu, at Fort Riley, Kansas

June 1919 - End of WW1

Can't find a real "end date" of Spanish Flu, but all sources seem to point to some time in 1919.

Not sure this timetable lines up with your thesis.

What has changed is, the soldiers are no longer fearing death.

What about the civilians who are claimed to have (a) got sick from and (b) died from "Spanish Flu?" Of course, if it was like Covid and they just lied about it, then we can't really get a handle on which illnesses/deaths were of soldiers and which of civilians, and how the fear factor played into one or both.

Fear of a loved one dying in war, of course, would also cause stress.

For the first time in years, they begin to feel safe again.

For American soldiers, it was 26 months (April 1917 to June 1919). Would be interesting to know if OTHER illnesses were affecting European soldiers and civilians BEFORE Spanish Flu. If so, would lend credibility to your thesis.

What we call "lung cancer" today, is what they called "Tuberculosis" 100 years ago. All we had was a deceptive name change, which they do ALL THE TIME to keep us fooled. The TB phase is the healing/restoration phase of lung cancer.

In a lung cancer patient, you can often see a tumor (or whatever it is) in an xray. Can you with TB, as well?

excess lung alveoli

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. Has this been shown in patients? Could this have been a factor in the Covid patients, especially early on?

Secondly, the TB bacteria require a tremendous amount of protein to do their jobs. And high-protein diets were very rare after the war. For those who ran the longest and most intense "fear of death programs" but were poor and had little access to protein, their prognosis would be grim to say the least.

Not sure I follow here. If TB needs protein, wouldn't a lack of protein in the diet be harmful and destructive of TB?

Also, again I am not convinced that bacteria cause TB, but if so, my understanding is that the proteins that bacteria might eat are those that are not needed by the body. They wouldn't be eating protein from fresh meat, for example, as the digestive tract would assimilate that into amino acids and create quality human proteins for the body. Bacteria are the janitors, cleaning up the toxins and unwanted proteins. As I understand it.

WWII ...

Post-WW2, we have an added complication: MANY more people were smoking cigarettes, starting in about the 1920's-1930's. Smoking increases risk of lung cancer (and heart disease). So, were the post-WW2 vets getting lung cancer from smoking or from your thesis? Dunno.

Lung cancer is the #1 "Secondary cancer", meaning it arises after a person has been diagnosed with another form of cancer (in another organ). And "secondary cancers" amount to 90% of what western medicine attributes cancer deaths to (only 10% "die from" their original cancer diagnosis). And why is this? It's a diagnosis shock. Metastases has never been proven, nor does it make any sense when you stop and rethink things. If it were true, the red cross would screen donated blood for "cancer cells".

I don't know much about lung cancer. But I do know a fair about amout follicular lymphoma, because I had it. Based on my person experience, conversations with others who have or had it, oncologists (who basically know nothing other than certain treatments seem to work for some people), and non-mainstream ideas (of a wide variety), I am currenting of this opinion:

• Cancer, in general, is a malfunction of the mitocondria of cells. This is from work done by Thomas Seyfried, which was originally related to work done by Otto Warburg
• Why it malfunctions is the million-dollar question
• I think the "why" gets back to toxic overload of some sort
• In my case, it was one night at a cheap motel, where I was bitten more than 300 times by bed bugs ... about 8 months later, the lumps appeared
• I think it was the toxins in the bites that caused the mitocondria in they lymph system to malfunction due to overload
• There was no secondary cancer that I know of in my case, and I have not come across anyone else with lymphoma who mentioned such a thing, but then I also never asked
• Receiving a diagnosis of cancer certainly IS a "diagnosis shock." I can attest to that.
• Metastases, according to Seyfried, is misunderstood by mainstream quack doctors. It is not the "disease getting worse and spreading." Rather, it is that certain cancer cells can travel through the blood stream, and therefore through the body.
• If we pair Thomas Seyfried's work with Tom Cowan's work, we get a logical picture of cancer: Some sort of toxic condition is present in the body for some reason; due to this toxic condition it causes certain cells to have their mitochondria malfuction; this malfunction is causes the cell to change shape and other properties to also change; the result is "cancer."

My responses here are not meant to dismiss any of your thesis. Just to challenge certain points. Overall, it is interesting, but I can't say I fully understand all the important points you make, and don't know enough about some of these to really reach a conclusion. I would have to know more.

This is a tough venue for that. A 2-hour conversation over some beers would be a lot easier. KEK.

Interesting stuff.

The first thing I would like to point out is that we can agree that whatever was the cause(s) of Spanish Flu, it was not a virus. At least, there has never been any actual evidence that it was, so alternative explanations should be explored.

Second, the electrical current in the atmosphere also makes sense. I have not read the book, "Invisible Rainbow," but it claims electricity was the cause, or one of the causes. Edison created the light bulb in 1896, so the Spanish Flu would have been around the time that the world was becoming electrified, which the human body had never been subjected to. Plausible.

Third, the vaccine harm also seems very plausible. According to the info in this video, the Spanish Flu was first in the USA, near US Army bases, where they just so happen to have been injecting massive amounts of multiple vaccines (up to 25 per soldier), which had never been done before. It makes sense that this could have been a cause or at least contributor.

Regarding the psychological factor of your hypothesis, it makes sense that fear could produce something in the body that leads toward illness.

We should check when people first started getting sick. WW1 started in 1914. The US did not get involved until 1917. If the "Spanish Flu" started in the US in 1917/1918, then why didn't the fear first affect the European soldiers who were already fighting and dying in the trenches in Europe?

Second, note that there was no early deaths, nor did these soldiers die during active engagement in the war.

Those are a couple of interesting points. Would be interesting to see stats on the timing of these deaths vs. vaccine vs. war vs. electric bulb installations, etc.

It's also important to note that the excess lung alveoli were actually improving their ability to fight. They were, in effect, more alert and more athletically adept due to this increase in oxygen.

IF you can prove that, it would be quite interesting.

It's also important to note that deaths attributed to "Spanish Flu" were skewed massively toward "fighting age men, ages 18-40".

Of course, the younger ones were the test subjects for the vaccines, too. Would be interesting to see the age ranges of the Army-only vaxxed vs. the public-at-large vaxxed once the military were all vaxxed.

And don't forget, there were millions of mis-attributed deaths then, just as there are today.

Would not be surprising, but probably very difficult or impossible to parse out now, 100 years later -- unless someone was keeping track of some sort.

Even Dr. Death (Fauci) has admitted on record that autopsies of bodies of these soldiers from 1918-19 showed the vast majority died of "bacterial pneumonia". This supports my theory.

"Dr. Death." KEK. (Accurate, but KEK.)

I am leaning towards there is no such thing as "bacterial pneumonia." Bacteria exists, yes. Pneumonia happens, yes. But does the bacteria CAUSE the condition of pneumonia.

Just because bacteria are PRESENT in the fluid samples does NOT mean they caused it. Correlation is not causation. I suspect the bacteria are there to save the day, not cause the harm. But I am open to evidence that proves otherwise.

Now, the war ends and the soldiers start shipping back home. What has changed? Did they all get vaxxed before they came home? The answer is "no", they did not.

But the breakouts occured BEFORE they returned home from war. The US Army experiment was November 1917. So ...

April 1917 - US enters WW1

November 1917 -- US Army vaccine experiment

March 1918 - First case of Spanish Flu, at Fort Riley, Kansas

June 1919 - End of WW1

Can't find a real "end date" of Spanish Flu, but all sources seem to point to some time in 1919.

Not sure this timetable lines up with your thesis.

What has changed is, the soldiers are no longer fearing death.

What about the civilians who are claimed to have (a) got sick from and (b) died from "Spanish Flu?" Of course, if it was like Covid and they just lied about it, then we can't really get a handle on which illnesses/deaths were of soldiers and which of civilians, and how the fear factor played into one or both.

Fear of a loved one dying in war, of course, would also cause stress.

For the first time in years, they begin to feel safe again.

For American soldiers, it was 21 months (April 1917 to June 1919). Would be interesting to know if OTHER illnesses were affecting European soldiers and civilians BEFORE Spanish Flu. If so, would lend credibility to your thesis.

What we call "lung cancer" today, is what they called "Tuberculosis" 100 years ago. All we had was a deceptive name change, which they do ALL THE TIME to keep us fooled. The TB phase is the healing/restoration phase of lung cancer.

In a lung cancer patient, you can often see a tumor (or whatever it is) in an xray. Can you with TB, as well?

excess lung alveoli

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. Has this been shown in patients? Could this have been a factor in the Covid patients, especially early on?

Secondly, the TB bacteria require a tremendous amount of protein to do their jobs. And high-protein diets were very rare after the war. For those who ran the longest and most intense "fear of death programs" but were poor and had little access to protein, their prognosis would be grim to say the least.

Not sure I follow here. If TB needs protein, wouldn't a lack of protein in the diet be harmful and destructive of TB?

Also, again I am not convinced that bacteria cause TB, but if so, my understanding is that the proteins that bacteria might eat are those that are not needed by the body. They wouldn't be eating protein from fresh meat, for example, as the digestive tract would assimilate that into amino acids and create quality human proteins for the body. Bacteria are the janitors, cleaning up the toxins and unwanted proteins. As I understand it.

WWII ...

Post-WW2, we have an added complication: MANY more people were smoking cigarettes, starting in about the 1920's-1930's. Smoking increases risk of lung cancer (and heart disease). So, were the post-WW2 vets getting lung cancer from smoking or from your thesis? Dunno.

Lung cancer is the #1 "Secondary cancer", meaning it arises after a person has been diagnosed with another form of cancer (in another organ). And "secondary cancers" amount to 90% of what western medicine attributes cancer deaths to (only 10% "die from" their original cancer diagnosis). And why is this? It's a diagnosis shock. Metastases has never been proven, nor does it make any sense when you stop and rethink things. If it were true, the red cross would screen donated blood for "cancer cells".

I don't know much about lung cancer. But I do know a fair about amout follicular lymphoma, because I had it. Based on my person experience, conversations with others who have or had it, oncologists (who basically know nothing other than certain treatments seem to work for some people), and non-mainstream ideas (of a wide variety), I am currenting of this opinion:

• Cancer, in general, is a malfunction of the mitocondria of cells. This is from work done by Thomas Seyfried, which was originally related to work done by Otto Warburg
• Why it malfunctions is the million-dollar question
• I think the "why" gets back to toxic overload of some sort
• In my case, it was one night at a cheap motel, where I was bitten more than 300 times by bed bugs ... about 8 months later, the lumps appeared
• I think it was the toxins in the bites that caused the mitocondria in they lymph system to malfunction due to overload
• There was no secondary cancer that I know of in my case, and I have not come across anyone else with lymphoma who mentioned such a thing, but then I also never asked
• Receiving a diagnosis of cancer certainly IS a "diagnosis shock." I can attest to that.
• Metastases, according to Seyfried, is misunderstood by mainstream quack doctors. It is not the "disease getting worse and spreading." Rather, it is that certain cancer cells can travel through the blood stream, and therefore through the body.
• If we pair Thomas Seyfried's work with Tom Cowan's work, we get a logical picture of cancer: Some sort of toxic condition is present in the body for some reason; due to this toxic condition it causes certain cells to have their mitochondria malfuction; this malfunction is causes the cell to change shape and other properties to also change; the result is "cancer."

My responses here are not meant to dismiss any of your thesis. Just to challenge certain points. Overall, it is interesting, but I can't say I fully understand all the important points you make, and don't know enough about some of these to really reach a conclusion. I would have to know more.

This is a tough venue for that. A 2-hour conversation over some beers would be a lot easier. KEK.