FIAR NEWS - 01 JAN 2021
One new historical development that has been evolving over a few years and now brought into focus because of COVID-19, is the so-called “Spanish Flu” of 1918.
Recurring reports and documentation are emerging to tell us that this ‘Greatest Pandemic in History’ was not  “Spanish” , not “the flu” and, not a natural occurrence  but the result of human tinkering with vaccines. There surely is much more to emerge, but the accumulating evidence to date is too compelling to dismiss.
In simple terms, the emerging evidence supports postulations that the 1918 pandemic was caused by a misguided – and very experimental – Rockefeller Institute meningitis vaccination program which was initiated at Fort Riley by the US military and spread to the world from there. This essay will attempt to briefly document the evidence that is available so far. There will, of course, be many objections to the content of this essay, not only from the ideologues and trolls but from those in high places with vital body organs requiring protection.
First, there was never any justification for associating the 1918 pandemic with Spain. The pathogen did not originate in Spain, nor was Spain the hardest hit. The most commonly-accepted “official story” as related by our MSM is that all countries but Spain had initiated severe censorship (due to the war) and thus the facts of the pandemic freely circulated only in the Spanish media, and so it was “natural” to refer to this as the Spanish Flu. From this reasoning, since we all know the US has at least 125% freedom of speech and minus the same degree of censorship, we should rename COVID-19 “The American curse”. (This may yet happen, for other more valid reasons).
In any case, the documented evidence is increasingly voluminous – and increasingly solid – that this outbreak originated at Fort Riley, Kansas, in the US Conspiracy theorists and historical revisionists cannot change this now.
The 1918 pandemic was quite possibly the worst the world had seen, certainly for centuries. It infected about 500 million people and killed at least 50 million worldwide. The current “official narrative” (again) is that it was caused by “an H1N1 virus that originated in birds” (which is not a ‘flu’ in any case), and its only tenuous connection with the US was that it was “first identified in the US in military personnel” in the spring of 1918. These claims appear to be false. In a 2008 report, the US NIH admitted that most of the deaths were not from ‘the flu’ nor from any bird virus but from bacterial pneumonia .
The details of the studies corroborate this extensively, in which even Dr. Anthony Fauci says, “We agree completely that bacterial pneumonia played a major role in the mortality of the 1918 pandemic.” . In fact, it is now stated that the reason modern medical technology was never able to identify the “killer influenza strain” from this pandemic was that influenza was not the killer. It might be obvious to us today because we know that influenza attacks the young, old, and immunocompromised. While the “Spanish Flu” attacked healthy people in their prime – which is what bacterial pneumonia does.
Again, the official narrative tells us that, due to troop movements because of the war, the pathogen was spread worldwide. But the current emerging thesis is that troop movements might have been irrelevant because the Rockefellers, in their combined haste and hubris, “sent their experimental anti-meningococcal serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy, and many other countries. Helping spread the epidemic worldwide.” It certainly appears to be the prime suspect, and we can understand the reluctance of today’s WHO and CDC to reveal this to the popular press. As Dr. Kevin Barry wrote:
It would be much more difficult to maintain the marketing mantra of “vaccines save lives” if a vaccine experiment originating in the United States . . . caused the deaths of 50-100 million people. (and) “The American Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research and its experimental bacterial meningococcal vaccine may have killed 50-100 million people in 1918-19” is a far less effective sales slogan. 
The Smoking Gun
According to the 2008 National Institute of Health paper, bacterial pneumonia was the killer in a minimum of 92.7% of the 1918-19 autopsies reviewed. It is likely higher than 92.7%. The researchers looked at more than 9,000 autopsies, and “there were no negative (bacterial) lung culture results.” “… In the 68 higher-quality autopsy series, in which the possibility of unreported negative cultures could be excluded, 92.7% of autopsy lung cultures were positive for ≥1 bacterium. In one study of approximately 9,000 subjects who were followed from the clinical presentation with influenza to resolution or autopsy, researchers obtained, with sterile technique, cultures of either pneumococci or streptococci from 164 of 167 lung tissue samples.
“There were 89 pure cultures of pneumococci; 19 cultures from which only streptococci were recovered; 34 that yielded mixtures of pneumococci and/or streptococci; 22 that yielded a mixture of pneumococci, streptococci, and other organisms (prominently pneumococci and non-hemolytic streptococci); and 3 that yielded non-hemolytic streptococci alone. There were no negative lung culture results.” 
Pneumococci or streptococci were found in “164 of (the) 167 lung tissue samples” autopsied. That is 98.2%. Bacteria was the killer .
“The 1918 and 1919 volumes of the Journal of the American Medicine Association include many articles on the cause, prevention, and treatment of influenza. Again and again, investigators wonder at the spotty presence of B. influenzae in the ill, note its presence in healthy individuals, and observe it in other infections such as measles, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and varicella (chickenpox). In one article, the authors write, “There seems to be no justification for the belief that the epidemic was due to the influenza bacillus, which is probably a secondary invader and bears about the same relation to the influenza cases as to respiratory infections of a different sort” (Lord 1919). 
This appears to be where the story begins
Following an outbreak of epidemic meningitis at Camp Funston, Kansas, in October and November 1917, a series of antimeningitis vaccinations was undertaken on volunteer subjects from the camp. 
At that time, vaccinations (and perhaps much of medical science generally) were in their infancy, with very much unknown. In particular, Dr. Gates himself  notes that prior to this time, “meningococcus vaccines have not been extensively employed for prophylactic immunization, and only a few references are to be found in the literature that relates vaccination experiences.” He further relates that the few referenced cases experienced “very severe” reactions to the vaccines – which were entirely experimental.
In this case, the Rockefeller Institute, which seems to be where the experiments in opening this special compartment of Pandora’s Box originated, contrived an experimental vaccine and were understandably anxious to “see what happens”. It was apparently a rather crude anti-bacterial vaccine that was made in horses. I haven’t the medical competence to comment on the equine portion, but others more knowledgeable have suggested this might not have been the best method. One enormous advantage of the war to Rockefeller was that the US Army ballooned from little more than 250,000 to 6,000,000 men, with the “Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research” now having an enormous pool of human guinea pigs to conduct vaccine experiments.
In a 26-page paper published in July of 1918 by Dr. Fredrick L. Gates, M. D., First Lieutenant, Medical Corps, U. S. Army, writing from the Base Hospital, Fort Riley, Kansas, and The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, Dr. Gates outlines the procedure. 
For the determination of dosage and the study of reactions and antibody formation, six groups of about 50 men each were chosen from the various companies in the regiment. Successive groups received increasing doses of vaccine in a series of three injections at 4 to 10 day intervals. The determination of the dosage of vaccine for subsequent groups followed from the reports of the reactions produced by the given doses. It was considered important to increase the doses gradually in order to locate closely the zone of mild reactions and to avoid unexpectedly severe results.
The occurrence of an occasional reaction of greater severity even with the smaller doses, and increasing local tenderness after the injection of the larger doses of vaccine led to the choice of relatively lower doses for the general series throughout the camp rather than the attempt to push the dosage up to the limit of endurance. Later experience fully justified this decision. The preliminary series of vaccinations, therefore, served to establish the method of injection, the proper dosage for extended vaccination, the reactions which might be expected to follow the chosen doses, and the production of immune bodies in the serum of vaccinated men. On the basis of these findings the vaccine was offered to the camp at large.
“Heretofore meningococcus vaccines have not been extensively employed for prophylactic immunization, and only a few references are to be found in the literature that relate vaccination experiences.”
Those few references listed apparently experienced severe reactions, all of which indicates this was truly an experiment intruding on ground not before traveled.
The results were not long in coming
“… Fourteen of the largest training camps had reported influenza outbreaks in March, April, or May, and some of the infected troops carried the virus with them aboard ships to France … As soldiers in the trenches became sick, the military evacuated them from the front lines and replaced them with healthy men. This process continuously brought the virus into contact with new hosts – young, healthy soldiers in which it could adapt, reproduce, and become extremely virulent without the danger of burning out.
… Before any travel ban could be imposed, a contingent of replacement troops departed Camp Devens (outside of Boston) for Camp Upton, Long Island, the Army’s debarkation point for France, and took influenza with them. Medical officers at Upton said it arrived “abruptly” on September 13, 1918, with 38 hospital admissions, followed by 86 the next day, and 193 the next. Hospital admissions peaked on October 4 with 483, and within 40 days, Camp Upton sent 6,131 men to the hospital for influenza. Some developed pneumonia so quickly that physicians diagnosed it simply by observing the patient rather than listening to the lungs…” 
I would say here that all indications are that this event was accidental. There may well have been hubris and ‘god-like’ imaginings at the Rockefeller Institute, but I am not in a position to make such accusations. From everything I have seen in researching this subject and, while I cannot speak for Rockefeller, the US military appears to have approached this with sincerity, good intentions, and high hopes of staving off meningitis infections in their troops. I have referenced above the paper by Dr. Gates that was written in 1918, and have studied it repeatedly. From those readings, I recognize no hint of deception or cover-up, no recklessness, no disdain for the lives of the soldiers, and no attempt (as we see with vaccines today) to minimize or discard the dangers of adverse reactions.
The entire tone of his paper is one of an intelligent and educated medical officer sincerely documenting the situation of a dangerous pathogen and his efforts to eliminate it. He is careful in his statements, he documents the care in administering minor and increasing doses of the vaccine and monitoring their effects at every stage. From everything I have learned, I could find no fault with the US military in this ‘experiment’, except perhaps the fact that it was an experiment. The faults, disdain, cover-ups, and deception came later.
My reading of the aftermath is that both the Rockefeller Institute and the US military (after conducting their thousands of autopsies) fully realized what had happened and, in humanly-understandable terms in the face of the calamity they had inadvertently unleashed, decided the most prudent course was to bury the truth rather than face the recriminations of an already war-weary world. Let’s not forget this pandemic killed more people than did the war itself, by a very large margin. In that situation, what would you do? Can you see the headlines in the NYT and London Times, reading “Whoops!”. I believe that this pandemic became the ‘flu’ and ‘Spanish’ because it disguised both the origin and the pathogen itself, steering the world’s public in the wrong direction and blaming everything on nature. But perhaps after more than 100 years, it is time for the US to show a bit of courage and integrity and tell the truth. There is after all a first time for everything.
– Deaths from Bacterial Pneumonia during 1918–19 Influenza Pandemic. John F. Brundage* and G. Dennis Shanks†. Author affiliations: *Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA; †Australian Army Malaria Institute, Enoggera, Queensland, Australia.
- Did Rockefeller create the ‘Spanish Flu’ pandemic of 1918?
- The Dark History Of The Rockefellers And Their Impact On HumanityReproductor de vídeo
 J Infect Dis. 2008 Oct 1; 1987: 962–970. Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness David M. Morens, Jeffery K. Taubenberger, and Anthony S. Fauci.
The bottom line is for the people to regain their original, moral principles, which have intentionally been watered out over the past generations by our press, TV, and other media owned by the Illuminati/Bilderberger Group, corrupting our morals by making misbehaviour acceptable to our society. Only in this way shall we conquer this oncoming wave of evil.
All articles contained in Human-Synthesis are freely available and collected from the Internet. The interpretation of the contents is left to the readers and do not necessarily represent the views of the Administrator. Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Human-Synthesis will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. Human-Synthesis grants permission to cross-post original Human-Synthesis articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified.