Lies, Lies, and Autism, Part 4: Who Really Is Guilty?

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

Readers at GumshoeNews.com know that when I am writing a series, there may be a wider-then-expected look at a given subject matter. In this series I aim, first, to remind everyone of the horror of harming children’s brains. Second, we look at society’s losing its grip on truth such that ‘respectable’ members can now say utterly cuckoo things like “Get vaccinated, Folks, there is no safety issue here.” But now I think we’d better pause to deal with a third issue — guilt and blame for these crimes.

In Part 3, I quoted Lily Loat (1990-1958) an anti-vax activist. She pointed the finger at many doctors who outrageously supported vaccines for smallpox, diphtheria, and polio, when they must have known they were speaking deceptively.

It was not Loat’s contention that those persons wanted to harm the patients. But it is my contention that they did indeed want to harm the patients. Some of them were engaged (I hypothesize) in grievous bodily harm or even murder. In my book, Consider the Lilies, I say that even in 1798, the first “inoculator,” Dr Edward Jenner, was a bad guy. The opening sentence of my April 13, 2020 article at Gumshoe is:

“I consider the work of Edward Jenner, ‘father of vax,’ to be a fraud — and the ‘work’ of Louis Pasteur to be even less worthy than that.”

Oh, incidentally, Lily Loat notes from Lancet, 2nd Feb. 1928, p. 233 that, at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine in London, Professor Major Greenwood said that “there was a good deal of evidence that Jenner had been a rogue.”

Where does one draw the line, as to who should carry the blame? Who is liable, when a horrible injury has been caused to A by B?  Presumably A should be investigated as to his involvement and his motives. Does he adhere to a religion that requires the harming of persons? And if so, is that religion secret? Ah, why would that be?

Moreover, if A harms numerous B’s, there are usually some C’s involved. Did C know of the harm?  Was he told there was a good reason to do it anyway? Was he threatened if he did not cooperate?  Was he highly paid for mixing the poison at his apothecary? Was he asked to appear as the author of a journal article that advised doctors that vax was great stuff? Did he personally feel that some deaths are acceptable collateral damage because vax is overall such a good thing?

Oh, and just to show how far I can carry the witch-hunt, we heard that both the Rolling Stone editor and the boss at Salon.com rescinded Robert F Kennedy, Jr’s helpful and important 2005 report of the dastardly Simpsonwood Conference of 2002 (which shielded from blame those who indirectly caused autism with Thimerosal). Are those members of the Fourth Estate answerable, and if so to whom?

(Wash your mouth out, Mary! These are your colleagues!)

Consider Rockefeller, for Starters

Although this series is about autism, Part 3 mentioned Dr Richard Day’s claim, in 1969, that the Rockefeller Institute held the cures for most cancers. It was not until 1988 that Dr Lawrence Dunegan revealed, on the Randy Engels Christian radio show, what Dr Day had said.

The next year, on June 15, 1989, Day died. He was age 84, as stated in his New York Times obituary. Of the 400 persons who attended Day’s speech in 1969, some must have had a loved one diagnosed with cancer in the following twenty years.  Did they ever think to chase after him to learn the alleged cure?  Or, if their loved one died, did they think to go and beat the hell out of Day?

What about beating the hell out of David Rockefeller, who lived on until age 101, dying in 2017? He was presumably in control of the Rockefeller Institute where the cancer cures were resting in a drawer. (Note: still resting, comfortably.)

Killing Rocky Would Be Unnatural

I can see some reasons why bereaved persons do not take revenge on a doctor or a manufacturer of a harmful vaccine. In the case of autism, death is rare. What happens from a malicious vax is that the child lives on, in great pain and distress, and the parents are overwhelmed. They do not feel like getting a gun to “sort things out.” Besides, they are too busy. And most likely they have never imagined the vax to be out-and-out malicious. (Few can comprehend this.)

Another reason for not acting is that we moderns have delegated punishment to our so-called justice system. Instead of getting a gun, or hurling someone off a cliff, the citizen is supposed to dial 9-1-1. Or asks a governmental agency to investigate and indict. Or merely holds a rally with like-injured people, hoping their protest will lead, at least, to a change in practice.

This delegating approach, we have recently found, contains a major hitch. In general, the justice system holds back if any of the blameworthy parties is a member of the Protected Set.

To some extent, the public quietly accepts this. There is a human instinct to protect those who are socially above us. When Homo sapiens was evolving, the first persons to be automatically respected were one’s parents. Basically, Mom and Dad can do no wrong; a child cannot even perceive it — his eyes are blocked, as it were. (I mean his emotional system tells him to not see parental badness; it would be too frightening.)

Likewise, the leader of the community enjoys automatic deference. (I’ll bet Mao did not need to have all those millions of posters on walls urging people to adore him — they would have done so anyway.) Again, it is part of our subconscious apparatus. How could a leader get people to follow him, in the olden days of evolution, if they did not make assumptions about his good intentions and his skill? Look at animal species that have leaders — the rank and file don’t quibble about Mr Alpha’s choices.

But What about Modern Legal Principles?

The traits we got from evolution are usually surmountable, provided we understand them.  We do things every day that go against instinct, in order to have social harmony. Starting in biblical times, we got elaborate systems, in various religions, that laid out right and wrong. And by medieval times there were scholars to dig down to fine points of argument. By modern times in the West, it was codified in secular law — ‘Government’ tells us how to behave.

Personally, I thought the system of law was gorgeous. I liked both the high-minded ideals and the clever apparatus for carrying them out, such as in a case brought to court. Maybe, in my lifetime, it really did work out.  Everybody says the Sixties were heady! I mean we called the president ‘Tricky Dick,’ didn’t we? Ward Churchill outed the FBI’s Co-Intelpro (counter-intelligence program) didn’t he? There was an impression of accountability by office holders at every level.

Well, there isn’t anymore. Any government person caught in flagrante delicto can still walk free. Or, if his opposite political party is wielding the sword, he/she can be made to look like a criminal on the basis of … um … well, you know, lies.  Everything is lies. There are bigger and better lies coming out every day. There’s nothing you can lean on.

Collapse

Possibly that whole scene is meant to condition us to a complete absence of provable right and wrong. If someone is suing you falsely, you can’t even go to the most expensive law firm in town with a sense that they will open up the wonderful bag of law and find a solution. Solutions went out of style: we are in for chaos.

Plus, don’t forget our natural reluctance to doubt the powerful. The majority of citizens extend their deference unthinkingly to the wealthy, the fancy-dancy, the pushy. (In Australia we used to cower before people who spoke plummy — that is, they sounded like they had a plum in their mouth.) Almost everyone cowers before their doctor.  It’s easy to be sheeple. No one will whack you if you are doing a good sheeple routine.

Start with the Dead Criminals

Above, I suggested that we hold David Rockefeller (1915-2017) accountable for hiding the cures for cancer. Do you recall the Gumshoes series on Dr Thomas Coley? He was a pal of John D Rockefeller, II (David’s dad). As early as 1896, Coley found that injecting a cancer patient with bacteria caused a flare-up of the immune response which then had the happy side-effect of curing the cancer.

Coley (1862-1936) did not share this with the public, but after his death, his daughter Helen Coley Nauts (1907-2011) discovered his papers.  The Sloan-Kettering Hospital wouldn’t even look at them. I’ve recorded other successful cures, in my 2013 book Consider the Lilies: A Review of 18 Cures for Cancer and Their Legal Status. Let’s pretend to ask a legal scholar if there is any way to punish Dr Thomas Coley, in absentia so to speak, for his hiding of this knowledge.

Offhand, I can’t name a crime related to that sort of behavior. But maybe it could be said that Sloan-Kettering’s refusal to look, combined with its insistence that cancer must be treated by The Big Three (surgery, chemo, and radiation), qualifies as a form of fraud.

I am trying to picture an open investigation in which the idea of fraud is being tossed around.  We might find that medical practitioners would come forward with stories they are generally afraid to broach. (Who could blame them? In Part 2 of this series, Dr Paul Thomas said that colleagues call him “the scum of the earth” for being anti-vax.)

Or Look into Current Murders

We could hold an investigation into the two murders I mentioned in Part 3: that of Dr Jeff Bradstreet and Dr Rashid Buttar. The crime of murder is not iffy, everybody understands it. I don’t know, for absolute sure, that the reason Bradstreet was killed was that he had a cure for autism.  But his death occurred two days after the FDA had raided his office to find the medicines he was experimenting with.

(Interruption: the FDA has no constitutional basis other than the commerce clause, and something about “weights and measures.” They are not a decider of which medicines work well.  People are confused by the blather on this subject stemming from Covid. Please, Americans, get a grip. Congress CANNOT PASS LAWS for which the US Constitution did not authorize federal involvement.)

As for Rashid Buttar, OD (doctor of osteopathy), he had 189 million views on YouTube before getting de-platformed for his criticism of Covid. Buttar had also been treating autistic children successfully. He used a hyperbaric chamber and other non-orthodox means. (There aren’t any ‘orthodox’ means for treating autism.)

Buttar stated that he was being poisoned, and reported the progress thereof.  I think that is sufficient warrant for opening a murder case, don’t you agree? He died seven weeks ago, on 15 May 2023. What are we waiting for? Well, as I said, law has collapsed.  The Protected Set will not even allow an investigation to take place on touchy subjects.

You can overcome this legally in the US by forming a Grand Jury. I have suggested before that you call it a Make-believe Grand Jury, so the scaredy-cats out there won’t be afraid to walk past your house.

Another sneaky approach: you could open a ridiculous investigation, inquiring, say, “how pigeons cause autism by their droppings.” Experts can be invited to come along and refute that idea, and this would make them talk about more likely causes of autism.

Shouldn’t be too frightening. Aussies can do artistic renditions of issues by staging a play at the Adelaide Fringe Festival. (I got away with murder at the Fringe, from 2015 to 2019.)  Do something for wonderful Bradstreet and Buttar. Anything would be better than nothing.

The Coley Report of 1909, a Hundred and Fourteen Years Ago

Here is Dr Coley’s cancer article from 1909. That’s 114 years ago, but what’s a hundred and fourteen years among friends? It is still valuable as we speak. You can find the long version at Archive.org, entitled “The Treatment of Inoperable Sarcoma by Bacterial Toxins,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Surgical Section, by William B  Coley, MD.

…My own belief, expressed sixteen years ago and held more firmly with increasing clinical experience, is that all varieties of malignant tumours are of extrinsic or microbic  origin.  Just  what type of organism this may be — whether bacterium, protozoan,  or  spirocheote,  or  what  not  —  is  of  little  consequence.

“Assuming such origin, we have but to follow the analogy of other diseases of known germ origin. We know that in all such diseases there is a natural immunity and an acquired immunity. In the case of malignant tumours there is probably a natural immunity which is very great, but in certain cases it is absent or becomes lowered, and the germ finds a favourable site and here starts the primary malignant tumour.

“The important role that trauma or injury plays in the development of malignant tumours, now accepted by all authorities, can, to my mind, but be explained on the theory of microbic origin, some writers e.g., Tillmanns — going so far as to state that most cases of bone tubercu- losis follow an antecedent injury, the bacilli, of course, being present in the circulation prior to the injury; but a naturally existing immunity or resisting power of the tissues had been sufficient, up to this time, to prevent any local infection.

“The injury, lowering this local resistance of the tissues, furnishes precisely the conditions favourable for the growth and development of the bacilli. Hence the origin of the tuberculous lesion. If time permitted, I could cite many striking cases of sarcoma of the most virulent type that followed immediately upon a blow or an injury to the bone in previously perfectly healthy individuals….

“Assuming such extrinsic origin, the action of the toxins appears to me to produce certain changes in the blood or serum that restore the weakened or lost immunity or natural resisting power of the tissues, and the sarcoma-cell, no longer finding conditions favourable for further growth and development, undergoes a process of degeneration, with absorption in some cases and the formation of a slough in others….

“The reason why a cure results in some cases is that in these the antagonistic action of the toxins is sufficient to destroy the cancer- cell and render the soil unfavourable for further growth; whereas in other cases the tumour-cells, by reason of greater vigour or better

“To quote a recent and unpublished paper of Dr. Jones [James?] Ewing, ‘Apparent slight differences in the food supply sufficed to render the soil unfavourable to the tumour-cell. These remarkably delicate nutritional requirements of the cancer-cell suggest that some means may be found to render the human patient’s tissue unfavourable for cancer growth.’ And this is exactly what, in my opinion, the toxins do in sarcoma.” [Emphasis added]

My Gumshoe series on Coley’s work can be found here, with all seven parts combined.