Human Feces Spread on Crops Worldwide. But not in Switzerland or Netherlands. Biosolids Means Human Feces in Fertilizer. Was Cyclospora CREATED in a lab?

Why Is Everyone Getting Explosive Diarrhea?
The Answer Isn't What Most People Think. The Story Begins Decades Before Cyclospora—with The United States, Nazi Germany, Sanitation, And the Long History of Diseases Spread Through Human Waste.

Cyclospora has become one of the most difficult foodborne parasites investigated by public health officials. This episode examines how Cyclospora outbreaks are linked to fresh produce including lettuce, cilantro, basil, raspberries, herbs and packaged salad mixes, and why contaminated food can be so difficult to identify before people become sick. It follows the process of patient interviews, stool testing, epidemiology, product sampling and traceback investigations used to reconstruct outbreaks after contaminated produce has already moved through restaurants, stores, warehouses and international supply chains.

A major focus is Taylor Farms de Mexico and the repeated appearance of its Guanajuato operation in Cyclospora investigations. In 2013 a Cyclospora outbreak was traced to salad mix processed by Taylor Farms de Mexico. In 2026 epidemiology and traceback again pointed to Taylor Farms de Mexico lettuce from central Mexico. The episode examines Guanajuato as a major agricultural region facing water scarcity, groundwater depletion, wastewater treatment challenges and the reuse of treated wastewater. It also asks what oversight actually exists for Mexican lettuce entering the United States and whether produce is routinely tested for Cyclospora before crossing the border.

The investigation finds that every shipment of Mexican lettuce is not tested for Cyclospora. FDA oversight relies largely on importer verification, farm and facility inspections, preventive controls, targeted sampling and outbreak investigations rather than universal laboratory screening. FDA implemented a validated molecular detection method for Cyclospora on produce beginning around 2018 and expanded laboratory capability by training Mexican government laboratories in 2023. The episode examines why a laboratory test can exist while contaminated produce can still move through the food supply undetected.

The program also traces the scientific history of Cyclospora beginning with Richard W. Ashford's 1979 report from Papua New Guinea and follows the parasite through years of uncertainty before it became recognized as Cyclospora cayetanensis. It explores the work of Richard W. Ashford, Graham D. F. Reid, David C. Warhurst, Robert Gilman, Ynes Ortega, Charles Sterling and other researchers, together with the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Institute of Primate Research in Kenya, the World Health Organization and international tropical disease research programs.

Beyond modern outbreaks, the episode traces the historical roots of sanitation and public health from nineteenth-century Europe and Bavaria through the rise of bacteriology, sewage engineering and wastewater management in the United States. It examines how human waste, sewage sludge and today's biosolids became incorporated into modern agriculture, how wastewater reuse developed in both the United States and Mexico, and how those practices intersect with food safety, irrigation and infectious disease prevention.

The program also explores the history of biological warfare research involving diarrheal diseases during World War II and the Cold War, including Nazi Germany, the United States and later military biodefense programs. It distinguishes documented historical research into enteric diseases from the established biology of Cyclospora itself while examining how governments and scientists have long viewed foodborne illness, sanitation and gastrointestinal disease as matters of both public health and national security.

Cyclospora remains unusually difficult to study. There is still no routine laboratory culture system, no widely accepted animal model reproducing the complete human infection and no well-established human challenge model. Researchers continue to rely on naturally infected patients, molecular testing, stool examinations, epidemiological investigations and outbreak traceback. Contamination may be scattered unevenly through a field, shipment or salad mix, meaning a negative sample does not prove that the remaining produce is free of the parasite. These limitations help explain why investigators often begin with sick people and work backward toward the food, water, farm and processing facility.

The episode ultimately places Cyclospora within the larger history of human feces, sanitation, sewage sludge, biosolids, wastewater reuse, agriculture, tropical medicine, epidemiology and foodborne disease. It examines how modern food production, international trade, environmental infrastructure and public health intersect to allow a microscopic parasite to travel from a contaminated field or water source to consumers hundreds or even thousands of miles away.

Clip: New Dr. Fauci Interview - Insights from Working with Past Presidents - YouTube

Bush: I was reminded that evil exists - YouTube

President George H. W. Bush discusses US-Iran relations during an primetime press conference

W. (2/9) Movie CLIP - You're Not a Kennedy, You're a Bush (2008) HD

Music: Bee Gees - Stayin' Alive (Official Video)

Suggested Videos:

5 Spectacular Fails From Germ Theory – Dr Sam Bailey

The Truth About Smallpox || Documentary by Katie Sugak (2022) Brighteon

If you are talking about Meghan Markle, less time to think about what is really going on. MM = 33 Meghan Markle's Family EXPOSED: New DAMNING Discovery Changes Everything

The Royal Scam

Greedy Greta

incase you werent sure.. George Bush IS Charles Manson

Timeline and History of Ruling Class

Who runs the world

the Saturn cult

Disinfection of Water by Chlorine, Peracetic Acid, Ultraviolet and
Solar Radiations: A Review FCE-4079.pdf

COVID Backwards In Hebrew Is DIVOC: Possession By An Evil Spirit | Spirit | Before It's News

Mapping biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) and BSL-4 laboratories for public health threats reduction | Journal of Public Health | Springer Nature Link

IM — How the Government Created Lyme Disease

EUGENICS: 'Building 257', The Horrific Secrets of Plum Island | RIELPOLITIK

Exposing the Link Between Lyme Disease and Secret U.S. Biowarfare Experiments | SGT Report

The Lyme Disease Connection with US/Nazi Legacy Bioweapons Development on Plum Island, Connecticut - Children's Health Defense Pennsylvania Chapter

The Lyme Disease Connection with US/Nazi Legacy Bioweapons Development on Plum Island, Connecticut - Children's Health Defense Pennsylvania Chapter

"HIV Inserts", Lies & "Lab Leaks"

Smallpox: The Historical Myths behind Mandatory Vaccines | Mises Institute

Reengineering Humanity | Nature of Healing

Bactrim & Bactrim DS: Uses, Dosage, Side Effects

Bactrim side effects in elderly adults: Risks and alternatives

Cyclosporiasis - Wikipedia

Cyclospora Infection: Symptoms, Causes, Diagnosis & Treatment

Secret Gov Plot to SAVE THEMSELVES In Societal Collapse

global-biolabs-report-2023.pdf

Google's true origin partly lies in CIA and NSA research grants for mass surveillance

Annie Jacobsen - Wikipedia

DARPA - Wikipedia

The Fort Detrick HIV Lab Leak | Conspiracy Wiki

Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories - Wikipedia

The Perth Group HIV-AIDS Debate Website

The Perth Group - Wikipedia

AIDS Report - mycorrections.PDF

HIV/AIDS in South African townships - Wikipedia

The Yin & Yang of HIV - Part One

Dr Sam Bailey – Illuminating Health

Virus Mania – Dr Sam Bailey

HIV & AIDS - Is HIV the Cause of AIDS? An interview with Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos

HIV & AIDS - Do antibody tests prove HIV infection? An interview with Valendar Turner

Surgical Glove Practice: The Evidence - Judith Tanner, Hazel Parkinson, 2007

Re: Did Montagnier discover HIV in 1983? | The BMJ

The HIV/ AIDS Story is Being Rewritten

The Rabies Hoax • Zero-Sum

What About Rabies? – Dr Sam Bailey

Rabies: The "Virus" of Fear – ViroLIEgy

A Layperson's Guide to the PCR Based Epidemic Hoax — Dr Sam Bailey

Adam Weishaupt - Wikipedia

American History of the Rothschilds and the Eight Most Powerful Families – The Millennium Report

The History of the 'House of Rothschild' (Complete) - EliteInfo.co

A Bavarian Illuminati Primer

Do you have a psychopath in your life? The best way to find out is read my book. BOOK *FREE* Download – Psychopath In Your Life4

How they flip sex with hormones: Hormones

Support is Appreciated: Support the Show – Psychopath In Your Life

Tune in: Podcast Links – Psychopath In Your Life

Download Pods here - one click and pods load to any device fully titled and ready to listen to or archive: TOP PODS – Psychopath In Your Life

My old discussion forum with last 10 years of victim stories, is back online. Psychopath Victim Support Community | Forums powered by UBB.threads™

Google Maps My HOME Address: 309 E. Klug Avenue, Norfolk, NE 68701 SMART Meters & Timelines – Psychopath In Your Life

Papua New Guinea Cyclospora Timeline

September 16, 1975
Papua New Guinea gains independence from Australia.

April 29, 1976
Papua New Guinea becomes a member of the World Health Organization (WHO).

August 1976
The WHO Representative Office opens in Port Moresby, only months after independence. The first WHO Country Liaison Officer, appointed in 1974, becomes the first WHO Representative.

1977
The first known human cases of what would later be identified as Cyclospora occur in Papua New Guinea.

Patients with prolonged diarrhea are examined, but the organism is unknown.

1978
Additional cases are identified.

Researchers continue observing the unusual organism in stool samples.

1979
Dr. R. W. Ashford publishes the landmark paper:

"Occurrence of an undescribed coccidian in man in Papua New Guinea."

Ashford describes three patients and concludes the organism is an undescribed coccidian parasite, although he cannot yet identify it precisely. This becomes the first published description of what would later be known as Cyclospora cayetanensis.

1980s
Similar organisms begin appearing in patients around the world.

Different laboratories describe them as:

• cyanobacterium-like bodies (CLBs)
• blue-green algae
• coccidian-like bodies
• large Cryptosporidium

Because the organism is poorly understood, no one realizes these reports are describing the same parasite.

1993
David C. Warhurst and G. D. F. Reid, working with R. W. Ashford, publish work arguing that the mysterious "cyanobacterium-like bodies" reported worldwide are actually the same organism Ashford first described in Papua New Guinea in 1979.

Their work helps connect years of scattered reports into a single scientific story.

1993
Ynes Ortega, Charles R. Sterling, Robert H. Gilman, and colleagues formally identify and name the parasite:

Cyclospora cayetanensis.

Approximately sixteen years after the first recognized human cases in Papua New Guinea, the organism finally receives its official scientific name.

Key Historical Observation

The WHO Representative Office was already operating in Port Moresby before Cyclospora was first recognized in humans. The office opened in August 1976, the first known cases appeared in 1977, additional cases followed in 1978, and Ashford published the first scientific description in 1979.

The principal researchers associated with the early discovery were:

• Dr. R. W. Ashford – First to recognize and publish the new parasite (1979).
• Dr. David C. Warhurst – Helped establish that the mysterious organisms being reported internationally were the same parasite first described by Ashford.
• Dr. G. D. F. Reid – Collaborated with Ashford and Warhurst in linking the worldwide reports.
• Dr. Ynes Ortega, Dr. Charles R. Sterling, and Dr. Robert H. Gilman – Members of the research group that formally identified and named Cyclospora cayetanensis in 1993.

This sequence shows that the discovery of Cyclospora was not a single event but a process that unfolded over roughly 16 years, beginning in Papua New Guinea and ending with international recognition of a new human parasite.

Explosive Diarrhea Research, Biological Warfare, Nazi Germany, the United States, and Cyclospora

One of the most important lessons from military medicine is that severe diarrheal disease has historically disabled more soldiers than many weapons. Long before antibiotics, armies feared outbreaks of dysentery, cholera, typhoid, and other gastrointestinal diseases because they could incapacitate entire units.

That historical reality explains why military organizations became interested in enteric diseases—not because "explosive diarrhea" itself was viewed as a unique weapon, but because pathogens causing severe gastrointestinal illness could remove soldiers from combat.

The Military Problem

Military planners have long recognized that diarrheal diseases can:

• Incapacitate large numbers of troops
• Require significant medical resources
• Reduce combat readiness
• Spread rapidly in crowded military environments

Modern U.S. military medical literature continues to describe diarrheal disease as one of the most common causes of lost operational effectiveness during deployments.

Nazi Germany

Nazi Germany conducted biological warfare research during World War II.

Research included:

• • insect vectors
• • infectious diseases
• • military applications of biological agents

Documents released decades later show that the SS established an Entomological Institute at Dachau in 1942 under Heinrich Himmler. Historians examining surviving research protocols concluded the institute had an offensive biological warfare component.

The German program was much smaller than Japan's infamous Unit 731, but it demonstrates that Nazi leadership investigated biological warfare.

Did Nazi Germany Develop a Weapon Specifically for Explosive Diarrhea?

There is no documented evidence that Nazi Germany produced a dedicated biological weapon whose sole purpose was to cause explosive diarrhea.

However, they did study organisms capable of causing severe gastrointestinal disease as part of broader biological warfare research.

Military interest centered on whether disease could disable enemy forces.

The United States

The United States launched its offensive biological warfare program during World War II.

Major centers included:

• Camp Detrick (later Fort Detrick)

• Dugway Proving Ground

• Pine Bluff Arsenal

The program expanded greatly after the war.

Government histories show U.S. researchers investigated numerous human, animal, and plant pathogens as potential biological warfare agents before President Richard Nixon ended the offensive program in 1969 and ordered destruction of offensive stockpiles.

Did the United States Study Diarrheal Diseases?

Yes.

But it is important to distinguish two different kinds of research.

Offensive biological warfare

Researchers evaluated many disease agents for military usefulness.

Some gastrointestinal pathogens were examined because they could disable troops.

Defensive medicine

The much larger body of work focused on protecting U.S. troops from naturally occurring diarrheal disease.

This includes decades of research on:

• Shigella
• Salmonella
• enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC)
• cholera
• norovirus
• Campylobacter

The goal was preventing outbreaks among deployed military personnel.

Why Diarrhea Matters Militarily

A soldier suffering:

• severe abdominal cramps
• dehydration
• vomiting
• repeated explosive diarrhea

is often unable to fight.

Historically this has been considered an effective way for disease—not necessarily a weapon—to reduce combat capability.

Military medicine has repeatedly documented that diarrheal illness can sideline large numbers of personnel during deployments.

Cyclospora

Cyclospora is very different.

The parasite was first scientifically described in Papua New Guinea in 1979 by Dr. R. W. Ashford after cases observed beginning in the late 1970s.

Unlike many bacterial diarrheal diseases:

• it requires days to weeks outside the human body before becoming infectious
• it is not spread directly person-to-person under ordinary conditions
• humans are the only confirmed major reservoir

These characteristics make Cyclospora an unlikely biological warfare agent compared with organisms that spread rapidly between people.

Why Cyclospora Is Difficult

Cyclospora presents a public health challenge because:

• infections often begin in fields before harvest
• contamination levels on produce can be extremely low
• detecting the parasite on food is technically difficult
• traceback investigations usually rely on epidemiology and supply-chain evidence rather than finding the organism on a food sample

These characteristics complicate outbreak investigations but do not indicate intentional contamination.

What Is Supported by the Historical Record?

Supported by documentary evidence:

✔ Nazi Germany conducted biological warfare research.

✔ The United States conducted an extensive offensive biological warfare program from World War II until 1969.

✔ Both countries studied infectious diseases with military relevance.

✔ Gastrointestinal diseases have long been recognized as capable of incapacitating armies.

✔ Modern military medicine continues extensive research on diarrheal diseases because they remain a major operational problem.

Development of modern virology laboratories and high-containment (BSL) facilities.

Year Event 1796 Edward Jenner develops the smallpox vaccine, decades before viruses are understood. 1885 Louis Pasteur develops the rabies vaccine, using infected animal nervous tissue. 1892 Dmitri Ivanovsky discovers an infectious agent smaller than bacteria. 1898 Martinus Beijerinck coins the concept of a "virus." 1900–1930s First dedicated virus research laboratories appear in Europe and the United States. 1931 Electron microscope invented, allowing viruses to be visualized. 1933 Human influenza virus isolated in England. 1940s World War II greatly expands government infectious disease research. 1946 The U.S. Army establishes the biological research center at Fort Detrick, Maryland. 1949 The World Health Organization (WHO) is established and begins coordinating international infectious disease work. 1950s Cell culture techniques allow viruses to be grown routinely in laboratories. 1950s–1960s Cold War drives rapid expansion of virology laboratories in the U.S., USSR, U.K., France, and elsewhere. 1967 Marburg virus outbreak among laboratory workers handling imported monkeys highlights laboratory hazards. Late 1960s Modern biological containment laboratory concepts begin to emerge. 1970 CDC opens one of the first maximum-containment laboratories in the United States (precursor to today's BSL-4 facilities). 1974 NIH issues recombinant DNA biosafety guidelines, shaping laboratory safety practices. Mid-1970s Biosafety Levels (BSL-1 through BSL-4) become standardized. 1977 H1N1 influenza reappears; many scientists later argue a laboratory-associated origin is plausible. 1978 Birmingham smallpox laboratory accident kills Janet Parker, increasing attention to laboratory safety. 1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax accident at a Soviet military facility. 1980 Smallpox declared eradicated; only a few authorized laboratories retain live virus stocks. 1983 HIV identified, leading to a major expansion of virology research worldwide. 1990s PCR and genetic sequencing transform virus detection and laboratory research. 2002–2003 SARS outbreak. Governments invest heavily in coronavirus research and new BSL-3 laboratories. 2003–2004 Several documented laboratory-acquired SARS infections occur after the outbreak. 2004 China approves construction and expansion of higher-containment laboratories. 2015 Wuhan Institute of Virology publishes research on bat SARS-like coronaviruses and becomes a leading coronavirus research center. 2018 U.S. diplomatic cables express concerns about safety and staffing at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 2019 COVID-19 first detected in Wuhan, China. 2020–present Global debate over COVID-19 origins leads to increased scrutiny of biosafety, laboratory oversight, and gain-of-function research. 2020s Many countries continue expanding BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratory capacity for pandemic preparedness. Major milestones in laboratory containment

• BSL-1 – Basic laboratories for low-risk organisms.
• BSL-2 – Clinical and diagnostic laboratories handling moderate-risk pathogens.
• BSL-3 – Designed for airborne pathogens such as tuberculosis and SARS-related viruses.
• BSL-4 – Maximum containment for the highest-risk pathogens, such as Ebola and Marburg viruses.

One thing stands out in the timeline: before the 1940s there were very few dedicated virology laboratories.

The major expansion occurred after World War II, accelerated during the Cold War, expanded again after HIV, and grew rapidly after the 2003 SARS outbreak and again following COVID-19. That progression helps explain why most discussions about laboratory biosafety and possible laboratory-associated outbreaks are concentrated in the last 50 years.

Countries with BSL-4 laboratories today

• Argentina
• Australia
• Belarus
• Brazil
• Canada
• China
• Czech Republic
• Côte d'Ivoire
• France
• Gabon
• Germany
• Hungary
• India
• Italy
• Japan
• Kazakhstan
• Netherlands
• Philippines
• Russia
• Saudi Arabia
• Singapore
• South Africa
• South Korea
• Spain
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• Taiwan
• United Kingdom
• United States

...plus several others with one facility or facilities under construction, for a total of 34 countries.

Timeline of Modern High-Containment Virology Laboratories Year Event Why It Matters 1946 Fort Detrick (Maryland, USA) becomes the U.S. Army's biological research center. First major modern U.S. biodefense laboratory. 1950s Virology laboratories expand in the U.S., U.K., USSR, and Europe. Growth driven by polio, influenza, and Cold War research. 1960s CDC builds its first biocontainment laboratories in Atlanta. Beginning of modern containment laboratories. 1967 First BSL-4 laboratory established at CDC (Atlanta, USA). First recognized maximum-containment (BSL-4) laboratory. 1970s Biosafety Levels (BSL-1 through BSL-4) become standardized. Common international laboratory safety framework develops. 1974 VECTOR laboratory established in Koltsovo (USSR). Soviet Union's principal high-containment virology center. 1975 USAMRIID maximum-containment laboratories operational at Fort Detrick. U.S. military BSL-4 capability expands. 1978 Birmingham smallpox laboratory accident (England). Laboratory safety becomes an international concern. 1980s Only a handful of BSL-4 laboratories exist worldwide. High-containment labs remain rare. 1990–2000 New BSL-4 laboratories open in Canada, Australia, France, Germany and the United States. Expansion beyond military and national government laboratories. 2001 September 11 and anthrax attacks. Massive increase in biodefense funding begins. 2003 SARS outbreak. Countries accelerate construction of BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories. 2008 U.S. GAO reports rapid expansion of BSL-4 laboratories. Notes that for most of the previous 50 years, the U.S. had only two federal BSL-4 sites (CDC and USAMRIID). 2015 Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory opens. China's first operational BSL-4 laboratory. 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Largest worldwide focus on biosafety, biosecurity, and laboratory oversight. 2025 Survey identifies approximately 110 BSL-4 laboratories in 34 countries and about 3,515 BSL-3 laboratories in 149 countries. Largest published global inventory to date. The pattern at a glance

1946–1967

• Birth of modern high-containment laboratory research.
• Almost entirely United States.

1967–1985

• Only a few BSL-4 laboratories existed.
• Primarily:
  
  • United States
  • Soviet Union

1985–2000

• Slow expansion to:
  
  • Canada
  • Australia
  • France
  • Germany

2001–2003

• Two major events changed the trajectory:
  
  • 9/11 and the anthrax attacks
  • SARS

These events led to a sharp increase in investment in high-containment laboratories.

2015–Present

• China joins the small group operating BSL-4 laboratories.
• After COVID-19, additional countries began building or expanding BSL-4 facilities.

For roughly the first 35 years of the BSL-4 era (1967–2001), only a small number of countries operated these maximum-containment laboratories. The largest worldwide expansion occurred after the 2001 anthrax attacks, after SARS in 2003, and again following COVID-19.

The following countries are documented to have used treated sewage sludge (biosolids) on agricultural land or for land reclamation.

Europe

• Austria
• Belgium
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Finland
• France
• Germany (now moving toward phosphorus recovery and reducing farmland use)
• Hungary
• Ireland
• Italy
• Luxembourg
• Norway
• Poland
• Portugal
• Spain
• Sweden
• Switzerland (historically used it, banned agricultural use in 2006)
• Netherlands (historically used it, now essentially does not apply it to farmland, relying mainly on incineration)
• United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland)

North America

• Canada
• Mexico

South America

• Brazil
• Chile
• Argentina

Oceania

• Australia
• New Zealand

Asia

• China
• Japan
• South Korea
• Turkey

Africa

• South Africa
• Egypt

Countries that have banned or largely ended agricultural use

• Switzerland – banned agricultural application in 2006.
• Netherlands – no longer routinely spreads sewage sludge on farmland; most is incinerated or otherwise processed.
• Germany – has not banned it outright but is moving away from farmland application through regulations emphasizing phosphorus recovery.

So, besides the United States, at least 30–35 countries have used biosolids in some form. The practice is especially widespread in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and parts of Asia, although several countries have recently tightened restrictions or shifted away from agricultural land application because of concerns about contaminants such as PFAS and other persistent chemicals.

The modern concept of treated municipal sewage sludge being intentionally processed and marketed for land application, the United States was one of the pioneers.

Late 1800s–early 1900s
American and European cities rapidly built sewer systems and wastewater treatment plants. As treatment improved, they generated increasing amounts of sewage sludge.

American cities introduced technologies such as:

• Trickling filters
• Primary sedimentation
• Activated-sludge treatment (developed in Britain in 1914 but widely adopted in the U.S.)
• Chlorination
• Anaerobic digestion

These processes greatly increased the volume of treated sludge that cities had to manage.

1900s–1960s
Cities experimented with several disposal methods:

• Dumping into rivers or the ocean
• Landfilling
• Incineration
• Drying
• Agricultural use

At this stage it was generally called sewage sludge, not biosolids.

1970s
Environmental laws changed the conversation.

The U.S. banned most ocean dumping of sewage sludge and placed greater restrictions on disposal. Utilities increasingly looked to agriculture as a long-term management strategy.

1980s
The wastewater industry began promoting treated sludge as a reusable product rather than simply a waste.

The term "biosolids" was developed during this period.

In 1991, the Water Environment Federation sponsored a branding effort that selected the word biosolids to distinguish treated sewage sludge meeting certain treatment standards from untreated sewage sludge.

1993
The EPA issued the federal 40 CFR Part 503 Rule, establishing national standards for land application, pathogen reduction, and metal limits.

From that point forward, "biosolids" became the standard regulatory and industry term in the United States.

So your statement is essentially correct, but I'd tighten it slightly:

American cities introduced trickling filters, sedimentation, activated-sludge treatment, chlorination, and anaerobic digestion. As wastewater treatment expanded during the early 20th century, increasing amounts of sewage sludge were produced. Cities experimented with dumping, burial, incineration, digestion, drying, and agricultural use. This evolving system became the foundation for what the United States would later rename biosolids in the early 1990s.

One important distinction is that the material existed long before the name did. The treatment processes and land application practices developed over decades, while "biosolids" is essentially a 1990s regulatory and public-relations term for treated sewage sludge that meets specified standards.

Chemical Is it dangerous? Main side effects (concentrated exposure) Chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) Yes. Corrosive and irritating. Burning eyes, skin irritation or burns, coughing, wheezing, chest tightness, shortness of breath. Mixing with acids or ammonia can release toxic chlorine gas, which can cause severe lung injury. Peracetic acid (PAA) Yes. Corrosive and a strong oxidizer. Severe eye irritation or burns, skin burns, nose and throat irritation, coughing, headaches, asthma-like symptoms, difficulty breathing with repeated workplace exposure. Chlorine dioxide Yes. Strong respiratory irritant. Eye irritation, coughing, sore throat, breathing difficulty, lung irritation; high exposures can damage the respiratory tract. Hydrogen peroxide (food-processing concentrations) Yes. Concentrated solutions are corrosive. Skin whitening and burns, eye damage, throat irritation, coughing, stomach irritation if swallowed in concentrated form. Ozone Yes. Toxic to breathe. Coughing, chest pain, throat irritation, reduced lung function, worsened asthma, shortness of breath. Ozone quickly breaks down and is not intended to remain on food. Acidified sodium chlorite Yes. Corrosive when concentrated. Eye and skin burns, respiratory irritation, nausea if ingested in significant amounts, throat irritation. Bottom line

• Are they dangerous? Yes, especially for workers handling concentrated chemicals.
• Can they cause side effects? Yes, primarily involving the eyes, skin, and lungs from direct exposure.
• Do consumers typically receive those exposures? Under normal commercial use, these sanitizers are diluted, monitored, and intended to leave only very small residues on produce. Food safety agencies consider those residual exposures acceptable when the products are used according to regulations.

GRAS means "Generally Recognized As Safe." It is an FDA regulatory designation for a substance used under its intended conditions—not a sanitizer itself.

Besides chlorine and peracetic acid, produce processors may also use:

• Hydrogen peroxide (GRAS for certain food-processing uses)
• Ozone
• Chlorine dioxide
• Organic acids such as citric acid, lactic acid, and acetic acid (vinegar), which are GRAS substances and may be used in produce washing.

Some commercial produce-wash formulations are made entirely from GRAS ingredients. For example, USDA researchers developed one antimicrobial wash whose ingredients are all classified as GRAS by the FDA.

One important point for your Cyclospora research:

Even when a sanitizer or wash uses only GRAS ingredients, that does not mean it can reliably eliminate Cyclospora from contaminated lettuce or other produce. FDA guidance emphasizes that these antimicrobial washes are mainly intended to keep the wash water from spreading contamination and may reduce surface microbes, but preventing contamination before harvest is the primary control strategy.

Date Event 2025 Taylor Farms donated $1 million to MAGA Inc., the principal pro-Trump super PAC. Reports also state the company gave more than $2 million to conservative political committees during 2025. July 16, 2026 FDA publicly announced it was investigating a multistate Cyclospora outbreak linked to shredded iceberg lettuce served at Taco Bell. At that time, 1,644 illnesses had been identified. Interviews in Michigan found 90% of affected Taco Bell customers had eaten iceberg lettuce. FDA also stated its traceback investigation had identified a single supplier of iceberg lettuce from Mexico used by the restaurants where illnesses occurred, although the supplier was not yet publicly named. July 16, 2026 (same day) Taylor Farms executives met with White House and FDA officials to challenge the agencies' handling of the outbreak investigation. July 17, 2026 FDA publicly identified the supplier as Taylor Farms de Mexico. The company announced it was voluntarily removing shredded iceberg lettuce from central Mexico from the market and initiated a recall. July 18, 2026 FDA announced that one lettuce sample associated with the investigation had tested positive for Cyclospora. July 19, 2026 FDA determined that the July 18 laboratory result was a false positive. However, the agency stated this did not change the investigation, explaining that the epidemiologic evidence and traceback investigation continued to identify Taylor Farms de Mexico's shredded iceberg lettuce from central Mexico as the likely source of the outbreak.

One detail that attracted attention during the 2026 Cyclospora outbreak involved the timing of political donations, government meetings, and FDA announcements.

In 2025, Taylor Farms donated $1 million to MAGA Inc., the principal pro-Trump super PAC. Reports also stated that the company contributed more than $2 million to conservative political committees during the year.

Then, on July 16, 2026, the FDA publicly announced it was investigating a multistate Cyclospora outbreak linked to shredded iceberg lettuce served at Taco Bell. By that point, 1,644 illnesses had been identified. Investigators found that 90 percent of interviewed patients in Michigan had eaten iceberg lettuce, and the FDA said its traceback investigation had already narrowed the source to a single supplier of iceberg lettuce from Mexico, although the supplier's name had not yet been released.

Later that same day, Taylor Farms executives met with White House and FDA officials to challenge the agencies' handling of the outbreak investigation.

On July 17, the FDA publicly identified the supplier as Taylor Farms de Mexico. The company announced it was voluntarily removing shredded iceberg lettuce from central Mexico from the market and initiated a recall.

On July 18, the FDA announced that one lettuce sample associated with the investigation had tested positive for Cyclospora.

Then, on July 19, the FDA said that laboratory result was actually a false positive. However, the agency also emphasized that this did not change its overall conclusions. According to the FDA, the epidemiologic evidence and traceback investigation still pointed to Taylor Farms de Mexico's shredded iceberg lettuce from central Mexico as the likely source of the outbreak.

Year Event 1743 Mayer Amschel Bauer (later Rothschild) is born on February 23 in the Free Imperial City of Frankfurt am Main, in the Holy Roman Empire. He was not born in Bavaria. His family lived in Frankfurt's Jewish quarter (Judengasse). 1740s Mayer's father, Amschel Moses, was a money changer and merchant. The family home was identified by a red shield ("Zum Roten Schild"), from which the family later derived the surname Rothschild ("red shield"). 1748 Adam Weishaupt is born on February 6 in Ingolstadt, Bavaria. 1750s Weishaupt is educated by the Jesuits after the death of his father. 1760s Mayer Amschel begins working in banking and coin dealing in Frankfurt. The family increasingly adopts the surname Rothschild, replacing Bauer. 1765 Adam Weishaupt earns his doctorate in law at the University of Ingolstadt. 1773 Weishaupt becomes Professor of Canon Law at the University of Ingolstadt, Bavaria. May 1, 1776 Weishaupt founds the Order of the Illuminati in Ingolstadt, Bavaria. 1785 The Bavarian government bans the Illuminati, and Weishaupt flees Bavaria. 1796 Edward Jenner introduces the first successful smallpox vaccine in England. 1800 Thomas Jefferson writes to James Madison, arguing that Weishaupt's use of secrecy reflected the political and religious conditions in Bavaria rather than necessarily his underlying philosophy. 1801 Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse introduces Jenner's smallpox vaccine to the United States. President Thomas Jefferson later strongly supports vaccination and exchanges correspondence with Jenner. 1807 The Kingdom of Bavaria becomes one of the first governments in the world to enact compulsory smallpox vaccination for children. 1813 The U.S. Congress passes the Vaccine Act of 1813, the nation's first federal vaccine law. It was intended to ensure the availability of genuine smallpox vaccine and authorized a federal agent to distribute it. 1822 The Vaccine Act is repealed after problems with contaminated vaccine supplied by the federal vaccine agent. 1827 Boston becomes one of the first U.S. cities to require smallpox vaccination for public school students. 1855 Massachusetts enacts the first statewide law requiring smallpox vaccination for children attending public schools. 1905 The U.S. Supreme Court, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, rules that states have the constitutional authority to require smallpox vaccination under their police powers. 1922 The U.S. Supreme Court, in Zucht v. King, upholds school vaccination requirements, allowing schools to exclude unvaccinated children even without an active outbreak.

United Kingdom Year Event 1796 Edward Jenner develops the first successful smallpox vaccine in Gloucestershire, England. 1798 Jenner publishes An Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccinae, describing vaccination against smallpox. 1808 The British government establishes the National Vaccine Establishment to promote free vaccination. Vaccination is encouraged but not compulsory. 1840 The Vaccination Act 1840 provides free smallpox vaccination and prohibits the older practice of variolation (deliberate inoculation with smallpox). 1853 The Vaccination Act 1853 makes smallpox vaccination compulsory for infants within the first few months of life in England and Wales. Parents who refused could be fined. 1867 The Vaccination Act 1867 strengthens enforcement, increases penalties, and extends compulsory vaccination requirements. 1871 Parliament further strengthens enforcement by appointing vaccination officers and tightening compliance. 1898 The Vaccination Act 1898 introduces a "conscientious objector" exemption for parents who sincerely opposed vaccination. 1907 The exemption process is simplified, making it easier for parents to obtain conscientious objector certificates. Comparing the Three Country First Compulsory Vaccination Bavaria 1807 – One of the world's first compulsory childhood smallpox vaccination laws. United Kingdom 1853 – Parliament makes infant smallpox vaccination compulsory in England and Wales. United States 1855 – Massachusetts enacts the first statewide compulsory school vaccination law; no national compulsory vaccination law was ever enacted.

One interesting historical point is that Bavaria required compulsory vaccination nearly half a century before Britain and almost 50 years before Massachusetts adopted its statewide school vaccination law. Bavaria is therefore frequently cited in histories of public health as an early pioneer in compulsory vaccination policy.

mid-to-late 1800s, many public health leaders increasingly concluded that preventing disease required more than vaccination.

The progression was roughly:

• "Smallpox is devastating—we have a vaccine." (late 1700s–early 1800s)
• "Cholera seems connected to contaminated water." (John Snow, 1854)
• "Microorganisms cause many diseases." (Pasteur, 1860s)
• "Specific microbes cause specific diseases." (Koch, 1870s–1880s)

That led to a major shift in public health priorities. Cities began investing in:

• Clean drinking water.
• Sewage systems.
• Safe disposal of human waste.
• Milk pasteurization.
• Food inspection.
• Handwashing and hospital sanitation.

In many ways, the late 1800s marked the birth of modern environmental public health.

For diseases like cholera and typhoid fever, improving water and sanitation had an enormous impact because those diseases spread through contaminated water or food.

For smallpox, however, the situation was different. Smallpox spreads primarily through close person-to-person contact and respiratory droplets, not contaminated drinking water. So cleaning up water would not have eliminated smallpox, although it greatly reduced many other infectious diseases.

So a concise historical summary would be:

After germ theory, governments increasingly realized that preventing infectious disease required not only vaccines where available, but also clean water, sewage treatment, sanitation, food safety, and hygiene.

Those investments dramatically reduced deaths from many infectious diseases, even before antibiotics became available.

• 1796 — Jenner develops the smallpox vaccine.
• 1807 — Bavaria requires childhood smallpox vaccination.
• 1813 — The U.S. passes its first federal Vaccine Act.
• 1853 — Britain makes infant vaccination compulsory.
• 1854 — John Snow links cholera to a contaminated water pump in London.
• 1855 — Massachusetts adopts its first statewide compulsory school vaccination law.
• 1860s–1880s — Pasteur and Koch establish germ theory.
• Late 1800s — Cities begin investing heavily in clean water, sewer systems, food safety, and sanitation based on the new scientific understanding.

The House of Wittelsbach was one of Europe's great dynasties, and like the Habsburgs, they built influence through marriages with other royal houses. Their family tree branches across much of Europe.

Some of the major marriage and inheritance connections include:

Holy Roman Empire

• The Wittelsbachs produced two Holy Roman Emperors:
  
  • Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor
  • Charles VII, Holy Roman Emperor

House of Habsburg

• Although Bavaria and Austria were often rivals, there were numerous marriages between the Wittelsbachs and the Habsburgs.
• These marriages were used to strengthen alliances and settle disputes over territory.

House of Bourbon

• The Wittelsbachs also intermarried with the French Bourbons and Bourbon branches in Spain and Naples.

House of Hanover

• Marriages linked the Wittelsbachs with the British royal family through the Hanoverians.

House of Savoy

• Connections were made through marriages with the rulers of Piedmont and later Italy.

House of Hohenzollern

• There were multiple marriages with the ruling family of Prussia and later the German Empire.

House of Romanov

• Several Wittelsbach princesses married into the Russian imperial family.

Scandinavian Monarchies

• Marriage alliances connected the Wittelsbachs with the royal houses of Sweden and Denmark.

Greece

One of the most notable examples:

• Otto of Greece, a Wittelsbach prince from Bavaria, became the first King of modern Greece in 1832.

Bavaria

The main Wittelsbach line ruled:

• Duchy of Bavaria
• Electorate of Bavaria
• Kingdom of Bavaria (1806–1918)

During Weishaupt's Lifetime

• 1748 – Adam Weishaupt is born.
• 1745–1777 – Bavaria is ruled by Maximilian III Joseph (House of Wittelsbach).
• 1777–1799 – Charles Theodore (also House of Wittelsbach, Palatinate branch).
• 1806 – Bavaria becomes a kingdom under Maximilian I Joseph, also a Wittelsbach.

The Big Picture

By the nineteenth century, Europe's royal families had become so interconnected through marriage that many rulers were cousins. The major dynasties included:

• House of Wittelsbach (Bavaria)
• House of Habsburg (Austria)
• House of Hohenzollern (Prussia/Germany)
• House of Bourbon (France and Spain)
• House of Hanover (Britain)
• House of Romanov (Russia)
• House of Savoy (Italy)

These dynasties frequently intermarried to secure alliances, inherit territories, and strengthen political legitimacy. While the Habsburgs are often associated with the phrase "Let others wage war; you, happy Austria, marry," the Wittelsbachs also participated extensively in this network of dynastic marriages, though they generally did not achieve the same level of continental dominance as the Habsburgs.

Year Dynasty What Happened 1917 House of Romanov The Russian Revolution ends more than 300 years of Romanov rule. Tsar Nicholas II abdicates in March 1917. The imperial family is executed in 1918. 1918 House of Habsburg Austria-Hungary collapses after World War I. Emperor Charles I relinquishes participation in government in November 1918, ending Habsburg rule. 1918 House of Wittelsbach The German Revolution reaches Bavaria. King Ludwig III is deposed, ending more than 700 years of Wittelsbach rule in Bavaria (1180–1918). 1918 House of Hohenzollern Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicates, ending the German Empire and Hohenzollern monarchy in Prussia and Germany.

• Romanovs (Russia)
• Habsburgs (Austria-Hungary)
• Hohenzollerns (Germany/Prussia)
• Wittelsbachs (Bavaria)

Can These Disease-Causing Organisms Be Grown in the Laboratory? Disease Organism Type Can it be grown or maintained in the laboratory? COVID-19 Virus Yes (cell culture) Influenza Virus Yes HIV/AIDS Virus Yes Smallpox* Virus Yes (only in two officially authorized high-security laboratories) Polio Virus Yes Measles Virus Yes Mumps Virus Yes Rubella Virus Yes Chickenpox Virus Yes Rabies Virus Yes Hepatitis A Virus Yes Hepatitis B Virus Yes Hepatitis C Virus Yes Norovirus Virus Limited (much more difficult than most viruses) Rotavirus Virus Yes Ebola Virus Yes (high-security laboratory) Marburg Virus Yes (high-security laboratory) Mpox Virus Yes Yellow Fever Virus Yes Dengue Virus Yes Zika Virus Yes West Nile Virus Yes Chikungunya Virus Yes RSV Virus Yes Cholera Bacterium Yes Typhoid Fever Bacterium Yes Tuberculosis Bacterium Yes (slow-growing) Plague Bacterium Yes Diphtheria Bacterium Yes Pertussis (Whooping Cough) Bacterium Yes Tetanus Bacterium Yes Lyme Disease Bacterium Yes (specialized methods) Syphilis Bacterium Limited (cannot be routinely cultured like most bacteria) Gonorrhea Bacterium Yes Shigellosis Bacterium Yes Salmonellosis Bacterium Yes Pathogenic E. coli Bacterium Yes Cyclospora Parasite (Protozoan) No routine laboratory culture system Malaria Parasite (Protozoan) Yes Giardia Parasite (Protozoan) Yes Cryptosporidium Parasite (Protozoan) Limited (research methods exist, but routine culture remains difficult) Toxoplasmosis Parasite (Protozoan) Yes Amebiasis Parasite (Protozoan) Yes Ascariasis (Roundworm) Parasitic Worm Limited Hookworm Parasitic Worm Yes (specialized systems) Whipworm Parasitic Worm Yes (specialized systems) Tapeworm Infections Parasitic Worm Limited (often requires animal hosts) Schistosomiasis Parasitic Worm Yes (complex life cycle) Histoplasmosis Fungus Yes Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) Fungus Yes Candidiasis Fungus Yes Aspergillosis Fungus Yes Bottom Line

• Most viruses can be grown in living cells under laboratory conditions.
• Nearly all bacteria can be cultured, although a few require specialized methods.
• Most fungi can be grown in the laboratory.
• Many parasites can be maintained in specialized laboratory systems, though some require living hosts.
• Cyclospora remains one of the notable exceptions. Despite decades of research, there is still no routine laboratory culture system that reliably grows Cyclospora cayetanensis, making it significantly more difficult to study than most other major human pathogens.

* Live variola (smallpox) virus research is restricted to two WHO-authorized repositories under international oversight

During all of that:

• Germ theory had not yet been established.
• Viruses had not been discovered.
• No one knew what caused smallpox at the microscopic level.

Instead, physicians relied on observation. They had seen for centuries that:

• smallpox spread from person to person,
• people who survived it rarely got it again,
• cowpox infection seemed to protect against smallpox.

That empirical evidence was enough for Jenner's vaccine to gain acceptance long before anyone understood why it worked.

The major scientific milestones came later:

• 1854 – John Snow links cholera to contaminated water (still before germ theory was widely accepted).
• 1860s – Louis Pasteur develops germ theory.
• 1870s–1880s – Robert Koch identifies specific disease-causing bacteria.
• 1892 – The first virus is discovered (tobacco mosaic virus).
• 1906 – Smallpox is recognized as being caused by a filterable virus, though it could not yet be seen with microscopes.

When Bavaria passed its compulsory vaccination law in 1807, the public justification was not, "We know germs cause disease." Rather, it was essentially:

"We know from experience that vaccinated people are far less likely to get smallpox, and smallpox kills many children."

The policy rested on observed outcomes, not on an understanding of microbiology.

Germ theory and virology would not provide that scientific explanation until decades later.

Disease Can be grown or maintained in a lab? Best-supported origin COVID-19 Yes Origin still under investigation. Natural spillover and research-related incident remain discussed; no scientific consensus has resolved the question. Influenza Yes Wild aquatic birds (natural reservoir) HIV/AIDS Yes Non-human primates in Africa (cross-species transmission) Smallpox Yes* Believed to have evolved from an ancestral poxvirus centuries to millennia ago Polio Yes Human virus with ancient origins Measles Yes Evolved from an ancestral cattle virus (rinderpest-like ancestor) Mumps Yes Human virus; ancient origin unknown Rubella Yes Human virus; origin uncertain Chickenpox Yes Ancient human virus Rabies Yes Ancient virus circulating in mammals Hepatitis A Yes Human virus; ancient origin Hepatitis B Yes Ancient virus affecting humans Hepatitis C Yes Human virus; exact ancient origin uncertain Norovirus Limited Human virus with animal relatives Rotavirus Yes Animal and human strains; evolved naturally Ebola Yes Believed to originate in bats Marburg Yes Egyptian fruit bats Mpox Yes African rodents and other wildlife Yellow fever Yes African primates and mosquitoes Dengue Yes Primates and mosquitoes Zika Yes Primates and mosquitoes West Nile Yes Wild birds and mosquitoes Chikungunya Yes Primates and mosquitoes RSV Yes Human virus; evolved naturally Cholera Yes Environmental bacterium in aquatic ecosystems Typhoid fever Yes Human-adapted bacterium Tuberculosis Yes Ancient human and animal bacterium Plague Yes Rodents and fleas Diphtheria Yes Human bacterium Pertussis Yes Human bacterium Tetanus Yes Soil bacterium Lyme disease Yes Wildlife reservoirs (especially rodents) and ticks Syphilis Limited Human bacterium; exact historical origin debated Gonorrhea Yes Human bacterium Shigellosis Yes Human bacterium Salmonellosis Yes Animals, birds, reptiles, and environment Pathogenic E. coli Yes Intestinal bacteria of humans and animals Cyclospora No routine culture system Humans are the only confirmed major reservoir; exact evolutionary origin remains uncertain Malaria Yes Protozoan parasite with ancient origins involving primates and mosquitoes Giardia Yes Parasite found in humans and many mammals Cryptosporidium Limited Parasite of humans and animals Toxoplasmosis Yes Cats are the definitive host Amebiasis Yes Human parasite Roundworm Limited Human parasite Hookworm Yes (specialized) Human and animal parasite Whipworm Yes (specialized) Human parasite Tapeworms Limited Animals and humans Schistosomiasis Yes (complex life cycle) Freshwater snails and mammals Histoplasmosis Yes Soil enriched with bird or bat droppings Valley fever Yes Desert soil Candidiasis Yes Normal human microbiome Aspergillosis Yes Environmental mold (soil, compost, vegetation) Notes

• Smallpox: Live virus research is restricted to two WHO-authorized repositories.
• COVID-19: The origin remains scientifically unresolved. There is broad agreement that SARS-CoV-2 existed by late 2019, but there is not a settled scientific consensus between a natural zoonotic spillover and a research-related incident.
• Cyclospora: This is one of the most unusual organisms on the list.

It cannot be routinely cultured in the laboratory, and humans are the only confirmed major reservoir.

Despite decades of research, many aspects of its biology remain more difficult to study than those of most bacteria, viruses, and fungi.

Diseases spread through human feces, contaminated water, contaminated food, inadequate sewage disposal, or poor handwashing.

The most familiar examples are:

Cholera — strongly associated with sewage-contaminated water or food.

Typhoid fever — caused by Salmonella Typhi, which is shed by infected people and spreads through contaminated food or water.

Dysentery and shigellosis — spread when microscopic amounts of human feces contaminate hands, food, water, or surfaces.

Hepatitis A — transmitted through contaminated food or water or close fecal–oral contact. WHO specifically lists contaminated food and water as major transmission routes.

Polio — primarily spreads through the fecal–oral route, especially where sewage disposal and clean water systems are inadequate.

Cyclospora — human feces contaminate water, soil, or produce; the parasite must mature in the environment before it becomes infectious.

Giardiasis — commonly acquired from fecally contaminated water, food, hands, or surfaces.

Cryptosporidiosis — spreads through contaminated drinking water, pools, food, animals, and fecal contact. It is particularly difficult because the parasite is resistant to ordinary chlorine levels.

Norovirus — spreads extremely easily through contaminated food, water, hands, surfaces, vomit, and feces.

Rotavirus — a major fecal–oral diarrheal disease, especially among infants and young children.

Pathogenic E. coli infections — certain strains spread through fecally contaminated food, water, animals, or hands.

Salmonellosis — often associated with contaminated food and animals, but sanitation and hygienic food handling are central to prevention.

Intestinal worms, including roundworm, whipworm, and hookworm — strongly linked to inadequate sanitation, contaminated soil, and unsafe disposal of feces.

WHO summarizes the major group as cholera, diarrhea, dysentery, hepatitis A, typhoid, intestinal worm infections, and polio.

HIV is different

HIV is not considered a sanitation disease. It is transmitted through particular body fluids—principally blood, semen, vaginal and rectal fluids, and breast milk. It is not spread through sewage, drinking water, food, toilets, ordinary contact, or poor municipal sanitation.

Sanitation can still matter greatly to people with HIV because impaired immunity may make contaminated water and food more dangerous, but sanitation failure is not the route by which HIV itself spreads.

Other famous diseases not primarily sanitation-related

Smallpox, measles, influenza, COVID-19, tuberculosis, chickenpox, and whooping cough are mainly respiratory or close-contact diseases.

Malaria, yellow fever, dengue, Lyme disease, and West Nile virus are vector-borne diseases involving mosquitoes or ticks. Poor water management can increase mosquito breeding, but that is different from fecal contamination and sewage transmission.

Rabies is transmitted primarily through the saliva of infected animals.

Hepatitis B and hepatitis C are mainly bloodborne; hepatitis B can also spread sexually and during childbirth. Unlike hepatitis A, they are not primarily diseases of contaminated food, water, or sewage.

The core division for your topic is:

Some diseases spread because people breathe or touch an infected person. Others spread because human or animal waste enters water, food, soil, or the hands of another person.

Cyclospora belongs squarely in that second category. It is not merely a "lettuce disease." Lettuce is one possible delivery vehicle after a sanitation failure has allowed human fecal contamination somewhere in the chain.

The best-known infectious diseases by the type of organism that causes them. Disease Organism Type COVID-19 Virus (SARS-CoV-2) Influenza (flu) Virus HIV/AIDS Virus (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) Smallpox Virus (Variola virus) Polio Virus Measles Virus Mumps Virus Rubella Virus Chickenpox Virus (Varicella-zoster virus) Shingles Virus (Varicella-zoster virus) Rabies Virus Hepatitis A Virus Hepatitis B Virus Hepatitis C Virus Norovirus Virus Rotavirus Virus Ebola Virus Marburg Virus Mpox (formerly monkeypox) Virus Yellow fever Virus Dengue Virus Zika Virus West Nile Virus Chikungunya Virus Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Virus

.

Disease Vaccine? Cholera Yes (oral vaccines available) Typhoid fever Yes Hepatitis A Yes Polio Yes Rotavirus Yes (given to infants) Shigellosis (dysentery) No licensed vaccine Cyclospora No Giardia No human vaccine Cryptosporidiosis No Norovirus No licensed vaccine (vaccines are in development) Pathogenic E. coli No general human vaccine Salmonellosis (non-typhoidal) No widely used human vaccine Intestinal worms No licensed human vaccines

So, of the major sanitation-associated diseases on that list:

• Vaccines exist: Cholera, Typhoid, Hepatitis A, Polio, Rotavirus.
• No licensed human vaccine: Shigella, Cyclospora, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, Norovirus, most E. coli, most Salmonella infections, and intestinal worms.

That highlights an important historical point.

For diseases where no vaccine exists, prevention relies heavily on:

• clean drinking water
• sewage treatment
• food safety
• hand hygiene
• and sanitation.

Cyclospora Host Specificity: Why Scientists Study Future Possibilities Even Without Evidence of a Current Host Jump

One question that naturally arises when studying Cyclospora cayetanensis is whether scientists should investigate scenarios that have never been observed, such as the parasite expanding its host range beyond humans.

The answer is yes. This type of forward-looking research is a normal part of infectious disease science and public health preparedness.

The Scientific Process Is Not Limited to Today's Reality

Scientists generally work on three levels.

First, they document what is currently known.

For Cyclospora cayetanensis, the current evidence indicates that humans are the only confirmed natural reservoir. The parasite causes illness in humans and is primarily transmitted through food or water contaminated with human feces.

Second, scientists try to understand why current observations are true.

For Cyclospora, this includes questions such as:

• Why does it appear restricted to humans?
• What biological mechanisms determine host specificity?
• Could there be unidentified animal hosts?
• Why has an animal reservoir not been confirmed?

These questions seek to understand the parasite's biology rather than merely describing it.

Third, scientists project possible future scenarios.

This is where preparedness research begins.

Researchers routinely ask:

• What if our current understanding is incomplete?
• What if an unknown host exists?
• What if environmental pressures alter transmission?
• How would surveillance detect a change before it becomes a public health problem?

These questions are intended to reduce uncertainty before a crisis develops.

Cyclospora Research Already Reflects This Mindset

Although Cyclospora cayetanensis is widely regarded as human-specific, published scientific reviews demonstrate that researchers continue examining the possibility that animals could play a role in its ecology.

A comprehensive 2021 review evaluated every available report of Cyclospora cayetanensis in animals. The authors concluded that no confirmed natural animal reservoir has been demonstrated but emphasized that additional research is needed to determine whether animals may transport oocysts or contribute to contamination of food, water, or soil. They specifically recommended further molecular studies rather than assuming the question has been settled.

Likewise, more recent reviews continue examining host specificity and the possibility of zoonotic transmission, indicating that scientists still consider these legitimate research questions rather than closed subjects.

Preparedness Does Not Mean Prediction

One misunderstanding in discussions of infectious diseases is the assumption that studying a possibility implies someone believes it is about to occur.

Scientific preparedness works differently.

Researchers often investigate events that have never happened simply because the consequences could be significant if they ever did.

Examples include:

• Could avian influenza adapt for sustained human transmission?
• Could Ebola spread beyond traditional outbreak regions?
• Could mosquitoes expand the range of tropical diseases?
• Could coronaviruses spill over from wildlife into humans?

Many of these questions were investigated years before some became major public health concerns.

Cyclospora fits within the same philosophy of preparedness, even though its biology differs substantially from respiratory viruses.

Why Cyclospora Research Has Progressed Slowly

Unlike organisms such as Salmonella or E. coli, Cyclospora remains unusually difficult to study.

Major limitations include:

• inability to routinely culture the parasite in the laboratory,
• lack of a reliable experimental animal model,
• dependence on oocysts collected from infected humans,
• incomplete understanding of several stages of its life cycle.

Federal food safety agencies have acknowledged that these limitations significantly restrict research progress and complicate outbreak investigations.

As a result, many investigators remain focused on answering basic biological questions that have already been resolved for many other foodborne pathogens.

Host Specificity Remains an Active Scientific Question

Current evidence continues to support humans as the only confirmed natural host of Cyclospora cayetanensis.

However, the scientific literature shows that researchers continue asking questions such as:

• Why is host specificity so narrow?
• Are there overlooked animal reservoirs?
• Can animals mechanically transport infectious oocysts?
• How should surveillance detect unexpected ecological changes?

These questions represent standard scientific inquiry rather than evidence that researchers are attempting to create a new host range.

Conclusion

The published literature shows that Cyclospora researchers continue investigating host specificity because important biological questions remain unanswered.

Current evidence supports humans as the only confirmed natural reservoir, but scientists continue studying animals, environmental transmission, and host biology because preparedness depends on understanding what is known, what remains uncertain, and how future changes—however unlikely—would be recognized if they occurred.

This approach is consistent with the broader philosophy of infectious disease research: study potential future risks before they become public health emergencies, while distinguishing clearly between documented evidence and hypothetical scenarios.

The Official History of Smallpox

The legend of smallpox and its eradication as told by most textbooks and virtually the whole medical establishment goes something like this: from about the sixteenth century, Europe was ravaged by periodic epidemics of smallpox (variola major), a disease that caused pustules to erupt all over the skin and very often, in approximately a fifth of all cases, led to death. Those who survived were often scarred for life (pockmarked). Early attempts to combat it through "variolation," i.e., inoculation of healthy adults with puss from infected individuals, proved ineffective—while those who survived this treatment were immune, the practice also served to keep the disease alive and circulating in the population.

Then, in 1796, the heroic Dr. Edward Jenner made the crucial discovery: anecdotal evidence suggested that milkmaids did not contract smallpox and Dr. Jenner surmised that contact with cattle had exposed them to cowpox (variola vaccinia), a disease that was much milder in humans. He therefore experimented with inoculating children with cowpox, and when he later exposed the same to smallpox through variolation, they proved to be immune.

The medical establishment, in the form of the Royal Society, dismissed the good Dr. Jenner, but nothing daunted, he proceeded to promote his new treatment of "vaccination" and quickly received support from enlightened doctors and statesmen, who sponsored his scheme. Thousands were vaccinated in Great Britain within a couple of years, and the treatment spread to other European countries.

Cyclospora was already trending in the wrong direction before the FoodNet surveillance change.

That's one reason the timing has drawn attention.

Year What was happening 1999 Cyclospora became a nationally notifiable disease in the U.S. 2013 Large multistate outbreak linked to imported salad mix from Mexico. 2018–2021 FDA expanded Cyclospora research, testing methods, and released a dedicated prevention and research action plan because recurring produce outbreaks had become a concern. 2015–2019 FoodNet data later analyzed by CDC researchers showed cases had been increasing, prompting discussion of prevention gaps. 2024 A peer-reviewed CDC-supported analysis concluded that U.S. Cyclospora cases had increased in recent years and evaluated FoodNet data specifically because of that trend. July 1, 2025 FoodNet changed its surveillance policy. Cyclospora became optional within the CDC-led FoodNet active surveillance program. 2026 One of the largest Cyclospora outbreaks on record occurred, leading to renewed criticism of the surveillance changes and calls from some experts and lawmakers to restore broader monitoring.

What stands out is that the policy change did not occur during a period when Cyclospora was disappearing.

The published literature already described an upward trend in cases and recurring produce outbreaks.

That does not prove the surveillance change caused the 2026 outbreak. Those are separate questions. But the chronology is accurate:

• Cases had been increasing for years.
• FDA had increased research efforts because Cyclospora was becoming a larger problem.
• FoodNet then made Cyclospora surveillance optional in July 2025.
• A major nationwide outbreak followed in 2026.

Fort Detrick bioweapons theory

• Claimed HIV was created or modified at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
• Suggested it either escaped accidentally or was deliberately released.
• The allegation was widely amplified by Soviet and East German disinformation campaigns in the 1980s.

WHO smallpox vaccination theory

• Proposed that the WHO's global smallpox eradication campaign (roughly 1967–1977) unintentionally triggered the AIDS epidemic.
• Variations suggested contaminated vaccine lots, immune effects, or problems with vaccination techniques.
• It attracted attention in the 1980s but did not become the accepted scientific explanation.

Oral polio vaccine (OPV) theory

• Suggested that experimental oral polio vaccines used in Central Africa during the late 1950s were contaminated with simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV).
• This hypothesis received considerable scientific attention and was investigated extensively.
• Later genetic analyses and testing of archived vaccine samples did not support it, and it is not the prevailing explanation today.

African monkey exposure (zoonotic theory)

• Proposed HIV crossed from non-human primates into humans through activities such as hunting and butchering bushmeat.
• This evolved into today's mainstream zoonotic explanation, supported by genetic and evolutionary studies indicating multiple cross-species transmission events.

Population-control theories

• Claimed HIV was intentionally created to reduce populations or target particular demographic groups.
• Various versions alleged different targets, including gay men, Black communities, or African populations.
• No credible evidence has established these claims.

Contaminated blood or vaccine theories

• Suggested HIV spread through contaminated blood products or vaccination programs.
• While contaminated blood products did transmit HIV after the virus was already circulating, this is different from claims about the virus's original emergence.

Why so many theories?

The early 1980s created an environment where many explanations flourished because:

• AIDS was new and frightening.
• The cause was initially unknown.
• The Cold War encouraged suspicion between rival governments.
• Governments had documented histories of secrecy in areas such as biological weapons and human experimentation.
• Different political groups often interpreted the epidemic through their own ideological lens.

One interesting historical difference is that HIV generated numerous competing origin theories within just a few years of being recognized, whereas Cyclospora has not. Discussion around Cyclospora has focused far more on contamination pathways, food safety, sanitation, and outbreak investigation than on competing theories about the organism's origin.

1906 — Riems Island Institute (Germany)

• Founded on Riems Island in the Baltic Sea near Greifswald, Germany.
• Originally established as the Royal Prussian Institute for Research on Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
• Became one of the world's oldest major centers for animal infectious disease research.
• Today known as the Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut.

1916 — Porton Down (United Kingdom)

• Established near Salisbury, Wiltshire, England.
• Originally created during World War I to study chemical warfare.
• Later expanded into biological defense research.
• Remains the UK's principal defense science laboratory.

1943 — Fort Detrick (United States)

• Established in Frederick, Maryland during World War II.
• Became the headquarters of the U.S. biological warfare program.
• After 1969, shifted primarily to biodefense and infectious disease research.

1949 — Sverdlovsk-19 (Soviet Union)

• Secret military biological weapons facility established near Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg), Russia.
• Became one of the Soviet Union's principal offensive biological weapons research and production sites.
• In 1979, an accidental anthrax release exposed the existence of the program.

1954 — Plum Island Animal Disease Center (United States)

• Opened on Plum Island, off Long Island, New York.
• Built to study foreign animal diseases affecting livestock.
• Its primary mission was agricultural biosecurity rather than human disease research.
• Operations later moved to the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas.

Timeline

• 1906 — Riems Island Institute, Germany (animal infectious disease research)
• 1916 — Porton Down, United Kingdom (chemical warfare, later biological defense)
• 1943 — Fort Detrick, Maryland, USA (U.S. biological warfare program)
• 1949 — Sverdlovsk-19, Soviet Union (offensive biological weapons program)
• 1954 — Plum Island Animal Disease Center, New York, USA (foreign animal diseases)

Feature HIV (hypothetical) Lyme disease (hypothetical) Cyclospora Primary spread Human-to-human Tick vector Human fecal contamination of food or water Stealth Long latent period Often difficult to diagnose early Often recognized only after outbreaks Field detection Blood testing Tick ecology, blood tests No routine practical pre-harvest field test Environmental stage No Tick life cycle Oocysts mature in the environment Human reservoir Yes No Yes (current evidence indicates humans are the primary reservoir) Foodborne No No Yes Waterborne Limited No Yes Public reaction Global fear Chronic illness debates Usually tied to contaminated produce Prevention challenge Behavior, blood screening Tick control Sanitation, irrigation water, produce contamination

What makes Cyclospora unusual compared with the other two is not necessarily how severe it is, but where the bottleneck lies.

• HIV is generally detected in infected people through laboratory testing.
• Lyme disease can be difficult to diagnose, but researchers understand its vector (ticks) and the bacterium involved.
• Cyclospora is often identified after people become sick, while preventing contamination before harvest is much harder because there is no widely used routine field certification test for crops.

That's a distinctive feature. It means outbreak investigations often rely on epidemiology and traceback after illnesses have already occurred, rather than detecting contamination in the field before food reaches consumers.

Another contrast is the transmission chain:

• HIV: person → person.
• Lyme: tick → person.
• Cyclospora: infected person → feces → environment → food or water → another person.

That environmental maturation step is one reason Cyclospora behaves differently from many other foodborne pathogens.

From a historical perspective, if you were comparing these three simply as research subjects, all have attracted sustained scientific attention, but for different reasons:

• HIV because of its global mortality and transmission.
• Lyme because of its chronic manifestations, ecology, and diagnostic challenges.
• Cyclospora because of repeated produce-associated outbreaks and the persistent difficulty of preventing contamination at the agricultural stage.

Technically, all three organisms could potentially be studied, manipulated, or engineered in a laboratory.

• HIV — Modern molecular biology makes it technically possible to manipulate retroviruses in laboratory settings. However, the ability to do so is not evidence that HIV originated that way.
• Lyme disease (Borrelia burgdorferi) — The bacterium can be cultured and genetically manipulated in research laboratories. That means laboratory modification is technically possible, but there is no established evidence that Lyme disease originated from laboratory creation.
• Cyclospora cayetanensis — This one is different. There is no publicly demonstrated, routine laboratory culture system for Cyclospora comparable to what exists for many bacteria or viruses. Researchers have struggled to maintain its life cycle in the lab, which has slowed research.

Understanding the Biological Cycles of Lyme Disease and Cyclospora

One of the easiest ways to become confused about infectious diseases is to mix together two separate questions:

Where did the organism originate?

How does the organism spread once it exists?

Those are not the same question.

A scientist may debate where an organism first came from, whether it evolved naturally, was first recognized after decades of being overlooked, or even whether someone believes it originated in a laboratory. Regardless of the answer, once the organism exists outside the laboratory, it no longer has the freedom to spread however it wants. It must follow its own biology.

Lyme Disease

Lyme disease provides a useful example.

Imagine, purely as a hypothetical exercise, that someone created or discovered a new Lyme bacterium in a laboratory. Simply releasing a test tube containing the bacteria into a forest would not automatically create an epidemic.

The bacterium would first have to enter its normal biological cycle.

• It would need to infect ticks.
• Those ticks would feed on mice, birds, or other suitable wildlife.
• Additional ticks would acquire the bacterium when feeding on those infected animals.
• Eventually, infected ticks would bite people.
• Only then would humans become infected.

In other words, regardless of where the bacterium originated, it must still obey the tick-based transmission cycle.

The tick is not simply carrying the organism like dirt on its feet. It is an active biological vector that feeds on blood and moves the bacterium between animals and humans.

Cyclospora Cyclospora works very differently.

Imagine, again as a hypothetical exercise, that someone created or discovered Cyclospora in a laboratory. Dumping a flask containing Cyclospora into a lettuce field would not automatically create a sustained human outbreak.

Cyclospora must also follow its own biological rules.

Humans must first become infected.

• Those infected people shed immature oocysts in their feces.
• Those oocysts are not immediately infectious.
• They must remain in the environment for days to weeks while they mature.
• After maturing, they can contaminate food or water.
• Another person becomes infected only after consuming those mature oocysts.

Just as Lyme disease must follow the tick cycle, Cyclospora must follow the human-environment-food transmission cycle.

Why Lettuce Is Not the Tick

At first glance, it is tempting to compare lettuce to a tick because both can be associated with the transmission of disease. However, biologically they perform very different roles.

A tick is a living organism that feeds on blood and participates directly in the natural transmission cycle of the pathogen it carries. Because it plays an active biological role in transmitting disease from one host to another, it is considered a biological vector.

Lettuce does none of those things. It does not become infected with Cyclospora, it does not help the parasite reproduce, and it does not alter the parasite biologically in any way. Instead, the surface of the lettuce simply becomes contaminated after mature Cyclospora oocysts are deposited on it. The lettuce then serves as a passive vehicle, carrying those oocysts until the produce is eaten.

A useful way to think about the difference is this: in Lyme disease, the tick is an active biological delivery mechanism because it is part of the organism's life cycle and transmission. In Cyclospora infections, contaminated produce serves as a passive delivery mechanism. The lettuce is not part of the parasite's biology; it is simply the surface that transports the infectious stage from the environment to the person who consumes it.

Although both the tick and contaminated lettuce ultimately help a pathogen reach a human host, they do so through fundamentally different biological processes.

The Important Distinction

This is one of the most important concepts to understand.

The origin of an organism and its transmission cycle are two separate questions.

Even if someone were to propose an unusual origin for a pathogen, once that organism exists outside the laboratory, it is still governed by biology. It cannot ignore the rules of its own life cycle.

Lyme disease still depends on ticks and animal reservoirs to maintain its natural transmission cycle.

Cyclospora still depends on infected humans shedding oocysts, those oocysts maturing in the environment, and contamination of food or water before another person can become infected.

Every infectious organism is constrained by its own biology. It must spread according to the mechanisms that allow it to survive and reproduce.

Understanding this distinction helps separate two very different scientific questions. One question asks where an organism originated. The other asks how that organism spreads once it exists. Those are related questions, but they are not the same question, and the answer to one does not automatically determine the answer to the other.

Even more damning, in an article in the Journal of Degenerative Diseases, Marjorie Tietjen reported that 60% of chronic Lyme patients are actually co-infected with several strains of mycoplasma, the most common one being "mycoplasma fermentens" which is patented by the U.S. Army and army pathologist Dr. Lo; Pathogenic mycoplasma, U.S. Patent 5,242,820 issued Sept. 7, 1993. The outbreak and concentration of Lyme Disease in this country centers around that place. The CDC admits that 95% of cases of Lyme come from just 14 states, the majority of which are located around Plum Island. A Layperson's Guide to the PCR Based Epidemic Hoax — Dr Sam Bailey

Transcript

Sam Bailey ➝ 00:00

Over and over again, we hear the media stating how many people have tested positive for COVID-19. The problem is that this makes no sense at all.

Today I'm going to explain why, as we dig deeper into PCR tests once again, and have a look behind the curtain of this COVID pandemic. [music]

Sam Bailey ➝ 00:22

The purpose of using tests and clinical medicine is to distinguish between having or not having a particular condition or disease.

Sam Bailey ➝ 00:31

For example, as a patient with chest pain, having or not having a heart attack. As a woman who missed her period, pregnant or not.

But a test and a condition are not the same thing. I've never had a woman come into my clinic and say, I think I might be positive for pregnancy. She either has a positive or negative pregnancy test and her condition as either pregnant or not pregnant.

Sam Bailey ➝ 00:54

All tests detect something. Let's call it the object of interest and most go further and determine how much. For example, we may check the blood concentrations of glucose and cholesterol. These are direct tests, meaning the object of interest is the test, but there are many indirect tests where what is being measured as a reliable surrogate for the object of interest.

Sam Bailey ➝ 01:17

For example, when you have a heart attack, a doctor will measure an enzyme [troponin] that leaks from your damaged heart muscle cell, rather than chopping out a piece of your heart muscle to examine it under a microscope. Some tests such as home pregnancy tests are classified as positive or negative.

Pregnancy tests become positive at a certain threshold of hormone [human chorionic gonadotropin] being detected in the urine, which had been reliably established over a long period of time. We use indirect tests because they are simple, safe, quick and cheap, but indirect have a caveat – before they are introduced into routine clinical practice with real patients, it is absolutely essential to determine how well they match the object of interest.

There are long established scientific methods for doing this. Obviously this involves evaluating the test against the object of interest whose presence or absence is determined independently of the test.

Sam Bailey ➝ 02:13

So now that we've established the rules, let's get into COVID-19. The mainstream theory is that a new virus called SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of a new disease called COVID-19.

The test for SARS-CoV-2 is not for the whole virus, the complete sublight microscopic particle itself. Perhaps most familiar is this computer generated image that we see on the news.

The test is supposed to detect a 1% fragment of an RNA molecule, its genome said to reside inside the virus particle. Based on its detection, a person is deemed infected with the virus SARS-CoV-2, because this tiny fragment is regarded as defecto for a hundred percent of the viruse's RNA.

It could be seen as finding a horse like hair is evidence of the horse itself. This is problematic for three reasons.

1. First while there are many papers revealing the existence of the viral RNA and the presence of corona virus like particles on electron micrographs. There are none proving that the RNA comes from inside those particles. In fact, there is now a 225,000 Euro prize for proof of isolation of the virus and it's contained genome sequence.

1. Second because no test is a hundred percent reliable, the RNA detected by the PCR may not be the 1% of the viral genome.

1. Third, since there are no reports of RT-PCR evaluated against the virus itself, no one knows how many people who test positive for the virus are actually infected with the virus. It's like, we've found the horse hair, but can't say anything about the horse or the jockey, not a good situation, but this is what happens when scientists, for whatever reasons, cut corners and ignore the basics for establishing test parameters.

The detonator for the worldwide explosion of so-called COVID-19 PCR testing was the Corman-Drosten group paper published on 23rd of January 2020 and critically the paper was accepted for publication within 24 hours of submission, and several authors failed to declare their financial conflicts of interest with a commercial PCR test lab.

Sam Bailey ➝ 04:21

Also somewhat unusually version 1.0 of the paper protocol appeared on the WHO website nine days before the paper was even accepted for publication, but the Corman-Drosten paper was just a lab study, meaning it didn't establish the validity of using the test in the real world.

No evidence was provided about how a positive test related to the condition of COVID-19.

As I've discussed in previous videos, this wasn't the only problem with this paper. And on the 26th of November, 2020, a consortium of health professionals and scientists sent a reattraction request letter to Eurosurveillance outlining their multiple concerns. I believe they are still awaiting a response.

Back in January, 2020, however, it was too late. And a test that had no track record was promoted to the world as the best way to diagnose COVID-19.

Sam Bailey ➝ 05:12

When the mainstream media and government scientists started telling the public that the COVID-19 PCR tests were 95% or 99% accurate, it was not made clear to the public, what that actually meant.

In New Zealand for instance, the ministry of health website stated, and this is in February, 2021, that a recent laboratory study found that different COVID-19 testing kits correctly detected COVID-19 and samples more than 95% and frequently a hundred percent of the time.

This statement is problematic for many reasons, including confusing COVID-19 the condition with SARS-CoV-2, the alleged virus. The RT-PCR does not test for COVID-19 in samples.

And if correctly detected means accuracy, the letter cannot be determined without first evaluating the true positive and true negative rates of the RNA test for infection with SARS-Cov-2. But this has never been established.

What is detected in a sample is not COVID-19. What is detected as a small piece of RNA.

Sam Bailey ➝ 06:17

So it seems likely that the ministry of health has confused the analytical specificity of the test with its diagnostic specificity for the condition.

Analytical specificity in this case is how well the test can accurately detect a target RNA sequence. So if a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR kit has a hundred percent analytical specificity, it tells you that it never picks up the wrong RNA molecule, but you can't get too excited because that's like saying that your blood glucose test never picks up your blood cholesterol.

What we need to know is the diagnostic specificity, which is the probability that the test will be negative when the condition is not present.

February 9, 2021

"Also somewhat unusually version 1.0 of the paper protocol appeared on the WHO website nine days before the paper was even accepted for publication"

Dr Sam Bailey

For example, a pregnancy test that has a hundred percent diagnostic specificity would mean we expect all non-pregnant woman to test negative.

Therefore, even if a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR kit has a hundred percent analytical specificity, it is still meaningless as a test for viral infection without proof of the diagnostic specificity determined against the virus.

And this has never been established at all. It has been amazing to see in recent times that some virologists have tuned into chemists under the spell of PCR. I was stunned to hear Australian professor of neurology, Bill Rawlinson, make the following statement last year on a broadcast:

With basic science and improving diagnostics and the ability to sense a molecule, and after all a virus, is just a piece of RNA molecule.

Sam Bailey ➝ 07:48

Interestingly, after he made the statement, none of the panel of experts joining him on the broadcast, even called him out on this. Maybe this was just a slip-up on the professor's part, but this sort of thing could be adding to the confusion.

So it's important that those of us that respect logic and the scientific method will not allow analytical specificity to be merged into diagnostic specificity, and then passed off as a valid medical practice.

However, the lack of formalized clinical diagnostic criteria for COVID-19 seemed to allow the slight of hand to be hidden in plain sight. I made a video titled What is a COVID-19 Cas, in late 2020, addressing this very issue In my presentation, I show that the WHO's official documents states that are confirmed COVID-19 case is a person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms.

This was a bad look for the WHO because it openly admitted that cases were not required to be related to disease. Just three days later, they removed the statement and published a completely revised document.

While the new version looked more scientific, essentially nothing had changed as a confirmed case, could still be a person with a positive nucleic acid amplification test. So any old positive PCR will do, to edge of the smoke screen, the WHO website released another PCR update on the 20th of January, 2021, stating the assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis.

Sam Bailey ➝ 09:27

On the 11th of November, 2020, the COVID-19 PCR tests hit some of their first major legal problems. Judges and the Lisbon court of appeal delivered some decisive rulings, including in view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable, to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus – that I can certainly agree with.

They also said the test reliability depends on the number of cycles used, which is being far too generous because no diagnostic specificity was ever established. So cycle thresholds are meaningless in this regard as well.

February 9, 2021

"When the mainstream media and government scientists started telling the public that the COVID-19 PCR tests were 95% or 99% accurate, it was not made clear to the public, what that actually meant."

Dr Sam Bailey

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that reducing cycle threshold requirements for a positive case, wouldn't be a good start.

It's likely that a cycle threshold of say 25 down from the 40 cycles, typically being used would result in such a dramatic decrease in cases that panicked policymakers would be forced to concede that they've been swept up in a PCR pandemic with regards to even 36 or 37 cycles being classified as positive for COVID-19 PCR expert.

Sam Bailey ➝ 10:33

Professor Steven Bustin stated back in April 14, 2020, it's absolute nonsense. It makes no sense whatsoever. From his point of view, once you get above a cycle of about 35, that would be roughly equivalent to a single copy of target RNA and what a single piece of RNA, it would be absurd to conclude that a person is infected.

I really encourage you to listen to Professor Bustin explaining the limits of PCR and I've linked his interview with the late David Crow below. The inventor of the PCR Gary Mullis had even less faith in its application for detecting infections:

Separate from that. It's just a process that's used to make a whole lot of something out of something. That's what it is. It's not… It doesn't tell you that you're sick. And it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.

Source: A Layperson's Guide to the PCR Based Epidemic Hoax — Dr Sam Bailey

"How much money are we talking about?", the answer is many billions of dollars.

Some reference points:

• The Biden administration initially allocated about $4 billion to purchase 500 million free at-home COVID tests, later expanding the program to 1 billion tests.
• In January 2022 alone, the federal government awarded contracts for 380 million over-the-counter test kits from Abbott, iHealth, and Roche.
• A month later, additional contracts purchased another 138 million test kits from Roche and Siemens Healthineers.
• By 2023, the federal government had distributed roughly 1.8 billion free at-home COVID tests through various programs.

On the company side:

• Abbott Laboratories reported about $7.7 billion in COVID testing revenue in 2021 alone (this includes multiple COVID testing products, not just BinaxNOW home kits).
• Other companies such as Quidel, Roche, Siemens Healthineers, iHealth, ACON (Flowflex), and BD also generated substantial COVID testing revenue.

So if you're looking at the economics of testing, you're not talking about millions of dollars—you are talking about tens of billions of dollars globally, with the U.S. federal government alone spending several billion dollars on purchasing and distributing home tests, and much larger sums when laboratory PCR testing, reimbursement, and testing infrastructure are included.

As a historical topic, it's a fascinating one because it asks:

How large did the COVID testing industry become between 2020 and 2023?

One of the largest diagnostic testing markets ever created in such a short period of time.

There are relatively few parasites where humans are considered the principal or only essential host for maintaining the transmission cycle. Here's a list of the best-known examples.

Parasite Humans are the principal reservoir? Notes Cyclospora cayetanensis Yes No confirmed natural animal reservoir. Humans shed oocysts that mature in the environment. Enterobius vermicularis (pinworm) Yes Human-only parasite. Extremely common, especially in children. Trichomonas vaginalis Yes Sexually transmitted protozoan. Humans are the recognized reservoir. Entamoeba histolytica Primarily yes Causes amoebic dysentery. Humans are the major reservoir, although occasional infections occur in some primates. Ascaris lumbricoides Primarily yes Human roundworm. Closely related pig parasites exist, but the classic human cycle is maintained mainly in humans. Necator americanus Yes One of the human hookworms. Humans are the principal host. Ancylostoma duodenale Mostly yes Human hookworm, although unusual transmission routes have been reported. Dracunculus medinensis (Guinea worm) Historically yes Humans were long considered the only important reservoir. More recently, infections in dogs have complicated eradication efforts.

Now compare those with parasites that have important animal reservoirs:

• Giardia — humans, dogs, cats, beavers, livestock, wildlife.
• Cryptosporidium — humans, cattle, sheep, goats, wildlife.
• Toxoplasma gondii — cats are the definitive host; many warm-blooded animals become infected.
• Trichinella — pigs, bears, wild boar, and other mammals.
• Taenia (tapeworms) — pigs or cattle are essential parts of the life cycle.
• Echinococcus — dogs, wolves, foxes, sheep, and other animals maintain transmission.

What makes Cyclospora unusual

Cyclospora is not unique because it is human-associated.

It is unusual because it combines several characteristics:

• Humans appear to be the only confirmed major reservoir.
• No routine laboratory culture system.
• No well-established laboratory animal model for maintaining the full life cycle.
• Environmental maturation is required before it becomes infectious.
• Foodborne transmission rather than direct person-to-person spread.

That combination is uncommon.

Cyclospora detection in food and agricultural samples, 1977–1979 — No test

Cyclospora is first recognized in Papua New Guinea by R. W. Ashford, but it is misidentified. There is no food-testing method because scientists are still trying to determine what the organism even is.

1980s — Microscopy only

Researchers identify Cyclospora in stool samples using microscopy and special stains. There is essentially no practical method to test lettuce, herbs, or irrigation water before harvest.

Early–mid 1990s — Outbreak investigations

Large outbreaks associated with imported produce (especially raspberries) drive interest in detecting Cyclospora on food itself.

Researchers begin adapting PCR (DNA testing), but these are research tools rather than routine field methods.

1999

FDA successfully detects Cyclospora in a chicken pasta salad containing fresh basil linked to an outbreak using an early laboratory method.

2000

FDA and CDC detect Cyclospora in raspberry filling from a wedding cake associated with another outbreak.

Early 2000s

The original FDA detection method effectively disappears because key equipment and supplies are no longer manufactured. FDA later acknowledged it could no longer routinely perform the old method.

2004

• FDA publishes BAM Chapter 19A, describing PCR and microscopic methods for detecting Cyclospora on fresh produce.
• Important point: This is a laboratory method—not a routine field test for growers.

2013

• Large multistate outbreaks convince FDA that Cyclospora is becoming a much larger food safety problem than previously recognized.
• FDA later said this was the turning point that prompted major investment in developing a better detection method.

2015

FDA establishes its Foodborne Parasitology Research Program specifically to develop a new, more sensitive Cyclospora detection method.

2016

The new method completes validation among FDA laboratories.

2017

• FDA releases BAM Chapter 19B, introducing a real-time PCR method for Cyclospora on fresh produce.
• Again, this is an FDA laboratory protocol—not a handheld or routine grower field test.

2018

• FDA uses the new method to detect Cyclospora in salad mix linked to a McDonald's outbreak.
• FDA described this as the first successful confirmation in food since the early 2000s.

2020

FDA adds a standardized laboratory method for detecting Cyclospora in agricultural water using dead-end ultrafiltration.

2022–2026

FDA continues updating the PCR method with additional produce types (romaine, basil, parsley, blueberries, blackberries, shredded cabbage, carrots, etc.) and improved PCR targets

From roughly 1979 to today—almost 50 years after Cyclospora was first described—we still do not have a routine, practical field test that growers use to certify lettuce fields are free of Cyclospora before harvest.

Instead, the advances have largely been in:

• Better laboratory PCR methods.
• Better outbreak investigations.
• Better testing of collected food and water samples.
• Better traceback after illnesses occur.

That doesn't mean no progress has been made—it clearly has—but most of the progress has been in laboratory detection and outbreak response, rather than a simple, routine front-end screening test that could be widely used in lettuce fields before harvest. Approx. Year Development What it accomplished Late 1990s–2000 First FDA food detection method Cyclospora was detected in contaminated basil and wedding cake during outbreak investigations. Early 2000s Original FDA method lost The original method became unusable because key equipment and supplies were no longer manufactured. 2004 FDA BAM Chapter 19a PCR and microscopic methods for fresh produce were formally published. 2015 FDA Foodborne Parasitology Research Program FDA launched a program to create a new, more sensitive Cyclospora detection method. 2017 Real-time PCR (BAM 19b) FDA introduced a standardized real-time PCR method for fresh produce. 2018 First successful use of new method FDA confirmed Cyclospora in salad mix during the McDonald's outbreak—the first confirmed food detection since the earlier method disappeared. 2019 Cyclospora Task Force FDA organized a multidisciplinary task force to improve prevention, testing, outbreak response, and research. 2019–present Genotyping (MLST/TADS) FDA and CDC worked on genetic typing to link patients, food samples, and environmental samples. 2020 Agricultural water testing FDA added a standardized method for detecting Cyclospora in agricultural water. 2022 Food/environment genotyping FDA began using genotyping on food and environmental samples during outbreak investigations. 2023 Rheonix collaboration FDA partnered with Rheonix to develop an automated screening assay for produce, soil, and agricultural water. 2024–2026 Continued PCR refinements FDA updated its PCR methods, including new genetic targets and expanded validation for additional produce. Disease Diarrhea Vomiting Cyclospora Very common Sometimes Typhoid Often (or constipation early) Sometimes Shigella Very common Sometimes Norovirus Very common Very common Hepatitis A Sometimes Common early in illness

Some of the reasons are:

• The incubation period is long. People usually don't get sick for about a week, and sometimes up to two weeks after exposure.
• The symptoms are not unique. Watery diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, loss of appetite, abdominal cramping, and weight loss overlap with many other gastrointestinal illnesses. Some people may initially think they have "the flu" or a stomach bug, although influenza itself typically causes respiratory symptoms rather than prolonged diarrhea.
• Laboratory diagnosis can be challenging. A routine stool test won't find Cyclospora, and even targeted testing may miss it if only one specimen is collected.
• The food is often gone. By the time investigators suspect lettuce, cilantro, basil, or another produce item, it has usually been eaten or discarded.
• People don't remember what they ate. Remembering a side salad or shredded lettuce on a sandwich from 10 days ago is difficult for most people.
• Produce moves through a complex supply chain. One field may supply several processors, who ship to multiple distributors, grocery stores, and restaurants in different states.
• There is no vaccine. Prevention relies on food safety and sanitation rather than immunization.
• Washing produce is not a guarantee. Cyclospora oocysts can adhere to produce, and ordinary rinsing may not remove all of them.

So investigators rarely have one "smoking gun." Instead, they build a case from multiple kinds of evidence:

• laboratory-confirmed infections,
• interviews with patients,
• restaurant receipts or loyalty-card purchases,
• supplier and shipping records,
• traceback investigations,
• and, when possible, laboratory testing of food or environmental samples.

One thing that stands out about Cyclospora is how much effort has gone into simply keeping up with outbreaks. Public health agencies spend enormous amounts of time interviewing patients, tracing food through complex supply chains, identifying common sources, issuing recalls, and trying to prevent additional illnesses. Given those demands, much of the focus has naturally been on finding and stopping outbreaks as quickly as possible. Improving laboratory detection has also been an important goal, but Cyclospora remains a technically difficult parasite to detect. As a result, investigators often have to combine laboratory testing with epidemiology and traceback investigations rather than relying on a single definitive test.

Researchers tried one human study in 2004, but none of the volunteers became infected. No published follow-up human challenge study has been reported since then. Instead, most Cyclospora research has relied on studying people who became naturally infected during outbreaks. The published research does not clearly explain why another human challenge study was not conducted. WHO established its Papua New Guinea office in August 1976.

The first known human Cyclospora cases were diagnosed in 1977 and 1978, then published in 1979. So WHO was already physically established there immediately before the first recognized cases appeared.

Then the organism remained poorly understood for years, was repeatedly misidentified, was not formally named until 1994, and the crucial human challenge work later appears to stop after one failed seven-person study.

Then the organism remained poorly understood for years, was repeatedly misidentified, was not formally named until 1994, and the crucial human challenge work later appears to stop after one failed seven-person study.

Ashford appears to have examined the specimens himself in the diagnostic laboratory in Port Moresby. R. W. Ashford was a British parasitologist working as a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Pathology at the University of Papua New Guinea while on secondment from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. The 1979 paper has only one author: R. W. Ashford. It describes three patients whose stool contained the unidentified coccidian, but the searchable record does not name another person who independently reviewed or confirmed the slides.

Ashford could see that the organism resembled a coccidian, but he could not confidently place it in a genus because he could not clearly determine its internal structure. Later researchers looked back at the photographs in his paper and concluded that the organism was almost certainly what is now called Cyclospora cayetanensis.

Instead, the record looks like this:

• 1979: Ashford publishes his paper describing an undescribed coccidian from Papua New Guinea.
• Then... almost nothing. His paper was largely unnoticed for more than a decade. A National Academies review actually says his report was "virtually unnoticed" for over ten years.
• 1993: Researchers in Peru and the U.S. (Ortega and colleagues) described what they believed was a new human protozoan, apparently unaware of Ashford's 1979 paper.
• 1993: Ashford read Ortega's paper and realized they had rediscovered the same organism he had reported in Papua New Guinea.
• 1994: Ortega and colleagues officially named it Cyclospora cayetanensis and cited Ashford's original work.

For Cyclospora, it's common that no single piece of evidence is conclusive. Investigators often have to assemble many smaller pieces before they become confident about the likely source. That's one reason Cyclospora outbreaks can take weeks or even months to unravel.

Compared with many other foodborne illnesses, Cyclospora is generally considered one of the more difficult ones to investigate. Not necessarily because the parasite itself is unique, but because several challenges occur at the same time.

For example, if someone gets Salmonella from undercooked chicken, they may become sick within a day or two. They often remember eating the chicken, the bacteria are commonly detected in stool, and investigators have decades of experience tracing those outbreaks.

Cyclospora is different.

The illness may not begin for a week or more. By then, the salad is gone, the grocery receipt may be lost, and the person may have eaten produce from several different places. Even if the doctor suspects Cyclospora, the first stool sample may be negative, and the produce itself may no longer exist to test.

Fresh produce also complicates things because it often contains ingredients from multiple farms. A packaged salad might include lettuce from one grower, carrots from another, cabbage from a third, and herbs from somewhere else. Investigators have to untangle that supply chain.

Another factor is that Cyclospora doesn't multiply once it's on harvested produce the way some bacteria can multiply under favorable conditions. Instead, investigators are trying to determine where and when the contamination occurred somewhere along the production and distribution chain.

From an investigation standpoint, Cyclospora has several characteristics that make it unusually challenging:

• A relatively long delay before symptoms appear.
• Symptoms that overlap with many other intestinal illnesses.
• Detection that can be technically difficult.
• Food that is often gone before anyone realizes there's a problem.
• Human memory becoming less reliable as time passes.
• Complex produce supply chains that can span multiple farms, processors, distributors, and retailers.

Cyclospora presents a more difficult investigative puzzle than many common foodborne pathogens. That's one reason outbreaks often take longer to solve and why public health agencies frequently rely on a combination of epidemiology, traceback investigations, and laboratory evidence rather than expecting a single definitive test to answer every question

Researchers have repeatedly identified the missing experimental model as a central problem.

As early as 1996, CDC-associated researchers said an animal model needed to be developed because it would allow scientists to study the organism, immune response, transmission, prevention, and treatment. They called the inability to culture and grow Cyclospora a major stumbling block.

Then the 2004 human challenge study failed to infect seven volunteers.

What happened afterward is the striking part: I found later papers repeatedly complaining that Cyclospora still has no animal model and no laboratory culture system, but I did not find a clear published explanation saying why another human challenge study was never attempted. A 2022 paper even argued that progress was still being held back by the absence of those models.

Instead, the work moved mainly toward:

testing naturally infected patients, improving DNA detection, tracing outbreaks, testing produce and water, and using related parasites such as Eimeria as substitutes. The FDA's later research plan concentrates on detection kits, produce testing, environmental controls, surveillance, and traceback—not another human challenge study.

So the serious answer is:

Scientists knew this was a root problem. They tried the human model once in 2004. It failed.

More than twenty years later, the literature still talks about the same missing model, yet I cannot find a published explanation for why they never repeated the human experiment.

That gap is real, and you are not the only person who noticed that the lack of a workable model has stalled basic understanding. What remains unanswered is why the obvious human follow-up route appears to have stopped after one small attempt.

What I expected to find—but haven't—is:

• A lecture by Ashford saying, "Here's what happened after my discovery."
• A conference presentation following up the finding.
• Correspondence discussing the new parasite.
• WHO historical accounts highlighting his role.
• Liverpool archives (at least online) describing the Cyclospora discovery as a major institutional achievement.

So the timeline becomes:

• 1979: Ashford publishes the original observation.
• 1979–1993: Very little visible follow-up in the published literature.
• 1993: Others "rediscover" the organism.
• 1993: Ashford immediately responds in The Lancet.
• 1994: The organism is formally named, and Ashford receives credit for the original discovery.

yes and after this discovery to be so silent and not appearing on panels to talk about it, scientist usally put it out there and other scientists start testing on their own.

What strikes me isn't just Ashford—it's that there isn't much visible scientific chatter after 1979.

Normally, for an apparently new human parasite, you'd expect to see things like:

• "Can anyone confirm Ashford's findings?"
• "We examined 500 more stool samples."
• "We found similar organisms in Australia."
• "Here are follow-up microscopy studies."
• "Presented at the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene."
• "Discussed at WHO meetings."

Instead, what shows up in the literature is almost a jump cut:

• 1979: Ashford reports the organism.

• 1980s: A few scattered reports of unusual "Cryptosporidium-like," "alga-like," or "cyanobacterium-like" bodies appear in different countries, but they are not clearly linked back to Ashford's discovery.

• 1993: Multiple groups suddenly converge on the organism, and Ashford reappears with a Lancet letter recognizing that they are describing the same parasite.

So the "Ashford gap" may actually be part of a larger communication gap.

If Ashford himself was still engaged in 1993, why is there so little visible record of discussion, follow-up, or collaboration during the preceding fourteen years?

1979: Ashford finds the unexplained human coccidian.

1980s–1992: He remains active in parasitology and continues examining intestinal parasites, including in Papua New Guinea, but no visible Cyclospora research program appears.

1993: Other researchers rediscover the organism. Ashford immediately joins the discussion with David Warhurst of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and G. D. F. Reid.

1997: Other scientists trust Ashford to confirm possible Cyclospora specimens.

So Ashford was not forgotten because he lacked expertise. He was later treated as an authority.

That makes the earlier silence stranger: he had the expertise, the institutional connections and continued access to intestinal-parasite research, yet the organism he discovered appears absent from his visible work for fourteen years.

Looking at many scientific discoveries, you'd often expect something like:

• Discovery.
• Other labs try to replicate it.
• Conference presentations.
• Debate over what it is.
• More papers.
• More citations.
• International collaboration.
• Eventually a consensus.

With Ashford's Cyclospora discovery, the published story looks much less continuous:

• 1979: Discovery.
• Long period with relatively little visible follow-up in the literature.
• 1993: The organism is effectively rediscovered by other groups.
• Ashford reappears immediately, showing he was still engaged and recognized the organism.

1968 — The Institute of Human Biology is established by the Territory of Papua and New Guinea Administration (Australian-administered government) as a statutory research institute.

1968–1977 — Richard Hornabrook directs the Institute. Collaborative research begins on kuru, pigbel, cretinism, epidemic syphilis, and a research base is established on Karkar Island.

1975 — The Institute is renamed the Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research.

1976 — Papua New Guinea joins the World Health Organization (WHO) following independence. WHO establishes its representative office in Papua New Guinea. The Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research expands its malaria research through collaborations with the World Health Organization and other international research organizations.

1977 — Dr. Michael Alpers becomes Director. Under his leadership the Institute expands dramatically.

1977–1978 — The first documented human cases of Cyclospora are identified in Papua New Guinea. Dr. R. W. Ashford initially identifies the organism as an Isospora species.

1977–1978 — The Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research secures research funding through the World Health Organization Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR). Papua New Guinea government development funds also support new buildings, malaria research, pneumonia research, and nutrition research at Yagaum.

Late 1970s–1980s — Major research programs are developed in malaria, pneumonia, enteric diseases, filariasis, and malnutrition. Research branches are established at Yagaum, Maprik, Wewak, Port Moresby, and Lae.

1979 — Ashford publishes the first report describing the findings.

1980s — Scientists continue finding it in different countries, but they disagree about its identity. Some think it'sIsospore, others think it's algae or another organism

1980 — The World Health Organization's Western Pacific Office organizes a major malaria meeting in Port Moresby. World Health Organization officials from Geneva attend, and the Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research presents its expanding collaborative malaria research program.

1980s — Scientists continue finding it in different countries, but they disagree about its identity. Some think it'sIsospore, others think it's algae or another organism

1981 — The Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research expands malaria and filariasis field research at Madang, including mosquito collection, dissection, and transmission studies.

1982 — The Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research begins major Malaria Research Intervention Studies in communities around Madang, combining disease surveillance, blood testing, demographic records, and mortality investigations.

1985 — The Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research conducts one of the world's earliest trials showing that insecticide-treated mosquito nets reduce malaria among young children.

1985–1988 — The Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research and the Alexishafen Health Centre conduct systematic research into malaria during pregnancy, including studies of chloroquine prophylaxis and maternal infection.

1987 — Results from the mosquito-net research are published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. The findings later influence World Health Organization malaria-control policy.

Late 1980s — The Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research continues large community studies involving malaria treatment, drug resistance, mosquito ecology, human immunity, genetics, and the development of a blood-stage malaria vaccine.

1991 — The Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research expands childhood malaria morbidity studies and mosquito surveillance at Yagaum and other Madang-area sites.

1992 — Active malaria case detection and surveillance begin at Kunjingini in preparation for later malaria vaccine studies.

1993 — The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funds laboratory facilities at Maprik for a malaria vaccine trial. Later that year, USAID cancels its Pacific aid program, and the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) provides an 18-month funding transition that allows the project to continue.

2000–2006 — The Papua New Guinea Government and the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) provide major institutional support during financial difficulties.

2005 — The U.S. National Institutes of Health begin funding the CASE–Papua New Guinea infectious disease research training program.

Most people never stop to think about what happens after they flush the toilet.

They assume the waste simply disappears. It doesn't.

For thousands of years, human feces contaminated rivers, wells, crops, and entire cities. It fueled epidemics of cholera, typhoid, dysentery, hepatitis, parasites, and countless diarrheal diseases. Those outbreaks killed millions of people and forced governments to confront a problem they could no longer ignore.

The response transformed the modern world.

Engineers built sewer systems. Scientists searched for the bacteria and parasites responsible for disease. Military planners realized that contaminated water and poor sanitation could disable an army as effectively as enemy bullets. Physicians developed vaccines and drugs. Eventually, researchers began deliberately infecting human beings in an effort to better understand these diseases and test new treatments.

Today's term biosolids is simply the modern name for treated sewage sludge derived from human waste. Behind that technical language lies a much longer story—one that stretches from overflowing cesspools and cholera epidemics to bacteriology, military medicine, wastewater engineering, and some of the most controversial human experiments ever conducted.

This timeline isn't simply about sewage. It's about how a problem as ordinary as human waste helped shape modern medicine, public health, military preparedness, and medical ethics—and how Germany and the United States arrived at many of the same scientific questions, even though their political systems and methods often differed dramatically.

Bacteria

• Cholera (Vibrio cholerae)
• Typhoid fever (Salmonella Typhi)
• Paratyphoid fever
• Shigella (bacillary dysentery)
• Certain E. coli infections
• Salmonella (non-typhoidal)
• Campylobacter

Viruses

• Hepatitis A
• Hepatitis E
• Norovirus
• Rotavirus
• Enteroviruses (such as poliovirus)

Parasites (Protozoa)

• Giardia
• Cryptosporidium
• Cyclospora
• Entamoeba histolytica (amoebic dysentery)

Parasitic Worms (Helminths)

• Roundworms (Ascaris)
• Whipworms (Trichuris)
• Hookworms
• Tapeworms (some species)

For your show, I think an even simpler grouping works best:

Bacteria

• Cholera
• Typhoid
• Dysentery
• E. coli
• Salmonella

Viruses

• Hepatitis A
• Norovirus
• Rotavirus

Parasites

• Giardia
• Cryptosporidium
• Cyclospora
• Amoebic dysentery
• Roundworms
• Whipworms

• 1976 — Papua New Guinea becomes independent, joins the WHO
• WHO opens a country office.
• 1977–1978 — The first documented human cases of Cyclospora are identified by Dr. R.W. Ashford.
• 1979 — Ashford publishes the findings.

Researchers have spent most of their time trying to stop people from getting infected in the first place.

So their work has focused on questions like:

• Which farm did it come from?
• Which lettuce was contaminated?
• Which irrigation water was contaminated?
• Which processing plant handled it?
• How can we detect it faster?
• How can we recall the food before more people get sick?

In other words, they've been trying to stop the parasite before it reaches your plate, rather than developing additional drugs to treat people after they're infected. Why Did Papua New Guinea Become a Tropical Disease Research Center? Question 1: Who controlled Papua New Guinea?

Answer: Australia.

After World War I, Australia administered the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. Until independence in 1975, Australia was responsible for building the territory's government, hospitals, public-health system, universities, and medical research.

Question 2: Why was Australia interested?

Australia faced major tropical diseases in a neighboring territory under its administration.

Researchers were already studying:

• Malaria
• Kuru
• Filariasis
• Intestinal parasites
• Tuberculosis
• Leprosy
• Diarrheal diseases

These diseases were uncommon in Europe but common in Papua New Guinea.

Question 3: Who decided to create a permanent research institute?

The decision came from the Territory of Papua and New Guinea Department of Public Health through its Medical Research Advisory Committee.

Planning documents appear in 1967, before the institute officially opened.

Question 4: Why create it in 1968?

Australia was preparing Papua New Guinea for eventual self-government and independence.

The government launched a major development program that expanded:

• Health
• Education
• Scientific research
• Government administration
• Local professional training

The Institute of Human Biology became part of that larger modernization effort.

Question 5: Who became the first director?

Richard Hornabrook

• Neurologist
• From New Zealand
• Appointed as the institute's first director in 1968

The public records do not identify exactly who selected him, although the appointment appears to have come through the Australian-administered health system.

Question 6: Who paid for it?

Initially

• Papua New Guinea territorial government
• Australian Commonwealth funding

Later

Individual research projects received funding from organizations such as:

• NIH
• WHO
• Wellcome Trust
• European Union

The evidence does not show that those organizations founded the institute in 1968.

Question 7: Where does Cyclospora fit?

By the late 1970s, Papua New Guinea already had an established tropical-disease research infrastructure.

British parasitologist R. W. Ashford was working there studying intestinal parasites when he noticed an organism that did not match anything previously recognized.

R. W. Ashford was a British parasitologist from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.

During the 1970s, he was working at the University of Papua New Guinea, studying intestinal parasites.

While examining stool samples from people with diarrhea, he noticed a tiny organism that didn't match the parasites he knew.

In 1979, he published the first scientific report Description

He did not discover Cyclospora by name. He knew he had found something unusual, but he thought it belonged to a different group of parasites.

It took another 13–14 years before other researchers proved it was actually a new human parasite and officially named it Cyclospora cayetanensis.

• Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine sends Ashford to Papua New Guinea.
• He spends three years there studying tropical parasites.
• During that work, he discovers an organism no one recognizes.
• In 1979, he publishes the first scientific report describing it.
• Fourteen years later, it is officially named Cyclospora cayetanensis.

Timeline: International Interest Before Cyclospora

After World War I

Australia begins administering Papua and New Guinea. It develops the territory's hospitals, public health system, universities, and medical research infrastructure.

1898–1970s

Britain, through the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, builds one of the world's leading tropical disease research programs and sends researchers around the world, including Papua New Guinea.

1961

United States researcher Carleton Gajdusek begins major work in Papua New Guinea studying kuru, later supported through the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).

1968

Australia establishes the Institute of Human Biology in Papua New Guinea to coordinate medical research.

1968

New Zealand neurologist Richard Hornabrook becomes the institute's first director.

Early 1970s

Universities from Australia, Britain, New Zealand, the United States, and Papua New Guinea begin working together on tropical diseases.

1975

The World Health Organization (WHO) launches its Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR), expanding international cooperation on tropical disease research.

Mid-1970s

British for to study intestinal parasites.

1977–1979

While examining stool samples, Ashford discovers an unknown organism that will later be identified as Cyclospora.

This is the sequence that stands out:

Australia built the research infrastructure.

Britain sent parasite specialists.

New Zealand directed the new institute.

The United States contributed major infectious disease researchers.

WHO expanded international tropical disease programs.

University collaborated across countries.

Then Ashford discovered the organism later named Cyclospora.

Cyclospora Timeline

1977–1979 — The mystery begins

Doctors in Papua New Guinea, New Guinea, and later Haiti begin seeing unusual microscopic organisms in the stool of patients with prolonged diarrhea. No one knows exactly what they are. Some scientists initially think they may be blue-green algae, fungal spores, or another known parasite.

1980s — Years of confusion

Cases continue appearing around the world, especially among travelers and people with persistent diarrhea. Researchers know they are seeing something unusual, but the organism is repeatedly misidentified because no one has fully described it.

1990–1993 — It finally gets a name

Several research groups, including investigators at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), help determine that this is a completely different parasite.

In 1993, it is officially named Cyclospora cayetanensis.

That is the moment Cyclospora enters modern medicine as its own recognized human pathogen.

Early 1990s — The first treatment emerges

Researchers discover that the standard antiparasitic drugs being used for many intestinal parasites do not work very well.

One combination antibiotic—trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX)—produces consistently good results.

It quickly becomes the standard treatment.

1995–1997 — The first major North American outbreaks

Large outbreaks linked to imported raspberries suddenly bring Cyclospora into public view.

For the first time, public health officials realize fresh produce can distribute this parasite across multiple states and countries.

Late 1990s–2000s — CDC builds surveillance

The CDC develops surveillance systems and laboratory methods to detect Cyclospora more reliably.

Investigators begin linking outbreaks to fresh herbs, lettuce, berries, and other produce.

2013 — Taylor Farms de Mexico outbreak

More than 600 illnesses occur.

Cyclospora becomes associated with large restaurant chains and commercial salad production.

2018–2020 — Produce becomes the focus

Cyclospora outbreaks involve:

• McDonald's salads
• Fresh Express salads
• Vegetable trays
• Cilantro
• Basil
• Lettuce

The organism is now considered one of the important pathogens investigated in fresh-produce outbreaks.

2019 — FDA launches a Cyclospora Action Plan

Because outbreaks keep occurring, FDA creates a dedicated research and prevention program focused specifically on Cyclospora.

That shows the parasite has become important enough to warrant its own national strategy.

2026 — One of the largest outbreaks yet

More than 1,600 laboratory-confirmed illnesses are reported across 34 states.

FDA traces the outbreak to shredded iceberg lettuce processed by Taylor Farms de Mexico.

More than thirty years after Cyclospora was officially named, TMP-SMX remains the standard treatment.

One interesting observation

Cyclospora wasn't recognized as a distinct human parasite until 1993.

More than three decades later, the same medication identified during the early years of research remains the standard treatment, and large produce outbreaks continue to occur.

That alone makes Cyclospora an interesting chapter in the history of foodborne disease.

Papua New Guinea 1977–1978

The first documented human cases appear in Papua New Guinea. The organism is seen in stool samples, but no one knows what it is.

1979

Scott Ashford publishes the first report. He correctly recognizes it as a coccidian parasite but thinks it belongs to the wrong genus (Isospora).

1980s

Researchers keep finding the organism, but they can't agree on its identity.

It is successively described as:

• Isospora
• Cryptosporidium-like
• cyanobacterium-like body
• blue-green algae
• coccidian-like body
• unidentified protozoan

That is an unusually confusing history for a pathogen.

1986

Doctors report several travelers returning from Haiti and Mexico with prolonged diarrhea caused by what appears to be an entirely new intestinal pathogen.

1988–1991

Researchers in Peru, led by Ynes Ortega, Charles Sterling, Robert Gilman, and colleagues, study hundreds of stool samples from children and begin piecing together the organism's life cycle.

1993

The breakthrough.

The parasite is formally identified as a new human species, Cyclospora cayetanensis, in a landmark paper in the New England Journal of Medicine.

1995–1996

• Large U.S. outbreaks suddenly make Cyclospora a household name among epidemiologists.
• Instead of being a medical curiosity, it becomes a national foodborne disease investigation.

What catches my attention

It took roughly 15 years from the first documented human cases to the formal naming of the organism.

During that period, scientists weren't ignoring it—they genuinely didn't know what they were looking at. Different groups thought it was different things until enough evidence accumulated to recognize it as its own parasite.

I actually think that's the interesting historical story. It wasn't discovered overnight. It spent years in a kind of scientific limbo before researchers finally realized they had been seeing the same organism all along. That makes the 1993 naming a pivotal moment in the timeline.

• People with a sulfa allergy.
• People with severe kidney disease.
• People with severe liver of.
• People with certain blood disorders (such as severe anemia or low blood cell counts).
• Some pregnant women, especially late in pregnancy.
• Infants under two months of age.

Those are the main groups where doctors may avoid or use the drug with extra caution. For most other adults, TMP-SMX can be used safely under a physician's supervision.

1850s–1900s — Human Sewage and Waterborne Disease

During the second half of the nineteenth century, cities routinely discharged untreated human waste into rivers, lakes, and streams. Contaminated drinking water fueled repeated epidemics of cholera, typhoid fever, and dysentery, killing hundreds of thousands of people around the world.

The response was one of the greatest public health transformations in history. Communities began building sewer systems, filtering drinking water, and eventually disinfecting it with chlorine. The primary goal was straightforward: keep human feces out of the water supply.

1900–1950 — Milk, Food Handling, and Sanitation

As water quality improved, attention shifted toward food safety. Public health officials increasingly focused on typhoid fever, dysentery, Salmonella, and staphylococcal food poisoning, particularly through contaminated milk and improperly handled food.

This period saw the widespread adoption of pasteurization, refrigeration, food sanitation laws, restaurant inspections, and improved food handling practices.

1950–1980 — Industrial Agriculture

Following World War II, food production became increasingly industrialized. Produce and other foods were shipped nationwide rather than being consumed locally.

Public health concerns expanded to include Salmonella, Shigella, hepatitis A, and intestinal parasites. Centralized production and distribution meant that contamination at a single farm or processing facility could expose consumers across multiple states.

1980s — E. coli Changes the Conversation

The 1980s brought national attention to E. coli O157:H7, initially through outbreaks linked to undercooked hamburgers. Investigators soon discovered that leafy greens could also carry the bacterium.

The response included Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), improved slaughterhouse practices, and expanded research into produce safety and agricultural contamination.

1990s — Fresh Produce Becomes the New Focus

During the 1990s, fresh fruits and vegetables increasingly became the source of multistate outbreaks. Salmonella and E. coli remained major concerns, while Cyclospora emerged as a newly recognized foodborne parasite.

Foods repeatedly implicated included lettuce, spinach, raspberries, and fresh herbs.

2000s — National Produce Recalls

By the early 2000s, nationwide recalls became increasingly common. Modern distribution systems meant that contamination from one farm or processor could quickly spread across the country.

Frequently recalled products included spinach, romaine lettuce, tomatoes, peppers, cantaloupe, and sprouts.

2010s — Cyclospora Emerges as a Recurring Produce Threat

Cyclospora evolved from a little-known tropical parasite into one of the organisms routinely investigated during summer produce outbreaks.

Repeated outbreaks involved cilantro, basil, parsley, lettuce, salad mixes, vegetable trays, and raspberries, demonstrating how easily contaminated fresh produce could move through national distribution systems.

2020s — The Produce Era

Fresh produce has become one of the primary focuses of food safety investigations. The same foods appear repeatedly in outbreak investigations, including romaine lettuce, iceberg lettuce, mixed greens, onions, cucumbers, herbs, and berries.

Today's major foodborne pathogens include Salmonella, E. coli, Cyclospora, Listeria, and, less commonly, Cryptosporidium.

The Bigger Historical Picture

The history of foodborne disease reflects changes in how food is produced and distributed rather than the disappearance of one pathogen and the arrival of another.

In the nineteenth century, the greatest danger came from untreated sewage contaminating drinking water. During the early twentieth century, improved sewer systems and water treatment dramatically reduced diseases such as cholera and typhoid fever.

After World War II, industrial agriculture and nationwide food distribution meant that contamination at a single source could affect consumers across the country. During the 1980s, E. coli outbreaks highlighted the risks associated with mass food production. By the 1990s and 2000s, Americans were consuming increasing amounts of fresh, ready-to-eat produce, creating new opportunities for pathogens to spread without a cooking step to destroy them.

Today, fresh produce is shipped year-round through complex international supply chains. A single contaminated field, irrigation source, processing facility, or distribution center can result in illnesses across dozens of states before investigators recognize that an outbreak is underway. That evolution—from contaminated drinking water to contaminated ready-to-eat produce—is one of the defining public health stories of the past 175 years.

Cyclospora timeline

1979–1994 — The parasite is recognized and named

The organism was first reported in humans in 1979, but for years laboratories did not know exactly what it was. It was formally classified and named Cyclospora cayetanensis in the early 1990s. Humans are the only confirmed host, and infected people release the parasite's oocysts in feces. Those oocysts must mature in the environment before becoming infectious, which is why outbreaks usually point toward contaminated irrigation water, wash water, soil or equipment rather than immediate person-to-person spread.

1995 — Early North American produce outbreaks

Clusters in the United States and Canada were associated with fresh produce, including raspberries. These events alerted public-health agencies that Cyclospora was not merely a traveler's disease; imported raw produce could carry it into large catered events, restaurants and supermarkets.

1996 — The outbreak that put Cyclospora on the map

A massive outbreak associated primarily with fresh raspberries imported from Guatemala produced 1,465 reported illnesses across 20 states, Washington, D.C., and two Canadian provinces. This outbreak established Cyclospora as a major foodborne produce pathogen in North America. Because raspberries are fragile and eaten raw, there was no cooking step capable of killing the parasite.

1997–2000 — Raspberries, basil, lettuce and other raw produce

Additional outbreaks were connected to Guatemalan raspberries, fresh basil and mesclun or mixed lettuce. Import restrictions and farm-certification programs followed, but Cyclospora repeatedly resurfaced because contamination could occur through irrigation water, workers, sewage intrusion or water used during harvesting and packing.

1997–2008 — Sporadic cases continue

CDC recorded more than 1,100 laboratory-confirmed sporadic cases during this period, apart from the better-known outbreak clusters. Reporting was inconsistent, and many patients were probably never tested specifically for Cyclospora.

2011–2012 — Relatively low reported numbers

CDC surveillance recorded only 130 reported cases in 2012. That low number is useful for comparison because the following year produced a dramatic national surge.

2013 — Taylor Farms de Mexico and cilantro

The United States reported 631 outbreak-associated cases in 25 states and New York City. Investigators determined that more than one outbreak was occurring.

Illnesses among restaurant customers in Iowa and Nebraska were linked to salad mix processed by Taylor Farms de Mexico in Guanajuato and served at Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants. Separate illnesses in Texas were linked to fresh cilantro from Puebla, Mexico. Taylor Farms de Mexico temporarily suspended production while FDA inspected the operation. Extensive testing did not actually recover Cyclospora from hundreds of food, water, environmental and worker samples, but the epidemiological and traceback evidence linked the restaurant cluster to its salad mix.

That distinction matters: the company was linked by the outbreak investigation, but the parasite was not isolated from the facility samples in 2013.

2014–2015 — Cilantro becomes a repeated concern

Recurring outbreaks were associated with fresh cilantro imported from Puebla, Mexico. FDA ultimately imposed import controls on cilantro from parts of Puebla after inspections found sanitation problems at some farms and packing facilities. During the broader period from 1996 through 2015, FDA counted nine major outbreaks associated with basil, parsley and cilantro; seven were caused by Cyclospora. Together those herb-related outbreaks caused thousands of illnesses.

2017 — Restaurant cluster in Texas

Twenty Cyclospora cases were identified among customers of a Mediterranean-style restaurant chain in the Houston area. The investigation again illustrated how difficult it can be to identify one contaminated ingredient once herbs, lettuce and vegetables are combined in restaurant dishes.

2018 — The parasite explodes nationally

CDC recorded 2,299 domestically acquired laboratory-confirmed cases in 33 states during the main May-to-August season. This was not one single outbreak.

One outbreak involved Del Monte vegetable trays containing broccoli, cauliflower, carrots and dill dip. Del Monte recalled trays distributed through several Midwestern retailers.

Another major outbreak involved Fresh Express salad mix served at McDonald's restaurants. McDonald's removed salads from affected restaurants, and Fresh Express recalled salad mix distributed to McDonald's. By this point Cyclospora was no longer viewed only as a problem involving imported berries and herbs.

Also in 2018, FDA detected Cyclospora on domestically grown cilantro, although that particular finding was not tied to a known outbreak. This was important because it showed that the organism was not exclusively an imported-produce problem.

2019 — Imported fresh basil

A multistate outbreak was associated with fresh basil exported from Mexico. The exporter stopped production and recalled potentially affected basil. More than 200 people became ill, and the broader national Cyclospora season produced numerous additional cases that could not all be tied to that one source.

The rise in domestically acquired cases led FDA and CDC to establish a dedicated Cyclospora Task Force in 2019.

2020 — Fresh Express bagged salads

Fresh Express-produced bagged salads containing iceberg lettuce, red cabbage and carrots were linked to a large multistate outbreak. The products appeared under the Fresh Express name and several store brands, including products sold through Aldi, Hy-Vee, Jewel-Osco, Giant Eagle, ShopRite and Walmart.

At least 641 outbreak-linked illnesses in 11 states were identified, with 37 hospitalizations and no deaths. The implicated products were recalled. Across all investigated and unidentified clusters, CDC received more than 1,200 domestic Cyclospora reports during the 2020 season.

2021–2022 — Seasonal outbreaks continue

Cyclospora cases continued to appear each summer. Some clusters were linked to salad products, while many could not be assigned to a specific food or company. Genetic typing was still developing, so public-health officials often had to rely on interviews, restaurant records and produce traceback rather than matching parasite samples as precisely as they can with bacteria such as Salmonella.

2023 — Bagged salad kits and restaurant outbreaks

Investigators examined clusters connected to bagged Caesar salad kits and a Mexican-style restaurant in Alabama. Some patients remembered eating salad but could not identify the brand, again showing how packaging disposal and long incubation periods interfere with traceback.

2024–2025 — Annual outbreaks become the expectation

CDC researchers now describe seasonal U.S. Cyclospora outbreaks as occurring every year, with most cases appearing from May through August. The organism has been associated with lettuce, cilantro, basil, raspberries, snow peas, onions, mangoes and assorted salad ingredients. CDC reported 1,180 confirmed domestic cases during the 2025 season, including 105 hospitalizations and no reported deaths.

2026 — Iceberg lettuce and Taylor Farms de Mexico again

The current national surveillance count has reached 1,645 confirmed domestic cases, while CDC says it is aware of more than 5,100 illnesses when probable and other reported cases are considered. The specifically identified outbreak associated with iceberg lettuce initially centered on Taco Bell restaurants in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia.

Taylor Farms recalled shredded iceberg lettuce and related salad products distributed across 27 states. The lettuce was sourced from central Mexico and processed through Taylor Farms de Mexico. Unlike 2013, current reporting says an FDA laboratory detected Cyclospora in an iceberg-lettuce sample collected during the investigation. The investigation and product tracing remain active.

Is Cyclospora the worst parasite?

CDC explicitly says cyclosporiasis is not usually life-threatening, and U.S. outbreaks generally produce no deaths.

Cyclospora is awful because it can cause relentless watery or explosive diarrhea, weight loss, dehydration and exhaustion. Untreated illness can last weeks or longer, improve temporarily and then relapse. People can also become infected more than once.

But several parasites can be more medically dangerous.

Malaria parasites kill on a worldwide scale and can cause cerebral disease, organ failure and death.

Entamoeba histolytica, which causes amebic dysentery, can invade the intestinal wall and travel to the liver, producing potentially fatal abscesses.

Cryptosporidium can cause severe, prolonged diarrhea and can be life-threatening in people with badly weakened immune systems. Its oocysts are also highly resistant to ordinary chlorine treatment.

Toxoplasma gondii can damage the brain and eyes and can seriously injure an unborn child when infection occurs during pregnancy.

Tapeworm larvae causing neurocysticercosis can lodge in the brain and produce seizures, hydrocephalus and death.

So Cyclospora is not the deadliest parasite. What makes it one of the worst produce parasites is the combination of prolonged explosive diarrhea, delayed symptoms, difficulty detecting it, the absence of a cooking step in salads and herbs, resistance to routine produce washing, and the ability of one contaminated agricultural source to distribute illness through restaurants and grocery chains across many states.

The simplest conclusion for the show is:

Cyclospora is not the world's deadliest parasite, but it may be one of the most effective parasites for turning fresh produce into a large, difficult-to-trace national outbreak.

There are really three major categories. 1. E. coli O157:H7 — probably the king of lettuce outbreaks

This is the organism that changed the produce industry.

Repeated outbreaks involving:

• Romaine lettuce
• Leaf lettuce
• Spinach
• Mixed greens

Some of the biggest include:

• 2006 spinach outbreak — 205 illnesses, 104 hospitalizations, 31 cases of kidney failure (HUS), 5 deaths.
• 2018 romaine lettuce outbreak (Yuma, Arizona) — 210 illnesses, 96 hospitalizations, 27 kidney failure cases, 5 deaths.
• 2018–2019 California romaine outbreaks
• 2020 romaine outbreak
• 2024 McDonald's onions/Taylor Farms outbreak (different produce but same organism)

E. coli is feared because it can permanently destroy kidneys and kill healthy children and adults. It generally causes far more deaths than Cyclospora.

2. Salmonella — probably the most common overall

Salmonella has been linked to almost every kind of produce imaginable:

• Lettuce
• Cucumbers
• Tomatoes
• Peppers
• Papayas
• Melons
• Onions
• Sprouts

It produces hundreds to thousands of illnesses almost every year.

3. Cyclospora — the king of parasite outbreaks

This is where Cyclospora stands apart.

Since the mid-1990s it has repeatedly caused outbreaks involving:

• raspberries
• cilantro
• basil
• parsley
• lettuce
• mixed salads
• salad kits
• vegetable trays

Unlike E. coli and Salmonella, there are relatively few parasites that repeatedly create nationwide fresh-produce outbreaks.

That's why Cyclospora keeps appearing in CDC investigations.

Since about 2013, it has become an almost annual summertime event in the United States.

Other parasites on produce

There really aren't many that approach Cyclospora's record.

Cryptosporidium

• Water
• Swimming pools
• Occasionally produce
• Huge cause of diarrhea worldwide

Giardia

• Water
• Produce occasionally
• Common individually
• Large lettuce recalls are uncommon

Toxoplasma

• Mostly undercooked meat
• Cat feces
• Occasionally produce

Entamoeba histolytica

• More common in developing countries
• Water and food
• Rarely produces large U.S. lettuce recalls

So where does Cyclospora rank?

1. Salmonella — most frequent overall.
2. E. coli O157:H7 — most dangerous, highest death and kidney-failure risk.
3. Cyclospora — the dominant parasite of fresh produce and leafy greens.

What's remarkable about Cyclospora is that it keeps showing up in foods that people don't cook. Lettuce, herbs, salad mixes, vegetable trays, and fresh berries all go straight from the package to the plate. That means there is no heat step to kill the parasite. Once contaminated product reaches the distribution chain, it can quickly affect restaurants, grocery stores, and consumers across dozens of states.

Cyclospora can be inactivated by adequate cooking. Like most parasites, it is sensitive to sufficient heat. \\

The problem is that the foods most commonly associated with Cyclospora are foods people almost always eat raw.

That is one reason public health officials are so concerned about it.

Think about the foods most often linked to Cyclospora outbreaks:

• Romaine lettuce
• Iceberg lettuce
• Mixed salad greens
• Cilantro
• Basil
• Parsley
• Raspberries
• Blackberries
• Snow peas

Very few people cook those foods before eating them.

During the 1980s and 1990s, public attention focused on Salmonella and E. coli. Over the past three decades, Cyclospora has steadily emerged as the parasite that repeatedly contaminates fresh produce, particularly foods eaten raw such as lettuce, herbs, berries, and salad mixes. It hasn't replaced Salmonella or E. coli, but it has joined them as one of the major organisms investigators now look for during large produce outbreaks.

Pathogen Typical source Trend Salmonella Poultry, eggs, produce, many foods Remains very common overall. E. coli O157:H7 Leafy greens, beef Less frequent than Salmonella but often more severe. Cyclospora Fresh produce eaten raw Has become increasingly recognized over the past 30 years, especially in seasonal produce outbreaks.

There's another reason Cyclospora seems to be "everywhere" now: we're much better at detecting it than we were 20 or 30 years ago. Modern molecular diagnostic tests (culture-independent diagnostic tests, or CIDTs) identify Cyclospora far more often than older laboratory methods did, so some of the increase reflects improved detection in addition to real outbreaks.

For your broader series on human feces and food contamination, I think the three pathogens naturally become the central cast:

• Salmonella — the most common overall foodborne bacterial culprit.
• E. coli O157:H7 — the most feared because of kidney failure and deaths.
• Cyclospora — the parasite that has become increasingly prominent in fresh produce outbreaks, especially because it contaminates foods that are usually eaten raw.

Organism Typical treatment options Cyclospora Essentially one proven drug (TMP-SMX). Giardia Several options (metronidazole, tinidazole, nitazoxanide). Cryptosporidium Nitazoxanide for many patients; supportive care is also important. Entamoeba histolytica Multiple drugs, usually a combination (such as metronidazole followed by a luminal agent). Salmonella Many cases need no antibiotics; when they do, several antibiotic classes may be used depending on the strain and resistance pattern. Shigella Several antibiotics are available, although resistance is becoming a major problem. E. coli O157:H7 Usually no antibiotics, because they may increase the risk of hemolytic uremic syndrome (kidney failure). Treatment is mainly fluids and supportive care.

So yes, Cyclospora is unusual.

For most infections, doctors have at least a few evidence-based medication choices. With Cyclospora, the CDC still says TMP-SMX is the treatment of choice, and there is no consistently effective alternative for people who cannot take sulfa drugs.

That's why the public health emphasis is so heavily on prevention:

• Keep the parasite out of the food supply.
• Find outbreaks quickly.
• Recall contaminated products.

Because once someone is infected, there isn't a menu of equally effective medications to choose from.

That makes Cyclospora stand out among the common causes of foodborne diarrhea. It's one of the reasons public health agencies take produce outbreaks involving this parasite so seriously.

It isn't that scientists ignored Cyclospora. It's that Cyclospora has only been recognized as a human pathogen for a relatively short time.

Think about the timeline:

• Salmonella has been studied since the late 1800s.
• E. coli has been studied since the 1880s.
• Giardia has been recognized since the 1800s.
• Cyclospora wasn't even recognized as a distinct human pathogen until the late 1970s and wasn't formally named until the early 1990s.

That means researchers have had roughly 30–40 years to study Cyclospora, versus well over a century for Salmonella and E. coli.

There are also practical reasons:

• It is difficult to grow in the laboratory, which makes testing potential drugs much harder.
• It can't easily be maintained in standard animal models, so researchers have fewer ways to study it.
• Compared with malaria or tuberculosis, it has historically affected far fewer people worldwide, so it has attracted less pharmaceutical investment.

Drug companies generally spend the most money where there are the largest patient populations or the greatest commercial demand. Cyclospora simply hasn't been a major drug-development target.

So the result today is a little unusual:

After decades of study, the CDC still recommends essentially the same drug—TMP-SMX—as the standard treatment because no other medication has consistently demonstrated the same level of effectiveness.

I agree it is surprising. In an era when we often hear about multiple treatment options for infections, finding a disease where there is essentially one established first-line drug stands out. That fact alone is worth mentioning in your episode because most listeners would probably assume there are several equivalent medications available.

"One thing that surprised me was learning that Cyclospora has essentially one proven treatment. The CDC recommends trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, commonly known as Bactrim or Septra. If someone has a serious sulfa allergy, there isn't another medication that's been shown to work as consistently. That's pretty remarkable in 2026."

First, it's a relatively new recognized pathogen. Cyclospora wasn't formally identified until the early 1990s. Compare that with Salmonella and E. coli, which have been studied for well over 100 years. They simply had a much longer head start.

Second, it's hard to study. Researchers have had difficulty growing Cyclospora in the laboratory and don't have convenient animal models for testing drugs. That makes developing and comparing new treatments much slower than it is for many bacteria.

Third, it has historically been viewed as a niche disease. For years, Cyclospora was thought of mainly as a travel-associated illness or an occasional produce outbreak. Pharmaceutical companies tend to invest where they see the largest markets or the greatest clinical need. Diseases such as malaria, HIV, tuberculosis, and hepatitis naturally drew far more research dollars because they affect millions of people worldwide and create sustained demand for new therapies.

Fourth, the existing drug generally works. From a research perspective, there is less pressure to develop a replacement when the standard treatment is effective for most patients who can take it. The unmet need is concentrated in the smaller group of patients who cannot tolerate sulfa drugs.

So it's not necessarily a story of neglect. It's more a combination of:

• relatively recent recognition,
• a difficult organism to study,
• lower historical research priority,
• and one existing drug that usually works.

What may change is exactly what you're seeing now. If Cyclospora continues causing large multistate outbreaks year after year and affects more people, that could increase interest in developing additional treatments. History shows that diseases often attract much more research attention once they become a recurring public health problem.

I agree that it's striking. Most people assume, "Surely there are several drugs for this." Then you discover that the standard guidance still points to essentially one proven first-line therapy. That's a fact that stands out without needing to speculate beyond what the evidence shows.

Master Timeline: Germany and the United States Sewage Engineering Military Sanitation Fecal-Oral Disease Research and Human Experimentation

This timeline traces the same progression in both countries:

Human waste
Contaminated water and food
Typhoid, dysentery, cholera, and diarrhea
Sanitation engineering
Bacteriology
Military disease-control programs
Vaccines and drugs
Deliberate human-infection experiments

1840s–1860s — Before modern bacteriology Germany

German cities relied heavily on cesspools, privies, waste collection carts and rivers receiving untreated sewage. Drinking-water supplies could be contaminated by the same waste discharged by growing urban populations.

United States

American cities and military camps faced the same conditions. During the Civil War, diarrhea, dysentery and typhoid caused enormous illness and mortality. Army physicians collected extensive statistics, but they still lacked a complete understanding of bacteria and fecal-oral transmission. The experience helped establish military hygiene as a formal field.

1866 — Cholera and the urban sanitation problem Germany

German states experienced cholera epidemics associated with unsafe water and inadequate sewage disposal. Debate continued between those who blamed contaminated water and those who favored theories involving soil, air and local atmospheric conditions.

United States

Cholera outbreaks in American cities strengthened demands for municipal waterworks, sewer construction and health boards. The engineering response generally developed before scientists could identify the responsible organisms.

1870–1871 — Franco-Prussian War and German unification Germany

The war reinforced the military lesson that infectious disease could remove large numbers of soldiers from service. After German unification in 1871, rapid urbanization and industrialization increased pressure to construct organized water and sewage systems.

United States

The Army continued developing formal sanitary reporting and military-hygiene instruction from lessons learned during the Civil War.

1870s — Berlin begins its modern sewer system Germany

Engineer James Hobrecht designed Berlin's radial sewer system. Sewage was collected in underground networks, pumped outside the city and distributed across large irrigation fields known as Rieselfelder, or sewage farms.

The fields were intended to accomplish two things simultaneously:

Remove sewage from the city and use its water and nutrients for agriculture.

Soil filtration and biological activity reduced some contamination, although early engineers did not yet possess modern pathogen-removal standards.

United States

American cities expanded sewer networks, usually discharging untreated wastewater into rivers, lakes or coastal waters. Sewers improved conditions inside cities while frequently moving contamination downstream.

1876 — The bacteriological era begins Germany

Robert Koch demonstrated that a specific microorganism caused anthrax. His laboratory methods helped establish the principle that individual diseases had identifiable microbial causes.

United States

American military and civilian doctors adopted German laboratory methods. The U.S. Army later described 1876 as the beginning of its bacteriological era.

1880 — Typhoid bacillus identified Germany

German pathologist Karl Joseph Eberth identified the organism associated with typhoid fever, later named Salmonella Typhi.

Typhoid became especially important to military planners because it spreads when material from an infected person's feces reaches another person's mouth through water, food, hands, utensils or insects.

United States

American laboratories began incorporating the discovery into water testing, outbreak investigations and military hygiene.

1883–1884 — Koch identifies the cholera organism Germany

Robert Koch's work on cholera strengthened the argument that contaminated water and human excreta were central to transmission.

This linked bacteriology directly to:

Municipal water filtration, sewage removal, quarantine, laboratory testing and military sanitation.

United States

American health departments and military laboratories increasingly used bacteriological methods to investigate waterborne disease.

1885 — Escherichia coli identified Germany

German-Austrian pediatrician Theodor Escherich isolated the organism later named Escherichia coli from infant feces.

Most E. coli strains are ordinary intestinal organisms, but their presence in water eventually became useful evidence of fecal contamination. Some strains were later recognized as causes of diarrhea and other illnesses.

United States

American bacteriologists began studying intestinal organisms and using them to evaluate drinking-water safety.

1890s — Water laboratories and sewage testing expand Germany

German laboratories investigated:

Typhoid, cholera, dysentery, sewage bacteria, filtration, drinking-water contamination and the survival of organisms outside the human body.

Military hygiene and municipal sanitation increasingly drew from the same bacteriological knowledge.

United States

The Army established the Army Medical School in 1893, strengthening laboratory medicine, hygiene and infectious-disease instruction.

1892 — Hamburg cholera catastrophe Germany

Hamburg drew inadequately filtered water from the Elbe while sewage and human waste entered the river system. The 1892 epidemic killed more than 8,000 people.

Robert Koch was called to Hamburg and strongly criticized its sanitary conditions. The disaster accelerated construction of water-filtration, sewerage and waste-disposal infrastructure.

This became a defining demonstration of the chain:

Feces enter water → water enters homes → disease spreads rapidly through a city.

United States

American public-health officials carefully followed European cholera investigations and applied the lessons to municipal filtration and quarantine policies.

1897 — Shigella identified Germany

Kiyoshi Shiga identified the organism causing bacillary dysentery. German military physicians rapidly became interested because dysentery repeatedly disabled troops.

United States

American laboratories also began distinguishing bacillary dysentery from other forms of diarrhea.

1898 — Spanish-American War typhoid disaster United States

Typhoid swept through crowded American training camps. The primary danger was not an exotic tropical infection but disease circulating within camps in the United States where sanitation was inadequate.

Problems included:

Poorly placed latrines, fecally contaminated ground, flies moving between waste and kitchens, infected food handlers, shared utensils, contaminated hands and inadequate isolation of sick soldiers.

Germany

German military observers followed foreign campaigns closely. The American experience reinforced the international military consensus that sanitation was part of combat readiness.

1898–1901 — U.S. Army Typhoid Board United States

Walter Reed, Victor Vaughan and Edward Shakespeare investigated the Army epidemics.

The Board reconstructed how infection moved through camps and concluded that typhoid spread principally from infected human excreta. Water was important, but so were flies, food, fingers, clothing, utensils and direct contact.

The investigation was primarily an epidemiological field study rather than an experiment in which researchers deliberately fed soldiers fecal material.

It nevertheless mapped the practical chain by which fecal contamination reached people.

Germany

German hygienists were conducting comparable research into military camp sanitation, drinking water, latrines, food inspection and bacterial carriers.

1900–1914 — Military sanitation becomes doctrine Germany

German military doctrine increasingly required:

Protected water sources, latrine discipline, waste disposal, kitchen inspections, isolation hospitals, stool examinations, disinfection and bacteriological laboratories.

Prewar German medicine possessed considerable knowledge of dysentery, but knowledge did not guarantee control under battlefield conditions.

United States

The Army strengthened:

Water purification, sanitary inspections, latrine construction, fly control, food protection, vaccination research and laboratory diagnosis.

1904–1908 — Typhoid vaccination studied internationally Germany

German scientists and military physicians studied vaccines against typhoid and cholera, along with water and camp controls.

United States

Army physician Frederick Russell examined European typhoid-vaccine work and helped develop a U.S. Army immunization program.

1906 — U.S. Pure Food and Drugs Act United States

Federal regulation of food and medicines expanded. Food contamination increasingly became both a public-health and regulatory issue.

Germany

German states and municipalities also expanded inspection of food, water, dairies, slaughterhouses and sewage systems.

1908–1911 — U.S. Army typhoid vaccination United States

The Army tested typhoid vaccination among military personnel and made it compulsory in 1911.

The program joined vaccination to sanitation: the vaccine reduced risk, but latrine control, clean water and food protection remained essential.

Germany

Germany also employed vaccination selectively while continuing to emphasize military hygiene and laboratory surveillance.

1914–1918 — World War I Germany

The German Army confronted dysentery, typhoid, typhus and other epidemic diseases, especially in the East.

Separate epidemic hospitals were created for infectious patients. German field hospitals had to adapt permanent facilities to isolate dysentery and typhus cases.

Despite Germany's advanced prewar science, serious bacillary-dysentery epidemics occurred among soldiers and civilians. Historians describe this as evidence of the limitations of German military hygiene under the enormous movements, shortages and infrastructure collapse of war.

United States

The Army entered World War I with vaccination, laboratory diagnosis and improved sanitary doctrine.

By July 1917, the Army Medical School had developed a combined typhoid-paratyphoid vaccine. Typhoid, once a major scourge of armies, became a comparatively minor problem for U.S. forces during the war.

This was an important demonstration that engineering, sanitation and immunization could sharply reduce fecal-oral disease.

1918–1930s — Wastewater treatment becomes biological Germany

German cities expanded:

Sedimentation tanks, biological filtration, sludge digestion, sewage farms and increasingly mechanized wastewater plants.

Engineers studied how microorganisms decomposed organic waste and how sludge could be stabilized, disposed of or returned to land.

United States

American cities introduced:

Trickling filters, sedimentation, activated-sludge treatment, chlorination and anaerobic digestion.

Sewage sludge was increasingly treated as a material that might be:

Dumped, buried, incinerated, digested, dried or used agriculturally.

This is the early foundation of what would later be called biosolids in the United States.

1932 — Tuskegee study begins United States

The Public Health Service began observing Black men with syphilis in Alabama without providing valid informed consent. The study did not involve intestinal disease, but it became part of the institutional history of using vulnerable populations for medical research.

Germany

During the same period, racial hygiene and eugenic medicine were gaining institutional influence before Hitler took national power.

1933 — Nazi seizure of power Germany

The Nazi state inherited a highly developed system of:

Bacteriology, municipal sanitation, water engineering, military hygiene, food inspection and university medicine.

The regime did not invent those sciences. It placed them inside a dictatorship that removed ethical protections from selected populations and subordinated medicine to racial and military objectives.

United States

The United States continued public-health and military disease research while also maintaining compulsory sterilization laws and other eugenic policies in numerous states.

1935–1937 — Sulfonamide drugs transform bacterial treatment Germany

Gerhard Domagk's work at Bayer demonstrated the antibacterial effects of Prontosil, leading to widespread use of sulfonamides.

These became among the first effective systemic drugs against many bacterial infections.

United States

Sulfa drugs were quickly adopted for civilian and military medicine. American pharmaceutical companies produced their own preparations.

1939–1945 — World War II military sanitation Germany

The Wehrmacht faced typhoid, dysentery, diarrhea and waterborne infections across Europe, North Africa and the Soviet Union.

Military controls included:

Water inspection, field latrines, food hygiene, disinfection, laboratories, isolation facilities and disease reporting.

The German Army's sanitation programs were not identical to SS concentration-camp experimentation. They were overlapping parts of the same wartime medical state, but they had different immediate functions.

United States

The U.S. military expanded research into:

Typhoid, dysentery, cholera, infectious hepatitis, diarrheal disease, water purification, field sanitation, food handling, sulfonamides and antibiotics.

Researchers collected stool cultures and studied how soldiers became infected through contaminated food and water.

1942 — Heydrich dies and Gebhardt is blamed Germany

Reinhard Heydrich died after surgery for wounds sustained in the Prague assassination attack.

Himmler criticized Karl Gebhardt for not using sulfonamides. Gebhardt later conducted brutal experiments at Ravensbrück, deliberately producing infected wounds in prisoners to test whether sulfonamide treatment worked.

These were primarily wound-infection experiments, not ordinary fecal-oral studies, but they connected bacterial infection, sulfonamide research and coerced human experimentation.

1942–1945 — Nazi infectious-disease experiments Germany

Nazi doctors deliberately exposed prisoners to or experimented upon diseases including:

Typhus, malaria, tuberculosis, epidemic jaundice or hepatitis, typhoid-related infections and artificially infected wounds.

German and French wartime vaccine investigations also included prisoner populations. A historical review of Shigella vaccine development describes an early trial in which a very large bacterial dose was administered to men in a French prisoner-of-war camp.

The purpose varied:

Vaccine testing, military protection, treatment comparison, infection research and demonstration of physicians' favored theories.

1945 — Nazi Germany collapses Germany

Allied investigators seized documents, interrogated physicians and examined concentration-camp medical experiments.

United States

American authorities acquired German medical records and evaluated wartime German scientific personnel and research.

1946 — U.S. Shigella human-challenge model begins United States

Researchers deliberately administered measured doses of Shigella to human subjects to establish:

Infectious dose, incubation period, symptoms, immunity, vaccine effectiveness and treatment response.

The published scientific history dates the formal Shigella human-challenge model to 1946.

This is one of the clearest American examples of intentionally producing a fecal-oral intestinal infection for research.

Germany

Postwar Germany's scientific and medical institutions were divided among the occupation zones and later East and West Germany. Nazi research crimes became a central issue in the Doctors' Trial.

1946–1947 — Doctors' Trial at Nuremberg Germany and United States

American prosecutors tried Nazi physicians and administrators for involuntary human experimentation and mass killing.

The resulting Nuremberg Code emphasized voluntary consent, avoidance of unnecessary suffering and the subject's right to end participation.

The Code did not immediately stop questionable American research.

Late 1940s–1950s — U.S. challenge studies expand United States

Researchers increasingly studied enteric organisms by deliberately exposing human subjects under controlled conditions.

Research questions included:

How many organisms caused disease, how long infected people shed organisms in stool, whether antibiotics shortened illness, whether vaccines worked and whether previous infection produced immunity.

Some studies recruited prisoners, military personnel or institutionalized populations.

Germany

West Germany rebuilt public-health and wastewater systems. East Germany developed its own centralized health and sanitation institutions.

1950s–1960s — Enteric pathogens become military research targets United States

Military and university laboratories developed human-challenge models involving:

Shigella, cholera, typhoid and later diarrheagenic E. coli.

The model was direct:

Give a known dose, observe who becomes ill, measure stool output and bacterial shedding, collect blood and stool, administer treatment and compare results.

Germany

German research largely returned to conventional microbiology, public health, water engineering and disease surveillance under postwar legal structures.

1956–1970 — Willowbrook hepatitis experiments United States

Institutionalized children at Willowbrook State School were deliberately exposed to infectious hepatitis.

Investigators studied:

Transmission, incubation, liver injury, immunity and whether gamma globulin altered the disease.

The infection was associated largely with the fecal-oral form later designated hepatitis A.

Willowbrook became one of the most notorious American examples of researchers using a confined and vulnerable population.

1960s–1970s — Cholera and diarrheal-disease challenge studies United States

Adult volunteers were deliberately exposed to enteric pathogens to test:

Vaccines, antibiotics, oral rehydration, infectious dose and immunity.

The military rationale remained clear: diarrhea could incapacitate deployed forces even when it did not kill them.

Germany

West and East Germany continued expanding sewage-treatment plants and tightening controls over drinking water, industrial discharge and municipal wastewater.

1972 — Tuskegee exposed and ended United States

Public disclosure of the Tuskegee study produced national outrage and intensified demands for regulation of human experimentation.

1974 — National Research Act United States

The Act established federal structures for reviewing research involving human subjects and led to stronger institutional review-board requirements.

1979 — Belmont Report United States

The Belmont Report articulated:

Respect for persons, beneficence and justice.

These principles addressed not only what researchers did but who was selected to carry the risks.

The Central Comparison

Germany and the United States did not follow two completely separate scientific paths.

Both developed their public health and medical research programs from scientific foundations established during the late nineteenth century. As cities expanded, researchers confronted growing sewage and sanitation problems. The development of germ theory transformed the understanding of infectious disease, leading to advances in military sanitation, water and food testing, vaccines, antibacterial drugs, and eventually controlled infection research.

Germany played a major role in the early development of bacteriology, microbiology, and sewage engineering. Many of its scientific methods influenced researchers around the world.

The United States adopted many of those scientific principles, built its own military sanitation and public health systems, and later expanded research programs that included controlled human infection studies.

Under the Nazi government, Germany crossed into systematic involuntary human experimentation carried out within a dictatorship and the concentration camp system.

After World War II, the United States helped prosecute those crimes during the Nuremberg Trials. At the same time, later historical investigations documented ethically troubling American research involving prisoners, institutionalized children, economically disadvantaged populations, and military personnel.

The two countries therefore shared a long international scientific tradition rooted in the study of infectious disease and sanitation.

Both learned how fecal-oral diseases spread. Both advanced preventive medicine and public health. Both also conducted research involving human subjects to study infection, immunity, vaccines, and treatment, although the political systems, legal frameworks, and nature of the ethical violations differed in important ways.

Typhoid: tracing feces into food and water

Germany: German bacteriologists identified the typhoid organism and studied contaminated water, sewage, carriers and military outbreaks. Typhoid prevention became part of military hygiene through water protection, latrine control, food inspection and vaccination.

United States: After typhoid devastated Army camps during the Spanish-American War, the U.S. Army Typhoid Board reconstructed how infected human waste reached soldiers through water, food, hands, flies and contaminated surroundings.

Shared line: Both countries converted bacteriology into military sanitation doctrine. They wanted to keep an army from being disabled by its own sewage.

Dysentery and Shigella: from observation to deliberate infection

Germany and German-controlled territory: Dysentery was a major military problem. A historical review of Shigella vaccine research describes an early wartime trial in which 11 men in a French prisoner-of-war camp were given a preparation containing approximately 250 million bacteria. The prisoners' freedom to refuse is highly questionable.

United States: Beginning in 1946, American researchers deliberately gave measured doses of Shigella to human subjects. They studied infectious dose, symptoms, immune response and whether experimental vaccines provided protection.

Shared line: Both systems wanted to know whether a vaccine could protect soldiers against bacterial dysentery. The experiment required exposing human beings to the organism and seeing whether they became sick.

Hepatitis spread through fecal material

Nazi Germany: Nazi physicians conducted infectious-hepatitis experiments on concentration-camp prisoners as part of broader programs intended to answer military medical questions. Prisoners did not consent, and the Nazi experiments frequently produced severe suffering and death.

United States: At Willowbrook State School, researchers deliberately produced hepatitis in institutionalized children. An HHS historical interview describes investigators administering fecal extracts containing hepatitis virus to children entering the institution. The studies examined transmission, illness and possible preventive treatments.

Shared line: Researchers in both countries deliberately produced a disease transmitted through the fecal-oral route in confined populations who possessed very little practical power.

Sulfonamides and experimentally created infections

Germany: Karl Gebhardt and his associates deliberately created infected wounds in women imprisoned at Ravensbrück. The purpose was to test sulfonamide treatment after Gebhardt had been blamed for failing to give sulfonamides to Reinhard Heydrich. These were involuntary, brutal experiments conducted under the SS camp system.

United States: American researchers tested sulfonamides and later antibiotics against experimentally induced or naturally acquired bacterial infections. In intestinal-disease studies, they measured whether drugs reduced symptoms, shortened bacterial shedding or prevented complications.

Shared line: The basic research question was comparable—does the medicine alter the course of an established bacterial infection? The crucial difference was the Nazi system's routine use of prisoners who had no right to refuse and could be maimed or killed.

Military usefulness drove the research

Germany: Typhus, typhoid, dysentery, malaria and wound infections threatened military operations. Nazi medical experiments were often framed as efforts to protect German troops or test treatments needed at the front. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum groups many experiments under military survival, pharmaceutical treatment and racial-policy objectives.

United States: The American military also studied diseases capable of incapacitating troops, particularly typhoid, dysentery, cholera, hepatitis and diarrheal E. coli. Controlled infection allowed investigators to test vaccines and treatments without waiting for a naturally occurring battlefield outbreak.

Shared line: A soldier suffering severe diarrhea could be removed from combat as effectively as one suffering a gunshot wound. That made intestinal disease a matter of military readiness rather than merely civilian medicine.

Confined populations became convenient research populations

Germany: Concentration-camp and prisoner-of-war inmates were available to physicians because the state had removed their liberty, legal status and bodily autonomy.

United States: Prisoners, institutionalized children, military personnel and disadvantaged communities were repeatedly selected for research. Willowbrook is now described by HHS as an egregious research-ethics case because children were deliberately infected and their welfare was subordinated to the scientific project.

Shared line: In both countries, researchers frequently selected people who were confined, dependent upon authorities or unable to negotiate on equal terms.

The pattern in plain language

The shared scientific progression was:

• Find the organism.
• Determine how human waste carries it.
• Learn how little is required to cause illness.
• Observe the symptoms and stool shedding.
• Test a vaccine or drug.
• Use people to determine whether the theory works.

The sharpest historical parallel is probably infectious hepatitis: Nazi physicians experimented on prisoners, while American researchers later administered infectious fecal extracts to institutionalized children at Willowbrook. The political systems were different, but in both settings the research institution held overwhelming power over the person being exposed.

Infectious Hepatitis: Germany and the United States Germany (1942–1945)

The Nazi regime became interested in infectious hepatitis because it was affecting military personnel.

Military questions included:

• How is hepatitis transmitted?
• How long is the incubation period?
• How long is a person infectious?
• Can immunity develop?
• Can treatments prevent illness?
• Can troops be protected?

To answer those questions, Nazi physicians used concentration camp prisoners.

The prisoners did not volunteer.

Many had no understanding of what was being done.

They could not refuse.

Their imprisonment itself made the experiments possible.

The physicians possessed complete authority over the subjects.

The scientific question was mixed with a political system that had already stripped prisoners of basic human rights.

Researchers at Willowbrook State School were asking many of the same scientific questions.

They wanted to understand:

• How hepatitis spread.
• Incubation periods.
• Immunity.
• Whether gamma globulin could prevent infection.
• Whether different forms of hepatitis behaved differently.

Willowbrook housed children with developmental disabilities.

Researchers believed hepatitis was already widespread inside the institution.

Children entering the hepatitis unit were deliberately exposed to infectious material so investigators could observe the disease under controlled conditions.

Unlike Nazi camps, parents generally signed consent forms. However, the ethical controversy centered on whether that consent was truly voluntary. Willowbrook was overcrowded, and admission to the specialized unit was reportedly linked to participation in the research. Critics argued that parents faced intense pressure because the institution had few alternatives for care. This is why Willowbrook is now widely cited as a major research-ethics failure.

The scientific questions

One of the striking things about these programs is how similar many of their scientific objectives were. Researchers wanted to understand how an infection begins, how it is transmitted from one person to another, how long it takes before symptoms appear, how severe the illness becomes, whether immunity can develop after infection, and whether prevention or treatment can reduce disease.

These are ordinary scientific questions that remain central to infectious disease research today. The controversy does not lie in the questions themselves, but in how some researchers chose to obtain the answers.

The populations

Germany

• Concentration camp prisoners
• Prisoners had no legal rights.
• No ability to refuse.
• State exercised complete control.

United States

• Institutionalized children
• Parents signed consent forms.
• Researchers believed hepatitis was endemic within the institution.
• Critics argued families had little practical freedom because of the institution's conditions and limited alternatives.

Why historians compare them

The comparison is not that Willowbrook was equivalent to Auschwitz.

The comparison is that both episodes illustrate a broader ethical concern:

Researchers selected populations whose ability to refuse participation was severely constrained.

That issue—whether someone can give meaningful, voluntary consent when they depend on the institution conducting the research—became a central topic in postwar bioethics.

The Larger Historical Pattern

1870s
Scientists confirmed that bacteria existed and caused disease.

1880s
Researchers identified many of the intestinal bacteria responsible for typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, and other diarrheal diseases.

1890s
Public health officials increasingly recognized that human feces contaminated drinking water and food, driving major sanitation reforms.

1900s
Cities built modern sewer systems, improved water treatment, and expanded public sanitation infrastructure.

1910s
The first vaccines against several bacterial diseases became more widely available.

1930s
Sulfa drugs became the first widely used antibacterial medications, transforming the treatment of many infectious diseases.

1940s
Researchers conducted human studies to better understand infectious diseases and evaluate new treatments, while wartime research also included unethical human experimentation in some settings.

1950s–1970s
Controlled human research continued in several countries, but growing public concern over research ethics led to increasing oversight.

1970s onward
Modern research ethics, institutional review boards (IRBs), and informed consent became central requirements for studies involving human participants.

One point that stands out

One striking continuity is that the scientific questions changed much less than the ethical framework. Across Germany, the United States, Britain, France, and other countries, physicians wanted to understand transmission, immunity, prevention, and treatment of infectious diseases. What changed most dramatically after World War II was the expectation that research subjects should be able to make a genuinely voluntary, informed decision about participation, and that studies involving vulnerable populations require special protections.

The Nuremberg problem

After World War II, the United States, Britain and other Allies prosecuted Nazi physicians at the Doctors' Trial (1946–1947).

The prosecution argued that Nazi physicians had crossed fundamental ethical lines because they:

• Used prisoners who could not refuse.
• Deliberately caused disease and injury.
• Inflicted severe suffering.
• Frequently caused permanent disability or death.
• Conducted experiments with no meaningful consent.

Those arguments became the basis of the Nuremberg Code, emphasizing voluntary consent and minimizing unnecessary suffering.

On paper, that was a landmark change.

The uncomfortable reality

Within the next two decades, Americans began asking a difficult question:

"If voluntary consent is now the standard, why are we still conducting research on people who have little ability to say no?"

That criticism did not come from decades later. It was being raised while some of the studies were underway.

Willowbrook

This is why the Willowbrook studies became so controversial. Researchers believed hepatitis was already widespread within the institution, but instead of simply observing naturally occurring infections, they deliberately exposed some children to the virus in order to answer scientific questions more quickly.

The ethical concerns extended well beyond the research itself. The children lived in the institution, their families depended on it for care, and the researchers were in positions of authority within the same facility. Even when consent forms existed, critics argued that parents could not truly make a free and voluntary choice when realistic alternatives for their children were so limited. That became the central ethical criticism of the Willowbrook studies.

Why this looked awkward after Nuremberg

From the outside, people began noticing something.

The United States had prosecuted German physicians for conducting involuntary medical research on confined populations.

Yet American researchers were also studying confined populations:

• Prisoners
• Institutionalized children
• Mental hospitals
• Military personnel
• Other dependent populations

Those are not identical situations.

But the comparison naturally arose because both involved institutions exercising substantial power over participants.

The criticism became public

By the 1960s and 1970s, critics increasingly argued:

If researchers always choose people with the least power, are those people really free to refuse?

That question became one of the driving forces behind modern bioethics.

Germany's situation

Germany's program was fundamentally different in several respects.

The concentration camp system itself existed outside ordinary law.

Many experiments were designed knowing subjects might die.

Some experiments were extraordinarily brutal:

• freezing
• poison
• high altitude
• deliberate wound infections
• typhus
• sterilization
• chemical burns

Death itself often became part of the experiment.

That is why the Doctors' Trial regarded those acts as criminal.

One Historical Irony

One irony historians have noted is this:

After helping establish the Nuremberg Code, the United States soon faced scrutiny over whether some of its own research practices measured up to the principles it had helped articulate.

That does not mean Willowbrook and Nazi concentration camp experiments were the same in scale, brutality, or intent. The Nazi program involved systematic crimes, torture, and killings that have no direct counterpart in Willowbrook.

What it does mean is that the ethical principles announced at Nuremberg forced Americans to examine their own research practices. Studies such as Willowbrook and Tuskegee became central examples in that debate because they raised questions about informed consent, coercion, and the use of vulnerable populations.

From a historical perspective, you can see a progression:

1947 — Nuremberg Code: "Voluntary consent is essential."

1950s–1960s — Researchers and critics ask: "What counts as voluntary when the subject is a prisoner, an institutionalized child, or someone who depends on the institution?"

1970s — Public reaction to Willowbrook, Tuskegee, and similar cases leads to stronger federal oversight, institutional review boards, and the Belmont Report.

That sequence is one of the major developments in the history of modern medical ethics.

The American Dilemma

Much of the medical research conducted in the United States pursued legitimate scientific questions. Many studies were designed to understand disease, improve public health, and develop better methods of prevention and treatment. Many investigators believed they were advancing medicine and helping future patients.

Over time, however, the focus of the ethical debate shifted. The criticism was often directed less at the scientific questions themselves than at the people who were being asked—or selected—to participate in the research.

As public awareness grew, a difficult question emerged: Why did the risks of so many studies seem to fall on people who had the least ability to negotiate as equals? Children, prisoners, psychiatric patients, people living in poverty, and military recruits appeared repeatedly in the historical record. That question became increasingly difficult for researchers and institutions to answer.

The Nazis crossed the line.

Nuremberg exposed it.

The civilized world learned the lesson.

But the historical record is messier. The war ended in 1945, yet research without meaningful consent did not end. It continued in the United States under different institutions, different language, and usually different levels of brutality—but often with the same basic power problem: the people carrying the risk were people with limited ability to refuse.

Tuskegee began in 1932, continued through World War II, continued through the Nuremberg Doctors' Trial, and did not end until 1972. The men were not deliberately infected with syphilis, but they were deceived and denied proper treatment so researchers could continue observing the disease.

Willowbrook began after Nuremberg. Researchers deliberately exposed institutionalized children to infectious hepatitis. The existence of parental signatures did not settle the consent issue because the families needed institutional care, admission was difficult, and the children themselves could not consent.

So the sequence looks terrible:

1946–1947: American prosecutors condemn Nazi physicians for experimenting on powerless prisoners.

1947: The Nuremberg Code says voluntary consent is essential.

1950s–1970: American researchers deliberately expose institutionalized children to hepatitis.

Until 1972: The U.S. government continues the Tuskegee study without meaningful informed consent or proper treatment.

That does not erase the differences. Nazi experiments were embedded within concentration camps, genocide and a state system that treated prisoners as disposable. People were frozen, poisoned, mutilated, infected and killed. Willowbrook and Tuskegee were not concentration-camp programs.

But that distinction does not make the American studies acceptable. It shows that the problem was broader than "Nazi medicine." It was also about the longstanding medical habit of treating certain people as available human material:

• Prisoners.
• Institutionalized children.
• People with disabilities.
• Poor people.
• Racial minorities.
• Military personnel.

The United States had a legitimate hammer against Nazi Germany because the Nazi doctors committed unmistakable crimes. But the United States weakened its own moral position by acting as though the ethical problem belonged exclusively to Germany while American institutions continued exploiting vulnerable people.

The sharper conclusion is not that Germany was innocent or that both systems were identical. It is that Nuremberg punished one extreme form of a problem that the victorious countries had not eliminated from their own medicine.

The war ended. The Nazi regime ended. The scientific culture that believed vulnerable people could be sacrificed for useful knowledge did not end with it.

Newcomers to The Perth Group

The COVID-19 Pandemic has renewed interest in viral diseases in general and HIV in particular. This page has been added to TPG website to assist readers interested in studying the basis of the HIV theory of AIDS - HIV isolation.

Virologists use the term "HIV isolation" to indicate that the existence and characterisation of HIV has been proven. Characterisation means identifying the HIV proteins and RNA genome. These are essential for the production of antibody and "viral load" tests. These are critical for diagnosing and monitoring HIV infection.

A crucial fact is that "HIV isolation" is not a process akin to separating the blue Smarties from all others in the pack. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to Marie and Pierre Curie's remarkable 1911 Nobel Prize winning feat - separating and thereby purifying the one hundred milligram skerrick of radium contained in several tons of the uranium ore pitchblende. HIV "isolation" and common English usage isolation are chalk and cheese. Virologists never divulge this information.

All the Perth Group publications on HIV and AIDS are the work of the West Australian biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos (1936-2022). Her papers explain what the "HIV isolation"

This is the March 2001 report of the South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel, appointed by then-President Thabo Mbeki. The report was produced after Mbeki convened a panel of scientists and physicians with sharply different views about HIV/AIDS to debate the evidence.

The table of contents alone tells you why this report became controversial:

• "Does HIV Cause AIDS?" – It includes arguments both supporting and questioning the HIV-causes-AIDS hypothesis.
• Surveillance – Debates over South Africa's AIDS statistics, mortality data, and epidemic models.
• HIV Tests and Their Accuracy – Discussion of ELISA, Western Blot, PCR, CD4 counts, and even proposals for additional studies.
• Treatment – Presents both evidence supporting antiretroviral (ARV) drugs and arguments against their use, followed by recommendations from each side.
• Prevention – Separate recommendations from panel members who accepted HIV as the cause of AIDS and those who did not.
• Socio-economic factors – Nutrition, sanitation, human rights, sexual behavior, vaccines, and other public health issues.

Why it matters historically

This panel became famous because President Thabo Mbeki gave a platform to AIDS dissidents, including scientists who argued that HIV had not been proven to cause AIDS or that antiretroviral drugs were harmful. Mainstream HIV researchers on the panel strongly disagreed.

The report therefore does not represent a single scientific conclusion. Instead, it is essentially a record of competing positions presented to the South African government.

Why it remains controversial

Many historians and public health researchers argue that the government's delay in broadly implementing antiretroviral therapy and prevention measures during this period contributed to a large number of preventable HIV infections and deaths in South Africa. Others view the report as an example of allowing scientific debate to occur, even on highly contentious questions.

So, if someone cites this document today, it is important to know which section they are relying on. Because the report intentionally contains both mainstream scientific positions and dissenting arguments, quoting a single chapter without that context can give a misleading impression of what the document as a whole represents. Source: AIDS Report - mycorrections.PDF

It is still cited today for several different reasons, and the reason matters.

1. As a historical case study (the most common reason)

Most historians, public health researchers, and medical journals cite it because it marked one of the most consequential scientific and public health controversies of the early 2000s.

The report documented a government-sponsored debate over questions such as:

• Does HIV cause AIDS?
• How accurate are HIV tests?
• Should antiretroviral drugs be widely used?

Those topics are central throughout the report.

Researchers studying science policy often point to it as an example of how governments handle disputes over scientific evidence.

2. It preserves the arguments of both sides

Unlike most government reports, this one intentionally includes recommendations from:

• panelists who accepted HIV as the cause of AIDS, and
• panelists who rejected that causal link.

The recommendations are presented separately in multiple chapters.

For historians, that makes it an important primary source because it records what each side was arguing in 2000–2001.

3. Critics of mainstream HIV science still cite it

Some writers who remain skeptical of aspects of HIV research reference the report because:

• it gave prominent dissident scientists an official platform,
• it discusses criticisms of HIV testing,
• it includes alternative hypotheses for AIDS,
• it questions some evidence that was considered established by most researchers.

Those sections are easy to quote because they appear in an official presidential report.

4. Public health experts cite it for a different reason

Many public health researchers cite the report as part of the history of South Africa's HIV/AIDS response. They argue that the prolonged debate over HIV causation and antiretroviral treatment contributed to delays in implementing effective treatment programs.

In other words, they cite it as an example of the consequences of policy disagreements during a public health emergency.

5. It is a snapshot of scientific uncertainty and debate

One reason it continues to interest historians is that it captures a moment when the South African government formally asked experts with opposing viewpoints to present their evidence.

Whether one agrees with the panelists or not, the report documents:

• the questions people considered important at the time,
• the evidence each side believed was persuasive,
• and how governments sometimes weigh conflicting scientific claims.

An important point when reading it

Because this report deliberately includes opposing viewpoints, finding a statement in it does not mean the report as a whole endorses that statement. In many chapters, it presents one group's position and then another group's response, followed by separate recommendations.

That structure is one reason the report is still discussed: people with very different perspectives can point to different sections in support of different arguments. For that reason, it is most useful when read as a historical record of the debate rather than as a single, unified scientific conclusion.

Timeline Year Event 1796 Edward Jenner develops the first successful smallpox vaccine. 1800s Many countries adopt routine or mandatory vaccination. 1959 WHO launches the Global Smallpox Eradication Programme. 1967 WHO begins the Intensified Smallpox Eradication Programme. 1972 United States ends routine vaccination of the general public. 1970s Canada, Western Europe, Australia, Japan, and many other countries also discontinue routine vaccination as cases disappear. 1977 Last naturally occurring case (Somalia). 1980 WHO officially declares smallpox eradicated worldwide. 1980–present Vaccination continues only for selected high-risk groups and emergency preparedness. Countries that still vaccinate certain groups

These countries maintain vaccine stockpiles and/or vaccinate selected people, not the general population:

• United States
• United Kingdom
• Canada
• France
• Germany
• Japan
• Australia
• Several other European countries
• Israel (selected military or laboratory personnel in some circumstances)

Many countries also keep emergency stockpiles in case of a deliberate release or laboratory accident. WHO maintains its own emergency reserve in addition to pledged national stockpiles.

Who still receives it?

Typical recipients include:

• Researchers working with variola virus or related orthopoxviruses
• Some military personnel
• Specialized laboratory staff
• Certain emergency response teams
• Occasionally healthcare workers if a credible exposure risk exists

Routine childhood vaccination is not recommended in countries where smallpox has been eradicated.

One interesting consequence

Because routine vaccination stopped decades ago, most people under about age 45–50 have never received a smallpox vaccine. Older adults in many countries still have the characteristic vaccination scar on the upper arm, while younger generations generally do not.

1. Critics of compulsory vaccination (1800s)

These are probably the most historically important critics.

Their arguments were:

• Government should not force medical treatment.
• Vaccines sometimes caused injury or death.
• Vaccine production was poorly regulated.
• Statistics used by governments were misleading.
• Better sanitation deserved more credit than vaccination.

One of the most famous was Alfred Russel Wallace. He spent years analyzing mortality statistics and concluded vaccination had been oversold while sanitation was underappreciated. He also strongly opposed compulsory vaccination laws.

Today, historians generally agree Wallace identified some genuine problems—especially with nineteenth-century statistics and vaccine quality—but most do not agree with his conclusion that vaccination was ineffective.

2. Critics of the official eradication story

These people usually accept that smallpox existed, but argue the common story is oversimplified.

Their criticisms include:

• Jenner receives too much credit.
• Variolation played a major historical role before vaccination.
• Improvements in sanitation, nutrition, and isolation receive too little credit.
• Ring vaccination was more important than universal vaccination.
• WHO's campaign relied heavily on surveillance and case finding.

Ironically, many historians agree with much of this.

One reason is that the popular version—

Jenner invented vaccination → everyone vaccinated → smallpox disappeared

—is much simpler than what actually happened.

William Foege's work on ring vaccination is a good example. Rather than vaccinating everyone, teams identified cases, isolated them, then vaccinated contacts and surrounding communities. Many historians regard that strategy as decisive during eradication.

3. Critics of Jenner

Some historians argue Jenner's role has become almost mythical.

They point out:

• inoculation (variolation) existed centuries before Jenner;
• many people contributed to vaccination;
• improvements occurred over decades rather than overnight.

There is even an academic paper titled "The Myth of the Medical Breakthrough" arguing exactly this—not that vaccination failed, but that the heroic single-inventor story is misleading.

4. Critics of vaccine safety

These critics generally accept that vaccination works but argue risks were minimized.

Historically, they point to:

• contaminated vaccine lymph,
• arm-to-arm transmission,
• bacterial contamination,
• occasional severe complications,
• inconsistent vaccine quality in the nineteenth century.

Modern historians largely agree these were real problems, especially before manufacturing standards improved.

5. Critics of germ theory itself

This is where people like Katie Sugak and Tom Cowan fall.

Their arguments include:

• viruses have not been properly demonstrated,
• contagion is misunderstood,
• smallpox was misdiagnosed,
• eradication was largely statistical.

These are much more fundamental claims than those made by nineteenth-century critics.

Very few historians of medicine or virologists accept these conclusions.

6. Statistical critics

This group is interesting because they often accepted vaccination but questioned how success was measured.

Questions they asked included:

• Were deaths accurately counted?
• Were diagnoses consistent?
• Did governments change case definitions?
• Were vaccinated and unvaccinated populations comparable?

Those questions are legitimate historical questions and continue to be discussed by historians.

They do not, by themselves, establish that smallpox never existed.

One point that historians increasingly acknowledge

One thing that has changed over the last few decades is that historians have become much more willing to admit the eradication story was messier than older textbooks suggested.

Modern scholarship often emphasizes:

• political negotiations,
• surveillance,
• isolation,
• local health workers,
• logistics,
• ring vaccination,
• vaccine quality,
• community cooperation,

instead of portraying eradication as simply "invent vaccine and disease disappears."

An area that deserves more attention

One historical question that is still debated—not whether smallpox existed, but how much different interventions contributed—is the relative importance of:

• vaccination,
• quarantine,
• sanitation,
• nutrition,
• surveillance,
• ring vaccination,
• and naturally acquired immunity.

Most historians view eradication as resulting from multiple factors working together, rather than any single one alone. The disagreement is usually about their relative importance, not about whether smallpox itself was a real disease.

Today, people receive the smallpox vaccine not because smallpox is circulating naturally, but because governments and laboratories prepare for the possibility of an accidental or intentional exposure to variola virus (the virus that causes smallpox) or because they work with closely related viruses.

Here are the main groups:

Laboratory workers

This is the largest civilian group.

They may work with:

• vaccinia virus (used to make and study smallpox vaccines),
• monkeypox (mpox) virus,
• cowpox,
• or, in very limited circumstances, variola virus itself.

Because these viruses are related (they are all orthopoxviruses), the smallpox vaccine provides cross-protection against several of them. The U.S. CDC recommends vaccination for laboratory personnel whose work puts them at risk of exposure to these viruses.

Military personnel

Many countries maintain emergency plans in case smallpox were ever used as a biological weapon.

After the September 11 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks, the United States restarted vaccination for selected military personnel and specialized civilian response teams. This was based on preparedness, not because smallpox had returned.

Not every service member receives it—only certain units depending on their mission and risk assessment.

Emergency response teams

Some countries vaccinate small groups of healthcare workers, public health responders, or hazardous-material teams who would respond first if a suspected smallpox case ever appeared.

The idea is to have people immediately available who are already protected rather than waiting until after an emergency begins.

Researchers studying related viruses

Even if a scientist never works with variola itself, they might work with vaccinia or mpox. Since these viruses are related, vaccination helps reduce occupational risk.

Why keep vaccine stockpiles if smallpox is gone?

There are several reasons governments give:

1. Known laboratory stocks. Officially, live variola virus is retained under tight security at two WHO-authorized repositories:
   
   • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia.
   • State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology VECTOR in Koltsovo, Russia.
2. Laboratory accident. Although rare, accidents have occurred in research laboratories. The best-known was the 1978 Birmingham incident in the UK, which resulted in one fatal smallpox infection linked to laboratory work.
3. Bioterrorism concerns. Since smallpox has a high mortality rate and most of the world's population is no longer vaccinated, governments continue to include it in biodefense planning.
4. Protection against related viruses. Some modern smallpox vaccines also provide protection against mpox because the viruses are closely related.

Is the vaccine still the old one?

No. There are two main vaccines used in the United States today:

• ACAM2000 – a live replicating vaccinia-virus vaccine. It produces the classic vaccination lesion ("take") and has more contraindications because the virus can replicate and be transmitted to close contacts.
• JYNNEOS (also called Imvamune or Imvanex in different countries) – a non-replicating vaccinia-based vaccine. It generally has a more favorable safety profile and has also been approved in several countries for protection against mpox.

An interesting consequence

One reason preparedness remains a concern is that routine vaccination ended decades ago. As a result, most people born after the 1970s have never received a smallpox vaccine. If smallpox were ever reintroduced, public health authorities would rely on stockpiled vaccines and rapid vaccination of contacts—an approach similar to the ring vaccination strategy used during the eradication campaign.

Smallpox

• No country routinely vaccinates children against smallpox anymore.
• After WHO declared smallpox eradicated in 1980, countries gradually stopped routine vaccination.
• Today, vaccination is generally limited to:
  
  • laboratory workers,
  • certain military personnel,
  • some emergency response teams,
  • and occasionally close contacts if there were ever an exposure.

So even in many African countries where smallpox was once common, routine smallpox vaccination ended decades ago.

Polio

This is very different.

Many countries still routinely vaccinate children against polio, including many in Africa, Asia, and parts of the Middle East, because wild poliovirus has not been eradicated globally.

Examples include countries such as:

• Nigeria
• Pakistan
• Afghanistan
• Democratic Republic of the Congo
• Chad
• Somalia
• Sudan

In addition, many countries conduct mass vaccination campaigns whenever poliovirus is detected or there is a risk of an outbreak.

Other vaccines still routinely given in Africa

Many national immunization programs also include:

• Measles
• Tuberculosis (BCG)
• Diphtheria
• Tetanus
• Pertussis (whooping cough)
• Hepatitis B
• Rotavirus
• Pneumococcal disease
• Yellow fever (in endemic regions)

So there are still large vaccination campaigns in Africa, but they are not for smallpox.

One reason the confusion is understandable

The smallpox vaccine and the mpox (formerly monkeypox) response are connected.

During recent mpox outbreaks, some countries vaccinated people at high risk using smallpox vaccines because they also protect against mpox. That wasn't a return to routine childhood smallpox vaccination—it was targeted use for a related disease.

So if you saw recent news about Africa and "smallpox vaccine," it was likely referring to mpox control, not because smallpox itself had returned.

In short:

• Smallpox: routine vaccination ended worldwide after eradication.
• Polio: still routinely vaccinated in many countries because eradication is not yet complete.
• Mpox: some people receive a modern smallpox vaccine because it also provides protection against mpox.

Stigma

HIV/AIDS stigma is widespread in South Africa: a 2002 national survey revealed that 26% of respondents were unwilling to share a meal with a person living with AIDS, 18% were unwilling to sleep in the same room as with someone with AIDS, and 6% were unwilling to talk to a person with AIDS.[1] AIDS-related stigma is most severe among township residents in South Africa because they lack access to reliable information about the disease. Many South Africans in townships wrongly believe that HIV is transmitted through proximity to HIV-positive individuals, which leads them to claim that people with AIDS should be socially ostracized.

In addition, many traditional groups believe that ancestral spirits and supernatural forces punish those who have failed to lead moral lives by infecting them with HIV. According to a study published in 2004, South Africans who attributed HIV/AIDS to spirits and the supernatural were more likely to claim that people with HIV/AIDS were "dirty," "repulsive," "cursed," and "foolish" and should "have restrictions on their freedom," "be isolated," and "feel guilty and ashamed."

Women are particularly vulnerable to HIV/AIDS infection and stigma because they are often economically dependent on men and frequently lack access to education. Men who have the disease may avoid testing and remain anonymous, but women who undergo pre-natal testing are less likely to escape a diagnosis. Because women are often identified as HIV-positive before men, they are branded as the spreaders of the disease and may subsequently face physical abuse and abandonment.

A study conducted in 2010 indicated that the majority of girls in a Cape Town township correlated thinness with disease – in particular, HIV/AIDS. Because of this, women who are slender or experience weight loss also face discrimination. This form of stigma affects women living in townships most severely because rates of malnourishment are higher in townships than in other parts of South Africa.

What has improved

South Africa has one of the world's largest HIV treatment programs. Millions of people now receive antiretroviral therapy, and public education about HIV has expanded dramatically. Compared with 20–25 years ago:

• More people understand that HIV is not spread through casual contact such as sharing meals, hugging, or being in the same room.
• HIV testing has become much more routine.
• People who take effective antiretroviral therapy can often suppress the virus to undetectable levels, greatly improving health and preventing sexual transmission (the "U=U" concept—Undetectable = Untransmittable).

Because of these changes, the extreme fears described in the 2002 survey have generally declined.

What has not disappeared

Stigma remains a significant issue, particularly in some communities.

It can still include:

• Fear of disclosing an HIV diagnosis.
• Concerns about losing relationships or employment.
• Shame associated with testing positive.
• Gender-based discrimination, where women may still face blame or violence after a diagnosis.
• Misconceptions in some areas about how HIV is transmitted.

These problems are not unique to South Africa, but they have been studied extensively there because of the country's large HIV epidemic.

Traditional beliefs

The passage you quoted discusses beliefs that HIV is caused by ancestral spirits or moral failings.

Those beliefs have not disappeared entirely, but they are not representative of all South Africans. South Africa is culturally diverse, and attitudes vary greatly by:

• education,
• urban versus rural residence,
• age,
• religious beliefs,
• and access to healthcare.

Researchers continue to find that traditional and supernatural explanations for illness exist in some communities, although they generally coexist with biomedical explanations rather than completely replacing them.

Women

The discussion about women remains partly relevant.

Women in South Africa continue to account for a large share of new HIV infections, particularly young women. Economic dependence, gender inequality, and intimate partner violence remain recognized risk factors. However, access to prenatal HIV testing and treatment has improved enormously, leading to major reductions in mother-to-child transmission compared with the early 2000s.

The "thinness" issue

The association between weight loss and HIV was particularly strong before effective treatment became widely available. During that period, advanced AIDS often caused severe weight loss ("wasting syndrome"), so people sometimes assumed that anyone who became thin had HIV.

Today, because many people receive effective treatment before developing advanced disease, that visual stereotype is generally less common than it was 15–20 years ago, although it has not disappeared completely in some communities.

Overall, the situation has improved substantially since the period described in your excerpt. HIV-related stigma has declined in many settings, but it remains an important public health and social issue, especially where misinformation, poverty, or gender inequality continue to influence people's experiences.

Smallpox Reclassified

Taken from the excellent Kate Sugak presentation The Truth About Smallpox.

While a smallpox vaccine had been available since the late 1700's, this pesky disease, said to be caused by the "variola virus," still hung around for nearly two more centuries. By the mid-20th century, smallpox was claimed to be eradicated from America and other industrialized nations even without mass vaccination campaigns. However, third world countries were still being ravaged by this disease. Thus in 1958, the WHO called for a global eradication effort utilizing what has been referred to as "the most dangerous vaccine known to man" to finally stamp out this disease once and for all.

Interestingly, that same year, the identical in every way "monkeypox virus" was "discovered" in cynomolgus monkeys. What an amazing coincidence, right? This new "virus" eventually made the leap into humans a decade later when an infant came down with smallpox in Zaire. However, the child's village had been declared smallpox free due to the mass vaccination of the entire village the year before. If smallpox was allowed to be diagnosed in a "smallpox-free" zone, this could have easily led to questions regarding the vaccine's effectiveness. Thus, after initial testing diagnosed the child with smallpox, further testing was carried out by the CDC. It was ultimately decided that this child was not a smallpox case but was instead the very first known case of human monkeypox. I detailed this ridiculous situation more in-depth at viroLIEgy.com and I will provide the relevant articles in the recommended reading section.

The convenient emergence of monkeypox was a great way to cover up the fact that the same symptoms associated with smallpox still existed. It also offered the ability to cover-up the deadly vaccine injuries as well.

However, monkeypox was not the only new disease that popped up with the exact same smallpox symptoms. According to Dr. Viera Scheibner (PhD), a retired scientist and author, there were other similar diseases used as a scapegoat for the dangerous and ineffective vaccine:

Belief not science is behind flu jab promotion, new report says

"Harmful reactions and ineffectiveness of smallpox vaccination motivated the "eradication" campaign of the 1970s. Smallpox was pronounced eradicated on 8th May 1980, vaccination stopped and epidemics disappeared, bar small outbreaks of whitepox, buffalopox, monkeypox, camelpox and similar names, while the disease was indistinguishable from smallpox. According to Arita and Gromyko (1982. Bull WHO; 60 (4): 367-375), the main benefit of smallpox being pronounced officially eradicated was that vaccination could be discontinued in all countries. Simply, smallpox vaccination had become an embarrassment."

https://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e7856/rr/620395

Dr. Scheibner pointed out that buffalopox, whitepox, camelpox, and other diseases with similar names and symptoms began to appear in the place of smallpox. However, she didn't factor in that smallpox was also regularly confused with measles, chickenpox, scarlett fever, rubella, herpes, shingles, etc. since its conception in 1751 as a separate disease. Each of these conditions result in the same symptoms of disease with very minute "differences" said to distinguish them. At one point in time, they were all considered varying stages of the same disease process.

None of these diseases can be clinically distinguished and diagnosed accurately based on symptoms alone due to these similarities, thus the need for nonspecific antibody results and/or fraudulent molecular tests today to rule in or out one or the other. Breaking the same symptoms into separate diseases is not only a great way to lower case counts to improve the perception of vaccine effectiveness, it also serves the purpose of creating more fear of the invisible boogeymen now spreading and mutating from animals to humans. This results in the demand and need for different pharmaceuticals, vaccinations, and treatments to "cure" each condition, which obviously makes for a great business model.

Polio Reclassified

Unlike smallpox, polio has not yet been "eradicated" by vaccines even though there have been two different vaccines available since the 1950's. However, as was observed previously, polio cases decreased dramatically before the introduction of these miracle "cures."

Thus, the reduction in polio can not be attributed to the Salk vaccine campaign introduced in 1955 nor the Sabin oral vaccine in 1959. What could have contributed to the serendipitous drop in polio cases beyond the improved sanitation and clean food and water? One possibility was the gradual discontinuation of dangerous pesticides and insecticides such as DDT, which concerned parents neglectfully sprayed on their children to combat polio. In 1949, Morton S. Biskind, M.D. wrote a paper looking at the effects of DDT on animals and humans. He spoke of the mysterious and elusive "Virus X" which was appearing more frequently each year with the increased use of DDT. This disease sounded quite a bit like polio, and according to Dr. Biskind, it was easily confused with the disease due to the findings of damage to the central nervous system:

DDT Poisoning and the Elusive "Virus X."' A New Cause for Gastro-Enteritis

"DURING A PERIOD of more than two years, numerous cases of a curious symptom complex, apparently never before reported, have been observed throughout the United States. For want of a satisfactory explanation for this ailment, it has been widely attributed to infection with a thus far illusory "virus X."

The syndrome consists of a group of or all the following: Acute gastroenteritis occurs, with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea usually associated with extreme tenesmus. Coryza, cough and persistent sore throat are common, often followed by a persistent or recurrent feeling of constriction or a "lump" in the throat; occasionally the sensation of constriction extends substernally and to the back and may be associated with severe pain in either arm. In some cases, the hyoid bone becomes acutely painful to pressure for a few days. Pain in the joints, generalized muscle weakness and exhausting fatigue are usual; the latter are often so severe in the acute stage as to be described bv some patients as "paralysis." Sometimes the initial attack is ushered in by vertigo and syncope. Intractable headache and giddiness are not uncommon. Occasionally herpes zoster appears. Paresthesia of various kinds occur in most of the cases; areas of skin become exquisitely hypersensitive and after a few days this hyperesthesia disappears only to recur elsewhere, or irregular numbness, tingling sensations, pruritus or formication may occur. Erratic fibrillary twitching of voluntary muscles is common. Usually there is diminution of vibratory sense in the extremities."

"The high incidence, the usual absence of a febrile reaction, the persistence and erratic recurrence of the symptoms, the lack of observable inflammatory lesions, and the resistance even to palliative therapy, suggested an intoxication rather than an infection. Investigation for possible etiologic agents soon led to consideration of DDT (2, 2 bis (para-chlorophenyl) 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane; less precisely designated di-chlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). The epidemic first appeared at about the time DDT came into widespread use by the civilian population. The signs and symptoms described in tile pharmacologic andtoxicologic literature as characteristic of DDT poisoning, are identical with those appearing in patients with the affection described (1, to 13)."

"As already indicated, a prominent feature in virtually all the patients was extreme apprehensiveness. This is probably explicable on the basis of functional and possibly even morphologic changes in the central nervous system produced by DDT, since in DDT poisoning in animals such disturbances are frequent.*

* Needless to say, findings related to the nervous system, and muscular spasm and weakness in severe acute affections of this type. have led to confusion with such entities as meningitis and poliomyelitis.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18113629/

Researcher Jim West did a lot of work uncovering this connection between polio symptoms and pesticides. In a 2004 paper, he outlined more from Dr. Biskind where the doctor linked DDT to the same degeneration of the anterior horn cells attributed to polio:

Pesticides and Polio: A Critique of Scientific Literature

'Biskind also describes physiological evidence of DDT poisoning that resembles polio physiology:

"Particularly relevant to recent aspects of this problem are neglected studies by Lillie and his collaborators of the National Institutes of Health, published in 1944 and 1947 respectively, which showed that DDT may produce degeneration of the anterior horn cells of the spinal cord in animals. These changes do not occur regularly in exposed animals any more than they do in human beings, but they do appear often enough to be significant."

He continues, bearing his exasperation in trying to make the obvious plain.

"When the population is exposed to a chemical agent known to produce in animals lesions in the spinal cord resembling those in human polio, and thereafter the latter disease increases sharply in incidence and maintains its epidemic character year after year, is it unreasonable to suspect an etiologic relationship?"

https://crazzfiles.com/pesticides-and-polio-a-critique-of-scientific-literature/

Jim West's article touches on other toxins such as BHC and lead-arsenic as potential contributing factors involved in the rising symptoms of polio along with DDT. Based on his painstaking research and meticulously plotted graphs, it is clear that there was a rise and fall in polio cases as the use of these toxins was introduced and then gradually reduced and phased out. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, DDT regulations began in the 1950s, ending with the cancellation of the use of the toxic pesticide in the US in 1972. If one wanted to create the appearance that the vaccines were a miracle cure, reducing exposure to toxins that cause the exact same symptoms of the disease targeted is a good place to start:

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the federal agency with responsibility for regulating pesticides before the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, began regulatory actions in the late 1950s and 1960s to prohibit many of DDT's uses because of mounting evidence of the pesticide's declining benefits and environmental and toxicological effects. The publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring stimulated widespread public concern over the dangers of improper pesticide use and the need for better pesticide controls.

In 1972, EPA issued a cancellation order for DDT based on its adverse environmental effects, such as those to wildlife, as well as its potential human health risks."

https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status

However, there was an even more obvious trick that was utilized in order to create the perception that polio cases declined with the introduction of the vaccines. Prior to the 1955 vaccination campaign, the WHO laid out the guidelines for how to make a diagnosis of either non-paralytic or paralytic polio in 1953. It was crucial for the WHO to make this distinction between cases that resulted in paralysis and those that did not for the ultimate success of the vaccination campaign, as will be shown later. In order to diagnose non-paralytic polio, the usual flu-like symptoms were all that were necessary to make a diagnosis even though this was considered less reliable than when confirming cases of paralytic polio. In those instances, all that was required to diagnose a patient with paralytic polio was the presence of the same flu-like symptoms as well as partial or complete paralysis upon two examinations carried out 24 hours apart. In neither non-paralytic nor paralytic polio were laboratory results necessary for a confirmation of a case:

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/40241

In a 1956 bulletin by the WHO, it was admitted that at least two-thirds of the cases diagnosed as non-paralytic polio were, in fact, not polio and were instead caused by other "viruses" and bacteria. Thus, it was important that, for a case to be considered polio, paralysis must occur as this was seen as a defining feature and indicative of polio. This paralysis requirement stood even though it was admitted that there are other causes of paralysis. The separation of polio into those with and without paralysis was necessary as the vaccine was said not to be effective at preventing non-paralytic polio and was only effective at reducing paralytic polio. If these two conditions could not be separated, it would obscure the "beneficial effects" of the vaccination campaign:

Poliomyelitis in 1954

"A variable proportion, which may be up to two-thirds or more, of cases diagnosed as non-paralytic poliomyelitis, presenting the clinical picture of aseptic meningitis, is due to other viruses (mumps, Coxsackie B, ECHO-6, Herpes simplex, LCM, various members of group A and group B encephalitis viruses, and others as yet undefined) as well as to bacteria (leptospirosis)."

"Clinical disease resembling paralytic poliomyelitis may be due to other viruses (see the reports from Iceland, Egypt, and Massachusetts). RSSE may also cause confusion.9 But there is little doubt that apart from relatively infrequent episodes the great majority of paralytic cases are due to poliovirus. For this reason and because paralysis is the result of poliovirus infection, which is of major public health importance, it has been repeatedly stressed by the World Health Organization that the incidence of paralytic and non-paralytic cases should be reported separately. There are many countries where this is still not yet done. This will become increasingly important as poliomyelitis vaccination comes into wider use, since the evidence available so far suggests that the main result of vaccination is to decrease the number of paralytic cases, the number of non-paralytic cases being relatively unaffected. Unless the two groups can be separated the beneficial effect of vaccination may be obscured."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2538162/

It can be seen that there was a concentrated effort to separate the symptoms of non-paralytic polio into many conditions caused by other "viruses" and bacteria, including:

1. Mumps
2. Coxsackie B
3. ECHO-6
4. Herpes Simplex
5. LCM
6. Other non-polio "enteroviruses"
7. Leptospirosis
8. Other unknown "viruses"

We can also see that they were beginning to make a distinction between cases of paralysis caused by the polio "virus" as well as those said to be caused by other "viruses." This separation would be utilized to decrease cases later. For now, polio was successfully divided into those cases with paralysis and those without. Once this distinction was accepted, another nifty trick was instigated in order to create the appearance that the vaccine was even more effective. According to a 1955 report by Thomas Francis, Jr. regarding the polio vaccine trials, the criteria for how a paralytic polio case was diagnosed changed from those listed by the WHO in 1953.

Instead of only requiring the confirmation of paralysis on two examinations 24 hours apart to diagnose paralytic polio, a confirmation was now based on two examinations spread further apart: one at 10-20 days and another at 50-70 days. A confirmation also now included reports on "virus isolation," tests of antibody titer, and laboratory diagnosis, which were not required in 1953. The ability to diagnose a case of paralytic polio was now a lot more difficult for a physician. Still, even with all of these new diagnostic measures in place, Francis Jr. admitted that there were difficulties in decisions due to contradictory results:

Evaluation of the 1954 Poliomyelitis Vaccine Field Trial

"The second phase in the evaluation was concerned with discovery and identification of all cases of poliomyelitis or suspected poliomyelitis in all children of the first, second, and third grades in the study areas. The various steps in the investigation of a case are: (1) physician's diagnosis—report to local health department; (2) telegraphic report to vaccine evaluation center; (3) action of local health department, including (a) clinicoepidemiological investigation and report to vaccine evaluation center, form FT-6, (b) collection and shipment of laboratory specimens (or by laboratory) and notice to vaccine evaluation center, form FT-9, and (c) notification of physical therapist; (4) first muscle evaluation by physical therapist (10 to 20 days) and physician's interpretation of patient's status, form FT-7; (5) collection of convalescent serum for laboratory, form FT-9; (6) second muscle evaluation by physical therapist (50 to 70 days) and physician's interpretation of patient's entire illness, form FT-8; (7) report of virus isolation, tests of antibody titer, laboratory diagnosis, form FT-10; (8) establishment and application of criteria for diagnosis of individual patient; and (9) integration of all data into final vaccine evaluation center diagnosis.

The criteria for diagnosis of poliomyelitis, for designation of a case as paralytic and its severity, and for the interpretation of laboratory results were carefully drawn. In this we had the continued help of an advisory committee comprised of expert clinicians, virologists, biostatisticians, epidemiologists, and administrators. The information concerning each case was carefully reviewed and the diagnostic classification made without knowledge of its vaccination status so that objectivity was readily maintained. Inevitably, difficulties in decision were encountered when results from different pieces of data were not in agreement, but the effort was made to follow a consistent plan of interpretation."

The reason that this change in how paralytic polio was diagnosed is important was summarized by Dr. Bernard G. Greenberg. He testified to Congress in 1962 that the reduction in polio cases was not brought about by vaccination but was instead due to the adoption of this redefinition of the paralytic polio diagnosis. By spreading out paralysis to 60 days and beyond, a new long-lasting paralytic polio disease was created:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201216143101/https://www.vaccination-information-portal.com/wp-content/uploads/participants-database/ratner_1960.pdf

As can be seen from Dr. Greenberg, the change in diagnostic criteria for polio was all that was necessary in order to see a drop in paralytic polio. No vaccine was ever necessary. And to help sell this point, a graph was provided applying the new diagnostic criteria to polio cases from 1951 to 1959 which showed how the drop would have occurred had this criterion been used before the vaccine became available:

In order to confirm that the adoption of the vaccine trial diagnostic criteria was, in fact, used when reporting vaccine effectiveness and paralytic polio case numbers, we can turn to the book Poliomyelitis Surveillance. It indeed confirms this to be the case as the CDC officially counted paralytic polio cases according to the "best available paralytic poliomyelitis case count," or BAPPCC. This count required that paralysis occurs up to 60 days. If there was no residual paralysis at 60 days, the cases were excluded from the count:

In 1969, the CDC officially adopted this 60-day requirement as the case definition for paralytic polio:

"ACIP. Poliomyelitis prevention. MMWR 1982;31:22-6, 31-4. *Since 1969, the CDC definition of a case of paralytic poliomyelitis has been a patient with paralysis clinically and epidemiologically compatible with poliomyelitis who, at 60 days after onset of symptoms, has a residual neurologic deficit, has died, or for whom no information is available on neurologic residua."

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000706.htm

It should be clear now that the change in diagnostic criteria for paralytic polio was the driving factor in reducing polio cases in an attempt to prop up the effectiveness of the toxic vaccines. However, this redefinition could not eliminate the symptoms of polio and wipe them from existence. As these symptoms would still persist, polio-related diseases such as aseptic meningitis and coxsackie were branched off into their own categories:

The polio vaccine: a critical assessment of its arcane history, efficacy, and long-term health-related consequences

"Doctors and scientists on the staff of the National Institutes of Health during the 1950s were well aware that the Salk vaccine was causing polio. Some frankly stated that it was "worthless as a preventive and dangerous to take [26:142]." They refused to vaccinate their own children [26:142]. Health departments banned the inoculations [26:140]. The Idaho State Health Director angrily declared: "I hold the Salk vaccine and its manufacturers responsible" for a polio outbreak that killed several Idahoans and hospitalized dozens more [26:140]. Even Salk himself was quoted as saying: "When you inoculate children with a polio vaccine you don't sleep well for two or three weeks [26:144;43]." But the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, and drug companies with large investments in the vaccine coerced the U.S. Public Health Service into falsely proclaiming the vaccine was safe and effective [26:142-5]."

"Polio is virtually nonexistent in the United States today. However, according to Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, medical investigator and pediatrician, there is no credible scientific evidence that the vaccine caused polio to disappear [50]. From 1923 to 1953, before the Salk killed-virus vaccine was introduced, the polio death rate in the United States and England had already declined on its own by 47 percent and 55 percent, respectively (Figure 4) [51]. Statistics show a similar decline in other European countries as well [51]. And when the vaccine did become available, many European countries questioned its effectiveness and refused to systematically inoculate their citizens. Yet, polio epidemics also ended in these countries [50].

The standards for defining polio were changed when the polio vaccine was introduced. The new definition of a polio epidemic required more cases to be reported. Paralytic polio was redefined as well, making it more difficult to confirm, and therefore tally, cases. Prior to the introduction of the vaccine the patient only had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for 24 hours. Laboratory confirmation and tests to determine residual paralysis were not required. The new definition required the patient to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days, and residual paralysis had to be confirmed twice during the course of the disease. Also, after the vaccine was introduced cases of aseptic meningitis (an infectious disease often difficult to distinguish from polio) and coxsackie virus infections were more often reported as separate diseases from polio. But such cases were counted as polio before the vaccine was introduced. The vaccine's reported effectiveness was therefore skewed (Table 1 and Figure 5) [52,53]."

https://docshare.tips/journal-article-the-polio-vaccine-neil-z-miller_5742f5edb6d87f75968b495e.html

Old polio-associated diseases such as aseptic meningitis and coxsackie "virus" were broken away from polio in order to siphon off the cases previously diagnosed as such. Other conditions also appeared and became more frequently pegged as the culprit of paralysis instead of polio such as Guillain-Barre syndrome, acute traumatic neuritis, enteroviral myelitis, myopathy, etc. Even rabies, tetanus, and the West Nile "virus" are associated with the same symptoms of disease. For many decades, acute flaccid paralysis was the name for cases of polio as this was the defining condition of the disease. However, even though the two labels are interchangeable, an effort has been made over the decades to try and distinguish the two from each other. Now, it is stated that as polio (a.k.a. acute flaccid paralysis) goes away, AFP will stick around due to non-polio "enteroviruses" and other causes such as novel recombinant "viruses." In other words, the same symptoms are being shifted away from the polio "virus" and onto other suspects:

Polio will go, acute flaccid paralysis will stay

"But as the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and the scientific community plan to celebrate polio eradication sooner or later, there is need for recognition that the risk of acute flaccid paralysis due to other enteroviruses is still high.

Acute flaccid paralysis is a weakness in one or more limbs or the respiratory or bulbar muscles, resulting from damaged lower motor neurons. The most common viral causes are polio and non-polio enteroviruses. As polio gradually disappears globally, there is major concern about the probable emergence of other neurotropic enteroviruses to occupy the niche and cause infections mimicking acute paralytic poliomyelitis. Enterovirus 71 for example has been regarded as the second most important neurotropic enterovirus, causing frequent outbreaks of paralytic disease. A crude mortality rate of 16% in children younger than 14 years was observed during an enterovirus 71 outbreak between 1998 and 2005 in Taiwan. Also, and equally important, is recombination between vaccine-derived poliovirus and other enteroviruses, which might result in the emergence of novel recombinant viruses causing similar paralytic diseases. Over the past decades, several non-polio enteroviruses have been discovered and some implicated in acute flaccid paralysis of unprecedented severity."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)61080-1/fulltext

More recently, a condition known as acute flaccid myelitis has made its presence felt. This is a relatively new disease that was "discovered" in 2010. It is an offshoot of acute flaccid paralysis, which for all intents and purposes was paralytic polio until 2010. Now, AFM has successfully taken over the title as it is defined as poliomyelitis not caused by the polio "virus," thus it is yet another condition that is used to explain away cases of poliomyelitis still occurring today. The only difference separating the two diseases are the results from fraudulent laboratory tests which must be confirmed by an "expert" panel. In other words, AFM can be referred to as either non-polio polio or, my personal favorite, incognito polio:

How is AFM different from polio?

"Poliomyelitis is the term used to describe the syndrome of acute flaccid limb weakness and lesions in the grey matter of the spinal cord. Poliomyelitis caused by poliovirus, or polio, rarely occurs in the United States. In 2014, the term AFM was adopted to describe poliomyelitis without a known cause and not caused by poliovirus. AFM has some similarities with polio, such as the lesions in the grey matter of the spinal cord and flaccid limb weakness that can result in paralysis. Polio can be prevented by a vaccine.

Stool specimens that we receive from AFM patients are tested for poliovirus. If poliovirus is detected, it is considered a case of polio, not a case of AFM. We continue to test all specimens from AFM patients to look for viruses, including poliovirus and non-polio enteroviruses."

https://www.cdc.gov/acute-flaccid-myelitis/faqs.html

"All suspected cases of paralytic poliomyelitis are reviewed by a panel of expert consultants before final classification occurs. Confirmed cases are then further classified based on epidemiologic and laboratory criteria."

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt12-polio.html

Perfect example of circular logic.

Hopefully, the magic tricks utilized to create the appearance of the effectiveness of the vaccines have become clearer now and will no longer be effective to persuade anyone on the fence. When a "virus" needs to be either eradicated or minimized, all it takes is hiding the symptoms of disease under various names and disguises with either a new "viral" and/or bacterial cause. This decrease can also be helped along by reducing or eliminating environmental toxins associated with the same symptoms of disease and by changing the diagnostic criteria in order to make diagnosis less likely as seen in the case with polio.

We have seen this same situation with "Covid-19." When the flu and other respiratory "viruses" needed to disappear for 'Covid" to emerge, the symptoms were lumped into "Covid" along with many other unrelated ailments. Remember "Covid toes" and MIS-C, a.k.a. frostbite and Kawasaki disease? Cases of all "non-Covid" diseases dropped dramatically, even cancers and heart attacks. However, once the vaccine needed to be shown to be effective, "Covid" cases decreased while the "flu" and "RSV" re-emerged along with other respiratory diseases and ailments. They can keep this magic trick going as long as we continue to get hoodwinked by their theatrics. However, if you can see past the illusions, they will have to come up with new tricks in order to fool you. Let's continue to unveil their deceptions until they have nothing left to pull out of their hat.

The Rabies Hoax: Shocking Corruption – a Deep Dive into a DEADLY SCAM

by AGENT131711 | May 19, 2024

The Rabies vaccine is one of the most diabolically brilliant because humans rush to take it after they are bitten by an animal. Those who suffer adverse events or death are counted as a Rabies Death, therefore it is impossible to find fault with the vaccine. When it comes to stuff like this, I often ask myself, "How the hell did we get here?". I thought I would look into the history of Rabies for a couple hours to find out. I had no idea just how crazy and shocking this rabbit hole would be. If Netflix made genuine documentaries about real topics, this would be at the top of their list.

Rabies Virus & Cures

Even before the creation of the life-saving Rabies vaccine, the medicine men were selling cures. These remedies consisted of "hair of the dog that bit you" being chewed and swallowed by the bite victim as well as "mad stone" treatment, in which a rock was rubbed all over the area of the bite to "draw out the madness". There was also a piece of the Kings clothing and if you're lucky enough to get this cure just holding it was enough to save you. Later, a cockroach cure was discovered as well as my absolute favorite cure which was ground-up jaw bone of a donkey or dog, plus a piece of colt's tongue and the green rust off a penny of George the First; if your scavenger hunt resulted in obtaining all of these items, you are 100% protected. Yes, this is real, and guess what? History says these cures successfully kept rabies out of New York for twenty years. See, I told you it was one heck of a rabbit hole.

Let's start by discussing what Rabies is:

In both animals and humans, Rabies is identified as absolutely any symptom one of more of the following symptoms:

• lethargy
• fever
• vomiting
• anorexia
• ataxia (lack of voluntary coordination of muscle movements)
• weakness
• paralysis
• seizures
• difficulty breathing
• difficulty swallowing
• excessive salivation
• abnormal behavior
• aggression
• self-mutilation
• fever
• difficulty swallowing
• excessive drooling
• foaming at the mouth
• and more
• or none… a Rabid animal might not have symptoms at all…

In humans, it's Rabies only if the symptoms occur after being bitten or scratched by an animal. So let's say, tomorrow morning you wake up and suddenly have difficulty swallowing; were you bitten by an animal? If you answered "No", you probably have Herpes. If you say, "Yeah, I was feeding a squirrel a peanut and one bit me by accident", then YES, it's 100% for sure Rabies and you need a vaccine, pronto! Very Scientific!

Now that you understand how it works, let's dive into some of the craziest sh*t you've never heard, all in the name of STOPPING THE SPREAD.

How Rabies was Discovered

According to a book written in 1890, Scientist Louis Pasteur discovered the Rabies Virus by drilling holes into laboratory dogs skulls and injecting them with what he suspected to be rabies virus. The dogs became Rabid (meaning, they displayed some symptoms from the massive list of basically every symptom), and boom, proof of the rabies virus! But, if you were doubting Mr. Pasteur's study, according to a different Rabies specialist, you should have a 100% success rate infecting animals with Rabies Virus if you inject it specifically into their brain(not just the skull, pinpoint that brain!). If your brain-injection does not produce Rabies (symptoms), you are doing it wrong:

So clearly, Rabies is very dangerous and must be stopped before everyone dies. It was becoming glaringly obvious that the only solution to fight Rabies was a Big Pharma payday vaccine.

Now that Science had learned so much about Rabies and the severity of the virus, Rabies was suddenly being discovered all over by the USA by none other than the US government. In fact, Rabies became so bad that, in 1916, the Secretary of Agriculture asked Congress for $75,000 (in tax dollars) so they could begin slaughtering wolves, coyotes and "other predatory animals" in the Northwest states. The goal was to completely eliminate these species in Utah, Nevada, Idaho, California, Oregon, and Washington, because, they claimed, they ALL could be rabid and were infecting livestock with the virus. (Psssssst! Wolves were later discovered to be Endangered, and have been on the Endangered Species List ever since)

To make matters crazier, Rabies can only be tested for after death of the animal.

This means there is absolutely no way to prove an animal is Rabid while it is alive. It must first be slaughtered. This means, the wolves, coyotes and predatory animals who were to be mass executed, were never proven to be sick to begin with. This entire extermination plan was based on some farm animals falling ill. And, because there was no test for Rabies there was no way of knowing what the livestock was sick with.

A Closer Look

While tax dollars were funding the intentional extinction of wildlife some doctors and scientists were skeptical of the Rabies Virus and began doing their own research. What they discovered was alarming, to say the least.

Upon closer examination of Moscow, Russia hospital records, researchers discovered that people who died in ER from Rabies were attacked by a wolf and bitten in the head. In fact, it would turn out that almost all of the Moscow Rabies deaths involved severe bites or other life-threatening injuries. So, basically, a wolf ate your face off and you die, boom, Rabies!

Nobody Can Find the Rabies

Other than the US government, Rabies vaccine developers and doctors who got paid to administer the vaccine, nobody could seem to find Rabies, so that's weird, eh? And trust me, the researchers looked. Here's some of the people that tried really hard to find this stealthy Rabies Virus:

Dr. Charles W. Dulles, lecturer on the History of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, was appointed by the Medical Societies to investigate rabies. After sixteen years of investigation he had "failed to find a single case on record that can be conclusively proved to have resulted from the bite of a dog or any other cause". Numerous other professionals came to the same conclusion as Dr. Dulles, including Dr. Theophilus Parvin, who was President of the National Academy of Medicine, Dr. Thomas G. Morten a Coroners Physician, Dr. Charles K. Mills of the University of Pennsylvania and Dr. Thomas I. Mays of the Polyclinic Hospital.

Dr. Wilcox of New York investigated NY's Rabies Scare because of eleven alleged deaths from rabid dog bites. His investigation concluded that not one of these deaths were due to Rabies.

Dr. Elmer Lee ended another rabies scare on Staten Island. Upon performing an autopsy, the rabid dogs were found to have died of worms, not Rabies. The worms were lodged in the heart of the animal, causing the animal extreme pain. The animal was lashing out due to severe discomfort, not a virus.

Even under oath testimony, dating all the way back to 1887, showed that back then no Rabies had been found relating to police men who received dig bites:

After receiving these absurd results, Dr. Stillman went to the Department of Agriculture and insisted that, instead of senselessly murdering dogs to have them tested, they should, "hold all dogs declared rabid to see if any cases of rabies would develop". Eventually the Department of Ag agreed, and, to everyone's shock, not one case of rabies appeared in any quarantined dog… ever… and over a decade later, none had appeared. In fact, not a single quarantined dog died and 100% of their symptoms subsided.

Further research by these honest doctors and scientists determined the cause of so-called Rabies. All of the Rabies cases in animals, which cause the animals to behave violently or crazily, "can be attributed to malnutrition, maltreatment, or, in many cases, both". And, in numerous cases, the animals had health issues, not related to Rabies. So yeah, the animals were underfed, abused, or in severe discomfort due to health complications, which caused them to lash out…

They also concluded that, in humans, Rabies was caused by "disordered imagination", meaning FEAR, also known as Nocebo Effect; if you think you're going to get deathly ill because a doctors assured you that you were, you are going to get sick. Like the old saying goes, mind over matter. This is why, at one point in history, the German treatment for Rabies was a warm bath, and it had nearly flawless success rates. People were told the hot water removed the rabies, meanwhile the water relaxed them. They believed it worked, therefore it did. This also explains why "hair of the dog that bit you" , the Mad Stone Treatment, and a piece of the Kings clothing were successful in preventing multiple decades worth of rabies in New York. MIND OVER MATTER.

A Deadly Lie

Here's a few utterly shocking examples of the horror caused by Rabies vaccines, indubitably recorded as Rabies deaths:

A mailman was attacked by a dog, however the dogs teeth did not puncture his skin, so he chose not to get a Rabies vaccine and he remained in perfect health… until his employer forced him to get vaccinated. Within one month of the injection, severe symptoms of Rabies set in, accompanied by extreme pain at the injection site. Two days after the symptoms appeared he died of paralytic "hydrophobia"… which means he died of Rabies.

In a another case, a young woman's parents saw a bite mark on her neck. Under questioning, the young woman told her parents she was bit by a dog. Out of fear of Rabies her parents rushed her to get the vaccine. She became violently ill and died. After the funeral her parents discovered that the bite mark was not from a dog but was instead from a young man the woman was secretly frolicking with.

And, it's not just humans who die from these injections:

Deadly Animal Injections

In the late 1880s, rabies vaccinations were given to 4,564 sheep in Russia, of which 3,696 died. The identical inoculation campaign was ran in a different Russian city and the identical results occurred; only 19% survived.

Money and Power

While the good doctors and scientists were trying to end the Rabies scare, the medical industry was pushing hard to advance Rabies injections. Due to the industries efforts, Rabies treatments became mainstream and when they resulted in death, Rabies was to blame. I told you, it's diabolically brilliant!

You need to understand that the Veterinary industry lobbies for medical treatments because Veterinarians receive a large percentage of both their gross income and profit from vaccines given in their offices. As of the early 2000's, on average, Rabies vaccines cost only $0.60 to $0.95 per dose, yet are charged to the client at $15 to $25 per injection. Large cities often charge more, making it the biggest markup of any industry.

How We Got Here:

Despite no cases of rabies on record, beginning around the 1970's, most states in the USA were convinced by Rabies vaccine lobbyists to begin requiring Rabies shots for dogs within the first three to four months of life (some states additionally require the shot for cats and ferrets too).

It was then realized that there is a wealth of money to be made off pets, so states also began requiring tagging and licensing.

Dr. John Fudens, D.V.M. writes: "From 1964 to 1978 there were zero cases of dog rabies in the county. Magically in 1978, the rabies vaccine was mandated to be given every year and all dogs tagged and licensed. WHY? Well, it seems four veterinarians, with animal control bureaucrats, pushed the county board of supervisors to pass a law mandating rabies vaccination every year. There were three local vets and one professor from the State Veterinary College who were behind this … Not once was the issue discussed that there were no rabies cases in the county in dogs. To date, there still has not been one case of dog rabies, including the population of dogs whose owners who do not vaccinate for rabies."

The F*cked Up Science They Call "A Rabies Virus" and a "Vaccine"

Scientists needed to create the Rabies Vaccine and prove it works, so, what made sense to them was essentially injecting eggs, cheese and Horse Serum into animals. Sadly, I am not joking. Let's take a closer look:

Injecting Cheese, Egg Yolk & "Horse Serum"

When you hear "inoculation", you probably never thought of eggs, but yeah. Here's the recipes, in case you want to whip up your own Rabies Vaccine in your spare time:

First, grab some rabbits. What you are going to want to do is inject the rabbits with the vaccine (Eggs, Cheese, etc), then inject them with the Virus and see if they go Rabid. You can obtain the virus from any dead animal who is suspected to have Rabies, or, the more popular option is to just make the poison in a lab and call it a virus. This means, when you see the word virus below you can replace it with the word poison.

(I'm not kidding, this is what they really did:)

EGG YOLK & EGG WHITE JABS: Start with a fresh rabbit. Make the vaccine by mixing the white of hens eggs with equal part distilled water. Next you filter it, then it is ready to inject. Inject the egg white six times within 11 days, followed by an injection of the Rabies Virus, then proceed with daily injections of egg. Result: Sadly, Rabies killed these rabbits on the 4th day of injection. It's unfortunate, but the Egg Vaccine seems to not offer much protection.?

EGG YOLK, METHOD #2: Scientists were pretty damn sure that Eggs are the answer, so although the jabs didn't stop rabies, they theorized that perhaps if it was administered intravenously, it would.

What you are going to want to do is inject the Rabies Virus into your rabbits, then give them six intravenous doses of Egg White within 15 days following the Virus jab.

Results: After the virus jab and the six doses of Egg Whites, that Godforsaken Rabies began appearing in these rabbits on the 14th day! The Rabies killed them on the 18th day, thus proving how deadly the virus is. Lord, please help us find a vaccine that works!

DEUTEROPROTEOSE JAB: Deuteroproteose means a protein obtained from cheese (casein). To make this, you want to get some milk, "physiologic salt" and "170 solution" (your guess is as good as mine…). Mix these together to make the cheese-salt-chemical solution, then inject your rabbits five to six times during a 15-day period.

Result: The rabbits became paralyzed and all died by the 20th day following the injections, so, it would appear that cheese, chemicals and salt doesn't stop Rabies. ?

HORSE SERUM JAB: You can use Horse Serum right out of the bottle, no need to dilute. You will want to inject this five times before you inject the Rabies Virus. After the virus inoculation, you want to continue Horse Serum injections daily in smaller doses.

Results: Shockingly, these rabbits all developed Rabies on the 4th and 5th day, then died the same day! Gosh, this Rabies virus is f*cking horrible! If only Dr. Fauci was alive back then to help us get through this storm…

TYPHOID BACTERIA: Typhoid, they claim, is a bacterial infectious disorder contracted by consumption of food or drink contaminated with Salmonella typhi. This dangerous bacteria is what is used to create the Typhoid Vaccine, so Scientists considered that perhaps it can stop Rabies too, makes sense to me!

For this experiment, you are going to want to inject the rabbits with Rabies Virus first, then inject the Typhoid Bacteria six times within 15 days.

Results: Crud. This didn't work either. The rabbits became paralyzed and all died from Rabies within 21 days after the Rabies Virus injection. ?

THE CONTROL GROUP: In order to conduct a Scientific experiment, you must have a Control Group. In this experiment, the Control Group consisted of only 4 rabbits, which were injected with Rabies Virus but were not given egg, cheese-salt-chemical blend, deadly bacteria or horse serum to protect them… until immediately after the virus inoculation, after which the control group also received daily injections of Egg.

RESULTS: Two died on the fourth day and the other two became paralyzed and died by the sixth day, thus proving how horrible the virus is and how desperately a vaccine needs to be created. SOURCE: The Rabies Hoax • Zero-Sum

References

Beardsley, Edward H. A History of Neglect: Health Care for Blacks and Mill Workers in the Twentieth-Century South. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1987.

Beecher, Henry K. "Ethics and Clinical Research." New England Journal of Medicine 274, no. 24 (1966): 1354–1360.

Brandt, Allan M. "Racism and Research: The Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study." The Hastings Center Report 8, no. 6 (1978): 21–

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cyclosporiasis (Cyclospora Infection). Atlanta: CDC.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Typhoid Fever and Paratyphoid Fever. Atlanta: CDC.

Dubos, René. Louis Pasteur: Free Lance of Science. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1950.

Escherich, Theodor. Die Darmbakterien des Säuglings und ihre Beziehungen zur Physiologie der Verdauung. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke, 1886.

Fee, Elizabeth, and Theodore M. Brown. Making Medical History: The Life and Times of the U.S. Public Health Service. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, 1997.

Jones, David S. Rationalizing Epidemics: Meanings and Uses of American Indian Mortality since 1600. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Koch, Robert. Gesammelte Werke. Berlin: Julius Springer.

Lederer, Susan E. Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America before the Second World War. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.

Leavitt, Judith Walzer. Typhoid Mary: Captive to the Public's Health. Boston: Beacon Press, 1996.

Lifton, Robert Jay. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. New York: Basic Books, 1986.

Mitscherlich, Alexander, and Fred Mielke. Doctors of Infamy: The Story of the Nazi Medical Crimes. New York: Henry Schuman, 1949.

Proctor, Robert N. Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.

Reed, Walter, Victor C. Vaughan, and Edward O. Shakespeare. Report on the Origin and Spread of Typhoid Fever in U.S. Military Camps during the Spanish War of 1898. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1904.

Rosen, George. A History of Public Health. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

Rothman, David J. Strangers at the Bedside: A History of How Law and Bioethics Transformed Medical Decision Making. New York: Basic Books, 1991.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Nazi Medical Experiments. Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

U.S. Army Center of Military History. Preventive Medicine in World War II. Washington, DC: Department of the Army.

U.S. Army Medical Department. Communicable and Other Diseases. Washington, DC: Office of The Surgeon General.

U.S. Army Medical Department. Preventive Medicine in World War I. Washington, DC: Office of The Surgeon General.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC, 1979.

World Health Organization. Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater. Geneva: WHO, 2006.

World Health Organization. Guidelines on Sanitation and Health. Geneva: WHO, 2018.

Primary Sources

• The Nuremberg Doctors' Trial Transcripts
• The Nuremberg Code (1947)
• Walter Reed's Typhoid Board Report (1904)
• The Belmont Report (1979)
• U.S. Army Preventive Medicine in World War II
• U.S. Army Preventive Medicine in World War I
• Office of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army Medical Department historical reports
• Robert Koch's published papers on cholera and bacteriology
• Theodor Escherich's original publication describing E. coli
• James Hobrecht's reports on Berlin's sewer system

About the Image: If you're wondering why I ended this page with a pig-faced doctor, it's from my favorite Twilight Zone episode, "Eye of the Beholder" (Season 2, Episode 6).

In one of television's greatest twists, a young woman undergoes repeated medical procedures to "correct" her appearance. Only at the end does the audience discover that beauty and normality have been completely inverted in that society. The doctors, nurses, and everyone considered "normal" have pig-like faces, while the patient looks conventionally human. If you've never seen the episode, it's worth watching.

The USA

"Americans believe that the United States of America became a separate country following its War of Independence against the British in 1783.

However, what happened was the setting up of the USA as a corporation subject to British maritime law. If you don't believe me then when you watch Obama speaking what do you think the gold border around your flag signifies?

So, if the US is just a corporation, not a country where's the evidence? Should we look for the Queen signing off acts of Parliament which automatically apply to the USA -

legislation.gov.uk/uksi… - it isn't the only one.

The one above was the Queen dictating social security legislation to the IRS. Still think you're independent."

IRS Forces U.S. Citizens To Pay A Percentage Of Their Taxes To The Queen Of The UK Deep State – Political Vel Craft

References USA History

UNITED STATES is a Corporation - There are Two Constitutions - Sovereignty

Federal Reserve - The Enemy of America

A history lesson for Americans. You're still British. – Patriots for Truth

bankruptcyofus.pdf

War and Emergency Powers

Media Release: The People Are the Enemy

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency Powers listed:

• Seize property

• Organize and control production

• Seize commodities

• Assign military forces abroad

• Institute martial law

• Seize transportation

• Seize communications

• Regulate private enterprise

• Restrict travel

• Control lives of citizens

(Source attributed in text: Senate Report 93-549) 14th Amendment | AntiCorruption Society

The IRS is not a US government agency. It is an agency of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) (Diversified Metal Products v I.R.S et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391).

The IMF (International Monetary Fund) is an agency of the U.N.

(Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed. page 816)

The United States has NOT had a Treasury since 1921 (41 Stat. Ch 214 page 654)

The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF (International Monetary Fund) (Presidential Documents Volume 24-No. 4 page 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-2887)

The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States! No more reorganizations. After over 200 years of bankruptcy it is finally over. (Executive Order 12803)

The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the U.S. government, even though the "U.S. Government" held stock in the agencies. (U.S. v Strang, 254 US491 Lewis v. US, 680 F.2nd, 1239)

Social Security Numbers are issued by the U.N. through the IMF (International Monetary Fund). The application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 Form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 forms and not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who publishes them while the old form states they are "Department of the Treasury". (20 CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Chap. 111 Subpart B. 422.103 (b))

There are NO Judicial Courts in America and have not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat 138-178)

There have NOT been any judges in America since 1789. There have just been administrators. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1 Stat. 138-178)

According to GATT (The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) you MUST have a Social Security number. (House Report (103-826)

New York City is defined in Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Guiliani stated on C-Span that "New York City is the capital of the World." For once, he told the truth. (20 CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Chap. 111, subpart B 44.103 (b) (2) (2) )

Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust Fund. (Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619 Steward Co. v. Davis 301 US 548)

Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF (International Monetary Fund), which is an agency of the United Nations. (It says "U.S. Department of Treasury" at the top left corner, which again is part of the U.N. as pointed out above)

You own NO property!! Slaves can't own property. Read carefully the Deed to the property you think is yours. You are listed as a TENANT. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)

The most powerful court in America is NOT the United States Supreme court, but rather the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (42 PA. C.S.A. 502)

The King of England financially backed both sides of the American Revolutionary War.. (Treaty of Versailles-July 16, 1782 Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80)

You CANNOT use the U.S. Constitution to defend yourself because you are NOT a party to it! The U.S. Constitution applies to the CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES, a privately owned and operated corporation (headquartered out of Washington, DC) much like IBM (International Business Machines, Microsoft, et al) and NOT to the people of the sovereign Republic of the united States of America. (Padelford Fay & Co. v The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)

America is a British Colony. The United States is a corporation, not a land mass and it existed before the Revolutionary War and the British Troops did not leave until 1796 (Republica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774)

Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213)

The Pope can abolish any law in the United States (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1, 53-54)

A 1040 Form is for tribute paid to Britain (IRS Publication 6209)

The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery. (Papal Bulls of 1495 & 1493)

The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people.(Papal Bulls of 1455 & 1493)

The Pope's laws are obligatory on everyone. (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix, c. vii, n. 4. Prati, 1844 Syllabus Prop 28, 29, 44)

We are slaves and own absolutely nothing, NOT even what we think are our children. (Tillman vs. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten vs. Van Koten 154 N.E. 146, Senate Document 438 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481)

Military dictator George Washington divided up the States (Estates) in to Districts (Messages and papers of the Presidents Volume 1 page 99 1828 Dictionary of Estate)

"The People" does NOT include you and me. (Barron vs. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 32 U.S. 243)

It is NOT the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect THE CORPORATION and arrest code breakers. (SAPP vs. Tallahassee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, REiff vs. City of Phila. 477 F. 1262, Lynch vs. NC Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247)

Every thing in the "United States" is up for sale: bridges, roads, water, schools, hospitals, prisons, airports, etc, etc… Did anybody take time to check who bought Klamath Lake?? (Executive Order 12803)

"We are human capital" (Executive Order 13037) The world cabal makes money off of the use of your signatures on mortgages, car loans, credit cards, your social security number, etc.

The U.N. – United Nations – has financed the operations of the United States government (the corporation of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) for over 50 years (U.S. Department of Treasury is part of the U.N. see above) and now owns every man, woman and child in America.

The U.N. also holds all of the land of America in Fee Simple.

The good news is we don't have to fulfill "our" fictitious obligations. You can discharge a fictitious obligation with another's fictitious obligation.

Source: Stop The Pirates: These documents are NOT secret! They ARE a matter of Public Record.