My Experience with Measles

If you watch this video, then you'll understand what I'm about to share with you:
https://rumble.com/v6pwpn8-del-dispels-misinformation-about-measles.html

On Thursday, February 27, my 4-year-old began having a mild fever. I administered R1 and some Tylenol for the next four days. Late Sunday evening on March 2, my 1.5-year-old started to have a fever. I administered the same. Early Monday morning on March 3, as I was administering their medicine, I noticed some small red spots on my 4-year-old son's neck. I went to some of my medical books and did a quick check. I came back and checked inside his mouth. Sure enough, he had the measles. I gave him 20,000iu of Vitamin A, some R62, and Apis to start with. By the end of the day, he had a full red rash on his entire torso with the dots creeping down parts of his leg, his arms, his neck and face. I lathered Nature's Aid on his skin, which helps with itching. It contains Aloe Vera, Tea Tree, Witch Hazel, Vitamin E, and Rosemary. I also switched from Apis to Belladonna. The next morning, March 4, my son's skin was remarkable better. However, my 1.5-year-old son now had the red spots. Since he can't swallow a Vitamin A capsule, I bought some Caster Oil with Vitamin A and D3 and gave it to him with the same stuff I gave my other son, lathering Nature's Aid on their bodies whenever they began to feel an itch. Again, the next day his skin was visibly better. They were extremely tired for three days, but I continued my regimen and kept a close eye on their fevers, which were beginning to wane. By Thursday, March 6, both children had bounced back completely and were their usual active selves.

On Thursday, March 6, South Western Public Health wanted a throat swab to see if they really had measles. They swabbed my 6-year-old daughter, too. They called back today, Monday, March 10, to inform us that all our children had measles. Even my daughter who had received her first "vaccine" dose at age 2 or 3. The nurse was perplexed as to how she could have measles and yet have absolutely no symptoms whatsoever. The answer to that is found in the above video. My daughter had all her shots up to age three and my oldest son had half of that when we decided to stop giving them shots. The CONvid SCAMdemic helped wake me up and start doing my own research and reading those scientific medical studies that doctors and nurses apparently fail to read. My youngest son hasn't received a single jab, not even the Vitamin K jabs they give in the hospital. He bounced back faster than his brother!

Since there is NO SUCH THING as a "measles virus," and measles is a natural developmental process of the body that helps children prime, develop, and mature a healthy, robust, adult immune system, what exactly are they injecting our children with? Whatever it is, it is shutting something in the body off so that it "reduces the symptoms." This is how the Disney World measles outbreak occurred several years ago. It was NOT because of the "unvaxxed," who stay home when they see symptoms; no, it was the cause of so-called "vaccinated" individuals who had the illness, did not show any symptoms, and spread it around willy-nilly. ALL "vaccines" do this!

We saw the same thing with the so-called CONvid SCAMdemic "vaccine," which they told us would "reduce the symptoms." In other words, it would make you asymptomatic so that you were unaware you were even sick and could spread it everywhere you went. We have multiple records of events where jabbed people ONLY were in attendance (like a cruise liner) and EVERYBODY got sick. It was the so-called "vaxxed" who were spreading it and putting everybody else at risk. After receiving the jabs, the problem became compounded as people either died or received any number of injuries listed on 8 PAGES of side effects!!! "Safe and effective"??!?!?? The "vaxxed" were, and still are, ticking time bombs! So-called "vaccines" don't actually protect you. They merely mask your symptoms. If you write in to any health agency around the world and request all data showing that a "virus" has been isolated for the various "vaccines," you will receive letters back telling you they could find no such information. Why? Because NO "viruses" have ever been isolated and purified. Not a single postulate has been met!

Measles is a serious illness (specifically because of the high fever and the potential for deafness in the right ear, pneumonia, and encephalitis), but there's nothing "dangerous" about it if you stay on top of it. Public Health today LIES to us, telling us that 1 in 10 children die from it. Funny, in the 50s and 60s, before any so-called "vaccine" was invented, it was like 1 in 500,000. How do we have better technology and medicine today, and supposedly have higher death counts? The episode of the Brady Bunch dealing with measles is pretty much how it looked in my house. If measles is so "dangerous," how was I able to deal with it better than any doctor could? How was I able to vanquish it in LESS THAN one week?!? All you brainless critics of natural homeopathic medicine who lack the ability to critically think for yourself and mindlessly worship the pseudo-medicine so-called doctors peddle you, please explain my results. You mindlessly support anything a so-called doctor tells you because you haven't brains enough to think things through yourself and do basic research.

When God created the world, He gave us EVERYTHING we need to look after our health and our bodies. EVERY culture used natural medicine until the early 1900s when Rockefeller sold his oil-based "medicine" to doctors and hospitals, which resulted in cancer. The roll out of the "vaccine" schedule resulted in even more cancer. The so-called "vaccine" for the rebranded flu, "Covid", resulted in an EXPLOSION of cancer! Cancer is the leading cause of death in children under 14 years old in the USA, and that age group also receives the most jabs; more than any other country. Chinese, Indians, and Native Americans have been using nature to heal for THOUSANDS of years, but we claim these medicines are "in the realm of fantasy"? No, your synthetic medicines with their multiple side effects are what's relegated to the realm of fantasy. You don't want to conduct studies on natural medicine because you're AFRAID of the results. You KNOW what you'll find, and that will cost these companies MILLIONS, no, BILLIONS, of dollars! Doctors have no interest in curing you because a patient cured is a customer lost. They need money to run their business. They poison you with "vaccines" and then poison you some more with their synthetic "medicine"!

The FACTS Regarding Measles

German biologist Stefan Lanka offered 100,000 euros to anyone who could prove the existence of the Measles virus. A young doctor named David Bardens decided to try and take up the challenge, providing six studies as “proof” that the virus did indeed exist. The studies, however, failed to meet the scientific evidence required in order to claim the prize. Bardens decided to take Lanka to court.

In the first court to hear the proceedings, the judge concluded that proof of the virus did indeed exist and awarded the prize to Bardens. However, the German Supreme Court, with its more stringent rules of evidence and the appointment of a science master to oversee the case, ruled that Bardens did not actually prove the existence of the virus. Decades of consensus-building processes created a model of a Measles virus that does not actually exist. Lanka did not have to pay the prize.

This ruling was important because it raised a dire question: What was actually injected into millions of people around the world over the past several decades? It certainly was not a Measles vaccine!

Several experiments have been done with Measles, trying to prove viral causation and contagion, but every single experiment failed. Here are just a few of them:

• In 1799, Dr. Green reported that he successfully infected three children by exposing them to the fluid of measles scabs, however there are no reliable records on this.[1]
• In 1809, Willan tried to infect three children by exposing them to the fluid of measles lesions from sick people. None of the children became sick.[1]
• In 1810, Waschel claimed to have experimentally infected an 18-year-old man with measles, however these claims were disputed by others at the time. The man became sick 22 days after inoculation and it is said the man actually contracted measles naturally and not from the inoculation.[1]
• In 1817, Themmen undertook five experiments where he exposed incisions on the arms of healthy children with the blood, tears and perspiration of infected children. None of the children contracted measles.
• In 1822, Dr. Frigori tried to infect 6 children with measles. Whilst the children developed mild non-specific symptoms, they did not develop measles. Not happy with his results, Frigori attempted to infect himself but without success.[1]
• In 1822, Dr. Negri tried to infect two children with measles, however he had the same negative results as Dr. Frigori.[1]
• In 1822, Speranza attempted to infect 4 children using similar methods, but without success.[1]
• In 1834, Albers tried to infect four children with measles, however none fell ill.[1]
• Between 1845–1851 Mayr is said to have successfully infected 6 children with measles, however it seems to be a modified form of the disease (in other words, not measles).[1]
• In 1890, Hugh Thompson tried to infect children with measles in two separate instances, however both attempts failed.[1]
• In 1905, Ludvig Hektoen reports that he was able to successfully infect two healthy people with the blood of infected measles patients.[1] It should be noted that the blood was mixed with other substances, such as ascites fluid before it was injected. This experiment is considered to be the best evidence that proves beyond any doubt that the measles virus causes disease.[2] There are few specific details about the signs and symptoms that these patients actually exhibited, so there is some doubt as to whether they really had measles.[3]
• In 1915, Charles Herman swabbed the nasal mucosa of 40 infants with cotton buds covered in the nasal secretions of infected measles patients. The majority of the infants had no reaction, 15 infants had a slight rise in body temperature and a “few” were said to develop some red spots on their skin. At 1 year of age, 4 of these infants had intimate contact with infected people. None of the infants became sick and this is said to be due to the infants having “immunity.”[4]
• In 1919, Sellards tried to inoculate 8 healthy men (with no previous exposure to measles) with the blood of measles patients, using the same methods as Hektoen. None of the men became sick.[3,5] A few weeks later, the volunteers were exposed to an infected measles case, yet none of them became sick. Nasal secretions were then taken from measles patients and syringed up in to the nasal passages of the healthy participants. None became sick.[3,5]
• Sellards also conducted another experiment to try and infect another 2 healthy human volunteers with measles by injecting them subcutaneously and intramuscularly with the blood of two infected patients. Neither man became sick.[3,5]
• In 1919, Alfred Hess makes a comment about Sellards results. He states “It is remarkable that Sellards was unable to produce this highly infectious disease by means of the blood or nasal secretions of infected individuals, not long ago I was confronted with a similar experience with chicken pox, thus we are confronted with two diseases, the two most infectious of the endemic diseases in this part of the world, which we are unable to transmit artificially from man to man.”[6]
• In 1924, Harry Bauguess wrote a paper and stated “A careful search of the literature does not reveal a case in which the blood from a patient having measles was injected into the blood stream of another person and produced measles.”[7]

Sources:
[1] Hektoen L. Experimental Measles. J Infect Dis. 1905;2(2):238–255. doi:10.1093/infdis/2.2.238
[2] Degkwitz R. The Etiology of Measles. J Infect Dis. 1927;41(4):304–316. doi:10.1093/infdis/41.4.304
[3] SELLARDS AW. A REVIEW OF THE INVESTIGATIONS CONCERNING THE ETIOLOGY OF MEASLES. Medicine (Baltimore). 1924;3(2):99–136. doi:10.1097/00005792–192403020–00001
[4] Herman C. Immunization against measles. Arch Pediat. 1915;32(503).
[5] Sellards A. Insusceptibility of man to inoculation with blood from measles patients. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1919;257.
[6] Hess AF. NEED OF FURTHER RESEARCH ON THE TRANSMISSIBILITY OF MEASLES AND VARICELLA. J Am Med Assoc. 1919;73(16):1232. doi:10.1001/jama.1919.0261042006002
[7] BAUGUESS H. MEASLES TRANSMITTED BY BLOOD TRANSFUSION. Am J Dis Child. 1924;27(3):256. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1924.019200900610

Measles exist, but it is not the result of an outside “virus” invading your body and trying to injure or kill you. Measles is a natural developmental process of the body that helps children prime, develop, and mature a healthy, robust, adult immune system. Consider it an upgrade.

A study published in the Journal of Biomedical Sciences determined that the autoimmunity to the central nervous system may play a causal role in autism. Researchers discovered that because many autistic children harbour elevated levels of measles antibodies, they should conduct a serological study of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and myelin basic protein (MBP) autoantibodies. They used serum samples of 125 autistic children and 92 controlled children. Their analysis showed a significant increase in the level of MMR antibodies in autistic children. The study concludes that the autistic children had an inappropriate or abnormal antibody response to MMR. The study determined that autism could be a result from an atypical measles infection that produces neurological symptoms in some children. The source of this virus could be a variant of MV, or it could be the MMR vaccine.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534

Here are more historical facts concerning Measles:

In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organization after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its highest ever mortality rate. —Dr. H. Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, 1990

In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. —The People's Doctor Dr. Robert Mendelsohn

“Protection” via “vaccination” is an ugly superstition that must be discarded!

Cheap Grace?

Don't you just hate when preachers don't have a clue what in the world they are talking about? John MacArthur describes the message of absolute grace as "a no-strings-attached, open-ended package of amnesty, beneficence, indulgence, forbearance, charity, leniency, immunity, approval, tolerance, and self-awarded privilege divorced from any moral standards." He claims that "[Paul] was careful to state, however, that grace does not nullify the moral demands of God's law." Did the apostle Paul state such a thing? Not on your life!

MacArthur has failed to pay careful attention to the Scriptures. I understand that those who worship the ground MacArthur walks on will find issue with what I'm about to say because they have made an idol out of him. It's why they run to his defense even when he's 100% wrong. That is a cult with a cult mentality.

Which "law" is John MacArthur referring to here? The 613 commands of the Law of Moses? The Ten Commandments of the Law of Moses? Or the two greatest commands of the Law of Moses? These have no place in the life of the believer and cannot produce morality! In Romans 7, Paul describes one of the commandments from the Ten Commandments: coveting. He found that it only produced in him covetousness of every kind. In other words, the commandment caused him to covet more — not less! So when MacArthur speaks of "God's law," has has no clue what in the world he is talking about.

In 2 Corinthians 3, where Paul speaks of "letters engraved on stone," what is he talking about? The Ten Commandments. What does Paul say of the Ten Commandments? He calls them a "ministry of condemnation" and a "ministry of death." In Romans 7, what does the commandment against coveting belong to? The Ten Commandments. Did this "moral law" help Paul to stop coveting? No! It aroused in him all sorts of coveting!

The power of sin is what? The Law! (1 Cor. 15:56) What did the Law do? It increased the trespass (Rom. 5:20), aroused (not stifled!) sinful passions (Rom. 7:5), and afforded sin to seize an opportunity (Rom. 7:8). The Law could not impart life or righteousness (Gal. 3:21b), and it certainly cannot impart morality!

Did God find fault with the Law? Of course not! "The Law is holy and the commandment is holy and righteous and good" (Rom. 7:12). God found fault with the people (Heb. 8:8a). The Law was so holy and perfect that the people could not attain it. So God provided another way (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-12). God swore by Himself to accomplish all that man could not. He promised to provide the way. All of this was done in, by, and through Jesus.

With everything Paul has said about the Law, about the Ten Commandments, do we honestly believe that when God speaks of writing His laws upon our hearts and minds that He is speaking of any part of the Law of Moses? Do we honestly believe God wrote the 613 commandments of the Law on our hearts and minds? The Ten Commandments? The two greatest commandments? No! If you want to keep any part of the Law, you are obligated and required to keep all of it (Gal. 3:10; 5:3). If you break even one, you are guilty of breaking it all (Jam. 2:10). The whole Law, including the Ten Commandments, was fulfilled by Jesus and then set aside. It is obsolete (Heb. 8:13) because it was "weak and useless" (Heb. 7:18). How is MacArthur ignorant of this?

So what "laws" are written on the believer's heart and mind? In John 13:34, Jesus gives us a new commandment. The apostle John picks up this same idea in 1 John 3:23: "And this is His command: to believe in the name of His Son, Christ Jesus, and to love one another as He commanded us." To believe and to love are the laws written on the Christian's heart. These are certainly not burdensome (1 John 5:3)! Love is the true fulfillment of the Law (Rom. 13:10) and covers a multitude of sins (1 Pet. 4:8). The Spirit is inspiring us to bear the fruit (singular) of the Spirit because "against such there is no law" (Gal. 5:23).

Paul's letters point out the impossibility of the Law, or any rules and regulations, or "Christian" principles, being able to aid you in morality. By trying to follow any such things you will only be met with failure, grief, confusion, and more sin. what is the only thing that gives us victory over sin? God's grace. God has given us everything we need, up front and beforehand, in order to live upright and godly lives, and it has nothing to do with "God's law." Not only has He done everything in order to bring us into right standing with Himself, but He has also provided everything we need. Unlike the Old Covenant, the New Covenant is not based on a "If you... then God..." proposition. All of Paul's letters start out informing us of what God has done for us in Christ Jesus, and then end by encouraging us to live a certain way because of Christ's finished work.

John MacArthur preaches a cheap grace. He preaches a false interpretation of Romans 7:14-25, which ignores and denies everything taught in the New Covenant Scriptures. He preaches a defeatist mentality, giving power to his words that believers are nothing but sinners with wicked hearts who can do nothing but sin. This is not the message of the New Covenant or the Gospel! Nowhere in the entire New Covenant Scriptures are believers called "sinners." The moment you believe in Jesus and place your trust in Him, God gives you a new heart. Is this new heart wicked? If so, does Jesus reside in filthy, wicked places? No! He cleans house and then moves in. Do believers do nothing but sin? That's not the message of the New Covenant Scriptures. Paul says we are dead to sin and encourages the saint not to yield their members as instruments of sin since it no longer masters us. We now have the power to say "No" to sin, stopping it in its tracks. The fact is, MacArthur doesn't know the Gospel. He preaches the atonement as "the Gospel," failing to understand that "atonement" is merely a covering, whereas Jesus took our sins away. Permanently! We are totally, completely, utterly forgiven and He does not remember our sins any more because they have been removed. He has made us spotless and blameless.

Stop believing ignorant preachers who preach contradictory messages. Such men are double-minded and unstable. They will tell you out one side of your mouth that you are completely forgiven, but then out the other side are telling you that you need to ask for forgiveness every time you sin. They will tell you that you died with Christ, but that you also have to die to yourself daily. These people don't know what they believe.

Cheap grace denies the very things the Scriptures say are true because of grace!

P.S.: If a preacher claims that the message of grace is negating God's justice and wrath, he is once against demonstrating his colossal ignorance of Scripture and truth. God's justice was accomplished at the cross and His wrath was assuaged for the believer. The Christian does not have to fear His justice and wrath. For us, God is a God of love and grace. It is the unbeliever that needs to worry about His justice and wrath. If the God of all grace sounds too good to be true, that is because you have been preached fear and legalism by ignorant preachers. God is first and foremost a God of love, because He loved the world so much that He sent His only Son in order to reconcile us to Himself. If we refuse to receive Him, then His anger and wrath still abide on us. But if we have believed, His anger and wrath have been assuaged and we are in right standing with Him. He loves us unconditionally and is always seeking our good. If your preacher tells you that God is punishing you in any way, shape, or form, he is saying that the punishment of Jesus was not enough and God has to exact more from you. This is a lie! This is a preacher who knows nothing of the Scriptures, the New Covenant, the Gospel, or grace. Run far and fast from such false teachers!

Is the Trinity Biblical?

Please do not assume I am asserting anything here; I am merely probing.

Scripture repeatedly says there is only one God. Jews, Muslims, atheists and others find the "trinity" confusing. Even Christians find it confusing. Maybe it sounds confusing because it is confusing. After all, "God is not the author of confusion."

Jesus says, "I and the Father are one. ...the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:30-38). Where is the Holy Spirit in that equation? Nothing is ever said about the Holy Spirit being in Them and They in the Holy Spirit. How does a Spirit (John 4:24) have a spirit? Romans 8:9 speaks of "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of Christ." Philippians 1:19 speaks of "the Spirit of Christ Jesus." Which is it? The Father's spirit? The Son's spirit? Or a separate entity altogether? Are there 3 Spirits? What about where Scripture refers to the 7 Spirits of God (Is. 11:2; Rev. 1:4-5; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6)? Is God 1-in-10 and 10-in-1?

Just because something is "established," "long-standing," and/or "tradition" does not mean it is correct. Dogma can be wrong. Perhaps the "church" has failed to understand Scripture correctly and has imposed their faulty interpretation and understanding upon the Scriptures (like they often do). Maybe the "trinity" developed because it sounds like there are three people, but maybe there are actually only two: Father and Son. Maybe the Spirit is just some aspect of themselves. After all, how can the Holy Spirit be a third person, and yet be referred to as the Father's (ownership) spirit and/or the Son's (ownership) spirit?

I am not saying this is the case. The Trinity is probably the best explanation that man has come up with to explain Yahweh God, but it may also be wrong. We should be aware of and open to that. Whether someone believes in a dichotomy or a trichotomy, I can accept that. But if they reject Jesus as divine, when Scripture says "the fullness of deity" dwelled in Him (and other such statements), then they are engaging in heresy and I reject it.

Something to think about.

We should always have an open mind, willing to consider possible alternatives, but our minds should never be so open that our brains fall out. We need to rightly discern things. Remember, there are over 40,000 Christian denominations, groups, and sects. They cannot all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong. None of them hold a monopoly on the truth. Scripture should always be our ultimate authority, and any teachings from these 40,000 groups should be weighed against Scripture, discerning the difference between the Old and New Covenants, the Gospel, and grace. Regardless of how they were raised, what they were taught, or what they might presently believe, every professing Christian should be willing to change their beliefs in accordance with Scripture if they are found to be wrong, and to grow in maturity and their understanding. If you refuse to do so, you remain stagnant, ignorant and immature.

Where Should Our Eyes Be?

Theologians have a philosophy to justify the reason all pews face the pulpit! Can you believe that? (They have a philosophy for everything they do to us. The more unscriptural, the more profound the philosophy.) This particular philosophy is transparently erroneous, and, in general, is odorous. But you need to hear it. Theologians will state this indefensible idea with such spiritual profundity, it may very well intimidate you:

"We all face toward the Word of God to show our reverence for Scripture and our agreement with it."

All right, fellas, here is a philosophical reply to your philosophy about pews:

"If we all face toward the pulpit, we acknowledge that the clergy and the sermon are everything, that the clergy functions and we do not, and that the clergy tells us what to do, controls our worship, our fellowship and our very lives! We are only fringe accessories, spare parts of a meeting. We are an audience called in, making it possible for the clergy to perform!!
We should not all face forward. From a philosophical view—if your philosophy demands a philosophical response—then we should face one another. We are, after all, the Body of Christ. In so doing, we show our care and our love for one another and acknowledge the centrality of the Christ who dwells within us. We also function and participate in all meetings. Wen we do, we are fulfilling our role of functioning while facing each other, not the clergy. By facing one another we can function. In no other direction can we do this. While facing all the saints, we declare that the congregation belongs to God and to the redeemed, not to anyone else. Especially is the ownership of the congregation not the clergy's. Our central focus is not where it has been for 500 years, on the clergy. Our focus is Christ and one another; our eyes are on one another.
By looking at one another we demonstrate that any message we might hear is only part of congregation life. The clergy's sermon is not the all nor the center, nor is anything else we do. Only Christ is. And when we gather, our worship of Him is not under the absolute control of one man, or any ritual.
We face one another because we are all one body."

Pews do not allow for any functioning!

Ministers may not understand how this could be so monumentally important . . . but just look where the minister is sitting. Now he has one very spectacular view! The minister is in front, up on a raised platform, looking down. (Down on you.) What does he see? He sees a thousand well-scrubbed faces, and beautifully dressed bodies. But more! He sees 2,000 eyes glued on him. Sure! Why not pews!? All of them facing me! An actor would kill for a role like that!

The average minister will never concede to this revolution. He is too central to the production . . . all floodlights shine on him. And, generally speaking, he is bereft of all understanding of congregation life.

Now, let's step down off the platform, go into the audience (because that is what it is), and get a look at what you are seeing. Just exactly what are you seeing anyway? You sit in that pew for an our, with nothing to do but look at the back of someone's neck. That is all you see! For one hour! You sit. You are silent. You stare at the back of a head!! That is Christianity? This is why Christ died for you? When Scripture says, "Christ loved the ekklesia and died for her," is this what God had in mind as the ultimate for the redeemed!? Examining the back of someone's head, sitting through a boring ritual, listening to a lecture? Is this to be the consummation of your participation in the gathering of the Body of Christ?

Read 1 Corinthians 12:12-26. (You can continue from 12:27 through 13:13 for a fuller picture.) Does the apostle Paul's description of the Body of Christ reflect what you experience every Sunday in these godless, worthless, useless organized religious institutions called churches? NO! Your experience is limited to one tongue and many ears!! That is not the Body of Christ! That is not how a body—the Body—functions! When everyone gets to participate, when everyone gets to express the Lord Jesus, the whole Body is edified and built up, encouraged and strengthened. We need to get back to the organic meetings of the ekklesia as found in Scripture and the first three centuries!