DECLASSIFIED CIA REPORT: BIOCHEMICAL RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN ENDOPARASITES AND MALIGNANT TUMORS
In 2011 the CIA nonchalantly declassified their “sanitized copy approved for release” report on 1940s Soviet research establishing that cancers and parasites, “resemble each other in many respects by reason of similar conditions under which they grow and exist. This suggested long ago the idea in regard to the parasitic nature of tumors.”
For many years now this Substack has been exposing that cancer is akin to parasitic disease, concurrent with some form of metabolic dysfunction, not limited to VAIDS-induced cancers, and that the most effective way to cure all cancers involves a multi-pronged approach of repurposed antiparasitic compounds and diet; for example:
What is particularly fascinating is that Soviet researchers were positing over three quarters of a century ago that antiparasitic compounds like atebrin would cure cancer.
They were also already aware of the metabolic shift in tumor cells to meet increased requirements for DNA and RNA synthesis, energy production (via ATP and GTP), and signaling (via cAMP and cGMP); in other words, they were describing a kind of cancer mutation that allowed these deadly cells to adapt the “Warburg effect;” thus, allowing the cancer cells to feed on glucose, versus healthy cells which require oxygen.
Basically, the Soviets (and Americans) were well aware of these properties of cancer, and more than likely could have cured all cancers long ago if they so wanted to.
Of course, BigPharma and their Intelligence-Industrial Complex handlers had other plans, and by the 1960s they were only interested in foisting cancer-causing vaccines, carcinogenic chemicals, GMO, and other poisons on humanity, rather than actually curing cancer.
Even way back in 1896 Dr. Charles F. Craig wrote a brief scientific paper titled, THE PARASITIC ORIGIN OF CARCINOMA, where he postulated:
It is the purpose of this paper to briefly review the most important investigations upon the parasitic origin of this disease…
…these [parasitic] bodies are present in fresh cancer cells, so that they cannot be produced by changes occurring in the cells during the process of hardening. Plimmer found them present in every case of cancer which he examined (four hundred consecutive cases) and never found them in any other variety of tumor.
It is especially ironic that Dr. Craig’s historic research is currently being hosted on the NIH website.
Even BigPharma-owned sites like Cancer Research Institute (CRI) were publishing in 2014 articles titled, Do Bacteria Cause Cancer?, admitting that cancer is caused by parasites and bacteria that in turn induce chronic inflammation:
William Coley, MD, the 19th century New York surgeon known as the “Father of Cancer Immunology,” had an interesting theory about what causes cancer: he thought cancer was caused by a microbe. Some tiny organism originating outside the body had invaded and caused the cancer—much like bacteria invading the lungs cause tuberculosis (TB). This “parasitic theory of cancer” became popular at the end of the 19th century, when many common diseases such as tuberculosis, cholera, anthrax, and smallpox were shown to be caused by identifiable “germs.” Cancer too, many believed, was likely microbial in origin.
“The evidence in favor of the microparasitic origin of cancer has been steadily and rapidly accumulating until at the present moment it rests little short of absolute demonstration,” Coley wrote confidently in 1893.
The parasitic origin of cancer had many things going for it. For one, it helped to make sense of Coley’s clinical experience with bacterial toxins (“Coley’s toxins”) as a treatment for cancer. If bacterial toxins were able to kill cancer, that must be because cancer itself was caused by a microbe.
[…[
So strong was the opposition to the parasitic theory that even when The Rockefeller Institute biologist Peyton Rous, in 1911, provided clear evidence that a microscopic parasite—a virus—was able to cause cancer in farm animals, no one believed him. It was not until 1966 that Rous’s discovery of chicken sarcoma virus was vindicated, by a Nobel Prize, when Rous was 86 years old.
[…]
Today, scientists realize that Virchow was largely correct. Chronic inflammation, triggered by bacteria, can lead to the production of DNA-damaging molecules that cause mutations; this, combined with signals to produce new cells and grow new blood vessels—hallmarks of wound healing—can create a fertile ground for the emergence and growth of cancer.
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; - Exodus 20:5
The MMR vaccine contains a live measles virus, according to the manufacturer.
The live measles virus in the MMR vaccine is the product of gain-of-function (GOF) laboratory experiments, meaning it is deliberately engineered to enhance its ability to infect more human cells than the wild-type measles virus is able to, and may retain characteristics that enable transmission and replication in the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.
The live virus in the vaccine can be shed for weeks from the vaccinated, potentially infecting the unvaccinated. A 1995 CDC study found that 83% of vaccinated children had measles virus shed in their urine. An April 2012 publication in the peer-reviewed journal Paediatrics & Child Health reported a child was being investigated after developing a new-onset measles-type rash after receiving a measles vaccine, meaning the shot can cause disease in the vaccinated. Nucleic acid testing confirmed that a “vaccine-type measles virus was being shed in the [child’s] urine.” A 2014 study in Clinical Infectious Diseases confirms that vaccinated individuals can transmit measles to multiple contacts.
There are no peer-reviewed studies that confirm the virus in the measles vaccine is less infectious or replicates less in humans than the wild-type virus found in nature, meaning health officials have no scientific basis for claiming the vaccine strain poses a lower transmission risk to the unvaccinated.
The claim that many of these measles cases are from wild-type measles viruses and not the live virus in the vaccine is undermined by the fact that the PCR test used as evidence of wild-type infection is only reliable less than 3% of the time. Research in Access Microbiology highlights that standard PCR assays might not effectively distinguish between vaccine and wild-type strains. The CDC has confirmed that PCR tests often misinterpret measles vaccine virus infection as wild-type measles infection: “Inability of these testing panels to differentiate between measles virus causing illness and incidental detection of measles vaccine virus RNA can have significant public health reporting and response ramifications, potentially leading to misdiagnosis of measles virus infection,” writes CDC. BLAST analysis shows that the CDC’s measles RT-PCR forward primer, reverse primer, and fluorescent probe all have numerous perfect or near-perfect contiguous matches to the human genome (15–20 bases, up to 100% identity), meaning the assay can generate a positive PCR signal based on human genetic material rather than the measles virus itself.
95% of infants develop fever after measles vaccination, 16% develop more serious measles-like symptoms; and in 70% of vaccinated children with measles-like illness, health officials can not tell if the vaccine pathogen or a wild measles virus caused the illness, according (here) to the journal BMC Infectious Diseases.
CDC data show that 95% of U.S. measles cases are “unvaccinated or unknown,” but because the agency merges confirmed unvaccinated individuals with cases where vaccination status is simply unknown, the dataset obscures how many infections actually occurred in vaccinated versus unvaccinated people.
Measles outbreaks have followed government-led vaccination campaigns in Texas, Canada, and Hawaii, raising concerns of vaccine-caused infections.
Texas administered 15,000 more measles vaccinations in 2025 compared to 2024. The state subsequently suffered a growing measles outbreak that surpassed the total number of cases reported across the entire United States the previous year.
A 12-month-old girl in Michigan who was infected with measles had received an MMR vaccine.
Southern New Mexico’s most populous and vaccinated county, Doña Ana, reported its first measles infection after the state nearly doubled its measles vaccination rate compared to 2024.
Virginia’s first confirmed measles case in 2025 occurred in a child following state and local health officials issuing multiple public health announcements urging residents to get the MMR shot.
Just weeks after the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) rolled out a “measles simulator dashboard” meant to pressure students and residents into receiving MMR vaccines, Illinois reported its first confirmed measles case of 2025.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment recently confirmed a fifth case of measles in Colorado in 2025 in a Denver County adult resident with verified measles (MMR) vaccination records.
In May 2025, Texas and New Mexico had the sharpest increase in measles vaccination—they also had the most measles cases.
The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported a confirmed case of measles in central Iowa in an adult following a state-led MMR vaccination campaign, raising questions as to whether the efforts to boost vaccination rates led to the infection.
Dallas’ first measles case was found in a “fully vaccinated” woman.
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; - Exodus 20:5