Black death conspiracy

It has many arguments.

1, it was impossible for such a deadly disease to be spread entirely by rats, excpecially in iceland where thousands died, but there was no rat population.
The climate was not adept to sustain the huge rat populations that needed to be to spread the disease.
2, for the disease to have jumped from rats to humans, all of the rats wouldof had to die. There are no historical records of large rat die offs, or really any referece to rats dying

3,the direction it spread.... from china, asia asia minor into western europe, then north to england, then back eastwards through poland, and into russia. studies have shown the natural spread of the disease would have long engulfed russia, rather then loligaging a big semi circle around the heretic regions first, and then finally getting the barbarians.

4 the symptons indicate differently then whats reguarly told. Yes in some cases bubuses were formed. Blood clots in lymphnodes. Often the symptomns varied, but deffinetly a lot of evidence is here pertaining to respatory problems, often associated with the coughing up of blood, as well as smaller redder marks appearing on the body.

So evidence is available indicating a deeper and darker motive for the black death,
considering the wealth of the church elite during that time period, i mean quadrupled over quadruples in wealth through the obtaining of entire new lands, and manors, and raw materials and resources for production, raw wealth like gold and prcious metals, as well as a weak and fragile population, all the more easier to convince,

its a sick theory

so your saying the black death was man made...ya right

black death as military technology.....chemical warfare

I don't believe the knowledge of germs was known during the black death.

The rats were only carriers. The fleas on the rats were the problem.

In the middle ages, there were conspiracies floating through the peasent population claiming the jewish people were spiking the wells with poison. This being the case thousands of jews were rounded up an burnt alive....under the auspices of the different lords with the consolation of the catholic church.

Often it was the holy bishops striking the first match...if you know what i mean

Originally posted by epeorus
It has many arguments.

1, it was impossible for such a deadly disease to be spread entirely by rats, excpecially in iceland where thousands died, but there was no rat population.

?
Rats would've been transported into iceland by the same methods that people were transported into iceland, on boats.

2, for the disease to have jumped from rats to humans, all of the rats wouldof had to die.

Do you know what bubonic plague is?

Yes it was the fleas,
but for the fleas to jump from rats to humans, all the rats would have had to die, everysingle last one of them, and it was never recorded that huge population of rats died, or was there any mentione of much of a rat population at all, excpecially to have spread such a large disease so far, the rat infrastructure had to be massive, they would have needed modern rat technology to move themselve so far, a ratbus 737

bubonic plague
yestis pesilissal, .


there is plenty of medical literature confronting the fact that the bubonic plague wasnt neccisarily the bubonic plague, and theirs alot of propaganda of what went on. There are actually not alot of first case documents available, considering they are all looked up in the vatican.

I don't understand how a rat has to die, for the flea to jump off.

well i guess just follow your "reason", rather then going and finding out why rats have to die before the fleas leave there host

Originally posted by epeorus
Yes it was the fleas,
but for the fleas to jump from rats to humans, all the rats would have had to die, everysingle last one of them,

Are you suggesting that people are not bitten by fleas, ever?


Because as long as humans are bitten by fleas, they can pick up the disease. You don't need a large die off in the rat population. Plague is a zoonosis, you don't need a large die off in the animal population to have the disease picked up in humans.

The black death was spread similarily how the small pox was spread in the native american communities, on blanckets and in materials.

Why did they do this to the native populations witht he small pox, why did they do it to the middle ages peasents with anthrax

Originally posted by epeorus
well i guess just follow your "reason", rather then going and finding out why rats have to die before the fleas leave there host

Huh?

My reason for what? I don't need to look anywhere. Fleas are not strictly bound to one host.

The next time my dog brings fleas into my bed, and they bite my bum, I'll be sure to take him to the vet for disposal.

:edit: There is absolutely no proof that the pox was intentionally givin to the Native Americans via blankets. It's an old tale, that frankly needs to die.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by nextguyinline]

so in conclusion

the black death was a deliberate assault on the pagan and liberal peoples in order to consoladate wealth and power by the catholic church

my friend,

one who is abiding by the dali lama should not so ignorantly toss aside detrimental realities about ones past,
in canada the theory is not some tall tale but a true factual, well documented account of the infiltration of western immoral religious concepts......chemical warfare

A couple of points.

1.) The plague followed shipping routes, it didn't travel very quickly over land, but it was very rapid over water. It made it from Egypt to London in less than two years - no rat can run that fast. If you look at the spread of the black death, it followed the route taken by merchants, and struck first, and worst, in coastal cities.

2.) Some small number of individual rats in any given group are immune to plague.

3.) There are records of rats dying from plague in large numbers. The disease was first thought to be exclusive to rodents, because people witnessed them dying in large numbers in many different nations.

4.) All that said, there are alternative theories regarding the nature of the Black Death. Some folks think it was Anthrax, others think it was an Ebola-like virus. Some folks even think the rat/flea vector was superfluous, and that the disease was spread primarily by infected humans.

5.) Your theory seems predicated on the assumption that the black death benefited wealthy landowners and the church. In actuality, wages skyrocketed in the wake of the plague because so many laborers had died, the church lost a great deal of influence, and outbreaks of plague practically guaranteed peasant uprisings (ie: Ciompi Rebellion in Florence). Nevermind the fact that the plague brought upward mobility to Europe, and upward nobility is anathema to theories of conspiratorial elites. If they did mastermind it, they mucked it up something awful, because all of the results were diametrically opposed to their needs.

In any case, I think you need to do a lot more research, if you're serious about understanding the Black Death. Scholars are still beating each other senseless over it, and the damn thing happened almost seven hundred years ago.

You don't need to conclude. We understand what you are trying to say.

I'm not fond of the church myself, but germs weren't known about, until the 19th century, roughly. Pasteur has been credited, but who really knows. So If the church had no idea about how diseases worked or spread, or the fact that the concept of disease was not known, how could they have concocted germ warfare?

Originally posted by epeorus
my friend,

one who is abiding by the dali lama should not so ignorantly toss aside detrimental realities about ones past,
in canada the theory is not some tall tale but a true factual, well documented account of the infiltration of western immoral religious concepts......chemical warfare

Fair enough my friend. I don't abide by the Dalai Lama, just agree with some of his thoughts.

I'm not well versed in Canadian history, but am well aware of the atrocities committed against the natives. I was speaking south of the border, and I'm sorry I assumed you were too.

Could you give me a link or library reference to the well-documented use of blankets used to spread smallpox to Canadian Natives? Thanks.

You can do alot of research, and your going to come around alot of the same information, which non of refers to large scale rat populations dying.

There was however one great and very conclusive article written in the 1800 by a very fine medical historian. His main thesisis were pertaining to the fact that so much information doesnt exsist.

ANd further we have to go about this exploration with a conspirator mind frame. If this is such the truth, and knowing the history of the church and its expertise in the coveting of information, then this truth is going to be hard to discover, and in so many respects, its up to those with privy access to knowlege to inform us anyway they can with out actually admitting, which is what this great medical historian begins to do. He is some secret society initiate who has a true understanding of this circumstance, and who attempts to give the lay man keys to the true knowlege and reality of the experience

Please answer my question.

Without knowledge of germs, and the knowledge that they cause disease, how could the church waged germ warfare?