In light of what one has witnessed in the course of approximately the last five years, most readers would probably not find it difficult to relate the notion of ‘defiling (or desacralising, violating) the human body’ to the time in which we live. Think of the accumulating evidence, that the so-called Covid ‘vaccines’ contain nanoscale items which change the human body into something it was not before the jab was administered (more on this below). However, one may be less inclined to connect this idea with historical events dating back centuries, which may nonetheless be understood as providing a suitable backdrop for a comprehension of what has been happening recently, probably for a number of decades already. 

The historical events in question date back to the beginning of the 14^th century, when a papal bull (named after the leaden seal or ‘bulla’ which marked it as authentic) was issued (by Pope Boniface the 8^th), which decreed that it was prohibited by the Catholic Church to cut the body of a deceased person into pieces, because it was in conflict with the Church’s sacraments.

The context in which this happened is interesting, to say the least, and concerns the seven Christian crusades aimed at liberating Jerusalem from Mohammedan occupation. My source is the first of the fascinating two-volume study of the Dutch phenomenologist, J.H. Van den Berg, titled Het Menselijk Lichaam, Part One – Het Geopende Lichaam (The Human Body – The Opened Body; Callenbach Publishers, Nijkerk, 1959). These volumes trace the changing conceptions of the human body from approximately the 14^th century until the 20^th century, against the backdrop of Hippocrates’s notion of medical treatment in ancient Greece.  

During the Crusades, it seemed unacceptable to bury important figures among fallen soldiers in the soil of a foreign country, but sending their bodies back to Europe posed the intractable problem of the flesh decomposing in the heat – there were no cooling or freezing facilities like those of today. A ‘solution’ that presented itself was to boil the bodies, remove the flesh from the skeleton, inter the flesh in the foreign land, and return the skeleton to the country where the deceased came from. The papal bull mentioned earlier addressed this state of affairs by rejecting this practice. Here is the explanatory subtitle of the papal bull (I translate from the Dutch in Van den Berg’s book, p. 79):

Cutting the corpses into pieces and boiling them, with the aim of separating the bones, through this treatment, from the flesh, to send them for burial in their own country, is in conflict with the sacraments.

Van den Berg makes it clear that the papal bull concerned the procedure, during the Crusades, of cutting up and boiling bodies of important figures who had died, with the purpose of returning their bones to their home countries. He quotes from the bull, in which this practice was described as the ‘cruel breaking apart of bodies,’ which was ‘hideous in the eyes of God,’ to emphasise the gravity with which this matter was regarded. 

The point of elaborating on this rather grisly historical phenomenon is to highlight the intrinsic value, even sacrosanctity, that was attributed to the human body during the late Christian Middle Ages, as manifested in the horror with which what was seen as an act of desacralisation was regarded. As Van den Berg proceeds to demonstrate, this was not limited to the papal bull’s rejection of the dismemberment practice, described above, during the Crusades. In fact, it is apparent from his perspicacious interpretive analysis of the attitude of two of the first anatomists in history, Mundinus (Mondino De’Luzzi) and Vigevano (Guido da Vigavano), that the people of the time – specifically those whose attention was focused on the human body – were, to use Van den Berg’s term, ‘pervaded’ (‘doordrongen’) by this same ‘rejection’ (p. 82). 

Put differently, all the available evidence suggests that these anatomists perceived the human body, which they studied, as inviolable, sacrosanct – so much so that they recoiled from what they clearly perceived as violating it by certain acts which were required for the productive practice of their science. In the case of Mundinus this amounted to a refusal to boil the basilar bone – a section of the main skull bone, with a critical function regarding the structural integrity of the skull base and cavity – which is so complicated that it requires careful scrutiny, and was impossible to study thoroughly at the time unless all the tissue was removed from it through boiling, which also prevented decomposition. 

The puzzling thing is that Mundinus’s refusal was not explicitly prescribed by the Church; just like Vigevano after him, he was free to boil bones to facilitate anatomical study, and yet he refrained from doing this, even calling it ‘a sin’ which he ‘omitted’ (p. 81). Van den Berg observes that Mundinus was probably aware of this. Nevertheless, one is struck by the resonance of the latter’s refusal with the papal bull’s decree concerning the boiling and dismemberment of corpses.

In the case of Vigevano, Mundino’s student, his refusal to engage in what he evidently understood as the defilement or desanctification of the human body manifests itself differently. Like Mundinus, he must have known that anatomical studies involving opening (or boiling) the bodies of the deceased were not overtly forbidden by the Church, and yet, judging by the introduction to his book on anatomy (1345), he also chose to (mis-)understand the Church’s position on this. Van den Berg quotes Vigevano as follows (I translate from the Dutch; p. 83):

Because the practice of anatomical investigation has been prohibited by the Church, and medical knowledge would be imperfect for as long as it is not accompanied by insights gained from dissection, therefore shall I, Guido of Vigevano, demonstrate the anatomy of the human body by means of faithful images [that is, drawings], which makes it possible to study anatomy without being troubled by smells [probably a reference to decomposing flesh].  

Van den Berg points out the ostensible contradiction in this statement, which amounts to Vigevano saying that he practices anatomy because the Church forbids it. However, the true intention of the Italian anatomist emerges, he observes, when one reflects on the sense of providing anatomical drawings: by providing these illustrations, Vigevano was intent on preventing future anatomists from ‘sinning’ by cutting and opening up the bodies of the dead. At the same time the Dutch philosopher hastens to point out the conspicuous hypocrisy on the part of Vigevano: for the sake of his successors, and for the sake of his book, Vigevano himself must of necessity have ‘sinned’ by dissecting and observing the structure of the human body. 

The point of all of this is that both Mundinus and his student, Vigevano, were sufficiently persuaded of the sanctity of the human body (of the deceased), that – notwithstanding the fact that the Church did not prohibit the dissection of cadavers by anatomists – they nevertheless continued believing that it would be a significant sin to defile or violate human corpses by opening them up, even if this was in the interest of science. They displayed nothing less than a blind spot as far as the Church’s affirmative position on anatomical procedures was concerned, evidently motivated by a deep-rooted belief that, as the Paulinian dictum has it, ‘…your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God’ (1 Corinthians 6: 19). From this one can infer that it would equally have been regarded as a sin by them, if the body of a living person had been ‘opened up’ by physicians. 

How does this 14^th-century perspective compare with the attitude towards the human body that one witnesses in today’s world? Does one perceive a similar deference, or perhaps rather reverence, for the human body today? Putting it plainly, the medieval detour, above, puts current practices involving the human body in a perspective that should be unsettling, disconcerting, and downright disturbing to anyone who values their own body, and those of others, for the well-nigh miraculous, living entity it is. 

Anyone who doubts this merely has to take note of the many instances of one’s body recovering from serious illness. This was confirmed by an experience I recently had, unexpectedly, when – after a debilitating bout of severe vertigo, when my body reacted very negatively to the medication my doctor had prescribed, no doubt with best intentions – I gave up all conventional medication for vertigo. Instead, I started taking natural substances such as ginkgo biloba, vitamin D supplement, magnesium, and vitamin B-complex, and I have since been able to function normally. Even with these natural supports, this would arguably not have been possible without the body’s capacity to heal itself.   

Returning to the issue of violating the body, for a long time anatomists, physicians, and surgeons have no longer been bothered by the thought that it might be sinful, or ‘wrong’ to open up human bodies (in anatomy, or during surgery) when this is done to further the health, or recovery, of the person whose body it is. But somewhere along the line, the attitude that one must presuppose on the part of such well-meaning scientists and physicians changed. Unless this is assumed, one cannot possibly explain the veritable contempt, if not hatred, for human bodies that arguably underpins the development of pseudo-vaccines (referred to at the outset in this article), which demonstrably change the bodies of people in whom they are injected, into something that is no longer what they were before the jab. If you doubt this, consider this abstract of the study referred to in the article linked near the beginning of this article:

The CDC denies that COVID-19 injections from Pfizer, Moderna, or Novavax can cause magnetism, even at the site of the injection. The CDC claims that the three ferromagnetic metals consisting of iron, cobalt, and nickel, and the rare earth chemicals used in magnets cerium, hafnium, lanthanum, gadolinium, and erbium are not in the US approved injectables. However, a 2024 study using inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), detected all these and many other undeclared elements in lots of Pfizer, Moderna, and five other brands of COVID-19 injectables. By contrast with the CDC denials, James Giordano, who has become Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), has argued since 2018 that the human brain is the battleground for DARPA’s “disruptive technologies” of warfare using magnetic nanoparticles delivered “intranasally, intravenously, or intraorally” all without surgery to achieve “mind-control” by adjusting the frequencies, power, and directionality of the electromagnetic forces. The science of magnetofection is little known but has been under development for decades. We explain it here and ask, could militarized experimentation with magnetic nanoparticles be involved in causing the documented outcomes of proteinaceous clotting, cardio-vascular conditions, strokes, new autoimmune diseases, unprecedented rapidly developing “prion diseases,” “turbo” cancers, and sudden deaths many of these occurring in otherwise young and healthy recipients of the experimental COVID-19 injectables? The research discussed in this paper implies that an affirmative answer cannot be ruled out.

If the use of ‘disruptive technologies’ pertaining to ‘warfare using magnetic nanoparticles’ which are injected into the human body – supposedly, and ironically, for ‘protecting’ it against the effects of a ‘lethal’ pathogen called the ‘novel coronavirus’ – does not strike one as an assault on the integrity and intrinsic value of one’s body (or its sanctity, if you will), I would argue that one lacks a certain value orientation which is essential for human life to survive, and to flourish. Anyone who approves of the procedures described in the abstract above displays nothing less than abject nihilism – something the 14^th-century anatomists discussed earlier certainly did not display. 

Furthermore, the study cited above is one of many – too many to refer to here. Everywhere one looks, one finds similar scientific reports (never encountered in mainstream media) on the devastating outcomes the Covid ‘vaccines’ (particularly the mRNA varieties) have had on the bodies of millions of people who took the jab in good faith, never suspecting that they were nothing more than human guinea pigs. So, for instance, Frank Bergman recently reported that:

A leading American epidemiologist has warned the public that Covid mRNA “vaccines” are a “chemical lobotomy” that “cause severe brain damage and DEVASTATE mental health.”

The warning was issued by renowned McCullough Foundation epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher.

Hulscher has been one of the leading voices in raising alarms about the dangers of mRNA “vaccination.”

During a new interview with Dr. Drew, Hulscher warned that a major study has confirmed that the mRNA injections have caused multiple neurological disorders to surge.

He explains that the spike protein from the Covid shots is entering the brain and causing inflammation.

This inflammation then causes brain damage, leading to severe cognitive impairment.

Hulscher revealed that cognitive impairment has skyrocketed by a staggering 140% among those who received mRNA jabs.

One could go on and on about this – study after study reveals the ineradicably detrimental effects of the Covid ‘vaccines’ among their recipients. In the abstract of another major recent study on ‘…outcomes of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in Australia,’ in the highly rated medical journal, Nature’s Vaccines, it is stated that:

Clinical progression and medium-long term morbidity from myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations remains an important but undefined public health concern. We conducted prospective follow-up of individuals with either confirmed or probable myocarditis following monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccination between 21 April 2021 and 5 July 2022 in Australia. Of 256 individuals who consented to follow up, mostly males following a second dose, 60% (133/221) had ongoing symptoms at 3-6 months and 35% (81/231) at 12-18 months. Self-reported ongoing exercise restrictions, medication requirements, and hospital re-presentations were associated with ongoing symptoms, as was a lower self-reported health status and quality of life. 

Perhaps the final blow to our bodily integrity and its irreplaceable value comes from a 2023 study, where the researchers found that – contrary to what so-called fact-checkers had claimed – ‘…mRNA COVID vaccines permanently integrate into the DNA of some COVID-vaccinated people.’ Put bluntly, it has the capacity to alter human DNA, changing one from Homo and Gyna sapiens into something else, namely a biogenetically altered ‘variation’ on our naturally evolved hominin species. Does anyone have the right to use, or abuse, genetic science to change the human body in what can only be described as a violent, violating manner? I think not.  

It is superfluous to labour the point further; I believe it has been shown that, compared to the value attached to the human body in the 14^th century, as witnessed in the refusal of two anatomists (one of them rather ambivalently), to ‘sin’ by dissecting the deceased human body, judging by the consequences of receiving (particularly the mRNA) Covid jab in the present time, powerful agencies have no compunction about defiling and damaging the bodies of human beings. This is abundantly demonstrated by many scientific studies, which reveal the detrimental, and in many instances lethal, effects on people’s bodies of the contents of these pseudo-vaccines. I believe that this cynical disregard of the value and moral integrity of the human body – clearly perceptible in 14^th-century attitudes – is symptomatic of a pervasive nihilism on the part of the ‘people’ who have orchestrated the unconscionable assault in question.