adicheo

bubbleboy

7 min read

The provided text argues that the story of David Vetter, the “boy in the bubble,” was a hoax orchestrated to promote a particular worldview and to benefit various industries. The author claims that the narrative of a hostile, germ-filled world requiring technological protection served as preconditioning for isolationist policies.

The text questions the authenticity of David Vetter’s condition and the actions of his parents, David Vetter Jr. and Carol Ann Vetter. It highlights the family’s decision to have another child named David after their first son, also named David, died from SCID. The author points to the doctors’ alleged promises of safety and successful treatment as unusual and indicative of a fabricated scenario. The circumstances surrounding David Vetter’s birth, including the coincidence of Dr. Raphael Wilson developing his “sterile plastic bubble” idea at Texas Children’s Hospital where the Vetters were seeking help, are presented as suspicious.

Further points of skepticism include the documentary’s length and lack of genuine emotional content, the logistical challenges of caring for a baby through gloves and sterilized items, and the unexplained funding for the extensive medical care and the NASA suit. The author delves into the backgrounds of the physicians involved, Dr. Russell Blattner and Dr. Ralph Feigin, suggesting their Jewish heritage and careers, particularly Feigin’s advocacy for immunization and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, point to a connection with “Big Pharma” and “Big Insurance.” The text posits that the “bubble boy” story was a marketing tool to sell the necessity of these industries and related services, including prenatal testing for SCID.

The article also speculates on the Vetters’ true background, suggesting they were connected to Austro-German nobility through the von Fürstenberg family, linking them to Grace Kelly and Ingrid Bergman. The remarriage of Carol Ann Vetter to Kent Demaret, the journalist who covered the story, is also presented as suspicious, suggesting the possibility of “crisis actors.”

The author further questions the identity of the boy, suggesting he may have been a mentally handicapped or Hispanic child hired for the role, citing inconsistencies in photographs and the absence of the name Carlos Vetter in later searches. The text also references the satirical portrayal of the story in Seinfeld and a John Travolta movie as further evidence of its fabricated nature, implying that such portrayals would have been insensitive if the events were real. The text concludes by asserting that David Vetter never existed and that the entire narrative was a manufactured event.

Summary with Marked Entities:

The text argues that the story of David Vetter (the Bubble Boy) was a hoax orchestrated for propaganda and profit. It suggests the narrative was designed to instill fear of a hostile world, pushing people towards isolation and reliance on man-made technology, a goal they have pursued since 2020. The author questions the authenticity of David Vetter’s birth, his diagnosis of SCID, and the actions of his parents, David Vetter Jr. and Carol Ann Vetter.

Key points of suspicion include:

List of Subjects, Names, References, Locations, Companies, etc.:

Graph View