Kuru Disease Devoloping In Syria Due To Cannibalism

By Theodore Shoebat

Janelle Vaesa, a scientist with a Master of Science degree in Public Health from the University of Louisville, published an article on September of this year, in which she referenced our article on the one Syrian rebel who ate a man’s lung and on the other who barbequed a man’s head, and forewarned that kuru will arise from such cannibalism and violence, writing:

If Syrian rebels are reportedly barbequeing their enemies’ heads and eating hearts on video, are they putting themselves in danger?…Kuru, also known as the “laughing disease” can be transmitted from person to person who engage in cannibalism due to prions in the brain.

Her warning is coming to fruition. As reported from the Middle East, there are between 8 to 20 cases of kuru in Syria, and this only could have come as a result of cannibalism.

We know that kuru is contracted from eating human brains, and a potential puzzle piece to this case is the photo, which we wrote about in the previous article, of a Syrian rebel barbequing a man’s head:


How does cannibalism arise from Islam? What needs to be understood is that this violent behavior, while not being taught in the Koran, is innate within heresy. Heresy always leads to paganism.

A good example is Mormonism; Mormon theology denies the Trinity, and to many this would seem as a non-issue. But a simple study on Mormon church history shows that as the cult grew, evil and violent ideas developed, such as blood atonement, or the ritual in which a person who has committed what was viewed as an unforgivable sin (such as blaspheming Joseph Smith) had to have his throat cut and his blood drained to obtain redemption.

Another good example as to how heresy leads to paganism, is the Eutychian heretical movement of the 5th century. It was founded by one Eutyches, and he believed that Christ did not receive His flesh from the Virgin Mary, he rejected that God could not have a human body from the womb of a woman, but that His flesh was purely of a divine substance and not like our own. (1) We deem this doctrine as anti-trinitarian.

Now, most people today would perceive the Eutychians as a harmless group; their doctrines would be seen as a personal preference, and their teachings would be welcomed with the usual cliche of, ‘They believe in Jesus, and that’s all that matters.’ The modern perspective would hold this view, because modern people no longer hold Christianity as the system which dominates their lives, but a mere individual opinion amongst the others. ‘You have your belief, and I have mine,’ and if anyone questioned the Eutychians, they would be berated with the common saying, ‘theology is irrelevant, what matters is good morals.’

Lets see the later result of this heresy. A Eutychian named Timotheus, who had been a presbyter of the church of Alexandria, in his hatred of the orthodox Christians, attacked the bishop Proterius, a major opponent of their heresy, him with a mob. He fled to the holy baptistery, and when the violent multitude found him, Timotheus thrust his sword into Proterius’ bowels. They then hung his body on a chord, and like Muslims, cheered and wildly cried in pride of their murder of Proterius, and after they had dragged the perished bishop through the whole city, they burnt it and then, being most definitely under the control of demonic power, ate his intestines. (2)

How does the belief in Christ having no human nature lead them into cannibalism? Satan has no limits, and once one is in his grasp, one will be plunged into the limitless ocean of the diabolical. Islam rejects the crucifixion, and so does it seek to butcher the innocent for its own redemption.

Most Muslims are not cannibals, but at the same time, most Muslims do not understand their own theology, and how rooted it is in the lowest depths of hell.

I understand that this may be difficult to comprehend, so I would encourage you to read our extensive research on Islam and cannibalism and human sacrifice here and here.

(1) See St. John of Damascus, On Heresies, 82

(2) Evagrius, Eccles. Hist. 2.8


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,