The rabbit hole
by Jon Rappoport
August 8, 2016
(To join our email list, click here.)
There are very few investigators on the planet who are interested in this subject. I am one of them. There is a reason why.
In many articles, I’ve written about the shocking lack of logic in the curriculum of advanced centers of learning. When I attended college, I was fortunate to have a professor who taught logic, and taught it in a way that appealed to the minds of his students. In other words, for those of us who cared, we could not only absorb the subject matter, we could think with it; for example, we could approach an area of knowledge and track it back to its most basic premises. And then we could check those premises and see whether they were true and correct. If they were incorrect, we could then challenge many accepted notions that followed from those basic untruths.
That is one of the payoffs of being able to deploy logic.
With this introduction, let me bring up the issue of disease-causation. How do researchers decide that a given virus causes a given condition?
There are many twists and turns involved in answering the question, but before being able to engage in such a discussion, a more basic factor has to be considered:
Has the virus in question ever been isolated and identified? More simply, has it ever been found?
Obviously, in order to eventually say virus A causes condition B, you have to know you’ve found, discovered, isolated virus A from some tissue sample removed from a human being.
I’m not talking about tests run on people in 2016, to decide whether they have virus A. I’m talking about the first time, the first time ever a researcher said, “I’ve found a virus we’ve never seen before. I’m calling it virus A.”
So, for example, with all the chatter about people with Ebola in recent years, the question would be: when was the first time a researcher said, “We’ve verified the existence of a virus we’ve never seen before, and we’re calling it Ebola.”
When was that, and by what procedure was this discovery made?
For many people, it’s unthinkable that scientists would say a given virus is causing many people to fall ill—and yet that virus had never really been isolated and identified—but who knows what you find out when you go down the rabbit hole?
Let’s consider HIV, the purported cause of AIDS. Independent reporter Christine Johnson conducted a magnificent and shocking rabbit-hole interview with Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…” The interview was titled: Does HIV Exist?
I’ll highlight part of the exchange, because it’s so telling and instructive. Keep in mind that what Eleni Papadopulos is saying about HIV could apply to any virus — including zika.
The interview takes up a few complex procedures, but if you read through it several times, you should be able to sort out the key points:
Christine Johnson (CJ): Does HIV cause AIDS?
Eleni Papadopulos (EP): There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.
CJ: Why not?
EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.
CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?
EP: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]
CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.
EP: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.
CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?
EP: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.
CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.
EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.
The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.
That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.
CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?
EP: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.
CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?
EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [electron microscope photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.
CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.
EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.
CJ: And what was that method?
EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.
CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?
EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.
CJ: But what about their pictures?
EP: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…”
—end of interview excerpt—
This is shocking, to say the least.
How can researchers or doctors say that HIV is causing AIDS, when the correct procedures for finding HIV and identifying it were never followed in the first place?
“HIV causes AIDS. Of course it does. But, oops, we never proved the virus exists.”
“Of course it exists. It has to.”
“Yes. Right. But we never isolated it. We never demonstrated that it exists.”
“This conversation is counter-productive. Let’s move on.”
“Yes, we must move on. We never spoke of this.”
There is no rabbit hole. Of course not.
That gaping entrance with the tunnel that goes down and down and down? Must have been some construction project that was abandoned. Or it’s just an illusion. We need corrective lenses.
Sure, and if enough people keep saying this, they’ll all forget the logic that keeps staring them in the face.
Almost two years ago, I sent the CDC a FOIA request: provide me with evidence the Ebola virus has ever been isolated from a human being and identified. I’ve never heard back.
I’ll close with another example: SARS. In 2003, this “dreaded epidemic” swept across the world. Quickly, it became apparent it was a dud. In Canada, a microbiologist, Frank Plummer, who was working for the World Health Organization (WHO), wandered off the reservation and told reporters he was puzzled by what he was seeing. Fewer and fewer people diagnosed with SARS showed any trace of the coronavirus, which WHO claimed was the cause of SARS. Plummer was essentially saying people with SARS didn’t have SARS. That was a major scandal, but the press wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.
It raised an even more basic question. Had WHO researchers ever actually found this coronavirus in the first place, or had they asserted its existence based on scanty (or no) evidence?
No one in major media asked or cared. They went along with the “epidemic” story, and when it died, they moved on to other matters.
That strategy is what passes for logic esteemed fourth estate.
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
Sir,.. I would like to be an associate research partner,..
Great investigation.
I recall that the time AIDS became the cause celeb, a woman – who’s name I cannot remember, said that her research showed that no one had every died of AIDS that wasn’t told they had it.
I bring this up because the entire point of the PR campaigns for SARS, Bird Flu, Ebola, Zika and the biggie cancer is to convince people to accept the idea of the illness, accept the notion of the treatments and manifest the illnesses stated symptoms. The best illnesses are ones tied to emotional elements, MS, Cancer, Mental Illness, things that involve “Fighting” and “Victim” and of course corresponding very, very expensive treatments which can never be proven as helpful.
The single best way to accept an illness and manifest it is to inject yourself with it via a vaccine. You’re blind faith in vaccines is also blind faith in the truth that each jab contains a system of illnesses that, when bombarded with TV ads, PR Campaigns and Government mandates will have you manifesting illnesses never proven to exist. AIDS happened because the gay community rallied around it demanding people manifest it, cry for it, and use it as their cause celeb.
BTW Jon, here’s a fun one. Look up how long Stephen Hawking has lived with ALS, then explain how this has happened at all?
Just more evidence the world is run by a bunch of willing liars that think it is OK to LIE as long as they can benefit and keep their wealth and power . When are enough people going to realize this is what is really happening ? They have kept us in constant fear for as long as I can remember and that fear list is a very long one .
All it seems they are doing now is inventing new boogie men daily to create this fear to justify taking our money so they can keep us all safe from their created horrors . When have they actually ever found a cure for anything ? Truth is, and we all realize this now thanks to people Like Jon , they do not want cures because it will make THEM obsolete . That time is coming .
Mis-identity operates by false association. From false premise logic proceeds automatically.
It wont seem like logic if the premise is insane. Un-owned and un-healed fear operates contagion of self-replicating patterning – though it can mutate or shift form and trigger infection by reactions that then validate false premise. But a sense of lack will go forth and multiply lack. An abundance of lack. Why not play a different movie, now we see how powerful is the Projector to magnify and share whatever we hold desire and focus in?
Whereas mistakes can be inadvertently followed until feedback uncovers and corrects, deceitful manipulation looks for opportunity to leverage an already active fear or guilt, by offering a displacement of the inner conflicted relational breakdown, to an outer agency of ‘causation’ – this relieves the fearful one of personal responsibility in large part because the cover story is an authority that can not only diagnose, but treat – or at least manage the ‘dis-ease’ in such a way as to to minimise or block its effects or symptoms and claim efficacy. This then proceeds to invalidate anything that would expose the ruse – because the underlying core issue is of the drive to deny and ‘escape’ extreme and intolerable inner conflict by asserted pretence and denial that is both coercive and manipulative in the name of survival relative to overwhelming experience that cannot in its timing find resolution.
The coercive mind of manipulation ‘is’ the matrix – and attracts and aligns (‘bands’) with corresponding vibratory match in others – as well as attracting and reinforcing itself by filtering or blocking any other channel of communication.
Holding contradictory premises involves very fast shifting back and forth between unrelated or opposing premises of self in such a way as to present a unifying continuity narrative – that is operating as a cover story for the engaging and protecting of a compartmentalized attention – which includes the notion of a private mind and symbolizes itself as the seemingly autonomous ‘body’ that it regards as limiting it and separating it from All That Is.
Giving priority of focus to the presentation of face – or front – bands ‘conscious experience’ and blind-siding what must not be acknowledged or shown bands those facets of self-experience as ‘unconscious’. The acting out upon body of believed ‘separation needs’ arise from assertive self-concept over a wholeness – a wholeness that has set itself into a fragmented loss of identity by summoning all the king’s horses and all the king’s men – which operates as the denial of the feeling being and of the sense-expression of body in balance – as well as the core function of blocking creative imagination – which is in a sense blamed for the mess as a self/god of good/evil who must be sacrificed to and appeased so as to stay the hand of vengeance or rage and allow some crumbs of comfort by which a tiny sense of self can ‘survive’ and in its own tiny framework focussed in as ‘the world’ prevail as a power of like kind.
A schizophrenic god with psychopathic personality facets… God and self are different frequency tags of the same idea – but the coercive denial implicit in self-concept – as an exclusive oppositional power or capacity – divides and rules out true balance in seeking only reinforcement and conformity to its self-premise – and it feels denied, betrayed, rejected and abandoned – with all the corresponding imprints of rage and fear – that are themselves denied and pushed back and down into the body – and reflecting as every kind of assault or affliction upon the body, whose original nature is covered over by layers and layers of defence of such fragmented complexity that the human conditioning is taken as a reality-premise. And the few who challenge or uncover it meet the same core intolerable separation trauma as ever – because it has not found a way to come up and be healed or undone of its false premise.
However, sickness is a crisis of healing for it is at root a call for help that often seeks only where it cannot be found – or for pre-set limited help with removing symptoms without requiring any transformation or awakening perspective of corrected error. And in extreme forms as the usurping of disease by pre-empting its own fear by sacrificing life before any disease has in fact occurred.
Mistakes can be inadvertently followed until feedback reveals the mistake – but the hatred of life that runs in the ‘back’ uses such dark pathways to effect the pushing down and denying of life.
The unworthy population becomes the scapegoat of disease and limiting the symptoms operates population ‘control’ agenda. This wont be said up front – but just back a bit is the boardroom meeting and the networking of ‘concern’ that ‘sees’ the problem as it really is and pre-empts total chaos and loss with surgical sacrifice of any proportion but that the ‘power to prevail and protect its power’ persists.
The jack in the box comes up with all the force it is pushed down. But the force is not in conflict when you recognize it is all your own. The need to box in or box off from by force, is different from simply tuning into what you want and attracting it in thought word and deed as your own creative discovery. There is no conflict in doing what you truly want. But conflicts come up to be recognized and undone. A lack of worthiness in a sense of denial and wrongness of self masking as if to ‘right’ itself only persists the original belief in lack of self. Don’t look to concept for the living – be moved – be receptive to being moved and regain a trust of balancing within all that you are – which is always more than any idea or image.
WOW ! Hard to follow, but LOGIC and recognition of the RELATIONSHIPS involved results in good understanding and that being the recognition of the TRUTH of it all.
IMnsHO and E.
About ebola… The dream remains at the CDC
“GUINEA & LIBERIA
MARCH 2016
• 13 cases
• >1200 contacts
• Sexual transmission suspected
• CDC staff supported emergency response coordination at 5 command centers and 50 health care facilities, deployment of rapid tests, and vaccination of 1750 people at-risk”
Business as usual!
😎
http://www.atcc.org/products/all/VR-84.aspx#documentation
Freeze dried Zika virus for sale. Read the FAQ. Please note the dates.
What is Zika?
Zika virus is a single-stranded RNA virus of the Flaviviridae family, genus Flavivirus (which also includes the Dengue, and West Nile Viruses). Zika virus is transmitted to humans primarily through the bite of an infected Aedes species mosquito. Zika virus was first identified in Uganda in 1947 in rhesus monkeys through a monitoring network of sylvatic yellow fever. It was subsequently identified in humans in 1952 in Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania.
For more information on the disease, please refer to the CDC website.
Under Characteristics you’ll find this:
Comments
The depositor reports that ATCC® VR-84™ can agglutinate goose and chicken RBC, and that this strain is non-pathogenic for hamster, guinea pig, or rabbit.
Accidental infection has occurred in laboratory personnel
The lyophilized culture is stable at 4°C, and should be stored at -70°C or colder once rehydrated
Effect on Host
Paralysis and death
____
But they fail to say what happened to the laboratory personnel, but it is a BSL-2 (bio safety level).
Either way, it almost looks like a rename of something that’s been around a while (yellow fever, Dengue, West Nile – maybe another rename.)
Not sure if this is the same as @Goldie’s comment.
It address the question of, “who owns the Zika virus?”
It possibly even further answers, “who benefits?”
https://www.lgcstandards-atcc.org/products/all/VR-84.aspx?geo_country=es#history
This shows clearly J. Casals, Rockefeller Foundation deposited the virus in isolation, apparently for patent.
In a way that makes sense & is not surprising. Rockerfeller seem to be globalist promoting eugenics. What better way to serve pogroms than using a weapon unseen by human eyes.
But no, the United States does not engage in chemical, biological, nuclear warfare. “Move along, nothing to see here. There is no comment.”
The problem with banding is that the researchers can never conclusively isolate so called pathogenic virus particles because prior purity can never be established. At the microscopic level that they presume to be able to operate, contamination is always present even in clean room conditions and with purified samples (regardless of equipment and material used).
The best that can be achieved is random sampling.
Even when relative purity might seem to be achieved the margin for error is still so huge because densities of similar sized particles derived from differing contaminating sources such as bacteria, fungi, microbes, organelles and other cellular detritus (which are ubiquitous) will inevitably match specific band patterns.
There is also no conformity of findings throughout the industry of viral or genetic research which leaves no-one any the wiser considering the vast amounts of funding absorbed.
This leaves us in a position with 2 choices. Either we believe or we don’t, and considering the past history of medical science it would be unwise to put any faith in such practices.