Grand deception in virus and disease research

Grand deception in virus and disease research

by Jon Rappoport

March 31, 2017

Public health officials usually fail to announce their reasons for claiming a particular virus causes a particular disease; they make those claims in an arbitrary authoritarian fashion.

In this article, I’m going to describe two vital steps in the process of proving a virus causes a disease. There are more steps, but these two will highlight a gaping problem.

I’m putting the information in a Q&A format:

Q: Let’s say researchers are claiming there is a new outbreak of a disease, or there is a disease they’ve never seen before. What’s their first step?

A: Most of the time, they assume a virus is the cause, rather than, say, a pesticide or a medical drug. They jump in and start looking for a virus.

Q: And when they find a virus?

A: Assuming they really do find one, they then look for correlation.

Q: What does that mean?

A: Let’s say they claim they’ve discovered 600 cases of the disease. They try to find the same virus in all those people. Because, if you say a virus causes a particular disease, you have to show that virus is present in all known cases of the disease—or an overwhelming percentage of cases, at the very least.

Q: That would be proof…

A: That would be one step of proof.

Q: Suppose, in these 600 cases, they can find the same virus in a hundred cases. Isn’t that pretty significant?

A: No. It isn’t. It means you couldn’t find the virus in 500 cases. And if that’s true, there is no reason to assume you have the right virus. In fact, it’s very strong evidence you don’t have the virus that’s causing the disease. It’s a compelling reason to go back to the drawing board. You say, “Well, we were wrong about that virus, let’s look for a different one.”

Q: All right. What if you do find the virus in 583 cases out of 600? Then what do you do?

A: You have to understand that the mere PRESENCE of the virus in all those cases ISN’T PROOF it’s causing disease. Lots of people walk around with the same virus in their bodies, but that virus isn’t causing them to get sick. You have to go further.

Q: Meaning?

A: Well, the next step would be finding that the 583 cases have a whole lot of the same virus in their bodies. A great quantity of virus. Not merely a trace. Not merely a little bit.

Q: Why?

A: Because cells in the body are reproducing all the time. If the amount of virus in the body is only infecting a tiny fraction of a particular type of cell, the virus isn’t going to cause a problem. The body is going to produce gigantic numbers of fresh uninfected cells every day.

Q: Do researcher carry out this kind of investigation? Do they assess how much virus is in a person’s body?

A: There are many situations where they don’t. For example, with the Zika virus, I see no evidence researchers examined many, many cases to see how much Zika was present.

Q: Why didn’t they?

A: You’d have to ask them. Perhaps they started to do that, and found there was only a tiny bit of Zika in the babies they examined, and they didn’t want to publicize the fact. They just wanted to assume Zika was the causes of babies being born with small heads and brain damage. But assuming isn’t proving.

Q: You’re talking about a major gap in research.

A: Yes.

Q: What method is used to decide how much virus is in a person’s body?

A: There are several methods. For example, the PCR test.

Q: What’s that?

A: With the PCR, you take a tiny, tiny sample of tissue from a patient. It’s so small you can’t observe it directly. You assume, you hope, you think this sample is a fragment of a virus. Now you amplify that fragment many times, until you can observe it, until you can (hopefully) identify it as the virus you claim is causing the disease…

Q: But that test wouldn’t tell you HOW MUCH virus is in the person’s body.

A: Many researchers believe the PCR allows you to infer how much virus is in a person’s body. I see no convincing evidence they can make such an inference. But also—you have to ask yourself, why did they do the PCR test in the first place? And the answer is: they couldn’t find, by more direct methods, any virus! If they had been able to, they wouldn’t have done the PCR. In other words, there was no reason to believe the patient had enough virus in his body to make him sick.

Q: Again, it seems there is a gaping hole in the research.

A: Indeed. But that doesn’t stop scientists from claiming they’ve found the virus that is causing a disease. I would cite two examples. In 2009, the CDC was embarrassed to learn that the overwhelming percentage of tests on Swine Flu patients were coming back from labs with NO TRACE of Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus. And in 2003, in Canada, more and more SARS patients were showing NO TRACE of the SARS virus.

Q: They would be enormous scandals.

A: They should have been enormous scandals, but the news was suppressed and buried.

Q: These people who were labeled with SARS and Swine Flu—what was really making these people sick?

A: There could have been a variety of causes. Don’t assume all so-called SARS or Swine Flu patients were sick for the same reason. The symptoms of these two illnesses were vague enough and general enough to have stemmed from a variety of causes. Since that’s the case, there was no reason to use the SARS and Swine Flu labels in the first place.

Q: The labels were a deception.

A: Yes. The labels group people together when there is no compelling reason to do so. But when you DO group people together with a disease label, you can sell drugs and vaccines designed to “treat the label.”

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

9 comments on “Grand deception in virus and disease research

  1. Reblogged this on amnesiaclinic and commented:
    Vital information

  2. Tim says:

    And you can have viral RNA present, with no virus! This was on a virology blog. The virus can be cleared from a person, and viral RNA remains detectable/present for some time.

  3. joz says:

    Dr. Stefan Lanka exposes the “viral fraud” – Neue-Medizin – Similarto Dr. Stefan Lanka exposes the “viral fraud” – Neue-Medizin
    Dr. Stefan Lanka, virologist and molecular biologist, is internationally mostly known as an “AIDS dissident” (and maybe “gentechnology dissident”) who has been …

    Dr. Stefan Lanka – Why HIV has never been isolated. – YouTube
    Virologist Says Virus Pictures are a Fraud – That Means Vaccines must be a Fraud
    German virologist and molecular biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka came to startling realizations when doing his own virus research as a University Student. (translated from German):

    Viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous — in fact do not exist at all.

  4. middleway says:

    Book: An excellent historical perspective on how the medical sciences were manipulated to conform to and serve the cabals capitalist / wall street / eugenic ideologies.

    (Louis Pasteur, how this fraud, plagiarist and cabal poster-boy continues to serve as the model for many of our modern day scientific showmen and impostors (ref: Al Gore – Climate Scientist).

    The entire consensus reality paradigm is based solely on an intricate collage of false facades…

  5. Let’s assume that of 1000 people with disease X all 1000 have virus Y. And that a control group of 1000 healthy people do not have virus Y (this is already a huge stretch, as control groups are usually not used). Does that mean that virus Y causes disease X? No, it doesn’t. It could just as well be that disease X causes virus Y. And this is actually reality. Viruses don’t cause disease, but disease causes viruses. Virology is a hoax.

  6. Adaline says:

    Book Review: “The Cure for All Diseases, With Many Case Histories” — written by Hulda Regehr Clark, Ph.D.,N.D.


    Dr. Hulda Clark’s Zapper, Home-Made Manual Version make your own zapper for pretty cheap $

    “The human species can no longer afford to make a business out of illness.”
    -The late, great Dr. Hulda Clark



  7. Isn’t that “misdirection” too in a sense, Jon

    If viruses are actually “cancerous mutations of cells” caused by extraneous inorganic matter, isn’t the presumption they are containable “bio-organisms” a deception in itself?


  8. flyingcuttlefish says:

    This Rx related story has been relegated to supermarket tabloids but it most telling about big pharma pushing dangerous psychotropic drugs.

    Recall that horror story some years ago about the pet chimp that attacked that woman? It ate her face and hands off before being shot by police.

    It turns out the chimp owner laced it’s tea with Xanax that morning – before it went apeshit (no pun intended) ….

    Will Xanax put out a new paragraph on its warning label? We’ll compose it for them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *