The Babies and The Vaccine

Protecting your baby from a virus that doesn’t exist, with a killshot

by Jon Rappoport

June 16, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

So you’ve had your eight-month-old baby injected with the COVID vaccine.

Of course.

And the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t exist.

I’ve heard that. But it’s not the issue for us.

What is the issue for you?

Making a fashion statement.

How so?

We need to stay in the forefront of trends.

Why?

Why wouldn’t we?

Have you seen the federal database that records vaccine injury and death reports?

Of course.

So you know your baby could die from the shot.

Yes.

And that doesn’t matter to you.

Not as much as being able to tell our friends we had our baby vaccinated.

You, as parents—

That’s a misunderstood term. We don’t consider ourselves parents. The State is the parent. We’re the monitors.

Monitors?

We observe, and carry out limited functions.

Even if you assume the virus exists, the chances of your baby catching it and becoming ill are incredibly tiny.

That’s right. But this isn’t what we’re about. As I said, we’re keeping pace with fashion.

Are you human?

It depends on how you define the term. Humans are biological machines. Most people believe in something beyond that, but the content of belief is predetermined by a person’s upbringing, genes, conditioning, and so on.

Have you ever questioned vaccine science?

There’s nothing to question. We understand science. I have a PhD in psychology, and my husband is a software engineer. My IQ is 141. My husband’s is 136. We’re equipped to deal with vaccine issues.

If your baby died from the shot, would you mourn?

Yes. We would post photos and statements on our Facebook page.

—No doubt, some people would take offense at this “interview.” How could I? Here’s how. I wrote it. I wrote it because the government and Pfizer and Moderna—no matter how they interpret COVID and “the virus”—are moving ahead to inject as many babies as possible—which is a crime of mass assault and mass murder. Many parents will go along with it.


power outside the matrix

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


To read Jon’s articles on Substack, 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.

Pandemico, Movie of The Mind

by Jon Rappoport

June 14, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

This movie has been produced in many ways, in many minds.

In all cases, the theme is the same: DO NOT LIVE YOUR LIFE OUT IN THE OPEN.

Instead obey all restrictions. SHUT IT DOWN.

Believe in the dangers you’re told to believe in.

In the final analysis, this movie was a box office hit because most people gave in. Their fears may have hooked into different parts of the COVID narrative, but the deciding factor WAS fear.

A nation, a world paralyzed by fear.

And yes, lurking in the background (or in some countries, in the foreground) was the fact that the State had cops and guns and detainment facilities.

I’ve spent many hours detailing that, at one time, the citizenry would have risen up, en masse, and rebelled against the State. They would have shrugged off pandemic declarations. They would have risked everything to keep LIVING THEIR LIVES OUT IN THE OPEN.

Because at one time, freedom meant more.

The individual meant more.

People making up their own minds meant more.

Predatory groups organized to cut themselves in on a piece of the government pie meant less.

All these groups, from BLM to Climate Change, demand less freedom. That is their unspoken bottom line. And their justifications for this demand are bogus and fabricated.

They’re basically FRIENDS OF THE STATE.

Readers who have been with me for a long time know that, in 1988, I started warning people that the medical cartel was the most dangerous cartel in the world. It was seeking medical dictatorship.

I knew that in 1988, because I was meeting radical natural health advocates—tough, smart, resilient people. THEY had been warning about medical dictatorship for the previous 20, 30 years.

When I saw what my research on a phantom virus called HIV was proving, I knew civilization was in for some very rough times. All sorts of medical fantasies would be used to destroy freedom.

As Ben Franklin made clear, people WERE willing to trade that freedom for a false sense of security.

The past two years have proved it in spades.

But they’ve also proved something else. There is a limit to what people will take.

So I write this piece to say the restrictions could be coming again.

And if they do, we don’t need another two years to realize what the game really is.

We have to say NO from the get-go. We have to put fear aside and risk everything for freedom.

It wouldn’t be the first time people did, you know.

Face it, we’re all suffering from a false sense of security. Fortunately, we don’t have to succumb. We can be the individuals we dream of being, against whatever the State launches against us.

There are beasts among us. It turns out that many of them have no faces. They are the reincarnation of men and women who sat at desks and signed warrants for the death camps.

Gambling that life without freedom can still be a good life is a disastrous bet.

In the founding documents of America—the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution—the idea of freedom was there. Individual freedom with responsibility.

Before the ink was dry, the attacks on freedom commenced. Freedom has been dented, battered, smashed, and yes, betrayed, from all quarters. But it still stands and shines.

Evil creatures want to bury it for good. Now.

Their only fear is we won’t let them.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


To read Jon’s articles on Substack, 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.

The Big-time Vaccine Scam: Antibodies

by Jon Rappoport

June 13, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

(This article is Part-4 in a series. For Part-3, click here.)

This is another article in which I assume, for the purposes of argument only, that virologists are actually discovering viruses, and vaccines are launched to prevent viral diseases.

Why do I bother? Because most people belong to the virus religion. They have faith. They pray at the altar of the virus.

OK. What is the role of antibodies in vaccines?

We’re told that the vaccine produces a beneficial antibody response. These antibody scouts of the immune system rush to the scene and identify the injected viruses or parts of viruses—thereby alerting the foot soldiers of the immune system, which march forward and destroy/neutralize the viral components.

Thus, vaccination is a rehearsal for the real thing. It prepares the body for the later moment when the virus naturally shows up. The body is ready to defeat the actual disease.

In my previous article on that subject, I showed the rehearsal is a farce. It doesn’t prepare the immune system for anything.

The so-called adjuvants in the vaccine, which are supposed to enhance and magnify the immune response, simply stimulate a reaction against themselves, the adjuvants.

Now, I’m going further.

Below, I’m going to republish an excerpt from a devastating Christine Johnson article which shows the failure of the HIV antibody test.

Johnson’s article proves that antibodies, which are supposed to be specific to HIV and only HIV, meaning they only swing into action when HIV appears, are responding to all sorts of substances in the body, none of which has anything to do with HIV.

This means the antibodies aren’t “specific.” They aren’t just marching to one tune. They’re marching to many different tunes.

In the case of vaccination, antibodies can appear because: there are intrusive non-viral substances in the vaccine; or there are intrusive non-viral substances already in the body.

Defenders of vaccination might respond, “Suppose antibodies are responding to six different factors in the vaccine. One of those factors would be the virus in the vaccine. So that’s good.”

BUT if antibodies are really general and not specific, how do we know they actually react to a virus in a vaccine and not something else in the vaccine or the body?

We don’t know.

We’re looking at false science, science without a punch line.

Here is an excerpt from the 1996 Christine Johnson article on the HIV blood test — with the corresponding reference number(s) to the scientific literature:

Factors Known to Cause False-Positive HIV Antibody Test Results:

* Anti-carbohydrate antibodies (52, 19, 13)

* Naturally-occurring antibodies (5, 19)

* Passive immunization: receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies)(18, 26, 60, 4, 22, 42, 43, 13)

* Leprosy (2, 25)

* Tuberculosis (25)

* Mycobacterium avium (25)

* Systemic lupus erythematosus (15, 23)

* Renal (kidney) failure (48, 23, 13)

* Hemodialysis/renal failure (56, 16, 41, 10, 49)

* Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients (54)

* Flu (36)

* Flu vaccination (30, 11, 3, 20, 13, 43)

* Herpes simplex I (27)

* Herpes simplex II (11)

* Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu)(11)

* Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines (11)

* Pregnancy in multiparous women (58, 53, 13, 43, 36)

* Malaria (6, 12)

* High levels of circulating immune complexes (6, 33)

* Hypergammaglobulinemia (high levels of antibodies) (40, 33)

* False positives on other tests, including RPR (rapid plasma reagent) test for syphilis (17, 48, 33, 10, 49)

* Rheumatoid arthritis (36)

* Hepatitis B vaccination (28, 21, 40, 43)

* Tetanus vaccination (40)

* Organ transplantation (1, 36)

* Renal transplantation (35, 9, 48, 13, 56)

* Anti-lymphocyte antibodies (56, 31)

* Anti-collagen antibodies (found in gay men, haemophiliacs, Africans of both sexes and people with leprosy)(31)

* Serum-positive for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody (both found in rheumatoid arthritis and other autoantibodies)(14, 62, 53)

* Autoimmune diseases (44, 29, 10, 40, 49, 43): Systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis

* Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections (59, 48, 43, 53, 40, 13)

* Malignant neoplasms (cancers)(40)

* Alcoholic hepatitis/alcoholic liver disease (32, 48, 40,10,13, 49, 43, 53)

* Primary sclerosing cholangitis (48, 53)

* Hepatitis (54)

* “Sticky” blood (in Africans) (38, 34, 40)

* Antibodies with a high affinity for polystyrene (used in the test kits)(62, 40, 3)

* Blood transfusions, multiple blood transfusions (63, 36,13, 49, 43, 41)

* Multiple myeloma (10, 43, 53)

* HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens)(7, 46, 63, 48, 10, 13, 49, 43, 53)

* Anti-smooth muscle antibody (48)

* Anti-parietal cell antibody (48)

* Anti-hepatitis A IgM (antibody)(48)

* Anti-Hbc IgM (48)

* Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before 1985 (10)

* Haemophilia (10, 49)

* Haematologic malignant disorders/lymphoma (43, 53, 9, 48, 13)

* Primary biliary cirrhosis (43, 53, 13, 48)

* Stevens-Johnson syndrome9, (48, 13)

* Q-fever with associated hepatitis (61)

* Heat-treated specimens (51, 57, 24, 49, 48)

* Lipemic serum (blood with high levels of fat or lipids)(49)

* Haemolyzed serum (blood where haemoglobin is separated from the red cells)(49)

* Hyperbilirubinemia (10, 13)

* Globulins produced during polyclonal gammopathies (which are seen in AIDS risk groups)(10, 13, 48)

* Healthy individuals as a result of poorly-understood cross-reactions (10)

* Normal human ribonucleoproteins (48,13)

* Other retroviruses (8, 55, 14, 48, 13)

* Anti-mitochondrial antibodies (48, 13)

* Anti-nuclear antibodies (48, 13, 53)

* Anti-microsomal antibodies (34)

* T-cell leukocyte antigen antibodies (48, 13)

* Proteins on the filter paper (13)

* Epstein-Barr virus (37)

* Visceral leishmaniasis (45)

* Receptive anal sex (39, 64)

References:

1. Agbalika F, Ferchal F, Garnier J-P, et al. 1992. False-positive antigens related to emergence of a 25-30 kD protein detected in organ recipients. AIDS. 6:959-962.

2. Andrade V, Avelleira JC, Marques A, et al. 1991. Leprosy as a cause of false-positive results in serological assays for the detection of antibodies to HIV-1. Intl. J. Leprosy. 59:125.

3. Arnold NL, Slade RA, Jones MM, et al. 1994. Donor follow up of influenza vaccine-related multiple viral enzyme immunoassay reactivity. Vox Sanguinis. 67:191.

4. Ascher D, Roberts C. 1993. Determination of the etiology of seroreversals in HIV testing by antibody fingerprinting. AIDS. 6:241.

5. Barbacid M, Bolgnesi D, Aaronson S. 1980. Humans have antibodies capable of recognizing oncoviral glycoproteins: Demonstration that these antibodies are formed in response to cellular modification of glycoproteins rather than as consequence of exposure to virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1617-1621.

6. Biggar R, Melbye M, Sarin P, et al. 1985. ELISA HTLV retrovirus antibody reactivity associated with malaria and immune complexes in healthy Africans. Lancet. ii:520-543.

7. Blanton M, Balakrishnan K, Dumaswala U, et al. 1987. HLA antibodies in blood donors with reactive screening tests for antibody to the immunodeficiency virus. Transfusion. 27(1):118.

8. Blomberg J, Vincic E, Jonsson C, et al. 1990. Identification of regions of HIV-1 p24 reactive with sera which give “indeterminate” results in electrophoretic immunoblots with the help of long synthetic peptides. AIDS Res. Hum. Retro. 6:1363.

9. Burkhardt U, Mertens T, Eggers H. 1987. Comparison of two commercially available anti-HIV ELISA’s: Abbott HTLV-III ELA and DuPont HTLV-III ELISA. J. Med. Vir. 23:217.

10. Bylund D, Ziegner U, Hooper D. 1992 Review of testing for human immunodeficiency virus. Clin. Lab. Med. 12:305-333.

11. Challakere K, Rapaport M. 1993. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 ELISA results in low-risk subjects. West. J. Med. 159(2):214-215.

12. Charmot G, Simon F. 1990. HIV infection and malaria. Revue du practicien. 40:2141.

13. Cordes R, Ryan M. 1995. Pitfalls in HIV testing. Postgraduate Medicine. 98:177.

14. Dock N, Lamberson H, O’Brien T, et al. 1988. Evaluation of atypical human immunodeficiency virus immunoblot reactivity in blood donors. Transfusion. 28:142.

15. Esteva M, Blasini A, Ogly D, et al. 1992. False positive results for antibody to HIV in two men with systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 51:1071-1073.

16. Fassbinder W, Kuhni P, Neumayer H. et al. 1986. Prevalence of antibodies against LAV/HTLV-III [HIV] in patients with terminal renal insufficiency treated with hemodialysis and following renal transplantation. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift. 111:1087.

17. Fleming D, Cochi S, Steece R. et al. 1987. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in low-incidence areas. JAMA. 258(6):785.

18. Gill MJ, Rachlis A, Anand C. 1991. Five cases of erroneously diagnosed HIV infection. Can. Med. Asso. J. 145(12):1593.

19. Healey D, Bolton W. 1993. Apparent HIV-1 glycoprotein reactivity on Western blot in uninfected blood donors. AIDS. 7:655-658.

20. Hisa J. 1993. False-positive ELISA for human immunodeficiency virus after influenza vaccination. JID. 167:989.

21. Isaacman S. 1989. Positive HIV antibody test results after treatment with hepatitis B immune globulin. JAMA. 262:209.

22. Jackson G, Rubenis M, Knigge M, et al. 1988. Passive immunoneutralisation of human immunodeficiency virus in patients with advanced AIDS. Lancet, Sept. 17:647.

23. Jindal R, Solomon M, Burrows L. 1993. False positive tests for HIV in a woman with lupus and renal failure. NEJM. 328:1281-1282.

24. Jungkind D, DiRenzo S, Young S. 1986. Effect of using heat-inactivated serum with the Abbott human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III [HIV] antibody test. J. Clin. Micro. 23:381.

25. Kashala O, Marlink R, Ilunga M. et al. 1994. Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and human T-cell lymphotropic viruses among leprosy patients and contacts: correlation between HIV-1 cross-reactivity and antibodies to lipoarabionomanna. J. Infect. Dis. 169:296-304.

26. Lai-Goldman M, McBride J, Howanitz P, et al. 1987. Presence of HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in immune serum globulin preparations. Am. J. Clin. Path. 87:635.

27. Langedijk J, Vos W, Doornum G, et al. 1992. Identification of cross-reactive epitopes recognized by HIV-1 false-positive sera. AIDS. 6:1547-1548.

28. Lee D, Eby W, Molinaro G. 1992. HIV false positivity after hepatitis B vaccination. Lancet. 339:1060.

29. Leo-Amador G, Ramirez-Rodriguez J, Galvan-Villegas F, et al. 1990. Antibodies against human immunodeficiency virus in generalized lupus erythematosus. Salud Publica de Mexico. 32:15.

30. Mackenzie W, Davis J, Peterson D. et al. 1992. Multiple false-positive serologic tests for HIV, HTLV-1 and hepatitis C following influenza vaccination, 1991. JAMA. 268:1015-1017.

31. Mathe G. 1992. Is the AIDS virus responsible for the disease? Biomed & Pharmacother. 46:1-2.

32. Mendenhall C, Roselle G, Grossman C, et al. 1986. False-positive tests for HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in alcoholic patients with hepatitis. NEJM. 314:921.

33. Moore J, Cone E, Alexander S. 1986. HTLV-III [HIV] seropositivity in 1971-1972 parenteral drug abusers – a case of false-positives or evidence of viral exposure? NEJM. 314:1387-1388.

34. Mortimer P, Mortimer J, Parry J. 1985. Which anti-HTLV-III/LAV [HIV] assays for screening and comfirmatory testing? Lancet. Oct. 19, p873.

35. Neale T, Dagger J, Fong R, et al. 1985. False-positive anti-HTLV-III [HIV] serology. New Zealand Med. J. October 23.

36. Ng V. 1991. Serological diagnosis with recombinant peptides/proteins. Clin. Chem. 37:1667-1668.

37. Ozanne G, Fauvel M. 1988. Perfomance and reliability of five commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits in screening for anti-human immunodeficiency virus antibody in high-risk subjects. J. Clin. Micro. 26:1496.

38. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. 1988. Reappraisal of AIDS – Is the oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause? Med. Hypo. 25:151.

39. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner V, and Papadimitriou J. 1993. Is a positive Western blot proof of HIV infection? Bio/Technology. June 11:696-707.

40. Pearlman ES, Ballas SK. 1994. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus screening test related to rabies vaccination. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 118-805.

41. Peternan T, Lang G, Mikos N, et al. Hemodialysis/renal failure. 1986. JAMA. 255:2324.

42. Piszkewicz D. 1987. HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies after immune globulin. JAMA. 257:316.

43. Profitt MR, Yen-Lieberman B. 1993. Laboratory diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Inf. Dis. Clin. North Am. 7:203.

44. Ranki A, Kurki P, Reipponen S, et al. 1992. Antibodies to retroviral proteins in autoimmune connective tissue disease. Arthritis and Rheumatism. 35:1483.

45. Ribeiro T, Brites C, Moreira E, et al. 1993. Serologic validation of HIV infection in a tropical area. JAIDS. 6:319.

46. Sayers M, Beatty P, Hansen J. 1986. HLA antibodies as a cause of false-positive reactions in screening enzyme immunoassays for antibodies to human T-lymphotropic virus type III [HIV]. Transfusion. 26(1):114.

47. Sayre KR, Dodd RY, Tegtmeier G, et al. 1996. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Western blot tests in non-infected blood donors. Transfusion. 36:45.

48. Schleupner CJ. Detection of HIV-1 infection. In: (Mandell GI, Douglas RG, Bennett JE, eds.) Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:1092.

49. Schochetman G, George J. 1992. Serologic tests for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus infection. In AIDS Testing Methodology and Management Issues, Springer-Verlag, New York.

50. Simonsen L, Buffington J, Shapiro C, et al. 1995. Multiple false reactions in viral antibody screening assays after influenza vaccination. Am. J. Epidem. 141-1089.

51. Smith D, Dewhurst S, Shepherd S, et al. 1987. False-positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactions for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus in a population of midwestern patients with congenital bleeding disorders. Transfusion. 127:112.

52. Snyder H, Fleissner E. 1980. Specificity of human antibodies to oncovirus glycoproteins; Recognition of antigen by natural antibodies directed against carbohydrate structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1622-1626.

53. Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. 1988. Serologic testing for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin. Proc. 63:373.

54. Sungar C, Akpolat T, Ozkuyumcu C, et al. Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients. Nephron. 67:251.

55. Tribe D, Reed D, Lindell P, et al. 1988. Antibodies reactive with human immunodeficiency virus gag-coated antigens (gag reactive only) are a major cause of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactivity in a bood donor population. J. Clin. Micro. April:641.

56. Ujhelyi E, Fust G, Illei G, et al. 1989. Different types of false positive anti-HIV reactions in patients on hemodialysis. Immun. Let. 22:35-40.

57. Van Beers D, Duys M, Maes M, et al. Heat inactivation of serum may interfere with tests for antibodies to LAV/HTLV-III [HIV]. J. Vir. Meth. 12:329.

58. Voevodin A. 1992. HIV screening in Russia. Lancet. 339:1548.

59. Weber B, Moshtaghi-Borojeni M, Brunner M, et al. 1995. Evaluation of the reliability of six current anti-HIV-1/HIV-2 enzyme immunoassays. J. Vir. Meth. 55:97.

60. Wood C, Williams A, McNamara J, et al. 1986. Antibody against the human immunodeficiency virus in commercial intravenous gammaglobulin preparations. Ann. Int. Med. 105:536.

61. Yale S, Degroen P, Tooson J, et al. 1994. Unusual aspects of acute Q fever-associated hepatitis. Mayo Clin. Proc. 69:769.

62. Yoshida T, Matsui T, Kobayashi M, et al. 1987. Evaluation of passive particle agglutination test for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus. J. Clin. Micro. Aug:1433.

63. Yu S, Fong C, Landry M, et al. 1989. A false positive HIV antibody reaction due to transfusion-induced HLA-DR4 sensitization. NEJM.320:1495.

64. National Institue of Justice, AIDS Bulletin. Oct. 1988.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


To read Jon’s articles on Substack, 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.

Another COVID Vaccine smoking gun

by Jon Rappoport

June 10, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

(This article is Part-3 in a series. For Part-4, click here. For Part-2, click here.)

I’m going to start with a bizarre analogy, which illustrates the folly called vaccination.

A boy of 16 who lives on a farm has been driving vehicles all over the land since he was 11. He’s driven cars, trucks, and tractors. He’s driven them on roads, across fields, and on many occasions with his father beside him, he’s driven cars and trucks on city streets and highways. The boy knows how to drive. He’s a pro.

But when he turns 16, his father is on vacation, and his uncle comes to stay with the family. The uncle is quite insane. He tells the boy, “I’m going to put you through a training course in driving. It’s a rehearsal for the real thing.”

Against the protests of the boy, the uncle sits him in a closed car, which is specially equipped to pump amphetamines into the air. The uncle says, “The drug will make you more alert when you drive. So you’ll have enhanced skills. You’ll become a better driver with this rehearsal…so when you actually get your license, you’ll be ready for the real thing…”

“But I can already drive better than you can,” the boy says.

“Shut up,” his uncle tells him.

I call vaccination a rehearsal, because that’s what it’s supposed to be.

The immune system is tuned up for the possible later appearance of “the real thing.”

For the moment, put aside the fact that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist and therefore a vaccine is entirely irrelevant.

For the many who believe in the virus, here’s a question. Why does the use of a vaccine, as rehearsal for the real thing, make any sense at all?

If the immune system springs into action against the virus (or a virus protein) in the vaccine, why wouldn’t it also spring into action when the virus shows up naturally? What’s the point of the prior rehearsal? Isn’t the body already ready for the real thing?

It turns out there is a medical answer. Vaccines contain various substances called adjuvants. Their function is to enhance the immune response during the rehearsal, better preparing it for the moment when the real thing comes along.

COVID RNA vaccines contain an adjuvant called PEG. Polyethylene glycol.

However, as many scientists know, PEG can cause a dangerous anaphylactic reaction. Not good.

Why does PEG cause that reaction?

Because antibodies over-respond to PEG.

Think it through. The body’s immune system isn’t being enhanced during the rehearsal called vaccination. The adjuvant (PEG) isn’t causing the immune system antibodies to ramp up against the spike protein in the virus. The adjuvant is causing the immune system to attack it, the adjuvant.

Oops.

Therefore, what good is the vaccine?

And we’re not just talking about the adjuvant called PEG. By implication, this anaphylactic response suggests that ALL adjuvants in all vaccines aren’t really enhancing immune response against viruses. Instead, they’re provoking antibody reactions to themselves, the adjuvants.

In which case, I return to my original question: why bother with the rehearsal called vaccination, since it proves nothing except the body is already prepared for the real thing. And so the vaccination wasn’t needed.

Here are excerpts from an article in Science (12/21/20), “Suspicions grow that nanoparticles in Pfizer’s COVID vaccine [and Moderna’s] trigger rare allergic reactions.” You can plow through and dig out the nuggets that, taken together, illustrate what I’ve just presented.

The caps in the following quotes are mine.

“Severe allergy-like reactions in at least eight people who received the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech [Pfizer] over the past 2 weeks may be due to a compound in the packaging of the messenger RNA (mRNA) that forms the vaccine’s main ingredient, scientists say. A similar mRNA vaccine developed by Moderna, which was authorized for emergency use in the United States on Friday, also contains the compound, polyethylene glycol (PEG).”

“PEG has never been used before in an approved vaccine, but it is found in many drugs that have occasionally triggered anaphylaxis—a potentially life-threatening reaction that can cause rashes, a plummeting blood pressure, shortness of breath, and a fast heartbeat. Some allergists and immunologists believe a small number of people previously exposed to PEG may have HIGH LEVELS OF ANTIBODIES AGAINST PEG, putting them at risk of an anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine.”

“The two vaccines both contain mRNA wrapped in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that help carry it to human cells, BUT ALSO ACT AS AN ADJUVANT, A VACCINE INGREDIENT THAT BOLSTERS THE IMMUNE RESPONSE. The LNPs are ‘PEGylated’—chemically attached to PEG molecules that cover the outside of the particles and increase their stability and life span.”

“PEGs were long thought to be biologically inert, but a growing body of evidence suggests they are not. As much as 72% of people have at least SOME ANTBODIES AGAINST PEGs, according to a 2016 study led by Samuel Lai, a pharmaco-engineer at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, presumably as a result of exposure to cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. About 7% have a level that may be high enough to predispose them to anaphylactic reactions, he found.”

Boom.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


To read Jon’s articles on Substack, 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.

One more time: where is the spike protein?

by Jon Rappoport

June 9, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

(This article is Part-2 in a series. For Part-1, click here. For Part-3, click here.)

I was going to recapitulate the evidence that the virus, SARS-CoV-2, doesn’t exist. But I decided to leave it out of this article. I’m just going to focus on the vaccine and what it’s supposed to be doing.

Let’s say you’re a vaccine researcher. You develop a new type of shot that deploys RNA.

The RNA, when injected, has one purpose. It induces cells of the body to produce something called the spike protein. That’s it.

According to your theory, the body’s immune system will spring into action and mount a neutralizing attack against this protein.

As result, when the “real thing” comes along—the virus, which contains the spike protein—the vaccinated person will be protected. His immune system will ward off the virus.

Since, again, the whole and only reason you’re injecting the RNA shot is to make the body produce the spike protein…

Aren’t you going to make sure the body is, in fact, producing that protein?

Of course you are.

How will you do that?

In the only way you can.

You’ll line up 10 or 20 thousand vaccinated people and test them.

You’ll test them to make sure you can find that spike protein in their bodies.

So show me the study.

Show me that vaccine researchers and vaccine makers and the FDA actually had that study done.

Where is it?

I’m not talking about looking at three patients in China or Berlin or New York. I’m talking about an extensive test to make sure the vaccine is doing the ONE thing it’s supposed to be doing. Across the population.

I don’t see that study anywhere.

A couple of people have told me, “Well, OF COURSE the vaccine causes the body to make the spike protein. That’s what the RNA technology is all about. We KNOW that. The technology is WELL ESTABLISHED.”

So is the safety of drugs, until the drugs start killing lots of people.

I want something simple. Verification. Across the population. Verification that the vaccine is doing the one thing it’s supposed to be doing.

And I want to know why this verification hasn’t been attempted.

One professor actually told me, “Perhaps you might be able to devise a test that would detect the spike protein directly in the body…but it might be very difficult to do that…”

Really? In other words, a vaccine was developed to do a thing it might be impossible to verify?

And this was understood up front?

A few months ago, someone sent me a study. She said the study showed the spike protein HAD been found in vaccinated people. I read the study. First of all, the authors were reporting on just a few people. No good. Not useful. Second, as far as I could tell, the method of finding the spike protein was suspect. It relied on detecting indirect and unreliable markers that supposedly proved (but didn’t prove) that the protein was present in these few people. No good. Not useful.

Where is the large correctly done study?

I don’t find it anywhere.

Dr. Andrew Kaufman, who has dismantled and exposed the non-scientific process by which virologists’ claimed to have discovered SARS-CoV-2, offers these important comments about the spike protein:

“You can buy a readily available SARS-Cov-2 Spike protein antibody which can be used in a standard western blot or ELISA to test recipients of the injections for the spike protein. This is cheap and easy to do. Why hasn’t it been done?”

I believe the answer is clear. The scientists and bureaucrats in charge don’t want to run the test. They want to avoid finding out whether the one thing the vaccine is supposed to achieve isn’t being achieved. They want to avoid finding out the vaccine, on their own terms, is a total failure.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


To read Jon’s articles on Substack, 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.

A new point about the missing virus

by Jon Rappoport

June 8, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

(This article is Part-1 in a series. For Part-2, click here.)

Actually, this is a point I’ve made before, but now I’m boiling it down to the bare essentials.

Here we go:

If you were a) honest and b) the head of a major public health agency, there is something you would do, before declaring COVID a worldwide pandemic requiring extraordinary measures (e.g., lockdowns).

You would carry out a study.

A study to confirm that a newly discovered virus (SARS-CoV-2) really exists and is causing illness and death on a global scale.

After all, that is the claim. So wouldn’t you want to prove it’s true? Wouldn’t you feel compelled to do that—rather than just SAY it’s so?

This study wouldn’t focus on 20 or 30 or 50 patients. Those numbers are far too small. We’re not talking about the assertion of a minor viral outbreak. This is supposedly a titanic disaster.

You would gather together a few thousand people, at minimum.

All these people have been diagnosed with the purported pandemic infection.

You would take tissue samples from these patients and analyze them. You would test them for the presence of the new virus.

How could you NOT?

—And yet, such a study WAS NEVER DONE.

NEVER.

Try making excuses for that omission.

We’re talking about science on such a basic level, a child would understand it. You say X is causing a global pandemic—so test for the presence of X. Test for it in a sufficient number of people. Immediately.

Since you’re claiming more than a billion people could become infected, surely you should test at least a few thousand people, to make sure you’re right.

THIS WAS NEVER DONE as one complete study.

Now, we could certainly argue about the kind of test you should run to see if the virus is present. Is the test accurate? Is it reliable? Is it relevant? Of course. I’ve covered that subject exhaustively. But here I’m putting all that aside. The point is, you WOULD test for the virus.

Even the staunchest most rabid defenders of the existence of SARS-CoV-2 would have to agree, if they were being honest.

In other articles, I’ve offered much proof that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist—but here I’m just making the most basic of points: RUN THE STUDY, DO THE TEST.

So what do I get in the way of replies from the “defenders?” They completely ignore the need for the wide-ranging study I’m demanding; and instead they persist in offering up small studies that focus on three patients, 40 patients—as if that is sufficient for declaring a global pandemic and wreaking massive destruction, by lockdowns and other measures.

They keep insisting these little minor studies are sufficient. Why? Because that’s all they have. So they pretend they’re doing good science.

They’re not.

They’re faking it.

Some of them know they’re faking it.

Here’s an analogy anyone should be able to understand. Putting aside lying and cheating and fabricating in doing studies, when a company wants to gain approval from the FDA for a new drug or a new vaccine, how many people do they enroll in their clinical trials, to prove safety and efficacy?

THOUSANDS.

Not three, or 50.

Pfizer enrolled 30,000 people in their clinical trial of the RNA COVID vaccine.

Why didn’t they just enroll 40?

Because they couldn’t get away with it.

I’m talking about standard research practice here.

So why doesn’t the same standard practice apply to proving the existence of a virus that is supposedly causing widespread illness and death across the world?

The rabid defenders of the virus also try to make this point: since millions and millions of people have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, this proves the virus exists and is causing terrible damage.

This is what I call “after the fact” proof.

By that standard, Pfizer would have been able to market its COVID vaccine without any clinical trials at all.

No. The proof required for a major medical/scientific assertion comes WHEN THE ASSERTION IS FIRST MADE, before all sorts of brutal measures are taken that are based on that assertion.

The rabid defenders of the virus twist and distort science to fit their agenda—and then claim OF COURSE everybody knows the virus exists.

You buy what they’re selling at your own peril. They have their story and they’re telling it over and over.

They’re naked, walking in the rain, pitching you raincoats.


(Episode 11 of Rappoport Podcasts — “Mass Shootings and the Psychiatric Drug Connection; The Involvement of the CIA’s MKULTRA Mind Control Program” — is now posted on my substack. It’s a blockbuster. To listen, click here. To learn more about This Episode of Rappoport Podcasts, click here.)


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


To read Jon’s articles on Substack, 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.

New York Times launches Vaccine Fantasy Island

by Jon Rappoport

June 1, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

(Episode 10 of Rappoport Podcasts — “Hottest Medical Crimes No One Else Will Cover; Plus New Monkeypox Revelations” — is now posted on my substack. It’s a blockbuster. To listen, click here. To learn more about This Episode of Rappoport Podcasts, click here.)


I’m loving this one.

The Times has a new piece about the anti-vaxx movement:

“The Anti-Vaccine Movement’s New Frontier: A wave of parents has been radicalized by Covid-era misinformation to reject ordinary childhood immunizations — with potentially lethal consequences.”

And Friday morning, they sent out an email blast to promote the article.

Here’s their promo. The Times really had to stretch to come up with such a load. My comments are in brackets.

“This week, Moises Velasquez-Manoff reports on a wave of parents who have been radicalized by Covid-era misinformation to reject ordinary childhood immunizations — with potentially lethal consequences.”

[Wow. The author has three names. Impressive. I feel I need at least three to reply. Jon The Rebel on Vaccine Fantasy Island Just Say No to Bill Gates Rappoport.]

“In 2019, even before the pandemic struck, the World Health
Organization listed growing vaccine hesitancy as one of its top 10 threats to global health. Now the pandemic has given anti-vaccine advocates an opportunity to field-test a variety of messages and find new recruits.”

[Yes, our anti-vaxx squadrons use dozens of human and AI analysts to float our messages and then test the results. We use polls, surveys, in-home visits, NSA-type surveillance tools, and even covert assets in the press to expand our reach. Elite foundation money pours into our coffers.]

“’There’s a lot of misinformation about the Covid vaccines, and it just bleeds into everything,’ one doctor told us. ‘These fake stories and bad information get stuck in people’s heads, and they understandably get confused’.”

[One doctor told the Times that. Well, case closed. Verdict? We’re guilty. The doctor is always right. Wait a minute. I just called a doctor. He told me the Times’ doctor is wrong. Duel at dawn. Choice of weapons.]

“If this dynamic continues, it could threaten decades of progress in controlling infectious disease — a triumph that has, paradoxically, hindered the effort to counter vaccine skepticism. In the developed world, only a small portion of the population has seen the death and suffering caused by the diseases of eras past; vaccines, in the minds of many, have come to pose a greater threat than the diseases that they have helped nearly vanquish. In a sense, vaccines have become victims of their own success.”

[Obviously, the Times writer is a gymnast. Probably practices yoga. He can bend and stretch and twist with the best of them. Also, notice how he characterizes the parents who “have been radicalized”: They’re people who don’t have a brain in their heads. They’re massively ignorant robots, dupes and yokels just waiting for vaccine misinformation, which they grab like kids going for candy. Parents actually thinking for themselves? Never happens.]

On the other hand, readers of the Times are DISCERNING. They’re COLLEGE GRADS. They take their vaxx info from the paper’s pros, who have perfected the ability to look down their noses at the great unwashed and cluck and tsk tsk and express a modicum of sympathy.

Nowhere in the Times—ever—will we read an actual debate on the subject of vaccines, in which two sides are adequately represented and given ample space to present a little thing called EVIDENCE (or fake evidence).

To host such debates would be demeaning for the Times. It would signal a departure from their perch which constantly advertises: if-we-say-it-we-know-it.

Maintaining that pose month after month, year after year, decade after decade is debilitating.

Which is one reason why so many mainstream reporters are drunks.


power outside the matrix

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


To read Jon’s articles on Substack, 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.

“Stop arguing about the existence of the virus”

by Jon Rappoport

May 20, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

The headline of this article has become a battle cry among some “alternative journalists,” activists, lawyers, and doctors.

As my readers know, I’ve devoted considerable space, over the past two years, to presenting evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is a scientific fairy tale, a con, and the virus doesn’t exist.

So when I hear this battle cry, I’m motivated to mention a few significant points.

Let me start by countering the claim that debating the existence of the virus is wasting time.

Here’s a shocker. A person can do more than one thing at the same time. For example, he can expose/oppose the toxic vaccine. He can expose the murderous COVID treatments (ventilators, sedatives, antiviral drugs). He can expose using simple flu-like illness to create fraudulent COVID case numbers.

And he can ALSO expose the fact that the virus has never been isolated (discovered) or sequenced.

So highlighting the non-existence of the virus doesn’t rule out dealing with other vital concerns.

This may come as a surprise, but it’s even possible to go to court to challenge a vaccine mandate, while ALSO arguing elsewhere that the virus doesn’t exist. I know. Amazing, right?

Those alarmed by “the virus doesn’t exist” also say: making that statement leaves us open to being called whackos, and leaves us unable to convince people that all our other criticisms of the pandemic are true.

I would counter that in two ways. Millions of people already believe we’re whackos, even those of us who take a sacred blood oath that the virus is real.

And second, people going against the grain, when their vital issue is still in the budding stage, are always called nuts. Trust me, there was a time when criticizing vaccines made people look like total whackos in the eyes of the general public—and it took decades of fighting the consensus to bring that criticism into the open, where many people saw the truth about jabs.

Here’s another fun fact. The entire medical cartel thrives on the insane proposition—launched with fervor more than a hundred years ago—that people suffer from thousands of distinct diseases, each of which is caused by a single germ, which must be treated by a toxic drug and prevented by a toxic vaccine.

It is this great lie that that has killed millions upon millions upon millions of people.

Therefore, the very real question about the existence of viruses in general is more than a weird preoccupation.

Next, those who claim, “OF COURSE viruses exist,” don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. They’re merely PARROTING what they learned in school or what researchers baldly claim in studies.

“Well, all virologists can’t be wrong.”

Yes, Virginia, they can all be wrong. Just as vaccinologists can all be wrong about “the remarkable safety and efficacy of vaccines.”

Some of the OF COURSE VIRUSES EXIST people are new to the way blogs and videos work. They’ve never encountered commenters in any great numbers before. So when a few dozen committed people suddenly tell them they should examine their premises more carefully and consider what really goes on in virology labs, these OF COURSE people are annoyed and irritated. They don’t like being challenged on basic issues. They don’t like feeling that the floor might suddenly shift under their feet. So they turn on their arrogance machines.

So be it.

The issue isn’t going away. Nor should it.

Despite growing digital censorship, the internet is still the Wild West in certain respects. People are going to say THE VIRUS DOESN’T EXIST, and VIRUSES DON’T EXIST.

And foundations will shake.

Foundations of the medical cartel, and foundations underlying people’s cherished assumptions.

In any area of human life, there are conflicts between “this is strategy” and “this is the truth.” There always will be.

Trying to shortchange the truth or casually say the truth is a lie doesn’t work.

NO ONE who is reading this article has ever been in a virology lab and witnessed the step by step process of “discovering a new virus.” I find that stunning. And yet all sorts of people are quite ready to assert with great finality that they know all about isolating viruses.

If by chance, someone reading this article HAS actually been in a lab and “discovered a virus,” you can bet your bottom dollar he won’t let you or me in there with a full film crew and our outlier experts asking very pointed questions about each “scientific” move he makes, as he “isolates a virus.”

To which somebody might reply: “Well, I’ve never seen a car being made in a factory, but I drive one with full confidence.”

Yes, but when the “virus discovered in a lab” results in you or someone you love being dosed with a drug or vaccine that maims you or kills your family member, you damn well should want to get into “that factory where the car is made.”

But you can’t. They won’t let you…

…Despite the fact that, as I’ve documented many times, the US medical system kills, by a very conservative estimate, 225,000 people a year, or 2.25 million people per decade. [0]

Chew on THAT for a while.

Here is one of my articles on the subject of virus isolation:

—Dr. Andrew Kaufman refutes “isolation” of SARS-Cov-2; he does step-by-step analysis of a typical claim of isolation; there is no proof that the virus exists—

The global medical community has been asserting that “a pandemic is being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2.”

But what if the virus doesn’t exist?

People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.

“Isolation” should mean the virus has been separated out from all surrounding material, so researchers can say, “Look, we have it. It exists.”

I took a typical passage from a published study, a “methods” section, in which researchers describe how they “isolated the virus.” I sent it to Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1], and he provided his analysis in detail.

I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [2].

First, I want to provide a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is going on in the study.

The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. Human cells, monkey cells, antibiotics, other chemicals, random genetic material.

The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup, because they’re dropped a mucus sample from a patient in the soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.

They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put in the soup are dying. This cell-death, they claim, is being caused by “the virus.” However, as you’ll see, Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.

There is no reason to infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is killing cells.

Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus.”

Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:

STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”

KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”

STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”

KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”

STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”

KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”

STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”

KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”

KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [3]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”

STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”

STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”

KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”

STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”

KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”

—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—

My comments: Dr. Kaufman does several things here. He shows that isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word “isolation,” is not occurring.

Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to the cells and cell-death as proof that “the virus” is in the soup they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the killing. But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus. Therefore, no proof exists that “the virus” is in the soup or exists at all.

And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic sequencing of “the virus” is absurd, because there is no proof that the virus is present. How do you sequence something when you haven’t shown it exists, and you don’t have an isolated specimen of it?

Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 375 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [4]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?

The answer is no.


SOURCES:

[0] https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-primary-care-policy-center/Publications_PDFs/A154.pdf

[1] https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

[2] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

[3] https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home.html

[4] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/category/covid/


FURTHER READING:

Is the virus real? Steve Kirsch suggests a debate

blog.nomorefakenews.com/2022/01/25/is-the-virus-real-steve-kirsch-suggests-a-debate/


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, 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.

The delusion called Fauci

by Jon Rappoport

May 9, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

This one was too good to pass up.

In an interview with the National Geographic, Tony Fauci made comments about “alternative views” of the origin of the coronavirus. But he was really talking about all unorthodox medical information:

“Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they’re talking about—and it’s very difficult for the general public to distinguish. So, make sure the study is coming from a reputable organization that generally gives you the truth—though even with some reputable organizations, you occasionally get an outlier who’s out there talking nonsense. If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously.”

Right you are, Tony.

So, Tony, here is a very serious statement from a former editor of one of those “places,” the New England Journal of Medicine:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)

And here is another one, from the editor-in-chief of the prestigious journal, The Lancet, founded in 1823:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…”

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)

Why stop there? Let’s consult a late public-health expert whose shoes Fauci would have been lucky to shine: Dr. Barbara Starfield, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when Starfield revealed her findings on healthcare in America.

The Starfield review, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), came to the following conclusion, among others:

Every year in the US, correctly prescribed, FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 people. Thus, every decade, these drugs kill more than a MILLION people.

On the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, media reporting was perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, those parties who could have made effective steps to correct this ongoing tragedy preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here is an excerpt from that interview.

Q: What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

A: The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

Q: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

A: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Q: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

A: NO.

Q: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

Q: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

A: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

—end of interview excerpt—

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the heraldic published studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the medical literature is completely unreliable, and impenetrable.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO ESTEEMED MEDICAL EDITORS I QUOTED ABOVE—MARCIA ANGELL AND RICHARD HORTON—ARE SAYING.

If you know a doctor who enjoys sitting up on his high horse dispensing the final word on modern medicine, you might give him the quotes from Dr. Angell and Dr. Horton, instruct him to read them, and suggest he get in touch with Angell and Horton, in order to discover what has happened to his profession.

As in: DISASTER.

But please, continue to believe everything Fauci is saying. He must be right about the “pandemic.” After all, he has a very important position, and he’s on television.

So what if his policies have torpedoed the economy and devastated and destroyed lives across the country?

So what if he accepted, without more than a glance, that fraud Neil Ferguson’s computer projection of 500,000 deaths in the UK and two million in the US? In 2005, Ferguson said 200 million people could die from bird flu. The final official tally was a few hundred.

So what?

Fauci has an important position, and he’s on television.

And that’s the definition of science, right?


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, 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.

Your mother-in-law isn’t going to refuse the vaccine

by Jon Rappoport

May 6, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

Let’s get one thing straight. I’m not writing for your mother-in-law. I’m writing for you.

Your mother-in-law is still deciding whether to vote for Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan. She thinks J Edgar Hoover is Herbert Hoover.

A few readers have suggested I should make several adjustments, so my work is more “accessible” to the general public.

The general public is a collectivist cheeseball which has been sitting in a frying pan, with the flame set on low, for a very long time.

I published my first article in 1982. I’ve never made any adjustments.

Since then, I’ve only worked one change. I stopped taking assignments from editors. I don’t like them. I’ve always had the crazy notion that if editors want writers to carve away THIS and add THAT, they should write the pieces themselves. There are three reasons they don’t: they can’t write; they’re filled with self-importance; they’re lazy bureaucrats.

For me, writing has ebbs and flows. They depend on me finding a tag-end I like, which I then pull on. The article then takes shape. The tag-end might be a headline I read. It might be some absurd insane sentence uttered by a news anchor. It might be a scene in a dream. It might be an answer to the question, “What would be crazier than the last tag-end I found?”

If I can’t think of a tag, I sit here and stare at the wall and keep thinking. Or I watch a cooking show. Or I go over the five or six pretentious scuzzy reasons doctors deploy when they assure readers the virus exists. Or I fly my Gulfstream to London, where I dine with the Queen, and discuss how non-existent climate change will force us to eat insects for protein. Or I find a medical review admitting that, in 2001, only 18 flu deaths in the US could be traced to a flu virus. Actually, the number is zero. Or I reread the NY Times opinion piece which revealed the three major clinical trials of the COVID vaccines were designed to show the injection could prevent nothing more serious than cough, chills, and fever—after which the Times never mentioned the subject again. Or I consider how fear of the virus and love of the virus and the conviction the virus exists merge like a subconscious nursery rhyme. Or I imagine a time when men and women would have laughed off orders to lock down and would have gone about their lives without a second thought. And THAT’S a tag-end:

JULY 20, 2020. Look at what happened to a great city, to the people of that city, who over several decades were subjected to forms of cultural mind control…and who then became DIFFERENT.

…People turning into caricatures of themselves. In the process, they were ripened for takeover—which is what happened when the fake pandemic was declared.

New York. Once upon a time, I was married to it. No more. But it’s still my city.

I was born there. One of my early memories was looking across 2nd Avenue at a candy store. This was 1943. The candy store no longer sold Fleer’s bubble gum—the best bubble gum—because the latex was needed for the War effort. But the rumor was, they peddled it under the counter for an exorbitant two cents a chunk, with the cartoon inside the wrapper.

When I was 22, after growing up in the suburbs, I moved back to NY and for several years lived among some of the smartest asymmetric people in the world. You could have an argument with the dumbest person in the city and it would be a smart argument. Everyone had opinions, and they could back them up. There was no such thing as political correctness, believe me. If you had uttered the phrase, no one would have known what you were talking about.

New York was a great city. The thing was, no one was proud to BE a New Yorker. That false synthetic layer of goo came much later. In the old days, there was no pose, no artificial front. People had ideas, they had talent, they had survival instincts.

The best jazz musicians in the world lived and played in New York. When a giant like Bud Powell was playing at Birdland, you could get in for a dollar and sit in a hard wooden chair and listen to him until two in the morning. A buck for the greatest pianist in the world.

And now, the city is wrecked and boarded up, and the people are locked in.

Out on the street, the few aimless glazed pedestrians wear masks. They’re not the same people. They’re replacements. Pods.

OVERNIGHT, the people of New York could throw off the whole phony pandemic, not only for themselves, but the world. They could come out of their apartments and go back to work, defying the petty little lunatics like Cuomo and De Blasio. They could open up their restaurants and bars and stack in the customers. They could start building again. They could open wide the libraries and museums and fill the concert halls. They could open up the little groceries to all comers. They could laugh in the face of the public health authorities.

And it would be OVER.

In 1960, that’s exactly what would have happened. And not for some cause. Not for the chance to do a little virtue signaling. Not for the sake of “being a New Yorker.” For survival. For continuing to live their lives, people would have shaken off that slimy fraud Fauci like a five-minute bad dream. A joke played by an idiot.

They would have looked at the screaming lockdown headlines in the newspapers on the corner stand and shrugged and gone on their way. “You’re telling me I can’t walk down the street and listen to John Coltrane at the Jazz Gallery on a summer night? You’re out of your mind.” And the Termini brothers, who owned the club, would have packed the place even tighter than usual, just to thumb their noses at the mayor and his con artists. They would have put in a call to their contact at Democratic Machine headquarters. And it would have been OVER.

No one would have obeyed. Independent scholars would have walked into the 42nd St. library, as they did every day, and gone to the reference desk and asked for manuscripts on ancient Roman law and the Walt Whitman papers and the early maps of the city. The quiet upstairs macrobiotic restaurant on 2nd Avenue would have served supper as usual. The Cedar Bar on University Place would have turned in another raucous night. The Irish bars would have been jammed. A chamber orchestra in Washington Square Park would have performed Vivaldi, with the sounds of traffic from 6th Avenue in the background. Miles Davis would have played two sets at the Apollo. If Ravi Shankar was in town, he would have laid out a few stunning hours of ragas at the Asia Society and adjourned to an East Side apartment to continue on until dawn. No one and nothing would have obeyed a lockdown.

Pandemic? Virus? Get serious.

That New York…where is it? Who are all these flat minds swearing allegiance to medical fakery? Are they passively waiting for gold stars on the blackboard from the teacher?

In the old days, New York had DISDAIN. You didn’t get by with platitudes. You didn’t blithely mouth Left or Right and get away with it. The city was plugged into its own non-stop bullshit detector. What did you have to OFFER? Aimless blabbermouths were consigned to a special circle of Hell.

There was no political PROGRAM. Today’s “New Yorkers” would apparently be afraid to live in a landscape like that. They wouldn’t know which way to turn. They have a desperate need to become slaves to an IDEA. In this case, an idea about a virus.

In the 1960s, concealed by the Vietnam War, the city was undergoing a transformation into a cartoon of itself. That’s when the synthetic notion of “being a New Yorker”—based on nothing—started to take hold.

There were many reasons. The shrinking value of the dollar. Crippling street drugs. Mind numbing leveling television. The raising of children to be targets of advertising and fetish objects in a consumer society. The new New Yorkers were taught that liberal politics were a necessary adjunct of their status. Liberal equaled big government. Messaging from every possible quarter was aimed at turning the people of the city into servants of share and care as defined by government…

Going to doctors and acquiring serial diagnoses of physical and mental conditions was starting to take off as a social trend. The medicines and the vaccines were, of course, toxic. The city was taking in more immigrants than it could handle. There weren’t enough jobs. Desultory schools were steamrollered. Literacy was being destroyed. Even skyscraper architecture was moving away from unique structures like the Chrysler and the Empire State, into functional steel and glass boxes. Signs of the minds.

With people dumbed down enough, they would fall for any con. Any piece of shiny gloss. And it was eventually provided:

New York media covered the rise of New Money in the city as if it were a perfumed cultural signal of a dawning utopia. By the 1970s, envious intellectuals in the city were reading and admiring hyped chronicles of the emerging $$ stars of Manhattan: painters, fashioneers, stock speculators. And yes, Trump. The content of these celebs’ characters was entirely irrelevant. All that mattered was that their hustles were ringing up extraordinary sales in inflated dollars.

And finally, to view how thin and vulnerable new New York had become, and how brainless—when, in 2020, the fake pandemic hit, and lockdowns were announced, the population promptly folded, stayed indoors, went into mask and social distance mode without a whisper of protest.

In short order, the city was made over into abject wreckage, shuttered, obedient, loyal to a psychotic delusion.

In a silly song he recorded long after its internal demise, Frank Sinatra said New York was the city that never sleeps.

Now that’s all it does.

CODA: If the September 11th attacks had happened in 1960, there would have been no need for Billy Joel or the Yankees to rally “all New Yorkers.” The people of the city would have looked at the firemen and cops as human heroes risking everything for other humans. Period. That would have been enough. More than enough. That would have gone deep into souls and minds. Where it counts.

—Entraining minds. The job of the Super-State. Reworking independence into devotion to a synthetic pose of altruism.

But in this phony pandemic, it’s good to be BAD…

I’m not talking about looting and burning. I’m talking about a different type of BAD. Think it through. Figure it out. It’s always there, like a tag-end. You just have to pull on it…


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From 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.