Category Archives: Covid

From COVID to Global Control: bait and switch

by Jon Rappoport

July 19, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

“One new reality is global interconnectivity and the fact that all challenges must be addressed on the basis of ‘togetherness.’ Thus the most crucial factor in accepting the new reality and confronting its opportunities and risks is our willingness to develop shared norms on all levels.” (Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum)

The above quote is a glimpse of the switch in the bait and switch.

First, in early 2020, there was a narrative, a story about a virus, and the selling of that story, and the selling of all the (ruinous) restrictions which would have to be put in place, in order to “curb the spread.”

Then came what you could call “transitional language”:

In order to be prepared for the next pandemic, we need early warning, on a global scale; and THIS means a much greater level of cooperation among nations.

You know, that sort of talk.

It included: We have to be able to identify human carriers of a virus before they develop symptoms, because they’re silently spreading a killer.

It included: These pandemics are never going to stop. With massive international travel, the transport of goods across national borders, with deadly viruses escaping from rain forests…we have to create a PERMANENT global society, with proper controls, which can withstand and survive the onslaught of these devastating germs.

Transitional language.

From the bait (a story about a virus), the con moves to the switch (a permanent global control grid).

Is there some sort of picture of what the control grid will look like? Just a sketch?

Why yes, there is.

We need to look to the nation which has garnered the most praise for its handling of the “pandemic crisis.” Praise from elite global players like the World Health Organization and the UN and Bill Gates.

Of course, I mean China.

China is the elite model. It locked down 50 million citizens overnight, at the beginning of 2020. And it’s doing it again.

But there’s more.

Much more.

I call your attention to a stunning article in The Atlantic. “The Panopticon Is Already Here” (September, 2020), by Ross Andersen.

Here are significant excerpts:

“Artificial intelligence has applications in nearly every human domain, from the instant translation of spoken language to early viral-outbreak detection. But Xi [Xi Jinping, president of China] also wants to use AI’s awesome analytical powers to push China to the cutting edge of surveillance. He wants to build an all-seeing digital system of social control, patrolled by precog algorithms that identify potential dissenters in real time.”

“China already has hundreds of millions of surveillance cameras in place. Xi’s government hopes to soon achieve full video coverage of key public areas. Much of the footage collected by China’s cameras is parsed by algorithms for security threats of one kind or another. In the near future, every person who enters a public space could be identified, instantly, by AI matching them to an ocean of personal data, including their every text communication, and their body’s one-of-a-kind protein-construction schema. In time, algorithms will be able to string together data points from a broad range of sources—travel records, friends and associates, reading habits, purchases—to predict political resistance before it happens. China’s government could soon achieve an unprecedented political stranglehold on more than 1 billion people.”

“China is already developing powerful new surveillance tools, and exporting them to dozens of the world’s actual and would-be autocracies. Over the next few years, those technologies will be refined and integrated into all-encompassing surveillance systems that dictators can plug and play.”

“China’s government could harvest footage from equivalent Chinese products. They could tap the cameras attached to ride-share cars, or the self-driving vehicles that may soon replace them: Automated vehicles will be covered in a whole host of sensors, including some that will take in information much richer than 2-D video. Data from a massive fleet of them could be stitched together, and supplemented by other [Alibaba] City Brain streams, to produce a 3-D model of the city that’s updated second by second. Each refresh could log every human’s location within the model. Such a system would make unidentified faces a priority, perhaps by sending drone swarms to secure a positive ID.”

“An authoritarian state with enough processing power could force the makers of such software to feed every blip of a citizen’s neural activity into a government database. China has recently been pushing citizens to download and use a propaganda app. The government could use emotion-tracking software to monitor reactions to a political stimulus within an app. A silent, suppressed response to a meme or a clip from a Xi speech would be a meaningful data point to a precog algorithm.”

“All of these time-synced feeds of on-the-ground data could be supplemented by footage from drones, whose gigapixel cameras can record whole cityscapes in the kind of crystalline detail that allows for license-plate reading and gait recognition. ‘Spy bird’ drones already swoop and circle above Chinese cities, disguised as doves. City Brain’s feeds could be synthesized with data from systems in other urban areas, to form a multidimensional, real-time account of nearly all human activity within China. Server farms across China will soon be able to hold multiple angles of high-definition footage of every moment of every Chinese person’s life.”

“The government might soon have a rich, auto-populating data profile for all of its 1 billion–plus citizens. Each profile would comprise millions of data points, including the person’s every appearance in surveilled space, as well as all of her communications and purchases. Her threat risk to the party’s power could constantly be updated in real time, with a more granular score than those used in China’s pilot ‘social credit’ schemes, which already aim to give every citizen a public social-reputation score based on things like social-media connections and buying habits. Algorithms could monitor her digital data score, along with everyone else’s, continuously, without ever feeling the fatigue that hit Stasi officers working the late shift. False positives—deeming someone a threat for innocuous behavior—would be encouraged, in order to boost the system’s built-in chilling effects, so that she’d turn her sharp eyes on her own behavior, to avoid the slightest appearance of dissent.”

“If her risk factor fluctuated upward—whether due to some suspicious pattern in her movements, her social associations, her insufficient attention to a propaganda-consumption app, or some correlation known only to the AI—a purely automated system could limit her movement. It could prevent her from purchasing plane or train tickets. It could disallow passage through checkpoints. It could remotely commandeer ‘smart locks’ in public or private spaces, to confine her until security forces arrived.”

“Each time a person’s face is recognized, or her voice recorded, or her text messages intercepted, this information could be attached, instantly, to her government-ID number, police records, tax returns, property filings, and employment history. It could be cross-referenced with her medical records and DNA, of which the Chinese police boast they have the world’s largest collection.”

Is China exporting this control-grid technology?

“The country [China] is now the world’s leading seller of AI-powered surveillance equipment. In Malaysia, the government is working with Yitu, a Chinese AI start-up, to bring facial-recognition technology to Kuala Lumpur’s police as a complement to Alibaba’s City Brain platform. Chinese companies also bid to outfit every one of Singapore’s 110,000 lampposts with facial-recognition cameras.”

“In South Asia, the Chinese government has supplied surveillance equipment to Sri Lanka. On the old Silk Road, the Chinese company Dahua is lining the streets of Mongolia’s capital with AI-assisted surveillance cameras. Farther west, in Serbia, Huawei is helping set up a ‘safe-city system,’ complete with facial-recognition cameras and joint patrols conducted by Serbian and Chinese police aimed at helping Chinese tourists to feel safe.”

“In the early aughts, the Chinese telecom titan ZTE sold Ethiopia a wireless network with built-in backdoor access for the government. In a later crackdown, dissidents were rounded up for brutal interrogations, during which they were played audio from recent phone calls they’d made. Today, Kenya, Uganda, and Mauritius are outfitting major cities with Chinese-made surveillance networks.”

“In Egypt, Chinese developers are looking to finance the construction of a new capital. It’s slated to run on a ‘smart city’ platform similar to City Brain, although a vendor has not yet been named. In southern Africa, Zambia has agreed to buy more than $1 billion in telecom equipment from China, including internet-monitoring technology. China’s Hikvision, the world’s largest manufacturer of AI-enabled surveillance cameras, has an office in Johannesburg.”

“In 2018, CloudWalk Technology, a Guangzhou-based start-up spun out of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, inked a deal with the Zimbabwean government to set up a surveillance network. Its terms require Harare to send images of its inhabitants—a rich data set, given that Zimbabwe has absorbed migration flows from all across sub-Saharan Africa—back to CloudWalk’s Chinese offices, allowing the company to fine-tune its software’s ability to recognize dark-skinned faces, which have previously proved tricky for its algorithms.”

“Having set up beachheads in Asia, Europe, and Africa, China’s AI companies are now pushing into Latin America, a region the Chinese government describes as a ‘core economic interest.’ China financed Ecuador’s $240 million purchase of a surveillance-camera system. Bolivia, too, has bought surveillance equipment with help from a loan from Beijing. Venezuela recently debuted a new national ID-card system that logs citizens’ political affiliations in a database built by ZTE…”

You could call all this Lockdown, Phase 2. But of course it’s much more. It’s designed to be permanent.

It’s a control grid, the switch in the bait and switch.

Ultimately, long term, we’re dealing with the switch, not the bait.

I’ll add a few more features to the “China plan.” Under the rubric of climate change, and “limiting CO2,” worldwide of production of energy would be significantly lowered. At the individual level, this would result in energy-use quotas. Strictly enforced.

“Mr. Jones, this is your phone helper. You’re nearing the limit of your energy use for the month. I don’t want to see you incur penalties. For example, your Guaranteed Universal Income allotment could be reduced. So for the next 10 days, I’ll be turning off some of your devices. Use your computer only between the hours of 2 and 4AM. Don’t drive. Don’t cook. The heat in your apartment will be shut down between midnight and 6AM. Remember, this is being done to curb the effect of climate change. We all have to do our part…”

Then there is 5G technology, which enables the Internet of Things (IoT). All sorts of products, from diapers to chocolate bars, will contain tags so these items can talk to each other and regulate your consumption and buying habits.

But the real kicker is more-control-grid. For instance, the top-down regulation of driverless cars on roads and highways; the moment to moment choice of routes and patterns of traffic for a whole city. The ability to stop all cars in a city, or clear them off roads in a “problem area.”

Because you’d be wearing a number of items tagged with their own tiny computers, law-enforcement could calculate and decide, at any given moment, that there are too many people in a park. The people “might constitute a threat.” So an order goes out to empty the park.

And in this article, I’m not getting into the far reaches of genetic modification of humans, or brain-computer interfaces, or the medical control of the body through inserted nano-sensors.

Let me give you that Klaus Schwab quote again. You read it at the top of this piece. Read it one more time and render it into its true meaning:

“One new reality is global interconnectivity and the fact that all challenges must be addressed on the basis of ‘togetherness.’ Thus the most crucial factor in accepting the new reality and confronting its opportunities and risks is our willingness to develop shared norms on all levels.”

This is a ten thousand year war called Freedom Versus Slavery.

Like it or not, we’re up to our necks in it.

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.

Podcast: Viruses That Don’t Exist

by Jon Rappoport

June 21, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

This is a VERY big one.

So shell out a mere few bucks for a substack subscription, join me, and listen.

With COVID still on the front burner, and official declarations about monkeypox building, the virus question is vital.

I’m covering all the bases in this podcast.

I’m hitting four areas:

The real science that proves these viruses don’t exist.

The actual psychology that compels people to believe viruses do exist. This psychology is imposed from the outside, but it is also self-imposed. And in the long run, the self-imposed element is far more powerful. I’ll explain that in detail.

The third factor is: “The virus” is the greatest cover story ever invented. It covers up past, present, and future crimes committed by governments and major corporations. I’ll present vivid examples.

The fourth factor is a kind of risk-benefit comparison. What are the benefits of ceasing to believe in these viruses? What is the downside of continuing to believe in viruses?

These four areas finally present a fully rounded picture of the virus issue. All in one podcast.

No one else is clarifying all the areas.

I’ve been hot on the trail of “the virus question” for 35 years. My investigation went through a number of stages. First, it was: do they have the correct virus that’s causing a disease? Then it was: is this disease actually caused by a virus? And finally, it was: does the virus exist at all?

So I didn’t come to my present position overnight. Far from it. I wrestled with various tigers for a long time. Each battle made me stronger for the next one.

I didn’t stop at resolving the science. I saw and made sense out of the political and psychological implications.

This podcast is the whole ball of wax. Dismantled. Taken apart. Presented to you.

Over the past 35 years, I’ve learned that taking a position without compromise, without catering to certain groups, without asking for agreement, gives me increased clarity.

You’ll find that clarity in this podcast.

Thank you for your support.

— Jon Rappoport

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 murdered infant comes to the virology lab; the ivory tower is befouled

by Jon Rappoport

June 17, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

In a groundbreaking article for Children of God For Life, titled “Forsaking God For the Sake of Science,” [1] [1b] Debra Vinnedge outlines how the Rockefeller-Harriman eugenics movement gave rise to the practice of medical abortions for research purposes, including live births during which the infant was murdered and its organs harvested:

“…Abortion wasn’t legal yet; this was 1936. But abortion was most certainly legal and acceptable [to eugenicists] if it meant ending the life of a child who would be born to a ‘feeble-minded’ woman, one who might end up less than perfect or who might have to rely on society to pay for their care.”

And therefore, why not perform abortions for medical research? Behind closed doors, out of view, this was happening in several countries, including the US.

Consider this research report: “Human embryos of two and one-half to five months gestation were obtained from the gynaecological department of the Toronto General Hospital…No macerated specimens were used and in many of the embryos the heart was still beating at the time of receipt in the virus laboratory.”

Here is the citation [2]: Joan C. Thicke, Darline Duncan, William Wood, A. E. Franklin and A. J. Rhodes; Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Virus in Tissue Culture; Growth of the Lansing Strain in Human Embryonic Tissue, Canadian Journal of Medical Science, Vol. 30, pg 231-245. [June 1952]

The authors are certainly describing an infant who was taken from the womb alive, and after cells were harvested, was killed. For research on “growing virus in cell culture.”

Here is another research report that indicates the infant was born alive, its tissues taken, and then killed:

“Embryos of between 12-18 weeks gestation have been utilized. Rarely tissues were obtained from stillborn fetuses, or from premature infants at autopsy…In the experiments 3 sorts of embryonic materials were used: elements of skin, connective tissue, muscle; intestinal tissue; brain tissue…Whenever possible the embryo was removed from the amniotic sac.., transferred to a sterile towel and kept at 5 C until dissected.”

The citation [3]: Thomas H. Weller, John F. Enders, Studies on the Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Viruses in Tissue Culture : I. The Propagation of Poliomyelitis Viruses in Suspended Cell Cultures of Various Human Tissue; Journal of Immunology 1952;69;645-671. [June 1952]

Again, the infant’s tissue was used, in the lab, to “grow virus in cell culture.” The cells were from the infant.

My readers know that, for the past year, I’ve been exposing virologists’ absurd claims that they’re isolating viruses in their labs. [4] [4b] [4c]

In fact, they create soups in dishes, containing toxic drugs and chemicals, monkey cells and human cells, and a mucus sample from a patient. When the cells start dying, they claim this is proof the virus is in the mucus, in the soup, and is deadly.

Of course, this is nonsense, because the toxic drugs and chemicals are perfectly capable of killing the cells; and the cells in the soup are being starved of nutrients, which would also lead to cell-death.

The isolation of viruses is no isolation at all. It’s a fraud.

But it never occurred to me, until now, that some of these human cells in the soup in the lab came from infants, taken from the mother’s womb alive, for harvesting, who were then killed.

This completes a circle of evil.

Of course, out of the virological research fraud and infant murder come THE VACCINES, including the COVID vaccines, which are causing huge numbers of injuries and deaths across the world.

People of faith everywhere must see that declaring a religious exemption from the shots is a DUTY, whether or not the authorities allow the exemption.

The last time I looked, appealing to Pontius Pilate for an exemption didn’t work, and the status of Anthony Fauci is not higher than the Authority to whom, at minimum, four billion people of faith pray.

SOURCES:

[1] https://cogforlife.org/2012/06/13/forsaking-god-for-science/

[1b] https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/AbortedFetalCellLines.pdf

[2] https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjms52-031

[3] https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/poliovax1952.pdf

[4] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/02/26/covid-the-virus-was-never-proven-to-exist-a-statement/

[4b] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/04/21/isolation-of-sars-cov-2-refuted-in-step-by-step-analysis-of-claim/

[4c] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/09/20/the-failure-to-prove-the-virus-exists/

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 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.