“If it isn’t Ebola virus, and it isn’t weaponized Ebola virus, and it isn’t mutated Ebola virus, then what is it?”

by Jon Rappoport

October 11, 2014

(To join my email list, click here.)

Some readers, who haven’t been reading all my Ebola articles (archived here), will respond by saying, “If it isn’t Ebola, then what is it?”

The flaw in that question is the use of the word “it,” which suggests that whatever is making people sick and killing them is one thing.

This is the same flaw present in AIDS, West Nile, SARS, bird flu, Swine Flu. The assumption that one germ is responsible, in each “epidemic,” is false.

The illness and death occurred for many different reasons—and the medical trick involved is pretending a single virus connected all these disparate people together. (See also “How they would stage a bioterror event”).

In other words: hoax.

Newsflash: This simple method for saving lives is known by medical and public health authorities.

It’s known by governments. It’s known by mega-corporations. It’s known by the World Health Organization and the CDC. It’s known by a number of mainstream reporters. It’s known by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

But they aren’t bringing the solution. They’re expanding the problem.

They want population reduction and population debilitation.

They’re forwarding a program to conquer the land and the people, and extract (steal) the maximum profit from the natural resources of so-called Third World countries.

They need a cover story to explain why nothing can be done to radically improve the lives of the people.

The cover story is: the germ.

The tiny invisible terrorist.

People gravitate to single causes, single explanations, single symbols in every area of life, and they don’t penetrate further.

This is an aspect of the Matrix.

False unities are the meat and potatoes of very high-level propaganda. They are launched in politics, economics, medicine, organized religion, science, psychology, the military, mind control, in all the academic disciplines.

As an analogy, consider a painting in which the three-dimensional perspective has been radically shortened to eliminate the background. But the background is really where all the action is. The foreground is the false Oneness.

Grasping all of this allowed me to go further than I thought possible in my work as an investigative reporter. My method of investigation altered radically, and I hit paydirt.

The Matrix is a multi-layered, multi-dimensional operation, seeded with delusions that collaborate with the subconscious tendency to buy those delusions.

Your freedom and full power emerge when the subconscious is made conscious.

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 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails here.

Dept. of Defense Ebola manual: smoking guns

by Jon Rappoport

October 9, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

As I’ve been pointing out, the standard test for diagnosing Ebola is the PCR, which has many flaws that render it misleading and useless.

Therefore, “diagnosed with Ebola,” through the PCR test, means nothing. “Ebola” could be flu, could be “drinking contaminated water,” could be any number of non-Ebola conditions.

Analogy: you’re flying a plane at night over a land mass your instruments tell you is Greenland—but the instruments often indicate Greenland when they should be reporting Iceland, Alaska, Nova Scotia, Quebec or even Fiji.

So when the authorities report there are 6000 cases of Ebola and 3000 deaths, or when they report that two patients in the US have Ebola, they’re relying on a diagnostic test that can’t confirm any of these assertions is true.

This is verified in spades by a Dept. of Defense manual.

The title is: “Ebola Zaire (EZ1) rRT-PCR (TaqMan®) Assay on ABI 7500 Fast Dx, LightCycler, & JBAIDS: INSTRUCTION BOOKLET” published by “Joint Project Manager Medical Countermeasures Systems.” It is dated 14 August 2014.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/Safety/EmergencySituations/UCM408334.pdf

Under the title is the statement: “Manufactured by the Naval Medical Research Center for the US DOD.”

Here is a quote:

“…the EZ1 assay [the PCR test] should not be performed unless the individual has been exposed to or is at risk for exposure to Ebola Zaire virus or has signs and symptoms of infection with Ebola Zaire virus (detected in the West Africa outbreak in 2014) that meet clinical and epidemiologic criteria for testing suspect specimens.”

Translation: “Unless you’re already pretty sure the patient has Ebola—whatever that means—don’t run the test, because the test isn’t all that reliable.”

Not very reassuring. A test is a test. It’s supposed to register a true positive or negative result on anyone.

Here’s another quote:

“[The PCR test] should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions. Results [of the PCR] are for the presumptive identification of the Ebola Zaire virus (detected in the West Africa outbreak in 2014).”

Translation: “The word ‘presumptive’ means ‘we’re not sure’. And that’s right. We’re not sure. Don’t rely on the PCR for a definitive diagnosis of Ebola.”

Here is the final quote: “The definitive identification of the Ebola Zaire virus (detected in the West Africa outbreak in 2014) requires additional testing and confirmation procedures in consultation with public health or other authorities for whom reporting is required. The diagnosis of Ebola Zaire virus (detected in the West Africa outbreak in 2014) infection must be made based on history, signs, symptoms, exposure likelihood, and other laboratory evidence in addition to the identification of the Ebola Zaire virus (detected in the West Africa outbreak in 2014) by this [PCR] test.”

That’s the capper. It baldly states that other diagnostic tests must be run. I can tell you what those other tests should be. One, purification and direct isolation of the virus from the patient; and two, a test to determine the amount of virus in the patient—because millions and millions of active Ebola virus must be present in the patient to even begin to say he is “an Ebola case.”

And I can tell you these tests are not being run on so-called Ebola patients.

Therefore, this whole “Ebola event” is the blind leading the blind.

We see other evidence of this. Press reports are mentioning the fact that far fewer “Ebola patients” than expected are showing blood hemorrhaging. Another tip-off that the PCR test is bringing into the fold “presumptive cases of Ebola”—people who are suffering from factors that have nothing to do with Ebola.

Last week, when Tom Frieden, the head of the CDC, gave a press conference concerning “the Dallas Ebola patient,” he assured one and all that the patient had Ebola, because the PCR test, “a very accurate test,” had been run. (see the 2m06s mark in the video of the press conference.)

Another CDC lie.

Some readers, who haven’t been reading all my Ebola articles (archived here), will respond by saying, “If it isn’t Ebola, then what is it?”

The flaw in that question is the use of the word “it,” which suggests that whatever is making people sick and killing them is one thing.

This is the same flaw present in AIDS, West Nile, SARS, bird flu, Swine Flu. The assumption that one germ is responsible, in each “epidemic,” is false.

The illness and death occurred for many different reasons—and the medical trick involved is pretending a single virus connected all these disparate people together.

In other words: hoax.

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 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Ebola: how to stage a fake epidemic

by Jon Rappoport

October 7, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Note: all my articles on Ebola are archive and can be accessed here: #Ebolagate. They provide extensive background for what I’m outlining here.

First, keep in mind that what I’m talking about is the creation of false reality.

In 1988, as I finished my first book, “AIDS Inc., Scandal of the Century,” I made notes for an upcoming radio interview. Here is a relevant excerpt:

“It turns out there is absolutely no reason to say that HIV causes what is called AIDS. Once you subtract HIV from the official story, what are you left with?

“A number of people who present an array of illnesses and symptoms. But without HIV, the ‘glue’ that held them all together vanishes. So now you have sick people.

“You have them in Africa, in New York, San Francisco, Haiti, and other places. Yes, they are sick and they are dying. But that doesn’t make an epidemic, because the tiny virus that was supposed to be at the bottom of all this is missing from the equation.

“This tells you how to invent a fake epidemic. You take many sick and dying people, and you claim there is one germ that is causing all the trouble.

“You promote a few diagnostic tests that ‘will confirm the presence of the germ’ and you tell people they must be tested.

“But the tests don’t really confirm the presence of the germ. They’re deceptive and useless. Of course, the test will register positive in many cases.

“These positive people are said to be victims of the one germ that is at the root of the epidemic.”

I wrote that in 1988, and it applies just as well to Ebola, as I’ve demonstrated.

The two primary diagnostic tests for Ebola—the antibody and the PCR—are completely useless for verifying the presence of millions of Ebola virus in a patient—which is what you need to begin to say that patient is an “Ebola case.”

In 1988 with AIDS, and more recently with Ebola, I’ve explained the list of factors that would make people sick and kill them—factors that have nothing to do with HIV or Ebola virus.

In essence, this is how you create a fake epidemic. Real death, false explanation.

You tie together and link together people who are sick and dying for various reasons, and you claim they’re all dying because of the One Germ.

That gives you a powerful psychological ploy, because people are always looking for the one unified thing that explains a whole host of disturbing facts.

You give them what they want.

They buy it.

In the case of “the SARS epidemic” in 2003, it was “the coronavirus.” As I’ve mentioned before, a Canadian microbiologist working for the World Health Organization, Frank Plummer, inadvertently blew the whistle on the scam when he told reporters, stunningly, that the percentage of SARS patients who actually “had the virus” was shrinking from month to month.

In fact, finally, the percentage was approaching zero.

This rank absurdity was duly reported in the press by brain-dead journalists, and everyone moved on, unaware that a bomb had just exploded.

How could these people be called “SARS cases,” when the one and only cause of SARS, “the coronavirus,” wasn’t present in their bodies?

In the case of HIV, it was even worse, because the people who were diagnosed as “HIV-positive,” as a result of useless and misleading antibody tests, were given a drug called AZT.

AZT was a failed chemotherapy drug sitting on the shelves of the US National Institutes of Health. It had been there for nearly 25 years.

It was doled out to patients with orders that they take it every day for the rest of their lives.

To say AZT is highly toxic is a vast understatement. It attacks all cells of the body, including cells of the immune system. So when patients began dying as a result, doctors blithely assured one and all that “the AIDS disease had accelerated” and the deaths had nothing to do with AZT.

This gives you a clue about how medical criminals can target specific populations.

For example, gay men in America were heavily promoted to “take the AIDS test.” The propaganda was relentless. Naturally, a percentage of the tested men showed up positive on, again, the useless and misleading antibody test.

They were dosed with what amounts to a chemical warfare agent. AZT. Many died.

In the late 1990s, I gave talk about HIV to a group of people in the community room of a park in Hollywood. I said to them:

Imagine that this park is suddenly called the epicenter of an outbreak of a virus. It’s all a fake, but there it is. Health authorities order their agents to track down everyone who has been in the park in the last three months.

These park visitors must be tested for the presence of the virus. Of course, the test is fatally flawed. It shows positive results for a few dozen reasons, none of which has anything to do with the presence of a virus.

Those people, those park visitors who “test positive,” are now given a drug which is so toxic it can kill them. It does kill many of them.

As they die, the health authorities count them as victims of the “Hollywood Park virus.”

The circle is closed. The lies interlock.

After my book, AIDS Inc., was published in 1988, I interviewed a researcher attached to the largest HIV study ever done on gay men, the ongoing San Francisco Men’s Study.

This piece of research tracked men who had been diagnosed as HIV to see what happened to them over the course of many yerar.

Of course, all of them were taking AZT. A huge percentage of them fell ill and died.

But there was a subset of men who remained healthy for 8-10 years and were still healthy. The common denominator? They never took AZT, or they stopped taking it.

I asked the researcher why the organizers of the Study didn’t trumpet this fact.

She said they didn’t think it was very important.

Not important? According to the conventional “science,” these men should be dead. They weren’t. They were healthy. They didn’t take the drug.

This is the kind of “science” that is used to bolster fake epidemics. Real death, false reason.

A crime like no other.

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 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

by Jon Rappoport

October 6, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

Amidst the hysteria about Ebola, one stubborn fact sits like a rock: everything depends upon being able to accurately diagnose Ebola in each patient.

And then it follows: you must examine the test that is being used to diagnose Ebola. Is it accurate? Does it have flaws? Is it being applied correctly?

Because, if there is a serious problem with the test, the whole house of cards collapses. The entire narrative about Ebola is fatally flawed.

Last week, when a man was admitted to a hospital in Dallas, the CDC held a press conference. CDC Director Tom Frieden stated that this patient had been diagnosed with Ebola—with a test that is “highly accurate. It’s a PCR test of blood.” (see the 2m06s mark in the video of the press conference.)

This is, indeed, the test of choice for Ebola.

However, as I’ve written, the PCR test has problems. It is open to errors. One of those errors occurs right at the beginning of the procedure:

Is the sample taken from the patient actually a virus or a piece of a virus? Or is it just an irrelevant piece of debris?

Another problem is inherent in the method of the PCR itself. The test is based on the amplification of a tiny, tiny speck of genetic material taken from a patient—blowing it up millions of times until it can be observed and analyzed.

Researchers who employ the test claim that, as a result of the procedure, they can also infer the quantity of virus that is present in the patient.

This is crucial, because unless a patient has millions and millions of Ebola virus in his body, there is absolutely no reason to think he is sick or will become sick.

So the question is: can the PCR test allow researchers and doctors to say how much virus is in a patient’s body?

Many years ago, journalist John Lauritsen approached a man named Kary Mullis for an answer.

Source-1: For a brief excerpt from John Lauritsen’s article about Kary Mullis, see Frontiers in Public Health, 23 September, 2014, “Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent,” by Patricia Goodson. (See also this.)

Source-2: For John’s 1996 article in full, see “Has Provincetown Become Protease Town?”

“Kary Mullis… is thoroughly convinced that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. With regard to the viral-load tests, which attempt to use PCR for counting viruses, Mullis has stated: ‘Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.’ PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral-load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.”

Kary Mullis is a biochemist. He is also a Nobel Prize winner (1993, Chemistry).

And oh yes, one other thing.

Mullis invented the PCR.

That’s why he won the Nobel Prize.

Mullis’ answer was succinct: “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.”

Translation: the PCR test can’t be used to say how much virus is in a person’s body.

Therefore, the CDC’s gold standard for testing Ebola patients says nothing about whether they are sick or will become sick. It says nothing about why some patients do become sick.

And the other problems with the test are significant as well: errors in carrying out the highly sensitive procedure; lab contamination of the sample taken from the patient; choice of a sample that is not a virus at all, or is the wrong virus.

And upon this foundation of sand, the whole “Ebola epidemic” is being foisted on the public.

In analyzing so-called epidemics and their causes for 27 years now (starting with my first book, “AIDS Inc., Scandal of the Century”), I have often pointed out that the diagnostic test is the key—unless people want to jump to conclusions and spread fear and walk down the wrong road, while patients die for reasons other than the stated causes—including misdirected and highly toxic medical treatment.

Again, I point that out now.

(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 29^th 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 Ebola fear: “transmission of the virus”

by Jon Rappoport

October 4, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Transmission of the virus…this is what everybody is worried about now.

Transmission, transmission, transmission, through this route and that route.

I have news. Transmission does not automatically equal getting sick.

If it did, the entire human race would have been wiped out centuries ago.

People transfer germs to each other all the time. They house untold numbers of germs, and they transfer them.

I know there are many people out there who are afraid of germs. They use chemical wipes and they do all sorts of things to stay free of germs…as if that were possible.

The mere transferring of a virus from person A to person B says absolutely nothing about whether person B will get sick. Nothing.

What makes a person sick to the point where illness threatens his life? His immune system, which would ordinarily throw off germs, has been rendered too weak, by non-germ factors, to do its job.

Then you will find millions and millions of a particular active germ in his body. Then he can get sick and even die. The germs are the end result, not the cause.

Nothing about any of this is mentioned in public-health warnings.

The public is led to believe that passing a germ from person A to person B is a potentially fatal act, all by itself.

This is false.

If person B’s immune system is already on the ropes, he is sick or will get sick from any old germ passing through.

If his immune system is healthy, he will remain healthy. If a load of germs does enter his body, he may, under certain circumstances fall ill, but he will recover.

It’s important to note an exception: when doctors are injecting germs (and toxic chemicals) into the body, which happens during vaccination, then even a person with a strong immune system can be badly affected, far beyond temporary illness. Why? Because the injection is unnatural, in that it bypasses portals of immune defense. And because toxic chemicals are poison.

The real worry is the vaccine, not the virus in the wild.

The propaganda says: if someone passes you a virus, that act in itself constitutes a life-threatening danger.

False.

The truth is, if your immune system is weak, you need to find ways to become more healthy and strong.

Or you can submit to the massive fear-mongering about, say, Ebola, and accept the notion that merely “catching” Ebola threatens your life.

For more than a century, researchers and doctors on the fringes of conventional medicine, excluded from The Club, have argued that it is the condition of the terrain of the body, and not the germ, which determines health and illness.

The volume and weight of official germ propaganda have drowned them out.

The rise of the pharmaceutical industry has paralleled the broad spread of this propaganda. And not by accident.

Two situations: one, a person with a strong healthy immune system meets the Ebola virus; two, a person whose immune system is decimated meets an ordinary flu virus.

Which is the major threat?

Situation two.

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 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com.

#Ebola: 47 questions and answers that will set your hair on fire

by Jon Rappoport

October 3, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

I have presented this information, in depth, in other recent articles. Here I present the bare bones.

Q: What is the major psychological factor at work here?

A: Above all else, it is people making an automatic connection between their own frightening image of Ebola and the statement, “So-and-so is sick.”

Q: “Sick” doesn’t automatically=Ebola?

A: That’s right, even when an authority says some person is sick and in the hospital and has Ebola.

Q: Is the Ebola epidemic a fraud, in the same way that Swine Flu was a fraud?

A: In the summer of 2009, the CDC stopped counting cases of Swine Flu in the US.

Q: Why?

A: Because lab tests on samples taken from likely and diagnosed Swine Flu cases showed no presence of the Swine Flu virus or any other kind of flu virus.

Q: So the CDC was caught with its pants down.

A: Around its ankles. It was claiming tens of thousands of Americans had Swine Flu, when that wasn’t the case at all. So why should we believe them now, when they say, “The patient was tested and he has Ebola.” The CDC is Fraud Central.

Q: Where is the fraud now, when it comes to counting Ebola cases and labeling people with the Ebola diagnosis?

A: The diagnostic tests being run on patients—the antibody and PCR tests are most frequently used—are utterly unreliable and useless.

Q: Therefore, many, many people could be labeled “Ebola,” when that is not the case at all?

A: Correct.

Q: But people are sick and dying.

A: People are always sick and dying. You can find them anywhere you look. That doesn’t mean they’re Ebola cases.

Q: In other words, medical authorities can place a kind of theoretical grid over sick and dying people and reinterpret them as “Ebola.”

A: Exactly. The map can be drawn in any number of ways.

Q: Could an “Ebola patient” have other viruses in his body?

A: Of course. Many other viruses. The mere presence of a virus does not mean a person is sick or is going to get sick.

Q: What test needs to be run, in order to say, “This person is sick because of Ebola.”

A: First of all, the Ebola virus would need to be isolated from the patient directly. The two tests I mentioned above are indirect. Then, if Ebola is isolated from the patient directly, a test needs to show that the patient is harboring millions of active Ebola virus—that’s called a test for titer.

Q: Are these procedures being done as a matter of course on people suspected of having Ebola?

A: No.

Q: We’re told that the Dallas Ebola patient was vomiting profusely outside his apartment, before he was sent to the hospital. Isn’t this a symptom of Ebola?

A: It could be a symptom of many things. Some news reports state that the patient had already been to the hospital, where he was given antibiotics and sent home. All classes of antibiotics list nausea and vomiting as adverse effects.

Q: So the symptoms of Ebola, like cough, fever, fatigue, diarrhea—these can be attributed to many causes?

A: Absolutely. The flu, for example.

Q: Now we’re seeing a search operation for contacts of several Ebola patients.

A: This will whip up hysteria to new heights. But where is the proof that the original patients have Ebola?

Q: Again, the original patients are sick.

A: “Sick” does not automatically equal “Ebola.”

Q: What’s killing all those people in West Africa?

A: With the tests being run on them—and many are simply eyeballed and called “Ebola”—there is no proof that any of these people have Ebola.

Q: There are other long-term reasons for death and dying in West Africa?

A: Protein-calorie malnutrition, hunger, starvation, extreme poverty, contaminated water supplies, overall lack of basic sanitation, a decade of horrific war, toxic medical drugs, prior toxic vaccine campaigns, etc.

Q: And the combined effect of these conditions?

A: Destruction of immune systems. Then, any germ that sweeps through the population, a germ that would ordinarily be defeated, instead kills many people. Why? Because the immune system is too weak to respond. With healthy and strong immune systems, the germs would have no significant effect.

Q: What about the health workers in West Africa who have died?

A: Since unreliable diagnostic tests would have been run on them, we don’t have any idea why they died. But at least some of them were suffering greatly from working inside hazmat suits, sealed off from the outside. In a one-hour shift, in boiling heat, they were losing five quarts of body fluid, then coming out, rehydrating, disinfecting with toxic chemicals, putting their suits on again, going back to patients for the next shift, losing extraordinary amounts of body fluid again, and so forth and so on. That would cause anyone to collapse.

Q: But this has to be an Ebola epidemic, with all the press coverage, with statements from the CDC, with announcements from experts.

A: That’s what they said about Swine Flu, which was a dud. This doesn’t have to be Ebola just because official sources say it is.

Q: Let’s get back to the psychological factors involved here.

A: A person has heard all about how dangerous Ebola is. He has a fear of some unknown invisible tiny killer, a virus. He has heard about “bad diseases” coming from Africa. Now, someone from the CDC stands up and talks about the threat of Ebola and says a patient with Ebola is in a Dallas hospital, and is sick. What’s the effect? Utter acceptance of the idea that the hospital patient has Ebola. “It’s Ebola. It couldn’t be anything else.”

Q: But it could be something else?

A: Of course.

Q: People don’t want to accept that, though. They want to believe in the doctors and the CDC and the tests that are run on people to decide if they have Ebola.

A: That belief isn’t based on anything real.

Q: People believe in the power of what they’re told.

A: Yes. It’s interesting to see people who otherwise call the CDC a fraud suddenly accept the CDC’s edict about Ebola. There is no rational substance to that acceptance.

Q: So to be clear, you’re saying there might not be an Ebola epidemic at all.

A: What do you need to determine whether people have Ebola? Accurate diagnostic tests. Accurate tests aren’t being done. So this is an unproven epidemic. And making the assertion of an epidemic is a hoax.

Q: Like the Swine Flu.

A: Exactly. As I said, in the summer of 2009, the CDC stopped counting cases of Swine Flu and yet maintained there was an epidemic. The samples of blood from patients they sent to labs showed, in the overwhelmingly number of cases, that there was no Swine Flu virus present.

Q: And at that time, how many cases of Swine Flu had the CDC already said were present in the US?

A: Tens of thousands.

Q: And what did the CDC do next?

A: Unbelievably, they doubled down and estimated there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US. That’s the level of lying we’re dealing with here. And now, the CDC says Ebola is loose. The diagnostic tests they’re running and relying on are useless. But everybody and his brother believes the CDC.

Q: Again, people dying doesn’t automatically equal Ebola? You’ll hear, “What else could it be? It must be Ebola.”

A: People have all sorts of preconceptions that lead them to say, “It must be Ebola.” Here is the sequence: We hear nothing about people dying. Then the press reports, “People are dying. It’s an outbreak. It’s Ebola.” And that is automatically accepted. Why? Because populations have been tuned up by decades of propaganda to make those connections.

Q: Believing what you say here—this would imply such an enormous level of fraud—it’s unthinkable.

A: No, it’s not unthinkable. Again, for comparison, I refer you to the Swine Flu hoax. That was absolutely staggering. It was exposed by CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson in October of 2009. She published her work on the CBS website. CBS was about to put the story on the Evening News. Then it was stopped. Attkisson was cut off at the knees. Censored.

Q: Why?

A: Because the entire vaccine establishment, including the CDC, which is really a PR agency for pharmaceutical companies, would have been exposed for all to see. By calling Swine Flu an epidemic, millions and millions of Swine Flu shots were given. The CDC, knowing the “epidemic” was a fraud, their own fraud, was pitching the vaccine as if their lives depended on it.

Q: Was the World Health Organization (WHO) involved in the fraud?

A: They started it.

Q: How?

A: As Peter Doshi has written in BMJ Online, in the spring of 2009, with only 20 cases of Swine Flu in the world—20—the WHO declared Swine Flu a “level 6 pandemic,” their highest classification of danger. Not only that, they changed their own definition of “pandemic,” so that it no longer had to mean widespread and severe death and dying. They just changed the meaning of word “pandemic.” Quite Orwellian.

Q: But the US government is buying and distributing hazmat suits. People are being quarantined. There is a hunt for contacts of the Dallas patient. Stories in the press are ramping up fear. All these people couldn’t be wrong.

A: I have condos for sale on the moon. I think you might be an ideal customer.

Q: Speaking of the CDC, a long-term scientist with the agency, William Thompson, recently admitted he committed fraud, when he co-authored a 2004 study that claimed the MMR vaccine had no connection to autism.

A: Thompson had several co-authors from the CDC on that study. They all committed fraud. Consider the conversations that must have taken place at the CDC to arrange that fraud.

Q: Do you think the fraud went all the way to the top of the CDC?

A: In 2004, whistleblower Thompson wrote a letter to Julie Gerberding, the head of the CDC. He warned her he was about to present troubling and sensitive data about the vaccine at an upcoming conference on vaccines and autism. His meaning was clear. He had found a vaccine-autism connection.

Q: What did Gerberding do?

A: She never answered Thompson’s letter, and his presentation at the conference was canceled.

Q: Is Gerberding still the head of the CDC?

A: No. She left the CDC in 2009.

Q: Where is she now?

A: She’s the president of Merck vaccines.

Q: What vaccine do they manufacture?

A: The MMR.

Q: The same vaccine Thompson found had a connection to autism?

A: Yes.

Q: And for 10 years, from 2004 to now, Thompson and his co-authors sat on the knowledge that the MMR vaccine has a connection to autism?

A: Yes.

Q: And this is the same CDC that now wants us to believe that there is an Ebola epidemic?

A: Yes. As I was saying, I have a lovely condo for you on the dark side of the moon. Swimming pool, outdoor grill, playground for the kiddies, nine-hole golf course. Interested?

Q: No comment. But since we’ve come this far, perhaps you could explain why the tests for diagnosing Ebola are unreliable and useless.

A: Let’s start with the antibody test. Two problems. First, the test is notorious for what’s called “cross-reactions.” That means the test isn’t really registering, in this case, the presence of Ebola. It’s registering one of a whole host of other factors. For example, the patient received a vaccine, and that triggers a falsely positive reading.

Q: What’s the second problem?

A: The antibody test doesn’t say whether a person was sick, is sick, or will get sick. At best, if there are no cross-reactions, it merely says the person had contact with the virus in question. So a positive antibody test for Ebola is far from saying “this person has Ebola.” That’s a lie. In fact, before 1985, the general conclusion from positive antibody tests was: this is a good sign; the patient’s immune system contacted the germ and threw it off, defeated it.

Q: What about the PCR test for Ebola?

A: This test is prone to many mistakes, starting with the tiny, tiny sample of material taken from the patient. Is it really genetic material, and is that material really a piece of a virus, or is it just a piece of general and irrelevant debris? The test itself takes that tiny sample and amplifies it millions of times so it can be observed. Assuming it is actually Ebola virus, or a fragment of Ebola virus, there is no indication there is enough of the virus in the patient’s body to make him sick. There have to be millions upon millions of active virus in the patient’s body to begin to say that virus is causing problems. The PCR test says nothing about that. In fact, why was it necessary to do the PCR test at all? If the patient had enough Ebola virus in his body to cause illness, there was no need to search for a tiny fragment of a hoped-for Ebola virus, to start the PCR test. The virus would have been everywhere.

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 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com.