The Human Heart, Not Vaccines

by Jon Rappoport

August 24, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Once this meta program of culture becomes dominant, it shapes our experience into an arbitrary and parallel counterfeit of that which is real. Once this meta program takes over our perceptual apparatus, it is the only mode we have for interacting with reality. Once that happens we can’t question our culturally conditioned state, since that is our only reality experience.” — Joseph Chilton Pearce

Imagine a child brought into this world who has two loving parents close to him. The mother breastfeeds him. The child is free to play. He has friends. He eats fresh simple food. The immediate world around him contains no every-day ominous human threats.

In this setting, his health and vitality expand.

The idea of vaccines—even if they did safely prevent disease (they don’t)—would be absurd.

Vaccination would be an interruption of life.

It would force the child’s body to deal with an unnatural and unnecessary intrusion.

Any sane person looking at the ALIVENESS of the child, day after day, would immediately understand the insanity of a vaccine.

Likewise, the notion that a child who is born into a threatening, cold, and unhealthy world could benefit from a vaccine is also insane. What needs to be changed is the immediate world the child is born into.

The quick fix of a vaccine is no fix at all.

In the same way, if a person who is exposed to toxic chemicals in the environment therefore develops cancer, no amount of prior fiddling with his genes would have prevented the cancer. The environment needs to be changed.

Ivan Illich: “The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.”

To say that modern medicine has made an overreach would be a vast understatement. Every negative blip the environment imposes on a child is viewed as a symptom of a disease which must be treated.

Another interruption in the flow of life.

And when scientists decided they had to find the tiny organisms causing these negative blips, they eventually focused on a concept called VIRUS. They invented a closed system for discovering these viruses—a self-fulfilling prophecy. A claim of virus-isolation that was no isolation at all; a claim of sequencing the genome of the virus which was nothing more than a simulation of possible cobbled-together genetic information. In other words, nonsense.

The basic human immune system is HEALTH. VITAL LIFE FORCE.

It isn’t a germ-killing military machine inside the body.

HEALTH overrides illness.

And the first test of that health, for a baby, is the warm love of two parents. Is it there or isn’t it? If it isn’t, the baby immediately has to make unhealthy adjustments.

As I’ve detailed in other articles, the vaccine-induced “absence” of a typical childhood disease, like measles, is no sign that a child is healthy. Odds are, the absence is a bad sign. It means the toxic vaccine has derailed the child’s ability to produce an energetic outpouring of health/vitality…and then the so-called “clinical signs of measles” never appear…but the child is less powerful. Less free.

Now we come to another form of vaccination, so to speak. The modern education system. Its basic purpose seems to be the prevention of unique individual vitality. Vitality, of course, is viewed as a disease.

John Taylor Gatto: “Our form of compulsory schooling is an invention of the State of Massachusetts around 1850. It was resisted — sometimes with guns — by an estimated eighty percent of the Massachusetts population, the last outpost in Barnstable on Cape Cod not surrendering its children until the 1880s, when the area was seized by militia and children marched to school under guard… [M]andatory public education in this country … was useful in creating not only a harmless electorate and a servile labor force but also a virtual herd of mindless consumers. In time a great number of industrial titans came to recognize the enormous profits to be had by cultivating and tending such a herd via public education…Years of [school] bells will condition all but the strongest to a world that can no longer offer important work to do. Bells are the secret logic of school time; their logic is inexorable. Bells destroy the past and future, rendering every interval the same as any other, as the abstraction of a map renders every living mountain and river the same, even though they are not. Bells inoculate each undertaking with indifference…It takes maybe 50 hours to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. After that, students can teach themselves…Whatever an education is, it should make you a unique individual, not a conformist; it should furnish you with an original spirit with which to tackle the big challenges…”

VITALITY.

I offer a revolutionary book for your consideration. It was written 60 years ago by AS Neill. It is called Summerhill, which was the name of the boarding school Neill founded, in the 1920s, and ran in England. It shows a way out of this education lunacy.

When the children did learn at Summerhill, they did so in rooms where no coaxing was necessary, where no teacher needed to make lessons fun or interesting. Because when children at Summerhill went into the class room they wanted to be there.

Summerhill was a school that was based on PLAY and THEN LEARNING. The teaching was straightforward, competent, minus social frills and aids.

A little child might play with his friends (no adult supervision) on school grounds every day until he was 10 or 12; and then decide he wanted to come to class for the first time in his life. He then learned to read, write, and do arithmetic…

Schoolwork was not compulsive. It wasn’t a framework forced on to the spirit of the child.

School-learning was waiting for the child to choose it. In freedom.

AS Neill was no New Ager. He was a no-nonsense tough character. In the book, he tells the story of a boy who, at 16, having never attended a class, walked into his office and said he wanted to become an engineer. In no uncertain terms, Neill told him he’d have to apply himself in the classroom every day—the boy said he was ready.

In two years, starting from scratch, the boy graduated from high school.

Later, the boy, now a young man with a degree, was working for a company in London. The boss called him into his office and asked him: “Why are you different from all my other employees?”

And the young man immediately answered: “Because I’m not afraid of you.”

SPIRIT. VITALITY. HEALTH. POWER. THE UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL.

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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.

Medical weapons of mass destruction

Jan5

A continuing tradition, in which COVID is the latest example

by Jon Rappoport

January 5, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

After a hundred years of intense propaganda promoting the idea that diseases are everywhere, and each disease is caused by a single germ, which must be killed by a medical drug…

The fallout has been extreme, to say the least.

Let’s start here:

When will hysterical defenders of “science” face up to the destruction the US medical system is causing?

Millions of masked people, who border on hysteria, believe they know COVID science.

On closer examination, these people believe what their television sets tell them. They believe Fauci because he’s on television, and he’s talking from the White House, and he disagrees with Trump.

Of the millions who believe in Fauci television science, there are many who will say science is “studies.” They are quite sure these studies back up what Fauci and Redfield are spouting, and any contradictory studies would be artifacts dreamed up by secret minions of Trump.

I recently analyzed COVID-19 from the point of view of false data.

COVID case numbers and death numbers are being fraudulently inflated to the skies. That’s an enormous crime, because the lockdowns and the economic devastation have been based on these data.

Now I want to apply that same direct analysis to the entire US medical system. In this instance…

True data are buried, hidden, and ignored.

What data? Actual numbers of deaths and maiming CAUSED by medical treatment.

When you see the dimensions of this crime and this mass human tragedy, you’ll also see further implications—titanic insurance fraud, tax fraud, and, indeed, millions upon millions of work-hours irretrievably lost to the nation’s economy.

Insurance companies are paying out billions of dollars for medical treatment that is destructive, not helpful.

Insurance companies are also paying billions in death benefits as a result of doctors, not diseases, killing people.

And all this medical destruction is being subsidized by the taxpayer.

No one has calculated the $$ cost. No one can calculate the tragic human cost.

Now here is the analysis. Understand that the vital data in these mainstream reports have been briefly revealed, then hidden.

ONE: “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and was the 2013 recipient of ASA’s [American Sociological Association’s] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.

Donald Light: “Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [6.6 million annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.” (ASA publication, “Footnotes,” November 2014)

TWO: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998: “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.”

The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate:

Every year, in the US, between 76,000 and 137,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs.

Beyond that, every year 2.2 million hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs.

The authors write: “…Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and administered.”

So this study had nothing to do with doctor errors, nurse errors, or improper combining of drugs. And it only counted people killed or maimed who were admitted to hospitals. It didn’t begin to tally all the people taking pharmaceuticals who died as consequence of the drugs, at home.

THREE: July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans per year. 106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that’s 2.25 million deaths. You might want to read that last number again.

I interviewed Starfield in 2009. I asked her whether she was aware of any overall effort by the US government to eliminate this holocaust. She answered a resounding NO. She also said her estimate of medically caused deaths in America was on the conservative side.

FOUR: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It [the Institute] calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”

The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans. Every public health agency knows the truth.

FIVE: None of the above reports factor in death or injury by vaccine.

The US system for reporting severe adverse effects of vaccines is broken.

Barbara Loe Fisher, of the private National Vaccine Information Center, has put together a reasonable analysis:

“But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, ‘Introducing MEDWatch,’ JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]”

“There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.”

“Even so, each year about 12,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS]; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. [See RT Chen, B. Hibbs, ‘Vaccine safety,’ Pediatric Annals, July 1998: 445-458]”

“However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events [per year]. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.”

Medical crimes.

Medically caused deaths of friends, family members, loved ones, who are buried along with the truth.

No criminal investigations, no prosecutions, no guilty verdicts, no prison sentences.

But of course, you can believe everything leading lights of the US medical system tell you about COVID.

You can believe everything the press—who buries the truth about this medical holocaust—tells you about COVID.

Given the reports on medically caused death and maiming I’ve just cited and described in this article, it’s obvious that…

Leading medical journals around the world, which routinely publish glowing accounts of clinical trials of medical drugs…

Are spilling over with rank fraud, on page after page.

Indeed, here is a stunning quote from a woman who has quite probably read and analyzed more medical-drug studies than any doctor in the world:

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

Compare that quote with one from “the father of COVID science,” Tony Fauci. In an interview with the National Geographic, Fauci stated: “Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they’re talking about…If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously.”

They take things so seriously, they routinely publish glowing studies of medical drugs that are killing people in great numbers.

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

Jon Rappoport

COVID: Going to the root of the poisonous tree

Aug20

by Jon Rappoport

August 20, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Before I jump in, I want to point to a film that hacks away the leaves, the branches, the trunk and the roots of the poisonous tree of vaccination all at once: VAXXED II, directed by Brian Burrowes. I urge you to watch it. “Urge” is too light a word. What is coming down the pipeline at us, in terms of attempts at vaccine mandates…this film will only strengthen your resolve, even if you’re quite sure you don’t need strengthening. The film contains many interviews with parents of vaccine-devastated children, and the children are there, too. The children who have died are there as well. Nobody has ever made a film like this.

We DO need to drill down to the roots of the poisonous tree.

Some people make this calculation: “I don’t want my view of COVID to appear too radical. That would drive the audience away. So I’ll cut myself off at a certain point and try to give the audience pieces of the puzzle they can digest…”

For example, they would assert: “I’m not against vaccines. I just want to make them safer.”

They would say: “We have to agree there is a new virus spreading around the world. If we don’t, people will reject everything we say. So let’s focus on whether the virus is as dangerous as health officials claim it is.”

They would say: “We have to accept official case numbers as a starting point, even if untold numbers of people are being diagnosed with COVID by a casual glance at their symptoms, and even if the tests are inaccurate…”

Bit by bit, and piece by piece, people would be accepting the official COVID story, until there is very little to argue about.

Let’s take the issue of safer vaccines. How are they going to be made safer? Manufacturers are going to throw in the towel and just eliminate the toxic adjuvants? They’ll eliminate the injected germs which are the very basis of the exercise? They’ll make vaccines in outer space, where, hopefully, contamination with random viruses would be avoided? The synthetic genes they insert in the body will magically refrain from creating many horrendous ripple-effects?

Deeper still, why do immune systems need a “rehearsal for the real thing”—which is the foundational hypothesis underlying vaccination. Nature isn’t sufficient? We must fight off every conceivable germ with a shot in the arm?

Why not try to improve the strength of immune systems through non-medical means? Nutrition, for instance, was the key reason for the historical decline of traditional diseases. Along with improved sanitation.

“No, let’s not go there. Too many people will reject us if we reject vaccines.”

I beg to differ. We are in a long-term war against the medical cartel. It’s not going away. Think ten thousand years into the future. That’s a reasonable estimate of the length of the battle.

“Look, I know there are serious questions about the original discovery of the COVID virus. Maybe the researchers didn’t use the proper procedures. But let’s not awaken that sleeping giant. Too many people won’t be able to fathom what we’re talking about. It’s too far out. Then they’ll reject everything else we’re saying.”

Yes? And? So? Sooner or later we’re going to have to bring up the subject. Because this isn’t the only time “discovery” was faked. And it won’t be the last. So let’s jump in now. Don’t stint. Don’t hold back. Go to the root.

I think of my good friend and colleague, Robert Scott Bell. Go to his site, robertscottbell.com. Listen to his radio show. He’s been on the front lines of health for more than 20 years. Every day. He dives deep. He never lets people forget that the terrain vs. the germ is still one of the most important debates in human history. Are germs the basic problem, or is the overall condition of the body and its ability to remain vibrant and resilient the paramount factor?

That argument has been largely forgotten, even in the natural health community. Why? Because over time, too many people have said, “Oh, we can’t bring THAT up. It’s too radical for the masses.”

So now those “natural people” are wearing masks and fear the virus.

—Thus proving you can accept every “natural” slogan coming down the pipeline and still buy counterfeit science.

The issue isn’t the content of slogans. It’s the acceptance of any gross shortcuts that seek to avoid the need to do something called THINKING.

“Oh. But we must have slogans. People are too dim to figure out matters on their own.”

Good luck with that notion. Do you really believe you can win a long-term war, AT THE ROOT, by engaging in a contest of slogans? That’s like saying the failure to teach basic literacy in schools stems from older computers. We need better computers in classrooms. Idiot’s delight, brought to you by Bill Gates.

A ten-thousand-year war. Don’t shrink away from it.

Here’s an historical example of root vs. compromise. It’s called pellagra.

Among the symptoms: Large scaly sores. Huge areas of red inflamed skin. Diarrhea. Weakness. Loss of appetite. Abdominal pain.

In the early 20th century, several million people in the American South suffered from it. Public health officials asserted the cause was a germ.

The question was, which germ? A prestigious government commission was appointed to find the answer.

At the time, there were people who suspected a germ wasn’t the cause, but they kept their mouths shut, in part because they thought they couldn’t sell the idea. It was too radical. Better to argue about whether quarantines would work. Better to argue about whether case clusters were a fertile area for research. Better to argue about whether the germ might be carried in corn, across farms. Better to argue about unique weather conditions in the South, where the disease was concentrated. Argue about anything other than the existence of a germ as the causative agent.

Flash forward THIRTY YEARS. After fighting their own war, a few researchers correctly convinced the medical world that pellagra was the result of a niacin deficiency.

There was no germ. It didn’t exist. It was a pompous assumption, championed by arrogant scientists, who wanted to own the territory of disease research.

What if the few dissenting investigators, who endured three decades of utter rejection by the establishment, had decided, “Well, we can’t claim there’s no germ involved at all. That would be too much. We can’t go that far. We can’t go to the root. Let’s debate about the weather, the case clusters, the corn fields—issues where we can make a stand, where we can have an effect…”

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

Jon Rappoport

The power of viruses and the Power of You

Feb19

“I saw a horror movie and somehow it was the greatest experience of my life.”

by Jon Rappoport

February 19, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

In this article, I depart, for a moment, from the strategy of citing evidence in my coverage of the “China epidemic.” (For my series of articles on the “China epidemic,” click here.)

Instead, I want to make a few brief notes on the subject of power.

For many or most people, there is a kind of programming in the mind which urges the acceptance of viruses as powerful. This programming results in visceral emotional reactions toward microbes.

The collection of sensations would be something like: riding on a train heading toward a possible break in the tracks. Each person on board has been warned. No one is sure whether the tracks, a few miles in the distance, have actually been ripped apart. The train’s engineer in the cab isn’t stopping.

There is fear, of course. But there is also something else. An almost wild feeling. Where does it comes from? It comes from the realization that power is SOMEWHERE. Where? In the potential break in the tracks.

People don’t often experience a sensation of power. For that reason, they don’t want to minimize the importance of the tracks up ahead. They don’t want to throw away that feeling. At some level, they believe that, if they do throw it away, there will be no power anywhere. And THAT would provoke panic.

The idea that they might be coddling an ILLUSION—and the whole warning they received was a monstrous fabrication to begin with—well, this prospect is entirely out of the question. That couldn’t be, under any circumstances. That would be too, too much.

If you were so foolish as to approach such a person and suggest he could, first and foremost, look to his OWN power, he would stare at you as if you were speaking a language from another planet. To say that your advice, under the circumstances—the speeding train, the tracks, the warning—was inappropriate…this would be a vast understatement.

If a person, for whatever reason, believes he has no significant power, he searches for it elsewhere. If he can find a train, a warning, and danger, he’ll climb onboard. It’s far, far better than nothing.

In our society and present culture, of course, the thought that the individual has a great deal of inherent power, and a right to it, is on the wane. That ship, to go to another metaphor, is taking on lots and lots of water.

Typical sociopaths in high places, and their bootlickers, apply basic psychology they don’t teach in fifty-thousand-dollars-a-year colleges: People must be able to imagine power is SOMEWHERE. They don’t believe they have it themselves. So why not invoke images of power in a venue which results in a strange allegiance:

“I’ll see and feel power in a fearful threat to me. I’ll sign on and remain loyal, no matter what. I’ll cling to my threat, and I’ll feel rising fear and strange rising joy together.”

That’s the speeding train, the warning, the tracks.

That’s the virus.

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

Jon Rappoport

How are viruses discovered and identified in the first place?

Feb18

The earthshaking Etienne De Harven interview by Celia Farber

by Jon Rappoport

February 18, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

The question I’ve been asking since 1987—

If the experts are going to claim a particular virus causes a particular disease—how do they know that virus exists in the first place?

For example, the supposedly new coronavirus in China. For example, Ebola. For example, HIV. For example, the coronavirus supposedly causing SARS (2003). How do researchers know these viruses exist?

“Well, of course they know. They must.”

That is not a satisfactory answer—even though most people would offer it.

The question can become very interesting, when you stop and consider researchers working away in biowar labs fiddling with viruses. How do they know they’re tweaking viruses that actually exist?

On a more mundane frontier, when scientists tell us they’re rushing to develop a vaccine against a virus that is harming the population, how do they know that virus exists to begin with?

I came to this question when I was researching HIV in 1987. I began to think about it seriously in 1990. During all these years, I’ve reached out to independent researchers, and I’ve tried to stitch together their answers. I can’t say it’s been a smooth trip.

But I have found some answers; and I have certainly found some fake mainstream assertions, which glitter like baubles on plastic branches of 99-cent store Xmas trees.

Here are a few clues. You need to take a tissue sample from a live human being. You need to filter that sample correctly so you arrive at a much smaller sample you believe might contain a virus. You need to put a drop of that sample under an electron microscope and observe what looks like a virus.

How much virus? How many identical particles of virus? Opinions differ on this. It could be one definite virus, one particle. It could be many, many identical particles.

Sidebar: If you’re trying to prove this virus is actually causing DISEASE in a person, you have to go further. You have to show the very same virus is active and replicating at a very high rate in the person’s body, and his immune system isn’t defeating it. Beyond noticing the patient is sick, how do you test for all THAT? I’m still looking for a definitive technical answer—if there is one.

All right, let’s get back to the electron microscope. Let’s say you’ve observed many identical particles of what looks like a virus in the electron microscope photograph, called an EM. You can then say, “Found it.” But you need to be sure. You need to figure out that this virus isn’t just something that ordinarily lives in the human body like a couch potato and does nothing—a passive endogenous virus. No. You want to show this virus comes from the outside as an invader—an exogenous virus. And how do you perfectly make that differentiation every time? Another question that might have no precise formula as an answer.

Big question: CAN WE BE SURE ALL VIRUSES THAT ARE SAID TO EXIST AND SAID TO CAUSE EPIDEMICS ARE ACTUALLY FOUND AND OBSERVED AND IDENTIFIED ON ELECTRON MICROSCOPE PHOTOGRAPHS? CAN WE AT LEAST SAY THAT?

No.

In which case, the researchers have been, at least some of the time, up the creek without a paddle. They’ve jumped the gun. They’ve bolted out of the starting gate too soon. They’ve laid their money down on a horse that may not even be in the race. They’ve written a check no one can cash. They’re talking about lockdowns and quarantines without having proved their favorite virus of the moment exists. Sure, people on the back end will make big money from these unwarranted presumptions, but money is not science. It might control science, but it ISN’T science.

All right. I’ve now set the stage for an excerpt from an interview, a profound interview with a late mainstream master who, in the face of fake science, suddenly was characterized as a rebel, Etienne De Harven. The interview was conducted several years ago by the brilliant reporter, Celia Farber. You can find the whole interview here. I strongly suggest you read it sixteen times. Yes, it gets technical. You’ll also notice names of elite scientists you haven’t run across. Learn the meaning of the words you’ve never seen before. Dig in. This isn’t television-type brush-off conversation. This isn’t a YouTube throwaway.

I have another reason for exposing readers to this interview—it’s what a conversation about serious scientific issues looks like…this is what trying to bridge the gap between researchers, honest reporters, and the public looks like. There should be hundreds and thousands of such print-interviews taking place, laid before readers. They can handle it. Dumbing down people is partly an illusion: they can wake up. They WILL wake up if they’re sufficiently interested.

Etienne De Harven’s background: president of the Electron Microscopy Society of America; researcher, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Cornell professor of cell biology; professor of pathology, University of Toronto; recognized pioneer in the field of electron microscopy.

The interview focuses on HIV; whether it was ever found and isolated. The implications and questions spread out to any and all viruses.

DE HARVEN: Unacceptably frustrated by the total lack of success in all attempts to demonstrate virus particles in human cancer by EM, the “impresarios” of the cancer/virus “dream” (Gallo, Fauci, and others) totally engaged in the molecular approach.

Consequently, they invented molecular markers to compensate for the missing viral particles…This would have been acceptable if the specificity of these new molecular markers would have been clearly established. Unfortunately, this was not the case. The most misleading molecular marker was probably the first one, i.e. the enzyme [called] reverse transcriptase (RT). Following Temin and Baltimore 1970 papers in “Science”, the RT enzymatic activity has been, most abusively, used as a specific retroviral marker. Both Temin and Baltimore demonstrated RT activity in samples of supposedly “purified” retrovirus.

Embarrassingly, they both omitted to verify the “purity” of their samples by EM. Some of their samples were simply purchased from a commercial company… True, the label on the vials read “pure retrovirus”… However, it was known that these commercial “pure retrovirus” were heavily contaminated by cellular debris!

And since it is also known that all cells contain RT (see Varmus), cellular debris are most likely carrying similar RT enzymes.

Temin and Baltimore did not, therefore, prove that RT is a specific molecular marker for retroviruses. It would have been so simple to check, by EM, the degree of “purity” of the samples they used. This would have, most probably, shown important cell debris contamination, and would have obliged Temin and Baltimore to be much more cautious in the interpretation of their results. In 1975, the members of the Nobel Committee, most regrettably, failed to scrutinize this “purity” problem…

In 1983, at Pasteur Institute in Paris, reliance on the RT marker was a key element in the claimed “isolation” of a new retrovirus [HIV]. Still, Montagnier himself recognized “We did not purify”… He dangerously omitted to consider the misleading interference of cell debris, just as Temin and Baltimore did in 1970.

But a paper on the discovery of a new retrovirus looks much better if it contains at least… one EM picture! So, members of Montagnier’s team spent hours at the TEM [transmission electron microscope], looking at their mixed cell cultures, and they found the virus!

See Fig. 2 in their “historic” 1983 “Science” paper! It is, by the way, a good quality EM picture. It shows unquestionable retroviral particles, budding at the surface of a cell. But the legend of this Fig. 2 states that this cell is a cord blood lymphocyte. Indeed, cord blood lymphocytes were admixed to these complex cell cultures (why?)

Montagnier and his co-workers should have known that human embryonic tissues, and the placenta in particular, are very rich in endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), and that cord blood lymphocytes should therefore be expected to carry the same endogenous retroviruses (under the TEM, endogenous and exogenous viruses, looking identical, cannot be distinguished.)

The budding of these particles has perhaps been stimulated by some of the growth factors also present in these cell cultures. An essential control would have been to repeat the experiment using lymphocytes from the peripheral blood instead of from cord blood. This control is unfortunately missing.

In short, I would frankly state that the Pasteur 1983 paper (whose 30th anniversary has just been celebrated in a “grand messe” of official HIV retro-virology!) contributed very little in AIDS research because its conclusion (i.e. “the isolation of a new retrovirus”) is based on 1) the use of a non specific RT molecular marker, and 2) is falsely supported by EM pictures of, most probably, endogenous human retroviruses.

More details and appropriate references on this analysis can be found in my 2010 paper published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons [— “Human Endogenous Retroviruses and AIDS Research: Confusion, Consensus, or Science?”] (jpands.org/vol15no3/deharven.pdf).

CELIA FARBER: When antibody and VL [viral load] tests became widespread as diagnostic tools for “HIV infection” over the ensuing decades, what happened with EM inside of HIV science and literature? It is my understanding that nobody has ever found HIV in human blood, on EM. Is this an accurate way to say it?

DE HARVEN: In my views, Western Blot [antibody] tests lost all credibility after the publication of Eleni Papadopulos’s et al. (1993) paper, and antibody tests (“Elisa”) [lost credibility] after Christine Johnson’s report (1996). The notion of a “Viral load” (VL), however, brought a new parameter in AIDS diagnosis (Ho,1996). It called attention to the actual number of HIV particles supposedly present in the blood plasma of AIDS patients, PCR technologies [tests] being presumed to offer a way to quantify that number.

If such a viremia (i.e. presence of virus particles in the blood) is indeed present in AIDS patients, it reminisces the retroviral viremia well known in leukemic mice. In such case, retroviral particles should be readily demonstrable, by TEM, of appropriately prepared patient plasma samples. Unfortunately, it has never been possible to demonstrate by TEM one single retroviral particle in the blood plasma of any AIDS patient, even if one selects patients presenting with a so-called “high viral load.”

I was apparently the first researcher to make that statement, during the opening session of President T. Mbeki’s major AIDS conference, in Pretoria, SA, in May 2000. My statement to that effect has never been refuted.

CELIA FARBER: How come?

DE HARVEN: That question must be answered because “something” is measured by PCR technologies in the blood of many AIDS patients. Actually, what is being measured is definitely not the number of retroviral particles (phantom-like, i.e. EM invisible!). In fact, what is being PCR identified, amplified, and supposedly quantified is the number of genomic nucleotide sequences that are extremely similar to sequences known to be part of the retroviral genome. Most regrettably, these sequences were misinterpreted as an indication as a certain number of … HIV particles! This did a lot to consolidate the quasi-religious dogma of HIV as the cause of AIDS, a dogma that has been sharply criticized, a few years ago, by David Rasnick who wrote, authoritatively, about “The AIDS Blunder”…

This interpretation would have been acceptable only if retroviral particles would have been readily demonstrated, by EM, in the blood plasma of these patients; but, since this is not the case, another explanation for the presence of these nucleotide sequences has to be founded.

I presented at the RA conference in Oakland, CA, in 2009, and further developed in my 2010 JAPS paper such a much needed explanation for the presence of these retroviral-like nucleotide sequences. My explanation is based on the well known, variable amounts of circulating DNA in the blood of severely ill patients, and on the fact that we all carry [irrelevant] retroviral-like sequences in our DNA, as endogenous, defective retroviruses, i.e. HERVs (HERVs, for “Human endogenous retroviruses”) (See “Virus in all of us”, R. Lower at al., 1996 PNAS paper).

No surprise, therefore, that these nucleotide sequences are recognized by PCR [tests] in the blood of many AIDS patients, who are indeed severely ill. As already demonstrated in 2008 in Robin Weiss laboratory, HERVs can interfere as confounding factors in the search for novel retrovirus in chronic human diseases…

CELIA FARBER: …Paint a picture for us. The story of the [HIV] virus, the “new deadly virus,” what happens first: What steps did they [—] Montagnier, on one hand, Gallo on the other [—] take to “find” the new entity? Then once they ‘found’ it, what shape was it in? It was not an entity, a thing, with a body, right? It was not coherent. Can we say that? So it lived where? It was seen only through the technologies developed to find it, Elisa, WB [both are antibody tests]? Later PCR/VL [tests]? But what happened back THEN when they tried to see it on EM? Why didn’t everybody look for it on EM? Too expensive?

DE HARVEN: No, EM is not cheap but not that expensive! And its cost has certainly nothing to do with the fact that it has barely been used for the past 30 years in AIDS research! It has not been used because “They” knew it was not going to show anything of retroviral significance in samples coming directly from AIDS patients. And since AIDS had become big business, the stocks of involved giant pharmaceutical companies could not be jeopardized! It had to be saved at all cost, even at the cost of trusting non specific molecular markers… Fear is good business, and viruses generate fear most efficiently… So, the HIV flag has to be maximally agitated. In worldwide medias, with thousands of computer-generated, colorful caricatures of an idealistic retrovirus… By contrast, the medias have been dominated by the most rigorous censorship when it comes to inform the public about views of rethinking dissidents. This total censorship put a safety lock on any information that could jeopardize the colossal, entirely HIV derived profits of the major pharmaceutical companies.

But I am glad we have Internet!

Daring to say that HIV does not exist amounts to some sort of a capitalistic crime…

Yes, the HIV dogma is probably the darkest page in the history of modern medicine.

CELIA FARBER: Etienne, if you could sum up: Does HIV exist? If so, where and how and as what?

If you could examine 1,000 HIV positive people’s blood under EM, what would you expect to find? If you don’t find HIV on EM in human blood, can any argument be made that the virus is “hiding” and so forth, or that the drugs suppressed the virus to undetectable levels? This is what the defenders of the orthodoxy seem to be saying about the results seen in the Nushawn Williams case.

DE HARVEN: This is the main question! Questioning the very existence of HIV is not something that should be debated only between specialized retro-virologists. It is an essential question that concerns all of us.

CELIA FARBER: Why?

DE HARVEN: Simply because 100% of AIDS research funding is based on the dogmatically postulated existence of HIV. If HIV does not exist, it would follow that AIDS research is the most appalling case of total misappropriation of public research funds! And it would also follow that the monumental amounts of money, so far exclusively devoted to HIV research, would be much better used in other directions. Could you imagine what world we would live in, today, if the total amount of money wasted over the past 30 years on HIV research had been, instead, used for feeding starving Africans, for clean water supply equipment, for public hygiene infrastructures, and for public health education? This would happen only if HIV research is totally stopped! And for this, the scientific and public health organizations have to face the fact that, indeed, HIV does not exist!

…we all have to, courageously, face the fact that the very existence of an exogenous HIV has never been scientifically verified.

—end of interview excerpt—

Again, you can read the whole interview here.

De Harven unmasks HIV research. How many other unproven viruses have likewise been prematurely massaged into existence and prominence? How many times have researchers pulled “special markers” like rabbits out of hats—spuriously claiming these markers establish the existence of otherwise never-observed viruses?

And therefore, when these researchers state they have published the genetic sequences of these viruses—what are they really sequencing? Harmless and passive endogenous viruses that wouldn’t hurt a fly and prefer to lie around in the body for the whole course of a lifetime watching television?

And when someone steps forward, and claims a new and never-before-seen virus is actually a manmade weapon, and he knows this from studying its genetic sequence—is he right, or is he looking at the sequence of an irrelevant microbe that has been rudely coaxed from its long languishing snooze in the warmth of the human body?

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

Jon Rappoport

Interview with a Retired Vaccine Researcher

Dec18

“[These days,] If I had a child, the last thing I would allow is [my child to be vaccinated].”

by Jon Rappoport

December 18, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher who worked for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government’s National Institutes of Health.

Mark retired in the 1990s. He says he was “disgusted with what he discovered about vaccines.”

As you know, since the beginning of NoMoreFakeNews, I continue to launch attacks against non-scientific and dangerous assertions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Mark was one of my early sources.

At the time this interview was originally published — in January 2002, Mark was a little reluctant to speak out, even under the cover of anonymity. But, with the push to make vaccines mandatory and with penalties like quarantine lurking in the wings (even back then), he decided to break his silence.

Like many of my sources, he developed a conscience about his former work. Mark was well aware of the scope of the medical cartel and its goals of depopulation, mind control, and general debilitation of populations.

(Q) Jon Rappoport

(A) Retired Vaccine Researcher (given the pseudonym of “Dr. Mark Randall”)

Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.

A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won’t say which ones.

Q: Why not?

A: I want to preserve my privacy.

Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?

A: I believe I could lose my pension.

Q: On what grounds?

A: The grounds don’t matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.

Q: Harassed by whom?

A: The FBI.

Q: Really?

A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.

Q: So much for free speech.

A: I was “part of the inner circle.” If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.

Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?

A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall “brilliance” of modern medicine.

Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?

A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It’s one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.

A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.

Q: Why?

A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.

Q: And then?

A: I did my own investigation.

Q: What conclusions did you come to?

A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.

Q: What conditions?

A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don’t contract the diseases as easily.

Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?

A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies.

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?

A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I’m concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.

Q: Why?

A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.

Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?

A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases — say, meningitis — that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.

Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.

A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.

Q: Which is?

A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.

Q: So you’re saying that we have been treated to a false history.

A: Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.

Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.

A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.

Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.

A: Well yes, that happened. But that’s not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I’m talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors — that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don’t know are in those kidneys.

Q: Okay, but let’s ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?

A: All right. I’ll give you some of what I came across, and I’ll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here’s a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called “brain-eating” amoeba.

Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I’ve found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.

Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don’t belong in the vaccines.

A: That’s right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don’t really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It’s a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don’t know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time — which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn’t be there, but you don’t know exactly what you’ve got. I have found what I believed was a very small “fragment” of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called “foreign protein,” which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.

Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.

A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.

Q: How were your findings received?

A: Basically, it was, don’t worry, this can’t be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animals’ tissue, and that’s where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I’m not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines.

Q: This information is pretty staggering.

A: Yes. And I’m just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don’t find because we don’t think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea. We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.

Q: And beyond the purity issue?

A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn’t work that way. A vaccine is supposed to “create” antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related “killer cells.”

Q: The immune system is?

A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It’s all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.

Q: So the level of general health is important.

A: More than important. Vital.

Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?

A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you’ve concealed the root cause of the problem.

Q: And that happens?

A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it’s circular reasoning. It’s a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the disease.

Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?

A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.

Q: What was the turning point for you?

A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.

Q: Did you investigate?

A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way.

Q: What do you mean?

A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.

Q: Why doesn’t it make sense?

A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn’t that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn’t that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?

Q: And that is what you found?

A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time.Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation.

Q: Has it been enough?

A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.

Q: Which is?

A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, “This vaccine is safe.” But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.

Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.

A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It’s discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations.

Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?

A: Yes I did.

Q: What happened?

A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labeled with “guilt by association.” All in all, though, I behaved myself.I made sure I didn’t create problems for myself.

Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?

A: First of all, there is no “if.” They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn’t. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you’ve said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it’s true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network.

Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation?

A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realizing the whole truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.

Q: This network you speak of.

A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue.

Q: And in the industrialized nations?

A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefare germs are going to win out. This is an important time.

Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one good avenue.

A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine-and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles — is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from “unknown causes,” and that’s why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and the so-called studies that back it up.

Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.

A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blair’s wife is involved with alternative health. There is the possibility that their child has not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to invasive questioning of his “personal and family life.” In any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to all the families who have come forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR.

Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.

A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national security.

Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel.

A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation. It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.

A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.

Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?

A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don’t need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers — a few — might start leaking information.

Q: A good idea.

A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.

Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?

A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period.

Q: Then we have the fall flu season.

A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.

Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?

A: Yes. But after this interview, I’ll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well.

Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?

A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there.

Q: The things that are not there.

A: Yes.

Q: To avoid any confusion, I’d like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.

A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn’t get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what’s called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.

Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?

A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I’m saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don’t get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe.In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings.They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.

Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he didn’t get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine?

A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time.

Q: How long did you work with vaccines?

A: A long time. Longer than ten years.

Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?

A: No, I can’t. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I’m not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.

Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.

A: The operative word is “appear.” What about all the children who can’t focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both.

Q: So we come to the level playing field.

A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.

Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don’t get shots.

A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person’s responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win.

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

Jon Rappoport

The basics of a staged bioterror attack

Oct11

by Jon Rappoport

October 11, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Imagine this. A big-time doctor from the US Biological Warfare Group waddles into a meeting room, where a collection of Army, CIA, NSA, and DHS representatives sit quietly in their chairs. He says: ‘So I understand you boys want to put on a little domestic bioterror show, to keep the natives from becoming too restless. Well, the first thing you need to know is, germs don’t obey orders. Forget all that sci-fi nonsense. Germs work and they don’t work. It’s a crapshoot. You could have a big fat dud on your hands. I can tell you how to make it work, though, if you give up on your fancy high-tech wet dreams…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

There are future scenarios which, with enough exposure before they’re staged, can be stopped—or at least analyzed correctly when they occur.

A calculated bioterror event is one of those.

The primary fact is: no matter what kind of germ you’re talking about or where it came from, releasing it intentionally does not guarantee predictable results. Far from it.

For instance, people whose immune systems operate at different levels of strength are going to react differently.

The perpetrators may find that less than 2% of people exposed get sick or die.

But there is another strategy that should be understood:

The use of a germ as a cover story for a chemical.

In other words, there is no germ attack. It’s called a germ attack, but that’s a lie. The perps bring in researchers to the affected area, who go on to claim they have isolated a germ that is the cause of death and illness. It’s a sham. What really happened was:

The spread of a toxic chemical that can’t be detected, unless you’re looking for it.

The chemical has severe, deadly, and predictable effects for a week or two. Then it disperses and loses potency and the “epidemic” is done.

In some town, a fairly isolated community, the word goes out that people are suddenly falling ill and dying. The CDC and the Army are called in to cordon off the area and quarantine all citizens. A peremptory announcement is made, early on, that this is a biowar attack.

Major media are allowed outside the periphery. Network news anchors set up on-location and do their wall to wall broadcasts “from the scene.”

The entire nation, the entire world, is riveted on the event, 24/7.

People inside the cordon fall ill and die. Reports emerge from the town:

The networks state that “heroic doctors are taking samples of blood and the blood is being analyzed to find the germ that is causing the epidemic.” The DOD confirms over and over that this is, indeed, a biowar attack.

Human interest stories pile up. This family lost three members, that family lost everybody. Tragedy and horror produce the desired empathic response from “the world community.”

It’s a soap opera, except real people are dying.

The medical cartel promotes fear of the germ.

All controlling entities obtain their piece of the terrorist pie.

Finally, the doctors announce they have isolated the germ causing death in the small town, and researchers are rushing to develop a vaccine (which they produce in record time).

Everyone everywhere must be vaccinated, now. No choice. Do it or be quarantined or jailed.

In this declared martial law situation, the doctors are the heroes. The doctors and the Army. And the government, and even the media.

Then, after a few weeks, when the potency of the secret chemical has dispersed, it’s over.

When you think about it, this scenario is a rough approximation of what happens every day, all over the world, in doctor’s offices. The doctors are prescribing chemicals (drugs) whose effects are far more dangerous than germs that may (or may not) be causing patients to be ill.

In other words, a chem-war attack is being leveled at people all over the world all the time.

See Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, “Is US health really the best in the world?” 106,000 people in America are killed every year by FDA-approved medical drugs. That’s over a million people per decade.

In the wake of a staged “biowar” terror attack, new laws are enacted. The State clamps down harder on basic freedoms. The right to travel is curtailed. Criticizing the authorities is viewed as highly illegal. Freedom of assembly is limited.

“Citizens must cooperate. We’re all in this together.”

A new federal law mandating the CDC schedule of vaccines for every child and adult—no exceptions permitted—is rushed through the Congress and signed by the President.

It’s all based on a lie…in the same way that the disease theory of the medical cartel is based on a lie: the strength of an individual’s immune system is the basic determinant of health or illness, not germs considered in a vacuum.

There are people who are determined to inflate the dangers of germs. They trumpet every “new” germ as the end of humankind on the planet. They especially sound the alarm when researchers claim a germ may have mutated or jumped from animals to humans.

“This is it! We’re done for!”

However, if you check into actual confirmed cases of death from recent so-called epidemics, such as West Nile, SARS, bird flu, Swine Flu, and Ebola, the numbers of deaths are incredibly low.

If political criminals, behind the scenes, wanted to stage a confined “biowar” event, they would choose a chemical, not a germ, and they would leverage such an event to curtail freedom.

Understand: researchers behind sealed doors in labs can claim, with unassailable ease, that they’ve found a germ that causes an outbreak. Almost no one challenges such an assertion.

This was the case, for example, with the vaunted SARS epidemic (a dud), in 2003, when 10 World Health Organization (WHO) labs, walled off from view, in communication with each other via closed circuit, announced they’d isolated a coronavirus as the culprit.

Later, in Canada, a WHO microbiologist, Frank Plummer, wandered off the reservation and told reporters he was puzzled by the fact that fewer and fewer SARS patients “had the coronavirus.” This was tantamount to confessing that the whole research effort had been a failure and a sham—but after a day or so of coverage, the press fell silent.

SARS was a nonsensical farce. Diagnosed patients had ordinary seasonal flu or a collection of familiar symptoms that could result from many different causes.

But the propaganda effort was a stunning success. Populations were frightened. The need for vaccines, in the public mind, was exacerbated.

Several years ago, I spoke with a biologist about the fake bioterror scenario I’ve sketched out above. His comment was: “Do you think any mainstream scientist would dare go into that cordoned-off town and actually check the area for a highly toxic chemical? He’d be blackballed, exiled, and discredited in a minute. The authorities would call him crazy. And that’s if he were lucky.”

Such is “science,” these days. A researcher can discover anything he wants to, if it’s approved. Otherwise, the door is closed.

After 30 years of covering and reporting on deep science fraud, I can tell you that most scientists know, without instructions from above, the dimensions of their “permitted territory.” They can sniff out career danger from a mile away.

GMOs? Roundup? Other toxic pesticides? Climate change? Vaccines? Medical drugs? Diagnostic medical tests? Actual environmental pollution? Mercury? Chemicals in food? Radiation? Nuclear power plants? Fracking? Fluorides? On these and a whole host of other issues, government is centrally involved as a ruling force. And there are armies of compliant scientists ready and willing to carry out preferred government (and corporate) dictates. These scientists already know the answers before the questions are even asked.

Meanwhile, propaganda rivers flow, extolling the glories of science.

It’s a dream situation, for the terminally corrupt.

A huge number of scientists, who don’t actually participate in research fraud, stand back and watch it happen and say nothing. They see the handwriting on the wall in very large letters.

In 1988, while writing my first book, AIDS INC., I interviewed a highly respected virologist at a US university. I mentioned that several molecular biologists were challenging the HIV-causation hypothesis of AIDS. He told me that he and a number of his colleagues were aware that “a serious problem” existed concerning evidence for the hypothesis, but they were all going to “let this one go.” It was too political, he said.

Yes, well, an enormous amount of science turns out to be political.

Keeping one’s head down and letting things go by may not be part of a PhD curriculum, but soon after school is out, researchers enter a different kind of training.

A main theme then pops up: do you want a career, or do you want to live in the middle of nowhere, in exile?

As it so happens, building a broad scientific consensus resting on sand is a straightforward job. It takes time and money, but the work requires no brilliance.

You just flash signs at scientists. The signs say: money; job security; status; advancement; promotion; grants; prestige; reputation; pension; exposure; censure; discrediting; exile; isolation; death.

They get the idea right away.

They would get the idea when a fake bio-attack (that was actually a chemical) occurred. Stay quiet, agree with the authorities.

“Sure, I knew it was a chemical, but I have house payments to make, and my kids are applying to expensive universities…”

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

Jon Rappoport

Interview with a Retired Vaccine Researcher

Mar13

“[These days,] If I had a child, the last thing I would allow is [my child to be vaccinated].”

by Jon Rappoport

March 13, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher who worked for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government’s National Institutes of Health.

Mark retired in the 1990s. He says he was “disgusted with what he discovered about vaccines.”

As you know, since the beginning of NoMoreFakeNews, I continue to launch attacks against non-scientific and dangerous assertions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Mark was one of my early sources.

(Q) Jon Rappoport

(A) Retired Vaccine Researcher (given the pseudonym of “Dr. Mark Randall”)

Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.

A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won’t say which ones.

Q: Why not?

A: I want to preserve my privacy.

Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?

A: I believe I could lose my pension.

Q: On what grounds?

A: The grounds don’t matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.

Q: Harassed by whom?

A: The FBI.

Q: Really?

A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.

Q: So much for free speech.

A: I was “part of the inner circle.” If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.

Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?

A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall “brilliance” of modern medicine.

Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.

A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.

Q: Why?

A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.

Q: And then?

A: I did my own investigation.

Q: What conclusions did you come to?

A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.

Q: What conditions?

A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don’t contract the diseases as easily.

Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?

A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies.

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?

A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I’m concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.

Q: Why?

Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?

Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.

A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.

Q: Which is?

Q: So you’re saying that we have been treated to a false history.

A: Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.

Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.

Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.

Q: Okay, but let’s ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?

Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don’t belong in the vaccines.

Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.

A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.

Q: How were your findings received?

Q: This information is pretty staggering.

Q: And beyond the purity issue?

Q: The immune system is?

A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It’s all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.

Q: So the level of general health is important.

A: More than important. Vital.

Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?

Q: And that happens?

Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?

A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.

Q: What was the turning point for you?

A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.

Q: Did you investigate?

Q: What do you mean?

Q: Why doesn’t it make sense?

Q: And that is what you found?

Q: Has it been enough?

A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.

Q: Which is?

Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.

Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?

A: Yes I did.

Q: What happened?

Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?

Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation?

Q: This network you speak of.

A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue.

Q: And in the industrialized nations?

Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one good avenue.

Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.

Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.

Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel.

Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.

Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?

Q: A good idea.

A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.

Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?

Q: Then we have the fall flu season.

A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.

Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?

A: Yes. But after this interview, I’ll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well.

Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?

Q: The things that are not there.

A: Yes.

Q: To avoid any confusion, I’d like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.

Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?

Q: How long did you work with vaccines?

A: A long time. Longer than ten years.

Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?

Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.

Q: So we come to the level playing field.

Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don’t get shots.

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

Jon Rappoport

Welcome to the Medical Matrix: the Flu isn’t the Flu

Jan7

by Jon Rappoport

January 7, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

There are many propaganda operations surrounding the flu. Here I just want to boil down a few boggling facts.

Dr. Peter Doshi, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals one monstrosity.

As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

So they don’t have the flu.

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Actually, most flu cases are “bacteria cases,” “fungal cases,” or “pollution cases,” or “tainted food” cases, or “eating GMO cases,” or “weak immune system” cases, or something else. But they aren’t the flu.

Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published another shocking Peter Doshi report, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report:

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

Boom.

You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure.

However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

“Well, uh, we say that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”

In 2009, Sharyl Attkisson (CBS News) discovered that the CDC had stopped counting the number of Swine Flu cases in America.

The CDC had stopped counting, because their tests on diagnosed flu patients showed so many who didn’t have the flu virus, who didn’t have the flu at all.

Atkisson’s reporting was explosive. It was threatening to expose the whole flu psyop. What would happen if it became common knowledge that most people diagnosed with the flu don’t have the flu? What would happened to the campaigns to get people to take flu vaccines?

What would happen if it became common knowledge that absurdly few people die from the flu?

Attkisson was muzzled. And the CDC doubled down and suddenly claimed there were undoubtedly TENS OF MILLIONS cases of Swine Flu in the US. This, after only several thousand cases had been reported.

This is on the order of saying a a dry creek-bed in the woods is actually the Mississippi River.

There’s much, much more to say about the flu. But this gives you a few basics that underlie the false reality painted for the public.

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

Jon Rappoport

Placebo, antibody, and the destiny of failure

Oct4

by Jon Rappoport

October 4, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

There is a fallacy buried in diagnostic tests that employ antibodies as the standard of measure.

The presence of antibodies specific to a particular germ doesn’t automatically signify illness, and yet that is the interpretation being made these days.

This would be an interesting challenge:

A lab is given blood samples from a number of patients. Each sample, it is found, indicates antibodies to germ X. The lab must state whether these people are displaying symptoms of illness X.

By the rules, the answer would be yes in every case. Yet, the answer would be wrong in a majority of cases—perhaps in all cases.

Why? Because naturally produced antibodies normally mean the person’s immune system has warded off the germ.

At this point, the lab might say, “Well, yes, but chances are these people will get sick. It just hasn’t happened yet. Or they have the disease without symptoms.”

These are not scientific statements. One would have to follow the test cases for a while to see whether they get sick. I would bet against it. In any event, a diagnosis of illness based on a positive antibody test is not about the future. It’s about the present. Public health agencies routinely count case numbers on the basis of antibody tests. And the idea of a disease without symptoms is just a feint. It’s a contradiction in terms.

On to placebo. In any serious controlled trial of a medical drug, there are two groups. One group gets the drug; the other gets a sugar pill. The reason for this practice has been obscured in modern times. Actually, it is done because a certain percentage of people (around 20%) will get better no matter what you give them. Therefore, the drug has to perform significantly better than the placebo.

However, we need to return to the medical origin of the placebo. This is it: a country doctor, faced with a patient who was a hypochondriac, would hand him a sugar pill. The patient would take it and then feel better.

But…you see, the patient believed he was getting effective medicine. That’s what caused him to recover.

In a controlled trial, this is not the case. The patient knows, beforehand, that he will get EITHER the medicine or a placebo. This setting doesn’t provoke the same belief. It’s different. It’s weaker.

Therefore, one can expect that the “cure rate” in the placebo group will be lower than the normal 20%. And, as a result, the actual drug will only need to meet a lower standard of success, relative to the results obtained by the placebo.

Bottom line? A medical drug can test out with fewer positive outcomes to be deemed effective. Unless someone decides that the placebo group performed in an unexpected manner—but who cares about that when the goal is to establish that the drug is a winner?

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

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Germ Virus Theory

The Human Heart, Not Vaccines

Medical weapons of mass destruction

COVID: Going to the root of the poisonous tree

The power of viruses and the Power of You

How are viruses discovered and identified in the first place?

Interview with a Retired Vaccine Researcher

The basics of a staged bioterror attack

Interview with a Retired Vaccine Researcher

Welcome to the Medical Matrix: the Flu isn’t the Flu

Placebo, antibody, and the destiny of failure