Category Archives: Germ Virus Theory

Placebo, antibody, and the destiny of failure

by Jon Rappoport

November 24, 2010

(To join our email list, click here.)

Since my last several articles on medical rules of the game have evoked interest, I’ll take a few more steps.

As I mentioned, 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?

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

FALSE SCIENCE FOR THE MASSES

DECEMBER 21, 2009.  In modern times, false science is based on the notion that “overwhelming consensus” rules.

That’s the mantra.  ALL THE EXPERTS AGREE, so how could the truth be any different?

The mantra is recited as if the scientific method really IS about experts agreeing and NOTHING ELSE.

To deconstruct this idiocy, consider, first of all, that a few leaders can always affect the outlook of the many, even in the fields of scientific research.

If the top journals align themselves with a few “experts,” then the mid-range “semi-experts” will fall into line.  If they don’t, they won’t get their papers published.

Then, we have the closely related funding game.  The researchers who get grants to carry out their studies, so they can publish those studies, must follow the party line in their conclusions; otherwise, no $$ to do further studies.

These are the hard facts of life.

For example, in March of 1987, Peter Duesberg, a world-renowned molecular biologist, managed to get a paper published on the subject of HIV.  He offered evidence to suggest that HIV didn’t cause AIDS.

From that moment on, he was hounded by the “top experts,” there was no rational debate on his points, and eventually his funding and status at UC Berkeley were greatly diminished.

By this process, scientific dissidents in many fields are weeded out and sidelined, and then power players can say, “Well, the consensus is overwhelming in the direction of our conclusions.”  Yes, but the consensus is false and artificial and distorted and manufactured.

“We killed our enemies.  Now, we can write history, and we will be the consensus.”

Early in the 20th century, there was widespread Pellagra in the American South.  This skin disease was found, in 1915, to be caused by a deficiency in niacin.  However, for 20 more years, the experts refused to consider this simple cause and cure, and persisted in trying to find the germ that was at the root of Pellagra.  The consensus was wrong.

In the 1970s, a terrible neurological affliction dubbed SMON was prevalent in Japan.  Researchers, once again, were determined to find a germ cause.  However, through the heroic efforts of a few rebels, challenging the consensus, the problem was finally pinned down to a medical drug, clioquinol, manufactured by Ciba-Geigy.  A landmark court case settled the issue.

People insist that manmade global warming is threatening the planet.  Why?  Well, THE EXPERTS AGREE.  Therefore, it must be so. 

The reliance on consensus carried the day during the scourge of Pellagra and SMON, too, and many gullible people rode along on that tide, until the truth emerged.  They, too, said THE EXPERTS AGREE—until the experts were shown to be wrong.

In 2003, amid much media fanfare, a new disease was announced: SARS.  It was coming out of Asia, to the West, and it could decimate populations.  Medical researchers at 11 World Health Organization labs, linked by a closed Internet connection, worked furiously and came up with the cause: a so-called coronavirus.  No other labs were allowed to participate in this work.  In other words, a consensus was developed within a small circle.

But because the World Health Organization was in charge, the coronavirus finding was given top billing.

A few months later, it was discovered that many patients in Canada being diagnosed with SARS had no trace of this virus in their bodies. 

And finally, when all was said and done, and the hysteria died down, the official death figure, globally, for SARS was 262. 

Yet even today, there is still a consensus that SARS was a genuine epidemic.  “The experts agree.”

So there is science, and there is science for the masses.  In the latter version, manufactured consensus is all that’s required. 

Manmade global warming was, until recently, looked upon by most people as solid evidence-based science.  Now, the united front is splitting apart.  The skeletons are falling out of the closet.  The rational challenges are severe. 

All this should not come as a shock, but to most people, it does.  They have fallen under the spell of PR.  They believe it when the experts attack the skeptics as “denialists.”  They think the battle is between science and fundamentalist superstition.  But that’s one of the goals of the PR: to place all skeptics in the worst possible light.

The global-warming “experts” don’t want honest debate.  They simply want to say the debate is over and science has triumphed.  They have a kingdom to defend, and they do it by spewing generalities.

EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING.

EXPERTS AGREE.

WE’RE LONG PAST THE NEED FOR DISCUSSION.

THE SKEPTICS ARE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.

IF WE DON’T TAKE ACTION NOW, WE’LL LOSE THE PLANET.

THE SKY IS FALLING.

It’s not going to work. 

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

Consider supporting Jon’s work by doing your shopping through Jon’s Amazon link.