My 1987 White House interview on HIV, with Jim Warner, senior policy analyst

by Jon Rappoport

July 9, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

When I interviewed President Reagan’s policy analyst, Jim Warner, in 1987, there was something I didn’t know: HIV had never been isolated. I did know the virus wasn’t the cause of what was being called AIDS.

Senior White House policy analyst Jim Warner first came to public attention in a November 1987 article in the New York Native. In the story, “The White House Calls the Native About Aids,” publisher Chuck Ortleb wrote: “Warner told me that the White House could be seen as divided into two groups on the issue of AIDS. One group, which he said is in the minority, wants to adopt an ‘Auschwitz model’ by quarantining all those infected with ‘the virus.’ ‘The other group,’ [Warner] said, ‘is incompetent.'”

Warner told me he wasn’t suggesting there was a White House group which was favoring “an Auschwitz model,” but that some high-risk groups might think that was so. My following interview ran in the LA Weekly on December 18, 1987.

WEEKLY: Has anyone at the White House spoken to you about the Native article and what you said in it?

WARNER: I don’t think anyone here knows there was an article in that paper. The government really hasn’t fulfilled its role in providing good information [on AIDS]. We just may not know enough. With AIDS, we’re dealing with a syndrome, not a disease. We may see a patient who has a genetic defect that’s causing his immune deficiency [instead of HIV being the causative agent]. I’m not satisfied we know all we think we do, by any means.

WEEKLY: Is your research on AIDS part of your policy work? Do you make recommendations based on what you find out? Or is it just that you’re absorbed in discovering what’s going on with AIDS?

WARNER: More of the latter than the former. I was asked to look into an Atlantic magazine article about insects and AIDS, and that’s how it started. I decided I wanted to put together a set of questions concerning the HIV virus, so that the answers would suggest its role in AIDS. I would then draft a paper and give it to the people who asked me to look into the subject.

WEEKLY: Do people at the White House get a chance to talk to scientists over at the National Institutes of Health [NIH]? I mean really talk with them, find out what they’re doing, how they’re thinking?

WARNER: There is not much communication [between people at the White House and the scientists at NIH]. I’m probably the only person here who has much interest in it. This year I determined that the [White House] working group on AIDS wasn’t adequate.

WEEKLY: Several university scientists I’ve spoken with have – off the record – criticized what they call “HIV dogma.” They feel if they speak out against the rush to judgment for HIV as the cause of AIDS they may lose money. Grants begin with the assumption that HIV has been proven as the agent of the disease.

WARNER: I’m of a mind that if no other lessons should be required of any university science curriculum, there should be a good survey course in philosophy and a grounding in logic. I’m appalled at the conceit and arrogance [of certain scientists].

WEEKLY: There has never been a performance-evaluation on the results of the NIH. NIH has balked at the idea of evaluating the worth of all their medical research over the last 20 years.

WARNER: That’s a very good idea. I’m going to see what I can do about that.

WEEKLY: The Native article mentioned that you spoke with Dr. Lo, an Army researcher on AIDS. He has his own theory about the disease, that it’s caused by a different virus. According to the Native, you had a problem getting through to him. Did they really tell you you’d have to get an okay from the Surgeon General just to talk to Lo?

WARNER: Yes. You know, although it is an honor to work at the White House, I’m not impressed that being here makes me special. But I pulled rank, and they put me through to Dr. Lo.

WEEKLY: Suppose proof emerged that HIV is not the AIDS virus. How difficult would it be to alter the course of research?

WARNER: It’s very difficult to change people’s minds. It’s not impossible, but there is a head of steam built up.

WEEKLY: What do you do if a government agency, as a whole, has been derelict?

WARNER: It may end up as a brawl. I’d sort of like to finesse that, though, I’d like to avoid a public brawl. It eats up time. It’s difficult when scientists are not open to discussing scientific issues.

WEEKLY: Robert Gallo, Max Essex, people like that, were the field commanders on the NIH war on cancer in the 70’s. They lost that war. So why are they in charge of AIDS research now? It seems odd that we don’t have other people running the show.

WARNER: If ever I’ve been tempted to believe in socialism, science has disabused me of that. These guys [at NIH] assume that it’s their show. They just assume it.

WEEKLY: Peter Duesberg, a distinguished molecular biologist at Berkeley, has said that HIV does not cause AIDS. Have you asked people at NIH what they think, specifically, of his arguments?

WARNER: Yes. I’ve been told that Peter Duesberg’s refutation of HIV has been discounted by the scientific community. I was given no explanation as to why. I was very offended. No evidence was presented to me. Just that Duesberg had been ‘discounted.’ That’s absurd. It’s not a scientific response to dismiss Duesberg as a crank.

WEEKLY: The definition of AIDS has become so broad it’s even stretching the idea of what a syndrome is, never mind a singular disease.

WARNER: A syndrome is a means of trying to understand how symptoms could be linked together. But if you do this in an atmosphere of hysteria, there is no limit to what you can attribute to a syndrome.

WEEKLY: The definition of AIDS in Africa is now becoming synonymous with starvation. They’re saying the three major symptoms are chronic diarrhea, fever, and wasting-away. Weight-loss. It certainly makes a perfect smokescreen for the aspect of hunger which is political – just call it AIDS.

WARNER: I had not considered that. There is a program to make Africa self-sufficient by the year 2000. This could certainly hinder that activity. You know, I was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. I experienced weight-loss of eighty pounds. And when I came home, I was suffering from a form of dysentery that you could call opportunistic. A number of us were. We didn’t have AIDS.

—end of interview—

In November of 1987, I found out that the journal Bio/Technology was going to hold a roundtable workshop in which HIV would be addressed. Peter Duesberg and about a dozen other researchers would attend. The purpose of the roundtable would be to formulate experiments which, once and for all, would show HIV’s role or non-role in AIDS.

I told Jim Warner about the proposed roundtable, and suggested he contact the magazine and sit in on the sessions. He did call, and to everyone’s surprise, suggested that the roundtable be held in his office at the White House.

For the next month, it was on again, off again. There were obviously pressures within the White House against sanctioning such a meeting. About a month before the scheduled January 19th date, stories about it began appearing in several newspapers.

For a brief time, it looked like the White House’s Office of Policy Development was not going to host it, but the Office of Science and Technology Policy was. Then the whole thing fell apart.

The New York Post, on January 7th, 1988, ran a story on Duesberg. The next day, the paper did a follow-up, headlined: U.S. AXES DEBATE ON TRUE CAUSE OF AIDS. After indicating that the White House meeting was canceled, medicine-science editor, Joe Nicholson, relayed a surprising quote from Gary Bauer, head of Reagan’s Office of Policy Development, and Jim Warner’s boss: “People like Dr. Duesberg need to continue to have access to research funds so that if we are heading in the wrong direction, that can be proved.”

Bauer then said he didn’t want the White House to sponsor the meeting because it would impart a political tone to a scientific event.

“I hope they have the debate elsewhere,” he said. “I’ve sort of bristled at the finality with which some have made statements about AIDS and how it is transmitted. When findings run counter to the accepted wisdom, there is a tendency to muzzle or ignore rather than have an open debate.”

The proposed debate never took place.

Given what Jim Warner told me in our 1987 interview, I’m sure, if he were still working for the government in 2021, he would have some choice comments about an NIH scientist who was a major player in the AIDS scene in 1987, and is still hogging the spotlight these days:

Anthony Fauci.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Genetic baloney in thick slices

by Jon Rappoport

July 8, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Gene research companies tend to come and go. They start out banging and popping like fireworks in the sky, and then they fade out—selling themselves to larger outfits who’ve hired better liars…

Once upon a time, it sounded easy. Start with a disease, find the gene responsible for the disease, and correct the problem.

Then, researchers wondered, was disease the result of one gene or a group of genes acting together?

Either way, the proof would be in devising cures for diseases using gene therapy. “Not yet, but soon…”

And regardless, the major need was: money. Lots and lots of money.

This need required good PR people. “We have to pump up the idea that we’re on the edge of tremendous breakthroughs. We’re always on that edge…”

This hype also needed to obscure the fact that there wasn’t (and isn’t) ANY gene cure for ANY disease.

As time passed, lack of cure could be a problem. In fact, it could mean curing disease was not a genetic undertaking at all. What about environment? Toxicity? Malnutrition? Poverty? In order to raise money, those factors would have to be pushed back out of view.

Instead, the PR people would need to flood the news with positive glow around the subject of gene research. Also known as exaggeration. Or bullshit.

You can spot the key terms in these articles. POSSIBLE, SHOULD, COULD, EXPECTED TO, SEEMS, ON THE HORIZON, MAY BE, COULD LEAD TO, EVENTUALLY, and of course, the ever-popular BREAKTHROUGH.

I dug back in my files and found a piece I wrote in 2011. As you’ll see, the “breakthroughs” touted then haven’t panned out so far. You don’t read about them in the press these days. The PR pros have moved on to other exaggerations.

The first 2011 article I cited was from Reuters, headlined: SCIENTISTS FIND “MASTER SWITCH” GENE FOR OBESITY. Here are a few choice tidbits. Note the key terms I just mentioned.

“…and say it should help the search for treatments…”

“…the regulating gene could be [a] target for drugs to treat…”

“…seems to act as a master switch…”

“We are working hard…to understand these processes and how we can use this information to improve treatment…”

Sure. You bet.

Zero results.

Next, a 2011 blockbuster piece in the Financial Times. The headline read: SCIENTISTS FIND GENETIC LINK TO DEPRESSION.

Standard trumpet blaring.

Here are the text nuggets. Again, note key terms.

“The discovery…is expected to lead to a better biological understanding of the condition and eventually to more effective antidepressants…”

“…as possibly for the first time we have found a genetic locus for depression.”

“…is likely to pin down the gene responsible…”

“…which may be the basis for designing more effective antidepressants…”

Sure. You bet.

Zero results.

Moving ahead in time—From immunology.org: “On 17 December 2015, the journal Science voted [gene-editing tool] Crispr-Cas9 ‘Breakthrough of the Year’, saying that it had ‘matured into a molecular marvel’. It is already being used in cancer immunotherapy to edit a patient’s own T-cell genome in order to remove the gene that ‘tells’ these immune cells not to target cancerous tissue.

It’s already being used—but where are the cures? Nowhere.

Anybody out there want to partner with me in launching a new company? This is a major winner. It covers a very broad area. Actually, there is no human endeavor it doesn’t cover. The name of the company? MAYBE COULD BE INC.

“We’re always on the edge and the frontier. We’re always breaking through. We’re always raising money. We’re always pumping our stock. We’re always ready to sell the company to a sucker with deep pockets.”

Let’s look at another type of gene research organization. This one happens to be the largest single medical research outfit in the world. It’s part of the US government: the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Their PR is different. They’re hedging their bets and covering their bases in every possible way. They’re saying YES, NO, AND MAYBE all at once. Of course, they can get away with it, because they run on taxpayer money. Their annual budget is a formidable $30 billion. Grit your teeth and read through their text that explains “genetic diseases”:

“A genetic disorder is a disease caused in whole or in part by a change in the DNA sequence away from the normal sequence. Genetic disorders can be caused by a mutation in one gene (monogenic disorder), by mutations in multiple genes (multifactorial inheritance disorder), by a combination of gene mutations and environmental factors, or by damage to chromosomes (changes in the number or structure of entire chromosomes, the structures that carry genes).”

“As we unlock the secrets of the human genome (the complete set of human genes), we are learning that nearly all diseases have a genetic component. Some diseases are caused by mutations that are inherited from the parents and are present in an individual at birth, like sickle cell disease. Other diseases are caused by acquired mutations in a gene or group of genes that occur during a person’s life. Such mutations are not inherited from a parent, but occur either randomly or due to some environmental exposure (such as cigarette smoke). These include many cancers, as well as some forms of neurofibromatosis.”

That is a DON’T BLAME US statement. “Don’t blame us if a disease we thought was genetic turns out to be something else. Don’t blame us if it’s 65.34 percent environmental, 4.52 percent genetic, and 30.14 percent who knows what. Don’t blame us if toxicity triggers genetic malfunctions and, in the absence of the toxicity, there would be zero cases of the disease. Don’t blame us if a disease has nothing to do with genes. We’re ready to jump in any direction. We may not know much, but we’re sitting on a pile of cash. Don’t blame us if we don’t have any solid genetic cures for anything. We’re working hard. That’s all you can ask us to do.”

If there is one disease the public tends to believe can be cured by gene therapy, it is sickle cell anemia. The PR pros have done a good job there. However, sicklecellanemianews.com states: “Gene therapy is an experimental technique that aims to treat genetic diseases by altering a disease-causing gene or introducing a healthy copy of a mutated gene to the body.”

Experimental. Aims to. Not an established cure. The confusion arises because, as with a number of diseases, the researchers and the PR flacks claim they’ve definitely traced the illness to a gene or two. They’ve struck gold. But, as you read further, you discover they’re just not ready to cure the patient. Clinical trials are underway. More work in the lab is necessary. The pudding is there, but the proof of it isn’t. They claim to know the cause; they just don’t know what to do with it.

In science, that’s known as a hypothesis. Or more simply, a speculation. You say you’ve found an answer, but you can’t apply it. This means: you don’t have an answer.

“There is no doubt. We went down into the mine and we found evidence of extraordinary amounts of gold. We just don’t know how to get it out. What’s that? You want to see the gold? No, I’m sorry. The public isn’t allowed down there. Only the professionals can enter. But don’t worry. We’re very close to a breakthrough. The gold will emerge soon. Trust us.”

Trust you? Sure. How much do you need to finish the job? Fifty million? A hundred million? Let me call my broker and sell some stock. I’ll write you a check. Just put a plaque with my name on the wall. Let me know how I’ll profit on this venture. I’m in. I’ve always wanted to invest in MAYBE COULD BE INC.

In case you need to be reminded, the RNA COVID vaccines are genetic treatments. The PR pros tell us they are working quite well. And they’re remarkably safe.

If you’re buying that line, I have electric cars for sale. And they have wings. One charge in your garage, and they’ll get you from Earth to Mars in just under two hours.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

FDA reverses itself: rejects COVID antibody test results; insanity reigns

by Jon Rappoport

June 29, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Even a robot programmed to “follow the science” would throw up his hands in despair while reading the latest FDA COVID pronouncement.

After untold numbers of people have been given antibody tests to determine their COVID status, the FDA now states:

“Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a safety communication informing the public that results from SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination.”

Boom.

I’m imagining just a small sample of people—perhaps 5000—marching in unison into a hospital, saying, “We tested positive for COVID on an antibody test…and then we had to isolate, and some of us were treated with toxic drugs…and NOW we learn that the antibody test is useless…”

The FDA document, dated May 19, 2021, is titled: “FDA In Brief: FDA Advises Against Use of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test Results to Evaluate Immunity or Protection From COVID-19, Including After Vaccination”. [1] [1a]

Digging a little deeper in the document, we have a statement referring to the COVID vaccine:

“The authorized vaccines for prevention of COVID-19 induce antibodies to specific viral protein targets; post-vaccination antibody test results will be negative in individuals without a history of previous natural infection if the test used does not detect the type of antibodies induced by the vaccine.”

In other words, the FDA is saying, “Look, the vaccine creates specific antibodies against the spike protein, not the virus. If you take the standard antibody test after vaccination, it’ll be useless, because the test isn’t meant to detect antibodies against the spike protein. It only detects antibodies against the virus [2].”

This raises several serious questions. One of them is: Since developing antibody tests is as easy as pie, why hasn’t the FDA developed one that detects antibodies against the spike protein?

And the answer to that question is obvious. If the FDA did develop such a test, then—in terms of conventional vaccine theory—it would be easy to see how well the vaccine is working, or not working.

And THAT is not a goal public health officials want to achieve. That is not a risk worth taking. Suppose, after testing 20,000 vaccinated people, it turns out that only 800 have produced antibodies against the spike protein?

Another (unanswered) question: Are specific antibodies against the spike protein, conferred by the vaccine, sufficient to neutralize, disable, destroy the actual virus if it drops down out of a cloud and tries to infect a vaccinated person?

Of course, as my readers know, I’ve spent a year demonstrating that no one has proved the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists. However, I make many forays into the insane world where people believe the virus is real; and I show that even within that world, the experts contradict themselves and compound their egregious fallacies like rabbits spawning babies.

This latest foray shows the FDA is both criminal and insane.


SOURCES:

[1] https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-brief-fda-advises-against-use-sars-cov-2-antibody-test-results-evaluate-immunity-or-protection

[1a] https://web.archive.org/web/20210519213535/https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-brief-fda-advises-against-use-sars-cov-2-antibody-test-results-evaluate-immunity-or-protection

[2] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/04/05/covid-here-come-the-antibody-tests-quick-easy-and-insane/


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

The FDA cover-up that led to the approval of the Pfizer vaccine

by Jon Rappoport

May 25, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

As I’ve been documenting for the past year, the COVID experts have been contradicting themselves six ways from Sunday. As charlatans, they’re abject failures. They can’t keep their own story straight.

Thanks to an alert reader, I’ve come across a new blockbuster.

BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS, the FDA should never have allowed the Pfizer COVID vaccine to be shot into a single arm. The Agency’s Emergency Use Authorization was a crime—according to their own data.

Here we go.

The document, posted on the FDA website, is titled, “Vaccines and Related Biological Products; Advisory Committee Meeting; FDA Briefing Document Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.” [1]

It is dated December 10, 2020. The date tells us that all the information in the document is taken from the Pfizer clinical trial, based on which the FDA authorized the vaccine for public use.

A key quote is buried on page 42: “Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group [who received a saltwater shot].”

Those shocking numbers have never seen the light of day in news media.

The comparative numbers reveal that the vaccine was not effective at preventing COVID-19. It was certainly not 50% more effective than no vaccine at all—the standard for FDA Emergency Use Authorization.

To make all this clear, I need to back up and explain the theory of the vaccine clinical trial.

The researchers assumed the SARS-CoV-2 virus was spreading everywhere in the world, and during the clinical trial, it would descend on some volunteers.

The billion-dollar question was: how many people receiving the vaccine would become infected, vs. how many people in the placebo group?

If it turned out that FAR FEWER people getting the vaccine became infected with SARS-CoV-2, the vaccine would be hailed as a success. It protected people against the virus.

But as you can see from the numbers above, that wasn’t the case at all.

So now we come to the vital weasel-phrase in the FDA document I just quoted: “suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 [cases].”

“Well, you see, we can’t say these were ACTUAL COVID-19 cases. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. They’re in limbo. We want to keep them in limbo. Otherwise, our clinical trial is dead in the water, and we’ll never get approval for the vaccine.”

What does “suspected cases” mean? It can only mean these people all displayed symptoms consistent with the definition of COVID-19, but they’re unconfirmed cases because…their PCR tests were negative, not positive.

However, if their tests were negative, why would they be called “suspected cases” instead of “NOT CASES”?

Something is wrong here. The FDA is hedging its bets, muddying the waters, obscuring facts.

By FDA/CDC rules, a case of COVID-19 means: a person has tested positive, period.

That’s the way cases are counted.

These several thousand volunteers in the Pfizer clinical trial were either COVID-19 cases or they weren’t. Which is it?

The official response to that question is obvious: the FDA decided to throw the data from all those suspected cases in the garbage and ignore them. Poof. Gone.

Why do I say that?

Because if the FDA had paid serious attention to the several thousand “suspected cases,” they never would have authorized the vaccine for public use. They would have stopped the clinical trial and undertaken a very deep and extensive investigation.

Which they didn’t.

This is called a crime.

“But…but it’s not that simple. This is a complex situation. It’s a gray area.”

“No. It isn’t. If you were running a clinical trial of a new drug, and a few thousand people in the trial, who were given the drug, nevertheless came down with the disease symptoms the drug was supposed to cure, wouldn’t you cancel the trial and go back to the drawing board?”

“You mean if we were being honest? That’s a joke, right? We’re not honest. Don’t you get it?”

Yes. I get it. You’re criminals. Killers.

But wait. There’s more. The FDA document also states: “Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group.”

That’s explosive. Right after vaccination, 409 people who received the shots became “suspected COVID cases.” This alone should have been enough to stop the clinical trial altogether. But it wasn’t.

In fact, the FDA document tries to excuse those 409 cases with a slippery comment: “It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days post vaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19.”

Translation: You see, a number of clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and adverse effects from the vaccine are the same. Therefore, we have no idea whether the vaccinated people developed COVID or were just reacting to the vaccine. So we’re going to ignore this whole mess and pretend it’s of no importance.

Back in April of 2020, I predicted the vaccine manufacturers would use this strategy to explain away COVID cases occurring in the vaccine groups of their clinical trials.

It’s called cooking the data. It’s a way of writing off and ignoring COVID symptoms in the vaccine group—and instead saying, “The vaccine is safe and effective.”

And the FDA document, as I stated above, just puts an impenetrable cloud over all the volunteers in the Pfizer clinical trial by inventing a category called “suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases,” and throwing those crucial data away, never to be spoken of again.

I’m speaking about them now. Any sensible person, looking at them, would conclude that the vaccine should never have been authorized.

Unless fraud, deception, profits, and destruction of human life via the vaccine were and are the true goals.

Finally: When you have “suspected cases,” and their ultimate status depends on doing a test, you do the test. You do it as many times as you need to, until it registers positive or negative. Then each “suspected case” becomes an actual case or no case at all.

Perhaps these “suspected cases” in the clinical trial were tested, and many of them came up positive, revealing they were actual COVID cases—but the researchers lied and covered up the fact that they were tested.

Or if you really don’t want to know whether “suspected cases” are actual cases, you don’t test them. You leave them in a convenient limbo and park them, never to be seen again.

Either way, the situation is patently absurd. By official standards, the PCR test decides whether a person is a case or not a case. Just do the test. Saying “we don’t know” is nothing more than a con and a hustle.

I’d love to hear the researchers try to talk their way out of this one. Here is how the conversation might go:

“So you’re saying these several thousand suspected COVID cases couldn’t be adjudicated one way or another?”

“That’s right. Their PCR tests were ‘indeterminate’.”

“That says something devastating about the test itself.”

“Well, sometimes you just can’t tell whether it’s positive or negative.”

“I see. And this ‘indeterminate’ result occurred in SEVERAL THOUSAND suspected cases.”

“I guess so, yes.”

“You know, you could have done something else with these suspected cases. A different test. You could have taken tissue samples and looked for the virus itself in a more direct way.”

“No. That wouldn’t work.”

“Why not?”

“Because…the actual virus…”

“Because no one has been able to come up with a specimen of the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

“Right.”

“So tell me—what does that indicate? I’ll tell you what it indicates. You can’t prove the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists.

“I have to go. I’m late for a meeting.”

“You’re late for more than just a meeting. Is it true a person becomes a virologist by cutting out a coupon from the back of a comic book and mailing it to a PO Box in Maryland?’

“Absolutely not. That’s outrageous.”

“What then?”

“The PO Box is in Virginia.”


SOURCES:

[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

More on the coronavirus that doesn’t exist; and the Pink Demon

by Jon Rappoport

May 21, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

(For Part-1, click here)

I still receive emails that announce: “So-and-so SAYS the virus has been isolated and does exist.”

On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 would indicate “so what?” and 10 would rate “well, that’s it, the virus is real,” someone SAYING the virus exists comes in at minus-12.

Then there is the ever-popular, “OF COURSE this virus exists,” which is meant to dispel all doubt.

Below, I’ll reprint my piece in which Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1] analyzed, step-by-step, a typical excerpt from a published study. The excerpt described how SARS-CoV-2 was isolated. Dr. Kaufman tore the description to pieces. [2]

Since I published that article, I haven’t received a single communication attempting to refute Dr. Kaufman’s analysis.

I have received one or two emails stating, “Dr. Kaufman made several mistakes.” No specifics were mentioned. In the world of traditional logical fallacies, that response comes under the heading of “Vague Generalization.” Ninth-grade students used to be able to recognize it.

I’ve seen many articles in which SARS-CoV-2 is claimed to exist and possess various properties—the articles rely on bald statements from doctors or other so-called medical experts. No proof is offered. That logical fallacy would be Appeal to Authority: Because an authority figure says something is true, it must be true.

On this basis, the network evening news tells you all you need to know about reality.

A third fallacy is worth mentioning. We have this implied statement: “Researchers at the Wuhan Institute were weaponizing the virus; therefore, it exists.” That fallacy is called Circular Reasoning: You assume what you’re trying to prove. Many people fall for it.

“NASA scientists are chaining people to Ford trucks, preparing to launch them at faster-than-light speed in outer space; therefore, faster-than-light speed exists.”

What researchers are claiming or trying to do in a lab is not proof that the “thing” they are working with exists. The researchers may BELIEVE it exists, but what they believe doesn’t matter.

You might believe a pink demon with gold teeth from Mars has spread a pandemic across Earth, but even if Fauci agrees with you and has shoveled three million dollars to your lab, you haven’t established the existence of the demon.

A variation on Appeal to Authority and Vague Generalization: For more than a century, researchers have been doing experiments with viruses; therefore, it’s ridiculous to say SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist.

Well, historically, religious groups have claimed their God is the only God. Therefore…nothing.

“Wait. All those virologists couldn’t be lying and collaborating in a vast conspiracy.”

But they could be true believers. They could be pushing distorted science without recognizing their own warped articles of faith.


And with that, here is my article featuring Dr. Kaufman’s analysis of virus-isolation:

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

by Jon Rappoport

April 21, 2021

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

But what if the virus doesn’t exist?

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

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

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

I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [3].

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

The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.

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

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

Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus” they never isolated. “We didn’t find it, we don’t know anything about it, but we sequenced it.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [4]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”

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

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

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

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

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

—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—

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

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

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

Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 300 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [5]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?

The answer is no.


SOURCES:

[1] https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

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

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

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

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


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

The pandemic virus that doesn’t exist

by Jon Rappoport

May 20, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

(For Part-2, click here)

For the past year, I’ve been offering compelling evidence that: no one has proven SARS-CoV-2 exists. [1]

I’ve explained that the virus was never isolated. In fact, researchers use the word “isolated” to mean its very opposite: “We ASSUME we have the virus surrounded by, and embedded in, a great deal of other material, and we never extract it or purify it.”

No isolation=no discovery of a virus.

I’ve explained that it’s impossible to put together the genetic sequence of a virus that has never been found. Unless, of course, you’re lying.

I’ve published an article in which Dr. Andrew Kaufman [2] took apart, step by step, a typical published study in which the authors described how they isolated SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Kaufman tore this description to pieces and revealed how absurd it is. [3]

When confronted with a mountain of so-called science plus sheer propaganda, most people find it impossible to accept the fact that, at the core of the mountain, there is…

NOTHING.

Absolutely nothing.

“Oh, that couldn’t be. There has to be SOMETHING, and the something must be a virus.”

This is on the order of a child saying, “There has to be a ghost in the closet every night when I go to sleep.”

All that fear, and there is nothing? No, no.

But in the medical universe, there are actually several huge institutions that are based on nothing.

Here is one: PSYCHIATRY.

The official bible of the psychiatric profession, the DSM, lists, describes, and labels some 300 separate and distinct mental disorders.

If you plow through the bible, you will notice that NONE of these mental disorders has a defining laboratory test. No saliva, blood, hair, urine test. No brain scan. No genetic assay. NOTHING.

Yes, people have problems, troubles. People experience suffering and pain. But that is quite, quite different from arbitrarily carving up all that suffering into 300 academic and clinical categories called “mental disorders.”

And on top of the astonishing scientific con, the patients who are diagnosed are given toxic drugs, some of which push them over the edge into committing suicide and murder.

All based on a scientific nothing.

(A warning: Suddenly withdrawing from psychiatric drugs can be very dangerous, even life-threatening. Withdrawal should be done gradually, supervised by a caring professional who knows what he’s doing. See breggin.com.) [4]

In a PBS Frontline episode, Does ADHD Exist? [5], Dr. Russell Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, unintentionally spelled out the fraud.

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY: That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid.

Oh, indeed, that does make them invalid. Utterly and completely. All 300 mental disorders. Because there are no defining tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.

We are looking at a science that isn’t a science. That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.

Here is one more newsflash: The so-called “chemical-imbalance” theory of mental illness is dead.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”
[6]

Boom.

Dead.

However…urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.

In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to protect his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:

“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”

Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.

And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…

…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…

…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct a chemical imbalance?

The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake.

The entire branch of medicine called psychiatry is based on NOTHING.

But again, people find that difficult, if not impossible, to accept. They prefer to believe there must be SOMETHING. That’s what they want to believe. That’s what they’ve been trained to believe.

“Well, you see, every effect has a cause, and that cause is actually the effect of an earlier cause, and you can go back farther and farther in the chain…”

And this idea is somehow the basis for assuming that, if a pandemic is announced, there must be a virus.

“I’ve got to have a virus. I NEED a virus.”

“I fear the virus. I want the virus. I love the virus.”

There are all sorts of variations on the theme.

“The pandemic? There must be something at the core of it. There must be.”

THERE IS NOTHING.

And if someone responds with the familiar battle cry, “Then why are all these people dying?”, I’ve covered that issue from stem to stern in a dozen articles or so. [7]

The entirety of illness and death attributed to the “pandemic” can be explained by multiple factors (not one), and none of those factors involves a virus.

“People dying equals a virus” is about as convincing as “all-cause mortality rising is the result of plane crashes.”

As sure as I’m writing this sentence, someone somewhere will think, “Hmm, plane crashes. I should look into that…”

And he will. He’ll look into planes flying through underground caves, carrying passengers intent on exploring the center of the Earth, where doctors are producing a longevity drug that extends life for 500 years. But the planes are having accidents.

That level of fantasy is on the same bookshelf as “the virus is causing the pandemic.”


SOURCES:

[1] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/?s=SARS-CoV-2+exists&submit=Search

[2] https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

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

[4] https://breggin.com/

[5] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/experts/exist.html

[6] https://web.archive.org/web/20160720061355/https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/psychiatry-new-brain-mind-and-legend-chemical-imbalance

[7] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/tag/dying/


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

COVID vaccine and genetic thunder nobody is listening to

by Jon Rappoport

May 18, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’ve written about this before, and I’m sure I’ll write about it again.

We’re told that the RNA COVID vaccines force the cells of the body to produce a foreign “spike” protein.

There is a little thing you may have heard of called EVIDENCE.

In other words, show me a well-done study, using a few thousand people who have been vaccinated, which proves that all these people’s cells ARE producing that foreign protein and ONLY that foreign protein.

There isn’t such a study.

But if there were—

“Look, a few hundred people didn’t produce the spike protein at all. Wonder what they DID produce.”

“I see a hundred people out of two thousand who produced a huge excess of the spike protein. Wonder what effect THAT is having.”

“I see two hundred people who produced the spike protein plus a bunch of other foreign proteins. A few of those foreign compounds I’ve never seen before. That’s not good at all.”

In fact, show me a large-scale study in which an injection is designed to force the human body to produce ANY specific protein. Let’s see the results.

Can’t find that study, either?

Believing what genetic researchers tell you is like believing what a grifter tells you about how to win at roulette.

For example, are you aware that, after decades of genetic research and tens of thousands of studies linking genes to diseases, there isn’t a single gene-treatment that can cure a disease across the board?

What there is, is a great deal of money that hustlers have raised for bio-tech firms. And there are many sky-blue promises.

And oh yes, there are many examples of errors, in which experimental gene insertions yield unexpected results. Unintended and dangerous results. Unpredicted alterations in genomes.

So the huge numbers of reported injuries and deaths from the COVID RNA vaccines are surely the result of more than just the production of the spike protein.

Why is nobody talking about this?

Because people assume the problem must be the spike protein and only that protein.

The people of planet Earth are part of a guinea-pig vaccine experiment that is much wider than that. We are being subjected to an open-ended genetic spin of the roulette wheel.

And there are no safeguards and no comprehensive follow-ups.

For this reason alone, the entire effort to develop the RNA injections should have been banned from the beginning—until researchers demonstrated convincingly that the risks would be minimal. Of course, they couldn’t make that guarantee.

But the fatuously named Warp Speed program rocketed ahead. Based on pretentious and speculative “science.”

People tend to think—because they watch sci-fi movies—that scientific evil doers are firing a perfectly destructive single arrow at the heart of humanity. But evil-doers are quite capable of launching a thunderstorm of multiple pyrotechnics beyond their control.

As I pointed out in prior articles on this subject, the analogous area of GMO plant genetics is replete with uncontrolled effects—including gene drift, in which injected Monsanto genes move from plants into soil bacteria and human gut bacteria.

Genetic ripple-effects throughout an organism can force the unnatural production of a number of different proteins while modifying others.

This is NOT good; and some of the ways in which it is not good are unknown.

Based on the current level of knowledge in the field of gene-research, the entire program of manufacturing and injecting RNA into the body is an insane criminal enterprise.

As time passes, I expect investigators to discover new ways in which these RNA shots are harming people. And some of those investigators will say, “THIS turns out to be what the vaccine is doing. THIS one thing.” And they’ll be wrong.

It’s five, ten, 20 different things. Caused by ripple effects throughout the genome.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

COVID Vaccine can worsen disease; mainstream study; not on the evening news

by Jon Rappoport

May 11, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

“COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated.”

Feel free to take THAT to a doctor.

This quote appears in an October 2020 study, published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice. The title of the study: “Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease.” [1]

The two authors are Timothy Cardozo and Ronald Veazy. Cardozo’s affiliation is listed as “Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.” Veazy’s affiliation is “Division of Comparative Pathology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, Tulane National Primate Research Center, Covington, LA, USA.”

The study declares that volunteers in COVID vaccine clinical trials and people who receive the vaccine after clinical trials—meaning now—should be informed there is a risk of “more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated.”

So that’s what I’m doing.

Have you heard of anyone about to receive the vaccine being INFORMED that they’re at risk—that they’re liable to become more seriously ill than if they refused the shot?

Of course not. Politicians, news people, and other idiots simply take the word “vaccine” and push it like a street dealer pushes heroin.

Consent given by the patient, after being truly informed, is a bedrock medical responsibility.

The claim that a declared crisis overrides a person’s need to understand what is being done to him is a criminal claim.

Looking at how the COVID vaccination campaign is being conducted, anyone can see informed consent is being violated to its core.

Manufactured hysteria is not an acceptable substitute for moral duty.

Modern-day fascists believe that “ten thousand bloviating Faucis” declaring the vaccine is absolutely safe and effective is actual science.

Months ago, I wrote a piece that fits nicely with this article. Based on a New York Times op ed by Peter Doshi and Eric Topol—the clinical trials of the COVID vaccine conducted by Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna were designed to prove nothing more than: [2] [3]

The vaccine could prevent a cough, or chills and fever (diagnosed as COVID-19).

That’s right.

Now follow this. The vaccine makers were waiting for the SARS-CoV-2 virus to descend on some volunteers during the clinical trials.

But since the volunteers were healthy, how long would it take for “serious cases of COVID”—pneumonia—to show up? Three years? Ten years? Never?

The vaccine makers certainly weren’t going to wait. No, they were going to stop the clinical trial when 150 of the 30,000 volunteers were diagnosed with “mild COVID”—a cough, or chills and fever.

Then they were going to see how many people who actually got the vaccine vs. how many people who got a saltwater placebo shot received a COVID-19 diagnosis.

THAT was the essence of the clinical trial.

Of course, all three vaccine makers claimed that far more people in the placebo group were diagnosed with COVID—thus “proving” the vaccine was effective.

Effective at preventing “a mild case of COVID”—a cough, or chills and fever—both of which cure themselves naturally, without the need for a vaccine.

There’s your vaccine science.

A show for buffoons.

So now, as vaccine-caused deaths escalate daily [4], this destructive genetic shot is being given to people all over the world [5] [6] [7]. There is no authentic informed consent that spells out the incredible danger. And the vaccine was never meant to prevent more than a cold or mild flu.

Yet you’re supposed to develop a suicidal impulse, take the shot, and earn your vaccine passport or virtue-signaling immunity bracelet or microchip so you can enlist in the Brave New World.


SOURCES:

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/

[2] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/09/24/covid-vaccine-clinical-trials-doomed-to-fail-fatal-design-flaw/

[3] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/11/11/covid-vaccine-revelation-sinks-like-a-stone-disappears/

[4] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/05/10/covid-vaccine-deaths-the-numbers-point-to-a-catastrophe/

[5] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/05/05/gmo-covid-vaccine-and-gmo-crops-parallels-lessons-not-learned/

[6] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/05/04/is-the-genetic-covid-vaccine-creating-a-hurricane-inside-cells-of-the-body/

[7] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/05/03/covid-vaccinated-people-shedding-and-spreading-genetic-disaster-to-unvaccinated-women/


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Is the genetic COVID vaccine creating a hurricane inside cells of the body?

by Jon Rappoport

May 4, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Picture this: Contrary to medical claims, the genetic injection called “COVID vaccination” forces cells of the body to produce not one, but hundreds of DIFFERENT proteins. Some of these proteins launch severe and fatal allergic reactions. Other foreign proteins stimulate the body to produce a powerful and continuing immune response that goes on too long; the person becomes severely ill or dies. Still other proteins, which are inherently needed by the body, are now viewed as evil intruders which must be neutralized…

I’ve written articles criticizing the COVID vaccine, from a number of perspectives. “Criticizing” is too mild a word. [1]

In this article, I want to examine a narrow claim about the COVID RNA vaccine: It instructs cells of the body to manufacture ONE AND ONLY ONE specific protein. [2] [3]

In fact, this is touted as THE major action of the genetic vaccine. Supposedly, that protein is similar to a protein in the purported SARS-CoV-2, and it “prepares and rehearses the body for the real thing.”

However, what guarantee do we have that the cells of the body are manufacturing only the one desired protein during the rehearsal?

How do we know the cells are always making the same protein?

Where is the proof? Where is the large confirmatory study that has examined thousands and thousands of human cells, from thousands of people who have been vaccinated?

I haven’t been able to find such a study.

If it exists, where are the large follow-up studies, carried out by different teams of researchers—verifying or rejecting the original research?

Well, in the analogous area of GMO plants, which are injected with genetic material, long-time researcher and author, Jeffrey Smith, writes about—guess what?—the runaway production of unintended proteins: [4]

“For example, long after Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn had been consumed by hundreds of millions of people, a team led by Dr. Antoniou found more than 200 significant changes in its proteins and metabolites, compared to non-GMO corn of the same variety. Two of the compounds that increased are aptly named putrescine and cadaverine, because they produce the horrific smell of rotting dead bodies. More worrisome; they are also linked to higher risks of allergies and cancer. Another Monsanto GM corn has a new allergen and their cooked soy has up to seven times the level of a known soy allergen, compared to cooked non-GMO soy.”

There is more. Injected genetic material—as in the COVID vaccine—can cause ripple effects. Jeffrey Smith writes: “…back in 1999, a study showed widespread changes in the DNA due to gene insertion; but many GMO companies conveniently ignored the findings and continue to do so.”

“In that study, scientists studying cystic fibrosis inserted a gene into human cells. Using a microarray, they discovered that the insertion ‘significantly affect[ed] up to 5% of the total genes in the array.’ This means that the presence of a single foreign gene might change the expression of hundreds, possibly thousands of genes. In the case of the human cell being studied, the scientists were at a loss to determine the impact. ‘In the absence of more biological information,’ they wrote, ‘we cannot discern which directions [genetic changes] are better or worse, since any of these may have positive or negative effects’.”

Getting the picture?

The simplistic portrait of the genetic insertion called “COVID vaccine” is ready-made propaganda for a gullible audience.

And as HUGE numbers of serious adverse effects and deaths pile up from the vaccine, the medical establishment has twisted explanations on board:

“If a person experiences ‘severe discomfort’ after vaccination, this is a good sign; the vaccine is working.”

“If a person becomes seriously ill, he was attacked by SARS-CoV-2, or a ‘co-morbidity,’ not the vaccine.”

“If a person dies, that, too, was the virus, or an underlying genetic disorder.”

I refuse to accept—among other lies—that the COVID vaccine forces cells of the body to produce exactly and only the same single protein every time, in every case—unless I see convincing proof.

And I’m NOT talking about a study that takes test samples from a small number of patients. I’m talking about thousands of samples from thousands of patients—which is called SCIENCE, in case anyone has forgotten.

“So, Dr. Mengele, are you sure the COVID vaccine inserts RNA into the correct place in the human cell every time? Are you sure the cells produce only the intended protein?”

“Of course. We’ve shown that in the lab.”

“I’m not talking about the lab, Dr. Mengele. I’m talking about thousands of samples taken from humans after they’ve been vaccinated.”

“Oh no, that would be a very laborious process. We don’t have time for that.”

“In other words, the people of Earth are all vulnerable guinea pigs in your vast vaccine campaign.”

“Of course. I thought this was well understood. We have a captive audience, we have new technology, so we run an experiment. This is what life IS.”


SOURCES:

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

[2] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/tag/protein/

[3] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/05/03/covid-vaccinated-people-shedding-and-spreading-genetic-disaster-to-unvaccinated-women/

[4] https://www.responsibletechnology.org/research-exposes-new-health-risks-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-salmon/


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

The non-existent virus; and the implications

by Jon Rappoport

April 26, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Last week, I published Dr. Andrew Kaufman’s devastating critique of the claim that SARS-CoV-2 has been discovered.

Dr. Kaufman offered a blow-by-blow analysis of a typical description of “virus-isolation.” He showed that no such isolation has occurred.

In other words, “here it is,” “we found a new virus”—false. Unsupportable. Fraudulent.

Equally fraudulent, the claim that the “genetic structure of the virus” has been sequenced—-because, if you don’t have a purified isolated specimen of the virus, you have no way (other than fabrication) to claim you understand its structure.

What are the implications?

The COVID PCR and antibody tests are designed to detect a virus that isn’t there.

The COVID case and death numbers—stemming from the virus—are meaningless.

The lockdowns, masks, distancing, the closure of businesses, the economic destruction—all based on stopping the virus—are unnecessary, meaningless, vastly criminal.

People who have been dying have been dying for various other reasons—but their deaths have been relabeled and repackaged as “caused by the virus.”

The vaccine is supposed to protect against…what? The virus that isn’t there.

People who say this monstrous mountain of fraud is too large to be a fraud—well, that’s not an authentic argument. It’s just an expression of preference for established authority; and a preference for a sense of stability created by a lie.

For the past year, I’ve been making the case that no one has proved SARS-CoV-2 exists. Mainstream researchers, in their published studies, have been SAYING they are proving it, but SAYING and PROVING are two very different approaches.

What makes Dr. Kaufman’s analysis so disruptive and accurate is: he took a detailed and typical passage from one of these studies, and he presented a step-by-step refutation of every significant laboratory procedure. He showed that every move the researchers made did NOT lead toward a legitimate conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 exists.

Indeed, Dr. Kaufman’s approach exposes the entire industry of virology. It torpedoes this pseudoscience.

The time-honored process for isolating (discovering) other viruses (e.g., HIV) comes under the same harsh spotlight: researchers say they’ve discovered a virus, but they haven’t come within miles of proving it.

Instead, all they have is the assertion that they are the authorities.

This is the same bald assertion the social-media industry uses to censor information that reveals SARS-CoV-2 has never been discovered.

I would summarize Dr. Kaufman’s analysis with this analogy: You have a large swamp next to a landfill on the edge of a city. The swamp contains a host of toxic chemicals, waste, and genetic material from a number of unknown sources. You observe small fish and insects in the swamp are dying. You decide, based on no evidence, that a virus must be in the swamp, and IT is killing the fish and insects. And THEN you claim that, THEREFORE, you have ISOLATED the virus and demonstrated that it is deadly. AND it is a new virus that no one has ever found before. AND you know the precise genetic structure of this virus.

In other words, you’ve shown the OPPOSITE of isolation. The soup in the swamp never delivers up any evidence of a virus. But you SAY it does.

And this is the basis for declaring a worldwide pandemic.

And no one is supposed to disagree.

And this is science.

And because you’re connected to every government in the world, and every major news source, and to the CDC and the WHO, and to untold numbers of law-enforcement entities, you try to shove this “science” down the throats of 7.8 billion people.

THIS is the gateway to the New Normal and the Great Reset. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the Brave New World will also shove its precepts and structure down the same throats.

And therefore, resistance on many levels—including opening up the economy every-which-way-possible—is necessary. And falls to us to make it happen.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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