Category Archives: Science Fraud

What you’ll never read about virus-research fraud

The rabbit hole

by Jon Rappoport

August 8, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

There are very few investigators on the planet who are interested in this subject. I am one of them. There is a reason why.

In many articles, I’ve written about the shocking lack of logic in the curriculum of advanced centers of learning. When I attended college, I was fortunate to have a professor who taught logic, and taught it in a way that appealed to the minds of his students. In other words, for those of us who cared, we could not only absorb the subject matter, we could think with it; for example, we could approach an area of knowledge and track it back to its most basic premises. And then we could check those premises and see whether they were true and correct. If they were incorrect, we could then challenge many accepted notions that followed from those basic untruths.

That is one of the payoffs of being able to deploy logic.

With this introduction, let me bring up the issue of disease-causation. How do researchers decide that a given virus causes a given condition?

There are many twists and turns involved in answering the question, but before being able to engage in such a discussion, a more basic factor has to be considered:

Has the virus in question ever been isolated and identified? More simply, has it ever been found?

Obviously, in order to eventually say virus A causes condition B, you have to know you’ve found, discovered, isolated virus A from some tissue sample removed from a human being.

I’m not talking about tests run on people in 2016, to decide whether they have virus A. I’m talking about the first time, the first time ever a researcher said, “I’ve found a virus we’ve never seen before. I’m calling it virus A.”

So, for example, with all the chatter about people with Ebola in recent years, the question would be: when was the first time a researcher said, “We’ve verified the existence of a virus we’ve never seen before, and we’re calling it Ebola.”

When was that, and by what procedure was this discovery made?

For many people, it’s unthinkable that scientists would say a given virus is causing many people to fall ill—and yet that virus had never really been isolated and identified—but who knows what you find out when you go down the rabbit hole?

Let’s consider HIV, the purported cause of AIDS. Independent reporter Christine Johnson conducted a magnificent and shocking rabbit-hole interview with Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…” The interview was titled: Does HIV Exist?

I’ll highlight part of the exchange, because it’s so telling and instructive. Keep in mind that what Eleni Papadopulos is saying about HIV could apply to any virus — including zika.

The interview takes up a few complex procedures, but if you read through it several times, you should be able to sort out the key points:

Christine Johnson (CJ): Does HIV cause AIDS?

Eleni Papadopulos (EP): There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.

CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?

EP: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]

CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.

EP: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.

CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?

EP: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.

CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.

EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.

The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.

That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.

CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?

EP: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.

CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?

EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [electron microscope photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.

CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.

EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.

CJ: And what was that method?

EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.

CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?

EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.

CJ: But what about their pictures?

EP: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…”

—end of interview excerpt—

This is shocking, to say the least.

How can researchers or doctors say that HIV is causing AIDS, when the correct procedures for finding HIV and identifying it were never followed in the first place?

“HIV causes AIDS. Of course it does. But, oops, we never proved the virus exists.”

“Of course it exists. It has to.”

“Yes. Right. But we never isolated it. We never demonstrated that it exists.”

“This conversation is counter-productive. Let’s move on.”

“Yes, we must move on. We never spoke of this.”

There is no rabbit hole. Of course not.

That gaping entrance with the tunnel that goes down and down and down? Must have been some construction project that was abandoned. Or it’s just an illusion. We need corrective lenses.

Sure, and if enough people keep saying this, they’ll all forget the logic that keeps staring them in the face.

Almost two years ago, I sent the CDC a FOIA request: provide me with evidence the Ebola virus has ever been isolated from a human being and identified. I’ve never heard back.

I’ll close with another example: SARS. In 2003, this “dreaded epidemic” swept across the world. Quickly, it became apparent it was a dud. In Canada, a microbiologist, Frank Plummer, who was working for the World Health Organization (WHO), wandered off the reservation and told reporters he was puzzled by what he was seeing. Fewer and fewer people diagnosed with SARS showed any trace of the coronavirus, which WHO claimed was the cause of SARS. Plummer was essentially saying people with SARS didn’t have SARS. That was a major scandal, but the press wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.

It raised an even more basic question. Had WHO researchers ever actually found this coronavirus in the first place, or had they asserted its existence based on scanty (or no) evidence?

No one in major media asked or cared. They went along with the “epidemic” story, and when it died, they moved on to other matters.

That strategy is what passes for logic esteemed fourth estate.

power outside the matrix

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House policy analyst

Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House policy analyst

by Jon Rappoport

August 4, 2016

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

There are a number of cases in which a virus is said to be the cause of a disease—but the evidence doesn’t stand up.

I first realized this in 1987. I was writing my book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century.

Robert Gallo, who claimed he had found the cause of AIDS, hadn’t done proper work. From everything I read, he had discovered HIV in 35 to 60 percent of AIDS patients he had studied.

He should have been able to isolate HIV in virtually every patient.

Then there was the fact that the most popular tests for HIV, the Elisa and Western Blot, were fatally flawed. They could register positive for a whole host of reasons that had nothing to do with HIV.

And no one had found sufficient quantities of HIV in humans to justify claiming it caused any kind of illness.

My own research into the so-called high-risk groups revealed that the immune suppression in those groups could be explained by factors other than a virus.

(Note: All my research at that time assumed HIV existed. Since then, several researchers, including the Perth Group, have made compelling arguments that the existence of HIV was never demonstrated.)

As I was winding up the final draft of AIDS INC., I spoke, off the record, with a well-known and well-respected mainstream virologist at a large US university. I expressed my conclusions about HIV.

He spoke, first, about the difficulties in making an absolute decision about a virus as the cause of a disease.

I brought the conversation back to HIV.

He paused. Then he repeated that he couldn’t go on the record. I asked him why.

He said HIV was a subject fraught with problems. Politics were involved.

He said he and his colleagues were taking a pass on getting into a dispute about the virus. They were aware that the science was shaky. They just didn’t want to go near it. They might enter into other arguments about other kinds of research, but as far as they were concerned, HIV was off-limits.

His obvious implication was: careers were on the line.

Attacking HIV as the cause of AIDS could result in blacklisting.

He stopped short of saying HIV wasn’t the cause of AIDS, but it was clear he had seen enough to know there were major holes in HIV science.

This was a man who had no interest in unconventional points of view. He was an orthodox researcher from A to Z. He wasn’t a rebel of any kind. And yet he readily admitted to me that the whole AIDS research establishment was proceeding on a lack of proof.

Exposing this fact would go far beyond the usual definition of a scandal. The result would be a volcanic eruption, if, say, a dozen respected virologists told the truth.

After we finished our conversation, I understood something about consensus reality. It contains elements about which people can argue in public—but then there are other elements which are completely out of bounds, which can never be refuted in a mainstream setting.

Why? Because if certain lies are exposed, they initiate a contagion of doubt and insight that spreads to the whole complex inter-structure of what people take to be reality.

Great curtains are torn away. Pillars are cracked, and fall. Images which are taken to be absolute and unchanging distort, dissolve, and blow away in the wind.

A week after AIDS INC. was shipped to bookstores, in 1988, my friend and colleague, hypnotherapist Jack True, told me a copy of the book was on its way to Russia in a diplomatic pouch.

I asked him how he knew. He shrugged and said he had a few connections.

Of course, I’ve never heard anything back about the Russian response to the book, but I find it interesting that, in America, my publisher and I never made any headway in connecting with government officials.

There was one exception. In 1987, I had a conversation with James Warner, a White House policy analyst. The interview was published in the LA Weekly.

Warner had serious doubts about the HIV theory of AIDS, and would arrange a White House conference on the issue. Pro and anti HIV scientists would be permitted to speak at length.

At the last minute, the conference was cancelled.

the matrix revealed

Here are a few brief excerpts from my conversation with Warner. As a White House analyst, his comments are explosive:

Warner: 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.

Rappoport: Robert Gallo, Max Essex, people like that, were the field commanders on the NIH [National Institutes of Health] 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.

Rappoport: 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.

Rappoport: 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 [and intentionally maintained] – 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 excerpt—

In this current political atmosphere, a White House analyst wouldn’t dare go on the record with comments like these.

Rigid consensus must be maintained.

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 GMO Big Lie dies on the vine

The GMO Big Lie dies on the vine

by Jon Rappoport

June 19, 2016

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

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is one the most prestigious mainstream groups in America. Quoting from its website:

“NAS is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology. Scientists are elected by their peers to membership in the NAS for outstanding contributions to research. The NAS is committed to furthering science in America, and its members are active contributors to the international scientific community. Nearly 500 members of the NAS have won Nobel Prizes, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, founded in 1914, is today one of the premier international journals publishing the results of original research.”

You’d think the major media would dutifully parrot every NAS pronouncement. And with few exceptions, you’d be right.

Here is an exception. In May, the NAS issued a comprehensive report: “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects.” The report’s key finding takes in the entire period of US cultivation of GMO crops:

“The nation-wide data on maize, cotton, or soybean in the United States do not show a significant signature of genetic-technology on the rate of yield increase.” — Chapter 6, Page 66.

A less ponderous translation: the genetic engineering of crops hasn’t resulted in rising output.

Boom.

Bigger yield was the whole selling point of GMOs.

That was the innovation that was going to save the world.

That was, and is, what the grotesque hype-artist, Bill Gates, has been trying to sell Africa.

Incompetent scientists, sold-out scientists, brain-damaged scientists, scared scientists have all been assuring us that GMO crops produce much higher yields, and they’ve been accusing critics of standing in the way of progress for all, hatred of humanity, and ignorance of real science.

Suddenly, their darling of darlings, the National Academy of Sciences, is pelting them with pigeon droppings from above.

The horror.

The Matrix Revealed

Not higher crops yields? What? All that gene manipulation? All that health-destroying Roundup? And what is there to show for it?

Let’s see. Oh yes. Larger corporate profits.

A great deal of stage magic, a host of technical incantations, a heavy dose of shuck and jive, and poof, more money for Monsanto and Dow and the other mystical babbling biotech giants.

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.

Invisible microparticles in food can deliver vaccines, drugs

Invisible microparticles in food can deliver vaccines, drugs

I compare a patent application with what at least one company can deliver to the unknowing public now

by Jon Rappoport

June 12, 2016

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

Thanks to researcher Mary Baker for showing me an explosive patent application and its implications.

Before getting to the details, the overview is this: a technology exists to embed tiny invisible particles in food products, and these particles can deliver nutrients and drugs and vaccines. Apparently, the technology has existed for at least 10 years. Yet, as Baker states, when have you seen a food label that mentions such particles?

Are we to assume the technology hasn’t yet been applied? Is it operating at a stealth level? I’ll try to answer these questions in a minute. But first:

US Patent application ‘US20080044481 A1’. “Microparticles for oral delivery.” May 27, 2005. The inventor and assignee is listed as Mordechai Harel, who was associated with Advanced BioNutrition Corporation of Columbia, Maryland. Here are a group of quotes from the patent application. The statements leave no doubt about the wide, wide application of the technology.

“The particles described herein can be used to deliver bioactive agents (e.g., nutrients, drugs, vaccines, antibodies, and the like), bacteria (e.g., probiotic bacteria), smaller particles, or substantially any other material to the animal.”

“The particles described herein can be prepared and used as free-flowing dry powders, slurries, suspensions, and the like, and are useful for delivering to an animal a drug, a pesticide, a nutrient, a vaccine, a smaller particle, or substantially any other composition that can be contained in the particles. The particles are thus suitable for use in human food products, animal feeds (e.g., pet foods and farmed animal diets), therapeutic compositions (e.g., drugs), prophylactic compositions (e.g., vaccines, antibiotics, and probiotic bacterial preparations), and pest control products among other products.”

“A ‘particle’ is a discrete piece of a (homogeneous or heterogeneous) material having a maximum dimension not greater than 5000 micrometers.”

“Furthermore, when the microparticles are to be used as components of a food product, it can be desirable that the microparticles are not visible.”

“The particles described herein can be used to deliver substantially any chemical species, combination of chemicals, cell, or other piece of matter that can be incorporated into the particle to a component of an animal. All such items are referred to herein as ‘bioactive’ compositions, regardless of what the utility of the composition is. Bioactive compositions include, for example, pharmaceutical compositions or compounds, nutraceutical compositions or compounds, nutritional components, probiotic bacteria, bacteriophages, viruses, flavorants, fragrances, detergents or other surface-active compositions.”

“Examples of these [deliverable micro] agents include antibiotics, analgesics, vaccines, anti-inflammatory agents, antidepressants, anti-viral agents, anti-tumor agents, enzyme inhibitors, formulations containing zidovudine, proteins or peptides (such as vaccines, antibodies, antimicrobial peptides), enzymes, (e.g., amylases, proteases, lipases, pectinases, cellulases, hemicellulases, pentosanases, xylanases, and phytases), liposomes, aromatic nitro and nitroso compounds and their metabolites, HIV protease inhibitors, viruses, and steroids, hormones or other growth stimulating agents, pesticides, herbicides, germicides, biocides, algicides, rodenticides, fungicides, insecticides, antioxidants, plant and animal growth promoters, plant and animal growth inhibitors, preservatives, nutraceuticals, disinfectants, sterilization agents, catalysts, chemical reactants, fermentation agents, foods, animal feeds, food or animal feed supplements, nutrients, flavors, colors, dyes, cosmetics, drugs, vitamins, sex sterilants, fertility inhibitors, fertility promoters, air purifiers, microorganism attenuators, nucleic acids (e.g., RNA, DNA, PNA, vectors, plasmids, ribozymes, aptamers, dendrimers, and the like), antioxidants, phytochemicals, hormones, vitamins (such as vitamins A, B1, B2, B6, B12; C, D, E, and K, pantothenate, and folic acid), pro-vitamins, carotenoids, minerals (such as calcium, selenium, magnesium salts, available iron, and iron salts), microorganisms (such as bacteria, such as probiotics, lactobacilli, fungi, and yeast), prebiotics, trace elements, essential and/or highly unsaturated fatty acids (such as omega-3 fatty acids, and mid-chain triglycerides), nutritional supplements, enzymes (such as amylases, proteases, lipases, pectinases, cellulases, hemicellulases, pentosanases, xylanases, and phytases), pigments, amino acids, agriculturally useful compositions to either prevent infestation (such as herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, mixtures thereof) or to promote growth (such as hormones, fertilizers, or other growth stimulating agents), flavorants, and fragrances.”

I’d say that’s a wide range of application, wouldn’t you?

Did you notice, among the blizzard of compounds deliverable through invisible microparticles, the drug called zidovudine? That’s AZT, a chemo medicine used to treat AIDS patients. To say AZT is toxic would be a vast understatement. It destroys the ability of cells to replicate. And back in 2005, it was mentioned as a drug that can be delivered in food.

So is this technology being applied? Do we, in fact, have these microparticles and their bioactive components in our food?

Let’s go back to the 2005 patent application. As I mentioned, the inventor, Mordechai Harel, was associated with a company, Advanced BioNutrition Corporation. On the company’s website, we find a link to a scientific paper co-authored by Roger Drewes, who became the company’s chief science officer in 2010 (“A novel targeted delivery technology for protecting sensitive bioactive compounds…”). This is an interesting paper. Here is some of the language in the paper. Does any of it remind you of quotes from the 2005 patent application? The paper mentions a novel and proprietary “delivery technology,” MicroMax, which “protect[s] sensitive bioactive compounds through food manufacturing processes.” Also mentioned: a “formulation containing natural polymers surrounding the probiotic bacteria or other biologically active materials…” The probiotic bacteria “remain quiescent while retaining their activity for a long period of time under challenging…gastric conditions…[MicroMax was tested using] bacteria, essential oils, vitamins, enzymes, pigments, and even vaccines in a variety of food and feed products…and the microparticles were sieved to deliver the desired particle range…” [emphasis added]

This might help. Here is the abstract from the 2005 patent application: “The invention provides microbeads containing oil-associated biologically active compounds and methods for their manufacture and use. The microbeads consist of a soluble complex of non-digestible polymer and emulsifier with oil-associated biologically active compounds embedded in a matrix of digestible polymer. The disclosed microbead complex protects the biologically active compounds, such as vitamins, fish oil and carotenoids, from oxidation, taste and odor degradation. The disclosed microbeads also provide protection from the stomach digestive distraction [e.g., gastric activity] and allows for the delivery of the biologically active compounds in the intestine.” [emphasis added]

power outside the matrix

I think we’re looking at the same technology in the 2005 patent application and in Advanced BioNutrition Corp’s MicroMax methods—or two technologies that closely resemble each other—in which case, yes, invisible microparticles in food are much more than a proposed system. This is a working system, available now. It can deliver a stunning array of chemicals and bioactive substances to people in their food. (Note: I have no idea what Advanced BioNutrition Corp is or isn’t delivering to its customers—but I think the company should make these facts known.)

Who knows what other companies have, and are using, this technology?

Are we looking at zero informed consent to be treated, in food, with medicines and vaccines? Zero knowledge on the part of the public? Zero accountability? Nothing on the food labels?

If this is happening to the population now, the word “stealth” only begins to describe it.

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.

Physics, free will, and the ‘Spiritual CIA’

Physics, free will, and the ‘Spiritual CIA’

by Jon Rappoport

May 26, 2016

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

Conventional physicists will tell you that none of the micro-components of the universe (atoms, electrons, photons, quarks, wavicles) exhibits freedom.

The particles don’t reveal anything that could be called freedom.

Physicists will also tell you that everything in the universe, including human bodies and brains, is made up of these very same particles and nothing else.

They will tell you that mind is simply and only the brain.

Therefore, nowhere in body, brain, or mind is there any quality that makes freedom possible.

Freedom=the power of an individual to choose A rather B; to decide to do something or not do it; to invent a possibility and then follow it with action.

According to conventional physics, there is no freedom. It’s not possible. It’s a fantasy.

Contrary to every impulse, awareness, or thought you might have about your freedom, you’re wrong. You’re absolutely deluded. That’s the consensus of the conventional physicists.

Aside from the majestic absurdity of their position, you should also know that, in the partnership between government and science, there is no limit on what programming will be tried on citizens—because, since key persons in that elite partnership hold that freedom is an illusion, it doesn’t matter what they do to us.

It’s just replacing one deterministic program with another.

That’s their view, and I hope you understand it.

If you pushed them into a corner, they would assert that the entire history of the struggle to attain freedom for the individual, against top-down tyrannies, was a meaningless enterprise—because, according to their “findings,” freedom never existed at any time, anywhere. It could never exist. Life is only unconscious particles moving through space and time.

But we, who know how ridiculous that story is, need to admit something: since is freedom is quite real, it exists outside the fabric of the universe. Freedom is not energy, it is not space, it is not time. It is non-material.

And this is a bolt of lightning. It is, when viewed properly, an inspiration of the first order.

It opens up limitless territory, far greater than what we conceive the universe occupies.

And if individual freedom is that huge and that profound, then what does that say about individual power?

The most profound covert ops are aimed at rejecting these factors, at making us believe we are dues-paying card-carrying members of Automatic Predetermined Life.

That’s the materialistic op. That’s the “Spiritual CIA.”

Exit From the Matrix

That’s the issue which will decide our near-future. How we do stand? Where do we stand?

How much freedom and, therefore, power will we admit we have?

What fake shrunken stories will we sell ourselves, in order to slip back into the materialistic cocoon?

The philosophy and “science” of materialism is about far more than the intellectual discussion of what humans are and aren’t. It’s about you. It’s about what you’re capable of, once you offload the imposed limits of this technologically focused civilization—this “normal” civilization that rejects the “paranormal.”

Getting the picture?

I know some of you are.

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.

Manufacturing consent in science: the diabolical twist

Manufacturing consent in science: the diabolical twist

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2016

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

In the famous 1988 Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman book, Manufacturing Consent, the authors explore how media distort the news and employ propaganda, in order to bring about consent/consensus in the population.

This is nothing less than the creation of reality.

I want to extend that concept here, particularly as it applies to science.

From so many directions, official science is shaping our future—that’s why it’s vital to understand the manipulations involved.

It’s one thing to say media collaborate to sell a false picture of reality, a picture which is then bought by the masses. It’s quite another thing to say media collaborate to pretend there is already a consensus of the best professional minds on a given scientific subject—when there isn’t.

I’ll start with a theoretical example. Let’s say three researchers at a university examine data based on US moon missions, and they conclude that a small set of new conclusions are true. I’ll call this set X.

The researchers publish an article in a journal, and a healthy debate ensues in professional circles. Is X correct? Are there flaws in the research?

However, a powerful public agency decides that X is dangerous. X could lead to inquiries about contractors, investigations into cost overruns, missing money, and, worst of all, flawed engineering of space-capsules.

Therefore, this powerful agency goes on an all-out propaganda campaign, tapping its press sources, culminating in a new study that concludes X is entirely false.

The press basically trumpets: “Experts agree X is false. X was the result of shoddy research. The original researchers made numerous amateur mistakes.”

Notice that, in this case, the press isn’t simply distorting the news. It’s announcing that a superior consensus already exists among the best scientific minds.

It’s lying about a consensus that doesn’t exist among scientists who, up until that moment, were having a healthy debate.

The press is presenting the false consensus as if it were real and widespread, when it isn’t.

And at this point, all relevant scientists get the message: keep quiet, don’t debate for another moment; otherwise grant monies will vanish, demotions will occur, peers will lay on heavy criticism, excommunication from The Club will follow.

So these scientists do keep quiet—and then a consensus among them comes into being overnight, by implied threat and coercion.

This is basically what happened in the arena of energy-production via cold fusion. Wikipedia adequately summarizes the surface of the situation: “The most famous cold fusion claims were made by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989. After a brief period of interest by the wider scientific community, their reports were called into question by nuclear physicists.”

Not just called into question; defamed, derided, mocked, slammed over the head with a sledgehammer.

A superior consensus was invented, despite the fact that many scientists were intensely interested in the Pons/Fleishmann findings. They tried, in vain, to point out that the failed efforts to reproduce those findings resulted because researchers were altering Pons and Fleishman’s methods.

No dice. Cold fusion was labeled a giant error and even a fraud. The official door was closed.

In my research leading up to the publication of my first book, AIDS INC., in 1988, I reviewed the period of the early 1980s, when many researchers were coming at the question of the cause of AIDS from different angles. But then, suddenly, in the spring of 1984, the US government officially announced, at a televised press conference, that a virus called HTLV-III (HIV) was the cause.

The science was shoddy, to put it mildly. It was bad science and no science. But no matter. Overnight, all the monies that had gone into discovering what caused AIDS were diverted into the question: How does HIV cause AIDS? Any scientist who failed to see the handwriting on the wall was shoved out into the cold.

The press closed ranks. The consensus (though it was manufactured in the blink of an eye) was trumpeted around the world.

The big news headline wasn’t just false and distorted. It was false-and-distorted about a consensus that, until a few seconds ago, didn’t exist—and only existed now because researchers went silent and accepted dogma and folded up.

For years (and even now), the basic news about climate change/global warming is: there is a consensus. The science is settled. The scientists agree that the science is settled. The scientists agree that the scientists who agree are correct. This, despite the fact that you can still find impressive lists of scientists who don’t agree at all. But they are shut out of the news.

The same construction of consensus applies to the safety of vaccines.

The same construction of consensus applies to the “overwhelming success of the practice of modern medicine.”

Predatory corporations who spray poisonous pesticides all over the world and cause birth defects need special protection and cover? Invent, overnight, and broadcast, a consensus that a basically harmless virus is the cause of those tragic defects.

I can assure you there are many scientists who don’t, for a second, believe the Zika virus is the agent of destruction. But they are keeping their mouths shut now and rolling with the tide.

However, that tide is turning. In many arenas of science, journalists and researchers with no allegiance to official bodies have emerged.

A different species of handwriting is being inscribed on the wall.

What can the mainstream press do about it?

They can only deploy the crass tactics I’ve mentioned here.

A massive and stunning re-education is taking place among the population. No school is running it. No agency is sponsoring it. It’s happening from the ground up.

It turns out that living as a cipher and a unit in the sticky web of fabricated consensus isn’t nearly as attractive as it once was.

More and more, major media are using the consensus strategy to invent the news—and people are rejecting it.

Without realizing it, the press is committing professional suicide. An article that was once headlined, “Three dead horses found in a field,” has become, “Scientists agree that the three dead horses were a coincidence.” And people are laughing the press out of court.

power outside the matrix

The ongoing scandal surrounding the film, Vaxxed (trailer), is a good example. The press assures the population that pointing out a connection between a vaccine and autism is absurd, because scientific experts agree there is no such connection.

But the film features a long-time researcher at the Centers for Disease Control, who confesses that he and colleagues falsified a 2004 study in order to exonerate one such vaccine.

The film’s subject is false consensus.

And the press can do no better than repeat, over and over: the consensus is real and valid.

The CDC researcher, William Thompson, is essentially shouting, “I was part of the consensus. Don’t you get it? I was a card-carrying member of the club that invents fake consensus. And now I’m telling you that. Don’t fall for this notion that the best minds agree. The best minds conspire to concoct agreement out of thin air.”

The media are collapsing into their own swamp.

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.

Does HIV exist? An explosive interview

by Jon Rappoport

April 4, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

The interview, conducted by excellent freelance journalist, Christine Johnson, delves into these questions:

How should researchers prove that a particular virus exists? How should they isolate it? What are the correct procedures?

These questions, and their answers, reside at the heart of most disease research—and yet, overwhelmingly, doctors never explore them or even consider them.

Johnson interviews Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…”

I strongly suggest you read the whole interview. Here I’m publishing and highlighting excerpts. Technical issues are discussed. Grasping them is not the easiest exercise you’ve ever done, but I believe the serious reader can comprehend the vital essentials.

CJ: Does HIV cause AIDS?

EPE: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

EPE: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.

…

CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?

EPE: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]

CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.

EPE: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.

CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?

EPE: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.

…

CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.

EPE: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.

The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.

That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.

CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?

EPE: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.

CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?

EPE: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.

CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.

EPE: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.

CJ: And what was that method?

EPE: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.

CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?

EPE: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.

CJ: But what about their pictures?

EPE: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…”

…

the matrix revealed

If you grasp the essentials of this discussion, you’ll see there is every reason to question the existence of HIV, because the methods for proving its existence were not followed.

Therefore, more questions emerge. How many other viruses have been named as causes of disease, when in fact those viruses have never been isolated or proved to exist?

Of course, conventional-consensus researchers and doctors will scoff at any attempt to raise these issues. For them, “the science is settled.” Meaning: they don’t want to think. They don’t want to stir the waters.

A few years ago, chemist David Rasnick sent a request to the CDC, asking for evidence demonstrating that the Ebola virus had ever been isolated from a human. The answers he received did not begin to approach a level of certainty.

After 30 years working as a reporter in the area of deep medical-research fraud, I’ve seen that false science occurs in levels.

The deeper you go, the stranger it gets. To put it another way: the deeper you go, the worse it gets.

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.

Zika: the gene-editing fix that will blow you away

It’s real, and it’s ready

by Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2016

“Logic students used to learn: you can have a perfectly valid argument, even if your premises, your first assumptions are completely false. Well, if the argument is about politics, your conclusion will be insane. Implementing the conclusion will earn you praise as you destroy lives. What we’re talking about here is a species of mind control.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

What’s the latest solution to the virus that causes nothing?

Here we go.

Punch line: MIT Technology Review, 2/8/16: “We have the technology to destroy all Zika mosquitoes.”

“A controversial genetic technology able to wipe out the mosquito carrying the Zika virus will be available within months, scientists say.

“The technology, called a ‘gene drive,’ was demonstrated only last year in yeast cells, fruit flies, and a species of mosquito that transmits malaria. It uses the gene-snipping technology CRISPR to force a genetic change to spread through a population as it reproduces.

“Three U.S. labs that handle mosquitoes, two in California and one in Virginia, say they are already working toward a gene drive for Aedes aegypti, the type of mosquito blamed for spreading Zika. If deployed, the technology could theoretically drive the species to extinction. (emphasis added)

“’We could have it easily within a year,’ says Anthony James, a molecular biologist at the University of California, Irvine.

“Any release of a gene drive in the wild would be hotly debated by ecologists…But with Zika sowing fear across Latin America and beyond, the technology is likely to get a closer look. ‘Four weeks ago we were trying to justify why we are doing this. Now they’re saying “Get the lead out,”’ says James. ‘It’s absolutely going to change the conversation.’”

No kidding.

Unforeseen consequences? Unpredicted results? Ecological domino effect? Transfer of genes from mosquitoes to humans? Don’t be silly. All is well. Don’t worry, be happy. Move straight ahead with your mouth shut and your eyes closed.

In previous articles, I’ve been reviewing the basics of covert ops, because Zika fits the bill. In this case, take a virus that causes nothing, falsely link it to a tragic condition (babies born with small heads and brain damage), and then slide in the real agendas. I’ve already spelled out some of those plans, which are materializing in front of our eyes.

Gene editing is a towering plan: technocrats don’t like a species—wipe it out.

Build up the threat with lies and obfuscations and false science and wall-to-wall propaganda—then introduce the grand solution.

Depopulation turns out to be easy. Just reconfigure genes. Snip-snip.

The Zika virus isn’t “sowing fear,” as the MIT Review claims. The World Health Organization is inventing that fear. In the 70 years since Zika was discovered, it has, at worst, caused mild transient illness. Now, suddenly, it’s supposed to be creating radical birth defects. Of course, the Brazilian researchers can only find a possible correlation between Zika and the birth defect in 17 cases. Seventeen. Maybe.

But never mind. Wipe out all the mosquitoes that may be carrying Zika. Wipe out the whole species.

And come to think of it, could a case be made that certain human populations are destructive and, well, superfluous? There are people who think so. They also think that, in the onrush of automation and AI, efficient robots could replace those useless populations.

Face it. Despite all the warnings about viruses running out of control and wiping out half the world, the depopulation freaks just haven’t been able to put a dent in the global population. They hope, they pray, but no dice.

However, they have been able to produce one result: planting fear of viruses in humans. They’re adequate to that task. So wake up and smell the cover story.

“In order to destroy the imminent threat of viruses and save the human race, we must turn to cutting-edge technology: gene editing. That’s our ultimate hope.”

Destroy the village in order to save it.

Here are the final paragraphs of the MIT article:

“But a gene drive [gene editing] can also make mosquito populations disappear. The simplest way to do that is to spread a genetic payload that leads to only male offspring. As the ‘male-only’ instructions spread with each new generation, eventually there would be no females left, says Adelman. His lab discovered the Aedes aegypti gene that determines sex only last spring. The next step will be to link it to a gene drive.

“Kevin Esvelt, a gene-drive researcher at MIT’s Media Lab who has been outspoken about the need to proceed cautiously, also thinks Aedes aegypti eradication should be the goal, so long as the public is onboard and the safety of the idea proved.

“’Technologically, we could probably do it in a couple of years,’ says Esvelt. ‘I’m sure we’ll be able to do it before people can agree if we should.’”

Did you get that last piece? The “cautious” scientist says: what the hell, let’s eliminate a whole species if “the public is onboard” and we prove it’s safe.

How to prove safety before launch? Hard to say. Basically, try it and then we’ll know. Vote for the bill and then you can read what’s in it. Allow a global explosion of GMO crops based on zero science about health and economic consequences, and see what happens. Expand the list of mandated vaccines for children from six to 60 and see what happens. Spray poisonous pesticides all over the planet and see what happens.

power outside the matrix

Only cranks and conspiracists and rubes and yokels and Luddites and tree huggers and bitter clingers oppose the march of science. How about editing their genes? It would make things so much easier.

Wipe out the mosquitoes. One small step for man, one giant step for mankind. Today, the mosquito, tomorrow the (fill in the blank).

The mind plays tricks:

“Listen, we’re not talking about depopulation in general. Don’t be silly. We’re just going to wipe out one species of very troublesome insect that’s wreaking havoc. Come on. It’s just once. We’ll never do it again. We’re not crazy. We’re researchers. Just give us a chance. Please. We want to launch the experiment and watch it with joy. That’s what we do. Just once. It’s our present under the Xmas tree.”

Why not? All you have to do is forget the giant clue that’s clubbing you on the head:

The virus they’re going to stop causes nothing.

What are they counting on? They’re counting on you not being able to believe the virus causes nothing. They’re betting on that.

They’re betting you’re in the trance they created.

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.

Zika: GE mosquitoes bite, deliver flying vaccine?

Zika: GE mosquitoes bite, deliver flying vaccine?

Zika: the ideal fake epidemic to stir “need” for airborne vaccination: “we must do something to stop the spread of the virus”

No need to mandate shots: release mosquitoes to deliver them

by Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2016

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

People are discussing whether genetically engineered mosquitoes could have spread Zika, the virus that causes nothing. Rather, look to the future, when such biting mosquitoes could deliver flying vaccinations against the virus that causes nothing.

In previous articles, I’ve established that the connection between the Zika virus and cases of birth defects in Brazil is entirely and utterly unproven. It is hype, not science.

But that isn’t stopping the World Health Organization, the biggest medical propaganda agency in the world, from promoting Zika hysteria to the moon.

In the wake of this madness…

Here are a few hints and clues about a possible flying mosquito vaccinator:

sciencemag.org, 3/18/2010, “Researchers Turn Mosquitoes Into Flying Vaccinators”:

“…A group of Japanese researchers has developed a mosquito that spreads vaccine instead of disease. Even the researchers admit, however, that regulatory and ethical problems will prevent the critters from ever taking wing—at least for the delivery of human vaccines. …No regulatory agency would sign off on that, says molecular biologist Robert Sinden of Imperial College London. Releasing the mosquitoes would also mean vaccinating people without their informed consent, an ethical no-no. Yoshida concedes that the mosquito would be ‘unacceptable’ as a human vaccine-delivery mechanism.”

However, in the midst of forced hysteria about Zika, or the next virus, or the one after that—each said to be on the verge of causing a global holocaust—the so-called ethical considerations could go out the window. What degree of ethics was involved, in the 1990s, when GMO crops were allowed to be planted, without human safety studies, without any oversight?

If not mosquitoes as the vaccine-delivery system, how about parasites?

Science Daily, 9/11/2013, “Mosquito bites deliver potential new malaria vaccine”:

“’In this paper we show that genetically engineered parasites are a promising, viable option for developing a malaria vaccine, and we are currently engineering the next generation of attenuated parasite strains with the aim to enter clinical studies soon.’ …For the first time, researchers created a weakened version of the human malaria parasite by altering its DNA. They tested the safety of the new modified parasite by injecting six human volunteers through mosquito bites. Five of the six volunteers showed no infection with the parasite, suggesting that the new genetic technique has potential as the basis for a malaria vaccine.”

As they say, what could possibly go wrong?

And now, here is a peek into where Japanese researchers pioneering mosquito-vaccinators obtained their funding.

From AFP, 10/24/2008:

“The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded 100,000 dollars each on Wednesday to scientists in 22 countries including funding for a Japanese proposal to turn mosquitoes into ‘flying syringes’ delivering vaccines… Among the proposals receiving funding was one from Hiroyuki Matsuoka at Jichi Medical University in Japan. ‘(Matsuoka) thinks it may be possible to turn mosquitoes that normally transmit disease into “flying syringes,” so that when they bite humans they deliver vaccines,’ the Gates Foundation said.”

Who wouldn’t feel comfortable about Bill Gates spearheading this program? Answer: any human with a few operating brain cells.

As technically difficult as the program may be—and as fraught with “ethical considerations”—don’t underestimate the madness of the perpetrators.

A year from now, five years from now, you might read this sort of declaration from the World Health Organization:

“People remember the Zika virus and the threat it posed to our human future, before the heroic efforts of researchers and public-health officials managed to get it under control. And now with the new SanDab-3 virus spreading and spiraling out of control, we are poised to permit the release of 32 million mosquitoes who have been altered so they can deliver a SanDab vaccine to millions of endangered people all over the planet. It is our best option at this time, during the crisis…”

power outside the matrix

Phony “epidemics” (e.g., SARS, Swine Flu, West Nile, Ebola, Zika) haven’t stopped the march of science. The march of science-propaganda invented these scare-constructs in the first place. It stands to reason that back-end payoffs are the theme of such campaigns.

One of the prime payoffs is new vaccines. And if a delivery system (biting insects) can be created beyond the possibility of recall, so much the better.

All it takes is a high enough degree of engendered public fear.

That’s what the “epidemics” are: contagions of fear.

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.

Official science: the grand illusion for all robots

Official science: the grand illusion for all robots

by Jon Rappoport

November 2, 2015

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

“Government science exists because it is a fine weapon to use, in order to force an agenda of control over the population. We aren’t talking about knowledge here. Knowledge is irrelevant. What counts is: ‘How can we fabricate something that looks like the truth?’ I keep pointing this out: we’re dealing with reality builders. In this case, they make their roads and fences out of data, and they massage and invent the data out of thin air to suit their purposes. After all, they also invent money out of thin air.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Introduction: Since 1987, one of my goals as a reporter has been to educate the public about false science.

Between then and now, I have found that, with remarkably few exceptions, mainstream reporters are studiously indifferent to false science.

They shy away from it. They pretend “it couldn’t be.” They refuse to consider facts. They and their editors parrot “the experts.”

Official science has a stranglehold on major media. It has the force of a State religion. When you stop and think about it, official science is, in a significant sense, a holy church. Therefore, it is no surprise that the church’s spokespeople would wield power over major information outlets.

These prelates invent, guard, and dispense “what is known.” That was precisely the role of the Roman Church in times past. And those professionals within the modern Church of Science are severely punished when they leave the fold and accuse their former masters of lies and crimes. They are blackballed, discredited, and stripped of their licenses. At the very least.

Totalitarian science lets you know you’re living in a totalitarian society.

The government, the press, the mega-corporations, the prestigious foundations, the academic institutions, the “humanitarian” organizations say:

“This is the disease. This is its name. This is what causes it. This is the drug that treats it. This is the vaccine that prevents it.”

“This is how accurate diagnosis is done. These are the tests. These are the possible results and what they mean.”

“Here are the genes. This is what they do. This is how they can be changed and substituted and manipulated. These are the outcomes.”

“These are the data and the statistics. They are correct. There can be no argument about them.”

“This is life. These are the components of life. All change and improvement result from our management of the components.”

“This is the path. It is governed by truth which our science reveals. Walk the path. We will inform you when you stray. We will report new improvements.”

“This is the end. You can go no farther. You must give up the ghost. We will remember you.”

We are now witnessing the acceleration of Official Science. Of course, that term is an internal contradiction. But the State shrugs and moves forward.

The notion that the State can put its seal on favored science, enforce it, and punish its competitors, is anathema to a free society.

For example: declaring that psychiatrists can appear in court as expert witnesses, when none of the so-called mental disorders listed in the psychiatric literature are diagnosed by laboratory tests.

For example: stating that vaccination is mandatory, in order to protect the vaccinated (who are supposed to be immune) from the unvaccinated. An absurdity on its face.

For example: announcing that the science of climate change is “settled,” when there are, in fact, huge numbers of researchers who disagree. —And then, drafting legislation and issuing executive orders based on the decidedly unsettled science.

For example: officially approving the release and sale of medical drugs (“safe and effective”) which go on to kill, at a conservative estimate, 100,000 Americans every year. And then refusing to investigate or punish the purveyors of these drug approvals (the FDA).

For example: permitting the widespread use of genetically modified food crops, based on no long-term studies of their impact on human health. And then, arbitrarily announcing that the herbicide, Roundup, for which many of these crops are specifically designed, is non-toxic.

For example: declaring and promoting the existence of various epidemics, when the viruses purportedly causing them are not proven to exist and/or not proven to cause human illness (Ebola, SARS, West Nile, Swine Flu, etc.)

A few of you reading this have been with me since 1988, when I published my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century. Among other conclusions, I pointed out that HIV had never been shown to cause human illness; the front-line drug given to AIDS patients, AZT, was overwhelmingly toxic; and what was being called AIDS was actually a diverse number immune-suppressing conditions.

Others of you have found my work more recently. I always return to the subject of false science, because it is the most powerful long-term instrument for repression, political control, and destruction of human life.

As I’ve stated on many occasions, medical science is ideal for mounting and launching covert ops aimed at populations—because it appears to be politically neutral, without any allegiance to State interests.

Unfortunately, medical science, on many fronts, has been hijacked and taken over. The profit motive is one objective, but beyond that, there is a more embracing goal:

Totalitarian control.

The Matrix Revealed

On the issue of vaccines, I’ve written much about their dangers and ineffectiveness. But also consider this: the push for mandatory vaccination goes a long way toward creating a herd effect—which is really a social construction.

In other words, parents are propagandized to think of themselves a kind of synthetic artificial “community.”

“Here we are. We are the fathers and mothers. We must all protect our children against the outliers, the rebels, the defectors, the crazy ones who refuse to vaccinate their own children. We are all in this together. They are the threat. The enemy. We are good. We know the truth. They are evil.”

This “community of the willing” are dedicated to what the government tells them. They are crusaders imbued with group-think. They run around promoting “safety and protection.” This group consciousness is entirely an artifact, propelled by “official science.”

The crusaders are, in effect, agents of the State.

They are created by the State.

Androids.

They live in an absurd Twilight Zone where fear of germs (the tiny invisible terrorists) demands coercive action against the individuals who see through the whole illusion.

This is what official science can achieve. This is how it can enlist obedient foot soldiers and spies who don’t have the faintest idea about how they’re being used.

This is a variant on Orwell’s 1984. The citizens are owned by the all-embracing State, but they aren’t even aware of it.

That’s quite a trick.

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.