Is the virus real? Steve Kirsch suggests a debate

by Jon Rappoport

January 25, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

My readers know that, for the past two years, I’ve been making the case that the virus is a scientific fiction, a con, and a cover story for tyranny that would make Hitler, Stalin, and Mao blush with envy.

Recently, the question has been attracting wider coverage: Does SARS-CoV-2 exist?

Entrepreneur, inventor, and philanthropist, Steve Kirsch, says yes. He offers to set up a 5-hour live video debate. He’ll send his experts and other side will send theirs. They’ll go at it.

What about the usual form of scientific debate, called the written word?

Buckle up.

Kirsch: “I don’t think the folks I’d ask to do this would want to spend time writing papers…They don’t even have the time to prepare their own papers. Doing written documents is much more time consuming than talking because people spend the time to make it bulletproof.”

Heaven forbid.

Kirsch: “None of the people on our team require that all discussions be in writing only.”

Of course not. Why would his team of scientists insist on the method by which science is accomplished?

Kirsch: “One of the commenters [to an article by Kirsch] wrote this: ‘But when someone really knows their shit they would much rather handle it in a live conversation; it’s much more efficient (you don’t spend hours writing) and it reaches a wider audience, and that audience has the benefit of tone and body language to affirm (or negate) the veracity and substance of what is being said.’”

Kirsch: “I agree with that.”

Truly awesome.

Tone and body language. Yes, of course. You know, that was Galileo’s problem when he was tried by the Inquisition for insisting the Earth rotated, and journeyed around the sun. If only he’d stood up straighter and spoken with unwavering clarity (in the manner of, say, a Walter Cronkite). He might have won his case. Because tone and inflection equal science. We all realize that. Obviously, Galileo didn’t know his shit.

Spending hours writing arguments about the existence of the virus—who would have the audacity to insist on that? As Kirsch points out, his experts are busy. It’s rude to interrupt them and ask them to make their case bulletproof. Science on Video tends to be based on “we KNOW we’re sure” and “the truth is OBVIOUS” and “WE’RE the pros.” That’s good enough, and you can sell it. If you, again, display convincing tone and body language.

In medical school, they teach this. “One day you students will be called on to defend your actions and opinions with pure bullshit. I tell you that now, to prepare you for the moment. How do you shape and transmit the bullshit? Do you do it through tiresome written reports, which run the risk of exposing the truth, engraved on the page, or do you stand up before a panel and look those people in the eye and tell a story that wows them? Do you fumble to clarify a point, or do you gloss it over with a quick-hitting generality that covers a crack in your armor? Careers are won and lost on that basis.”

Kirsch believes an exchange of papers between debaters is futile. Who can, or is willing to, pore through them and analyze them? And do those written exchanges actually cover all essential points? But with video, we NEVER EVER see opponents talking past each other or quickly changing the subject to avoid unpleasant revelations. Certainly not. We never see opponents smirking like entitled monkeys and making ad hominem accusations. We never witness slippery logic sliding by before it can be isolated and corrected. We never witness grandstanding for the audience’s benefit. It’s never show biz on parade. No mainstream expert would dare intone, “Ahem, in my many years as professor of so-and-so at such-and-such, having engaged in intense research on this question, and having authored over 60 papers on this very subject…”

And then there is the suggestion, as the commenter states, that the audience can decide…on the winner in the debate. Yes. What else is a debate FOR? Science is a democracy, and the audience is the proof of the pudding. Once they vote up or down, the deed is done. This is why, in medical journals, at the bottom of every paper and study, you see the poll question: “DO YOU THINK THIS ANALYSIS IS ACCURATE? CAST YOUR BALLOT. Depending on the outcome, we will maintain the study in our archive or retract it with an apology. Everyone can vote. You do not need to be a subscriber. We work for our audience every day. If the majority of you believes one of our authors has convinced you that the moon is a slice of soft brie on a plate or an elephant’s ass, we concur. This is called consensus, and what else could science be?”

Not long ago, I crashed my Gulfstream in the Himalayas, and after a harrowing journey to the GeFunkte Hospital in Berlin, as I was lying on the operating table, two surgeons debated whether I needed one or two transplanted hearts. Later, I was told a live stream of this discussion had been piped into the hospital waiting room, and the patients expressed an overwhelming preference for two hearts, based on the charismatic presentation of Surgeon Number One, who had studied Voice and Drama at the Julliard School in New York. So…two hearts it was. You can read about the groundbreaking operation in the Medical Journal of Audience Participation.

Published blow-by-blow descriptions of “isolating viruses” are quite dense to begin with. Perhaps one person in two hundred thousand can plow through them and understand them. Therefore, the debate about the existence of a virus starts with something in writing that, for most people, is impenetrable.

It’s no surprise that these descriptions are viewed with suspicion.

“We’re the expert virologists. Only we understand what we’re doing.”

“I see. So understanding virus isolation is like understanding RNA development and insertion into lipid nanoparticles which are injected into a few billion people.”

“Yes, exactly. Only we understand that whole process.”

“Got it. I have grave doubts about everything you’re claiming about the vaccine, but I completely accept everything you’re saying about the existence of the virus.”

In this particular debate about the existence of the virus, the devil really is in the details.

The details concerning exactly how virologists believe they are isolating viruses and sequencing them. As I say, reading the studies, one sees immediately that the accounts of these procedures are laden with technical terms and technical steps.

Those elements have to be analyzed and taken apart, to see whether they make scientific sense. In fact, a debate in writing is the sane way to proceed.

Settling the question of virus-isolation via video would be quite a challenge. An exceptional amount of good will and patience, from the mainstream virologists, would be required. I’ve never seen medical “experts” show those qualities, when the basic assumptions of their professions are on the line. I’ve seen them get up on their high horse, growl, bloviate, dismiss, generalize, tap dance, boil over, accuse, pretend to be oh so reasonable, with their pants on fire.

Someone will say, “But…but, let’s wrap all this up in one sitting. Video will accomplish that. I have things to do, places to go. We live in a fast-food world, face it.”

Yes, you have to go to the store with your mask on and maintain distancing; you have to look for a restaurant that won’t make you flash your vaccine passport; you have to show up at the school board meeting to tell the members what they can do with their mandate forcing your kid to take the shot; when they refuse to listen to you, you have to sell your house, pack up your belongings, and move with the kids from New York to Florida; and all the while, you have to keep deleting voice messages from your brother who’s telling you only the injection will save you and the family wants you institutionalized.

All these and so many more to-do’s begin with the assumption that a virus exists.

So a debate on this point ought to be complete and rigorous.

If the only possibility is a video, have a go. But the written word is far superior.

“Counsel, you have a video where the defendant discusses how he can steal a billion dollars from the pension fund?”

“Yes, Your Honor. But we also have a letter of agreement between the defendant and the head of the Montebello crime family. The letter reveals the defendant has already stolen the money, and will give it to the mob in exchange for certain favors.”

“A letter, you say? Words? Sentences? In writing, on a page? Signed? And it can be read?”

“Yes, sir. Writing is an older form of expression. It’s now being phased out. But it stands up quite well. It’s bulletproof.”

Replace Sotomayor with Pinocchio or Bozo the Clown; make idiocy even more visible—if possible

Jan10

by Jon Rappoport

January 10, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

During the Supreme Court’s oral arguments over the Biden vaccine mandates, Justice S-Protein issued this gem:

“We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators.”

Even the Washington Post had to admit this was sheer bloviation: “According to HHS data, as of Jan. 8 there are about 5,000 children hospitalized in a pediatric bed, either with suspected covid or a confirmed laboratory test. This figure includes patients in observation beds. So Sotomayor’s number is at least 20 times higher than reality, even before you determine how many are in ‘serious condition’.”

Senator Rand Paul suggested Soto the Great might be getting her numbers from that serial liar, Fauci.

Also, during the Court hearing, Justice Clarence Thomas asked, “Is a vaccine the only way to treat COVID?” Unless he was making a joke, he’s been living in cave for the past two years.

BUT these and other remarks from Justices did something unexpected. They opened the door to a discussion of the mandates based on the merits, on facts, on whether the mandates are scientifically justified.

From now on, other court challenges to the mandates can refer to the Supremes—attorneys can try to introduce evidence that the mandates are medically and scientifically insane.

Many legal loons, you see, have argued, for years, that governments can command the citizenry to do anything short of jumping off high rooftops—because in the interest of public safety, and during a declared Emergency, official powers are unlimited. And the standard for imposing mandates is simply: the government believes it is doing the right thing.

That brutal shut door has now been opened a crack, owing to the crackpot assertion issuing from the mug of Ms. Soto Bozo.

She Whose Nose Grows Longer has done us all a service.

Of course there are other mandate issues here: the federal colossus ripping away freedom from the people; the central government overriding the Constitutional powers of the States; religious exemptions; the appointing of OSHA to oversee regulation-and-enforcement, a task the agency was never created to carry out.

But now one more obvious factor has been introduced. Does the SUBSTANCE of the mandates make any sense at all?

Reported COVID vaccine injuries have just passed the one-million mark. The well-known Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare study concluded such reports should be multiplied by 100 to arrive at a true figure.

What would you expect to happen, in the way of injury and death, if the Biden vaccine mandates are upheld and made air tight in every nook and cranny of the country?

And what would you expect to happen as the number of vaccine-refusers then grows and grows—because there are a whole lot of people who just don’t like to be pushed around, especially when severe health damage is the result.

The feds are going to book rooms in every venue from the Ritz all the way down to the Seedy Hooker Motel 12, to house resisters from Nome to Key West?

“President Biden welcomes you. Here is your key. A security guard will take you down the hall. Don’t try to escape. The canine patrol will hunt you down.”

Maybe the old wobbly on-again-off-again deranged occupant of the Oval Office can’t see the consequences of his actions, but his string-pullers can. Big-time blowback day after day would not be their favorite breakfast cereal.

Ditto for the Supremes. At least for the time being, it looks like they’re going to figure out a way to pass the buck and stay the execution of the country.

Even Soto the Clown can read large handwriting on the wall.

CODA: How can I put this, so self-styled sophisticated tech-heads will grasp it? More and more people are realizing that government science is bullshit. It’s one layer of bullshit piled on another layer. It’s a whole slew of overlapping and cross-referenced and integrated data sets of bullshit.

The PCR test, the definition of a COVID case, the case numbers, the vaccine harm—more and more people can spot these fakeries and go down the rabbit hole that far.

So there’s a limit to the value of virtue signaling designed to support the central government. At some point, the signaler is painting a target on his back.

Catching my drift? If these vaccine mandates are rigidly enforced, the beauty of being a Collectivist ideologue is going to fade.

When freedom becomes the only default position, come hell or high water, a virtue signaler looks very much like a jailer.

People don’t like jailers.

GET THAT FUCKING NEEDLE AWAY FROM MY ARM.

When 20,000 people at a football game stop shouting, “Let’s go, Brandon,” and opt for that NEEDLE chant instead, virtue signalers will want to test positive, so they can lock themselves in a room and try to develop a Cloak of Invisibility.

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

Jon Rappoport

New level of COVID fakery; I’m doubling down

Jan7

by Jon Rappoport

January 7, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’m expanding the claim I’ve made in several recent articles.

I wrote that, by accepting current statistics on COVID cases in the US, you’re committed to concluding that everyone in America is going to be infected.

That was an UNDERESTIMATE.

If you accept the official figures—56 million COVID cases since the beginning of the pandemic, and one million new cases on the day of January 3rd—you’re committed to this:

Not only will all 330 million people in the US become infected, everyone in a nation of a billion people would become infected.

In the US, with 330 million people, everyone would become infected five, six, or seven times.

No matter what.

—Regardless of vaccines, quarantines, isolation, lockdowns, distancing, masks, everyone moving to underground bunkers and permanently wrapping themselves in stitched-together plastic shower curtains.

If you accept the existence of the virus, the supposed extent and speed of its rapid spread, the validity of the test, the accuracy of the case numbers, the meaning of what constitutes a case, you’re committed to:

EVERYONE GETS INFECTED AT LEAST HALF-A-DOZEN TIMES.

It’s really worse, because the official reports on the virus imply it’s behaving unlike any other germ in history. It’s not burning out. Natural immunity isn’t taking hold.

Therefore, everyone will become infected and re-infected an UNLIMITED number of times. And if naturally acquired immunity doesn’t take hold in the future, we’re all going to die.

That’s the actual COVID narrative, once you accept the basic premises.

Face it.

Or do something revolutionary: think about the basic premises.

For the past two years, I’ve written over 450 articles rejecting every single premise, with explanations and evidence.

And when I say “every premise,” I include the fatuous and bloated and preposterous and kindergarten assertion that the virus—SARS-CoV-2—exists.

Because it doesn’t. The virus doesn’t exist.

Once you extract that rotting piece of nonsense from the COVID story, all the other premises, and the whole narrative, collapse.

Sanity returns.

Of course, I’m aware that many people prefer to remain blindly insane. They prefer to accept the official COVID fairy tale, while at the same time refusing to realize the implications of what they are buying.

I’m not writing for them.

I’m not writing for the people who hold out hope that “a vaccine will save us.” Think that through. In the last year, we’ve seen two significant variant strains of the virus, according to the lying public health leadership. If that were true, we would expect to see more variants—and the vaccine would stop working each time a new variant appeared. As one researcher recently pointed out, are we supposed to believe the whole country (and the world) can be injected with a useful booster EVERY SIX MONTHS?

Of course, there are no variants, because there is no virus. There is nothing to vary FROM.

Everywhere you look, the official story implies doom, and everywhere you look, the official story is false.

Here is another article I wrote about the virus that isn’t there:

CDC/FDA smoking gun of smoking guns.

They confess: they had no virus when they concocted the test for the virus; they “contrived” a model by pretending to find what they wanted to find; it’s called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is the con and the crime that drove millions of lives, and economies, into ruin.

The CDC has issued a document that bulges with devastating admissions.

The release is titled, “07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.” It begins explosively:

“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.”

CDC/FDA are confessing there has been a PROBLEM with the PCR test which has been used to detect the virus, starting in February of 2020—right up to this minute.

In other words, the millions and millions of “COVID cases” based on the PCR test in use are all suspect. Actually, that statement is too generous. Every test result of every PCR test should be thrown out.

To confirm this, the CDC document links to an FDA release titled, “SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel Comparative Data.” Here is a killer quote:

“During the early months of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical specimens [of the virus] were not readily available to developers of IVDs [in vitro diagnostics] to detect SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the FDA authorized IVDs based on available data from contrived samples generated from a range of SARS-CoV-2 material sources (for example, gene specific RNA, synthetic RNA, or whole genome viral RNA) for analytical and clinical performance evaluation. While validation using these contrived specimens provided a measure of confidence in test performance at the beginning of the pandemic, it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.”

Translation: We, at the CDC, did not have a specimen of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when we concocted the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. Yes, it’s unbelievable, right? And that’s the test we’ve been using all along. So we CONTRIVED samples of the virus. We fabricated. We lied. We made up [invented] synthetic gene sequences and we SAID these sequences HAD TO BE close to the sequence of SARS-CoV-2, without having the faintest idea of what we were doing, because, again, we didn’t have an actual specimen of the virus. We had no proof THERE WAS something called SARS-CoV-2.

This amazing FDA document goes to say the Agency has granted emergency approval to 59 different PCR tests since the beginning of the (fake) pandemic. 59. And, “…it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.”

Translation: Each of the 59 different PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 told different lies and concocted different fabrications about the genetic makeup of the virus—the virus we didn’t have. Obviously, then, these tests would give unreliable results. THE PCR TESTS USED CONTRIVED SPECIMENS OF THE VIRUS WE DIDN’T HAVE.

BUT, don’t worry, be happy, because NOW, the CDC and the FDA say, they really do have actual virus samples of SARS-CoV-2 from patients.

In other words, they were lying THEN, but they’re not lying NOW. They were “contriving,” but now they’re telling the truth.

If you believe that, I have Fountain of Youth water for sale, extracted from the lead-contaminated system of Flint, Michigan.

Here, once again, I report virology’s version of “we isolated (discovered) the virus”:

They have a soup they make in their labs.

This soup contains human and monkey cells, toxic chemicals and drugs, and all sorts of other random genetic material. Because the cells start to die, the researchers ASSUME a bit of mucus from a patient they dropped in the soup is doing the killing, and THE VIRUS must be the killer agent in the mucus.

This assumption is entirely unwarranted. The drugs and chemicals could be doing the cell-killing, and the researchers are also starving the cells of vital nutrients, and that starvation could kill the cells.

There is no proof that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup, or that it is doing the cell-killing, or that it exists.

Yet the researchers call cell-death “isolation of the virus.”

To say this is a non-sequitur is a vast understatement. In their universe, “We assume, without proof, we have the virus buried in a soup in a dish in the lab” equals, “We’ve separated the virus from all surrounding material.”

Virology equals “how to spread bullshit for a living and scare the world.” Other than that, it’s perfect.

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

Jon Rappoport

The new sexual mandate

Dec22

by Jon Rappoport

December 22, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

NBC, September 4, 2056. Three hours ago, on the Morning Blow, anchor Rex Regis interviewed US Department of Genetics Chief, Dr. Dove Fauci Gates. Here is a rush transcript excerpt:

Doctor, can you summarize the new federal mandate? It seems to represent a scientific breakthrough.

It does, Rex. We’ve discovered that during the act of sexual intercourse, there is a cascade of unmonitored genetic information transferred between partners.

Hasn’t that always been the case?

Yes, but we had no idea how extensive the information was.

So natural birth is on the way out?

With this new mandate, all sexual acts must now be monitored and tested, before conception is permitted.

I’m not sure I understand, Doctor.

Well, ever since the development of RNA vaccines, we’ve had the ability to introduce nanoparticles into the body. And then, we pioneered the insertion of nano sensors, which record, in real time, thousands of biological and chemical processes and changes. We can enable these sensors to report their ongoing findings to a central location—and we can issue instructions from that location back into the body.

What sorts of instructions?

For example, an increase or decrease in hormone production. A raising or lowering of blood pressure. An elevation or decline in certain brain processing functions.

I see. How does all this relate to sexual intercourse?

Basically, before engaging in sex, people will need to take an injection that inserts nano sensors in their bodies. Then we can monitor key genetic exchanges that occur during sex. If we deem these exchanges to be harmful or counter-productive, that couple will not be permitted to conceive a child.

And how do you define “harmful” and “counter-productive”?

We have algorithms. For instance, we don’t want babies with gross anti-social tendencies.

I see. So all couples would have to engage first in an act of test-sex, so you can discover what genetic information is exchanged.

That’s right, Rex. Granted, it’s a bit cumbersome, but it’s necessary if we’re going to have the kind of society we all long for.

Yes, it sounds cumbersome, Doctor. First of all, everyone will need to take a shot.

Yes, to insert the nano sensors. Then when—

Suppose my wife and I are planning to have sex after watching a movie on a Tuesday night?

All right, Rex. You would punch in a code on your cell phone. Now you’re registered for a test-run. During sex that night, the nano sensors in your body and your wife’s body would report certain information to our Division of Jilly.

Jilly?

Yes. That’s the name of an experimental female we tested in Indonesia six years ago. She was Patient Zero. She was the first human to have nano monitored sex in the Pfizer facility there. So your sexual act with your wife on that Tuesday night would be monitored. About six weeks later, you would get the results. Either a go to try to conceive a baby, or a full stop.

Are there any adverse effects from the nano injection or the monitoring of sexual intercourse?

They’re both remarkably safe and effective, Rex. Perhaps a bit of pain and swelling at the injection site, that’s all. And a rare case, here and there, of myocarditis.

Well, that’s good news.

Yes.

As far as the new mandate goes, what will you do about refusers?

The “anti-sexers?” We’ll get to them. Since every human is registered on our national database, we can cut off their government-guaranteed income, as well as other privileges.

Suppose someone wants to have sex while using a condom? Or suppose the woman is taking the pill or has an IUD?

Well, Rex, studies show those methods are less than a hundred percent effective. So no, those excuses won’t fly. We consider every act of sexual intercourse a potential precursor to pregnancy. If you want to have sex, you must take the injection, do a test run, and then, if certified as safe, you can engage in sex.

Are there injection boosters?

Annually. It’s mandatory.

You’re talking about an enormous undertaking, Doctor.

Yes, although much of it is handled by AI.

I assume this is a temporary program on the way to universal conception in laboratories, without sex of any kind. There will be no parents.

That’s a long way off, Rex. Perhaps 50 years.

Some people will want to get around this new mandate by applying for religious exemptions.

The courts have been clear on this issue. And as you know, the Pope himself rejects exemptions.

But sex is a basic human impulse, no matter what mandates are issued.

We realize that. But as the Australian Prime Minister declared, an hour ago, “Do you want to have unapproved sex and be cut off from money transactions?”

I can see some people saying, “We want to have sex, and if we conceive, we promise to abort the fetus.”

That’s covered in the mandate. It’s not allowed.

I don’t know, Doctor. If my wife wants me to [censored], am I supposed to say no? That would put me in a difficult spot.

Rex, this has nothing to do with personal choices. That’s the selfish way to look at things. We have to make sacrifices for the good of everyone. We learned that hard lesson during the COVID pandemic.

In my first reading of the new mandate, I see it covers companies with more than a hundred employees, plus all government employees and contractors.

Right. That’s stage one. When we work out any kinks in the system, we’ll extend the mandate to everyone.

What about boys who are, say, 16 years old? Their hormones are working overtime.

We’re aware. Of course, parental consent for the injections and the nano-monitoring is not required. Students will have to take the injections in order to attend classes. With nano-sensors in their bodies, we can regulate hormone levels in all teens—if the data show it’s necessary. By the way, there are several fascinating studies that suggest eating a steady diet of GMO breakfast cereals reduces semen volume in boys.

So, Doctor, this new sexual mandate will definitely impact population numbers.

It has to. When you discover errant genetic information transferring between people during sex, you have to do something about it. You can’t just stand back and let it happen. That would be cruel.

Can you describe exactly what kind of genetic information you’re talking about? It seems to be at the heart of the scientific breakthrough which led to this mandate.

It’s very complex, Rex. I could point you to the important publications on the subject. It takes a molecular biologist to understand the details. Basically, there are gene banks that contain an extraordinary amount of data. New processing capability has enabled us to pinpoint a whole host of A, B, and C neg factors.

Sorry, what?

I’m referring to three classes of genetic data that contraindicate birth safety.

I’m still not getting it, Doctor.

Well, that’s what I mean, Rex. You’re not a geneticist. If you were, you’d see the insights light up like a Christmas tree. You can’t miss the markers. When they’re transferred and mingled in the prospective parents in certain configurations, which we call the Epsilon 50 and the Beta 20, the baby the couple wants to conceive would pose a clear and present danger to society, or an insupportable burden. Two hundred years of gene research has led us to this remarkable finding.

Thank you, Doctor. I’m sure we’ll be talking again soon, as this mandate rolls out.

One more thing, Rex. Transgender males and females are exempt from the new mandate. We’ve discovered that, if they can conceive, they show none of the Epsilon or Delta markers. We don’t yet understand why, but it’s an extraordinary indicator…

Delta? You said the two key configurations were Epsilon and Beta.

Delta, Beta—they’re the same. Trust me, Rex. I’m The Science.

We all trust you, Doctor.

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

Jon Rappoport

Let’s go to the movies—or not

Dec3

by Jon Rappoport

December 3, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

I was going to make a list. But I gave up. The list would probably reference the majority of Hollywood movies.

The common theme: a heinous crime is committed against the lone hero’s loved ones. He goes outside the law to enact his revenge on the perpetrators.

Why do producers and studios make so many of these films? They sell.

Why? Because the audience knows the legal system of justice is broken. The audience has a visceral desire to see actual justice delivered. They want to see a hero make criminals pay.

Imagine this: A new honest flaming reformer takes over Tony Fauci’s job as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. On his first day, he holds a mass meeting in a giant hall, where all his researchers are present.

He says: “I know many of you people have been carrying out brutal research on animals and children. This has been going on for years, decades. It stops now. If I catch any of you committing these horrific crimes, I’ll see to it you’re punished within an inch of your lives…”

During the shocked silence that follows, a researcher stands up. He’s a preppie, ex-yuppie, millennial, genial psychopath whose smile resembles Gavin Newsom’s.

He says: “How do you plan to punish us? Are you going to call in the Department of Justice? Do you really think that old hack, Merrick Garland, or some other tool of a sitting president is going to raid our labs, seize our computers and files, put us in cuffs, and stick us in jail on felony charges? That’s a nice fantasy, but it’ll never go down…”

Or this: “Mr. Smith, this is a courtroom. I know you know that. You’ve been here many times before. I’m the judge. I hold your fate in my hands. Now let’s see. Your latest charge…assault with a deadly weapon. But you also have three other older charges pending. Rape, possession of opioids with intent to distribute, and witness intimidation. You’re out on bail on those prior charges. So I’m going to follow suit. Bail is set at $3000. Your next court date is 60 days from now. The bloody knife will be kept as evidence. Your pistol will be returned to you…”

You could say Hollywood makes its money on the back of a broken legal system.

However, there are unspoken rules. For instance, you’re not going to see a movie about a vengeful super-hero whose sister died in jail after being arrested for repeatedly refusing a COVID lockdown order.

You’re not going to see a movie about a vengeful hero whose wife died after taking a COVID vaccine ordered by her employer.

There are limits.

If the hero’s daughter died in the hospital because doctors gave her a toxic drug, the hero will take hostages in the hospital. Cops will surround the building. A negotiator will get on the phone with the hero—who’s portrayed as mentally unbalanced—and try to talk him down. This will be a very different kind of movie, and it won’t make a profit.

For that matter, you won’t see a movie about Mr. Smith, the man the judge let out on bail even though multiple felony charges against him were pending. You won’t see the brother of the woman Smith raped take his revenge on Smith. Verboten.

There are rules and limits.

—Look, Marty, I really think this script has possibilities. The hero has a small café in Middle America. When the lockdown comes, he has to close his doors. He goes broke. Bankrupt. He’s living in his van. So he calls his old buddies who served with him in Special Forces in Afghanistan, and they go after—

Stop right there, Sid. Are you crazy? They could put us in jail for making a movie like that.

Why? It’s just a movie. It’s not real life.

They’d get us on incitement charges. A bunch of Special Forces crazies invade a governor’s mansion? Come on. We’d rot in prison for a year before they bring us to trial.

Think of the box office. There are millions of people out there who are VERY pissed off about the lockdowns. They’d pour into theaters to watch this film.

Doesn’t matter. I’m not going to risk getting canceled for producing it. Besides, I bet the government would censor it, order theaters not to run it.

Are you serious?

Of course I’m serious. This isn’t the old America. We have to toe the line. Now if you can find me a script about a simple kidnapping—the bad guys take the hero’s daughter, and he tracks them to an Eastern European country and disembowels them and rescues the girl…I’m all in.

You mean the movie that’s already been made 500 times?

Exactly. Tried and true, baby. OK, look, I’ll give you an acceptable version of the script you’ve got. There’s a very weird lab. Its evil CEO is really a non-human entity from another dimension. He intends to kill people with a new experimental drug. So we have a team of super-heroes who have special powers. They can fly, shoot rays out of their eyes. They go to war with the interdimensional CEO creature—

Which destroys the whole premise of my script.

I know that. I’m just giving you another way to go.

How about this? The evil CEO is trying to bring a new vaccine to market. It changes people’s DNA.

No dice.

Why?

Come on. It hits too close to home.

We could call the interdimensional CEO Omicron.

Hmm. Maybe. And the super-heroes are all doctors who were injured in a research accident—that’s how they gained their powers. They still wear white coats in the film. They still work at a hospital saving lives.

And OK…they have a boss, a guy who gives them mission orders. He’s an old friend from medical school who’s now the head of the CDC.

Right. That could work. The Omicron creature isn’t developing a new toxic drug. He’s secretly spreading a super-virus from another dimension.

And the only way to stop it is to stop the economy and stay home under lockdown. The whole population.

Here’s the kicker. There’s something on Earth that activates the virus and makes it deadly. Carbon Dioxide.

Wow. So all industry has to be shut down on the planet. And then the skies are clear again.

We have a winner.

Lots of wrinkles we could add.

Like…the super-hero doctors discover there are certain people who are immune from the virus. And they’re all transgender.

Killer.

The movie was eventually made, on a budget of $200 million.

International ticket sales amounted to just under $50 million. It was a total flop.

But reviewers, critics, pundits, news talk shows, prime ministers, and presidents hailed the two producers as “the real heroes.” Within months, the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Institute bankrolled a new documentary-film studio, and the two producers were brought on board to launch a series “exploring experimental cutting–edge genetic technologies on the frontier of medical treatment for human enhancement in the New Normal. ‘Soon, we may have modalities that render populations innately immune from many classes of viruses’…”

The two producers made 15 documentaries about genetic treatment and enhancement. Television networks ran clips from the films as “medical segments” on their news broadcasts.

“Genetic alterations for the good of humanity in these troubled and desperate times” was the new message. It flooded news and talk shows.

Editorial and magazine writers, professors, politicians, and even social activist groups pushed genetic alteration as “the herald of a better future for all.” Some labeled it THE NEW SPIRIT OF OPTIMISM IN THE COUNTRY. GENETICS, THE FINAL FRONTIER.

The two producers launched an unprecedented six-hour special that aired over the course of a month on CBS, NBC, and ABC. It largely consisted of sit-down interviews with Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci, who both asserted that very soon, genetic modification would make vaccination obsolete…

And that’s how two shlock Hollywood denizens led the way toward a Brave New World.

“Humans as they are, are obsolete and unsustainable. The pandemic proved this. Our only option is altering humans.” This is was the emerging theme.

It was hailed by those in charge as The Great Step Forward.

Until the worldwide riots started…

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

Jon Rappoport

The new African virus mutation: right on time; a kindergarten covert op for the ignorant

Nov29

by Jon Rappoport

November 29, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

There are no variants.

Because there is no virus. SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist. I’ve spent the past year and a half proving that. [0]

But fantasies do exist. So do covert ops with intentions to deceive.

Thus, the “scientific world” is agog over the new South African variant, named B11529 (aka Omicron, Botswana). Woo. The ghost is coming out of the closet. Beware. COVID cases are rising…

“We don’t know whether the vaccine will be effective in the face of the new variant. New lockdowns may be necessary. Travel restrictions are coming. Batten down the hatches.”

I mean, really.

As you know, for the past few months stories in the press have been claiming the vaccine-conferred immunity is sinking like a stone. This story is absurd because, again, there is no virus. So there was no conferred immunity to begin with. But anyway, that’s the story that’s been circulating. So NOW…

“It turns out one major reason for the diminished effectiveness of the vaccine is…

“The NEW VARIANT. The South African B11529.”

Uh-huh. “The vaccine is having a tough time preventing infection caused by the new variant. We may need to enforce boosters every three months…”

Keep the fear going. Push harder for the vaccine. Explain away its failures. Fabricate rising case numbers, blaming them on the new variant. Institute heavy new lockdowns.

“The South African variant is deadlier than the Delta, which is deadlier than the original.”

And none of the three exists.

What does exist is fantasy, piled higher and deeper and thicker.

The variant is Fauci. The variant is Bill Gates. The variant is CDC/WHO. The variant is the World Economic Forum. And the Chinese regime. And presidents and governors. And the mainstream press.

And don’t forget this. Vaccine injuries and deaths have been escalating all over the world. In the US alone, reported injuries have broken above 600,000 [1]. As I’ve mentioned, the well-known Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare study [2] concluded that, to obtain a true number of injuries, multiply the reported figure by 100.

Something is needed to explain all these injuries and deaths. That is, to lie about them.

And right on time, here comes the new variant.

“These people who seem to be injured by the vaccine are really keeling over from the original virus, the Delta, and woo, the South African B11529.”

Also: Recently, we’ve seen a spate of press stories with the theme—“scientists are mystified by the low COVID case numbers in Africa, where the vaccination rates are very low.” [3] Boom. That story is now gone. Wiped out. Now it’s THE WORLD IS BEING ATTACKED BY THE SOUTH AFRICAN B111529 VARIANT.

Here is one of my articles covering the non-existence of SARS-CoV-2:

—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—

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. 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 [4], 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)” [5].

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. 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.”

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) [6]. 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 “isolation,” 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 [7]) 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.

—end of Kaufman article—

And while I’m at it, here is another piece I wrote last year about how virus-propaganda (fairy tales) must be managed, in order to make the masses stand up and salute:

—The “hot zone” theory of new frightening diseases—

Remember? There was a 1994 book by that name— and then “experts” began piling on—it went something like this:

“Out of the deep dark rainforests of Earth (cue sounds of native drumming), as a result of modern plane travel, viruses we’ve never encountered before will spread epidemics across the globe. Our immune systems, ill-equipped to recognize or deal with these strange killer germs, will fold up under the pressure, and all of civilization will be threatened with extinction.”

Let’s see. Since planes fly back and forth, and since all sorts of Westerners travel TO the rainforests, why haven’t we seen whole native tribes wiped out by viruses from the deep dark streets of Brooklyn?

It would even seem that viruses, common in, say, Norway, would cause trouble in Oregon.

Why does it have to be “viruses from jungles?” Or other faraway places like China? Why can’t we have the Second City Virus, emanating from a slaughterhouse in Chicago and infecting people in Nigeria? Why can’t we have a Big Easy virus from New Orleans traveling to Beijing?

Is it possible that jungles and Africa and China and Mexico are typically chosen for virus fairy tales because, in the minds of many Westerners, they satisfy a requirement of “strange,” “different,” “primitive,” and so on? We’re talking theater here—and when you stage a propaganda play (fiction), you want to tap into the reflex instincts of the audience. The Hartford Virus, the Des Moines Virus, the Vancouver Virus just don’t fit the bill.

Because they can’t drive up the fear that jungles or Africa or China can.

Unless you’ve been living in an ice cave in the Arctic, you know selling fear of THE VIRUS is big business. To do that, you have to strike the right notes.

I personally would be interested in a Beverly Hills or a Scarsdale or a Park Avenue epidemic virus story. I’d like to see the media try to sell that one.

What about a Bill Gates Seattle virus that some Patient Zero unknowingly carries on a plane flight to Mexico City?

Think it through. We NEVER hear killer virus stories about germs traveling from Europe and America to Asia and Africa. Why not? Because such a story won’t sell. It won’t bite.

This is called a clue.

It tells you that virus-stories are shaped and managed and written and managed and broadcast according to a plan that has nothing to do with actual disease.

If a monkey in Africa can bite a man and thus transmit a virus to the West, then a salesman in Duluth can sneeze on a man at a local airport and thus send a virus to Ethiopia.

But amazingly, through secret communication among viruses, it never happens that way. The germs have decided what the traffic pattern is, and the CDC and the World Health Organization are just discovering What Is.

Sure they are. And if you buy that, I have condos for sale on the far side of the moon.

SOURCES:

[0] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/tag/virus/

[1] https://rickjaffeesq.com/2021/02/19/what-the-heck-is-the-harvard-pilgrim-study-and-did-it-really-say-that-about-the-underreporting-of-vaccine-adverse-events/

[2] https://openvaers.com/covid-data

[3] https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-health-pandemics-united-nations-fcf28a83c9352a67e50aa2172eb01a2f

[4] https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

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

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

COVID vaccine: missing key

Nov18

Where’s the wiggle?

by Jon Rappoport

November 18, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

—In the US alone, reported COVID vaccine injuries have topped 600,000. The well-known Harvard Pilgrim study concludes you should multiply the number of reported vaccine injuries by 100 to arrive at a true number—

In any field where information is vital, the omissions are often worse than the lies.

In this article, I point out one such glaring omission, when it comes to the safety of COVID vaccines.

Tracking vaccine injuries and deaths through reports to databases is one avenue; another avenue would be direct studies of people who have been vaccinated.

Proper studies have not been done. Omission.

This would be a proper study: For starters, based on what MANY clinicians are seeing, develop/confirm true markers for: blood clots, including micro-clots; specific heart dysfunctions; miscarriages; menstrual cycle disruption; infertility; toxic effects on cells (e.g., the presence of graphene oxide); the appearance of the spike protein in cells, in areas of the body where the protein should not appear.

Enroll, in a modest pilot study, 1000 people who have received one of the RNA COVID vaccines. Run tests on these people (blood, tissue, pictures) looking for these markers.

I’m NOT talking about a few photos of one patient’s blood. I’m talking about a full study of 1000 people, for starters.

You would think such a study has already been done, because only sheer ignoramuses or criminals would fail to realize that, when you inject people with substances, you should discover the effects BY STUDYING THE EFFECTS.

Somebody suffers a blow to the head, you take a picture of the head and look at the effects. Somebody injects a person with liquid containing 10 ingredients, you run tests to find out what negative consequences may have occurred.

Unfortunately, most people are so hypnotized by the IDEA of medical science, they assume that if a study hasn’t been done, it doesn’t need to be done.

Lab workers all over the world will torture test animals, by injecting them with larger and larger doses of a compound in a new cosmetic, to discover the dose that kills the animals. But doing harmless tests on people who have received a new vaccine is out of the question.

To gain insight on the scientists who refuse to run the tests I’m proposing on vaccinated people, these are the same scientists who say, “Yes, a number of people died after vaccination, but there is no evidence the injection caused those deaths.”

What they mean is, “We didn’t look to see whether the vaccine caused the deaths, and furthermore, we don’t know how to establish causation. We’ve never worked that out.”

Which is like saying, “The chemical that entered the river from a pipe in the factory? We haven’t done sufficient studies on the chemical to determine whether it causes cancer. Therefore, the 96 plaintiffs with cancer who are suing the company have no case. Causation cannot be proved. It will never be proved, because we will never study the chemical.”

There is another factor at work. Many people who are interested in scandals are only interested in the details of overt crimes. “They shot him and buried his body in a landfill? Are there pictures of the decaying corpse? The killer was married to the victim’s sister? Was she in on it?”

“Clinton and Monica in a little room off the Oval Office? Did you see the photo of the stained dress?”

If you tell these people the biggest scandal in a situation is OMISSION— what DIDN’T HAPPEN, WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE, BUT WASN’T—they fade out and walk away.

Ask these people the following question: Which would you prefer? LOOKING at one microscope photo of one drop of blood from one vaccinated person that might show a wiggling line that might be a live organism? Or KNOWING that the absolutely essential safety study of a vaccine that has been injected into 3.6 billion people has never been done?

“Let me see the picture. I want to see the photo. Where’s the wiggle?”

This article is for the people who give the other answer.

And for scientists who know that mass maiming and killing also involve a crime of omission.

“We know the vaccines are safe because we didn’t study the people who got the vaccine.”

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

Jon Rappoport

Murdering infants to obtain fetal tissue for vaccine research

Nov4

An interview with AnnaMaria Cardinalli

by Jon Rappoport

November 4, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

For my recent series of articles on the murder of infants to obtain fetal tissue for vaccine testing and research, I gained key information from investigative reporter AnnaMaria Cardinalli’s article, “Catholic Conscience and the COVID-19 Vaccine,” in Crisis magazine.

AnnaMaria agreed to do an interview on this and related subjects. The interview speaks for itself—and it should provide people a VERY fundamental reason for rejecting the COVID vaccine.

Q: It seems you’ve lived at least several lives side by side. You’ve earned a lofty worldwide reputation as an operatic contralto and classical guitarist; you’re a licensed private investigator; you carried out extensive research for the US military in Afghanistan; you own a private security firm; you donate all your earnings to a Catholic order which wants to start an orphanage for exploited children. And I’m not covering all the bases. It’s rather mind-blowing. Before we dive into the subject at hand, can you speak to this variety and achievement?

A: Ha! Your question is very flattering and I’m hardly at issue here, but I’ll be happy to answer. The variety of work I’ve been involved in is so wildly unlikely that I could have never sat down and come up with it as a plan! The one factor underlying all it is my incredible fortune to have been raised soundly in the Catholic Faith by my mom, so despite my own many failings, I knew enough to put my life completely at the disposal of God’s will from an early age. I find utterly astounding the adventures on which He’ll lead a soul when He’s given that freedom. Making music was always my personal hope, but the rest came as a natural consequence of responding to circumstances around me with whatever capacities I had the ability to respond. That’s the very definition of responsibility (“response ability”), and a real means by which God guides our lives, don’t you think?

Q: In your wide range of experiences, did medical issues ever pop up on your radar?

A: Medical issues arose in two ways. On one hand, when I worked for the FBI and was embedded with the Joint Special Operations Command In Iraq, I received truly fantastic, cutting-edge training in a collateral duty as a Tactical Operational Medic. Later, in Afghanistan, I participated in medical missions to help assess rural tribal community needs—particularly the medical needs of women and children. Through these military experiences, I found a passion for emergency medicine. I recently re-certified as an EMT to better assist my community’s current medical mission to the homeless (sosvan.org), and I continue to pursue more advanced certifications.

On the other hand, I do not approach the issue of the cell line origins as a practitioner or any sort of medical expert, but as an investigative journalist, simply seeking out the facts and holding them to the light of common logic. My thinking is that the factors necessary to understand the nature of what we put into our bodies must be, at least on a basic level, accessible and comprehensible to the general population, and one need not be a medical expert to grasp them. Otherwise, how could most of us make an informed decision? We can’t allow clear, critical truths to be obfuscated by the statement, “You’re not an expert. You wouldn’t understand.”

Q: How did you become interested in the very specific origin of the fetal cell line, HEK 293? What made you think it might be important?

A: I was led to interest in HEK 293 via a long path. My experience in Afghanistan imparted to me a particular investigative focus on Human Trafficking. I’ve written and worked extensively on the issue, and the more I learn, the more I am overwhelmed by its prevalence, both internationally and on our own soil. In recent years, while the China Tribunal brought the harvesting and sale of organs belonging to unwanted citizens into clear focus overseas, the Planned Parenthood expose by David Daleiden [more on that expose — covered by investigative journalist Celia Farber, here and here] and others brought the same practice to light in the US. Both these developments solidified the trafficking issue in my mind not only as one of forced labor or sexual exploitation but of the complete commoditization of the human person—the viewing of the human being as a mere collection of occasionally useful parts, lacking any other value. This should frighten every person, regardless of their faith background or lack of one, because history shows us over and over again that it’s when we fail to recognize our common humanity that atrocities prevail.

With regard to HEK 293 specifically, for Catholics like myself, it is a grave moral responsibility to examine whether any action one takes participates in, perpetuates, or encourages such evil. We are bound to inform our own individual consciences and act in accordance with them. So, when the COVID vaccine became available, I sought to find out all I could about the nature of its origins and was led right back into the human trafficking concerns that plague me. It was in this research that I came across the work of the biologist and vaccine developer Pamela Acker [author of “Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective”; more here]. Her public acknowledgement of the necessary procedure for ensuring the viability of Human Embryonic Kidney (HEK) cells coincided with what medical professionals had shared with me privately.

For me, this was enough to raise concern that warranted further investigation before taking the vaccine. Sadly, the more the matter is investigated, as it was by the courageous, thorough, and insightful author of the Gateway Pundit article, the more evidence arises supporting my worst fear—that a perfectly innocent living child, a healthy little girl, born alive and outside the womb, was killed for and by the harvest of her organs, and that this is a practice that may underlie great parts of the research industry. Believe me, I am longing to find firm and indisputable confirmatory evidence that this nightmare scenario is NOT the case. However, your in-depth coverage of the subject following the Crisis and Gateway Pundit articles seems to continually contribute direct, expert-based medical evidence of the horrifying truth. Saddening as it is, I truly appreciate what you are accomplishing.

Q: The HEK (Human Embryo Kidney) 293 fetal cell line has been used to test COVID vaccines. That makes its origin vividly important now. How did you become convinced that the evidence pointed to the removal of an alive infant from her mother’s womb, and then the killing of that infant, in 1972, in the Netherlands, in order to harvest her kidneys—which would be used to create the HEK 293 cell line?

A: I reiterate that I had to be convinced by simple logic that anyone, not medical researchers exclusively, could follow. In fact, the more specialized the language describing a medical moral issue becomes, the more it can be used to obscure the facts. I would almost laugh, if not for the gravity of the issue, at hyper-euphemistic descriptions one finds in the medical literature. It discusses, for instance, situations like the finding of electrical impulses in the cardiac tissue of the POC.

First of all, “POC?” Product of conception? What a way to talk around an issue! I’m a proud product of conception and have never met anyone who wasn’t! Electrical impulses in the cardiac tissue? With fewer keystrokes, that could be called “a heartbeat.” So, I’m a POC with intact electrical impulses in my cardiac tissue or, if anyone were looking to save on ink, “alive.” Please, though, forgive my digression.

I worked to write very carefully in the Crisis article the simple facts that concerned me about the origins of the HEK 293 cell line. Rather than try to summarize that argument in this interview and thus potentially miss a critical component—may I please direct interested readers to the article at the link below?

Catholic Conscience and the COVID-19 Vaccine

I became further convinced of the reality following the publication of the Gateway Pundit exclusive which offered some insightful analysis taking into account the recent Pfizer whistleblower revelations. I’d also like to direct anyone interested to that great article with a link below.

Exclusive: Pfizer’s Nervousness About Its COVID Vaccine’s Origins Conceals a Horror Story

It’s not that I don’t want to answer the question, it’s that I want it to be answered as accurately as possible.

Q: When I read conventional medical literature that describes research on aborted fetuses, I see no mention of taking the infant from the mother’s womb, alive, and then killing him/her. Is this a research “open secret” that is held back from the public and even many doctors? I read a 1975 federal report on medical research using fetuses. It went on for a hundred pages, and there wasn’t one reference to killing infants in the process of removing their organs.

A: I think the first issue here is the extremely removed language typical of the descriptions of these procedures that I reference above, along with its tendency to state actions separate from their obvious consequences. It’s a linguistic tendency that may well reflect the thinking and training of researchers and abortionists. In Dr. Kathi A. Aultman’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on March 15th 2016, which you excerpted in your incredibly revealing post of October 27th [see here; more here], the doctor describes her initial fascination with the cellular perfection of the little bodies she dissected, and explains that it was only years later that was she able to overcome her scientific dissociation to make the intellectual connection that the tiny perfect bodies were those of people whose lives she had ended.

I worry our society has removed death so far from life that we don’t even recognize it, and that is a scary thing. Our grandparents die in facilities away from home rather than with their hands held in ours. Our food arrives packaged and devoid of any reminders of the animals from which it came. Fido moves to a faraway farm, while we play immersive games where graphically taken lives merely “reset.” Therefore, unlike any generation prior to ours, most of us can go through life without regularly witnessing the reality of death, which makes for a very unnatural understanding of it—one far from the Catholic motto of memento mori. It’s an understanding that might even allow a scientist to admire a human body on which she performed a procedure that ended the function of its “cellularly perfect” organs without grasping that she was its killer.

I suspect this kind of thinking in turn produces academic writing in which it is almost impossible to see anything untoward. Perhaps most authors themselves can’t see it, aside from the presumably rarer instances of dedicatedly evil individuals who do see things clearly and actively choose to obfuscate the reality. Either way, this is why the literature will never say, as you had difficulty finding, “in the next step, kill the newborn,” even if it is the obvious consequence of the procedure described.

If the doctors involved were capable of that kind of cause-and-effect thinking, perhaps they would have to first write, “in the next step, first anesthetize, then kill the newborn.” If some of those doctors believed themselves Christians, they would have to write “in the next step, first baptize, then anesthetize, and then kill the newborn.” Even if they believed themselves merely in possession of basic mammalian instincts, they would at least have to write “in the next step, first cuddle and comfort the crying newborn, then anesthetize and kill him.” Of course, they can’t go there without recognizing the child’s humanity, so instead, the scientific dissociation of cause-and-effect remains in place.

This critical thought barrier is evidenced particularly in the literature when we see organs harvested from living children outside the womb referred to as fresh “fetal” or even “embryonic” tissue. The biomedical research companies requisitioning the tissue make the same linguistic error and it goes constantly uncorrected. No. The medical term for a delivered fetus in its first moments and days of life outside the womb is a neonate. A newborn. Most of these people went to medical school and know the difference, but they persist in the error.

Perhaps if we could only require them to accurately use the language of “fresh neonatal tissue” in their requisitions and reports, some would be unable to proceed. Requesting a “heart of newborn” for the development of whatever a researcher might be concocting in the lab might finally sound to the ears of many too much like procuring the ingredients of a witch’s brew belonging to horror fiction. It certainly makes “eye of newt” sound resoundingly tame.

Other than the issue of logic and language, however, I don’t think the practice of infanticide by vivisection is particularly secret among those working closely in the arena of biomedical research, and it’s certainly known among the abortionists who supply the needs of the industry, although I agree with you that it’s not something that doctors whose scope never intersects the arena are aware of any more than most of us are. It’s simply not brought to our attention in the media. We focus where the media points us, and there appears some decided silence on the issue.

A breakthrough in public awareness of the direct killing of living unwanted newborns for the sake of biomedical research, which, almost incomprehensibly, generated far less media attention and public outcry than it should have, occurred with the David Daleiden hearings. There many doctors and scientific procurement company representatives spoke openly of the practice, though often in the detached terms that would require careful listening. For instance, the CEO of Stem Express admitted dryly that “fetal hearts were perfused using a Langendorff apparatus.”

A Langendorff apparatus serves to preserve the functional viability of hearts ex-vivo (which means, literally, outside of a living body). That is, to specify the use of the Langendorff apparatus is to know that a heart requiring this preservation was, in fact, taken from a living body. To state the painfully obvious cause-and-effect reasoning generally left out here, the removal of a functioning vital organ from a living person (without the replacement of its function) is the direct killing of that person. No example is clearer than that of a beating heart. Ask an Aztec.

Dr. Theresa Deisher, a Stanford University School of Medicine researcher heavily involved with the use of adult stem cells, describes exactly how that killing must take place in order for the Langendorff perfusion to function. Both in her September 19th, 2019 testimony at the Daleiden trial and in a same-day interview with Lifesite News, she explained that the individuals performing the vivisection would necessarily “cut open the baby’s chest and they would take the heart out beating and drop it in a buffer with potassium. She went on to state with rare clarity, “of course, if the heart isn’t beating, they can’t get any of these cells. Nobody wants a stopped heart.” [more, here]

At another point in her testimony she explained again that, “some of the babies had to have beating hearts when they were harvested.” Logic alone dictates this fact, as she explained “once the heart goes into contraction, you can’t get it to come out of that position.” It “has to be beating and be arrested in a relaxed position” to be of use for research purposes.

Again, just with the use of basic reason, it goes without saying that not only are breathing hearts being removed, but that these procedures occur on living children outside the womb, not within it. The people doing the dissection are not opening the chest of the child in the sort of incredibly rare and highly specialized in utero surgery that might be done to repair a fetal heart condition. The cost and specialization would be astronomical and nonsensical, as they intend to destroy the child, not save it.

So, just by using the single example of hearts on the Langendorff apparatus, which is to say nothing of the “embryonic” kidney cells, (which may more accurately be called “neonatal” kidney cells) used in the COVID vaccine testing and development, I think I can answer your question by saying there is no “open secret” regarding infanticide for medical research. There is no secret at all. I am not revealing anything that is not already obvious, even to a non-expert, given to looking at the simple facts.

The shocking thing, at this point, is not that this is happening, but that we have yet to react, as a whole, in opposition to it. In fact, we accept it by welcoming into our lives the “benefits” of the tortuous murders of innocent children. If we are doing this unknowingly, then perhaps it is because we have bought into the suspension of cause-and-effect reasoning like that to which the researchers subscribe.

Your question leads me, however, to one more point, which I hope provides a wake-up point if nothing else has. Even more shocking than our acceptance of this evil is the fact that it is entirely unnecessary. We could have the same or perhaps greater benefits by other means, but we don’t pursue the course of action that has proven successful in halting unethical bioresearch before and redirecting the course of the industry.

Why don’t we do for our own species what we have succeeded in doing for animals? Most people recognize that animal advocacy and speaking with our wallets through the boycotting of unethically-produced products is genuinely critical because lab animals are innocent creatures who cannot speak for themselves. Isn’t that true of human “lab babies” too?

Also in the expert testimony cited above, Dr. Deisher made the point that using human fetal tissue for research has become more prevalent because increasing regulations on the welfare of animals have made the use of humans more convenient. More convenient! In a way, while horrifying, this is also wonderful news, because it means that animal activists successfully changed things, albeit with a terrible unexpected outcome. However, it means that we can do the same for our species too!

Does that mean that the kind of beneficial research advances which have previously come from the study of neonatal tissue need to stop? Do we have to decide on a sacrificial trade off, with improvement in the lives of those with debilitating illnesses on one hand and the murder of human babies with less compassion than lab rats on the other? Is that how science must proceed—in sanitized facilities behind closed doors that, just in case we become personally in need of its “benefits,” we prefer not to give much thought?

Here’s another shocker. Not at all. Adult pluripotent stem cells, obtained with adult consent and with no need for tortuous murders, actually negate the necessity of the use of fetal organs for stem cell research, because they can be cultured into any type of body cell. This technology exists now, but its use is more costly and less common than the worn-in ease of the baby butchering business. However, like any emerging technology, the more its use expands, the lower its costs become.

We can be the drivers of the expansion of its use, by making unethical research the expensive and inconvenient option. When I was a little girl, I was horrified to learn that lipsticks were tested on mistreated lab rabbits and resolved to never condone that practice with my purchase. So did every little girl I knew. Now cruelty-free cosmetics are the expected and affordable norm. Please, if we could ban together as a caring society to save the bunnies, what should we be willing to do to save the babies?

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

Jon Rappoport

People of faith and the COVID vaccine

Oct25

Refusing the COVID vaccine should be a personal mandate

Vaccines, live infants, and fetal tissue research: shedding light on the darkness

by Jon Rappoport

October 25, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Well, I mean, sure, maybe some of the research behind the COVID vaccine involved aborted fetuses, but that was a long time ago, and really, I can’t think about that, I need to take the vaccine to protect myself, and besides, abortion is legal…”

Read on.

Today, I’m featuring the work of journalist Monica Seeley, and her stunning article, “Exploring the dark world of vaccines and fetal tissue research, Part 1,” published at catholicworldreport.com.

Seeley had considerable help, as she details, from investigative reporter, Pamela Acker. Acker has weathered attacks from several quarters—including critics within the Catholic Church structure.

She has stood firm, and deserves high praise for her seminal work on fetal tissue research, vaccines, and medical murder.

It turns out that much of the best analysis of fetal tissue research, medical abortions, vaccines, and the medical killing of infants comes from writers publishing at independent Catholic outlets. Just to mention one website—Children of God For Life.

These writers and their publishers obviously take their faith seriously. They’re not bent on compromise or adjustment to trends of the times. Unlike the Vatican hierarchy, they have no qualms about exposing deep medical crimes.

I’m going to quote from Monica Seeley’s article and add my own comments along the way. I strongly urge you to read her whole piece.

You should understand that researchers who extract tissue and organs from aborted fetuses are using those parts for the development of drugs and vaccines—including the COVID vaccine.

Abortion is a religious issue of conscience for many people. When the fetus is extracted alive, from the mother’s womb, then murdered in the process of removing his/her organs, the crime is so horrific that people who have very little conscience at all should be shocked to the core.

Since these crimes form a significant part of the research-basis for many vaccines, refusing the vaccines as a matter of conscience and conviction should be a personal decision for ANYONE.

And now, to Monica Seeley’s article. She reveals these medical crimes stretch back in time:

“…newspapers reported matter of factly on fetal vivisection, as in this article from the San Francisco Chronicle, April 19, 1973, entitled ‘Operations on Live Fetuses’:”

“’Dr. Jerald Gaull in periodic trips to Finland injects a radioactive chemical into the fragile umbilical cords of fetuses freshly removed from their mothers’ wombs in abortions. The fetus in each case is far too young to survive, but in the brief period that its heart is still beating, Gaull, chief of pediatrics research at the New York State Institute for Basic Research in Mental Retardation on Staten Island—then operates to remove its brain, lung, liver and kidneys for study’.”

In other words, Gaull tortures and murders the infant. But of course, the Chronicle article doesn’t explore this fact. It’s all “medical,” you see. So it must make sense. Somehow.

Seeley: “A 1976 report by drug manufacturer Batelle-Columbus Laboratories acknowledged the role of live fetal research in four medical advances: amniocentesis, respiratory distress syndrome, and, significantly for this article, the rubella and Rh vaccines: ‘It is apparent from a study of the development of the four selected cases… that research on living human fetuses played a significant role in each.’ The report recommended against restrictions on such research.”

The term “living human fetuses” doesn’t register with many people. And they certainly don’t realize these infants have been taken alive, from their mother’s womb, and then stripped of their body parts for research—killing them. Or if death is not immediate result, the murder is committed by cutting out their hearts or vacuuming their brains from their skulls.

Again, the ensuing research contributes to the development of vaccines and drugs—including the COVID vaccines (as I’ve covered in previous articles).

Seeley: “…seeing a report on cardiac stem cell research in which human fetal hearts were hooked up to a Lagendorff assembly—which can keep a heart beating artificially outside the body—I did not at first realize that these hearts must come from live subjects.”

Yes. The report, on first reading, comes across as neutral and technical and medical. But then—WHAT? The heart was taken from the infant while he/she was ALIVE. —Aborted, alive, then killed by taking the beating heart.

Seeley: “A 1988 article in the Hastings Journal assumed that tissue removal from live, nonviable fetuses was already taking place:”

“[The Hastings Journal:] ’Perhaps the most pertinent federal restriction is the ban on research of any kind on a live nonviable fetus ex utero that would prematurely terminate the fetus’ life. This ban may be significant because the procedure required for removing fetal brain tissue transplantation would hasten the death of a live fetus. Thus, if a similar restriction were imposed on fetal tissue transplants, it would prohibit the removal of fetal brain tissue and, potentially, other types of tissue, from live nonviable fetuses’.”

The above quote is crucial. By non-viable, the article means a live fetus removed from the womb that will die very soon. In that short span of life remaining, researchers want to be able to torture the infant in many ways, by cutting out parts of the body, killing him/her. And don’t assume that a 1988 ban on this “research” stopped what was happening and still happens in closed labs.

Given the (planned) ignorance on the part of the public, people will say, “But we need all this vital medical research so our doctors can treat us…”

To reply, I’ll cite one study out of several I have written about many times in these pages:

Author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a respected and revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”; Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000:

Starfield concludes that, every year in the US, the medical system kills 225,000 people. 106,000 as a result of the administration of medical drugs, and 119,000 from medical errors and mistreatment in hospitals.

That adds up to 2.25 million deaths per decade.

When I interviewed Dr. Starfield, she said her estimate of deaths was conservative, and succeeding studies put the number higher.

Her shocking finding becomes more understandable, when we realize a significant amount of underlying medical research comes from professionals who murder infants.

Why would we expect the work of these people to be useful and valuable?

Why would we expect their drugs and vaccines to be safe?

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

Jon Rappoport

The murdered infant comes to the virology lab; the ivory tower is befouled

Oct22

by Jon Rappoport

October 22, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

In a groundbreaking article for Children of God For Life, titled “Forsaking God For the Sake of Science,” [1] [1b] Debra Vinnedge outlines how the Rockefeller-Harriman eugenics movement gave rise to the practice of medical abortions for research purposes, including live births during which the infant was murdered and its organs harvested:

“…Abortion wasn’t legal yet; this was 1936. But abortion was most certainly legal and acceptable [to eugenicists] if it meant ending the life of a child who would be born to a ‘feeble-minded’ woman, one who might end up less than perfect or who might have to rely on society to pay for their care.”

And therefore, why not perform abortions for medical research? Behind closed doors, out of view, this was happening in several countries, including the US.

Consider this research report: “Human embryos of two and one-half to five months gestation were obtained from the gynaecological department of the Toronto General Hospital…No macerated specimens were used and in many of the embryos the heart was still beating at the time of receipt in the virus laboratory.”

Here is the citation [2]: Joan C. Thicke, Darline Duncan, William Wood, A. E. Franklin and A. J. Rhodes; Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Virus in Tissue Culture; Growth of the Lansing Strain in Human Embryonic Tissue, Canadian Journal of Medical Science, Vol. 30, pg 231-245. [June 1952]

The authors are certainly describing an infant who was taken from the womb alive, and after cells were harvested, was killed. For research on “growing virus in cell culture.”

Here is another research report that indicates the infant was born alive, its tissues taken, and then killed:

“Embryos of between 12-18 weeks gestation have been utilized. Rarely tissues were obtained from stillborn fetuses, or from premature infants at autopsy…In the experiments 3 sorts of embryonic materials were used: elements of skin, connective tissue, muscle; intestinal tissue; brain tissue…Whenever possible the embryo was removed from the amniotic sac.., transferred to a sterile towel and kept at 5 C until dissected.”

The citation [3]: Thomas H. Weller, John F. Enders, Studies on the Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Viruses in Tissue Culture : I. The Propagation of Poliomyelitis Viruses in Suspended Cell Cultures of Various Human Tissue; Journal of Immunology 1952;69;645-671. [June 1952]

Again, the infant’s tissue was used, in the lab, to “grow virus in cell culture.” The cells were from the infant.

My readers know that, for the past year, I’ve been exposing virologists’ absurd claims that they’re isolating viruses in their labs. [4] [4b] [4c]

In fact, they create soups in dishes, containing toxic drugs and chemicals, monkey cells and human cells, and a mucus sample from a patient. When the cells start dying, they claim this is proof the virus is in the mucus, in the soup, and is deadly.

Of course, this is nonsense, because the toxic drugs and chemicals are perfectly capable of killing the cells; and the cells in the soup are being starved of nutrients, which would also lead to cell-death.

The isolation of viruses is no isolation at all. It’s a fraud.

But it never occurred to me, until now, that some of these human cells in the soup in the lab came from infants, taken from the mother’s womb alive, for harvesting, who were then killed.

This completes a circle of evil.

Of course, out of the virological research fraud and infant murder come THE VACCINES, including the COVID vaccines, which are causing huge numbers of injuries and deaths across the world.

People of faith everywhere must see that declaring a religious exemption from the shots is a DUTY, whether or not the authorities allow the exemption.

The last time I looked, appealing to Pontius Pilate for an exemption didn’t work, and the status of Anthony Fauci is not higher than the Authority to whom, at minimum, four billion people of faith pray.

SOURCES:

[1] https://cogforlife.org/2012/06/13/forsaking-god-for-science/

[1b] https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/AbortedFetalCellLines.pdf

[2] https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjms52-031

[3] https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/poliovax1952.pdf

[4] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/02/26/covid-the-virus-was-never-proven-to-exist-a-statement/

[4b] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/04/21/isolation-of-sars-cov-2-refuted-in-step-by-step-analysis-of-claim/

[4c] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/09/20/the-failure-to-prove-the-virus-exists/

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

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Science Fraud

Is the virus real? Steve Kirsch suggests a debate

Replace Sotomayor with Pinocchio or Bozo the Clown; make idiocy even more visible—if possible

New level of COVID fakery; I’m doubling down

The new sexual mandate

Let’s go to the movies—or not

The new African virus mutation: right on time; a kindergarten covert op for the ignorant

COVID vaccine: missing key

Murdering infants to obtain fetal tissue for vaccine research

People of faith and the COVID vaccine

The murdered infant comes to the virology lab; the ivory tower is befouled