Medical weapons of mass destruction

A continuing tradition, in which COVID is the latest example

by Jon Rappoport

January 5, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

The fallout has been extreme, to say the least.

Let’s start here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

True data are buried, hidden, and ignored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medical crimes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

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

In case you thought the PCR test detects an actual virus…wrong

Dec25

by Jon Rappoport

December 25, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

In a CDC document titled, “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) 2020 Interim Case Definition, Approved April 5, 2020,” under the section, “Laboratory Criteria,” we have this: [1]

“Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ribonucleic acid (SARS-CoV-2 RNA) in a clinical specimen using a molecular amplification detection test.”

The test referred to is the PCR. And as you can plainly see, it is detecting, not the virus itself, but a piece of RNA.

A piece of RNA ASSUMED to come from the virus, SARS-CoV-2.

I say ASSUMED because, where is the actual virus? Where is the virus isolated from all surrounding material?

If you don’t have the virus, you can’t say, with any degree of certainty at all, that you have a piece of it (the RNA).

As I’ve described many times, “isolated” is a term that is tortured by researchers and public health officials, so that it means just the opposite of what it is supposed to mean. [2]

Numerous studies that claim the virus has been isolated actually turn out to mean: “We have the virus in a soup in a dish in the lab. The soup contains various types of animal and humans cells, toxic chemicals and drugs, and other genetic material. The virus is completely surrounded, but it is there. We know this, because some of the cells are dying, and this dying must be the result of infection with the virus…”

This argument not only turns the definition of “isolation” on its head, it reveals, upon a moment’s consideration, that the dying of the cells could come from the action of the toxic chemicals and drugs; and on top of that, the cells are being starved of nutrients, so they could be dying as a result of that deprivation.

Therefore, to say “the virus must be in the soup in the dish in the lab” because is killing cells…well, that’s completely unproven, and therefore…

There is no reason under the sun to claim that the virus is there in the soup at all.

Hence, the claim that the PCR test is detecting a piece of RNA from the virus is unwarranted. Because, again…where is the virus? Where is the truly isolated virus?

Nowhere.

And on that basis alone, the PCR test is irrelevant, useless, and deceptive.

It is set up to look for and detect a piece of RNA material that has never been proved to come from this un-isolated phantom ASSUMPTION, called “SARS-CoV-2.”

A few more moments of clear thought, and you realize the whole string of “science” that leads to the lockdowns and the economic devastation is not science at all.

It is what is called, in the intelligence community, a cover story. A story launched to justify crimes.

In this case, capital crimes against humanity.

SOURCES:

[1] https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditions/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/case-definition/2020/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6-8VRGvNtQ “Conversations with Dr. Cowan and Friends Episode 12: Jon Rappoport” (Dec 17, 2020)

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

Jon Rappoport

COVID vaccine—history matters

Dec10

by Jon Rappoport

December 10, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Now that governments are going to roll out “a vaccine to save the world” (see here and here), people should become aware of a history they don’t know exists.

The article below was a small section of my book, AIDS INC., which I wrote in 1987-8. At the time, I decided to take a look at vaccines and see what I could find out about them.

My ensuing research led me into all sorts of surprising areas.

Since the period of 1987-8, much more has come to light about vaccine safety and efficacy. Here is what I discovered way back when—

“The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977

“In a recent British outbreak of whooping cough, for example, even fully immunized children contracted the disease in fairly large numbers; and the rates of serious complications and death were reduced only slightly. In another recent outbreak of pertussis, 46 of the 85 fully immunized children studied eventually contracted the disease.

“In 1977, 34 new cases of measles were reported on the campus of UCLA, in a population that was supposedly 91% immune, according to careful serological testing. Another 20 cases of measles were reported in the Pecos, New Mexico, area within a period of a few months in 1981, and 75% of them had been fully immunized, some of them quite recently. A survey of sixth-graders in a well-immunized urban community revealed that about 15% of this age group are still susceptible to rubella, a figure essentially identical with that of the pre-vaccine era.” Richard Moskowitz, MD, The Case Against Immunizations, 1983, American Institute of Homeopathy.

“Of all reported whooping cough cases between 1979 and 1984 in children over 7 months of age – that is, old enough to have received the primary course of the DPT shots (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) – 41% occurred in children who had received three or more shots and 22% in children who had one or two immunizations.

“Among children under 7 months of age who had whooping cough, 34% had been immunized between one and three times…

“… Based on the only U.S. findings on adverse DPT reactions, an FDA-financed study at the University of California, Los Angeles, one out of every 350 children will have a convulsion; one in 180 children will experience high-pitched screaming; and one in 66 will have a fever of 105 degrees or more.” Jennifer Hyman, Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, New York, special supplement on DPT, dated April, 1987.

“A study undertaken in 1979 at the University of California, Los Angeles, under the sponsorship of the Food and Drug Administration, and which has been confirmed by other studies, indicates that in the U.S.A. approximately 1,000 infants die annually as a direct result of DPT vaccinations, and these are classified as SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) deaths. These represent about 10 to 15% of the total number of SIDS deaths occurring annually in the U.S.A. (between 8,000 and 10,000 depending on which statistics are used).” Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, CW Daniel Company Limited, Saffron Walden, Essex, England, 1987.

“Assistant Secretary of Health Edward Brandt, Jr., MD, testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, rounded… figures off to 9,000 cases of convulsions, 9,000 cases of collapse, and 17,000 cases of high-pitched screaming for a total of 35,000 acute neurological reactions occurring within forty-eight hours of a DPT shot among America’s children every year.” DPT: A Shot in the Dark, by Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fischer, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

“While 70-80% of British children were immunized against pertussis in 1970-71, the rate is now 39%. The committee predicts that the next pertussis epidemic will probably turn out to be more severe than the one in 1974/75. However, they do not explain why, in 1970/71, there were more than 33,000 cases of pertussis with 41 fatal cases among the very well immunized British child population; whereas in 1974/75, with a declining rate of vaccination, a pertussis epidemic caused only 25,000 cases with 25 fatalities.” Wolfgang Ehrengut, Lancet, Feb. 18, 1978, p. 370.

“… Barker and Pichichero, in a prospective study of 1232 children in Denver, Colorado, found after DTP that only 7% of those vaccinated were free from untoward reactions, which included pyrexia (53%), acute behavioral changes (82%), prolonged screaming (13%), and listlessness, anorexia and vomiting. 71% of those receiving second injections of DTP experienced two or more of the reactions monitored.” Lancet, May 28, 1983, p. 1217

“Publications by the World Health Organization show that diphtheria is steadily declining in most European countries, including those in which there has been no immunization. The decline began long before vaccination was developed. There is certainly no guarantee that vaccination will protect a child against the disease; in fact, over 30,000 cases of diphtheria have been recorded in the United Kingdom in fully immunized children.” Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 58.

“Pertussis (whooping cough) immunization is controversial, as the side effects have received a great deal of publicity. The counter claim is that the effectiveness and protection offered by the procedure far outweigh the possible ill effects… annual deaths, per million children, from this disease over the period from 1900 to the mid-nineteen seventies, shows that from a high point of just under 900 deaths per million children (under age 15) in 1905, the decline has been consistent and dramatic. There had been a lowering of mortality rates of approximately 80% by the time immunization was introduced on a mass scale, in the mid-nineteen fifties. The decline has continued, albeit at a slower rate, ever since. No credit can be given to vaccination for the major part of the decline since it was not in use.” Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 63.

“… the swine-flu vaccination program was one of its (CDC) greatest blunders. It all began in 1976 when CDC scientists saw that a virus involved in a flu attack outbreak at Fort Dix, N.J., was similar to the swine-flu virus that killed 500,000 Americans in 1918. Health officials immediately launched a 100-million dollar program to immunize every American. But the expected epidemic never materialized, and the vaccine led to partial paralysis in 532 people. There were 32 deaths.” U.S. News and World Report, Joseph Carey, October 14, 1985, p. 70, “How Medical Sleuths Track Killer Diseases.”

“Despite (cases) in which (smallpox) vaccination plainly failed to protect the population, and despite the rampant side-effects of the methods, the proponents of vaccination continued their attempts to justify the methods by claims that the disease had declined in Europe as a whole during the period of its compulsory use. If the decline could be correlated with the use of the vaccination, then all else could be set aside, and the advantage between its current low incidence could be shown to outweigh the periodic failures of the method, and to favour the continued use of vaccination. However, the credit for the decline in the incidence of smallpox could not be given to vaccination. The fact is that its incidence declined in all parts of Europe, whether or not vaccination was employed.” Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, pp. 6-7.

“Smallpox, like typhus, has been dying out (in England) since 1780. Vaccination in this country has largely fallen into disuse since people began to realize how its value was discredited by the great smallpox epidemic of 1871-2 (which occurred after extensive vaccination).” W. Scott Webb, A Century of Vaccination, Swan Sonnenschein, 1898.

“In this incident (Kyoto, Japan, 1948) – the most serious of its kind – a toxic (vaccine) batch of alum-precipitated toxoid (APT) was responsible for illness in over 600 infants and for no fewer than 68 deaths.

“On 20 and 22 October, 1948, a large number of babies and children in the city of Kyoto received their first injection of APT. On the 4th and 5th of November, 15,561 babies and children aged some months to 13 years received their second dose. One to two days later, 606 of those who had been injected fell ill. Of these, 9 died of acute diphtheritic paralysis in seven to fourteen days, and 59 of late paralysis mainly in four to seven weeks.” Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization, Athone Press, University of London, 1967.

“Accidents may, however, follow the use of this so-called killed (rabies) vaccine owing to inadequate processing. A very serious occurrence of this sort occurred at Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, in 1960. No fewer than 18 out of 66 persons vaccinated with Fermi’s carbolized (rabies) vaccine suffered from encephalomyelitis and every one of the eighteen died.” Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization.

“At a press conference in Washington on 24 July, 1942, the Secretary of War reported that 28,585 cases of jaundice had been observed in the (American) Army between 1 January and 4 July after yellow fever vaccination, and of these 62 proved fatal.” Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization.

“The world’s biggest trial (conducted in south India) to assess the value of BCG tuberculosis vaccine has made the startling revelation that the vaccine ‘does not give any protection against bacillary forms of tuberculosis.’ The study said to be ‘most exhaustive and meticulous,’ was launched in 1968 by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) with assistance from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia.

“The incidence of new cases among the BCG vaccinated group was slightly (but statistically insignificantly) higher than in the control group, a finding that led to the conclusion that BCG’s protective effect ‘was zero.'” New Scientist, November 15, 1979, as quoted by Hans Ruesch in Naked Empress, Civis Publishers, Switzerland, 1982.

“Between 10 December 1929 and 30 April 1930, 251 of 412 infants born in Lubeck received three doses of BCG vaccine by the mouth during the first ten days of life. Of these 251, 72 died of tuberculosis, most of them in two to five months and all but one before the end of the first year. In addition, 135 suffered from clinical tuberculosis but eventually recovered; and 44 became tuberculin-positive but remained well. None of the 161 unvaccinated infants born at the time was affected in this way and none of these died of tuberculosis within the following three years.” Hazards of Immunization, Wilson.

“We conducted a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial to test the efficacy of the 14-valent pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide vaccine in 2295 high-risk patients… Seventy-one episodes of proved or probable pneumococcal pneumonia or bronchitis occurred among 63 of the patients (27 placebo recipients and 36 vaccine recipients)… We were unable to demonstrate any efficacy of the pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia or bronchitis in this population.” New England Journal of Medicine, November 20, 1986, p. 1318, Michael Simberkoff et al.

“But already before Salk developed his vaccine, polio had been constantly regressing; the 39 cases out of every 100,000 inhabitants registered in 1942 had gradually diminished from year to year until they were reduced to only 15 cases in 1952… according to M. Beddow Baylay, the English surgeon and medical historian.” Slaughter of the Innocent, Hans Reusch, Civitas Publishers, Switzerland, and Swain, New York, 1983.

“Many published stories and reports have stated, implied and otherwise led professional people and the public to believe that the sharp reduction of cases (and of deaths) from poliomyelitis in 1955 as compared to 1954 is attributable to the Salk vaccine… That it is a misconception follows from these considerations. The number of children inoculated has been too small to account for the decrease. The sharp decrease was apparent before the inoculations began or could take effect and was of the same order as the decrease following the immediate post-inoculation period.” Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, vol. 20, no. 1, 1987.

“So far it is hardly possible to gain insight into the extent of the immunization catastrophe of 1955 in the United States. It may be considered certain that the officially ascertained 200 cases (of polio) which were caused directly or indirectly by the (polio) vaccination constitute minimum figures… It can hardly be estimated how many of the 1359 (polio) cases among vaccinated persons must be regarded as failures of the vaccine and how many of them were infected by the vaccine. A careful study of the epidemiologic course of polio in the United States yields indications of grave significance. In numerous states of the U.S.A., typical early epidemics developed with the immunizations in the spring of 1955… The vaccination incidents of the year 1955 cannot be exclusively traced back to the failure of one manufacturing firm.” Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, 1980, vol. 19, no. 4, “Story of the Salk Vaccine (Part 2).”

“Suffice it to say that most of the large (polio) epidemics that have occurred in this country since the introduction of the Salk vaccine have followed the wide-scale use of the vaccine and have been characterized by an uncommon early seasonal onset. To name a few, there is the Massachusetts epidemic of 1955; the Chicago epidemic of 1956; and the Des Moines epidemic of 1959.” Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, 1980 vol. 19, no. 4.

“The live (Sabin) poliovirus vaccine has been the predominant cause of domestically arising cases of paralytic poliomyelitis in the United States since 1972. To avoid the occurrence of such cases, it would be necessary to discontinue the routine use of live poliovirus vaccine.” Jonas Salk, Science, March 4, 1977, p. 845.

“By the (U.S.) government’s own admission, there has been a 41% failure rate in persons who were previously vaccinated against the (measles) virus.” Dr. Anthony Morris, John Chriss, BG Young, “Occurrence of Measles in Previously Vaccinated Individuals,” 1979; presented at a meeting of the American Society for Microbiology at Fort Detrick, Maryland, April 27, 1979.

“Prior to the time doctors began giving rubella (German measles) vaccinations, an estimated 85% of adults were naturally immune to the disease (for life). Because of immunization, the vast majority of women never acquire natural immunity (or lifetime protection).” Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, Let’s Live, December 1983, as quoted by Carolyn Reuben in the LA WEEKLY, June 28, 1985.

“Adminstration of KMV (killed measles vaccine) apparently set in motion an aberrant immunologic response that not only failed to protect children against natural measles, but resulted in heightened susceptibility.” JAMA Aug. 22, 1980, vol. 244, p. 804, Vincent Fulginiti and Ray Helfer. The authors indicate that such falsely protected children can come down with “an often severe, atypical form of measles. Atypical measles is characterized by fever, headache… and a diverse rash (which)… may consist of a mixture of macules, papules, vesicles, and pustules… ”

The above quotes reflect only a mere fraction of an available literature which shows there is a need for an extensive review of vaccination. It is certain that undisclosed, unlooked for illness occurs as a result of vaccines, or as a result of infection after protective immunity should have been conferred but wasn’t. A certain amount of this sort of illness is immunosuppressive in the widest sense, and some in a narrower sense (depression of T-cell numbers, etc.). When looking for unusual illness and immune depression, vaccines are one of those areas which remain partially hidden from investigation. That is a mistake. It is not adequate to say, “Vaccines are simple; they stimulate the immune system and confer immunity against specific germ agents.” That is the glossy presentation. What vaccines often do is something else. They engage some aspect of the body’s immune-response, but to what effect over the long term? Why, for example, do children who have measles vaccine develop a susceptibility to another more severe, atypical measles? Is that virulent form of the disease the result of reactivation of the virus in the vaccine?

Official reports on vaccine reactions are often at odds with unofficial estimates because of the method of analysis used. If vaccine-reaction is defined as a small set of possible effects experienced within 72 hours of an inoculation, then figures will be smaller. But doctors like G.T. Stewart, of the University of Glasgow, have found through meticulous investigation, including visits to hospitals and interviews with parents of vaccinated children, that reactions as severe as brain-damage (e.g., from the DPT vaccine) can be overlooked, go unreported and can be assumed mistakenly to have come from other causes.

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

Jon Rappoport

COVID vaccine revelation sinks like a stone; disappears

Nov11

by Jon Rappoport

November 11, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

In major media, certain stories gain traction. The trumpets keep blaring for a time before they fade.

Other stories are one-offs. A few of them strike hard. Their implications—if anyone stops to think about them—are powerful. Then…nothing.

“Wait, aren’t you going to follow up on that? Don’t you see what that MEANS?”

Apparently not, because…dead silence. “In other news, the governor lost his pet parakeet for an hour. His chief of staff found it taking a nap in a desk drawer…”

One-offs function like teasers. You definitely want to know more, but you never get more.

Over the years, I’ve tried to follow up on a few. The reporter or the editor has a set of standard replies: “We didn’t get much feedback.” “We covered it.” “It’s now old news.” “There wasn’t anything else to find out.”

Oh, but there WAS.

A few weeks ago, I ran a one-off. The analysis and commentary were mine, but the story was an opinion piece in the New York Times. The Times called it an opinion piece to soften its blow. I suspected it would disappear, and it did.

Its meaning and implication were too strong. It would be a vast embarrassment for the White House, the Warp Speed COVID vaccine program, the vaccine manufacturers, the coronavirus task force, and vaccine researchers.

And embarrassment would be just the beginning of their problem.

So…here it is again. The vanished one-off, back in business:

COVID vaccine clinical trials doomed to fail; fatal design flaw; NY Times opinion piece exposes all three major clinical trials. [2]

Peter Doshi, associate editor of the medical journal BMJ, and Eric Topol, Scripps Research professor of molecular medicine, have written a devastating NY Times opinion piece about the ongoing COVID vaccine clinical trials.

They expose the fatal flaw in the large Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna trials.

September 22, the Times: “These Coronavirus Trials Don’t Answer the One Question We Need to Know” [1]:

“If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?”

“The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.”

“But that’s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem.”

“According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”

“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will determine.”

This means these clinical trials are dead in the water.

The trials are designed to show effectiveness in preventing mild cases of COVID, which nobody should care about, because mild cases naturally run their course and cause no harm. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.

There. That’s the NY Times one-off. My piece analyzing it went on much longer, but you get the main thrust:

The leading vaccine clinical trials are useless, irrelevant, misleading, and deceptive.

But now, it gets much worse. Because Pfizer has just announced their vaccine is almost ready. CNBC headline, November 9: “Pfizer, BioNTech say Covid vaccine is more than 90% effective—‘great day for science and humanity’” [3].

And not a peep about the NY Times one-off. That’s gone, as if it never was.

Trump’s coronavirus task force knows the truth. Biden’s new task force, waiting in the wings, knows the truth. But they don’t care. They’re criminals. They’d sell a car with a gas tank ready to explode to a customer with cash.

But you care, because you can read and think.

You can raise hell.

Now, in case anyone is interested in knowing WHY the major clinical trials of the COVID vaccine are designed only to prevent mild cases of COVID, I’ll explain.

A vaccine maker assumes that, during the course of the clinical trial, a few of the 30,000 volunteers are going to “catch COVID-19.”

They assume this because “the virus is everywhere,” as far as they’re concerned. So it’ll drop down from the clouds and infect a few of the volunteers.

The magic number is 150. When that number of volunteers “catch COVID,” everything stops. The clinical trial stops.

At this point, the vaccine maker hopes that most of the volunteers who “got infected” are in the placebo group. They didn’t receive the real vaccine; they received the saltwater placebo shot.

Then the vaccine maker can proudly say, “See? The volunteers who caught COVID-19? Most of them didn’t receive the vaccine. They weren’t protected. The volunteers who received the real vaccine didn’t catch COVID. The vaccine protected them.”

Actually, the number split the vaccine makers are looking for is 50 and 100. If 50 people in the vaccine group catch COVID, and 100 in the placebo group catch COVID, the vaccine is said to be 50% effective. And that’s all the vaccine maker needs to win FDA approval for the vaccine.

But wait. Let’s look closer at this idea of “catching COVID.” What are they really talking about? How do they define that? Claiming a volunteer in the clinical trial caught COVID adds up to what?

Does it add up to a minimal definition of COVID-19—a cough, or chills and fever? Or does it mean a serious case—severe pneumonia?

Now we come to the hidden factor, the secret, the source of the whole con game.

You see, the vaccine maker starts out with 30,000 HEALTHY volunteers. So, if they waited for 150 of them to come down with severe pneumonia, a serious case of COVID, how long do you think that would take? Five years? Ten years?

The vaccine maker can’t possibly wait that long.

These 150 COVID cases the vaccine maker is looking for would be mild. Just a cough. Or chills and fever. That scenario would only take a few months to develop. And face it, chills, cough, and fever aren’t unique to COVID. Anyone can come down with those symptoms.

THEREFORE, THE WHOLE CLINICAL TRIAL IS DESIGNED, UP FRONT, TO FIND 150 CASES OF MILD AND MEANINGLESS AND SELF-CURING “COVID.”

About which, no one cares. No one should care.

But, as we see, Pfizer is trumpeting their clinical trial of the vaccine as a landmark in human history.

And THAT’S the story of the one-off the NY Times didn’t think was worth a second glance.

Because they’re so stupid? No. They’re not that stupid.

They’re criminals.

And the government wants you to take the experimental COVID vaccine, whose “effectiveness” was designed to prevent nothing worth losing a night’s sleep over.

The only worry are the adverse effects of the vaccine, about which I’ve written extensively. These effects include, depending on what’s in the vial, a permanent alteration of your genetic makeup, or an auto-immune cascade, in which the body attacks itself.

SOURCES:

[1] nytimes.com/2020/09/22/opinion/covid-vaccine-coronavirus.html

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

[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/09/covid-vaccine-pfizer-drug-is-more-than-90percent-effective-in-preventing-infection.html

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

Jon Rappoport

Dr. Tom Cowan explores the COVID virus invented out of sheer nonsense

Oct19

—Cowan analyzes yet another key document posted by the CDC, in their journal, Emerging Infectious Diseases: “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States”—

by Jon Rappoport

October 19, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

The hits keep coming. The CDC used an arbitrary computer “tinker-toy” process to invent a description of the virus. The virus that no one has proven exists. This is the basic conclusion of Dr. Tom Cowan.

The CDC article was discovered by Sally Fallon Morrell. Her co-author, Dr. Cowan, fleshes out the fraud. Cowan’s article is titled, “Only Poisoned Monkey Cells ‘Grew’ the ‘Virus’.”

Dr. Cowan: “[The CDC journal article] was published in June 2020 [original publication, March 2020]. The purpose of the article was for a group of about 20 virologists to describe the state of the science of the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.”

“First, in the section titled ‘Whole Genome Sequencing,’ we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they found 37 base pairs from unpurified samples using PCR probes. This means they actually looked at 37 out of the approximately 30,000 of the base pairs that are claimed to be the genome of the intact virus. They then took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the base pairs.”

In other words, the sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was done by assumption and arbitrary inference. If this is science, a penguin is a spaceship.

Cowan: “To me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.”

“The researchers claim they decided which is the real genome of SARS-CoV-2 by ‘consensus,’ sort of like a vote. Again, different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary ‘unicorn,’ so they come together as a group and decide which is the real imaginary unicorn.”

As I’ve been stating, the “discovery” of the “new virus” was actually the foisting of a PRE-DETERMINED STORY ABOUT A VIRUS. Nothing real or believable about it.

But once the official pattern is laid down, others follow it dutifully.

Dr. Cowan uncovers more insanity in the CDC journal article. Using the ASSUMED new virus, in an UN-ISOLATED STATE, the researchers try to prove it is harmful by injecting it on to several different types of cells in the lab:

Cowan: “The real blockbuster finding in this study comes later, a finding so shocking that I had to read it many times before I could believe what I was reading. Let me quote the passage intact:”

“’Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH 7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T). In addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells [monkey cells]. … Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post-infection. No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero [monkey] cells, which grew to greater than 10 to the 7th power at 24 h post-infection. In contrast, HUH 7.0 and 293T showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells [human cells] were incompatible with SARS CoV-2 infection’.”

“What does this language actually mean, and why is it the most shocking statement of all from the virology community? When virologists attempt to prove infection, they have three possible ‘hosts’ or models on which they can test…”

“The third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenicity — the method they most rely on — is inoculation of solutions they say contain the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures. As I have pointed out many times, such inoculation has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first starved and poisoned.”

“The shocking thing about the above [CDC journal] quote is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this ‘new coronavirus’ is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.”

“My friends, read this again and again. These virologists, published by the CDC, performed a clear proof, on their terms, showing that the SARS-CoV- 2 virus is harmless to human beings. That is the only possible conclusion, but, unfortunately, this result is not even mentioned in their conclusion. They simply say they can provide virus stocks cultured only on monkey Vero cells, thanks for coming.”

So first…use a process of genetic sequencing that involves concocting, out of an arbitrary computer program…

The existence and structure of the “new virus”…

And then, taking a soup that the researchers claim contains the virus, in an un-isolated state, inject the soup into several types of cells in the lab…

And discover the prime target—human cells—are not infected by the imaginary virus.

And after this good day’s work, walk away and pretend nothing odd or self-incriminating happened.

And oh yes, lock down the planet based on this “science.”

Naturally, we MUST take a toxic vaccine that prevents non-infection by the non-virus.

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

Jon Rappoport

If the virus isn’t there…why do they believe it is?

Oct15

by Jon Rappoport

October 15, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

For the past eight months, I’ve been providing evidence that no one has proved the COVID virus exists.

Over the past week, I’ve quoted two major sources—the CDC and the authors of a major European study—who admit they did not have any virus. [1] [2] [3] And both of these groups were, at the same time, constructing a way to do a diagnostic test for that very virus which wasn’t there.

I’ve also pointed out that scientists throw around the phrase, “isolation of the virus,” like short-order cooks slinging hash in a diner. The phrase is used with incredible carelessness and deceptive imprecision.

Likewise, researchers’ claims of having “sequenced” the genetic structure of the virus are very misleading, because the sequencing is done without direct observation of the virus. It is INFERRED from analyzing a piece of RNA which is ASSUMED (not proved) to come from the virus.

Most of these scientists are true believers. They accept, like dogma, the standard and non-valid procedures for “isolating” and “sequencing” the virus.

A smaller number of scientists understand the hoax, but they remain criminally silent—or they are actively perpetuating the hoax.

In a similar vein—but without the absurd certainty—astronomers make all sorts of inferences about what is occurring on distant planets; but they support sending probes into space to actually see and record what is happening there; and they admit they are frequently surprised and shocked by what they find: a picture that contradicts many of their inferences.

Not so with virologists and geneticists. They utilize a closed system of analysis, which automatically confirms what they already believe. This is the furthest thing from science. This would be on the order of claiming the devil is causing hurricanes, and then “proving it” with a gibbering brand of abstract theology.

Of course, when it comes to viruses, the follow-up is censorship or ridicule of those who doubt theological “biology.”

If a prestigious medical journal opened up its pages to an intelligent debate about the existence of the COVID virus, remarkable things would happen. In the light and fresh air of honest debate, all sorts of skeletons would emerge from the closet. But such a debate is not permitted.

Why? Obviously, because the result would be devastating.

Because of the absence of such open and frank discussion, people are left with two thoughts: a pandemic based on nothing is too astonishing to consider; and a hundred years of official propaganda about germs (and genes) as the ominous ever-present source of all disease is too formidable to reject.

I want to give you an idea what it’s like to encounter researchers’ arcane descriptions of “isolating the virus.” Here is a section from a major Chinese study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, on February 20, 2020. This is the key study which “confirmed” that a new virus was causing an outbreak in China. Title: “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019.” [4] The section is: “Isolation of Virus”. You’ll need hip boots and a machete as you wade your way through it—

“Bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid samples were collected in sterile cups to which virus transport medium was added. Samples were then centrifuged to remove cellular debris. The supernatant was inoculated on human airway epithelial cells,13 which had been obtained from airway specimens resected from patients undergoing surgery for lung cancer and were confirmed to be special-pathogen-free by NGS.14”

“Human airway epithelial cells were expanded on plastic substrate to generate passage-1 cells and were subsequently plated at a density of 2.5×105 cells per well on permeable Transwell-COL (12-mm diameter) supports. Human airway epithelial cell cultures were generated in an air–liquid interface for 4 to 6 weeks to form well-differentiated, polarized cultures resembling in vivo pseudostratified [!] mucociliary epithelium.13”

“Prior to infection, apical surfaces of the human airway epithelial cells were washed three times with phosphate-buffered saline; 150 μl of supernatant from bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid samples was inoculated onto the apical surface of the cell cultures. After a 2-hour incubation at 37°C, unbound virus was removed by washing with 500 μl of phosphate-buffered saline for 10 minutes; human airway epithelial cells were maintained in an air–liquid interface incubated at 37°C with 5% carbon dioxide. Every 48 hours, 150 μl of phosphate-buffered saline was applied to the apical surfaces of the human airway epithelial cells, and after 10 minutes of incubation at 37°C the samples were harvested. Pseudostratified [!] mucociliary epithelium cells were maintained in this environment; apical samples were passaged in a 1:3 diluted vial stock to new cells. The cells were monitored daily with light microscopy, for cytopathic effects, and with RT-PCR, for the presence of viral nucleic acid in the supernatant. After three passages, apical samples and human airway epithelial cells were prepared for transmission electron microscopy…”

I can guarantee one thing: If a medical journal opened up its pages to a frank and protracted discussion, from all comers, about this “process of isolation,” you would see fireworks exploding in all directions. Within a few months, there would be raging global debate about the authenticity of “isolation.”

The density of the description in the China study is exactly why, for months, I’ve been demanding a straightforward real-world experimental test of the “new virus.” [5]

You line up 1000 patients who have been diagnosed with the new epidemic illness. You remove tissue samples from all of them. You put these samples through the above “isolation process.” You decide which patients have a huge amount of virus in their bodies.

Those patients should certainly be ill.

Then LET’S SEE. Are they ill or are they running marathons?

Real world.

Not lab world.

This study will never be done for one obvious reason. Unlike the astoundingly complex manipulations that go on in the lab, this real-world experiment has a yes or no answer. Are the patients ill or healthy?

But that’s asking too much from these researchers. They would rather infer and assume whatever suits their fancy.

They never want the rubber to meet the road.

SOURCES:

[1] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/08/the-smoking-gun-where-is-the-coronavirus-the-cdc-says-it-isnt-available/

[2] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/09/covid-the-virus-that-isnt-there-the-root-fraud-exposed/

[3] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/13/yet-another-case-of-the-missing-virus-they-lied-and-locked-down-the-world/

[4] https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017

[5] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/12/the-fake-coronavirus-and-the-missing-study-the-secret-in-plain-sight/

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

Jon Rappoport

The fake coronavirus and the missing study: the secret in plain sight

Oct12

by Jon Rappoport

October 12, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

NOTE: Readers have sent me electron microscope images of what are claimed to be “isolated COVID virus.” An image here, an image there—this is NOT the way science is done, as I will explain fully in this article.

I have also been sent a CDC document that claims the COVID virus has been isolated. However, that document is dated two months earlier than the CDC document that admits they do not have the virus. So it means nothing.

Last week, I wrote and published two articles (here and here) exposing the root of the poisonous tree: the CDC admits it does not have an isolated COVID virus.

Therefore, SARS-CoV-2, the pandemic virus, has never been proved to exist.

This shattering fact reveals the whole pandemic is a fraud. The virus, the test, the case numbers—all fraud. And the lockdowns were unnecessary and criminal.

Now I want to reveal the study that should have been done, at the outset, when scientists were first claiming there was a pandemic based on the discovery of “a new virus.”

Here’s what you would do if you were an actual scientist: you would line up a minimum of 500 people who have been diagnosed with the epidemic illness. From each of them, you would extract tissue samples.

Then you would correctly and meticulously put each sample through a procedure that would result in 500 viewable electron microscope photographs—one from each patient. You would lay all these photos side by side.

You would answer three burning questions: do you see, in each and every photo, MANY particles of the same virus? Do you see, in all 500 photos, that same virus? Do you see, in all 500 photos, a virus you’ve never seen before?

If your answer to any of these questions is no, you go back to the drawing board. You haven’t found sufficient evidence of a new virus that is causing widespread illness.

If your answer is yes to every question, other researchers will then line up 500 new volunteers who have been diagnosed with the epidemic illness, and they will perform this same experiment, in order to confirm or deny the findings of the first team of scientists.

If they, too, answer every burning question with a yes, then a third team of researchers performs their own experiment on 500 more volunteers. And if their answer to every question is yes, then you have something. Then you have an indication, according to conventional and traditional methods, that a new disease could be on the rise.

People continue to send me an occasional electron microscope photo from a research study on “the coronavirus.” Of course, as you can see, that is not what I’m talking about at all. A single photo from here, from there—irrelevant.

If you were an honest medical researcher, would you claim the result of giving a new drug to three patients justified the approval of that drug for use on a few hundred million patients? Not a chance. The same basic principle applies here.

The study I just described, with 500 patients each time, done several times with new teams, is what the scientific method demands: large studies; clear results; and then confirmation or rejection of the initial finding, by more scientists employing the same methods and materials.

One critic, after reading my description of the proper way to do a study on the purported “new coronavirus,” said, “This wouldn’t work because it is extremely labor-intensive.” Well, guess what? The result of declaring a pandemic caused by a virus that isn’t there…and the ensuing lockdowns and economic and human destruction stemming from that declaration…is “labor-intensive” to a far greater degree.

Stopping the production engine of the world on the pretext of finding a new virus, when no new virus has been correctly found and isolated, is a crime that supersedes the sweat and effort of doing proper science.

As far as what is actually going on in labs where researchers are fiddling with genetic sequences of this and that and making vast proclamations; don’t talk to me about science. Talk to me about liability and prison.

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Sep28

by Jon Rappoport

September 28, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

On closer examination, these people believe what their television sets tell them. They believe Fauci because he’s on television, and he’s talking from the White House, and he disagrees with Trump. These elements are not exactly what Galileo had in mind when he challenged the Roman Church on the issue of the Earth revolving around the sun.