Tag Archives: antibody

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

by Jon Rappoport

June 29, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

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

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

Boom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCES:

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

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

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

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Does wearing a mask cause diagnostic tests to read false-positive for COVID?

by Jon Rappoport

July 23, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Suppose one of the most intense “safety practices”—wearing a mask—actually inflates the number of COVID diagnoses?

Needless to say, it would be a bombshell. Suppose PCR and antibody tests turn out false positive results because people are wearing masks every day?

How is that possible?

Actually, it’s quite simple. A person wearing a mask is breathing in his own germs all day long. He breathes them out, as he should, but then he breathes them back in.

It seems evident that this unnatural process would increase the number and variety of germs circulating and replicating in his body; even creating active infection.

Along with this, a decrease in oxygen intake, which occurs when a mask is worn, would allow certain germs to multiply in the body—germs which would otherwise be routinely wiped out or diminished in the presence of an oxygen-rich environment.

Here’s the key: Both the PCR and antibody tests are known for registering false-positive results, since they cross-react with germs which have nothing to do with the reason for the test.

If wearing a mask increases the number and variety of germs replicating in the body, and also increases the chance of developing an active infection…then the likelihood of a false-positive PCR or antibody test is increased.

In other words, masks would promote the number of so-called COVID cases. This would, of course, have alarming consequences.

People labeled “COVID” face all sorts of negative consequences. I don’t have to spell them out.

In past articles, I’ve shown that both PCR and antibody tests DO register false-positives because they react with irrelevant germs.

For example, let’s consider the PCR: From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans”:

“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”

Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.

From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit”:

“…non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”

Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.

Now let’s consider the antibody test—

Business Insider, April 3, 202: “Some tests have demonstrated false positives, detecting antibodies to much more common coronaviruses.”

Science News, March 27: “Science News spoke with…Charles Cairns, dean of the Drexel University College of Medicine, about how antibody tests work and what are some of the challenges of developing the tests.”

“Cairns: ‘The big question is: Does a positive response for the antibodies mean that person is actively infected, or that they have been infected in the past? The tests need to be accurate, and avoid both false positives and false negatives. That’s the challenge’.”

That’s just a sprinkling of sources on both the PCR and antibody tests—revealing that both of these tests DO spit out false-positive results. Many of those false-positives are the result of cross reactions with irrelevant germs.

And as I stated at the top of this article, if wearing masks increases the number and variety of germs circulating and replicating in the body, then it’s quite likely that masks will, in fact, contribute to false diagnoses of COVID.

Now, we come to a different angle on this story. Everyone is aware that governors and other politicians are ramping up orders to wear masks to new insane levels. If indeed this order will result in more diagnosed COVID cases…

How can we avoid looking at the financial incentives?

It turns out that the states are receiving federal money for EVERY COVID case.

The reference here is Becker’s CFO Hospital Report, April 14, 2020, “State-by-state breakdown of federal aid per COVID-19 case”:

“HHS recently began distributing the first $30 billion of emergency funding designated for hospitals in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act…”

“Below is a breakdown of how much funding per COVID-19 case each state will receive from the first $30 billion in aid. Kaiser Health News used a state breakdown provided to the House Ways and Means Committee by HHS along with COVID-19 cases tabulated by The New York Times for its analysis.”

“Alabama
$158,000 per COVID-19 case

Alaska
$306,000

Arizona
$23,000

Arkansas
$285,000

California
$145,000

Colorado
$58,000

Connecticut
$38,000

Delaware
$127,000…”

The article goes on to list every state and the money it will receive for EACH DIAGNOSED COVID CASE.

If mask wearing increases the likelihood of a COVID diagnosis, then: those states forcing new widespread mask dictates will be multiplying their federal $$$.

And if you really want to cover the bases, every method of fake case-counting will have the same ballooning $$$ effect for the states.

ALL the so-called containment measures—masks, quarantine, isolation, distancing, lockdowns, economic destruction—bring on fear, stress, loneliness…lowering immune-system function…leading to more infections…which means more germs replicating in the body…which means more false-positive COVID diagnostic tests…and more human destruction…and more $$$ for the states.

SOURCE:

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/state-by-state-breakdown-of-federal-aid-per-covid-19-case.html

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

COVID: David Crowe’s brilliant new paper takes apart antibody testing

by Jon Rappoport

May 15, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Assuming that a new virus called COVID-19 was actually discovered—we are being told that antibody tests are a vital tool for determining who is immune and who is not.

These tests are heralded as essential and necessary, despite some downplayed doubt among “experts” about how reliable they are.

Canadian author and long-time independent researcher, David Crowe, has written a new paper, “Antibody Testing for COVID-19.” (May 13, 2020).

(For David Crowe’s paper that challenges the discovery of the COVID-19 virus, click here.)

I can safely say it is the most detailed analysis of the tests anyone will ever read.

It approaches the subject from a number of angles, and includes a breakdown of the test-kit manufacturers and the comparative results of their efforts to bring a useful test to the public.

Here are several devastating excerpts from Crowe’s very deep dive:

“The only jurisdiction with a formal structure for approval of antibody tests is the United States but, until very recently, it was a complete joke, as the test manufacturers did not need to provide validation data. Now it is only a partial joke, as validation data must be provided, but the FDA can only do a paper analysis. Imagine if auto-manufacturers had to build cars to certain EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) fuel efficiency standards, but rather than sending a car to the EPA for testing, they could do the testing at their facilities, and just send the results in afterwards…”

“Antibody tests are often subject to cross-reactions with other conditions. This could be because the [other irrelevant] medical condition produces similar antibodies, or because something related to that [other] condition reacts with other test components. The choice of [cross-reacting] conditions to check for is completely under the control of the manufacturer and even when no cross reactions were found for a condition, the number of samples tested was so small that the possibility of a fairly high rate of false positive cross reactions still exists.”

“Positive antibody tests have only been found in a minority of people in the general population even where the virus is believed to have been circulating for months. These fractions are generally taken as truth, but one would expect a highly infectious virus to have spread much more widely…The one experiment that could show whether antibody tests are actually meaningful would be a time series of a large number of people who are currently negative on all tests. This experiment would be time consuming, inefficient (as many people would never become positive on any tests), intrusive (frequent nasal swabs and blood tests) and obviously very expensive. Those are practical considerations, but in the absence of such an experiment we are almost totally in the dark about COVID-19 antibody testing. Given the billions being spent on COVID and the trillions being lost by the economy, it surely is not impossible to do some worthwhile science.”

David Crowe’s paper demands widespread notice and very careful study. He has provided a great service.

Superficial reliance on antibody tests has no connection to real science. Yet, the so-called experts are using these tests to make momentous decisions about the present and future of humans on Earth.

The official experts have literally taken over governments in a grand coup. They must be rejected on every level.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Immunity certificates: a load of nonsense and a covert op

“Your papers, please. You have none? You must go back into the dark.”

by Jon Rappoport

April 15, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

—Once again, in this article, I step into the world of official gibberish about the epidemic and the virus and tests and so on. I point out the internal contradictions in the government position. And then I step back and look at what they’re really up to, in the way of a covert operation.

Let’s start with the official word on so-called immunity certificates.

POLITICIO, 4/10: “Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, revealed Friday the federal government is considering issuing Americans certificates of immunity from the coronavirus, as the Trump administration works to better identify those who have been infected and restart the U.S. economy in the coming weeks.”

“The proposal is contingent upon the widespread deployment of antibody tests which the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration are in the process of validating in the U.S., Fauci said.”

“Although coronavirus testing thus far has been able to determine if an individual has an active infection, antibody tests report whether an asymptomatic person was previously infected but has since recovered [and is immune], potentially allowing them to return to their jobs.”

Now let’s take that POLITICO article apart.

Immunity certificates would be issued to people who test POSITIVE on an antibody test. Meaning: antibodies in a person’s body are a sign that he has gained immunity from the coronavirus.

But wait. How about this?

Science News, March 27: “Science News spoke with…Charles Cairns, dean of the Drexel University College of Medicine, about how antibody tests work and what are some of the challenges of developing the tests.”

“Cairns: ‘The big question is: Does a positive response for the antibodies mean that person is actively infected, or that they have been infected in the past [and are now immune]…?’”

What??

In other words, when you penetrate an inch below the surface, you find there are even official/mainstream doubts, grave doubts about the meaning of a positive antibody test. It could mean IMMUNE or it could mean INFECTED.

This would be like saying, “The photo either proves there was a sixteen-car wreck on Highway 5 or it was smooth sailing and there was no accident at all.”

Actually, since 1984, a positive antibody test has generally been taken to mean the person is infected, has the disease in question.

So why the sudden turnaround now? Why are Fauci and other government officials claiming that a positive antibody test signals immunity?

Answer: Because, with the widespread use of this simple and quick antibody test (much quicker and easier to perform than the current PCR test), a reason is invented for issuing immunity certificates. And this is what the goal is. Introduce the population to immunity certificates. As a tune-up for the underlying operation, which is:

Immunity certificates for people who eventually receive vaccinations against COVID-19 (and, finally, all vaccines).

Just take the COVID-19 vaccine and you’ll be immune and you can carry with you a certificate, wherever you go—and you WILL be allowed to go here and there and live a normal life. With your paper or digital or tattoo immunity certificate.

Whether the certificate plan will be enacted this time around (COVID-19), or in the next fake pandemic, remains to be seen. But the IDEA is now firmly planted in the public mind. You can win a “gold star” on the blackboard from the teacher—your certificate to a better life. Just obey and follow orders. TAKE THE VACCINE.

Carrot and stick. Be free, or be limited.

If, indeed, we see a COVID-19 vaccine introduced, another variation on this operation would be: “Under Emergency regulations, everyone must take the shot.” But when you do, you’ll get your very valuable certificate of immunity. You’ll win a prize. Isn’t that wonderful?

No. It isn’t.

It’s Corona Bologna.

It’s all about CONTROL.

And in this article, I haven’t discussed questions about what would actually be IN the COVID-19 vaccine. I took up that subject in a recent piece about DNA vaccines. The new DNA technology, if introduced, would PERMANENTLY alter the genetic makeup of the vaccine-recipient.

And meanwhile…don’t you just love the idea of the government first locking you up, and then “freeing” you with an official seal of approval?

“The gate is open for you, sir. You have your papers. But you, sir, you must go back. No papers.”

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

COVID: here come the antibody tests—quick, easy, and insane

by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

There are two worlds. In the first, independent researchers with no conflicts of interest, and, hopefully, a sense of logic, sort out what is actually going on behind propaganda parading as medical research.

In the second world, it’s all official propaganda, wall to wall, posing as science.

This article looks at the second world. It doesn’t mention what I’ve established in prior articles: the unproven discovery of a new virus (COVID); the notoriously useless PCR diagnostic test for the virus, rendering case numbers meaningless; the con-job proposition that COVID is a real disease with one cause, rather than a grouping of people with diverse conditions clustered under one fake umbrella term (COVID).

In the second world, we have the announcement that a new antibody test has been developed to detect COVID-19 virus in people. Millions of test kits have been ordered. Some versions of the test can be self-administered quickly at home.

So let’s go to the mainstream media and see what they, and their medical sources, have to say about the new antibody test. Buckle up.

Chicago Tribune, April 3: “A new, different type of coronavirus test is coming that will help significantly in the fight to quell the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors and scientists say.”

“The first so-called serology test, which detects antibodies to the virus rather than the virus itself, was given emergency approval Thursday by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”

“The serology test involves taking a blood sample and determining if it contains the antibodies that fight the virus. A positive result indicates the person had the virus in the past and is currently immune.”

“Dr. Elizabeth McNally, director of the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Center for Genetic Medicine…’You’ll see many of these roll out in the next couple of weeks, and it’s great, and it will really help a lot,’ said McNally, noting doctors and scientists will be able to use it to determine just how widespread the disease is, who can safely return to work and possibly how to develop new treatments for those who are ill.”

Got that? A positive test means the patient is now immune to the virus and can walk outside and go back to work.

NBC News, April 4, has a somewhat different take: “David Kroll, a professor of pharmacology at the University of Colorado who has worked on antibody testing, explained that the antibodies [a positive test] mean ‘your immune system [has] remembered the virus to the point that it makes these antibodies that could inactivate any future viral infections’.”

“What the test can’t do is tell you whether you’re currently sick with coronavirus, whether you’re contagious, whether you’re fully immune — and whether you’re safe to go back out in public.”

“Because the test can’t be used as a diagnostic test, it would need to be combined with other information to determine if a person is sick with COVID-19.”

Oops. No, this really isn’t a diagnostic test, it doesn’t tell whether the patient is immune and can go back to work. Excuse me, what??

Business Insider, April 3: “The world’s leading industrial nations have so far failed to identify any coronavirus antibody tests that will be accurate enough for home use, according to the UK’s Health Secretary Matt Hancock.”

“The UK and other nations are currently examining plans to use antibody tests to allow individuals with immunity to COVID-19 to exit their national lockdowns early through the use of a so-called ‘immunity passport’.”

“Spain was recently forced to return tens of thousands of rapid coronavirus tests from a Chinese company after they were found to be accurate just 30% of the time.”

“Some tests have demonstrated false positives, detecting antibodies to much more common coronaviruses.”

“Scientists also remain unsure about the extent to which a past infection could prevent reinfection and how long an immunity would remain.”

Hmm. So the new antibody test has very serious problems, and it hasn’t been cleared for public use.

Medicine Net (undated): “Researchers at the Mount Sinai Health System say they’ve developed a test that can find out if you already have had or were infected with the new coronavirus.”

“The test is called “serological enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay,” or ELISA for short. It checks whether or not you have antibodies in your blood to SARS-CoV-2, the scientific name of the new coronavirus that causes COVID-19.”

“Researchers say ELISA works like antibody tests for other viruses, such as hepatitis B. It will show whether your immune system — the body’s defense against germs — made contact with SARS-CoV-2, even months before.”

“The test could help scientists fight the pandemic in several ways. It can give researchers a more accurate measure of how many people had the new coronavirus. It would also let health care workers who were ill with COVID-19 symptoms, but were never tested for the disease, return to work — confident that they are now immune.”

So wait, it’s a great test. Right? A positive test result indicates immunity, and people can return to work. What??

Science News, March 27: “The United Kingdom has ordered 3.5 million antibody tests, which would show whether someone has been exposed to COVID-19. Such tests, which just take a drop of blood, could help reveal people who have been exposed to the virus and are now likely immune, meaning they could go back to work and resume their normal lives.”

“Science News spoke with David Weiner, director of the Vaccine and Immunotherapy Center at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, and Charles Cairns, dean of the Drexel University College of Medicine, about how antibody tests work and what are some of the challenges of developing the tests.”

“Cairns: ‘The big question is: Does a positive response for the antibodies mean that person is actively infected, or that they have been infected in the past? The tests need to be accurate, and avoid both false positives and false negatives. That’s the challenge’.”

Oops again. Cairns is saying the new test, if it reads positive, might mean the person is infected now. Or it might mean they were infected—and are now presumably immune. Figuring out which is the challenge. No kidding. It’s the difference between sick and healthy. So a positive test result means the patient is sick OR healthy.

As a reference, let’s look at how this same antibody test has been used in the past. For example, in the case of hepatitis A:

URMC Rochester (undated): This test looks for antibodies in your blood called IgM. The test can find out whether you are infected with the hepatitis A virus (HAV)…If your test is positive or reactive, it may mean: You have an active HAV infection…You have had an HAV infection within the last 6 months.”

In other words, a positive antibody test could mean you’re sick now, or were once sick but are presumably immune now. Wonderful.

Medscape comments on the meaning of a positive antibody test for the Zika virus: “…immunoglobulin (Ig) M and neutralizing antibody testing can identify additional recent Zika virus infections…However, Zika virus antibody test results can be difficult to interpret because of cross-reactivity with other flaviviruses…”

Two things here: no word about a positive test result revealing IMMUNITY from Zika; and a warning that a positive test might not have anything to do with Zika at all—that’s what “cross-reactivity” means.

Medlineplus, referring to a Zika “blood test,” which would include antibody testing, states, “A positive Zika test result probably means you have a Zika infection.” Not immunity.

And there you have it. The official word on the COVID antibody test from official sources. It’s yes, no, and maybe. Public health officials can SAY whatever they want to about antibody tests: a positive result means you’re immune, it means you have an infection, it means you’re walking on the moon eating a hot dog.

Generally speaking, before 1984 a positive antibody test was taken to mean the patient had achieved immunity from a germ. After 1984, the science was turned upside down; a positive result meant the patient “had the germ” and was not immune. Now, with COVID-19, if you just read news headlines, a positive test means the patient is immune; but if you read down a few paragraphs, a positive test means the patient is maybe…maybe not…immune. Maybe infected, maybe not infected. Maybe sick, maybe not sick. And, on top of all that, antibody tests are known to read falsely positive, owing to factors that have nothing to do with the virus being tested for.

That concludes today’s foray into the world of lunatic contradictory propaganda masquerading as science.

You are now returned to the real world, where: the discovery of a new virus (COVID) is unproven; the notoriously useless PCR diagnostic test for the virus renders case numbers meaningless; and the proposition that COVID is a real disease with one cause is a con job.

SOURCES:

* https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-coronavirus-antibody-test-20200403-i6wzmddt5zffpeqgk4xbwmkbmy-story.html

* https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/home-fingerprick-blood-test-may-help-detect-your-exposure-coronavirus-n1176086

*https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-antibody-test-g7-leaders-accuracy-covid-19-immunity-passports-2020-4

* https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=229579

* https://www.massdevice.com/fda-clears-bodysphere-2-minute-covid-19-test/

* https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/swineflu/WHO_Diagnostic_RecommendationsH1N1_20090521.pdf

* https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-19-coronavirus-pandemic-how-antibody-blood-tests-work

* https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/swine-flu/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20378106

* https://www.verywellhealth.com/h1n1-swine-flu-diagnosis-4163091

* https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/flu-guide/h1n1-flu-virus-swine-flu#2-4

* https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?contenttypeid=167&contentid=hepatitis_a_antibody

* https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/864228

* https://medlineplus.gov/lab-tests/zika-virus-test/

* http://www.immunity.org.uk/articles/christine-johnson/

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

CDC begins testing Americans for the Coronavirus—but how?

by Jon Rappoport

February 17, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

As my readers know, I’ve been presenting evidence AGAINST the idea that the China “epidemic” is caused by a new coronavirus. (archive here)

Of course, the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control are relentlessly pushing the idea that: this is a spreading epidemic, and it is caused by COV-19, a new human coronavirus.

Now, the US Centers for Disease Control is rolling out a program to test Americans (e.g., travelers who have been to China). As time passes, the program will likely pull larger numbers of Americans into that net.

The CDC program immediately raises two problems: why bother testing for a virus if it isn’t really causing human disease; and what kind of test is being done?

In this article, I’m focusing on the type of test, and whether it’s accurate, even if you assume the coronavirus is causing disease.

Reading through CDC literature (see also here), I believe the two most prevalent US testing methods are: antibody, and PCR.

Antibody tests are notorious for cross-reactions. This means factors in no way relevant to a given virus can make the test read positive. In that case, the patient would be falsely told he “has the coronavirus.” But it gets worse. Traditionally, antibody tests reading positive were taken as a good sign for the patient: his immune system had contacted a germ and defeated it. Then, starting in 1984, the science was turned upside down: a positive test was, astoundingly, taken to mean the patient was ill or would soon become ill.

The PCR test (which requires excellent technicians who will not make any number of possible mistakes) takes a tissue sample from a patient which might contain a tiny virus particle(s) much too small to be observed—and blows it up many times, so it can be seen. However, the test says nothing reliable about HOW MUCH virus is in the patient’s body. Why is that important? Because millions and millions of replicating virus in the body are necessary to even begin talking about actual illness. A positive PCR test, nevertheless, will be taken to mean the patient “has the epidemic disease.” —An even deeper issue: where is the PRIOR PROOF that the PCR is testing for a virus that actually causes disease?

The prospect of these two tests being done on Americans is not comforting, to say the least. People will be roped into believing they are “epidemic cases,” and therefore need to be isolated, and treated with highly toxic antiviral drugs.

In the event they become ill, from the drugs, they’ll be told “the coronavirus is doing the damage.” In some cases, this will result in even further dosing with the same drugs, at higher levels—a disaster.

A very small percentage of doctors are aware of the profound shortcomings of these two diagnostic tests. Most of them will shrug off their doubts and perform the tests anyway, because refusal would endanger their careers and medical licenses.

This is the sordid drama now unfolding in the American landscape.

It’s not just America. The same tests are being done all over the world.

Exit From the Matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Explosive: a review of fake medical tests

Explosive: a review of fake medical tests

by Jon Rappoport

January 30, 2018

Over the years, during my investigations of deep fraud, I’ve uncovered very popular medical diagnostic tests that are wrong-headed, misleading, and fallacious.

Acceptance of this shocking truth would disrupt the “disease business” like a threshing machine moving through a wheat field.

Claims of diseases, based on tests, would be routinely turned back stamped UNPROVEN and FAKE.

ONE: Antibody test. This is given to detect the presence of a specific germ in a human. Prior to 1985, a positive test was generally taken as a sign of good health: the patient’s immune system detected the germ and defeated it.

However, after 1985, public health agencies and doctors reversed field. They arbitrarily claimed a positive test showed the person was ill or was going to become ill. No true science backed up this claim.

BOTTOM LINE: The truth is, a positive antibody test says nothing about whether a person is ill, will get ill, or is healthy. The true indicator is the strength of the entire immune system, not just the antibodies—and the overall strength of the immune system is NOT measured by an antibody test. THERE IS NO MEDICAL TEST THAT MEASURES THE OVERALL CONDITION OF A PERSON’S IMMUNE SYSTEM.

TWO: The PCR test. The Polymerase Chain Reaction tests for the presence of virus in a patient. The test takes a tiny sample, which technicians assume is a genetic piece of a virus far too small to observe, and amplifies it many times, so it can be identified. But in order to cause disease in a human, a huge quantity of virus (easily observed without the PCR) needs to be present. Therefore, a PCR test-result indicates nothing about disease—except that medical personnel couldn’t find enough virus in a person, to begin with, to assume the person was ill or would become ill.

THREE: All tests resulting in a diagnosis of any of the 300 officially certified mental disorders. Why? Because there are no definitive tests. No blood or saliva or urine tests. No genetic assays. No brain scans. All so-called mental disorders are diagnosed on the basis of consulting menus of behaviors. This is pseudoscience. It’s on the level of diagnosing cancer in a patient on the basis of an interview.

FOUR: All tests designed to assess the effectiveness of vaccines. The only marker is: does the vaccine produce antibodies in a human. But as I stated above, antibodies are only one aspect of the immune system. They aren’t the whole picture. A weak immune system’s antibodies are useless.

FIVE: Unsupported claims from public health officials. No tests at all, or hidden test results. For example, at the height of the so-called Swine Flu epidemic, in the fall of 2009, the CDC secretly stopped counting cases in America. Why? Because the overwhelming percentage of samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, sent to labs, were coming back with no trace of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu. In other words, the epidemic was a dud and a hoax. Based on this vacuum of evidence, the CDC went on to estimate that, in America, there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu.

This gigantic scandal doesn’t just apply to Swine Flu. It applies to any kind of flu.

Dr. Peter Doshi, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals a monstrosity.

As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies. So they don’t have the flu.

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.”

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.

The basic flu symptoms—cough, fever, chills, sore throat, muscle aches, weakness—can be caused by a variety of factors that have nothing to do with a flu virus.

—But don’t worry, be happy. Keep your mouth shut and obey all doctors’ orders.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Placebo, antibody, and the destiny of failure

by Jon Rappoport

November 24, 2010

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

As I mentioned, there is a fallacy buried in diagnostic tests that employ antibodies as the standard of measure. 

The presence of antibodies specific to a particular germ doesn’t automatically signify illness, and yet that is the interpretation being made these days.

This would be an interesting challenge:

A lab is given blood samples from a number of patients.  Each sample, it is found, indicates antibodies to germ X.  The lab must state whether these people are displaying symptoms of illness X.

By the rules, the answer would be yes in every case. Yet, the answer would be wrong in a majority of cases—perhaps in all cases.

Why?  Because naturally produced antibodies normally mean the person’s immune system has warded off the germ.

At this point, the lab might say, “Well, yes, but chances are these people will get sick.  It just hasn’t happened yet.  Or they have the disease without symptoms.”

These are not scientific statements.  One would have to follow the test cases for a while to see whether they get sick.  I would bet against it. In any event, a diagnosis of illness based on a positive antibody test is not about the future.  It’s about the present.  Public health agencies routinely count case numbers on the basis of antibody tests.  And the idea of a disease without symptoms is just a feint.  It’s a contradiction in terms.          

On to placebo.  In any serious controlled trial of a medical drug, there are two groups.  One group gets the drug; the other gets a sugar pill.  The reason for this practice has been obscured in modern times.  Actually, it is done because a certain percentage of people (around 20%) will get better no matter what you give them.  Therefore, the drug has to perform significantly better than the placebo.

However, we need to return to the medical origin of the placebo.  This is it: a country doctor, faced with a patient who was a hypochondriac, would hand him a sugar pill.  The patient would take it and then feel better.

But…you see, the patient believed he was getting effective medicine.  That’s what caused him to recover.

In a controlled trial, this is not the case.  The patient knows, beforehand, that he will get EITHER the medicine or a placebo.  This setting doesn’t provoke the same belief.  It’s different.  It’s weaker.

Therefore, one can expect that the “cure rate” in the placebo group will be lower than the normal 20%.  And, as a result, the actual drug will only need to meet a lower standard of success, relative to the results obtained by the placebo.

Bottom line?  A medical drug can test out with fewer positive outcomes to be deemed effective.  Unless someone decides that the placebo group performed in an unexpected manner—but who cares about that when the goal is to establish that the drug is a winner?

Jon Rappoport

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