Tag Archives: testing

The Big-time Vaccine Scam: Antibodies

by Jon Rappoport

June 13, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

(This article is Part-4 in a series. For Part-3, click here.)

This is another article in which I assume, for the purposes of argument only, that virologists are actually discovering viruses, and vaccines are launched to prevent viral diseases.

Why do I bother? Because most people belong to the virus religion. They have faith. They pray at the altar of the virus.

OK. What is the role of antibodies in vaccines?

We’re told that the vaccine produces a beneficial antibody response. These antibody scouts of the immune system rush to the scene and identify the injected viruses or parts of viruses—thereby alerting the foot soldiers of the immune system, which march forward and destroy/neutralize the viral components.

Thus, vaccination is a rehearsal for the real thing. It prepares the body for the later moment when the virus naturally shows up. The body is ready to defeat the actual disease.

In my previous article on that subject, I showed the rehearsal is a farce. It doesn’t prepare the immune system for anything.

The so-called adjuvants in the vaccine, which are supposed to enhance and magnify the immune response, simply stimulate a reaction against themselves, the adjuvants.

Now, I’m going further.

Below, I’m going to republish an excerpt from a devastating Christine Johnson article which shows the failure of the HIV antibody test.

Johnson’s article proves that antibodies, which are supposed to be specific to HIV and only HIV, meaning they only swing into action when HIV appears, are responding to all sorts of substances in the body, none of which has anything to do with HIV.

This means the antibodies aren’t “specific.” They aren’t just marching to one tune. They’re marching to many different tunes.

In the case of vaccination, antibodies can appear because: there are intrusive non-viral substances in the vaccine; or there are intrusive non-viral substances already in the body.

Defenders of vaccination might respond, “Suppose antibodies are responding to six different factors in the vaccine. One of those factors would be the virus in the vaccine. So that’s good.”

BUT if antibodies are really general and not specific, how do we know they actually react to a virus in a vaccine and not something else in the vaccine or the body?

We don’t know.

We’re looking at false science, science without a punch line.

Here is an excerpt from the 1996 Christine Johnson article on the HIV blood test — with the corresponding reference number(s) to the scientific literature:

Factors Known to Cause False-Positive HIV Antibody Test Results:

* Anti-carbohydrate antibodies (52, 19, 13)

* Naturally-occurring antibodies (5, 19)

* Passive immunization: receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies)(18, 26, 60, 4, 22, 42, 43, 13)

* Leprosy (2, 25)

* Tuberculosis (25)

* Mycobacterium avium (25)

* Systemic lupus erythematosus (15, 23)

* Renal (kidney) failure (48, 23, 13)

* Hemodialysis/renal failure (56, 16, 41, 10, 49)

* Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients (54)

* Flu (36)

* Flu vaccination (30, 11, 3, 20, 13, 43)

* Herpes simplex I (27)

* Herpes simplex II (11)

* Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu)(11)

* Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines (11)

* Pregnancy in multiparous women (58, 53, 13, 43, 36)

* Malaria (6, 12)

* High levels of circulating immune complexes (6, 33)

* Hypergammaglobulinemia (high levels of antibodies) (40, 33)

* False positives on other tests, including RPR (rapid plasma reagent) test for syphilis (17, 48, 33, 10, 49)

* Rheumatoid arthritis (36)

* Hepatitis B vaccination (28, 21, 40, 43)

* Tetanus vaccination (40)

* Organ transplantation (1, 36)

* Renal transplantation (35, 9, 48, 13, 56)

* Anti-lymphocyte antibodies (56, 31)

* Anti-collagen antibodies (found in gay men, haemophiliacs, Africans of both sexes and people with leprosy)(31)

* Serum-positive for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody (both found in rheumatoid arthritis and other autoantibodies)(14, 62, 53)

* Autoimmune diseases (44, 29, 10, 40, 49, 43): Systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis

* Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections (59, 48, 43, 53, 40, 13)

* Malignant neoplasms (cancers)(40)

* Alcoholic hepatitis/alcoholic liver disease (32, 48, 40,10,13, 49, 43, 53)

* Primary sclerosing cholangitis (48, 53)

* Hepatitis (54)

* “Sticky” blood (in Africans) (38, 34, 40)

* Antibodies with a high affinity for polystyrene (used in the test kits)(62, 40, 3)

* Blood transfusions, multiple blood transfusions (63, 36,13, 49, 43, 41)

* Multiple myeloma (10, 43, 53)

* HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens)(7, 46, 63, 48, 10, 13, 49, 43, 53)

* Anti-smooth muscle antibody (48)

* Anti-parietal cell antibody (48)

* Anti-hepatitis A IgM (antibody)(48)

* Anti-Hbc IgM (48)

* Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before 1985 (10)

* Haemophilia (10, 49)

* Haematologic malignant disorders/lymphoma (43, 53, 9, 48, 13)

* Primary biliary cirrhosis (43, 53, 13, 48)

* Stevens-Johnson syndrome9, (48, 13)

* Q-fever with associated hepatitis (61)

* Heat-treated specimens (51, 57, 24, 49, 48)

* Lipemic serum (blood with high levels of fat or lipids)(49)

* Haemolyzed serum (blood where haemoglobin is separated from the red cells)(49)

* Hyperbilirubinemia (10, 13)

* Globulins produced during polyclonal gammopathies (which are seen in AIDS risk groups)(10, 13, 48)

* Healthy individuals as a result of poorly-understood cross-reactions (10)

* Normal human ribonucleoproteins (48,13)

* Other retroviruses (8, 55, 14, 48, 13)

* Anti-mitochondrial antibodies (48, 13)

* Anti-nuclear antibodies (48, 13, 53)

* Anti-microsomal antibodies (34)

* T-cell leukocyte antigen antibodies (48, 13)

* Proteins on the filter paper (13)

* Epstein-Barr virus (37)

* Visceral leishmaniasis (45)

* Receptive anal sex (39, 64)

References:

1. Agbalika F, Ferchal F, Garnier J-P, et al. 1992. False-positive antigens related to emergence of a 25-30 kD protein detected in organ recipients. AIDS. 6:959-962.

2. Andrade V, Avelleira JC, Marques A, et al. 1991. Leprosy as a cause of false-positive results in serological assays for the detection of antibodies to HIV-1. Intl. J. Leprosy. 59:125.

3. Arnold NL, Slade RA, Jones MM, et al. 1994. Donor follow up of influenza vaccine-related multiple viral enzyme immunoassay reactivity. Vox Sanguinis. 67:191.

4. Ascher D, Roberts C. 1993. Determination of the etiology of seroreversals in HIV testing by antibody fingerprinting. AIDS. 6:241.

5. Barbacid M, Bolgnesi D, Aaronson S. 1980. Humans have antibodies capable of recognizing oncoviral glycoproteins: Demonstration that these antibodies are formed in response to cellular modification of glycoproteins rather than as consequence of exposure to virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1617-1621.

6. Biggar R, Melbye M, Sarin P, et al. 1985. ELISA HTLV retrovirus antibody reactivity associated with malaria and immune complexes in healthy Africans. Lancet. ii:520-543.

7. Blanton M, Balakrishnan K, Dumaswala U, et al. 1987. HLA antibodies in blood donors with reactive screening tests for antibody to the immunodeficiency virus. Transfusion. 27(1):118.

8. Blomberg J, Vincic E, Jonsson C, et al. 1990. Identification of regions of HIV-1 p24 reactive with sera which give “indeterminate” results in electrophoretic immunoblots with the help of long synthetic peptides. AIDS Res. Hum. Retro. 6:1363.

9. Burkhardt U, Mertens T, Eggers H. 1987. Comparison of two commercially available anti-HIV ELISA’s: Abbott HTLV-III ELA and DuPont HTLV-III ELISA. J. Med. Vir. 23:217.

10. Bylund D, Ziegner U, Hooper D. 1992 Review of testing for human immunodeficiency virus. Clin. Lab. Med. 12:305-333.

11. Challakere K, Rapaport M. 1993. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 ELISA results in low-risk subjects. West. J. Med. 159(2):214-215.

12. Charmot G, Simon F. 1990. HIV infection and malaria. Revue du practicien. 40:2141.

13. Cordes R, Ryan M. 1995. Pitfalls in HIV testing. Postgraduate Medicine. 98:177.

14. Dock N, Lamberson H, O’Brien T, et al. 1988. Evaluation of atypical human immunodeficiency virus immunoblot reactivity in blood donors. Transfusion. 28:142.

15. Esteva M, Blasini A, Ogly D, et al. 1992. False positive results for antibody to HIV in two men with systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 51:1071-1073.

16. Fassbinder W, Kuhni P, Neumayer H. et al. 1986. Prevalence of antibodies against LAV/HTLV-III [HIV] in patients with terminal renal insufficiency treated with hemodialysis and following renal transplantation. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift. 111:1087.

17. Fleming D, Cochi S, Steece R. et al. 1987. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in low-incidence areas. JAMA. 258(6):785.

18. Gill MJ, Rachlis A, Anand C. 1991. Five cases of erroneously diagnosed HIV infection. Can. Med. Asso. J. 145(12):1593.

19. Healey D, Bolton W. 1993. Apparent HIV-1 glycoprotein reactivity on Western blot in uninfected blood donors. AIDS. 7:655-658.

20. Hisa J. 1993. False-positive ELISA for human immunodeficiency virus after influenza vaccination. JID. 167:989.

21. Isaacman S. 1989. Positive HIV antibody test results after treatment with hepatitis B immune globulin. JAMA. 262:209.

22. Jackson G, Rubenis M, Knigge M, et al. 1988. Passive immunoneutralisation of human immunodeficiency virus in patients with advanced AIDS. Lancet, Sept. 17:647.

23. Jindal R, Solomon M, Burrows L. 1993. False positive tests for HIV in a woman with lupus and renal failure. NEJM. 328:1281-1282.

24. Jungkind D, DiRenzo S, Young S. 1986. Effect of using heat-inactivated serum with the Abbott human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III [HIV] antibody test. J. Clin. Micro. 23:381.

25. Kashala O, Marlink R, Ilunga M. et al. 1994. Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and human T-cell lymphotropic viruses among leprosy patients and contacts: correlation between HIV-1 cross-reactivity and antibodies to lipoarabionomanna. J. Infect. Dis. 169:296-304.

26. Lai-Goldman M, McBride J, Howanitz P, et al. 1987. Presence of HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in immune serum globulin preparations. Am. J. Clin. Path. 87:635.

27. Langedijk J, Vos W, Doornum G, et al. 1992. Identification of cross-reactive epitopes recognized by HIV-1 false-positive sera. AIDS. 6:1547-1548.

28. Lee D, Eby W, Molinaro G. 1992. HIV false positivity after hepatitis B vaccination. Lancet. 339:1060.

29. Leo-Amador G, Ramirez-Rodriguez J, Galvan-Villegas F, et al. 1990. Antibodies against human immunodeficiency virus in generalized lupus erythematosus. Salud Publica de Mexico. 32:15.

30. Mackenzie W, Davis J, Peterson D. et al. 1992. Multiple false-positive serologic tests for HIV, HTLV-1 and hepatitis C following influenza vaccination, 1991. JAMA. 268:1015-1017.

31. Mathe G. 1992. Is the AIDS virus responsible for the disease? Biomed & Pharmacother. 46:1-2.

32. Mendenhall C, Roselle G, Grossman C, et al. 1986. False-positive tests for HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in alcoholic patients with hepatitis. NEJM. 314:921.

33. Moore J, Cone E, Alexander S. 1986. HTLV-III [HIV] seropositivity in 1971-1972 parenteral drug abusers – a case of false-positives or evidence of viral exposure? NEJM. 314:1387-1388.

34. Mortimer P, Mortimer J, Parry J. 1985. Which anti-HTLV-III/LAV [HIV] assays for screening and comfirmatory testing? Lancet. Oct. 19, p873.

35. Neale T, Dagger J, Fong R, et al. 1985. False-positive anti-HTLV-III [HIV] serology. New Zealand Med. J. October 23.

36. Ng V. 1991. Serological diagnosis with recombinant peptides/proteins. Clin. Chem. 37:1667-1668.

37. Ozanne G, Fauvel M. 1988. Perfomance and reliability of five commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits in screening for anti-human immunodeficiency virus antibody in high-risk subjects. J. Clin. Micro. 26:1496.

38. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. 1988. Reappraisal of AIDS – Is the oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause? Med. Hypo. 25:151.

39. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner V, and Papadimitriou J. 1993. Is a positive Western blot proof of HIV infection? Bio/Technology. June 11:696-707.

40. Pearlman ES, Ballas SK. 1994. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus screening test related to rabies vaccination. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 118-805.

41. Peternan T, Lang G, Mikos N, et al. Hemodialysis/renal failure. 1986. JAMA. 255:2324.

42. Piszkewicz D. 1987. HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies after immune globulin. JAMA. 257:316.

43. Profitt MR, Yen-Lieberman B. 1993. Laboratory diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Inf. Dis. Clin. North Am. 7:203.

44. Ranki A, Kurki P, Reipponen S, et al. 1992. Antibodies to retroviral proteins in autoimmune connective tissue disease. Arthritis and Rheumatism. 35:1483.

45. Ribeiro T, Brites C, Moreira E, et al. 1993. Serologic validation of HIV infection in a tropical area. JAIDS. 6:319.

46. Sayers M, Beatty P, Hansen J. 1986. HLA antibodies as a cause of false-positive reactions in screening enzyme immunoassays for antibodies to human T-lymphotropic virus type III [HIV]. Transfusion. 26(1):114.

47. Sayre KR, Dodd RY, Tegtmeier G, et al. 1996. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Western blot tests in non-infected blood donors. Transfusion. 36:45.

48. Schleupner CJ. Detection of HIV-1 infection. In: (Mandell GI, Douglas RG, Bennett JE, eds.) Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:1092.

49. Schochetman G, George J. 1992. Serologic tests for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus infection. In AIDS Testing Methodology and Management Issues, Springer-Verlag, New York.

50. Simonsen L, Buffington J, Shapiro C, et al. 1995. Multiple false reactions in viral antibody screening assays after influenza vaccination. Am. J. Epidem. 141-1089.

51. Smith D, Dewhurst S, Shepherd S, et al. 1987. False-positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactions for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus in a population of midwestern patients with congenital bleeding disorders. Transfusion. 127:112.

52. Snyder H, Fleissner E. 1980. Specificity of human antibodies to oncovirus glycoproteins; Recognition of antigen by natural antibodies directed against carbohydrate structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1622-1626.

53. Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. 1988. Serologic testing for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin. Proc. 63:373.

54. Sungar C, Akpolat T, Ozkuyumcu C, et al. Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients. Nephron. 67:251.

55. Tribe D, Reed D, Lindell P, et al. 1988. Antibodies reactive with human immunodeficiency virus gag-coated antigens (gag reactive only) are a major cause of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactivity in a bood donor population. J. Clin. Micro. April:641.

56. Ujhelyi E, Fust G, Illei G, et al. 1989. Different types of false positive anti-HIV reactions in patients on hemodialysis. Immun. Let. 22:35-40.

57. Van Beers D, Duys M, Maes M, et al. Heat inactivation of serum may interfere with tests for antibodies to LAV/HTLV-III [HIV]. J. Vir. Meth. 12:329.

58. Voevodin A. 1992. HIV screening in Russia. Lancet. 339:1548.

59. Weber B, Moshtaghi-Borojeni M, Brunner M, et al. 1995. Evaluation of the reliability of six current anti-HIV-1/HIV-2 enzyme immunoassays. J. Vir. Meth. 55:97.

60. Wood C, Williams A, McNamara J, et al. 1986. Antibody against the human immunodeficiency virus in commercial intravenous gammaglobulin preparations. Ann. Int. Med. 105:536.

61. Yale S, Degroen P, Tooson J, et al. 1994. Unusual aspects of acute Q fever-associated hepatitis. Mayo Clin. Proc. 69:769.

62. Yoshida T, Matsui T, Kobayashi M, et al. 1987. Evaluation of passive particle agglutination test for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus. J. Clin. Micro. Aug:1433.

63. Yu S, Fong C, Landry M, et al. 1989. A false positive HIV antibody reaction due to transfusion-induced HLA-DR4 sensitization. NEJM.320:1495.

64. National Institue of Justice, AIDS Bulletin. Oct. 1988.

The Matrix Revealed

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

To read Jon’s articles on Substack, 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/FDA smoking gun of smoking guns

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

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

by Jon Rappoport

March 9, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

Quiz: If an agency of the federal government revealed they had no basis for constructing a diagnostic test that was used on millions of people; but the test was the cornerstone of a national lockdown; and the lockdown drove the economy off a cliff; and destroyed millions of lives; however, NOW, that agency says, they DO have a basis for the test; would you buy what they’re selling?

If your answer is yes, you’re in good company; the company I call Blind, Ignorant, Denialist, Hoaxing Journalists.

The CDC issued a document that bulges with devastating admissions.

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

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

Many people believe this means the CDC is giving up on the PCR test as a means of “detecting the virus.” The CDC isn’t saying that at all.

They’re saying the PCR technology will continue to be used, but they’re replacing what the test is looking FOR with a better “reference sample.” A better marker. A better target. A better piece of RNA supposedly derived from SARS-CoV-2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BUT, don’t worry, be happy, because NOW, the CDC and the FDA say, they really do have actual virus samples of SARS-CoV-2 from patients; they have better targets for the PCR test, and labs should start gearing up for the new and improved tests.

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

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

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

They have a soup they make in their labs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Vaccinated people who then test positive for COVID; the wave is building

by Jon Rappoport

January 11, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

An alert reader pointed me to a key statement in a document published by OraSure Technologies, a manufacturer of a rapid COVID test. The document is posted on an FDA web page.

It is titled, “IntellSwab COVID-19 Rapid Test—Healthcare Provider Instructions for Use.”

The key quote occurs in a section headlined, Limitations of the Test:

“Potential cross reactivity of the InteliSwab™ COVID-19 Rapid Test with COVID-19 vaccines or therapeutics has not been evaluated.”

In the medical community, the term “cross reactivity” is universally understood. It means: a test designed to detect whether X is present in a person’s body is, in fact, detecting Y, an entirely irrelevant item, BUT is mistakenly calling it X.

For example, a person had three drinks the night before his test, and the test then came up positive for the presence of a germ, when actually the test was reacting to the alcohol in the drinks.

And in this document I just quoted, the manufacturer readily admits it hasn’t looked into the possibility that the COVID test is reacting to the COVID VACCINE and then mistakenly stating the vaccinated person has THE VIRUS in his body.

So the question is: why hasn’t the manufacturer looked into this cross reactivity issue? The document shows tests for all sorts of other possible cross reactivity.

And the next question is: how can the FDA grant emergency use authorization for this rapid test, when cross reactivity with the vaccine hasn’t been explored?

The manufacturer clearly understands that cross reactivity with the vaccine is a possibility; otherwise they wouldn’t have mentioned it.

Consider this scenario: a person takes the COVID vaccine. He can now go back to work at his office. But his boss wants all employees to keep getting tested. Three weeks later, the vaccinated person takes the test—and because the test DOES cross react with the vaccine, he’s told he’s positive. He has to go home. If he has a cough or a sniffle, he might end up at the doctor, who might direct him to the hospital. At that point, all bets are off. Who knows what highly dangerous and life-threatening treatments (e.g., a breathing ventilator) the hospital might impose—especially since the hospital is receiving federal money for both the diagnosis and treatment of every COVID patient.

In this article, I’m not trying to explain why the test could cross react with the vaccine. All sorts of educated speculations are possible. I’m simply pointing out the existence of rapid COVID tests that have never been examined, thoroughly, for cross-reactivity with the vaccine.

And this is an entirely separate issue from the huge number of deaths and severe injuries directly caused by the vaccine.

Except…it isn’t a separate issue, because, if very large numbers of vaccinated people are then testing positive for COVID, and the positive tests are occurring because of cross-reactivity, this is contributing to the lunatic medical assertion that people must take TOXIC boosters, to ward off the possibility of “catching COVID” after just one or two vaccine injections.

Bottom line: It’s inexcusable and criminal for a public health agency to approve a test that hasn’t been vetted for cross reactivity with a vaccine, when the vaccine has been taken by millions of people.

I’ll give you one educated speculation about cross reactivity. The COVID test is looking for a piece of RNA ASSUMED to be part of “the virus.” The vaccine contains some part of that RNA-piece. Therefore, when the test is run—depending on the sensitivity of the test—many previously vaccinated people are going to be “positive” for “the virus.”

It’s all fun and games—if you consider destruction of lives fun and games.

People who have taken the vaccine, and then are told to get tested, could say, “I want you to guarantee that the test has been thoroughly vetted for cross reactivity with the vaccine. Prove it.”

I’m not saying this argument would fly, legally speaking, because appearing in courts before judges is a roll of the dice; but the employer who ordered the test might back off.

This, however, is definitely NOT a recommendation that anyone should take the vaccine in the first place.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside 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.

COVID: If there is no virus, why are people dying?

by Jon Rappoport

January 6, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

Yesterday, I published one of my articles explaining how the existence of SARS-CoV-2 was fabricated—when, actually, the virus doesn’t exist at all.

Naturally, people who haven’t been reading the 450 or so articles I’ve written about the pandemic fraud then ask, “So why are all these people getting sick and dying?”

Today, I’m republishing one of my articles that answers that question:

Since the beginning of this false pandemic, I’ve been offering compelling evidence that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist.

Then people ask, “So why are all these people dying?”

I have explained that, many times, and in this article I’ll explain it again.

First of all, the whole notion that COVID-19 is one health condition is a lie. COVID IS NOT ONE THING.

This is both the hardest and simplest point to accept and understand.

Don’t reject the existence of the virus and then say, “So what is THE cause of people dying?” There is no ONE CAUSE. There is no one illness. There is no “it.”

By far, the biggest sources of illness we are dealing with are lung conditions: called pneumonia, flu, flu-like disease, TB, other unnamed lung/respiratory problems.

THESE ARE BEING RELABELED “COVID.” It’s a repackaging scheme. People are dying for those traditional reasons, and their deaths are being called “COVID.”

Thus, the old is artificially made new. It’s still old.

In this wide-ranging group of people who have traditional lung conditions, by far the largest population is the elderly and frail.

They are dying in nursing homes, in hospitals, in their houses and apartments. In addition to their lung problems, they have been suffering from a whole host of other conditions, for a long time, and they’ve been treated with toxic drugs for years.

They’re terrified that they might receive a diagnosis of “COVID,” and then they ARE given that diagnosis. THEN they’re isolated, cut off from friends and family. They give up and die.

This is forced premature death.

Some of these elderly and frail people are heavily sedated and put on breathing ventilators—which is a killing treatment. In a large New York study, it was discovered that “COVID” patients over the age of 64, who were put on ventilators, died 97.2 % of the time. Staggering.

Many of these elderly and frail people are put on antiviral drugs—e.g., remdesivir—which are highly toxic.

Some of these elderly and frail patients are now dying from reactions to the COVID vaccine—and of course, their deaths are listed as “COVID.”

Why else are people dying? In many cases, it’s a simple matter of bookkeeping. They die in hospitals for a variety of reasons, and staff write “COVID death” on their files. In the US, states receive federal money based on these statistics.

Let’s say that, in certain places around the world, there are clusters of deaths (being called COVID) that can’t be explained in the ways I’ve just described.

In those situations, you would have to examine EACH situation closely. For example, just prior to an outbreak in Northern Italy, was there a vaccination campaign? What was in the vaccine? A breed of toxic substances?

You have to consider each cluster independently.

Getting the picture?

None of the “COVID deaths” anywhere in the world requires the existence of a new virus.

For instance, in Wuhan, where the whole business began, the first “COVID” cases of pneumonia occurred in a city whose air is HEAVILY polluted. In China, every year, roughly 300,000 people die from pneumonia. That means millions of cases. None of those deaths need to be explained by invoking a new virus.

Now, add to all this the fact that the PCR test for the (non-existent) virus is rigged so it spits out positive results like a fire hose. Thus, the high case numbers.

The “pandemic” is invented.

The fraud is promoted.

During these fake epidemics (there have been many), someone will say: “But my neighbor’s son, who was very healthy, died suddenly. It must be the virus.”

No. People who appear to be healthy do die. Not just today, but going back in history as far as you want to go. No one has an explanation. They might have an explanation if they looked very closely, but they don’t look closely.

Favoring the “virus explanation” is a bias, a knee-jerk reaction, a response to propaganda.

If you think there must be other major reasons to explain “why all these people are dying,” keep in mind that “lung conditions” is a category that expands all over the globe. For instance, there are about one BILLION cases of flu-like illness EVERY YEAR on planet Earth.

Repackaging/relabeling just a small percentage of those cases alone would account for all official COVID death numbers.

What’s new about COVID is the COVID STORY. That’s what’s being sold: a STORY about a COVID virus.

I’m aware that authors have been presenting other reasons for people who have been getting sick and dying since early 2020. I’m not necessarily rejecting those reasons. But if some of them are true, they only represent part of the picture. Again, it’s not one thing that’s killing people.

There is a programmed impulse to say, “If it isn’t X, then it must be Y. If X isn’t the cause of people dying, then Y must be the cause.” That’s the basic lie. It’s the basic lie of all so-called pandemics.

It’s also a con. At the highest levels of planning, propagandists (inventers of reality) know that people are willing to buy one explanation for one phenomenon.

But “COVID” isn’t one phenomenon. There is no “it.”

And there is no single cause.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside 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.

COVID: Everybody will be infected; no exceptions; stop pretending otherwise

by Jon Rappoport

January 4, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’ve spent the past two years proving SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist. It’s a total fiction.

Nevertheless, since most people believe in the virus with every fiber of their being, I enter their world and point out glaring inconsistencies and preposterous strategies for “containing the spread.”

Once again, in this article, I’ll visit the bizarre world of the virus. I’ll take the viewpoint of a person who earnestly believes in the existence of SARS-Cov-2. And I’ll show you a few of the walls such a person must ram into. Ready, get set, go:

First of all, here is the main reason why health authorities don’t just throw up their hands and say, “Everybody is going to get infected”:

It’s bad for business. The business of profits and control over populations.

If everybody is infected, there is no way, no treatment, no vaccine, no lockdown, no mask, no quarantine that will solve the issue. You would be trying to solve a boat with a million holes floating in the middle of a tidal wave.

And reports of the initial spread of SARS-CoV-2 in early 2020 confirm the futility of blocking it. Overnight, the virus was found in a dozen countries and 10,000 people. Those 10,000 rapidly and inevitably became 100,000—and so on, multiplying in every direction.

Likewise with Omicron. It’s here and there; a day later it’s everywhere.

Another problem with “everybody will be infected”: the only answer is the development of natural immunity. That is not a medical intervention. That is not money. That is not State-imposed.

Once you let this cat out of the bag—natural immunity—people grasp the concept. They understand. “Oh, we’re just going to have to live through it. We’ll have to tough it out. And we can, because we always have.”

That’s VERY bad for business and control.

Therefore, against all common sense, health authorities have to keep promoting the myth that some people will be infected and some won’t be. And in order to increase the number that won’t be, we need a vaccine and antiviral drugs and masks and lockdowns and business bankruptcies and suicides and desolated cities and towns and medical dictatorship and the Great Reset.

Once you accept the spread of SARS-CoV-2, you accept universal infection. There’s no way around it. And then you’re stuck with non-medical natural immunity.

The next piece of balderdash: the test for the virus. I’ve analyzed the test a dozen different ways and shown it’s useless and deceptive. But why is it being done? What’s the real reason?

Here’s the big kicker, the bonus, and the true bottom-line reason for the test: it serves to reinforce the necessary myth that “some people will be cases (infected) and some people won’t.”

Whereas, again, once you accept the spread of the virus, you accept that everyone will eventually be infected. There is no “some people infected” and “some people not.”

The powers-that-be will do and say anything to pretend the virus won’t infect everyone. The test gives them that justification.

Here is yet another reason to accept universal infection: locales and states and countries with very high vaccination rates are also reporting high levels of “COVID-19 disease.” The virus keeps spreading, regardless of what humans do to stop it.

If the development of natural immunity is the only answer…what IS natural immunity?

The medical research community has no compelling description. They’re wedded to a military model of antibodies (army scouts) that go out and ID invaders (viruses), so killer cells (backup troops) can destroy these enemies. And that’s the simple explanation. In the medical literature, it gets far more complicated than that.

On the other hand, I would say natural immunity is something called HEALTH. And you could write reams about what contributes to health, on a number of levels. But of course, the medical cartel doesn’t do health. It doesn’t study it in any comprehensive way.

Because it would be bad for business. The business of money and control.

Finally, for now, there is the related issue of “early intervention treatment.” I’m talking about ivermectin, HCQ, etc. If these drugs were widely used, would they stop the spread of the virus? I wouldn’t bet on it. For example, there is the possibility that one or more of these drugs help some people get better who are simply sick with common flu-like illness. Not COVID. And a belief in the power of the drugs (placebo effect) could play a significant role in recovery, for a limited number of people. (I would strongly advise people to look into adverse effects of any drug.)

Because taking a drug helps a person get better, that doesn’t mean the medicine is “wiping out a virus,” or preventing it from taking hold in the first place, or stopping it from spreading.

And that concludes today’s episode of Let’s Enter the Wacky Wonderful World of SARS-CoV-2, where people exercise their right to worship fairy tales highlighting non-existent viruses, and thus earn a gold star on the blackboard from the Reality Manufacturing Company.

I return you now to regular COVID mind-control programming on channels 1 through 5000.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside 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.

COVID scam falls apart; it’s over

by Jon Rappoport

January 3, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

Since the beginning, I’ve been producing the evidence COVID is a scam. Now, official agencies are virtually admitting it.

On December 29, the head of the CDC, Rochelle Walensky, announced, in a White House press briefing, that the PCR test can register positive (meaning the person is “infected”) long AFTER infection is over.

Here’s Walensky’s money quote:

“…people can remain PCR positive for up to 12 weeks after infection and long after they are transmissible and infectious.”

That means MILLIONS of FALSE positive test results have been logged as REAL, in the past two years.

If you can’t trace the implications of THAT, I can’t help you.

Recall the old Zen Koan: What is the sound of one hand clapping?

The new version is: What is the sound of the White House press corps after Walensky’s admission?

And is the answer is: Nothing. Zero. Silence. And not stunned silence. No. Clueless silence. Sold-out silence.

No shouting. No furor. No questions.

“Dear Mr. Smith, We here at the CDC wish to inform to you that your positive PCR COVID test, administered in the spring of 2020, was misleading. There was no proof it meant you were infected. Therefore, your isolation, your hospitalization, during which your business closed and went into bankruptcy, your wife left home taking up residence with the children at her mother’s, your business partner committed suicide—all that was unnecessary. Thank you for your understanding.”

Of course, the blind following the blind following Fauci will say, “But…but…the CDC couldn’t have made a mistake that big…there must be some explanation…”

And yes, there is an explanation. The CDC and other public health officials have known all along they were running a scam. Committing a crime. A Nuremberg-type crime.

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.

New COVID at-home test dangerous and misleading: but everybody’s doing it, so who cares, right?

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Recently, I’ve been writing fiction, satire, parody, to expose the insanity of the pandemic scam. This article is not that. This article is fact. Buckle up.

Since the beginning of the so-called pandemic, I’ve been attacking the value of the PCR diagnostic test from many angles. The primary angle, as my readers know, is: SARS-CoV-2 was never isolated, never proved to exist.

However, I’ve also ventured into the bubble world where a few billion people blindly accept the existence of the virus—and I’ve shown that even within that world, the internal contradictions and lies abound.

One again, now, I’m entering that bubble world, since the powers-that-be are widely promoting the use of an at-home test for the “virus.” This test is self-administered. No doctor, nurse, or technician is present. What could possibly go wrong, as millions of people perform the test on themselves?

Well, let’s lead off with DANGER.

The reference is an undated FDA document titled, “BinaxNOWTM COVID-19 Antigen Self TEST.”  The Binax test kit is manufactured by Abbott.

Here is the key quote: “The Reagent Solution [included in the test kit] contains a harmful chemical (see table below). If the solution contacts the skin or eye, flush with copious amounts of water. If irritation persists, seek medical advice…”

Then the FDA document lists that harmful chemical: sodium azide.

Just how harmful is it?

For an answer, let’s look at a CDC document titled, “Facts About Sodium Azide.”  We find this statement:

“Sodium azide is a rapidly acting, potentially deadly chemical that exists as an odorless white solid.”

Then there is this: “Sodium azide prevents the cells of the body from using oxygen. When this happens, the cells die. Sodium azide is more harmful to the heart and the brain than to other organs, because the heart and the brain use a lot of oxygen.”

Yes, as with all poisons, the degree of damage depends on the dosage, but you decide whether “potentially deadly,” as the CDC describes sodium azide, signifies a significant risk.

If you read the FDA document I referenced above, you’ll see that the reagent containing sodium azide is involved in the self-administered COVID test, and the whole test procedure is complex enough to allow fumbles and mistakes—such as a spill of the “deadly chemical.”

Don’t believe me? Try this FDA quote on for size: “To perform the test, an anterior nasal swab specimen is collected by the patient, then 6 drops of extraction reagent from a dropper bottle are added to the top hole of the swab well. The patient sample is inserted into the test card through the bottom hole of the swab well, and firmly pushed upwards until the swab tip is visible through the top hole. The swab is rotated 3 times clockwise and the card is closed, bringing the extracted sample into contact with the test strip. Test results are interpreted visually at 15 minutes based on the presence or absence of visually detectable pink/purple colored lines.”

See what I mean? Good luck.

Now let’s move on to the second problem with this at-home self-performed COVID test: it’s grossly misleading. The results are ambiguous.

The FDA document I’ve been quoting contains this gem: “The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Self Test does not differentiate between SARS-CoV and SARS…CoV-2.”

BOOM. In other words, a positive test, indicating infection, could mean nothing more than infection with the 2003 “SARS virus”—and that “epidemic” was a dud. But wait, there’s more:

“Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”

Double trouble. The person who tests positive could simply be housing bacteria in his body, AND whatever germ the test is detecting may not even be causing disease.

Other than that, the at-home test is perfect.

This Abbott BinaxNow at-home COVID test is the market leader. About 75% of all retail test-kit sales in the US come from Abbott.

Back in the early spring of 2020, I told you the test was the key to faking the pandemic. Now the government wants the population to perform the test-fakery on themselves. With, of course, the added danger of exposing themselves to a highly destructive chemical in the process.

But don’t worry, be happy. On many days of every week, little Tony Fauci will appear on television and inform you that testing is necessary, and he’ll omit grisly details. Trust him.

And then march forward, secure in the knowledge that lies and omissions keep us safe.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

The Vegas Fear Porn Awards Ceremony 2021

by Jon Rappoport

December 27, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Happy New Year!

Mostly naked pole-dancers fronting a full orchestra playing Doo-Wop tunes you love from the 50s! Drinks on the house! Liberal celebs mingling with the peasants! The Vegas Mob Brothel and Hotel Casino just off the Strip presents…

The COVID Fear Porn Awards Ceremony 2021!

Leading up to the presentation of the coveted gold-plated statuette of Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, which an as yet unnamed out of work actor will present to Fear Porn Person of the Year, several awards will be handed out to men and women in sub-categories of Halfway Compromise:

CATEGORY ONE: “Of course the virus exists. Don’t bother me with evidence to the contrary. I don’t have time to look at it. I’m busy with other issues. It’s a distraction. Anyway, people don’t understand the claim.”

TWO: “I’m definitely and absolutely pro-vaccine. I just want safer and more effective shots, and the current COVID vaccine happens to be unsafe. Vaccines have nothing to do with autism and other forms of brain damage.”

THREE: “The courts and judges will save us from the vaccine mandates. Don’t worry, be happy. The system works. Street protests are counter-productive. Cloth masks don’t work, but R283-X-A45367-BQX-23-9 masks are quite effective at stopping the spread of the dreaded virus.”

FOUR: “The Omicron Variant is quite real and spreads quickly, but it is less virulent than the Delta or the original SARS-CoV-2.”

FIVE: “The PCR test is irreparably flawed, but the case numbers based on the test are real, not meaningless. We need more testing.”

At the crest of the evening’s presentations, the Committee will reveal its choice for Fear Porn Person of the Year, from the following nominees:

Anthony Fauci
Bill Gates
Joe Biden
Gavin Newsom
Andrew Cuomo
Klaus Schwab
Anthony Fauci

Save your ticket stub. There will be a drawing. One attendee will win an all-expenses trip to Vienna, to live for three months under the government’s lockdown regime. Stay in your hotel room. Watch television. Eat canned food. Wear a mask. Experience the fear. Sweat in the dark.

Bonus! At the Awards presentation, Dr. Deborah Birx will receive the annual Hot Zone Virus From The Jungle plaque commemorating her work as a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force under President Donald Warp Speed Trump.

Dr. Birx is presently working as a waitress at the 24-hour Sam Giancana Diner on the outskirts of Las Vegas. She is seeking re-employment as a bureaucrat at any tax-gobbling government agency that remembers her. We will be taking up a collection to pay her rent. She will be signing copies of her book, I Was Never an Out and Out Grifter.

A special scroll will be presented to CNN and MSNBC for their unceasing yearlong fear porn promotion. We understand an alleged and accused CNN pedophile will be on hand to receive his half of the scroll.

In absentia, Nancy My Husband Doesn’t Really Work With The Chinese Pelosi will be awarded an Emperor Nero silver coin engraved thusly: I WEAR MY MASK IN THE BATHROOM WHILE I’M SITTING DOWN.

Breaking—Boston Mayor, Michelle Wu, has just announced a vaccine passport system for the City of the American Revolution…all persons 12 and older will have to present the passport to enter any covered indoor venue. This fear porn enforcement Queen Mayor will be granted a brass plaque with her name engraved, to be placed on a slot machine outside a bedroom in the famed Crazy Eights Brothel and Steak House in Skirts, Nevada. Keep up the good work, Michelle My Belle!

To all compliant Americans who believe in fear porn, congratulations. We would give each one of you a participation trophy if we could afford it, to signify you are the greatest enablers in human history.

You inspire us to continue our work, singling out those individuals and organizations that distribute the tonnage of fear porn at a rate which stuns the senses.

Quoting our Founder, Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.”

Friends, when you come right down to it, are you afraid of not being afraid? If fear were stripped from your minds, would you feel at sea…not knowing what to think or do? Would you be lost without your old pal fear? You’re our audience, and we serve you every day of every year. And in doing so, we put a pretty bow on the ties that bind.

Stay close. We’re planning new surprises, new variants on the central theme of Medical Emergency. We’re the Titans of Pavlovian stimulus-response, and we feel your anticipatory drool.

If you can’t attend our Awards Ceremony this year, just keep watching our minions juke and tap dance on the Network News:

Lester Holt (Lurch, from the Addams Family); David Muir (Sears underwear model); Norah O’Donnell (state baton twirling champion); Wolf Blitzer (old man in tattered bathrobe pouring a can of soup into a saucepan in his kitchen); Chuck Todd (racetrack tout and penny-stock hustler).

They’ll keep you tuned to America’s leading product: fear porn.

The New York Times: “Today, on the Southern Face of Mt. Everest, a New York Hedge Fund manager froze to death in a seething blizzard. Sitting behind a new DARPA super-telescope observing the scene from Fort Meade, Maryland, Anthony Fauci diagnosed the man with COVID as he expired. ‘Shortness of breath was the telltale sign,’ Fauci remarked…”

So yes, Tony Fauci IS our Fear Porn Person of the Year. He’s on the case and on the money every time he takes center stage. He’s a belching stage hog, and we love him.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside 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.

Smoking gun: Lord Fauci states COVID PCR test has fatal flaw; confession from the “beloved” expert of experts

The COVID PCR test is a complete fraud

by Jon Rappoport

December 8, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

As my readers know, I’ve been proving for well over a year that the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t exist.

Therefore, any test for it would be absurd.

However, I frequently put on my hazmat suit and enter the crazy world where all “the experts” claim the virus is real. I make these forays to show that, even within their fantasy bubble, and by their own standards, the pros are fatally contradicting themselves and lying constantly.

That’s what I’m doing in this article. I’ve got my hazmat suit on and I’m exploring the crazy landscape. I’ve published this piece several times, but I want to make sure people understand how the test has been used to manufacture the false appearance of a pandemic.

OK, here we go. Smoking gun. Jackpot.

Right from the horse’s mouth. Right from the man we’re told is the number-one COVID expert in the nation. What Fauci says is golden truth.

Well, how about THIS?

July 16, 2020, podcast, “This Week in Virology”: Tony Fauci makes a point of saying the PCR COVID test is useless and misleading when the test is run at “35 cycles or higher.” A positive result, indicating infection, cannot be accepted or believed.

Here, in techno-speak, is an excerpt from Fauci’s key quote (starting at the 4m01s mark through to the 5m45s mark (Fauci begins his first answer to the first question at the 4m20s mark and begins his second answer to the second question at the 5m26s mark)):

“…If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

Each “cycle” of the test is a quantum leap in amplification and magnification of the test specimen taken from the patient.

Too many cycles, and the test will turn up all sorts of irrelevant material that will be wrongly interpreted as relevant.

That’s called a false positive.

What Fauci failed to say on the video is: the FDA, which authorizes the test for public use, recommends the test should be run up to 40 cycles. Not 35.

Therefore, all labs in the US following the FDA guideline are knowingly or unknowingly participating in fraud. Fraud on a monstrous level, because…

Millions of Americans are being told they are infected with the virus on the basis of a false positive result, and…

The total number of COVID cases in America—which is based on the test—is a gross falsity.

The lockdowns and other restraining measures are based on these fraudulent case numbers.

Let me back up and run that by you again. Fauci says the test is useless when it’s run at 35 cycles or higher. The FDA says run the test up to 40 cycles, in order to determine whether the virus is there. This is the crime in a nutshell.

“Hello, America, you’ve been tricked, lied to, conned, and taken for a devastating ride. On the basis of fake science, the country was locked down.”

If anyone in the Congress has a few brain cells operating, pull Fauci into a televised hearing and, in ten minutes, make mincemeat out of the fake science that has driven this whole foul, stench-ridden assault on the global economy and its 8 billion citizens.

All right, here are two chunks of evidence for what I’ve written above. First, we have a CDC quote on the FDA website, in a document titled: “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only”, See page 35 (pdf page 36). This document is marked, “Effective: 07/21/2021.” That means, even though the virus is being referred to by its older name, the document is still relevant as of July 2021. “For Emergency Use Only” refers to the fact that the FDA has certified the PCR test under a traditional category called “Emergency Use Authorization.”

FDA: “…a specimen is considered positive for 2019-nCoV [virus] if all 2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles ([less than] 40.00 Ct).”

Naturally, testing labs reading this guideline would conclude, “Well, to see if the virus is there in a patient, we should run the test all the way to 40 cycles. That’s the official advice.”

Then we have a New York Times article (August 29/updated September 17, 2020) headlined: “Your coronavirus test is positive. Maybe it shouldn’t be.” Here are money quotes:

“Most tests set the limit at 40 [cycles]. A few at 37.”

“Set-the-limit” would mean, We’re going to look all the way to 40 cycles, to see if the virus is there.

The Times: “This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients.”

Boom. That’s the capper, the grand finale. Labs don’t or won’t reveal their collusion in this crime.

Get the picture?

I hope so.

If a lawyer won’t go to court with all this, or if a judge won’t pay attention and see the light, they should be stripped of their jobs and sent to the Arctic to sell snow.

2021 CODA: Recently, Florida, a state which has remained far more open and free from COVID restrictions and mandates than most other states, is reporting very low COVID case numbers. Why?

Because as of December 3, 2020, the state of Florida started doing something unheard of. It demanded that labs report the number of cycles (“cycle threshold”) for every test they run.

Here is the relevant wording in a release from the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, and the state Department of Health:

“Cycle threshold (CT) values and their reference ranges, as applicable, must be reported by laboratories to FDOH via electronic laboratory reporting or by fax immediately.”

“If your laboratory is not currently reporting CT values and their reference ranges, the lab should begin reporting this information to FDOH within seven days of the date of this memorandum.”

We can assume there is only one reason for this order. The Florida governor and the Department of Health are aware that tests run at 35 cycles or higher are useless and misleading, creating a mountain of false-positives, and they want to stop this crime.

And with the Governor’s recent appointment of a new state Surgeon General, who is well aware of certain aspects of the COVID fraud, the requirement for labs to start telling the truth is taking hold.

Hence, lower case numbers.

SOURCES:

youtu.be/a_Vy6fgaBPE?t=241

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download (document page 35 (pdf page 36), “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, For Emergency Use Only, Instructions for Use, Catalog # 2019-nCoVEUA-01, 1000 reactions, For In-vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Use, Rx Only”; CDC-006-00019, Revision: 07 CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ Division of Viral Diseases, Effective: 07/21/2021)

nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/12/08/florida-forces-labs-to-report-number-of-pcr-test-cycles/

FURTHER READING:

blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/08/24/gov-ron-desantis-this-is-how-you-win-against-the-wolves/

blog.nomorefakenews.com/tag/pcr/

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.

Test for new Omicron variant? We don’t need no stinkin’ test

by Jon Rappoport

December 2, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

This is an article in three layers. I’ve already spelled out the first layer in my current series on the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 (archive: Omicron).

In a nutshell, there is no Omicron because there is no SARS-CoV-2. The “pandemic virus” doesn’t exist. A variation of nothing equals nothing.

However, I often make forays into the bubble-world where most people, including “the experts,” believe the virus is real. I do this to show that, within their world, the experts are constantly lying in their own terms and contradicting themselves.

Within their world, you would think the pros have an easily accessible test to identify the new Omicron variant in thousands or millions of people. Otherwise, how can they claim it’s here and spreading?

But you would be wrong.

And I have the evidence, based on the prior variant, the Delta. That’s level two. I take you there now, with an article I wrote months ago:

—Bombshell: PCR tests can’t identify Delta Variant; it’s all fiction—

Oooo. The Delta Variant. It’s everywhere. (archive: Delta)

Watch out. It’s under your rug. It’s in the clothes closet. It’s on your toothbrush.

And it’s The Unvaccinated who are spreading it. Those devils. We, who are pure, must be protected from the unvaxxed Unclean.

Fauci, god of soccer moms, rises every morning saying DELTA, goes on television saying DELTA, and goes to sleep praying to DELTA.

But read this from the Texas Department of State Health Services FAQ: “How can I tell if I have the Delta variant? Do labs report that to the state?” That information may not be readily available. The [PCR] viral tests that are used to determine if a person has COVID-19 are not designed to tell you what variant is causing the infection. Detecting the Delta variant, or other variants, requires a special type of testing called genomic sequencing. Due to the volume of COVID-19 cases, sequencing is not performed on all viral samples. However, because the Delta variant now accounts for the majority of COVID-19 cases in the United States, there is a strong likelihood that a positive test result indicates infection with the Delta variant.”

Boom.

I can assure you, the number of patients whose samples are genetically sequenced is tiny, contrasted against the number whose samples are simply run through the standard PCR.

So there is no way to know that the Delta variant now accounts for the majority of COVID cases in the US. And using the standard PCR, there is no way to know ANY specific patient has the Delta. It’s all fiction.

We have this from the American Lung Association: “Regular COVID-19 tests do not detect which variant is involved in a patient’s case—that information does not change the approach to care or therapy. The variant identification requires genomic sequencing, a process separate from regular virus tests and one that not all labs are able to do or do not do on a routine basis for patient care but are done more for public health monitoring.”

Let me break down how this game works. To be excessively generous, let’s say that 3 out of every 1000 positive PCR tests in America are sent to high-level labs, where genetic sequencing is done.

A certain percentage of THOSE sequencing tests come up positive for the Delta Variant. Based on these results, MODELS are constructed.

Now we’re REALLY into fake science. The models estimate what percentage of ALL positive PCR tests are really positive for Delta.

I’m sorry to break this newsflash, but modelers are notorious charlatans. Their dense calculations are as far from science as a Model-T Ford is from a spaceship.

But based on models, public health agencies—who desperately needed a new con, because COVID case numbers were declining—blasted through their media assets the new revelation: THE DELTA MONSTER IS LOOSE AMONG US.

But it gets even worse. Why? Because you can bet the farm that the current model pushing the omnipresence of the Delta Variant was never challenged. It was never handed to several groups of independent scientists who went over it with a fine-toothed comb. That’s called verification. That’s called the Scientific Method. You may have heard of it.

The most notorious modeler in the world, Neil Ferguson, of the London Imperial College, bankrolled by Bill Gates, made a prediction early in 2020: by that summer, there would 500,000 COVID deaths in the UK, and 2 million in the US.

It was this absurd prediction, swallowed whole by Boris Johnson, and swallowed whole by Donald Trump, on the urging of Tony Fauci, that led to the original mass lockdowns in US and the UK. And then other nations followed suit.

As my long-time readers know, all this is just the tip of a very large iceberg. For the past year, I’ve been proving the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t exist, the tests and case numbers are meaningless, and the highly destructive vaccine is unnecessary.

But I make frequent forays into the fantasy world of official science, to illustrate that, even within that lunatic bubble, internal contradictions and outright lies abound.

Here is my original 2020 article on the most famous and celebrated modeler in the world, Neil Ferguson [this is level three]:

—Neil Ferguson: the ghost in the machine—

Why do governments salute when he predicts a pandemic and tells them to lock down their countries?

Does anyone care about his past?

Why does he still have a prestigious job?

Who is he connected to?

Neil Ferguson, through his institute at London’s Imperial College, can call the shots on a major percentage of the global population.

He’s Mr. Genius, when it comes to projecting computer models of epidemics.

Fellow experts puff up his reputation.

According to the Business Insider (4/25/20), “Ferguson’s team warned Boris Johnson that the quest for ‘herd immunity’ [letting people live their lives out in the open in the UK] could cost 510,000 lives, prompting an abrupt U-turn [massive national lockdown in the UK]…His simulations have been influential in other countries as well, cited by authorities in the US, Germany, and France.”

Not only cited, not only influential, but swallowed whole.

Business insider continues: “On March 23 [2020], the UK scrapped ‘herd immunity’ in favor of a suppression strategy, and the country made preparations for weeks of lockdown. Ferguson’s study was responsible.”

There’s more. A lot more.

Same BI article: “Dr. Deborah Birx, coronavirus response coordinator to the Trump administration, told journalists at a March 16 press briefing that the Imperial paper [Ferguson’s computer projection] prompted the CDC’s new advice to work from home and avoid gatherings of 10 or more.”

Ferguson, instigator of LOCKDOWNS. Stripping away of basic liberties. Economic devastation.

So let’s look at Ferguson’s funding and track record, spelled out in the Business Insider piece:

“Ferguson co-founded the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, based at Imperial, in 2008. It is the leading body advising national governments on pathogen outbreaks.”

“It gets tens of millions of dollars in annual funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and works with the UK National Health Service, the US Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC), and is tasked with supplying the World Health Organization with ‘rapid analysis of urgent infectious disease problems’.”

Getting the picture?

Gates money goes to Ferguson.

Ferguson predicts dire threat from COVID, necessitating lockdowns—thus preparing people to accept a vaccine. The vaccine Gates wants.

Ferguson supplies a frightening computer projection of COVID deaths—to the CDC and WHO. Ferguson thus communicates a rationale for the Gates vaccine plan.

National governments surrender to WHO and CDC and order LOCKDOWNS.

Business Insider: “Michael Thrusfield, a professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, told the paper he had ‘déjà vu’ after reading the [Ferguson] Imperial paper [on COVID], saying Ferguson was responsible for excessive animal culling during the 2001 Foot and Mouth [mad cow] outbreak.”

“Ferguson warned the government that 150,000 people could die. Six million animals were slaughtered as a precaution, costing the country billions in farming revenue. In the end, 200 people died.”

“Similarly, he [Ferguson] was accused of creating panic by overestimating the potential death toll during the 2005 Bird Flu outbreak. Ferguson estimated 200 million could die. The real number was in the low hundreds.” HELLO?

“In 2009, one of Ferguson’s models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was below 500.”

So you have to ask yourself, why would anyone believe what Ferguson has been predicting in this COVID hustle?

Are his fellow experts that stupid?

Are presidents and prime ministers that stupid?

And the answer is: This is a monumental covert op; some people are that stupid; some are caught up in the op and are afraid to say the emperor has no clothes; some are aware of what is going on, and they want to destroy national economies and lead us into, yes, a new world order.

Gates knows he has his man: Ferguson. As the recipient of tens of millions of dollars a year from the Gates Foundation, Ferguson isn’t about to issue a model that states: COVID is nothing to worry about, let people live their lives and we’ll be all right. The chance of that happening is on a par with researchers admitting they never actually discovered a new virus as the cause of illness in 2019, in Wuhan.

In order to justify injecting every man, woman, and child in the world with synthetic genes, Gates needs A STORY ABOUT A DEADLY VIRUS THAT NECESSITATES SHUTTING DOWN AND IMPRISONING THE PLANET, ACHIEVING A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE.

He’s got the story, all dressed up in a computer model, composed by a man with a past record of abject and devastating failures.

Neil Ferguson is the ghost in the machine. The machine is the World Health Organization and the CDC. The man behind the ghost is Bill Gates.

—Those are the three layers of this story. Fraud, fraud, and fraud. But don’t worry. Tony Fauci will smooth out the wrinkles and assure us all that we’re on the right track. We just have to destroy the village in order to save it. Piece of cake.

SOURCES:

https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/coronavirus/variant-faqs.aspx

https://www.lung.org/blog/covid-19-delta-variant

https://www.businessinsider.com/neil-ferguson-transformed-uk-covid-response-oxford-challenge-imperial-model-2020-4

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.