The missing COVID virus—answering critics’ objections

by Jon Rappoport

October 26, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

For months, I’ve been providing evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been proven to exist.

Several recent objections to my analysis have been brought forward.

I’m not interested in mentioning names or getting into disputes with people who might otherwise be doing important work.

One objection that’s been raised: a key CDC document [1] I quoted [2], which openly admitted that the virus was “not available,” was not really published in July of this year. It was reprinted or updated in July; it was originally published in February, when presumably, the CDC might have had a problem obtaining isolated virus.

Really? The “pandemic” was already underway in February. The CDC, one of the two most powerful public health agencies in the world, couldn’t get isolated virus then—couldn’t get it anywhere. In other words, there was a declared pandemic without a proven virus.

That is a damning fact. I don’t care whether it was February or July. If the CDC couldn’t get the virus, no one had it.

No one had it, because no one had isolated it. Researchers simply assumed it existed.

Not only that, the CDC document [1] [2] in which the agency admitted the virus was “not available” was a long article describing how to perform the PCR test for the virus. What virus? The one that wasn’t there?

You put together a test procedure that will change the fate of humanity, but you don’t have the item the procedure is supposed to detect. This is permissible? This is excusable? Not unless science is fairy tales.

A few superficial critics of my work should also realize this CDC document is far from my only evidence showing the virus hasn’t been isolated. They should read all my articles on the subject.

Another objection to my analysis: labs do, in fact, have isolated virus in the form of “viral stocks.”

But what does that phrase mean? It means SOUP. In dishes, in labs, researchers assume they have virus mixed with cells, mixed with chemicals and drugs and who knows what else. If this is “isolation,” a rabbit is a spaceship.

Further, it is claimed, because some of those cells—monkey cells—die in the dish in the lab, this means the virus is there and is doing the killing.

Nonsense. First of all, the cells are being starved of nutrients. Second, they’re open to being poisoned by the drugs and chemicals in the soup. The presumption of the virus doing the killing is unwarranted and absurd. [3] [4] [5]

The third objection to my analysis: researchers can assemble the PCR test without actually having the virus. They can substitute “synthetic RNA” which is a close match to the virus.

I see. And they know the synthetic RNA is a close match to the missing virus exactly how? Answer: they don’t know. They assume. They pretend. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

This would be like saying: “Ahem. There is an unknown planet in our solar system. We haven’t seen it, we don’t know where it is, we don’t know what it looks like, but we do know the moon is a very close version of the unknown planet. Therefore, we can use everything we know about the moon to infer a precise description of the unknown planet.”

This kind of tap-dancing might win you a prize at a junior high school variety show, but it has nothing to do with science.

For those who want to further explore the core issue of the existence of the virus—e.g., medical professionals, who have large gaps and blind sports in their understanding—I STRONGLY suggest accessing the work of Dr. Andrew Kaufman [12] and Dr. Tom Cowan [13].

I understand that some people who are very much opposed to the lockdowns and the economic destruction want to keep the argument along the channels of: the deceptive PCR test; the false case and death numbers; the dangerous vaccine; the ripping away of Constitutional and natural freedoms.

Anyone who has been reading my more than 200 articles about COVID [14] knows I’ve been tackling those issues since the beginning. But the existence of the virus is not merely a distraction. It’s at the starting gate of the whole effort to initiate new levels of enslavement for all humans. It can’t be brushed aside.

It would be foolish of me to criticize people who are otherwise doing very important work to stem the tide of the technocratic takeover of Earth, simply because they aren’t addressing the existence of the virus.

If a few of them want to criticize me, fine. I’ve been around the block more times than I can count. It’s not a problem. I’d suggest, though, they do more than a dip a toe into the water of the stupendous virus-fraud.

And don’t try the tactic of accusing me of “confusing people about the pandemic.” That is not a standard for measuring veracity. It’s actually a low-level con. When two sides disagree, proponents of one side assert the other side is sowing confusion. Baloney. The confusion, in this case, is inherent in the conventional view of virus-isolation and proof of discovery.

One disease one germ, a thousand diseases a thousand germs—this lock-step ironclad pharmaceutical propaganda of more than a century has caused monstrous harm. It’s time to end the madness.

We don’t need unanimity on every issue. But we do need a measure of good will and decency. I’m glad to report that, with only a few exceptions, this is what I find.

Coda: Blithely accepting the existence of the virus puts people on a slippery slope. From that point on, they may accept at least partial anti-human “containment measures.” Lockdowns under certain circumstances, some mask wearing, some distancing, some restrictions on the size and nature of gatherings, some isolation from loved ones, some tracing, some testing. Before they know it, they’re dealing from a position of weakness and compromise: “I agree that a certain amount of destruction is necessary, but not as much destruction as Fauci wants…” On moral, spiritual, strategic, political, economic, and scientific grounds, that’s disastrous.

Now, as a backgrounder, here is my article about Dr. Tom Cowan’s recent exploration of the COVID virus invented out of sheer nonsense: [5]

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

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

by Jon Rappoport

October 19, 2020

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

The CDC article [3] was discovered by Sally Fallon Morrell. Her co-author, Dr. Cowan, fleshes out the fraud. Cowan’s article is titled, “Only Poisoned Monkey Cells ‘Grew’ the ‘Virus’.” [4] [5]

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

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

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

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

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

As I’ve been stating [10], the “discovery” of the “new virus” was actually the foisting of a PRE-DETERMINED STORY ABOUT A VIRUS. Nothing real or believable about it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The existence and structure of the “new virus”…

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

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

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

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

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


SOURCES:

[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

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

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

[4] https://drtomcowan.com/only-poisoned-monkey-kidney-cells-grew-the-virus/

[5] http://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/19/dr-tom-cowan-explores-the-covid-virus-invented-out-of-sheer-nonsense/

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

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

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

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

[10] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/15/if-the-virus-isnt-there-why-do-they-believe-it-is/

[11] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/22/the-virus-that-isnt-there-genetic-sequencing-and-the-magic-trick/

[12] https://www.andrewkaufmanmd.com/

[13] https://drtomcowan.com

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


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.

Yet another case of the missing virus; they lied and locked down the world

ANOTHER key architect of the COVID PCR test had no coronavirus; the whole fake COVID house is falling down.

“We know exactly what we’re doing, but we have no virus available.”

by Jon Rappoport

October 13, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’ve been exposing the fact that the CDC, in July of this year, admitted, in a document, that…

They didn’t have the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It wasn’t “available.”

This means they couldn’t obtain an isolated specimen of the virus. There is only one reason why.

The virus hasn’t been isolated. And THAT means no one has proved it exists.

And now, I’ve discovered ANOTHER key document. This one apparently formed the basis for the first PCR test aimed at detecting the COVID virus all over the world.

READ WHAT THIS STUDY SAYS. These quotes should be engraved in stone above the entrance to a museum dedicated to the history of medical fraud.

“We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.”

TRANSLATION: We want to develop a test to detect the new COVID virus without having the virus.

“Here we present a validated diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV, its design relying on close genetic relatedness of 2019-nCoV with SARS coronavirus, making use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”

TRANSLATION: We HAVE developed a diagnostic test to detect the new COVID virus. We ASSUME this new virus is closely related to an older coronavirus. We ASSUME we know HOW it is related. We ASSUME, because we don’t have the new COVID virus. Therefore, all our assumptions are made out of nothing. Actually, we have no proof there is a new coronavirus.

“The workflow reliably detects 2019-nCoV, and further discriminates 2019-nCoV from SARS-CoV.”

TRANSLATION: Our new test to detect the new virus? We don’t have the new virus. We’ve never observed it. We can’t study it directly. There is no proof it exists. But we will use the test to detect it.

The study is titled, “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR.” [Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):2000045. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045.]

Those quotes from the study are astounding. A diagnostic test for the virus, but there is no virus. No standard against which to compare the reliability of the test.

The authors blithely assume they can somehow infer that the virus exists in the first place, without having an isolated specimen.

Then they assume they can understand the structure of the virus that isn’t there.

The virus isn’t there. It has NOT been isolated. It has NOT been separated out from other material. Therefore, it has not been observed and its existence has not been proved.

And yet, the test which these authors have developed is launched, all over the world, to detect that virus; to promote the unproven notion that there is a pandemic; to form the basis for counting COVID case numbers; and ultimately to justify all the lockdowns which have crashed the global economy and destroyed millions upon millions of lives.

A great deal of confusion has been created, because scientists are now talking about the “new virus” as if they understand its structure and sequence. No. They’ve INTERPRETED that genetic structure. And once they’ve made their interpretations, they gibber about what it means.

It’s like this. A man has a very thick steel vault. He clams there is a pile of treasure inside. But no one can open the door to the vault. People show up with all sorts of fancy instruments, and they make indirect measurements. They then issue very authoritative-sounding statements about what is inside the vault.

But no one can get in there. This is a magic vault, you see. You can’t drill into it. You can’t blow it up. But in its vicinity, all sorts of hustlers are gathered. And they PONTIFICATE. They BLOVIATE. They wave their credentials. Reporters interview them. Governments follow their recommendations.

And that’s all it is. It’s that kind of party.

There is also confusion about what the word “isolate” means, when it comes to viruses. SAYING you have isolated a virus doesn’t mean you have.

It may mean you THINK you have the virus inside a mess of material which contains many different genetic sequences and all manner of cellular debris and who knows what.

Some scientists will claim “a lesser amount of mess” entitles them to state they’ve “isolated” the virus.

Other scientists will claim that because they can grow, in a dish, what they BELIEVE to be the virus, this is “proof” that the virus exists.

They’re wrong.

Still other scientists will say that, in a dish in a lab, they “have the virus growing”, and they know it, because the virus is destroying certain cells in the soup in the dish. But in this soup, there are various added chemicals, and those chemicals could easily be doing the cell-killing.

So they are wrong, too.

As the late independent researcher David Crowe has written: “And the word ‘isolation’ has been so debased by virologists it means nothing (e.g. adding impure materials to a cell culture and seeing cell death is [as] ‘isolation’).”

This is why something called real-world experiments were introduced into science. Experiments that were forced out of the lab into the arena where actual humans live.

In my last article, I described exactly the kind of experiment that should have been initiated five minutes after scientists claimed there was an “outbreak in China.” It’s a large scale study involving humans who were diagnosed with the “epidemic illness.” Tissue samples would be taken from 500 of these patients and correctly analyzed via electron microscope photography.

But studies of that dimension and precision don’t interest scientists who live in the lab. Such studies are too dangerous. There is every chance that, in the harsh glare of sunlight, all their warnings about a vast pandemic will be shown to be false. False and ridiculous. Absurd. And insane.

These “experts” don’t want to take that chance.

So they fiddle and diddle in their labs, and they make wild claims based on nothing, on NO VIRUS.

For them, there is no such thing as NO VIRUS. There must always be a virus. They will build strings of thought that circle around and meet up and shake hands and justify themselves, BY DEFINITION.

When all is said and done, that is what they are playing at. “We make all the definitions, and therefore we can conclude anything we want to conclude. And call it science.”

That’s what’s going on.

I see the con and I’m pointing out the con.

I’m telling scientists who are honest to call it a con, too.

Empty out the house of modern virology; open the windows and let the fresh air in; and then we’ll be living in a far better world.

And, oh yes, prosecute these researchers who devised a test for the virus they never found. Prosecute them for crimes against humanity, and send them to prison.


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: The Virus That Isn’t There: The Root Fraud Exposed

by Jon Rappoport

October 9, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

This is a follow-up to yesterday’s article, in which I exposed the fact that the CDC does not have the COVID coronavirus in its possession, because it is “unavailable.” Their word, not mine.

The CDC is admitting the virus hasn’t been isolated. In other words, its existence is unproven.

You need to realize the CDC, during its own published confession (see below), is discussing this explosive situation in the context of instructing the world how to perform the PCR test.

The test to detect a virus that isn’t there.

This would be on the order of NASA issuing a guide for navigating a fleet of ships to a planet whose existence has not been established—and the population of the whole world is going to board those ships for the voyage.

The CDC is saying: here is how you detect the virus in a human, here is the test on which we’re going to rely, here is the test on the basis of which we’re going to identify all case numbers and demand all lockdowns—except we don’t have the virus.

Why don’t they have it?

Because they can’t isolate it. That’s obvious.

If they could isolate it, they would.

Let’s not tap dance around this central fact. Let’s not make excuses for the CDC. They have a problem the size of Jupiter. It’s their problem, not ours. But they’re foisting their problem on us, in the form of a STORY ABOUT A PANDEMIC. AND ALL THE LOCKDOWNS THAT FLOW FROM THE STORY.

To say this is unacceptable is a vast understatement. The CDC is committing a crime that has no bounds.

For months, I’ve been writing about the “missing virus” and the studies that should be done to prove it exists—real-world studies that have never been done and will never be done. Now, here is the smoking gun.

I’m aware that many scientists and doctors, who are otherwise exposing the pandemic as a fraud on legitimate grounds, don’t want to touch what I’m revealing here. I would remind them that, months ago, when some of us were already exposing the PCR test as unreliable and useless and deceptive, THAT ISSUE was too hot to touch. But now it isn’t.

The issue of the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus may seem as if it’s too hot, but it isn’t. It’s time to launch a full-on attack. Immediately.

The truth is only bitter for those who are hiding it.

I’m also aware there are people who have been building scenarios about how the virus is “activated.” Certain frequencies wake it up, and so on. Well, the question is: WHAT VIRUS? THE ONE THAT ISN’T THERE?

Still other people would say, “Then what are all these scientists sequencing in their labs, if it’s not the virus?” Again, not our problem. They might start with a piece of RNA, and then claim, without proof, it’s part of SARS-CoV-2; and they go to work on it. They claim anything they want to. It’s not science.

If a mechanic says he has a piece of a fender from a car that has never been seen before; if he claims he knows the car exists; but he can’t show you the car; are you going to buy his story? Are you going to invest your life-savings and life-savings of your family and friends in this car he admits is “unavailable?” Are you going to invest and go broke and sit in your home and wear a mask and keep your distance from other people and close your business and declare bankruptcy? Are you going to consent to that?

Another question that arises: if the virus is missing and has never been isolated, has never been proved to exist, what are they putting in the COVID vaccine? That’s a question that should be answered by law-enforcement agencies raiding many facilities and seizing materials and finding honest scientists who will discover what is really in the COVID vaccine brews. Waiting for that to happen…the sun could go dark first. In the meantime, do you want to take the shot in the arm?

Some people have claimed there are “animal models” which prove the coronavirus exists and is harmful, because the animals become sick, when they are “injected with the virus.” This is incorrect on two counts.

First, the animal models are supposed to progress through various species, until they arrive at animals that most closely resemble humans; chimps. The animal models being cited are mice or hamsters, which are very, very low on the totem pole.

Second, what are these mice being injected with? It’s supposed to be pure virus. But instead, it’s a soup which contains all sorts of material, including chemicals. The chemicals could be causing the animals to become ill.


Here is my breaking story about the virus that isn’t there, from yesterday:

The Smoking Gun: Where is the coronavirus? The CDC says it isn’t available.

The CDC document is titled, “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.” It is dated July 13, 2020.

Buried deep in the document, on page 39, in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” we have this: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…”

The key phrase there is: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available…”

Every object that exists can be quantified, which is to say, measured. The use of the term “quantified” in that phrase means: the CDC has no measurable amount of the virus, because it is unavailable. THE CDC HAS NO VIRUS.

A further tip-off is the use of the word ‘isolates.” This means NO ISOLATED VIRUS IS AVAILABLE.

Another way to put it: NO ONE HAS AN ISOLATED SPECIMEN OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS.

NO ONE HAS ISOLATED THE COVID-19 VIRUS.

THEREFORE, NO ONE HAS PROVED THAT IT EXISTS.

As if this were not enough of a revelation to shock the world, the CDC goes on to say they are presenting a diagnostic PCR test to detect the virus-that-hasn’t-been-isolated…and the test is looking for RNA which is PRESUMED to come from the virus that hasn’t been proved to exist.

And using this test, the CDC and every other public health agency in the world are counting COVID cases and deaths…and governments have instituted lockdowns and economic devastation using those case and death numbers as justification.

If people believe “you have the virus but it is not available,” and you have the virus except it is buried within other material and hasn’t been extracted and purified and isolated, these people believe the moon is made of green cheese.

This is like saying. “We have the 20 trillion dollars, they are contained somewhere in our myriad accounts, we just don’t know where.” If you don’t know where, you don’t know you have the money.

“The car keys are somewhere in the house. We just don’t where.” Really? If you don’t know where, you don’t know the keys are in the house.

“The missing cruise missile is somewhere in the arsenal, we just don’t where.” No. If you don’t know where, you don’t know the missile is in the arsenal.

“The COVID-19 virus is somewhere in the material we have—we just haven’t removed it from that material. But we know what it is and we’ve identified it and we know its structure.” NO YOU DON’T. YOU ASSUME THAT.

Science is not assumptions.

“But…but…there is a study which says a few researchers in a lab isolated the virus…”

They say they did. But in July, the CDC is saying no virus is available. I guess that means trucks were not available to bring the virus from that lab to the CDC. The trucks were out of gas. It was raining. The bridge was washed out. The trucks were in the shop. Joe, the driver, couldn’t find his mask, and he didn’t want to leave home without it…

Science is not assumptions.

The pandemic is a fraud, down to the root of the poisonous tree.


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.

Trump in danger—the test, the experimental drugs

Trump tests positive on the most unreliable diagnostic test ever devised; taking experimental drugs

PHONY TEST, DANGEROUS DRUGS

by Jon Rappoport

October 3, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

UPDATE 1: Trump flown to Walter Reed Hospital. Watch out for toxic antiviral drugs; e.g, remdesivir. And ventilators (lethal). This is a field day for Biden, and also for promoters of the pandemic and all the regulations. For example—“everyone must get tested.” Trump is made into the poster boy for COVID-19 propaganda. “The PRESIDENT has it.” No matter what happens to Trump, this is another step in the ongoing coup.

UPDATE 2: CNN reports— “Trump had a fever Friday, a source said. He has received the unapproved experimental Regeneron treatment as well as the drug remdesivir, according to the President’s physician.” NOT GOOD NEWS.

Regeneron is an experimental antibody cocktail. Typically, when the news reports use of these drugs, no mention is made of negative effects or toxicity.

The Daily Mail reports: “[In an ongoing clinical trial of Regeneron] Two patients who got the antibody cocktail drug had side effects. One of them was ‘serious,’ though it’s not clear what exactly happened to that person.”

In tests of antibody drugs, serious problems have occurred. These are characterized as “increased infection.”

Drugs.com discusses remdesivir: “[the drug] has not been approved to treat coronavirus or COVID-19. It is not yet known if remdesivir is an effective treatment for any condition. The FDA has authorized emergency use of remdesivir only in people with COVID-19 who are in a hospital. You must remain under the care of a doctor while receiving remdesivir.”

Adverse effects, according to Drugs.com: “Get emergency medical help if you have signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficult breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat…”

More adverse effects: “…chills, nausea, vomiting…increased sweating…a light-headed feeling, like you might pass out…abnormal liver function tests…anemia or decreased hemoglobin concentrations…acute kidney injury…”

And then we have this: “[remdesivir] is being investigated for and is currently available under an FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) for the treatment of severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.”

Trump doesn’t have “severe COVID-19.” So why is he being given remdesivir at all—especially given all the adverse effects of the drug?

Plus: NO ONE HAS EVER STUDIED THE EFFECTS OF COMBINING REGENERON AND REMDESIVIR—THE TWO DRUGS TRUMP IS TAKING. The doctors are playing god with the president’s life.

And now we come to the diagnostic test—Big question: how many cycles was Trump’s COVID test set for? I’ll explain.

Each cycle of the PCR test is a quantum leap in magnification of the test sample Trump provided. As every PCR tech knows, different labs use a different number of cycles when they perform the test. There is no uniform standard.

That is a giant scandal, because when you do the test using more than, say, 30 cycles, all sorts of irrelevant and inconsequential material shows up that can be counted as “positive for the coronavirus”—when that is NOT the case.

This is exactly what is happening all over the world every day. Too many cycles; absurd and wrong diagnosis.

Could Trump’s COVID test have been rigged in this fashion? It’s as easy as pie. Just increase the number of cycles. Doesn’t matter how many times the test was repeated for “confirmation.” It’ll read positive if there are too many cycles. Of course, no one will admit that Trump’s test was set for 40 cycles, if it was.

And guess what? The “cycle problem” is just one of many fatal flaws in the PCR test. I’ve covered this subject many times. Here it is again:


COVID diagnostic test: worst test ever devised?

The need for the COVID test is being hyped to the skies. More tests automatically create more case numbers. This allows heads of state and national governments to whipsaw the public:

“We were re-opening the economy, but now, with the escalating case numbers, we’ll have to impose lockdowns again…”

This wreaks more havoc and economic destruction, which is the true goal of the COVID operation. Its cruelty is boundless.

In this article, I present quotes from official sources about their own diagnostic test for the coronavirus, the PCR.

Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.

From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” [1]:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”

Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.

From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans” [2]:

“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.

The WHO document adds this little piece: “Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been validated.”

Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.

From the FDA: “LabCorp COVID-19RT-PCR test EUA Summary: ACCELERATED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARYCOVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA)” [3]:

“…The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”

Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID virus, “may not be the definite cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.

From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit” [4]:

“Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.”

Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.

“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.

“Application Qualitative”

Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body. I’ll cover how important this admission is in a minute.

“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.”

Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.

Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.

And now, I’ll add another lethal blow: the test has never been validated properly as an instrument to detect disease. Even if we blindly assumed it can detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient, it doesn’t show HOW MUCH virus is in the body. And that is key, because in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world, not in a lab, the patient would need to have millions and millions of the virus actively replicating in his body.

Proponents of the test assert that it CAN measure how much virus is in the body. To which I reply: prove it.

Prove it in a way it should have been proved decades ago—but never was.

Take five hundred people and remove tissue samples from them. The people who take the samples do NOT do the test. The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in.

The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and HOW MUCH of it they found.

“All right, in patients 24, 46, 65, 76, 87, and 93 we found a great deal of virus.”

Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. Are they sick? Are they running marathons? Let’s find out.

This OBVIOUS vetting of the test has never been done. That is an enormous scandal. Where are the controlled test results in 500 patients, a thousand patients? Nowhere.

The PCR is an unproven fraud.

“But…but…what about all the sick and dying people…why are they sick?”

I’ve written thousands of words answering that question, in past articles. A NUMBER of conditions—none involving COVID, and most involving old traditional diseases—are making people sick.

There are other large-scale studies of the PCR test that have never been done. I’ve covered them in detail, in prior articles. To summarize: a study using a thousand patients, in which their tissue samples are sent to 30 different labs for analysis and verdicts, to see whether the results are uniform from lab to lab; and a study of 1000 patients, in which the results are compared with the results of analysis by electron microcopy. These large studies—never done.

In other words, the PCR test has never been adequately tested; it has never been properly validated as a diagnostic tool.

Here, from Canadian researcher David Crowe’s bombshell paper, FLAWS IN CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC THEORY, is a key quote about the PCR test [5]:

“A review of 33 RT-PCR tests for COVID-19 approved under US FDA Emergency Use Authorizations showed a wide range of differences in what the tests were looking for and how they decided whether they had found it. The tests look for a variety of different segments (‘genes’) of the presumed COVID-19 genome, that only amounts to about 1% or less of the total genome, which is about 30,000 bases. Perhaps the worst feature of the tests is how they decide whether the sample is positive if more than one [‘gene’] segment is being looked for. Some tests look for only one, so it must be present for a positive. But tests that look for two segments are split between those that require both to be present and those that require either one for a positive. Some tests look for three segments but only require any two to be present, while one test insisted on all three. Tests that allow a segment to be undetected raise the question of how it can be said that a virus was detected when an important part of it was missing.”

If the PCR is a uniform standardized test, a rabbit is a spaceship.

Speaking of lack of uniformity in test results, here is a quote from Stephen Bustin, who is considered one of the foremost experts on PCR in the world. The excerpt is from his 2017 article, “Talking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT-qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research” [6]:

“Awareness of variability problems associated with PCR has been long-standing, with the first report describing inconsistencies with replicate and serial specimens evaluated within and between laboratories as early as 1992. The lack of a theoretical understanding of the dynamic processes involved in PCR, especially with respect to the amplification of nonreproducible and/or unexpected amplification products, was also highlighted decades ago. These observations and the resulting implications are largely disregarded.”

Here is the story of an epic failure of the PCR, right out in the open, for all to see. The reference is the NY Times, January 22, 2007, “Faith in Quick Tests Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.” [7]

“Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing…By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing…”

“For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.”

“Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”

“Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them astray.”

“There are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one of the largest, but it was by no means an exception, she said.”

“Many of the new molecular [PCR] tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called ‘home brews,’ are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.”

“’You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,’ with the new molecular [PCR] tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ‘All bets are off on exact performance’.”

“With pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, ‘there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,’ and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. ‘We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,’ Dr. Kretsinger added.”

“Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.”

“’The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,’ Dr. Petti said. ‘No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R’.”

There is more to report about the PCR test, and I have, but I’ll make this final point for now: I’ve presented, over the last several months, compelling evidence that no one proved the existence of the COVID virus, by proper scientific procedures, in the first place. So the PCR test would be looking for…what? A virus that isn’t there?

And on the back of this test, governments are wrecking economies all over the world, and untold numbers of human lives.


SOURCES:

[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/laboratory-guidance

[3] https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

[4] https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/sars-cov-2-coronavirus-multiplex-rt-qpcr-kit-277854-457.htm

[5] https://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf

[6] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/eci.12801

[7] nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.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 diagnostic test: worst test ever devised?

by Jon Rappoport

September 10, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

The need for the COVID test is being hyped to the skies. More tests automatically create more case numbers. This allows heads of state and national governments to whipsaw the public:

“We were re-opening the economy, but now, with the escalating case numbers, we’ll have to impose lockdowns again…”

This wreaks more havoc and economic destruction, which is the true goal of the COVID operation. Its cruelty is boundless.

In this article, I present quotes from official sources about their own diagnostic test for the coronavirus, the PCR.

Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.

From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” [1]:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”

Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.

From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans” [2]:

“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.

The WHO document adds this little piece: “Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been validated.”

Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.

From the FDA: “LabCorp COVID-19RT-PCR test EUA Summary: ACCELERATED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARYCOVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA)” [3]:

“…The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”

Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID virus, “may not be the definite cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.

From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit” [4]:

“Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.”

Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.

“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.

“Application Qualitative”

Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body. I’ll cover how important this admission is in a minute.

“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.”

Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.

Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.


And now, I’ll add another lethal blow: the test has never been validated properly as an instrument to detect disease. Even if we blindly assumed it can detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient, it doesn’t show HOW MUCH virus is in the body. And that is key, because in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world, not in a lab, the patient would need to have millions and millions of the virus actively replicating in his body.

Proponents of the test assert that it CAN measure how much virus is in the body. To which I reply: prove it.

Prove it in a way it should have been proved decades ago—but never was.

Take five hundred people and remove tissue samples from them. The people who take the samples do NOT do the test. The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in.

The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and HOW MUCH of it they found.

“All right, in patients 24, 46, 65, 76, 87, and 93 we found a great deal of virus.”

Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. Are they sick? Are they running marathons? Let’s find out.

This OBVIOUS vetting of the test has never been done. That is an enormous scandal. Where are the controlled test results in 500 patients, a thousand patients? Nowhere.

The PCR is an unproven fraud.

“But…but…what about all the sick and dying people…why are they sick?”

I’ve written thousands of words answering that question, in past articles. A NUMBER of conditions—none involving COVID, and most involving old traditional diseases—are making people sick.

There are other large-scale studies of the PCR test that have never been done. I’ve covered them in detail, in prior articles. To summarize: a study using a thousand patients, in which their tissue samples are sent to 30 different labs for analysis and verdicts, to see whether the results are uniform from lab to lab; and a study of 1000 patients, in which the results are compared with the results of analysis by electron microcopy. These large studies—never done.

In other words, the PCR test has never been adequately tested; it has never been properly validated as a diagnostic tool.

Here, from Canadian researcher David Crowe’s bombshell paper, FLAWS IN CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC THEORY, is a key quote about the PCR test [5]:

“A review of 33 RT-PCR tests for COVID-19 approved under US FDA Emergency Use Authorizations showed a wide range of differences in what the tests were looking for and how they decided whether they had found it. The tests look for a variety of different segments (‘genes’) of the presumed COVID-19 genome, that only amounts to about 1% or less of the total genome, which is about 30,000 bases. Perhaps the worst feature of the tests is how they decide whether the sample is positive if more than one [‘gene’] segment is being looked for. Some tests look for only one, so it must be present for a positive. But tests that look for two segments are split between those that require both to be present and those that require either one for a positive. Some tests look for three segments but only require any two to be present, while one test insisted on all three. Tests that allow a segment to be undetected raise the question of how it can be said that a virus was detected when an important part of it was missing.”

If the PCR is a uniform standardized test, a rabbit is a spaceship.

Speaking of lack of uniformity in test results, here is a quote from Stephen Bustin, who is considered one of the foremost experts on PCR in the world. The excerpt is from his 2017 article, “Talking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT-qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research” [6]:

“Awareness of variability problems associated with PCR has been long-standing, with the first report describing inconsistencies with replicate and serial specimens evaluated within and between laboratories as early as 1992. The lack of a theoretical understanding of the dynamic processes involved in PCR, especially with respect to the amplification of nonreproducible and/or unexpected amplification products, was also highlighted decades ago. These observations and the resulting implications are largely disregarded.”

Here is the story of an epic failure of the PCR, right out in the open, for all to see. The reference is the NY Times, January 22, 2007, “Faith in Quick Tests Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.” [7]

“Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing…By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing…”

“For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.”

“Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”

“Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them astray.”

“There are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one of the largest, but it was by no means an exception, she said.”

“Many of the new molecular [PCR] tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called ‘home brews,’ are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.”

“’You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,’ with the new molecular [PCR] tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ‘All bets are off on exact performance’.”

“With pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, ‘there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,’ and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. ‘We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,’ Dr. Kretsinger added.”

“Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.”

“’The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,’ Dr. Petti said. ‘No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R’.”

There is more to report about the PCR test, and I have, but I’ll make this final point for now: I’ve presented, over the last several months, compelling evidence that no one proved the existence of the COVID virus, by proper scientific procedures, in the first place. So the PCR test would be looking for…what? A virus that isn’t there?

And on the back of this test, governments are wrecking economies all over the world, and untold numbers of human lives.


SOURCES:

[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/laboratory-guidance

note: said document above (archived at web.archive.org) was on the following page…

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/laboratory-guidance

…however, that page now redirects to…

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance-publications

…and that new page does not have said document

see also,…

blog.microbiologics.com/2019-novel-coronavirus-what-microbiologists-need-to-know/

[3] https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

[4] https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/sars-cov-2-coronavirus-multiplex-rt-qpcr-kit-277854-457.htm

[5] https://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf

[6] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/eci.12801

[7] nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.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.

The whole scam just fell apart: COVID test, overwhelming number of false positives

by Jon Rappoport

September 1, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Townhall.com, August 29 [1]: “According to The New York Times, potentially 90 percent of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 have such insignificant amounts of the virus present in their bodies that such individuals do not need to isolate nor are they candidates for contact tracing. Leading public health experts are now concerned that overtesting is responsible for misdiagnosing a huge number of people with harmless amounts of the virus in their systems.”

“’Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…’ warns The Times.”

Yes, that’s what the NY Times is confessing (8/29) [2]: “Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus. Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…”

“In three sets of testing data…compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”

Let me break this down for you, because it’s a lot worse than the Times admits. The rabbit hole goes much deeper—and I’ve been reporting on the deeper facts for months.

The issue appears to be the ballooning sensitivity of the PCR test. It’s so sensitive that it picks up inconsequential tiny, tiny amounts of virus that couldn’t harm a flea—and it calls these amounts “positive.”

Therefore, millions of people are labeled “positive/infected” who carry so little virus that no harm would come to them or anyone they come in contact with.

That would be bad enough. But the truth is, the PCR test is not able to produce ANY reliable number that reflects how much virus a person is carrying. A lot, a little, it doesn’t matter.

The test has never been validated, in a large-scale study, for the ability to quantify the amount of virus a person is carrying. I’ve proposed how that study should be done IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT IN THE LAB.

You take 1000 people and remove tissue samples from them. A lab puts these samples through its PCR and announces which virus it found in each case and how much virus it found in each case.

It says: “All right, in patients 23, 46, 76, 89, 265 we found a high amount of virus.”

That should mean these particular patients are visibly sick. They will have obvious clinical symptoms. Why? Because actual illness requires millions of millions of a virus replicating in the body.

So now we unblind these particular patients with high amounts of virus, according to the PCR. Are they, in fact, sick? Or are they running marathons and swimming five miles a day? Let’s see. For real.

THIS VALIDATION OF THE PCR HAS NEVER BEEN DONE.

Therefore, the claim that the PCR can determine how much virus is in a human is completely and utterly unproven. Period.

Therefore, ALL the PCR tests being done on people all over the world reflect NOTHING about illness, infection, contagion, or transmission.

The scam is wall to wall.

But there’s more.

The PCR isn’t even testing for a particular virus in the first place. It’s using a piece of RNA assumed to be part of a virus. The assumption is unproven.

And finally, as I’ve been writing and demonstrating for months, there is no evidence that researchers used proper procedure to discover “a new coronavirus that is causing a pandemic.” [3]

Therefore, the PCR test, as worthless as it already is, aims to show the presence of a germ that has never been shown to exist.

But let’s lock down the planet, destroy economies and untold numbers of lives in the process.

SOURCES:

[1] townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/08/29/it-looks-like-a-lot-of-those-positive-covid-tests-should-have-been-negative-n2575305

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

[3] http://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/19/dr-tom-cowan-explores-the-covid-virus-invented-out-of-sheer-nonsense/


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.

Another failure of the COVID diagnostic test

by Jon Rappoport

July 29, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

In previous articles, I’ve detailed several key reasons why the PCR test is worthless and deceptive. (PCR article archive here).

Here I discuss yet another reason: the uniformity of the test has never been properly validated. Different labs come up with different results.

Let’s start here—the reference is the NY Times, January 22, 2007, “Faith in Quick Tests Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.”

(Update: October 21, 2020: For the NY Times ‘sports’ version, click here: “Three Tests, a Private Jet and a New Rule: How [the University of Alabama’s record-breaking football coach] Nick Saban Made Kickoff”)

“Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing…By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing…”

“For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.”

“Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”

“Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them astray.”

“There are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one the largest, but it was by no means an exception, she said.”

“Many of the new molecular [PCR] tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called ‘home brews,’ are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.”

“’You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,’ with the new molecular [PCR] tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ‘All bets are off on exact performance’.”

“With pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, ‘there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,’ and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. ‘We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,’ Dr. Kretsinger added.”

“Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.”

“’The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,’ Dr. Petti said. ‘No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R’.”

—Sobering, to say the least. Of course, some people will claim that since the date of the Times’ article (2007), vast improvements have been made in the PCR test.

Really? The truth is, something much worse is lurking in the weeds. It has been lurking ever since the PCR was approved for use in diagnostics:

No large study validating the uniformity of PCR results, from lab to lab, has ever been done.

You would think at least a dozen very large studies had checked for uniform results, before unleashing the PCR on the public; but no, this was not the case. It is still not the case.

Here is what should have been done decades ago:

Take a thousand volunteers. Remove tissue samples from each person. Send those samples to 30 different labs. Have the labs run PCR and announce their findings for each volunteer.

“We found the following virus in sample 1…” Something simple like that.

Now compare the findings, in each of the 1000 cases, from all 30 labs. Are the findings the same? Are the outcomes uniform all the way across the board?

My money would be against it. Strongly against.

But this is not the end of the process. SEVERAL of these large-scale studies should be done. In EACH study, there are 1000 volunteers and 30 labs.

Why? Because, as you can readily see, the whole story about a current pandemic is riding on those tests. The story, the containment measures, the lockdowns, the economic devastation, the human destruction—it’s all built on the presumption that the PCR is a valid test.

It’s unthinkable that these validation studies of the PCR weren’t done decades ago. But they weren’t. And there is only one reason why: to avoid the truth. The results of the PCR aren’t uniform. They vary from lab to lab.

One lab says positive for virus B. Another lab says negative for virus B. Both labs are looking at the same sample.

No? Couldn’t be? Then prove it with the several large-scale studies I’m proposing.

I’ll give you a rough fictional analogy for the current testing situation—

In an old-growth forest of immense trees, a government agency tests white spots found on some trunks. The verdict? A highly destructive and novel fungus, for which there is no remedy. Without immediate and drastic action, the fungus will spread to the whole forest and destroy all the trees.

So a government contract is signed with a logging company, and workers move in and start cutting down many trees.

Meanwhile, another lab tests those white spots and reports they’re harmless bird droppings. Yet another lab claims they’re a mild traditional fungus of no great concern.

The reports of these two labs are suppressed and censored. The labs are put on a quiet blacklist, and their business dries up.

The tree cutting continues.

An analyst at the US Forestry Service sends a memo to his boss. It details the fact that the test which found deadly fungus is unreliable. Different labs doing the test come up with different and conflicting results.

Worse yet, that test was never properly validated as a uniform process before being approved for use. In other words, no one did a large study in which multiple labs used the test to determine the composition of spots found on trees. No one made sure that all labs came to the same conclusions using the test.

The Forestry analyst writes: “The test has inherent flaws. Different labs examining the same sample will always come up with different results. This has disastrous consequences in the real world. You can see that now; we are cutting down half a forest to prevent the spread of a fungus which has been noticed for centuries, and never caused serious harm…”

The analyst is fired from his job and firmly reminded that he signed a non-disclosure agreement, and he better keep his mouth shut.

The tree-cutting goes on. A developer buys up the cleared land at a very low price…

In essence, the pipeline of information from actually reliable sources, to the government, and then to the public, is narrowed, and guarded against unwelcome intrusions of TRUTH.

In the case of the PCR test, that’s what is happening.

SOURCE:

nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html

nytimes.com/2020/10/21/sports/ncaafootball/saban-virus-tests-alabama.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.

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.

Epidemic: Shocked that tests for the virus are worthless? You shouldn’t be.

by Jon Rappoport

May 27, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’ve written and published many words explaining why the diagnostic tests for the coronavirus are unreliable, inherently worthless, wrong-headed, and deceptive. (For starters, click here.)

This is not the first time “testing madness” has been launched. Far from it.

In fact, there is a whole branch of medicine which diagnoses patients based on NO TESTS AT ALL.

I’m talking about millions of patients. And untold billions in profits. Stretching out more than a century.

In my continuing series of articles about the China epidemic, I raise the question of medical experts’ track record of deceit. Why? Because, how can you trust what they say about the so-called epidemic, if they have an unparalleled history of lying and obfuscation?

Why, for example, should you take, at face value, their claim that they’ve found a single virus which is causing a major outbreak of disease? Professional liars should not be accorded such a level of respect.

In their wretched track record, we come to the whole subject of medical psychiatry. This is where real and deep human suffering—from many different causes—is professionally re-channeled into arbitrary categories of so-called “mental disorders,” requiring treatment with devastating drugs. The fraud is wall to wall.

Before we take this journey, a warning: Suddenly withdrawing from psychiatric drugs can be very dangerous, even life-threatening. Withdrawal should be done gradually, supervised by a caring professional who knows what he’s doing. See Breggin.com.

—Let’s screen everybody to find out if they have mental disorders. Let’s diagnose as many people as possible with mental disorders—

The first question to ask is: do these mental disorders have any scientific basis? There are now roughly 300 of them. They multiply like fruit flies.

An open secret has been bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.

No defining blood tests, no urine tests, no saliva tests, no brain scans, no genetic assays.

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE INVENTED, CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by committees of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

In a PBS Frontline episode, Does ADHD Exist?, Dr. Russell Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, unintentionally spelled out the fraud.

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY: That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid.

Oh, indeed, that does make them invalid. Utterly and completely. All 297 mental disorders. Because there are no defining tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.

We are looking at a science that isn’t a science. That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.

There’s more. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”

Well, sure. If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been obliquely referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.

If this is medical science, a duck is a rocket ship.

To repeat, Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definitions of Bipolar and ADHD were expanded to include more people.

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

* acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity
* life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas
* brain damage

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

* intercranial pressure leading to blindness
* peripheral circulatory collapse
* stupor and coma

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:

* serious impairment of cognitive function
* fainting
* restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage)

Dr. Frances label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of Ritalin (and other similar amphetamine-like compounds) as the treatment of choice.

So…what about Ritalin?

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse effects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

* Paranoid delusions
* Paranoid psychosis
* Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
* Activation of psychotic symptoms
* Toxic psychosis
* Visual hallucinations
* Auditory hallucinations
* Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
* Effects pathological thought processes
* Extreme withdrawal
* Terrified affect
* Started screaming
* Aggressiveness
* Insomnia
* Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
* Psychic dependence
* High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
* Decreased REM sleep
* When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
* Convulsions
* Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

Let’s go deeper. In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991)

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on it week after week? They are in harness.

Here’s a coda:

This one is big.

The so-called “chemical-imbalance” theory of mental illness is dead.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”

Boom.

Dead.

However…urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.

In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to protect his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:

“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”

Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.

And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…

…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…

…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct a chemical imbalance?

The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake.

There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders.

All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide.

Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a time. Stories on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off. But on February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.” She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”

Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, “Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?”

In his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin mentions that the Donahue show (Feb. 28, 1991) “put together a group of individuals who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous after taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response confirmed the problem.”

Breggin also cites a troubling study from the February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) which reports on “six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment. The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk. While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding `suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”

An earlier study, from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that, in five examined cases, people on Prozac developed what is called akathisia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Breggin comments that akathisia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathisia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathisia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

The well-known publication, California Lawyer, in a December 1998 article called “Protecting Prozac,” mentions other highly qualified critics of the drug: “David Healy, MD, an internationally renowned psychopharmacologist, has stated in sworn deposition that `contrary to Lilly’s view, there is a plausible cause-and-effect relationship between Prozac’ and suicidal-homicidal events. An epidemiological study published in 1995 by the British Medical Journal also links Prozac to increased suicide risk.”

A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

In wide use. This despite such contrary information and the negative, dangerous effects of these drugs.

There are other studies: “Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al. It reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”

September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.

[What is true about Prozac is true about Paxil or Zoloft or any of the other SSRI antidepressants. And be warned: suddenly withdrawing from any psychiatric drug can be extremely dangerous to the patient.]

Dr. Breggin, referring to an official directory of psychiatric disorders, the DSM-III-R, writes that withdrawal from amphetamine-type drugs, including Ritalin, can cause “depression, anxiety, and irritability as well as sleep problems, fatigue, and agitation.” Breggin then remarks, “The individual may become suicidal in response to the depression.”

The well-known Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics reveals a vital fact. It states that Ritalin is “structurally related to amphetamines … Its pharmacological properties are essentially the same as those of the amphetamines.” In other words, the only clear difference is legality. And the effects, in layman’s terms, are obvious. You take speed and, sooner or later, you start crashing. You become agitated, irritable, paranoid, delusional, aggressive.

In Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin discusses the subject of drug combinations: “Combining antidepressants [e.g., Prozac, Luvox] and psychostimulants [e.g., Ritalin] increases the risk of cardiovascular catastrophe, seizures, sedation, euphoria, and psychosis. Withdrawal from the combination can cause a severe reaction that includes confusion, emotional instability, agitation, and aggression.”

What do the medical experts who make pronouncements about epidemics and psychiatry have in common?

They went to medical school. They served internships and residencies. They were trained to believe they were the only authorities in their fields.

They permit no basic criticism of their work—for example, they would never consider the charge that the virus supposedly responsible for an epidemic has never been adequately tested for, or isolated, in patients. In the same way, they would never seriously consider the implications of the fact that there are no defining laboratory tests for any so-called mental disorder.

They believe they are kings of knowledge, and no one else has the truth.

They must protect their turf.

They rely on government protection and collusion and endorsement to sustain their basic lies.

They are “born from the same egg.”

“We are MEDICAL. Therefore, we are right.”

As I’ve been demonstrating in this, and other articles, they’re WRONG.

Destructively wrong.


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.