Vaccines Beneath The Surface

by Jon Rappoport

April 27, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)


(Episode 6 of Rappoport Podcasts — “Kill-Shot Psychiatry, George Carlin, hero Peter Breggin; And the Real Drug War That Is Eating America” — is now posted on my substack. To listen, click here. To learn more about This Episode of Rappoport Podcasts, click here.)


The article below was a small section of my book, AIDS INC., which I wrote in 1987-8. At the time, I decided to take a look at vaccines and see what I could find out about them, because questions were being raised about the possible disease/toxic effects of a relatively new hepatitis-B vaccine, and its possible connection to AIDS.

My ensuing research led me into all sorts of surprising areas. These days, many people are seeing that the official position on vaccines is not the true story. So I thought I would reprint that section from AIDS INC. here.

Since the period of 1987-8, MUCH more has come to light about vaccine safety and efficacy. I’ve made no attempt to update my findings in a systematic way. They stand on their own, and reveal that, in the historical record, much has been lost, forgotten, and misplaced.


For years, critics on the fringes of medicine have pointed to problems with vaccines. It is generally acknowledged that, given to people whose immune systems are compromised, they can be immunosuppressive.

And from time to time, stories have surfaced about vaccines which have been dangerously contaminated, as a result of the manufacturing process.

We are taught to believe that untoward reactions to vaccines are rare, and that there has never been a question about the overwhelming success of all vaccines at all times, wherever they have been used.

The recent history of vaccines, though, shows a much more spotty record than one might think. In fact, it raises very disturbing questions about what vaccines do and don’t do to the human body. Here is simply a series of excerpts from several authors on the subject. It is a quite different slant on vaccines.

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

“The principal evidence that… vaccines are effective actually dates from the more recent period, during which time the dreaded polio epidemics of the 1940s and 1950s have never reappeared in the developed countries; and measles, mumps and rubella, which even a generation ago were among the commonest diseases of childhood, have become far less prevalent, at least in their classic acute forms, since the triple MMR vaccine was introduced into common use.

“Yet how the vaccines actually accomplish these changes is not nearly as well understood as most people like to think it is. The disturbing possibility that they act in some other way than by producing a genuine immunity is suggested by the fact that the diseases in question have continued to break out even in highly immunized populations, and that in such cases the observed differences in incidence and severity between immunized and unimmunized persons have tended to be far less dramatic than expected, and in some cases, not measurably significant at all.

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

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

“Finally, although the overall incidence of typical acute measles in the U.S. has dropped sharply from about 400,000 cases annually in the early 1960s to about 30,000 cases by 1974-76, the death rate remained exactly the same; and, with the peak incidence now occurring in adolescents and young adults, the risk of pneumonia and demonstrable liver abnormalities has actually increased substantially, according to one recent study, to well over 3% and 2%, respectively.” Richard Moskowitz, MD, The Case Against Immunizations, 1983, American Institute of Homeopathy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the spring of 1955, Cutter Labs started selling their standard polio vaccine. The vaccine was infective, and 200 cases of polio resulted among vaccinees. Of these, there were eleven deaths. About 100 cases of paralysis resulted. JR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—end of 1987-8 chapter—

These days, my comments on the destructive effects of vaccines and their completely needless use are much more aggressive, owing to further research, and discoveries about so-called “viruses,” the great fairy tales that rank with the green cheese of the moon.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

CDC/FDA smoking gun of smoking guns

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

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

by Jon Rappoport

March 9, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

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

The CDC issued a document that bulges with devastating admissions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They have a soup they make in their labs.

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Shocker: pandemic end game; Humpty Dumpty falls off the wall; cover is blown

by Jon Rappoport

February 24, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

Two breaking developments—

File the first one under: WHEN YOU SPIN A CONVENTIONAL FAKE NARRATIVE, YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU’RE GOING TO END UP.

Iceland cancels all COVID restrictions. Not because case numbers are dropping, but because, as I’ve written several times, once you (falsely) accept the existence of a new spreading virus, you’re committed to a narrative which can only end with EVERYONE INFECTED—and THAT’S called herd immunity.

Done. Finished. Forget vaccines, masks, distancing, lockdowns. Just live. Live out in the open.

Get a load of this:

Reuters: “Iceland will lift all remaining COVID-19 restrictions on Friday…the Ministry of Health said on Wednesday.”

“’Widespread societal [immune system] resistance to COVID-19 [meaning the development of natural immunity] is the main route out of the epidemic,’ the ministry said…”

“’To achieve this [immunity], as many people as possible need to be infected with the virus’…”

BANG. BOOM. POW.

The Ministry of Health just announced the end game, in alignment with the (false) assumptions which have been in place since January of 2020. Again, once you say a virus is on the loose all over the world, you’re committed to the only response there is:

GET INFECTED. DEVELOP NATURAL IMMUNITY. GO ABOUT YOUR LIVES.

That’s how the story wraps up. Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall and no one could put him back together again. You tell the virus tale, and that’s your predestined conclusion.

Of course there is no new virus, and the whole virus story is a fraud, as I’ve proved numerous times over the past 2 years. I’ve already described, in detail, all the ins and outs of the con called COVID.

But here, with Iceland, we see the beginning of sane national responses within the context of a completely insane scenario.

THAT’S what we’re looking at. Nothing more, nothing less.

“Well, we pretended there was a new unstoppable virus…and so here we are, exactly where we knew we would be. Get infected. Develop herd immunity. That is all. Goodbye.”

And all the major medical liars slowly back away from the general population…very slowly…hoping no one notices what just happened…hoping no one realizes this wrap-up was always in the cards…hoping no one will say: YOU RUINED AND KILLED UNTOLD MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AND YOU KNEW ALL ALONG THIS WAS GOING TO BE YOUR CLIMAX: “GET INFECTED.”

Shocking story number two—

The health/life insurance company tidal wave is breaking.

Well, of course it is. Who did you think was going to be left holding the bag for all the unreported injuries and deaths stemming from the COVID vaccines?

These life insurance companies employ actuaries, and these smart guys predict the number of claims they’re going to pay out…and THAT’S how they decide what the policy holders must pay…in order for the companies to maintain their profits…

Except, the actuaries had no idea what was going to happen.

They didn’t realize how many injury/death claims were going to be filed, once the COVID killshots were unleashed on the world.

But NOW THEY KNOW.

Former NY Times reporter, Alex Berenson: “Welt, a major German newspaper, just ran an interview with Andreas Schofbeck, a board member for a Bavarian insurer called BKK Provita.”

“By itself, BKK Provita has 120,000 members. But it is a much larger consortium of so-called BKK insurers that are affiliated with German companies and collectively have 10.9 million members.”

“Here’s how Schofbeck described the [injury] claims in the BKK [company] database, according to one of the reporters who interviewed him:…‘a violent warning signal’.”

Schofbeck is reacting, with great alarm, to all the vaccine injury claims that have been filed—looking at data from 10.9 MILLION policy holders.

In other words, it’s OVERWHELMING.

Another Humpty Dumpty just fell off the wall and broke into pieces.

Obviously, health/life insurance companies around the world are looking at similar horrific numbers.

What are these companies going to do? Just sit there and suck up their huge losses?

No. For starters, they’re going to blame the vaccine manufacturers. That’s already quite interesting, even if news outlets aren’t reporting it. Because, as Edward Dowd, former portfolio manager for BlackRock, has been saying, WALL STREET will take notice.

430 to 144. Can you guess what those numbers represent? The all-time high peak of the Moderna share price, and the most recent closing price, as of this writing.

BANG.

61 to 46. The first number is the high, over the past year, for the Pfizer share price, and the second number is the most recent close, as of this writing.

These insurance-vaccine company developments were also inevitable, from the beginning of the fake pandemic.

Anyone who knows the real history of vaccines would have seen it in a second.

You rapidly shoot up the whole world with a new vaccine, and the injury-death numbers are going to go through the roof.

Insurance companies don’t like to be left holding the bag and absorbing the consequences of both the jab and the lies the vaccine front men have been telling.

Insurance companies are wired up to, heavily influence, and control all sorts of politicians and bureaucrats and public health officials. You can bet your bottom dollar these companies have been reading the riot act to their government puppets.

“You [FDA] morons…you’re supposed to be protecting the public from dangerous drugs and vaccines. And now people all over the world are dropping like flies from the COVID shot, and those people are our POLICY HOLDERS.”

“What did you want us to do? For chrissakes, we work for the pharmaceutical companies.”

“We’re not interested in excuses. We want money. Lots of it, to make up for our losses.”

“Don’t look at us. We don’t do bailouts. Go to Treasury, or the President.”

“The President can’t even find his way from the shower to the bedroom in the White House residence.”

“Talk to nurse Jill or Susan Rice…”

And word of these conversations leaks out to Wall Street.

Look for new bailouts, and a plethora of cover stories to explain why insurance companies are suddenly inhaling hundreds of billions of government dollars (or more.)

Cover stories only the most naïve fools will believe.

Serial liar Tony Fauci may be able to tap dance with his media partners every Sunday morning on the news talk shows; but when giant insurance companies want him to pay for his sins, that’s a whole different story.

Tony could become yet another Humpty Dumpty…

All we need now—among all the insurance companies in the world—are five or six OUTRAGED big-time insurance execs to step out of the shadows with their hair on fire, completely fed up with the grand cover-up of vaccine injuries, and talking their heads off.

Not whistleblowers. Siren sounders.

Let CDC/WHO try to brush THAT off.


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 HIV exist? An explosive interview

by Jon Rappoport

February 17, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

Before we get to Christine Johnson’s interview, a bit of background.

My first book, AIDS INC., was published in 1988. The research I engaged in then formed a foundation for my recent work in exposing the vast fraud called COVID-19.

In 1987-88, my main question eventually became: does HIV cause AIDS? For months, I had blithely assumed the obvious answer was yes. This created havoc in my investigation, because I was facing contradictions I couldn’t solve.

For example, in parts of Africa, people who were chronically ill and dying obviously needed no push from a new virus. All their “AIDS” conditions and symptoms could be explained by their environment: contaminated water supplies; sewage pumped directly into the drinking water; protein-calorie malnutrition; hunger, starvation; medical treatment with immunosuppressive vaccines and drugs; toxic pesticides; fertile farm land stolen by corporations and governments; wars; extreme poverty. The virus cover story actually obscured all these ongoing crimes.

Finally, in the summer of 1987, I found several researchers who were rejecting the notion that HIV caused AIDS. Their reports were persuasive.

I’m shortcutting a great deal of my 1987-8 investigation here, but once HIV was out of the picture for me, many pieces fell into place. I discovered that, in EVERY group supposedly at “high-risk” for AIDS, their conditions and symptoms could be entirely explained by factors that had nothing to do with a new virus.

AIDS was not one condition. It was an umbrella label, used to re-package a number of immunosuppressive symptoms and create the illusion of a new and unique and single “pandemic.”

Several years after the publication of AIDS INC., I became aware of a quite different emerging debate going on under the surface of research: DOES HIV EXIST?

Was the purported virus ever truly discovered?

And THAT question led to: what is the correct procedure for discovering a new virus?

The following 1997 interview, conducted by brilliant freelance journalist, Christine Johnson, delves into these questions:

How should researchers prove that a particular virus exists? How should they isolate it? What are the correct steps?

These questions, and their answers, reside at the heart of most disease research—and yet, overwhelmingly, doctors never explore them or even consider them.

Johnson interviews Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…”

Here I’m publishing and highlighting excerpts from the interview. Technical issues are discussed. Grasping them is not the easiest exercise you’ve ever done, but I believe the serious reader can comprehend the vital essentials.

Christine Johnson: Does HIV cause AIDS?

Eleni Papadopulos: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.

… CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?

EP: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]

CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.

EP: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.

CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?

EP: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.

… CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.

EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.

The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.

That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.

CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?

EP: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.

CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?

EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.

CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.

EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.

CJ: And what was that method?

EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.

CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?

EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.

CJ: But what about their pictures?

EP: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…

—end of interview excerpt—

If you grasp the essentials of this discussion, you’ll see there is every reason to doubt the existence of HIV, because the methods for proving its existence were not followed.

Worse yet, it appears that Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier, the two scientists credited with the discovery of HIV—as well as other elite researchers—were aware they weren’t employing correct methods.

And so…as I’ve reported, there is every reason to doubt and reject the existence of the COVID virus, SARS-CoV-2, since correct large-scale electron microscope studies have never been done. And by large-scale, I mean: attempting to find and photograph the virus in a cohort of, say, 1000 people who are supposed to be “pandemic patients.” I’m NOT talking about one or two electron-microscope photos accompanying a study.

But even that isn’t the end of the story. There is one further potential limiting factor in virus research. I became aware of it about a year ago. Analysis of electron microscope findings is fraught with difficulty and doubt. Are scientists actually looking at what they think they’re looking at in these photos? I refer readers to the work of neurobiologist Harold Hillman, who concluded that researchers were, for the most part, looking at artifacts, not actual cells or entities within cells. Another suppressed controversy.

After more than 30 years of investigating medical research fraud, my general conclusion is, the deeper you go the stranger it gets. Or to put it another way, the worse it gets.


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.

Email from a poisonous moron

by Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

It was perfect. Made my day.

Aside from all the cursing and accusing, this moron claimed I had no right and no standing to DISBELIEVE scientists who work in ultra-secret labs where they assert they’re discovering new viruses.

I have no standing because I don’t have the degrees.

Of course. A degree is an automatic certification of competency and honesty.

PhD. MD.

Only another person with those credentials can step up to the plate and question the experts in their labs.

THAT premise and that idea produces fascists.

That moronic and venomous notion produces fascists who are willing to fight to maintain the Police State.

That desperate clinging to AUTHORITY is why the war for freedom is forever.

That level of stupidity is why Fauci, whose sole reason for being is—“I’m on television”—can attract an army of worshipping idiots—and can lead the nation into a trap where slavery is supposed to be salvation.

The poisonous moron who sent that email is a representative of all the rubes and yokels and marks who are ready and willing to cancel centuries of the struggle for freedom.

The poisonous moron who sent the email would go to her DOCTOR, the competent one, and if he said she should have her leg cut off, she would salute and say, “How soon can we schedule it?” And she would be proud.

I salute her. She is willing to expose herself as a portrait on the wall; a portrait we can point to and say, “This is the key. This is what MKULTRA looks like. This is self-made mind control.”

Given the chance, she would have trained Hitler Youth.

Of course, she doesn’t know that. She thinks she stands for truth and justice.

And that’s the brilliance of it. The reversal. The day suddenly turns to night. Making life into death.

Every human has experienced this twist, on some level. Every human has found himself a buck private at the back of a line toting a gun and taking orders and—is then jolted into: WHAT AM I DOING HERE? HOW DID I GET HERE? I’M ON THE WRONG SIDE.

But some are never jolted. They march on. They keep obeying the commanders who have the DEGREES and the CREDENTIALS.

They say, “I’m marching to save lives.”

They say, “If you doubt the commanders, you’re killing the innocent.”

But they’re the ones firing their weapons. And holding the syringes and the needles.

And I want to say to my readers: For the past two years, many of us have been exposing the whole rotten edifice of the medical cartel as it’s NEVER been exposed before. And millions of people are seeing the rot and the collapse and they’re smelling the stench rising from the earth.

And so WE CAN EXPECT, and should even take as a positive sign, little fascists jumping out of their holes and accusing us OF HAVING NO STANDING AND NO RIGHT to disturb the edifice.

Would I prefer this struggle to be conducted like a charm school? I would prefer an entirely different world. But we’re here now with this one, so we fight.

More little creatures will try to stick their fangs in us; but we don’t back down. We use their blind stupidity as fuel for our fire.

In that regard, nothing had changed in the ten-thousand year war for freedom.

The more I write, the more I’m liking this woman who sent the poisonous email. She’s got will power. She’s burning her taper closer and closer to the end, where it turns into a large ash and falls off into the void. And then…silence. Great darkness.

I believe we’ve all been there as well.

How did we take ourselves out of that place?

Each person has his own answer.

I side with those who realize they invented their way into the Dark, and they’ll invent their way out of it.

Regardless, when the taper has burned out, you really don’t want to be stuck with the idea that only an official credentialed authority can reach down and give you what you need.

That’s unworkable.

Because, who shows up with official certifications? The screw and rack turner in the Spanish Inquisition. The mass murderer of peasants in 1930 Russia. The Jew and Gypsy killer in 1943 Germany. The Land Reform killer in 1950 China. The killer of millions with heralded medical drugs.

The de facto Medical President who locks down a whole country and carpet-bombs the economy and fronts for an injection that maims and murders.


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

What is a disease without a cause?

by Jon Rappoport

February 4, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

A disease without a cause is a business model.

You make a list of symptoms. You say many people are experiencing this cluster of symptoms.

You give a label to this list of symptoms. A name. The name of a disease or a disorder or a syndrome.

Over time, through promotion, the name sticks.

You fund research to find the cause of the disease. This research can stretch out for a long time. Possibly forever.

Meanwhile, you develop and sell drugs to treat the disease. Money.

You keep reporting “progress” on finding the cause. “At first, we looked for environmental factors. But now we know the basis is almost certainly genetic. We’re homing in on the specific genetic dysfunction…”

Over time, what’s forgotten is this: is there really a single disease with a single cause?

And think it through; if you can’t verify a single cause, you don’t have a disease. You just have the original list of symptoms.

Alzheimer’s would be an example. Microcephaly (babies born with small heads and brain damage) would be another. The disease names seem to carry the day. “Well, if there’s a name, a label, there must be a unique disease.”

Wrong.

If there’s a name, a label, there is money.

Money for research, for drug development, money from drug and vaccine sales.

Researchers are tasked with making the list of symptoms seem compelling. “We’ve done brain studies. There are remarkable similarities among patients who have Disease X. As you can see from these scans, in Figure A…”

Still, no dice. No verified cause. Therefore, no justification for using the disease label or claiming you have found a unique disease.

But it doesn’t matter, because the business model is working well.

Here’s another example. ADHD. Has a single cause been found for this list of symptoms? No. Therefore, there is no laboratory test for ADHD. No test to confirm the diagnosis of ADHD. Because a test would detect the cause is present in the patient—and there is no cause to look for.

In fact, if you examine the complete catalog of all so-called mental disorders—about 300 of them—there is no defining lab test for ANY of them. Not a one. Each so-called disorder is simply a list of behaviors which have been clustered together by committees of psychiatrists and given a name. ADHD. Bipolar. Clinical depression. And so on.

But it doesn’t matter. Because the business model is working. Money is pouring in. Drugs are selling.

Let’s take this even further. A hundred years of Rockefeller medicine have “established” that there are thousands of separate and distinct and unique diseases, disorders, and syndromes. And each one has a cause. For many diseases, the cause “hasn’t been discovered yet.” Meaning: “We’re writing fiction. We have no justification for calling these diseases, diseases.”

For many other diseases, researchers claim, the causes have been found. The most popular type of cause? A virus.

A virus that had never been seen before. A virus that was “discovered” in a lab.

A lab—as I’ve discussed in depth—that lets in no outsiders, no truly independent observers, to see, in detail, what’s actually going on.

For that reason, and several others, there is no solid reason to believe these viruses, these causes are actually being discovered. Are actually real.

Which leaves us with thousands of lists of symptoms.

But there is always a business model. The full Rockefeller model is worth trillions of dollars. More dollars every day.

The drugs and the vaccines are the $$$ payoff.

I’ve spent decades demonstrating their toxicity.

Here’s a very interesting medical trick. A criminal trick. The researchers say a brain disorder called ABC exists but they haven’t found the cause yet. A parent has a child with severe problems and takes him to the doctor. The doctor pronounces a diagnosis: “Yes, your boy has ABC.”

The parent goes away and does some research. The list of symptoms for ABC could be the result of a vaccine. In fact, the boy developed his severe problems quite soon after vaccination.

She goes back to the doctor and says, “I think my son was damaged by the vaccine.”

The doctor says, “That’s impossible. Your boy is suffering from ABC. And you see, we’ve done studies of boys with ABC, and many of them were never vaccinated. So when you say the cause of your boy’s ABC was a vaccine, we’ve ruled that out.”

The parent doesn’t know what to do.

Of course, the trick is, ABC was never proved to be a unique disorder in the first place. It’s really the NAME of an unproven disorder. The studies the doctor is referring to are completely irrelevant.

ABC is a disorder without a proven cause. Therefore, it is no disorder at all. It’s just a list of symptoms.

The parent’s boy has many of those symptoms. He acquired them—and the damage he suffered—from a vaccine. If you wanted to put a name to what the boy has, call it what it is: vaccine damage.

Not ABC.

Part of the business model for ABC is: “We use that disease label so we can avoid having to pay out huge compensation-dollars for damage caused by a vaccine.”

If the impact of this trick isn’t getting through to you, let me give you a grossly exaggerated analogy.

Engineers claim there is a phenomenon called River Floundering. It is unique but the cause hasn’t yet been found. The basic symptom is: boats on rivers develop the propensity to sink.

Joe takes his boat out on a river. Overhead, a bridge collapses and destroys his boat. Joe barely escapes with his life. After six months, he emerges from the hospital and sues a number of parties.

But he loses his case. In court, experts testify that his boat was suffering from River Floundering. That’s why it sank. Many studies of Floundering show bridges-collapsing did not occur when “the sinking happened.” Therefore, the collapsing bridge was not the cause of Joe’s boat’s disorder, River Floundering.

What is a disease without a cause?

A business model.


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.

My bottom line on the existence of the virus, its isolation and sequencing

by Jon Rappoport

February 3, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

What proof would I accept? What sort of proof would convince me that SARS-CoV-2 exists?

Suppose, for example, a study described how researchers actually DID separate a virus from all the material surrounding it in their cell-soup in the lab?

Would that be enough?

And the answer is no.

Why?

Because I don’t trust studies based on research conducted in elite labs where no independent outsiders are allowed. And that’s the situation, when it comes to purported virus isolation.

These labs are like the famous bunkers where key government officials are taken, in the event of a massive attack against the country.

Try getting in off the street.

And who are these researchers in the super-secret labs? To put it another way, what sort of establishment do they represent?

Is it a clean establishment with a track record of honesty? Or is it a cartel with a criminal history?

If it’s a cartel, why should I accept the “scientific methods” of these researchers or their honesty?

As my long-time readers know, I’ve spent decades exposing lies and crimes of the medical cartel. Chapter and verse. (For example this: Medical weapons of mass destruction)

When it comes to vital issues that mean the difference between life and death—drug/vaccine-fueled destruction of human life; mistreatment and errors in hospitals; faked disease case and death numbers; inaccurate, meaningless, and deceptive diagnostic tests; the fabricated existence of a whole range of phony diseases and disorders and syndromes; the true numbers of medically caused deaths—medical authorities have been lying and sliming their way out of accountability for MANY decades.

And all this doesn’t touch on the history of public health declarations of epidemics that have turned out to be duds.

Nor does it include the overall history of Rockefeller medicine, which is based on the fatuous notion that there are thousands of separate and distinct diseases, each one of which is caused by a germ that must be treated by a profit-making drug.

Nor does it include the history of vicious suppression of innovative treatments developed by individuals who’ve worked outside the mainstream.

Therefore, suspicion is warranted. Is absolutely necessary. And “suspicion” is a vast understatement.

I refuse to trust the researchers who simply claim they’re isolating viruses.

When it comes to the so-called basic building blocks of MANY so-called diseases—which ARE “the viruses”—all the discovery-research HAS BEEN conducted by insiders in their off-limit labs. Without independent witnesses. Without educated witnesses who can watch and question each and every step of “the accepted method” for isolation of new viruses.

Frankly, you would have to be crazy to accept anything coming out of these insider-club labs.

So NO. I don’t accept such findings.

Before I describe how outsiders SHOULD be allowed to witness and participate in secret lab work, let me give you two quotes to consider.

They come from decidedly mainstream and elite editors of elite medical journals. These editors have read and explored and probed and lifted the fake cover from published medical material for decades. Material they themselves have published. Therefore, these are CONFESSIONS.

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

TWO: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…”

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)

Suspicion is warranted. It’s absolutely necessary. And again, “suspicion” is a vast understatement.

More than a year ago, I mentioned how virus-isolation research—if the word “research” applies at all—should be done.

And I issue this now, as a challenge, to the entire insider-club of virologists, all of whom claim their established method of finding and sequencing new viruses is scientific and rigorous:

Let’s have a film crew on site. As you work. In your lab. Looking over your shoulders and recording every move you make.

And with the film crew, let’s have several knowledgeable, outside, independent researchers. People whom you would ordinarily refuse to give the time of day. People who are insightful. Possibly, people like Dr. Stefan Lanka, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Tom Cowan.

As the film crew works, and as you conduct and describe your step-by-step “isolation” of a new virus, these outsiders can stop you at any moment and question you. In depth.

“Why did you just do that?” “Why didn’t you record that step?” “Explain that answer you just gave me. It makes no sense.” “Exactly what did you just withdraw from the solution in the dish, and how do you know what it was?”

This is not a public relations exercise or an educational documentary for medical students. This is REAL. This is research about your research. No holds barred.

You give a slippery answer to a question; you evade with a vague generality; you try to pull rank; you get nailed to the wall. On film.

THIS is the procedure I want.

All the way from start to finish. Including the so-called sequencing of the “new virus.”

And then we would know a great deal more about what you’re actually doing and not doing in your labs. In the absence of what I’m proposing and demanding, THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME THE PROCESS OF VIRUS-ISOLATION IS LEGITIMATE.

Virologists, your work affects every human on Earth. Profoundly. To see this, all a person has to do is look around him these days, at what is called “COVID.” It proceeds from your so-called discovery of SARS-CoV-2.

I view you virologists as I would view the court magicians and soothsayers and high priests who surrounded and advised the leaders of tribes and nations in ancient times.

Those “experts” huddled with the leaders in their very private rooms and spun stories and predictions, and recommended strategies to deal with supposed ongoing and looming crises.

And then the leaders took actions that affected the lives of all the people.

So it is now. With you virologists.

So my demands are entirely within bounds. If you have a shred of honesty, and if you stop and think about it, what I’m demanding is prosaically simple:

You account for every step you take. In real time. Where you work. Right there, you submit yourselves to the detailed scrutiny of independent outsiders.

That’s my bottom line.

And I challenge any scientist, analyst, investigator, doctor, researcher, reporter, alt. reporter who says what I’m demanding is not necessary. You’re wrong. You’re dead wrong.

You either haven’t thought things through, or you’re lying.

Someone is going to tell me what I’m demanding, as proof, is impossible. It would never happen. “They” would never let it happen. They would never let independent outsiders into their holy labs.

You think I don’t know that?

If outsiders can’t get into their labs, what does that tell you?

And someone will say, “We just have to rely on the best evidence we have.”

No we don’t. Because the best available evidence is no evidence.

In a vast sea of death-dealing medical lies, a sea that has existed for more than a hundred years (actually much longer), if experts tell you they’re discovering viruses in labs you can’t enter, and they say you must believe them, and you buy that…

I have condos for sale on the far side of the moon. Full cash only, no payments.

Here it is: Virologists are saying and writing they’ve found a purple man with pink hair and green lips and four arms living a thousand miles under the surface of a planet in the next solar system over. And he causes disease.

Then they’re saying, “Prove us wrong.”

On top of that, they’re saying, “You can’t watch us work while we discover such creatures.”

Conclusion: the purple man doesn’t exist.

Virologists, text me when you’ll let my people into your lab.

Until then, get lost.

Dear reader, the elephant in the room is trust, not data.

When it comes to the “discovery of viruses,” there are no reliable data. We, on the outside, are told that what happens behind locked doors is irrefutable. Period.

We’re told we just can’t understand what the pros are doing. The problem is our lack of knowledge, our lack of training.

We’re the peasants toiling in the valley. Our better, the baron, is up in his castle on top of the mountain. He’s planning our lives, he’s taking care of us.

Sure. Of course. Uh-huh.

Sounds familiar. It’s pretty much the history of the world.

Or it was, until people who came before us finally staked out a territory called freedom, which involved opening locked doors and finding out what lay behind them.

Consider a parochial example: the mafia. They, too, plan behind closed doors. They concoct methods of carrying out crimes. They record their profits. Then, finally, a prosecutor announces, “We were able to get into their books. We saw the details. We made arrests.”

I want my independent accountants to get into the virologists’ books. But not after the fact. I want my people to BE there while the virologists are creating the books, entry by entry, in the lab.

“Why did you just make that entry? Where did your conclusion come from? Who are you trying to kid? You’re just fabricating this stuff? You know, that’s called RICO. That’s a RICO case. Continuing criminal enterprise. They’ll send you away for a long time…”

And all of a sudden, the high and mighty virologist, who’s been able to con the world with his hustle, who knows how to come off sounding superior in every way, feels a dent in his armor. A big dent. He smells his own blood.

And he starts talking.

He wants to make a deal. He’ll roll over on his colleagues. He’ll expose the whole sham.

“…You don’t understand. It’s the money. It’s all about the money. Where it comes from. We have to do this kind of work. Otherwise, we starve. They cut us off. I know the people on the funding committees. I’ll give you their names. They take orders, too. The whole thing is a system. I can draw you a map. I can’t go to jail. I have a family. I’m paying eighty grand a year just to send my kids to college. There’s the mortgage, and the cottage on the Cape…”

The whole bluff POPS and deflates, and we begin to hear words we understand, at last. The words of confession. The down-to-earth sordid truth.

There was never a towering mystery in the castle on the hill.

There was just the passing of the buck. The soiled buck. From hand to hand.

The “science” was the front.

“…You see, it works this way. The pharmaceutical companies have to have new viruses. For every fake virus, they develop a real drug and a real vaccine. It’s marketing. That’s what they’re doing. That’s what they’ve always been doing. This is much bigger than anyone realizes. I’m just a little fish. The big boys run the whole show. They pay the Congress and the FDA. They pay everybody…”

He keeps talking. He can’t stop. He’s way past “isolation, purification and sequencing.” They’re in his rear-view mirror. Now he’s fighting for his freedom from prison. Now he’s telling the truth.

And the ever-present storm clouds over the valley where we peasants toil are blowing away. The air is fresher.

We’re breathing easier.

The big-cheese baron is really a shrunken little man—when he takes his perp walk in chains.


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Three more mental midgets: Fauci, Trump, and Biden

by Jon Rappoport

February 1, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

Yesterday, I disclosed the secret identities of Neil Young and Joni Mitchell: mental midgets.

Today, I continue.

Each of these three new candidates approaches the generalized huge pile of horseshit in the town square from a different angle, and scoops up and flings different segments at the public.

Biden has been wrapped up and sold for some time. He’s captive. He’s a mouthpiece for Build Back Worse, economic destruction, censorship, COVID dictatorship, the dissolution of separate nations, and Cultural “Justice” (which means everybody loses in the end).

The cherry on the cake is, he can’t find his way from the shower to his bedroom in the White House residence. He’s demented. He suffered a very serious brain aneurysm in 1988, and hasn’t been the same since.

Before ’88, he was a snappy fast-talking senator who specialized in foreign policy. He was a guy everybody in government listened to, but studiously ignored. Now he’s in and out of several different worlds, none of them of his own choosing.

Midget.

Fauci has a trick which appears to make him look smart. He can select (or invent) inaccurate and ambiguous findings from medical studies and issue them as slam-dunk sound bites.

Fauci plays a scientist on television.

This is not hard to do. Any slightly above-average news anchor could fill his shoes. All he’d need is an overriding theme to guide him. “At any given moment, fabricate and announce the worst possible pandemic update.”

Fauci is a useful front man for Pharma, Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, and the coagulated lung-obstructing mass of Rockefeller Globalists.

Midget.

Donald Trump, in 2020, turned over the Presidency of the United States to Anthony Fauci. That’s all you really need to know about Trump.

Thereafter, by proxy, he presided over the saturation bombing of the American economy—the economy he’d pledged to rescue and make great again.

He promoted the manifestly insane Warp Speed Plan to develop (the disastrously destructive) COVID vaccines. He knows nothing about vaccines, science, COVID, or any other related subject.

His view is: If a big corporation can make something and sell it in quantity, the product is great, the people who made it are great, and it’s great that they’re great.

He’s still out there on the campaign trail promoting the vaccine. He knows, by the booing from his followers, that many of them hate the vaccine, but this never prompts him to look below the surface and find out why.

He doesn’t look below the surface because he doesn’t want to, and he can’t. He doesn’t have the necessary attention span. He’s unable to coordinate information on his own. He relies on others to talk to him and tell him what’s what. These others tell him the vaccine is effective.

In the late winter of 2020, Fauci and Deborah Birx approached Trump with a computer projection from one of the biggest failures in his field, Neil Ferguson.

Ferguson had his own department at the Imperial College of London. The department was funded by Bill Gates. Ferguson predicted 2 million COVID deaths in the US by the summer of 2020.

Trump never questioned this projection. He never called a serious meeting of economic advisors to flesh out the long-term effects of lockdowns.

He quickly supported a national State of Emergency, signaling that the US was ready to shut down its economic engine and huddle in fear.

Midget.

Obviously, many others belong on this list. For example, Justin Trudeau, who is presently living in a velvet bunker to avoid the onslaught of the Canadian trucker convoy. If he’d been born into a different family, Justin would be lucky to be pumping gas at a lonely station in the Northern wilderness. His only recognizable talent is as a salesman—but in his case, he sells his country at the drop of a hat.

The basic takeaway here is, we are the Gullivers surrounded by the Lilliputians.

Treat them like the little scuzzballs they are.

And that concludes today’s episode of When Incompetent and/or Hostile Morons Rule Society.

Tune in tomorrow, when I ask the question: Why do “alt. people” reject every piece of the official COVID narrative, except the piece that starts with “the virus exists,” an announcement which emanates from elite labs no truly independent observer is permitted to enter?

Or to put it another way: If you were a moral coward whose professional and personal survival depended on applying your “scientific expertise” to an issue that had only one acceptable response, would you stand up and offer an opposite response, against all odds, or might you become a “trusted expert” who dispenses virological horseshit to “alt. people” who yearn to confirm the existence of the virus?

Guess the correct answer, and your name will be entered in our raffle. The final winner will fly to the North Pole to visit a fascinating cult whose only allowed inter-communication is the chant, VIRU, VIRU, VIRU. Now THESE are some outstanding midgets.

Also, be sure to tune into our other show, modeled after the popular series, Alaskan Bush People. Our offering is The Texas Bush People: War, Baseball, No Discernible Qualifications, George W Tells Everybody to Get Vaccinated. More midget-ness from The Great Family of American Politics.


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Plain burger: hold the virus pickles, they don’t exist

by Jon Rappoport

January 25, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

Shh. Shh. Stop saying the virus doesn’t exist.

Why?

Because…

ONE: Let’s not get distracted by the virus question. We have to focus on knocking down the vaccine mandate.

My Reply: Can you walk down the street, carry a bag of potatoes, and look at messages on your cell phone? Newsflash: people have been known to do several things at the same time.

TWO: If we bring up the virus question, people will call us crazy and have a reason to ignore our criticism of the vaccine.

My Reply: “People” already say we’re crazy. They have 345 “reasons” on file.

THREE: If we say the virus doesn’t exist, “our base” will desert us.

My Reply: “Our base” is so outraged about the ineffective and hugely destructive vaccine, and about the mandates, NOTHING will deter them from attacking the vaccine.

FOUR: It’s well established that the virus exists.

My Reply: Yes, established by the same scientists who say the vaccine is remarkably safe and effective.

FIVE: Doctor A says the virus exists. As evidence, he cites Doctor B’s statements. Doctor B says the virus exists. He cites Doctor C’s statements. Doctor C says the virus exists. He cites Doctor A.

My Reply: Go back to school. I suggest starting at the 4th grade.

SIX: It doesn’t really matter whether the virus exists.

My Reply: If the virus doesn’t exist, the pandemic is a hoax. If the pandemic is a hoax…trace all the implications. If you can’t, go back to school. I suggest starting at the second grade. If the school won’t let you in, tell them you identify as a six-year old.

SEVEN: If I say the virus doesn’t exist, my family will disown me.

My Reply: I see. Other than the virus question—you’re on very good terms with your family, right? Who are you trying to kid?

Speaking of kid, here’s another dialogue for your edification—

ME: Hey kid, aren’t you fed up with all this COVID crap?

KID: Listen, Grandpa, I’m been fed up with crap since I was born.

ME: Including Biden now?

KID: The brain-damaged guy in the White House?

ME: What about Trump?

KID: The guy who keeps pushing the killshot? Pfizer paid him a million bucks to stage his inauguration.

ME: Do you wear a mask?

KID: I wore one once, at the DMV, when I applied for my driver’s license. The witch behind the counter told me I had to put that germicide goo on my hands. So I did. I wiped my hands on the counter. She called security. I don’t drive. I take the bus.

ME: What about the vaccine?

KID: Let me put it this way. My cell phone says I took the shot.

ME: Did you get depressed during the lockdowns?

KID: No. I made money fixing old people’s computers. When I went to their houses, I wore a military uniform. Nobody bothered me.

ME: Are you woke?

KID: You mean do I think everything move I make is motivated by systemic racism? That crap is for my friends whose parents give them money. They all moved away. Their parents took them to Florida.

ME: What about the virus?

KID: What about it?

ME: Do you think it exists?

KID: The people who say it does—I don’t listen to anything they say.

ME: Why not?

KID: If you can’t figure that out, Grandpa, you’re older than you look.

ME: Are there a lot of kids like you?

KID: Millions.

ME: Do they listen to the government?

KID: You mean the mafia. We don’t pay protection money to anybody.

ME: Do these millions of kids take the vaccine?

KID: It’s always a tip-off when somebody says, “Hey, it’s free.” We’re not that stupid.

ME: Have you ever voted in an election?

KID: Once, when I ran for student body treasurer in high school. I ran because the treasurer handles student funds. I voted for myself 27 times.

ME: Did you win?

KID: I came in third. The kid who won was the son of the assistant principal. Very quietly, that old codger was trying to get us to join his secret transgender club. We told him we already had the sex change, he just couldn’t spot it. We also told him the local pedophile priest, Father Joseph, was opposed to transgenderism on moral grounds. We suggested he should turn Father Joseph into the authorities for the hate crime of opposing transgenders.

I now return you to your regular scheduled programming, sponsored by Moderna, the company that cares about you. The company that had never brought a single product of any kind to market, before the RNA genetic shot. The company that spawned several billionaires overnight. The company championed by little Anthony Fauci, serving his last term as de facto president of the United States.


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Is the virus real? Steve Kirsch suggests a debate

by Jon Rappoport

January 25, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

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

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

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

Buckle up.

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

Heaven forbid.

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

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

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

Kirsch: “I agree with that.”

Truly awesome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


FURTHER READING:

The non-existent virus; an explosive interview with Christine Massey

Dr. Andrew Kaufman refutes “isolation” of SARS-Cov-2; he does step-by-step analysis of a typical claim of isolation; there is no proof that the virus exists


The 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.