Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House policy analyst

Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House policy analyst

by Jon Rappoport

August 4, 2016

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

There are a number of cases in which a virus is said to be the cause of a disease—but the evidence doesn’t stand up.

I first realized this in 1987. I was writing my book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century.

Robert Gallo, who claimed he had found the cause of AIDS, hadn’t done proper work. From everything I read, he had discovered HIV in 35 to 60 percent of AIDS patients he had studied.

He should have been able to isolate HIV in virtually every patient.

Then there was the fact that the most popular tests for HIV, the Elisa and Western Blot, were fatally flawed. They could register positive for a whole host of reasons that had nothing to do with HIV.

And no one had found sufficient quantities of HIV in humans to justify claiming it caused any kind of illness.

My own research into the so-called high-risk groups revealed that the immune suppression in those groups could be explained by factors other than a virus.

(Note: All my research at that time assumed HIV existed. Since then, several researchers, including the Perth Group, have made compelling arguments that the existence of HIV was never demonstrated.)

As I was winding up the final draft of AIDS INC., I spoke, off the record, with a well-known and well-respected mainstream virologist at a large US university. I expressed my conclusions about HIV.

He spoke, first, about the difficulties in making an absolute decision about a virus as the cause of a disease.

I brought the conversation back to HIV.

He paused. Then he repeated that he couldn’t go on the record. I asked him why.

He said HIV was a subject fraught with problems. Politics were involved.

He said he and his colleagues were taking a pass on getting into a dispute about the virus. They were aware that the science was shaky. They just didn’t want to go near it. They might enter into other arguments about other kinds of research, but as far as they were concerned, HIV was off-limits.

His obvious implication was: careers were on the line.

Attacking HIV as the cause of AIDS could result in blacklisting.

He stopped short of saying HIV wasn’t the cause of AIDS, but it was clear he had seen enough to know there were major holes in HIV science.

This was a man who had no interest in unconventional points of view. He was an orthodox researcher from A to Z. He wasn’t a rebel of any kind. And yet he readily admitted to me that the whole AIDS research establishment was proceeding on a lack of proof.

Exposing this fact would go far beyond the usual definition of a scandal. The result would be a volcanic eruption, if, say, a dozen respected virologists told the truth.

After we finished our conversation, I understood something about consensus reality. It contains elements about which people can argue in public—but then there are other elements which are completely out of bounds, which can never be refuted in a mainstream setting.

Why? Because if certain lies are exposed, they initiate a contagion of doubt and insight that spreads to the whole complex inter-structure of what people take to be reality.

Great curtains are torn away. Pillars are cracked, and fall. Images which are taken to be absolute and unchanging distort, dissolve, and blow away in the wind.

A week after AIDS INC. was shipped to bookstores, in 1988, my friend and colleague, hypnotherapist Jack True, told me a copy of the book was on its way to Russia in a diplomatic pouch.

I asked him how he knew. He shrugged and said he had a few connections.

Of course, I’ve never heard anything back about the Russian response to the book, but I find it interesting that, in America, my publisher and I never made any headway in connecting with government officials.

There was one exception. In 1987, I had a conversation with James Warner, a White House policy analyst. The interview was published in the LA Weekly.

Warner had serious doubts about the HIV theory of AIDS, and would arrange a White House conference on the issue. Pro and anti HIV scientists would be permitted to speak at length.

At the last minute, the conference was cancelled.

the matrix revealed

Here are a few brief excerpts from my conversation with Warner. As a White House analyst, his comments are explosive:

Warner: The government really hasn’t fulfilled its role in providing good information [on AIDS]. We just may not know enough. With AIDS, we’re dealing with a syndrome, not a disease. We may see a patient who has a genetic defect that’s causing his immune deficiency [instead of HIV being the causative agent]. I’m not satisfied we know all we think we do, by any means.

Rappoport: Robert Gallo, Max Essex, people like that, were the field commanders on the NIH [National Institutes of Health] war on cancer in the 70’s. They lost that war. So why are they in charge of AIDS research now? It seems odd that we don’t have other people running the show.

Warner: If ever I’ve been tempted to believe in socialism, science has disabused me of that. These guys [at NIH] assume that it’s their show. They just assume it.

Rappoport: Peter Duesberg, a distinguished molecular biologist at Berkeley, has said that HIV does not cause AIDS. Have you asked people at NIH what they think, specifically, of his arguments?

Warner: Yes. I’ve been told that Peter Duesberg’s refutation of HIV has been discounted by the scientific community. I was given no explanation as to why. I was very offended. No evidence was presented to me. Just that Duesberg had been ‘discounted.’ That’s absurd. It’s not a scientific response to dismiss Duesberg as a crank.

Rappoport: The definition of AIDS in Africa is now becoming synonymous with starvation. They’re saying the three major symptoms are chronic diarrhea, fever, and wasting-away. Weight-loss. It certainly makes a perfect smokescreen for the aspect of hunger which is political [and intentionally maintained] – just call it AIDS.

Warner: I had not considered that. There is a program to make Africa self-sufficient by the year 2000. This could certainly hinder that activity. You know, I was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. I experienced weight-loss of eighty pounds. And when I came home, I was suffering from a form of dysentery that you could call opportunistic. A number of us were. We didn’t have AIDS.

—end of interview excerpt—

In this current political atmosphere, a White House analyst wouldn’t dare go on the record with comments like these.

Rigid consensus must be maintained.

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.

8 comments on “Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House policy analyst

  1. Tracy Kolenchuk says:

    Proof of cause of an illness is difficult. There is only one technique that can consistently demonstrate cause, resulting in strong proof. CURE.

    If an illness is believed to be caused by a specific organism, activity, or lack of specific activity, then addressing the cause will cure the illness. Much of modern medicine assumes that an illness caused by a virus cannot be cured, because the virus cannot be ‘killed’. In truth, our bodies cure viral illnesses, like influenza and measles with little difficulty.

    However, today’s medical marketers prefer ‘treatments’ over ‘cures’. Treatments are treatments for the symptoms of an illness. Most treatments have no relationship to the cause, because they are symptomicines – treatments for symptoms, not cause.

    Cures also discriminate between illnesses that appear similar because they have the same symptoms. Depression, for example is a symptom,not an illness. An illness is the intersection of a cause and a symptom. The symptom of depression can result from many cause – is a consequence of many different illnesses. If the cause is addressed, the illness will be cured, and the symptom will disappear. But if you cut off your arm due to your depression, the disability is not cured by the addressing the cause of the depression.

    Blaming the illness on a virus, without demonstrating a cure – addressing the cause, is blame, speculation, not science.

    But blame fuels the development of profitable preventative actions. More so, the wider you cast the net. It is not profitable to seek out the true cause of microcephaly and address it. It is much more profitable to find a virus to blame, and spend millions of dollars addressing the ‘risk’. Meanwhile the cause is ignored. Cures are not important. Cures are not profitable, There is also considerable risk in finding the true cause. Many causes of illness are also causes of profit.

    Blaming a virus is profitable. Finding a cure, finding the true cause, is not profitable. After all, the problem, in the case of the microcephaly, is far too small to market a ‘cure’. But there are big profits to be made from designing and selling ‘preventatives’ for the virus, for the mosquitoes. Fear is far more profitable than than cures.
    to your health, tracy
    Founder: Healthicine

  2. jmilamdeal says:

    There are a number of things in the health field that the higher ups would rather you didn’t know about, one of them involves viruses.

  3. SamAdamsGhost says:

    Article on another one of their frauds – the Zika ‘danger’ (Doesn’t it seem like everything from official & mainstream sources is a fraud today?) – – I haven’t vetted everything in this article but thought it worth further investigation –

  4. Wynne says:

    Well said!!! Western medicine has two approaches – cut stuff out and/or medicate the symptoms. They barely recognize that we are more than physical, and do not address anything that could be an underlying cause for immune issues/disorders. I had a conversation with a nurse who became upset when I mentioned that emotions translate into illness in the body – flat out rejected that theory. People are afraid to believe differently, and defend what they have been told.

  5. mothman777 says:

    Exactly, there are many people with AIDS who do not have HIV, and there are many people with HIV who do not have AIDS. HIV is a red herring, to allow the depopulation program to run it’s full course without being stopped, as finding a cure for HIV will be totally irrelevant to stopping AIDS, but they cannot let you know that, as it is vital for them that all resources are devoted to hunting the bogey man, the HIV virus.

  6. Jonathan Hughes says:

    I always knew viruses was fakery. People laughed at me then. They are not laughing now. People of all ages needs to do what I say doing it as soon as they can. Upcspine or The specific chiropractic or Upper cervical heath centers. Two Good UCS only Chiropractors are Steven Duff is in Windsor California. Richard Duff is in San Francisco California. Don’t go to see one the day an accident when a fall occurs. It takes 4 – 5 days for external asymmetries to show up to be measured by the upper cervical specific only DC chiropractor.

  7. elxroflife says:

    The games continue, until enough of us stop buying.

  8. henry says:

    They tell us that the world is too complex for lay people to understand. One could focus on an area and, perhaps, become a competent expert who is worth listening to on that topic. That same person would not be an ‘expert’ in the hundreds or thousands of other areas. If one comes to a different conclusion than the thought leaders in an area, they will be deemed to not be experts in that area. If that happens, they will not worth listening to in that area or any other area. This cows most people from thinking independently.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.