What you’ll never read about virus-research fraud

What you’ll never read about virus-research fraud

The rabbit hole

by Jon Rappoport

August 8, 2016

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

There are very few investigators on the planet who are interested in this subject. I am one of them. There is a reason why.

In many articles, I’ve written about the shocking lack of logic in the curriculum of advanced centers of learning. When I attended college, I was fortunate to have a professor who taught logic, and taught it in a way that appealed to the minds of his students. In other words, for those of us who cared, we could not only absorb the subject matter, we could think with it; for example, we could approach an area of knowledge and track it back to its most basic premises. And then we could check those premises and see whether they were true and correct. If they were incorrect, we could then challenge many accepted notions that followed from those basic untruths.

That is one of the payoffs of being able to deploy logic.

With this introduction, let me bring up the issue of disease-causation. How do researchers decide that a given virus causes a given condition?

There are many twists and turns involved in answering the question, but before being able to engage in such a discussion, a more basic factor has to be considered:

Has the virus in question ever been isolated and identified? More simply, has it ever been found?

Obviously, in order to eventually say virus A causes condition B, you have to know you’ve found, discovered, isolated virus A from some tissue sample removed from a human being.

I’m not talking about tests run on people in 2016, to decide whether they have virus A. I’m talking about the first time, the first time ever a researcher said, “I’ve found a virus we’ve never seen before. I’m calling it virus A.”

So, for example, with all the chatter about people with Ebola in recent years, the question would be: when was the first time a researcher said, “We’ve verified the existence of a virus we’ve never seen before, and we’re calling it Ebola.”

When was that, and by what procedure was this discovery made?

For many people, it’s unthinkable that scientists would say a given virus is causing many people to fall ill—and yet that virus had never really been isolated and identified—but who knows what you find out when you go down the rabbit hole?

Let’s consider HIV, the purported cause of AIDS. Independent reporter Christine Johnson conducted a magnificent and shocking rabbit-hole interview with 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…” The interview was titled: Does HIV Exist?

I’ll highlight part of the exchange, because it’s so telling and instructive. Keep in mind that what Eleni Papadopulos is saying about HIV could apply to any virus — including zika.

The interview takes up a few complex procedures, but if you read through it several times, you should be able to sort out the key points:

Christine Johnson (CJ): Does HIV cause AIDS?

Eleni Papadopulos (EP): 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 [electron microscope 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—


power outside the matrix


This is shocking, to say the least.

How can researchers or doctors say that HIV is causing AIDS, when the correct procedures for finding HIV and identifying it were never followed in the first place?

“HIV causes AIDS. Of course it does. But, oops, we never proved the virus exists.”

“Of course it exists. It has to.”

“Yes. Right. But we never isolated it. We never demonstrated that it exists.”

“This conversation is counter-productive. Let’s move on.”

“Yes, we must move on. We never spoke of this.”

There is no rabbit hole. Of course not.

That gaping entrance with the tunnel that goes down and down and down? Must have been some construction project that was abandoned. Or it’s just an illusion. We need corrective lenses.

Sure, and if enough people keep saying this, they’ll all forget the logic that keeps staring them in the face.

Almost two years ago, I sent the CDC a FOIA request: provide me with evidence the Ebola virus has ever been isolated from a human being and identified. I’ve never heard back.

I’ll close with another example: SARS. In 2003, this “dreaded epidemic” swept across the world. Quickly, it became apparent it was a dud. In Canada, a microbiologist, Frank Plummer, who was working for the World Health Organization (WHO), wandered off the reservation and told reporters he was puzzled by what he was seeing. Fewer and fewer people diagnosed with SARS showed any trace of the coronavirus, which WHO claimed was the cause of SARS. Plummer was essentially saying people with SARS didn’t have SARS. That was a major scandal, but the press wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.

It raised an even more basic question. Had WHO researchers ever actually found this coronavirus in the first place, or had they asserted its existence based on scanty (or no) evidence?

No one in major media asked or cared. They went along with the “epidemic” story, and when it died, they moved on to other matters.

That strategy is what passes for logic esteemed fourth estate.

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House insider

Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House insider

And another conversation with a virologist

by Jon Rappoport

April 18, 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.

Zika: top virologist agrees with me, but he’s missing the point

Zika: top virologist agrees with me, but he’s missing the point

Warning: This article requires skills beyond those taught at intellectually bankrupt US colleges and deceptive medical schools; it requires common sense.

by Jon Rappoport

February 18, 2016

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

The Guardian has the story (Feb. 17): “Zika hysteria is way ahead of research into the virus, says expert.”

Here are key quotes:

“One of the world’s leading virologists has warned against public hysteria surrounding the Zika virus…”

Leslie Lobel say[s] the evidence is not yet conclusive. ‘It’s not clear that what’s going on in Brazil is linked to the Zika virus. There’s no definitive proof that Zika is causing microcephaly. I believe the hysteria is way ahead of the research or the facts about the pathology surrounding this virus,’ he said in a telephone interview.”

Boom. This is what I’ve been demonstrating for the last few weeks in many Zika articles.

So far, so good. Lobel is absolutely correct.

But he then states, “I don’t want to downplay this. The association is very compelling, very clear. But we need a lot more work and we need to do it fast.”

Wrong. The association of Zika with the birth defect called microcephaly is not clear or compelling. In fact, the research so far shows there is no association.

Brazilian researchers have stated that, in 404 confirmed cases of microcephaly, they’ve found some “relationship” with the Zika virus in only 17 cases. That’s called disassociation. (See “Zika: update from Brazil: towering non-evidence” and “Zika freaka: the other shoe drops: lying about case numbers”.)

That’s called proof that Zika doesn’t cause microcephaly. Top virologist Lobel should know that.

When you’re trying to prove that a particular virus causes a particular condition, the first thing you need to do is show that the virus is present in almost all, if not all, cases of the condition.

That standard hasn’t been met. The effort has been a complete failure.

“Well, we know Zika causes microcephaly because, in most cases, it’s not there at all.” That, in effect, is what the Brazilian researchers are saying.

Anyone who hasn’t been wrecked by a college or medical school education would catch on right away.

To repeat: the Brazilians could only find a trace of Zika in 17 out of 404 cases of microcephaly.

But it gets worse. Even if they’d found Zika in all 404 cases, the next question is: how much Zika is in each patient?

You see, the “presence” of the virus is not enough. You have to show there is a whole lot of the virus in each patient, because millions and millions of a particular virus are necessary to begin thinking it’s relevant, to begin thinking it’s doing harm and causing disease.

An analogy: you come across a battlefield scarred by war. The only humans present are a husband and wife repairing their old wooden cart. Ah, you say, they must have destroyed this place. You report this to your superiors, and the next day you find yourself cleaning toilets.

There is no evidence the Brazilian researchers even tried to find out how much Zika was present in the 17 microcephaly cases they claimed “had a relationship to Zika.”

The normal (wrong-headed) test in these situations is called PCR. It is prone to errors, but if we assume the test was done, and done properly, it can only reveal the presence of the virus—not how much of it is there. The test takes a tiny, tiny bit of genetic material supposedly belonging to a virus (like Zika) and blows it up, like an enlarged photo, so it can be observed. But why do technicians need to do that test in the first place? Because they can’t find a significant amount of virus in the patient to begin with. That’s called a clue. It’s a clue that there isn’t enough Zika in the patient to say it’s causing harm in any way. (For one such Zika study out of Brazil that proves nothing, see “First report of autochthonous transmission of Zika virus in Brazil [detected by RT-PCR]” and its associated news story: “Zika virus — a Brazilian perspective on a global health emergency”. For further context on the limitations of PCR tests, see “…let the [PCR] test’s inventor speak”.)

The global hysteria about Zika is engineered. I’ve explained how and why in previous articles. And now, again, I’ve shown why it is hysteria, not science.

Researchers want you to believe their work is so technical and advanced that only their colleagues can understand it. Well, wouldn’t you play that farce if you were a scientist, if your work was built on sand, and if you were hoping the sand was solid rock?

In investigating dud epidemics for almost 30 years, I’ve discovered and shown that the entire medical specialty of assessing what causes diseases is false science.

Were this scandal understood and broadly known, the whole house of cards would collapse.

The medical-drug industry would go down. The vaccine industry would go down. Medical schools would be exposed for their outrageous omissions of fact. Public health agencies like the FDA, the CDC, and the World Health Organization would face utter humiliation. Doctors in their offices and in hospitals would find their reputations destroyed. Research labs would fold up.

Public faith in the institution of medicine would crumble.

This is why the scandal is not understood or broadly known. The price to pay would travel to the sky.


power outside the matrix


In case there is any doubt, let me state this clearly: in disease after disease, researchers have falsely claimed they have discovered the cause. They haven’t. Their methods are fatally flawed. They overlook the obvious. They tap-dance around the lies. They jump to unwarranted conclusions.

They do what we see researchers doing now with Zika.

Yes, this is explosive. Yes, it’s monumental. Yes, it’s mind-boggling. That’s right.

It would be on the order of discovering we’re all living on Mars and that red planet out there is Earth.

This is why doctors and researchers who actually know what’s going on feel protected. They believe the false reality is so huge, no one will challenge it.

Consensus Reality is built, and endures, on that very basis.

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.

Mind-image of the virus, programming, and Matrixology

Mind-image of the virus, programming, and Matrixology

by Jon Rappoport

February 10, 2016

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

There are many reasons to falsely accept “the virus” as an all-weather explanation for disease. At the root, there is an image: Tiny and Malicious. It’s a reverse of the usual fear-inducing giant monster. Tiny and Malicious (T/M)—how can you see it, how can you stop it?

Worse, the viral T/M is already inside you, and you can’t get to it. You can’t reach in.

Therefore, fear.

But then the programming enters. It’s delivered, of course, by doctors: “We can see it, we can find it, we can test for it, we can prevent it, we can treat it, we can destroy it.”

The doctors are cast as the knights of the roundtable. They’re the men on the tower. They’re also, with their skills, “the magicians.” That’s a potent combination.

The mind-image and the programming work together, and for many minds, they’re irresistible.

The Matrix is filled with many such one-two punches. You could call them problems and solutions, but they’re much deeper. Satan and the Church has been a big winner. Satan is the archetype and the Church is the rescuer, with its exclusive connection to the Godhead.

Like the virus, Satan is invisible. They’re both heavy hitters.

In the case of the virus, the power of the natural immune system is belittled. Re Satan, the innate morality, strength, and purpose of the individual is grossly downplayed. In both cases, the idea of simply ignoring these archetypes is deemed ridiculous and impossible by the programmers.

The Matrix is itself set up as a kind of triangle. There is the whole universe and the individual. They compose the conundrum: how can the individual stand naked before the power of the universe? The third leg of the triangle enters: the rescue, which is some formulation of a beneficent Force that mitigates the otherwise hopeless situation. One should not only tap into the Force, one should prostrate himself before it and surrender to it. That is the trap.

Science proposes a way out. Reject all versions of the Force. Instead, hitch your wagon to what can be discovered and applied. But then, by extension, the individual should consider himself a weak material entity—

When in fact he is immortal and non-material and has unlimited capacity to create realities.

Being embedded in archetypes and programming is another way to say: in the Labyrinth. That is the ancient symbol for “being lost in the mystery.”


The Matrix Revealed


Needless to say, these days the public is caught up in the virus-image and archetype, with the Zika fraud. I’m exposing that fraud on every front. Why fumble and mumble and grumble in the Labyrinth/Matrix, when the truth is available?

There is a way out. There is always a way out. Exposing false images and archetypes gets the blood moving and the energy of liberation flowing. Liberation from deception.

Thank you for staying with me during this time of intense investigation. The Zika Freaka episode is a perfect example of selling false realities to the uninformed. The flank of the virus hunters is exposed. They’ve gone too far with their concocted tall tale. The emperor is naked. Let’s push him off his pedestal.

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 dreaded Zika virus another giant scam?

Is the dreaded Zika virus another giant scam?

by Jon Rappoport

January 28, 2016

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

Hysteria sells and…

It’s hysteria time again. Let me run it down for you.

This is the word: The dreaded Zika virus! Watch out! It’s carried by mosquitos! It can cause birth defects—babies are born with very small heads and impaired brains!

Here are a few scare headlines that were running on Drudge as of 1/26:

“Brazil sends 200,000 soldiers to stop spread of Zika.”

“Stay away from Rio if you’re pregnant.”

“’Losing battle’ against mosquito.”

“Virus threatening two continents.”

Want more hysteria? The Daily Mail indicates pregnant women are being warned not to travel to 22 countries in Latin America and Africa. Several Zika cases are being reported in Italy, the UK, and Spain.

Then we have this from the Washington Post (“As Zika virus spreads, El Salvador asks women not to get pregnant until 2018,” 1/22, with italics added):

“The rapid spread of the Zika virus has prompted Latin American governments to urge women not to get pregnant for up to two years, an extraordinary precaution aimed at avoiding birth defects believed to be linked to the mosquito-borne illness.

…a potentially culture-shaping phenomenon in which the populations of several nations have been asked to delay procreation. The World Health Organization says at least 20 countries or territories in the region, including Barbados and Bolivia, Guadeloupe and Guatemala, Puerto Rico and Panama, have registered transmission of the virus.”

So we now have governments warning women not to get pregnant. A new form of depopulation. Don’t get pregnant. If you do, and a mosquito bites you, you could give birth to a severely damaged child. Not only that, we have massive advisories against travel, for pregnant women. And 200,000 soldiers in Brazil, the site of the upcoming Olympics, are going door to door and distributing information about this new “plague.” Are the soldiers also telling men and women not to have sex? Who knows?

So let’s take a little side trip to Scam City and examine the science behind the Zika virus and the assertion that it is causing birth defects.

Before a virus can be said to cause disease, a few procedures need to occur. First, the virus must be proved to exist. It has to be isolated from a human carrier as diseased tissue, and then that tissue has to be put under an electron microscope, where many, many (Zika) viruses can be seen. Second, tests have to be run on many suspected human cases, and these tests have to reveal very large amounts of Zika in the body. That’s your basic starter kit for deciding that a virus might be causing actual human disease.

In examining the published literature on Zika, so far I see no reports of diseased-tissue removal from a human, followed by electron microscope photos revealing large amounts of Zika.

As far as diagnostic tests on suspected human cases are concerned, I see, as usual, two major types of testing: antibody, and PCR. I’ll briefly review the egregious flaws in these tests.

Antibodies are immune-system scouts which identify invaders in the body. The antibodies ID these villains so other elements of the immune system can repel and destroy them. When a test shows that antibodies geared to a specific virus/villain (like Zika) are present in the body, it means the body has contacted that Zika virus—if the test was done well and didn’t come up with a falsely-positive result. False positives are frequent. But more disastrously, proving the body had contact with a specific virus says absolutely nothing about whether the patient is sick or will get sick. In fact, before 1985, a positive antibody test was generally taken to be a good sign: the body’s immune system had encountered and overcome the invader. After 1985, the “science” was turned upside down: a positive test meant the person was sick or going to get sick. And that meant, of course, more (false) diagnoses of disease and more profit from treatments. In announced “epidemics,” health agencies can falsely inflate the numbers of cases to the moon.

The PCR is a very sophisticated and tricky test to run. It is prone to errors. It takes a tiny, tiny amount of material assumed to be a fragment of a virus, and it amplifies (blows up) that fragment so it can be observed. The first problem with the test is: did technicians indeed choose a tiny sample that actually is a piece of the virus in question? Or is it simply a bit of genetic debris? The second problem is: the test, despite claims to the contrary, says nothing reliable about the amount of virus (like Zika) that is in the patient’s body. Why is this important? Because you need a great deal of virus in the body to begin to say it is causing disease. A very small amount is trivial.

With these two useless tests in tow—the antibody and the PCR—researchers and doctors don’t have a meaningful clue about whether a patient is ill as a result of Zika infection. All case-number reports are suspect, to say the very least.

Therefore, attributing very serious problems to Zika on a worldwide basis is insupportable and speculative. It isn’t science.

And to make the leap to claiming the virus is causing pregnant women to give birth to babies with very small heads and impaired brains is absurd.

Who benefits from this Zika “science”? Certainly, the people who are releasing genetically engineered (GE) mosquitos as a form of disease-prevention. The big honcho is a company named Oxitec. So far, the GE mosquitos are being used to curtail dengue fever in Brazil, Malaysia, and the Cayman Islands. Florida is next up on the agenda. But with Zika coming on strong in the press as a “mosquito-carried plague,” how long will it be before special bugs are modified to save the planet from this new threat…

Just a few problems with the GE mosquitos, though.

A town in Brazil has reported continuing elevated levels of dengue fever since the GE (genetically engineered) mosquitoes have been introduced to combat that disease.

The scientific hypothesis is: the trickster GE bugs (males) will impregnate natural females, but no actual next generation will occur beyond the larval stage. However, this plummeting birth rate in mosquitoes is the only “proof” that the grand experiment is safe. No long-term health studies have been done—this is a mirror of what happened when GMO crops were introduced: no science, just bland assurances.

Needless to say, without extensive lab testing, there is no way to tell what these GE mosquitoes are actually harboring, in addition to what researchers claim. That’s a major red flag.

Wherever these GE mosquitoes have been introduced, or are about to be introduced, the human populations have not been consulted for their permission. It’s all being done by government and corporate edict. It’s human experimentation on a grand scale.

There are concerns that, if indeed the dengue-carrying mosquitos are actually wiped out, the vacuum may be filled by another dengue carrier, the Asian Tiger Mosquito—which breeds much faster.

Other than that, everything is perfect. Let’s have a big parade and welcome genetically-engineered mosquitos to planet Earth.

Back to the Zika virus: what actually is causing mothers to give birth to babies with very small heads and impaired brains? If this is indeed a fairly recent phenomenon, I would start with a deep and very specific investigation of the genetically engineered mosquitos that were recently released in Brazil to decimate the dengue-fever mosquitos.

Then I would pay attention to a report like this (Rio Times, 5/5/15, “Brazil Shown to Be Largest Global Consumer of Pesticides”):

“The use of pesticides in Brazil grew by more than 162 percent from 2000 to 2012, according to the latest report by the Brazilian Association of Collective Health (ABRASCO), making the country the number one consumer of pesticides in the world. According to the entity, the Brazilian agriculture sector purchased more than 823,000 tons of pesticides in 2012.”

“The ABRASCO report, titled ‘An Alert of the Impacts of Pesticides on Health’, was released last week in Rio de Janeiro. The report includes scientific studies including data from the National Cancer Institute that shows a direct link between the use of pesticides and health problems.”

A quote inside the report:

“Not only are we using more [pesticides] but we are using more powerful, stronger pesticides. We have been forced to import pesticides which were not even allowed in Brazil to combat pests which attacked GM soybean and cotton plants…”

“…22 of the fifty main active ingredients used in pesticides in Brazil today have been banned in most other countries. “

How about an in-depth investigation, on the ground, probing the connection between these pesticides and birth defects?

Or is it better, for the chosen few, to use a virus as a false cover story, in order to explain away horrendous damage from what amounts to chemical warfare?

****Try this study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives on July 1, 2011: “Urinary Biomarkers of Prenatal Atrazine Exposure…” Here is a quote referring to what is now being called a prime Zika effect:

“The presence versus absence of quantifiable levels of [the pesticide] atrazine or a specific atrazine metabolite was associated with fetal growth restriction… and small head circumference… Head circumference was also inversely associated with the presence of the herbicide metolachlor.”

Getting the picture?


power outside the matrix


Of course, both Atrazine and metolachlor pesticides are used in Brazil. Why is this connection to birth defects being overlooked? If this is still a serious question, in this day and age, and if the answers aren’t obvious, the questioner just arrived from Pluto.

I have walked the path of making these connections since 1987. The covert op is played exactly like the old shell game. Look here, don’t look there. This is important, that means nothing.

Tons and tons and tons of various pesticides and other poisonous chemicals…but forget that, it’s all because of a virus.

“A virus” is the best false cover story ever invented.

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.

Quick alert on genetically engineered mosquitoes

Quick alert on genetically engineered mosquitoes

by Jon Rappoport

January 18, 2016

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

You’re going to be hearing a lot more about this “solution” to disease-carrying mosquitoes in Florida, Brazil, and other places. For now, I want to cover a few basics. (Full archive here.)

A town in Brazil is already reporting elevated levels of human disease since the GE (genetically engineered) mosquitoes have been introduced.

The scientific hypothesis is: the GE bugs (males) will impregnate natural females…but no actual next generation occurs. However, this plummeting birth rate in mosquitoes is the only “proof” that the grand experiment is safe. No long-term health studies have been done—this is a mirror of what happened when GMO crops were introduced: no science, just bland assurances.

In Brazil, a major target for the experiment, the rational is: dengue fever (carried by mosquitoes) is the target; wiping it out is the goal. But the original ID of the dengue fever virus in a human was accomplished by what’s called the PCR test. There are several serious problems with this test. One is: there is no reliable way to calculate how much virus is in a human patient. In order to claim a virus is complicit in disease, there must be an ID that shows a huge amount of virus—otherwise, there would be no danger. So the entire basis (dengue fever) for the GE mosquito campaign is based on faulty diagnosis and faulty science.

Needless to say, without extensive lab testing, there is no way to tell what these GE mosquitoes are actually harboring, in addition to what researchers claim. That’s a major red flag.

And finally, wherever these GE mosquitoes have been introduced, or are about to be introduced, the human populations have not been consulted for their permission. It’s all being done by government and corporate edict. It’s human experimentation on a grand scale.

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.

Canada and the great flu hoax

Canada and the great flu hoax

by Jon Rappoport

October 21, 2015

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

Under the radar: a November 25, 2012, CBC News article by Kelly Crowe, “Flu deaths reality check.”

Crowe highlights the often-parroted, official Canadian estimate of between 2000 and 8000 yearly deaths from flu.

Then she gets down to business.

At the time of the CBC News article (11/25/2012), the FluWatch/Public Health Agency of Canada figures for 2012 flu deaths in Canada? How many deaths?

One.

One death.

I just checked FluWatch for flu deaths so far in 2015. None. Zero.

Crowe, in her stunning article, goes on to detail how various computer models can be used (massaged) to “count” wildly different numbers of flu deaths.

Of course, Canadian health officials keep on telling people how important the flu shot is.

Next, we come to the matter of how many flu cases occur every year. The answer? Unknown. Doctors slap on a flu diagnosis at the drop of a hat, without running lab tests.

Crowe mentions other germs that are linked to flu symptoms: the RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), the coronavirus, the adenovirus, Streptococcus pneumonia, etc. But guess what? Public health officials and doctors rarely mention this fact—instead, they keep saying, “Take the flu vaccine.”

Even if you believe the flu vaccine is safe and effective, the shot would do nothing to prevent illness from all these other germs.

Bottom line: the whole flu business in Canada is a hoax.

In past articles, I’ve demonstrated how the same hoax is being played out in the US. You can bet the farm that this is the case all over the world, wherever “modern medicine” is practiced.

Here are a few quotes from Crowe’s article:

“How reliable are the computer model estimates [of the flu]? ‘I don’t think they’re reliable at all,’ Dr. Tom Jefferson told me. He is a Rome-based researcher with the Cochrane Collaboration, and he spends his days reviewing all the research on acute respiratory infections and vaccines. He said hard data on flu deaths ‘are difficult to get hold of for obvious reasons. So enter modelling, which is nothing more than guesswork, highly sensitive to the assumptions you feed into the model. “Give me a model and I will make it say whatever you want” a colleague of mine always repeats.'”

“Another model assumes that every extra death that happens in the winter is a flu death. At the risk of oversimplifying, this is the basic formula of that model: winter deaths (minus) summer deaths = death by flu virus.

“That includes winter deaths from slippery sidewalks, snowy roads, freezing temperatures, plus all the winter heart failure, lung failure and deaths from cancer. In the language of the computer model, all excess mortality in winter is considered ‘death by flu.’”

Getting the picture?


the matrix revealed


The major challenge facing Canadian doctors, public health officials, and vaccine manufacturers is: how do they make astonishing lies sound like science?

They’re up to the challenge. They’ve had a lot of practice. The question is, are you ready, willing, and able to reject them?

A hoax keeps selling as long as people keep buying.

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.