Populations Sucked Into the Vortex of…Medical Labels

Populations Sucked Into the Vortex of…Medical Labels

by Jon Rappoport
July 3, 2024

 

Take these disasters: pesticides that disrupt hormone levels; plastics everywhere; chemicals in dead processed foods; infant formula replacing breast milk; vaccines that disrupt and shred the immune system.

THEN researchers come along.

They take the symptoms these disasters create and cluster them in groups and put medical labels on them.

ADHD, depression, Bipolar, gender dysphoria…

When it comes to disruption of the immune system from pesticides, plastics, no breast milk, dead processed food, etc., look at this boggling list of “immune system diseases” the medical system has invented:

Autoimmune Diseases:
Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA)
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE)
Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis
Graves’ Disease
Psoriasis
Celiac Disease
Sjogren’s Syndrome
Myasthenia Gravis

Immunodeficiencies:
Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID)
Common Variable Immunodeficiency (CVID)
Chronic Granulomatous Disease (CGD)
X-Linked Agammaglobulinemia (XLA)
Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome (WAS)
Hyper IgM Syndrome
DiGeorge Syndrome
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) leading to Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS)

Hypersensitivities:
Allergic Rhinitis (Hay Fever)
Asthma
Anaphylaxis
Atopic Dermatitis (Eczema)
Food Allergies
Contact Dermatitis

Other Conditions:
Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), including Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis
Guillain-Barre Syndrome
Dermatomyositis
Scleroderma

These guys really know how to label.

They’re experts.

They can cluster and carve up symptoms and come up with medical names from here to the horizon.

They can resist any attempt to see how pesticides or infant formula or processed foods are the actual realities.

You can see why.

For every disease label, there are medical treatments. Drugs.

Treatments and drugs=$$$.

Plus control over the lives of patients.

There’s a much longer list than the one I just published above. It’s the total of diseases based on…

Viruses that don’t exist.

Brought to you by The Label Kings.

If I were a greedy young psychopath starting out in the world today, I would major in Communications at a prestigious college and write a thesis titled:

“100 ways to recycle death and label it with many disease names.”

With that thesis in hand, I would land a very nice starting position with one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.

They would see my value immediately.

Now consider a doctor’s point of view. A patient comes in with complaints. The doctor can listen, run a few tests, slap on a disease label, and prescribe a drug, or he can say:

“Looks to me like you have pesticide poisoning. I don’t know what to do about that. I don’t have a remedy that takes the poison out of your body.”

He wouldn’t say THAT if you had him in chains and were beating him with a club.

If he had that degree of honesty, he’d be out of business pretty quick. And eventually he’d find himself in front of a state medical board trying (and failing) to keep his license.

The board idiots and sold out quacks would rake him over the coals.

Why not take easy road instead? He closes his eyes, throws an imaginary dart at an imaginary dart board and comes up with a disease name the patient never heard of.

“This is what you’ve got,” he says to the patient. “We have a course of treatment for it. Let’s begin.”

And so they do.

On the long march to nowhere.


CODA: To explore the fake science that led to the fake pandemic that led to the COVID “vaccines,” read Dr. Mark Bailey’s and Dr Sam Bailey’s book, The Final Pandemic.  This dynamic duo has their hands on real science.  It’s a powerful antidote to mainstream nonsense.


See also: The People’s War against State Medical Boards; attack, don’t just defend

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: fszalai




If I Were a Parent I Wouldn’t Vaccinate My Child…

If I Were a Parent I Wouldn’t Vaccinate My Child…

by Jon Rappoport
May 15, 2024

 

If I Were a Parent I Wouldn’t Vaccinate My Child…

…According to the CDC schedule…

With a gun pointed at my head.

I wouldn’t vaccinate him at all.

I’ve been told the CDC expects every child to receive 70 shots in the arm between birth and 18 years of age.

I recently took a look at the CDC childhood vaccine schedule. I found the tables confusing.

But I did note the two lists of vaccines they want kids to take between birth and 15 months, and then between 18 months and 18 years old.

This isn’t the number of injections; it’s the number of vaccines.

Between birth and 15 months: 20 vaccines.

Between 18 months and 18 years old: 20 vaccines.

40 vaccines. FORTY.

20 during the most vulnerable period possible—birth to 15 months. And that doesn’t include vaccines the mother took during pregnancy.

So the CDC is Murder Incorporated.

Show me the hundred well done studies that prove 20 plus 20 vaccines are safe.

Also—show me one well done study against another large study of children who were never vaccinated. Compare overall health in the 2 groups.

No? You can’t?

There is no science going on.

Imagine this. A sales person approaches a parent. He says, “I have a very low-cost offer. Here are dozens and dozens of chemicals and random biological materials I can inject into your child between birth and 18 years of age. How about it? It’s a great deal.”

That’s what’s going on.

Psychopathic motherfuckers are going on.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: skalekar1992


See Related:

Vaccine Woman




“Transgender Kids” Are a Myth, a Fairy Tale

“Transgender Kids” Are a Myth, a Fairy Tale

by Jon Rappoport
April 26, 2024

 

There are no transgender kids.

There are children who get all sorts of ideas in their heads. They change their minds every day.

In the current culture, on a given Tuesday, a boy might decide he wants to be a girl, and vice versa.

But then comes Wednesday, and the world is completely different.

Except we have the psycho meddlers. Parents, teachers, counselors, government-backed groups, pedophiles…

They enter the scene and they’re committed to making that random Tuesday last forever.

I put most of this on the parents. The mind-controlled parents who believe in total permissiveness and “the new cultural imperatives” at the same time.

They weren’t fit to have the children in the first place.

When I was a kid, I entertained all sorts of crazy ideas. It was fun. I went to my father with a plan to buy a pet rattlesnake and bring it in the house. I told him I could tame the snake.

He came down on me like a ton of bricks. NO took ten seconds.

He wasn’t pleasant and kind and understanding and supportive of my claim that I was a wild animal tamer and a healer.

If it were possible (it isn’t), I’d like to see one of these oh so permissive parents put on trial, with a sane jury behind the rail. And a sentence of 30 years in prison for the parent’s encouragement—which led to his child taking toxic meds, ruinous hormones, and going into an operating room for life-destroying surgery.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: Saydung89




Was the Iran Attack Orchestrated by Amateurs?

Was the Iran Attack Orchestrated by Amateurs?
What actually happened and didn’t happen? 

by Jon Rappoport
April 16, 2024

 

Something’s wrong here. Very wrong.

First, when have you heard a major enemy (Iran) ANNOUNCE AND LEAK AND LEAK AND ANNOUNCE that they’re GOING TO attack their enemy (Israel)?

Who’s kidding who?

“Yes, we want to make sure Israel is ready for us. We want to make sure all their defense systems are turned on and on high alert before we actually attack…”

Second—the DEBRIS.

I’m watching the news which is showing (if I can believe the footage) explosions in the sky over Tel Aviv. The Israeli shoot-down of drones and missiles. But NOT ONE WORD about falling debris raining down on the city.

Who’s kidding who? There should have been thousands of pieces of debris wreaking destruction on the ground.

Finally—hours later, we’re told that, in all of Israel, one civilian, a girl, was slightly injured. There was some damage, but it was at an Israeli military base. Convenient. When will we see pictures of that? Never?

What really happened in this attack? Were there hundreds of missiles and drones? 99% of which were shot down?

Read more (available for Jon Rappoport’s paid subscribers at substack)

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: CDD20


See Related:

Was Iran’s Strike Against Israel a Psy-Op?




New Psychotic Technology to Stop Viruses That Don’t Exist

New Psychotic Technology to Stop Viruses That Don’t Exist
Without People’s Informed Consent or Knowledge

by Jon Rappport
February 29, 2024

 

Sounds like a bad horror movie. And it is, in real life.

Informed Consent Action Network (Feb 14, 2024) (*):

A new class of “encrypted RNA” vaccines are being developed where the RNA would piggyback onto an existing wild virus and spread from person to person without any person’s knowledge or consent.

This so-called “therapy” uses a technology called TIPs (Therapeutic Interfering Particles), which are described as “engineered molecular parasites” that piggyback on a wild virus. If you get the virus, you also get these parasites. Once inside an infected person, the TIPs are supposed to rapidly multiply, hijacking the resources the wild virus needs to multiply and therefore stopping the virus.

Supporters of this technology claim it will “solve” several problems with traditional vaccine delivery, including “behavior barriers” like noncompliance. Meaning everyone gets vaccinated—whether they like it or not.

Let me try to disentangle this.

Some naturally circulating virus (which doesn’t exist) will be captured and outfitted with lab-created molecular parasites.

The virus (which doesn’t exist) plus its attached parasites will enter the body, where the parasites will “hijack the resources” the virus (which doesn’t exist) needs to survive and multiply.

What resources would these be? The bloodstream? The nervous system? The brain? The anus?

And what does “hijack” mean? Destroy? Disable? Wall off from the rest of the body?

The virus (which doesn’t exist) stops multiplying and dies. Then that person is immune from further infection by that type of virus (which doesn’t exist).

I assume, when the wild virus plus the parasites enter the body, even though the virus doesn’t exist it’s a tiny blob of SOMETHING, rather than just an idea.

What would that something be? No idea.

Whatever the parasites are actually doing in the body, we know they’re not aiding in destroying the virus, because the virus doesn’t exist.

Glad we’ve cleared all that up.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: CDD20




The REAL Sexual Revolution Is Loss of Sexuality

The REAL Sexual Revolution Is Loss of Sexuality
 Brought to you by antidepressants

by Jon Rappoport
February 27, 2024

 

I just read a stunner of an article by Freya India. It describes the crushing effects of SSRI antidepressants on young people:

SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors) are a common class of antidepressants used to treat depression, anxiety and other mental health problems. Popular SSRIs include Fluoxetine (Prozac), Escitalopram (Lexapro), and Sertraline (Zoloft). Something well established about these drugs is that they have sexual side-effects. In fact, between 40 and 65% of people who take an SSRI are thought to experience some form of sexual dysfunction. What few people know, though, is these side effects can persist even after coming off of the drugs—a condition called Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD).

This is more than just low libido. It can be a total loss of libido, genital numbness, erectile dysfunction, an inability to orgasm and complete lack of sexual attraction. Emotional blunting is also common, with sufferers describing a numbing of positive emotions, no romantic feelings, and difficulty connecting with others…

In the UK, 1 in 3 teenagers aged 12 to 18 has been prescribed antidepressants. In 2022 alone, the number of children aged 13 to 19 taking antidepressants rose by 6,000 to 173,000…

And increasingly before puberty! In the UK, antidepressant prescriptions for children aged five to 12 years increased by more than 40% between 2015 and 2021. Aged five! Before they’ve even had the chance to develop normally! Online forums are already full of people sharing their experiences of puberty on SSRIs and now dealing with sexual dysfunction as adults. Stories of starting Zoloft at age 11 and never developing normal sexual sensation. Of being prescribed Prozac at 14 and not knowing what it’s like to have a libido. Of taking Lexapro for less than a month and still having genital numbness six years on.

Loss of sexual feeling, desire, interest.

And on top of that, tons of assurances from the Woke mob that having no sexuality is just fine. It’s a gender identity.

As opposed to a CHEMICAL DISASTER.

I went to Google and typed in “SSRIs loss of sexual feeling.” Here are the entries that sprang up:

NIH: “Sexual dysfunction in [SSRIs].”

Harvard Health: “Some people taking SSRIs aren’t able to have an orgasm at all. These symptoms tend to become more common with age…”

Mayo Clinic: “Effects on sexual function can include: A change in your desire for sex; Erectile problems; Orgasm problems; Problems with arousal, comfort and satisfaction.”

New York Times: “Doctors and patients have long known that antidepressants can cause sexual problems. No libido. Pleasureless orgasms. Numb genitals…”

So it’s no secret.

Except—how many doctors who are about to prescribe antidepressants to children tell their parents, “The drug can have serious sexual side effects”?

So there’s that. Widespread ignorance, because doctors keep their mouths shut about what they know.

And when all sexual feeling shuts down, a child is told, “Non-binary…asexual…gender…trans…it’s all fine…no problem…”

The kid thinks he’s on the cutting edge of a new society, a new culture, a new way of seeing male and female, a revolution.

It’s the drugs. THE DRUGS.

Chemical castration.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: Tilixia-Summer




“Millions of People Have Long COVID”; Pinocchio’s Nose Got Longer, Too

“Millions of People Have Long COVID”; Pinocchio’s Nose Got Longer, Too

by Jon Rappoport
February 20, 2024

 

One new study, supporting the “millions” assertion, claims the most common long COVID symptom people report is tiredness after light physical or mental exercise.

Aha.

As we all know, feeling tired can only be caused by THE VIRUS.

“Doctor, six months ago, I was fine. But since then, I’ve been fatigued.”

“Right, Ms. Jones. You have long COVID.”

“Say what?”

“I diagnosed you with COVID six months ago. The disease is persisting.”

“Oh. Come to think of it, I started feeling tired right after you diagnosed me.”

“A coincidence.”

“I don’t think so. I left your office. I was depressed by the diagnosis, and when I got home I couldn’t run my usual nine miles for the day.”

“Are you saying I made you tired?”

“Yes, I believe I am.”

“I’ll write a note to Homeland Security. Expect a visit to your house. Open the door carefully and assure the agents you have no weapons and no dogs.”

Long COVID is long money. For doctors.

And of course, the virus doesn’t exist. So there’s that.

I’ve felt tired since 1952. I’ve successfully fought it off by limiting my conversations with long idiots.

If I were the predatory CEO of a pharmaceutical company, I’d establish studies proving every disease under the sun can have a long component, which must be treated with drugs and prevented by vaccines. For years.

Long flu, long colds, long eyestrain, long ass ache, etc.

Doctors received special training in medical school so they could make absurd diagnoses with a straight face.

Otherwise, this would happen:

“Doctor, when you just told me I have long COVID, you smiled. Why?”

“Sorry, I was keeping myself from laughing.”

“What?”

“Sometimes it gets to be too much.”

“You lost me.”

“Have you ever said something so stupid you busted out laughing?”

“I’m not sure.”

“Ha-ha. Sorry. I’m trying to be serious, but long COVID? I mean, come on. When I first read about it, I cracked up. I had to go home from the office. Everything started to seem funny. I couldn’t control myself.”

Someday, somebody will come up with Long Pregnancy. Women can remain pregnant for up to three years. But at the end, they don’t give birth. The baby they’ve been carrying is only a few cells. However, this is a serious condition and must be treated for the full duration of the pregnancy. Treated with very expensive drugs. Otherwise the patient could develop Chronic Fatigue, Mononucleosis, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, etc.

Some of these women, when untreated, also develop Tourette’s, even speak in tongues—which can be quite embarrassing in social situations. Like Thanksgiving dinner.

There is also a condition known as Long Sermons. People are exposed to it during church services. Some houses of worship may have to be closed down, in order to curb contagion out in the community. Psychiatrists can treat the disorder, with anti-psychotic drugs.

All of these long illnesses can be avoided if we start diagnosing doctors. You don’t need a license to participate. Invent your own disease and disorder labels. Offer the doctors help—at a price. No insurance, no Medicare or Medicaid. Straight cash for your services.

For every diagnosis you make, be sure to attach the word “long.”

You’ll be correct. What these doctors are suffering from, they’ve had for a long time. Possibly since college. Maybe even earlier.

Hell, tell them it’s genetic. Doing that lets you get away with anything.

Remind them of the story about Jesus and the Money Changers. Tell them they’re suffering from Long Money Changing. That’ll hit them where they live.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: Prawny




Cutting, Pasting, Splicing DNA; Welcome to the New World—Oops, Full of Mistakes

Cutting, Pasting, Splicing DNA; Welcome to the New World—Oops, Full of Mistakes
 “I thought the technology was supposed to be perfect. What the hell is going on here?”

by Jon Rappoport
January 23, 2024

 

The bright new dawn of genetic engineering of life has a few problems. My, my.

Of course, the engineering companies pitching investors for money downplay the problems, and so do governments. Remember when Biden issued a release glorifying “overwriting cells of the body” (*) to achieve new breakthroughs in…something or other?

From Gene Watch UK, here are documented cases of genetic editing screw-ups. The language is technical, but you can grasp the essentials. Scientists are playing with fire.

“Petri et al. (2022) reported unintended genetic insertions and deletions in zebrafish following prime editing…Prime editing does not induce double stranded breaks and thus is often proposed to be safer than standard CRISPR/Cas systems. Nonetheless, integration of guide RNA derived DNA sequences was detected, showing that even using a technique without introducing foreign DNA, or double-stranded breaks, the technique does not rule out the potential for unintended insertion of exogenous DNA.”

“Tao et al. (2022) reported insertions of transposable elements in human cells in vitro following both standard CRISPR/Cas9 and prime editing systems, though these unintended changes were more common with CRISPR/Cas9 systems. Moreover, hundreds of integrated copies of vector plasmid DNA used to deliver the prime editing machinery were also detected…Moreover, insertions occurred at induced DNA breaks where CRISPR/Cas9 has been applied for controversial therapeutic editing…”

“Weiss et al. (2022) reported that in Arabidopsis plants, the DNA repair pathway chosen by the plant cells to repair the CRISPR-induced DNA breaks was influenced by the epigenetic status of the genome, including DNA methylation status… This in turn, influences the final mutational outcomes. This paper highlights limitations in relying on predictive tools that only take into consideration sequence information when trying to predict efficiency, specificity and mutational outcomes of genome editing. Bigger complexities beyond the level of the genome are also involved.”

“Höijer et al. (2022) reported large structural unintended on-target changes, including 4.8kb deletions to 1.4kn insertions, in zebrafish. This study showed the passing down of these mutations to the next generation.”

“Huang et al. (2022) reported that following CRISPR/Cas12 editing in fungal species, doublestranded breaks are repaired with multiple DNA repair pathways, each with different mutational profiles. This study highlights the lack of current understanding around the various DNA pathways that exist in various species, and how they may impact editing outcomes. Rather than being able to predict or even control CRISPR mutations outcomes as is often presented by GMO proponents, this study instead shows how CRISPR is being used in research to try to understand the basic mechanisms and complexities of DNA repair. Without a full understanding of the underlying science, assertions of precision and thus safety are unfounded.”

“Park et al. (2022) reported high levels of on-target unintended changes, when assessed using a new analytical tool that can sequence larger segments of the target site. Long range sequencing was able to detect a variety of changes including large deletions, highlighting the need for detailed analytical tools to assess on-target impacts.”

“Geng et al. (2022) report on-target unintended changes including genomic inversions, duplications, rearrangements and integration of exogenous DNA at the target-site in human cells, resulting in alterations in cell proliferation. This study highlights the potential impacts of unintended changes on target cell function, with implications for both edited plants and animals.”

But don’t worry, be happy. These genetic engineers all over the world may be bulls charging through shops shattering objects…but I’m sure they’ll eventually fix all their mistakes. Right?

For a final note—I’m not confident these genetic madmen even know what they’re playing with in the first place. When they see their errors, what are they really looking at? They make so many basic assumptions and guesses about DNA and genes, they could be operating in the dark, clueless and lost.

“Here’s a break in DNA where the repair after the cut failed.”

“Really? Are you sure that’s DNA?”

“It has to be.”

“Why?”

“Because if it isn’t, we have no idea what we’re doing.”

You know, THAT kind of thing.

The same kind of thing that happens when biologists trying to alter a virus fail to realize there isn’t any virus there…

These awesome problems can only be ignored in one way: by deciding that the 8 billion people on planet Earth are merely subjects in a vast ongoing experiment. And therefore have no reason to complain.

— Jon Rappoport

 

(*) FURTHER READING:

The Biden White House Executive Order: “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy” (September 12, 2022). The link to this EO is hereMy comments on this EO are here—as a “breaking news” update—at the very beginning of this podcast.

See also this podcast: “DARPA/Pentagon research projects to create future humans,” here.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: OpenClipart-Vectors




On the Fairytale of Deadly Viruses Emerging From Hot Zones in Far Away Lands…

On the Fairytale of Deadly Viruses Emerging From Hot Zones in Far Away Lands…

 

My Crushing “Hot Zone” Virus Story No One in the Press Wants to Understand

I haven’t even seen alternative reporters picking up on it

by Jon Rappoport
January 3, 2024

 

Let’s start here:

1957 Asian Flu epidemic: origin, East Asia.

1980s AIDS: origin, Africa.

2009 Swine Flu epidemic: origin, Mexico.

2014 Ebola outbreak: origin, West Africa.

2015 Zika outbreak: origin, Brazil.

2020 COVID pandemic: origin, China.

Each of these supposed (fake) viruses traveled. In each case, they traveled from a foreign country to the US.

Name several viruses that, during the past 65 years, traveled from the US to foreign nations caused epidemics there.

No?

Can’t?

Why not?

Purported viruses can originate anywhere. They can travel anywhere. What’s the problem?

On top of all this, we have the “Hot Zone” theory/prediction of emerging deadly viruses:

They come from jungles and rainforests far away, and because modern travel is so frequent, they come to America, and…

Because our immune systems have no previous history of encountering these viruses, the germs sweep through our population and create pandemics.

Given that description, why haven’t the proponents of the theory cited viruses that originate in the US and travel to jungles and rainforests in other nations and cause deadly epidemics there? The people in those remote places have no experience with OUR viruses.

What’s the problem?

What’s going on is really quite simple. STORIES are being told about supposed viruses. The stories inevitably feature origins in foreign lands, and the germs travel to the US.

By any measure, we should have heard press reports, over the past 65 years, of the Chicago or New York or Miami or San Francisco or Des Moines Flu showing up in Germany, France, Brazil, West Africa, China, India…

But we haven’t.

And the reason is, those aren’t the STORIES. That’s all. This has nothing to do with science.

Nothing at all.

Therefore, all the stories of foreign viruses landing here are on the level of man in the moon and Cinderella and Snow White.

If these US outbreaks of illness in the US were caused by foreign viruses, we would have witnessed similar viral outbreaks in other countries that originated here.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image based on creative commons work of: Prettysleepy & GDJ




Jon Rappoport on the Need to Film Every Step of “Virus Isolation” & to Uncover What Is Really Going On Inside Virology Labs

Jon Rappoport on the Need to Film Every Step of “Virus Isolation” & to Uncover What Is Really Going On Inside Virology Labs

 

Three Years Ago, a Reader Caught My Attention With a Comment About Viruses
I Still Remember It

by Jon Rappoport
December 8, 2023

 

“Oh, you can’t come in here, are you kidding? This is a high-security lab. Only certified professionals can enter. We’re dealing with viruses. Off limits to you and all civilians. WE tell you what we discover. YOU accept our findings. Now shut up and get lost…”

That’s the attitude of elite researchers who claim to be discovering and isolating new viruses…

When, in fact, as many of us have detailed…

They’re doing no such thing.

They’re faking it, in multiple ways.

They’re in charge of faking it.

A reader, in a comment, mentioned that WE should be able to go into those labs WITH VIDEO CAMERAS and record everything going on in there.

BANG.

BOOM.

Exactly.

We should be able to get in there with a pro video crew and cameras that record every single action these bozo researchers perform.

Many cameras catching the action from every possible angle. Up very close, medium range, ceiling angles, angles from the floor.

With sound. And send a few people in there who have previously detailed how the virus fakery is accomplished. They stand close to the researchers and stop them at any moment and ask questions.

“Why did you just do that?” “What’s in that dish?” “You claim you just proved WHAT? Explain how you proved it.” And so on.

Every single step of the so-called isolation of new viruses is questioned and criticized—and recorded on video, with sound—until there are no more secrets, no more proprietary information, no more missing pieces in the process. To OUR satisfaction.

Otherwise, there is no reason under the sun to accept what these weasels are telling us.

“Doctor, you just SAID you separated the virus from the solution in this dish of soup. You SAID it but you didn’t show it. We all know that. When are you going to SHOW the isolation?”

“Why did you just dip that instrument in the soup? What are you doing? You’re measuring something? Prove it. What are you measuring?”

“You SAY you just removed a virus from this soup you created, and you’re purifying it, and then you’re going to put a sample under an electron microscope, and then you’re going to say the particles that show up are viruses. So we’ll have to go over all these steps very carefully and slowly, because we’ll have many questions. Many pointed questions you’ll need to answer.”

All this is happening live, on camera, with sound.

In the moment.

Then we’ll see what these elite researchers know and don’t know.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: Skica911




Just in Case China Calls THIS a New Pandemic

Just in Case China Calls THIS a New Pandemic
See the circle of orange cones on the street? That’s me standing inside, digging below the surface 

by Jon Rappoport
November 24, 2023

 

China…new mystery outbreak…

Gateway Pundit:

An unexplained pneumonia-like sickness is reportedly swiftly spreading through schools in China, leading to a surge of hospitalizations of children.
Over the past few weeks, numerous schools in China, predominantly in Beijing and Liaoning province, have reported a rapid increase in children presenting with severe symptoms. These symptoms, including high fever and lung inflammation, are eerily similar to those of pneumonia, Daily Mail reported.
However, what sets this illness apart is the lack of common respiratory symptoms like coughing. This unique symptom profile has led health professionals to label this as an “undiagnosed pneumonia.”
Note that this peculiar symptomatology has reportedly baffled health professionals, who are struggling to categorize and understand this new illness.

Mystery? Baffling? Eerie?

I don’t think so. They always give you: “This has no explanation”—just before they magically announce they’ve found a new virus.

Of course, they never actually isolate that new virus. They never discover it. They just invent a fairy tale.

As far as “mysterious” is concerned in China right now, here is a definitive statement from the American Thoracic Society: “It is possible to have pneumonia without a cough or fever.”

Oops.

For years, doctors have been diagnosing patients with pneumonia when there is no cough present. It’s not baffling. It’s not ultra-strange. So forget about that.

Which leaves the question: what IS making all these children in China sick? Hmm. Let’s see. Could it be changes in the moon’s orbit? Sun spots? Lasers fired from UFOs? Infected bats imported from Mars?

No?

Well, how about THIS?

US Embassy in China, October 30, 2023:

EVENT: This is a notification that the Beijing City Government has issued an ‘orange’ alert for air pollution effective from 12:00 Monday, October 30 until 24:00 Thursday, November 2. An ‘orange’ alert means that official forecasts indicate Beijing’s Air Quality Index (AQI) will exceed 200 for two consecutive days or 150 for three consecutive days. The alert may be extended if air pollution levels persist.
During an “orange” alert, some businesses may reduce operations.
ACTIONS TO TAKE: The U.S. EPA recommends people with heart or lung disease, older adults, children, and teenagers limit or avoid outdoor physical activity when the AQI level exceeds 200. It recommends everyone avoid outdoor exertion if the AQI level exceeds 300.

Reuters, October 31, 2023:

Authorities issued their highest warnings for fog and haze on Tuesday as smog enveloped major cities in northern China, warning the public that visibility could drop to less than 50 metres (164 feet).
Northern province Hebei launched an anti-pollution emergency response, listing traffic safety controls for when necessary including suspending flight takeoffs and landings, temporarily closing highways and suspending ferries, China’s meteorological bureau said in a notice.
As air pollution levels in the wider Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei area and northern part of Henan province reached moderate to severe, pollution control experts said increased industrial activities, heavy trucking and crop fires had contributed to the haze, state media CCTV reported.

Crisis 24, a “global security platform,” reports that heavy pollution is occurring in Northern China provinces, including Beijing and Liaoning, the two areas reporting the “mystery illness” in children.

I see. Pollution causing lung problems. Wow. I just fell off my chair. What a revelation. Who ever heard of that?

Yeah. I went through all this—reported on all this—in 2020—with “COVID.” That was a mysterious pneumonia, too. Except for the heavy air pollution. Every year in China, about 300,000 people die from pneumonia (lung problems). That means there are millions of cases.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: pixundfertig




The Vaccine Study That Should Have Brought Down The Empire

The Vaccine Study That Should Have Brought Down The Empire

by Jon Rappoport
November 13, 2023

 

When I discovered this study several years ago and wrote the following extensive piece on it, the study was a bolt from the blue, a complete devastating shocker.

It still is.

It is more than enough to topple the whole vaccine empire.

Honoring the work of the study co-author, Dr. Antonietta Gatti, Catherine Austin Fitts wrote, “Not long after the publication of this revolutionary study, tax authorities raided and investigated Dr. Gatti’s and [her husband] Dr. Montanari’s laboratory and private home—an all too usual method of intimidation.”

THAT was the “scientific follow-up.”

In a nutshell, Dr. Gatti’s 2017 study showed an incredible amount of contamination, in a whole host of traditional vaccines. The contamination was in the form of tiny nanoparticles, mostly metallic, and obviously highly harmful and dangerous.

Before reading my summary and analysis of that study—here is an updated communication from Dr. Gatti I received a few days ago. It describes, in a stark and disturbing fashion, what has been happening to her, her work, and her laboratory. This is chilling:

“At the end of last year, our laboratory no longer had the financial capacity to continue its research. The proceeds from the few analyzes requested by private individuals yielded enormously less than what the research cost us. Then, there were two possibilities: close everything or set up a foundation by giving away everything that belonged to us, hoping to find some sponsors. After all, all initiatives, even the most bizarre, find someone willing to contribute financially. Why not a foundation that does fundamental research on health? So, we opted for the latter choice, and the Nanodiagnostics Foundation was born.”

“But, after almost a year, not a cent has arrived. In short, no company, no private citizen, no institution is willing to contribute.”

“Many people continue to demand results and ask questions to which they have no answers from the institutions or their doctors, but, if it is a question of parting from some money, the silence is absolute.”

“It is clear that our work is a threat to billion-dollar businesses that are not exactly clear, at least for most people. For this reason, the most absurd and incredible slanders are invented to our detriment.

Not being able to dispute our scientific results, there are those who publish, usually anonymously, that we earn enormous sums of money, even giving the impression that the Foundation belongs to us, when it should be known that foundations do not belong to anyone, and no one can profit from them. And this is when we have donated everything that belonged to us, and we work for free.”

“Another tactic is trying to isolate and discredit us with lies. What the University of Bologna did a few days ago, the university where I graduated, then specialized and taught, is a small example.”

“A few months ago, that university asked us if we were willing to accept [a] student… who would prepare her graduation thesis with us. We agreed and agreed with the student on how to proceed. A few months passed, then, a couple of weeks ago, when the University authorities realized that the student would work with us, they sent us a message of a few lines in which they informed us that what we do (and which I had taught at that university) was of no interest to them (which, in a way, is true, although very far from the mission of the University). Needless to say, my letter to the Rector asking for explanations remained unanswered.”

“And it is also useless to say how difficult it is to publish the results that we continue to obtain, and which are not liked by those who financially maintain the medical journals, on whose scientific nature I prefer not to comment. For twice the Editor after the publication of an article (on vaccines and on SIDS) asked to retreat [sic] them. Only the work of the Robert Kennedy Jr lawyers stopped the request.”

“[Paper:] Novel chemical-physical autopsy investigation in sudden infant death and sudden intrauterine unexplained death syndromes” (click here)

“Just for your information, in spite of all difficulties, we are now dealing with very critical topics: spontaneously aborted babies, analysis of the brains of infants who died in cots (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, aka SIDS), analysis of what falls from the sky (e.g., recently hail never seen before), food, etc. All this can only be fought with personal discredit.”

“We haven’t had any visits from the regime for a long time. For them it is enough to monitor our computers and phones. The rest is done by ‘volunteers’. As for other scientists, no one deals with our topics in full. It must be realized that doing so represents a risk that is obviously preferable not to take.”

“As long as we can manage, we will continue to work. If, however, no sponsor materializes (idle chatter and empty promises are not only useless: they are a waste of time,) we will have no other option than to declare defeat, a defeat that belongs to the whole world and, above all, to the children who do not deserve the fate they are suffering.”

“…I give some details of our Foundation Nanodiagnostics (click here)…”

IF YOU CAN, PLEASE DONATE TO Dr. Gatti’s vital work at the above website.

Here is my original article on Dr. Gatti’s vaccine-contamination study:

Dangerous nano-particles contaminating many vaccines: groundbreaking study

“The Lung,” Second Edition: “Nanoparticles [are] comparable in size to subcellular structures…enabling their ready incorporation into biological systems.”

A 2017 study of 44 types of 15 traditional vaccines, manufactured by leading global companies, has uncovered a very troubling and previously unreported fact:

The vaccines are heavily contaminated with a variety of nanoparticles.

Many of the particles are metals.

We’re talking about traditional vaccines, such as HPV, flu, Swine Flu, Hepatitis B, MMR, DPT, tetanus, etc.

To begin to understand some of the destructive effects of contaminating nanoparticles in vaccines, here is the groundbreaking 2017 study:

International Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination
Volume 4 Issue 1
January 23 2017
New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination
Antonietta M Gatti and Stefano Montanari
(Paper archived here and here)

“The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case. This new investigation represents a new quality control that can be adopted to assess the safety of a vaccine. Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines…”

Are the study authors leaving the door open to the possibility that the contamination is intentional?

“The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity…they induce an inflammatory reaction.”

“After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas…But they can also be carried by the blood circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination…As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect…due to a nano-bio-interaction…can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way…It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA…”

“In some cases, e.g. as occurs with Iron and some Iron alloys, they can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues…”

“Given the contaminations we observed in all samples of human-use vaccines, adverse effects after the injection of those vaccines are possible and credible and have the character of randomness, since they depend on where the contaminants are carried by the blood circulation. It is only obvious that similar quantities of these foreign bodies can have a more serious impact on very small organisms like those of children. Their presence in the muscles…could heavily impair the muscle functionality…”

“We come across particles with chemical compositions, similar to those found in the vaccines we analyzed, when we study cases of environmental contamination caused by different pollution sources. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt. In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants.”

This 2017 study opens up a whole new field: the investigation of nanoparticles in vaccines where none were expected.

Such particles are not medicine in any sense of the word.

Many legal and scientific “experts” assert the State has a right to mandate vaccines and force them on the population. But these contaminating nanoparticles are not vaccines or medicines. Only a lunatic would defend the right of the State to inject them.

Here is another section from the 2017 study. Trade names of vaccines, and compositions of the nanoparticle contaminants are indicated. Take a deep breath and buckle up:

“…further presence of micro-, sub-micro- and nanosized, inorganic, foreign bodies (ranging from 100nm to about ten microns) was identified in all cases [all 44 vaccines], whose presence was not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product…”

“…single particles, cluster of micro- and nanoparticles (less than 100nm) and aggregates…debris of Aluminum, Silicon, Magnesium and Titanium; of Iron, Chromium, Silicon and Calcium particles…arranged in a cluster, and Aluminum-Copper debris…in an aggregate.”

“…the particles are surrounded and embedded in a biological substrate. In all the samples analyzed, we identified particles containing: Lead (Typhym, Cervarix, Agrippal S1, Meningitec, Gardasil) or stainless steel (Mencevax, Infarix Hexa, Cervarix. Anatetall, Focetria, Agrippal S1, Menveo, Prevenar 13, Meningitec, Vaxigrip, Stamaril Pasteur, Repevax and MMRvaxPro).”

“…particles of Tungsten identified in drops of Prevenar and Infarix (Aluminum, Tungsten, Calcium chloride).”

“…singular debris found in Repevax (Silicon, Gold, Silver) and Gardasil (Zirconium).”

“Some metallic particles made of Tungsten or stainless steel were also identified. Other particles containing Zirconium, Hafnium, Strontium and Aluminum (Vivotif, Meningetec); Tungsten, Nickel, Iron (Priorix, Meningetec); Antimony (Menjugate kit); Chromium (Meningetec); Gold or Gold, Zinc (Infarix Hexa, Repevax), or Platinum, Silver, Bismuth, Iron, Chromium (MMRvaxPro) or Lead,Bismuth (Gardasil) or Cerium (Agrippal S1) were also found. The only Tungsten appears in 8/44 vaccines, while Chromium (alone or in alloy with Iron and Nickel) in 25/44. The investigations revealed that some particles are embedded in a biological substrate, probably proteins, endo-toxins and residues of bacteria. As soon as a particle comes in contact with proteic fluids, a nano-bio-interaction…occurs and a ‘protein corona’ is formed…The nano-bio-interaction generates a bigger-sized compound that is not biodegradable and can induce adverse effects, since it is not recognized as self by the body.”

“…examples of these nano-bio-interactions. Aggregates can be seen (stable composite entities) containing particles of Lead in Meningitec… of stainless steel (Iron, Chromium and Nickel…) and of Copper, Zinc and Lead in Cervarix…Similar aggregates, though in different situations (patients suffering from leukemia or cryoglobulinemia), have already been described in literature.”

I’m sure you’ve read official assurances that vaccine-manufacturing problems are “rare.” You can file those pronouncements along with other medical lies.

“I’d like the heavy metal sandwich on rye, please. And instead of serving it on a plate, can you inject it?”

Several vital questions demanding answers spring from the findings of this 2017 study:

Are some of these nanoparticles intentionally placed in vaccines?

Does the standard manufacturing process for traditional vaccines INEVITABLY lead to dangerous and destructive nano-contamination?

New nano-technology is already being employed to create several vaccines—supposedly “improving effectiveness.” In fact, the RNA COVID-19 vaccine are a nano-type. Does this manufacturing process carry with it the unavoidable effect of unleashing a hurricane of nanoparticle contaminants?

How many cases of childhood brain damage and autism can be laid at the door of nanoparticle contamination?

And finally, where are these contaminated vaccines manufactured? The above study did not attempt to discover this. It was outside the scope of the research. It’s common knowledge that, for example, in the case of the US, vaccines or their components, are, in many instances, not produced domestically. Where does this put control of safety? In, say, China, where there have been numerous pharmaceutical scandals connected to contamination of products?

The vaccine establishment does not show the slightest interest in answering any of these questions. They are busy pretending the questions don’t exist.

Trusting the establishment would be suicidal.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: nts01




Viruses Never Proved to Exist: Still the Greatest Suppressed Story of Our Time

Viruses Never Proved to Exist: Still the Greatest Suppressed Story of Our Time

by Jon Rappoport
October 31, 2023

 

As soon as I began writing about COVID in the spring of 2020, I made the case that SARS-CoV-2 hadn’t been proved to exist.

I then met Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and Christine Massey. I became aware of the work of Stefan Lanka. They were making a wide challenge about viruses in general:

No actual isolation; no proof of existence; instead, a parade of false claims and obfuscations from official sources.

A few years later…and the number of serious researchers who are coming to the same conclusion has expanded significantly. (You can find links to some of these researchers at Christine Massey’s Substack page )

The new work isn’t just a repetition of the original challenge to official authority. It attacks fake viruses from a number of angles. The shocks keep coming.

This story isn’t going away. It’s building.

It reminds me of the vaccine story. When I first started writing about dangerous and ineffective vaccines, in 1987, there were dozens of writers, present and past, who had covered similar ground—going back many decades. But that was nothing compared with…

The strength of that story now, in 2023, after the catastrophe of the COVID vaccines.

This is what I believe is going to happen to the fake virus story—against even longer odds. I say “longer,” because the proofs that viruses aren’t real by any scientific standard will undermine and detonate the very center of the medical cartel, which is all about germ theory.

Germ theory is marketing. The marketing of (toxic) drugs and vaccines for thousands of so-called distinct diseases, each supposedly caused by a unique germ.

When that fiction falls, the whole house collapses.

Going back as far as the beginning of the 20th century (and farther), another paradigm about disease emerged. It came to be called “holistic.” Probably not the best label. But the idea was: look at the whole body, the whole person. Look at body processes as connected and inter-related. Understand disease and health in those larger terms. Include environmental effects—basic sanitation, pollution, toxic chemicals, nutrition, the rise of the middle class out of poverty.

Something needs to be pointed out here. The holistic paradigm is a very difficult approach, in terms of making it pay off in real cures. It always has been difficult. Thousands of methods have been suggested. Many of these tend to mirror the medical strategy: find magic bullet solutions, take short cuts. Market them. Claim temporary fixes are permanent.

Treating the body and the person as a whole, taking in the mind-body connection—this is by no means a walk in the park.

Therefore, sooner or later, many people, discouraged, fall back on medical answers and germ theory.

The work of the no-virus pioneers provides an absolutely essential antidote to that surrender.

Because what are people surrendering to? The convenient fiction that viruses are everywhere, causing separate diseases. Convenient fiction was how viruses were willed into existence in the first place:

Doctors couldn’t cure their patients. So they looked for “something that was missing.” A hole in their hypotheses. And they claimed they found it.

Tiny particles no one had ever seen. No one had ever isolated. “This is the key. This is the great discovery.” It was a self-serving fairy tale. An excuse for treatment failure.

It kicked off millions of efforts to assure one and all that viruses were real. Marketing, parading as science.

Where were these viruses being discovered? In proprietary labs. No civilians permitted. Doors locked. Only the experts could understand the details of their own isolation of the tiny particles.

The particles which had been fantasized into existence.

We’re actually looking at a magic-myth story. Explorer-knights (doctors, researchers) are searching for an invisible dragon object which is crippling the population. These heroes finally corner it and isolate it and go to work decimating it and all its variants.

But the real ending to that story is now being provided by the multiplying number of independent researchers, who are proving the invisible dragon object was never cornered or identified or isolated.

Instead, the so-called explorer-knights made up, invented, fabricated the idea of the object to begin with.

That’s the magic. Sleight of hand. That’s the myth. Secret lab procedures that, when exposed, turn out to assume what they’re trying to prove. Also known as circular reasoning.

The whole story has come unglued.

For now, I’ll conclude with this analogy. A group of elite researchers claim that, 49 trillion light years from Earth, there is a flaming star the size of the Milky Way. At the center of that star, buried within a supernatural vault, there is a tiny, tiny purple man with green toes and orange hair who is causing all trouble and all destruction circulating throughout the universe. He’s there. He’s been “isolated.”

Given that incredible tale, would you expect, would you really expect there can be ANY sort of test which would prove the existence of that tiny man?

Could ANY test be produced that would be authentic?

So, in the case of the wild virus fairy tale, are we looking at proofs of existence and isolation that need to be improved, in order for us to accept them?

Or are we, instead, looking at the tiny purple man, about whose existence there are no possible proofs at all?

Because the story is so absurdly outrageous.

I’m thinking we’re dealing with the tiny purple man. And this may be the next chapter in the no-virus revelation:

The original concoction of viruses was so crazy, every so-called proof is going to be circular, mindless, and futile.

There is no there to get to.

Stay tuned.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image based on creative commons work of: Saydung89




If the CIA and Mossad Created Hamas, Who Created the CIA and Mossad?

If the CIA and Mossad Created Hamas, Who Created the CIA and Mossad?

by Jon Rappoport
October 20, 2023

Mainstream media aren’t talking about it, but it’s an open secret: some 50 years ago, the US and Israel created Hamas—as an offset and competitor to Yasser Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization.

It was one more brilliant (aka asinine) example of meddling and launching endless enemies, who become our enemies when they turn on us. The CIA has specialized in this, all over the world.

The US and Israeli governments launched CIA and Mossad. These intel giants were tasked with collecting and interpreting information on potential enemies.

Of course, CIA and Mossad expanded their mandates and operations. Immediately. And that’s where the real trouble came.

“Let’s subvert our enemies. Let’s undertake hundreds and thousands of clandestine operations to neutralize and destroy our enemies. In the process, we can invent groups who will serve us and do the destroying for us…”

Yeah. Sure. A perfect formula for suicide.

And it caters to exactly the people you never want to give any power to. The chessboard game-playing crazies. Namely, your own operations case officers and planners.

THESE guys are loved by all sorts of big-time corporate and financial players (in the US and Israel), who are looking for a leg up in their foreign expansions efforts: finding new resources abroad, finding new markets, finding new corrupt allies.

Protecting national interests becomes EMPIRE.

Empire perverts and subverts little items like national Constitutions and the basic rule of law. “The law is for suckers. We’re the intel community. Just let us do our jobs. We know how to capture and win whatever we can get our hands on. Life is nothing more than winners and losers. Face it. And we’re the pros.”

Which takes us much deeper into the rabbit hole. Into places where morality and reality clash. Where sympathy and common sense clash. Where the whole idea of what an independent nation is and should be is challenged and potentially destroyed.

This rabbit hole is where many people don’t want to go. It challenges and nullifies, they believe, every important human impulse.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: Xpics




Jon Rappoport: On “the Big Con” of Concocted Science as a Control System — “Centers of Fake Knowledge Are Modern Cathedrals”

Jon Rappoport: On “the Big Con” of Concocted Science as a Control System — “Centers of Fake Knowledge Are Modern Cathedrals”

 

“CONCOCTED science is the modern version of spiritual revelation. The Roman Church—while it was carrying out witch hunts and inquisitions replete with confessions obtained through torture and capped off with death by burning at the stake—was claiming Jesus Himself had passed the keys of the Kingdom to the Church…and He tacitly approved its policies.

“These days, debilitating, brain damaging, and life-destroying vaccines are the scientific revelations the Church of Federal Medicine stands for.

“Concocted science.”

 

Science as Control; Centers of Fake Knowledge Are Modern Cathedrals; the Big Con

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
August 10, 2023

 

I continue to write about this subject because it’s vital.

NIH, the US National Institutes of Health, is the largest medical research facility in the world. It has 18,000 employees and runs on an annual budget of $45 billion.

I once suggested to Jim Warner, a White House policy analyst under Ronald Reagan, that somebody should do an audit of NIH and determine exactly what medical advancements the agency had actually made during its long history. He thought that was a terrific idea. But nothing came of it.

I assure you, an audit would reveal much less than meets the eye. Much less in the way of useful discoveries and technology. Along with mountains of useless and fraudulent science.

BUT NIH stands as a center of knowledge and a symbol, a reference point, a proof positive that medical science is marching forward.

It’s a very expensive public relations tool.

How could we not accept and signal our obedience to medicine, when we have such an awesome modern cathedral for its research?

Ditto for the CDC and the FDA. Both infernally corrupt agencies.

CONCOCTED science is the modern version of spiritual revelation. The Roman Church—while it was carrying out witch hunts and inquisitions replete with confessions obtained through torture and capped off with death by burning at the stake—was claiming Jesus Himself had passed the keys of the Kingdom to the Church…and He tacitly approved its policies.

These days, debilitating, brain damaging, and life-destroying vaccines are the scientific revelations the Church of Federal Medicine stands for.

Concocted science.

People accept science as fact, based on the IMPRESSION that actual knowledge is being discovered.

PR people make sure this impression is delivered.

Just as the Roman Church never confesses to fraud in its doctrine, the centers of modern medical knowledge never confess fraud.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: prettysleepy1




Jon Rappoport: American Culture and TV Ads — The Missing Link

Jon Rappoport: American Culture and TV Ads — The Missing Link

 

“The common wisdom is people are sick of TV commercials. They mute them. They change the channel to avoid them.

“I don’t think that’s true.

“The basic missing link is: the ads aren’t just promoting products; the ads ARE products.”

 

American culture and TV ads; the missing link; I make another breakthrough

by Jon Rappoport
August 4, 2023

 

The common wisdom is people are sick of TV commercials. They mute them. They change the channel to avoid them.

I don’t think that’s true.

The basic missing link is: the ads aren’t just promoting products; the ads ARE products.

But viewers have no way of expressing their preferences. Hence we need this:

THE COMMERCIALS CHANNEL.

It could start out on cable. I think it’d soon make it to network television. Possibly it would wind up on YouTube, where it would garner far more viewers than NBC or CBS could attract.

The Commercials Channel (CC) has no shows. It plays commercials 24 hours a day. Back to back. In an unending stream.

AND VIEWERS VOTE FOR THEIR FAVORITE COMMERCIALS.

That’s the key.

That’s what the audience wants.

The ads are products. The viewers decide which ones are best.

The channel runs contests, all day and all night.

Here are 16 pharmaceutical commercials. Which one do you like best? Vote now.

Announce the winners.

Drug ads, fast food ads, insurance ads, bank ads, ads for movies, car ads, ads for lawyers, beer ads, soda ads…

All sorts of contests around the clock. VOTE FOR YOUR FAVORITE NOW.

And maybe you can bet.

Which of these 10 ads do you think will win? Lay your money down in the next 3 minutes.

You’d have 2 or 3 AI talking heads representing CC, on–air, hosting the contests.

CC runs 24/7. All ads all the time. That’s revenue for the channel.

Almost no overhead.

ADS ARE PRODUCTS.

LET THE PUBLIC DECIDE WHICH ONES THEY WANT TO “BUY.”

I mean, come on. Advertising is perhaps the most visible industry in America. Give it its due.

Instead of “Is the Chevy better than the Ford,” it’s “Is the Chevy ad better than the Ford ad.”

NOW you’re cooking.

Now you’ve got audience interest.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: paulsteuber




Jon Rappoport: What Someone Once Said to Me About Vaccines, Echoing Bill Gates

Jon Rappoport: What Someone Once Said to Me About Vaccines, Echoing Bill Gates

 

“The truth is, no one can get to health through vaccinations. If a person is sickly, vaccines won’t help. If he’s healthy, he doesn’t need vaccines.

“The bad news is, vaccines destroy. Whether it’s the so-called adjuvants they put in the shots, the goop they think are pieces of viruses (that don’t exist), the preservatives, the lipid nanoparticles, the coatings on the particles, the little segments of RNA—the injections attack the body. In all sorts of ways. In all sorts of places.”

 

What Someone Once Said to Me About Vaccines, Echoing Bill Gates
Dispatches from the vaccine war

by Jon Rappoport
July 19, 2023

 

When I think about what piece to write next, or when for the moment my tank is empty, I come up with VACCINES. That’s the subject.

It’s been that way for a long time.

I could be accused of having a grand obsession, but this isn’t the case. I’m responding to the civilizational obsession with vaccination.

At the same time, it IS personal. Because of the outrage I feel, watching medical storm troopers who have been on the march for more than a hundred years.

Watching their arrogance, their blunt stupidity, their “rational” madness. As they keep marching and invading.

If we were living in an absolute monarchy and I were King, there would be hell to pay. The troopers would pay, dearly.

Over the past 35 years, I’ve written countless articles on vaccination. I’ve run down the evidence from all the angles. Now I’m left with the feeling when all the data detailing crimes have been exhausted. I’m at the end of that trail.

It’s not THE end, though. Not by a long shot.

The troopers and their allies represent, for me, everything that’s insane about our society—especially the bland acceptance by the willing victims. The silent majority.

Including, of course, the educated classes, who proudly wear their badges of science, the ultimate virtue signal. They live in a harsh bombed out desert and think it’s a pretty garden.

Some of them watch their children go crazy from the shots, suffering massive brain damage—and still these parents won’t admit what happened.

They refuse to see what they saw.

—It might have been after a talk I gave. I had mentioned the fact that improved sanitation and nutrition in the West accounted for the decline in all sorts of illness—not the widespread introduction of vaccines.

The person said, “But for children who still can’t get nutritious food, vaccines protect them.”

It was a mindless “save the children” remark.

Of course, when the body’s defense is chronically deficient, a vaccine isn’t going to pump it up. Because there isn’t anything THERE to pump up. That’s a ridiculous fairy tale. And a vaccine isn’t food.

Bill Gates tried to pull off the same sort of nonsense, when he announced with great personal fanfare, that he’d just read a book about contaminated water supplies in the Third World—as if he’d just discovered what everyone else had known for 50 years.

So he said something like this: I saw that bad water accounted for horrific chronic diarrhea, a killer. We have to clean up the water. But meanwhile, my anti-diarrheal vaccine will help.

No it won’t. The sick child, who is wasting away, has no immune system left. The vaccine won’t build up what isn’t there.

—Belief across a population is a powerful thing. It can operate like a bulldozer, flattening all obstacles and objections. And at the end of the day, it stands naked, amid the ruins. When the belief is demanding a solution that won’t work. Vaccines.

I come from an era when vaccinations were few and far between. A poke here, a stab there. There was no CDC shouting about schedules. The big Pharma money wasn’t rolling in yet. The predators knew the public wouldn’t go for 30 or 40 shots during childhood.

But now it’s a lifeline. Oh, the kids will die if you don’t shoot them up.

Bleeding heart liberals, clueless rubes, and Big Pharma. A jackpot sales team.

And a bland Howdy Doody monster like Bill Gates in the background, pouring billions of dollars into MORE vaccines.

As I predicted early on during Warp Speed, the introduction of RNA technology was going to create a bonanza for Pharma. They’d redo every vaccine in the book with the new tech. They’re working in that direction now.

Because vaccines injure and kill, this civilization is on wartime footing. We’re under attack. Half the effort to censor us is devoted to the vaccine issue. The enemy knows what’s at stake.

If we take their prime weapon away from them—by walking away from it in huge numbers—they fall.

After the COVID fiasco, when millions of people DID walk away from the injection…the public is primed to take a look at the whole range of vaccines.

I’ve watched some of the new pundits who appeared during COVID to expose that shot. Some of them are close. They’re close to seeing that the whole arsenal of vaccines is nothing less than a doomsday weapon. They haven’t crossed that line yet. But they’re on the verge.

I crossed the line in 1988, when I wrote AIDS INC. Because I realized “the virus” wasn’t causing anything, I was looking for real causes of immune suppression—since that was what so-called AIDS was.

And that’s when I saw The Big One looming up on the horizon. Vaccines.

I started talking to Health Freedom advocates who’d been in the trenches for decades. I started reading hard to find books that investigated vaccines. And then, there it was.

I saw it.

I couldn’t look away from it.

Whatever I thought a career in journalism was, could be, should be, that career took a sharp turn.

I had no idea how much passivity I would encounter.

Pure, dumb, conformist passivity.

But with Warp Speed, and everything that followed, I saw the apathy in the public begin to dissolve.

I saw foundational pillars begin to crack.

The truth is, no one can get to health through vaccinations. If a person is sickly, vaccines won’t help. If he’s healthy, he doesn’t need vaccines.

The bad news is, vaccines destroy. Whether it’s the so-called adjuvants they put in the shots, the goop they think are pieces of viruses (that don’t exist), the preservatives, the lipid nanoparticles, the coatings on the particles, the little segments of RNA—the injections attack the body. In all sorts of ways. In all sorts of places.

In England, right at the start, when THE one shot was for smallpox, there were whole cities with high vaccination rates where people were dropping like flies. And cities where the vaccination rate was low, people came through all right.

When the authorities finally began cleaning off the raw sewage running down the city streets, when they installed public sanitation systems, disease took a very sharp downturn.

These things aren’t hard to understand.

But they’ve been hidden from the public.

We’re looking at a revolution of simple truth. Which can be spoken and delivered simply.

And widely.

By us all.

In this war.

During which we’re under attack.

Many foot soldiers happen to be doctors, who have the advantage of seeming neutral. They wave no flags. They salute no dictator. They’re calm and rational. Nevertheless, they wield the weapon, and they use it.

We can’t let that oddity deter us.

If you need a push, talk to the mother of a severely autistic child. That is, a child whose brain was assaulted by a vaccine. Have her tell you what she goes through every day of her life, with that child.

It seems difficult to believe a modern civilization could have gone so far off the track as this one has.

The difficulty in facing that fact is what drives people back into their huts and their television screens and online games.

But you know, believing something that happens to be true and then acting on it is more powerful than any civilization.

This is why I’m here. To tell you that.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image based on creative commons work of: NoPixelZoneOpenClipart-Vectors




Children and the Lost Age of Innocence; Sexualizing the Young; Too Many Crimes to Count

Children and the Lost Age of Innocence; Sexualizing the Young; Too Many Crimes to Count

by Jon Rappoport
July 17, 2023

 

And too many pedophiles to count.

I first became aware of “different children” when I met kids from the next town over: Scarsdale, circa 1948.

A few of them were smug. I wondered why.

I figured out it was because they owned things. Expensive clothes, jewelry, etc.

I’m talking about 10-year olds.

It was the vague beginning of my understanding of children as consumers.

And of course, over time, I saw the consumer culture itself rise to new heights. Children became a key market, a key demographic.

Children “needed products.”

But not just kiddie items. Children could be turned into little adults. Talking about makeup, matching outfits, expensive shoes.

And eventually, schools started teaching children about sex.

Innocence? No good. No money in it. Nothing to sell. How are you going to sell walking down a road on a spring afternoon and feeling alive with all the time in the world?

You’re nine, ten.

Sex? What?

So innocence had to be buried.

In 1948, my pals and I only needed one bat, an old softball, a few cheap gloves, and a field, and we could play all day.

No money in it.

Teaching sex in schools was a Progressive idea. Let kids know how babies were made and born, because their parents were too embarrassed to explain it.

Later, teaching sex meant teaching about the act of sex.

And now…you know where it’s gone. Chemicals, sex hormones, surgery. Surgery that destroys sex.

“We’re coming after your children.”

Make children into sexual fetish objects, then push them off a cliff.

But first, much earlier in history, make them consumers. Eliminating their innocence.

Allowing every horror that follows.

If, in 1948, teachers had approached us with notions of gender fluidity, we would have known they were insane. We would have told our parents, who would have stormed the school and raised holy hell. No school board could have turned back their fury. (And no US Attorney General would have dared suggest our parents were domestic terrorists, unless he wanted to be thrown out on the street, alone, denied by his own family, or put in a psych ward.)

Innocence. Trees coming back to life in April. Flowers. Kids running. Running everywhere. Not a product. Not a thing to be exchanged for money.

Now, sex teachers. Sex killers.

And people changing their sex:

“The bravest people and the greatest Americans” Joe Biden knows.

He has the backup of the medical industrial complex. Selling sex change is money. A booming market. Surgeons are on stand-by, ready to cut and paste genitals, faces, shoulders, legs to specifications.

Plant a polished steel tree in concrete, in our nation’s capital. The branches are sex-change, drugs and hormones and surgery, sexualized children, pedophiles.

They merge and form a diabolical business worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

A voice whispers to men and women in offices all over the world: “You can market ANYTHING.”

Pedophiles in boardrooms, schools, churches, and government councils are counting on that marketing to keep people’s Eyes Wide Shut.

— Jon Rappoport

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: Pexels




Psychologizing the Kiddies and Twisting Their Minds

Psychologizing the Kiddies and Twisting Their Minds

And setting them up for membership in the Failure Society 

by Jon Rappoport
July 14, 2023

 

Well, I’ve won another Nobel Prize. I’ve got so many now, I keep the medals in a box in the basement. I mail the checks straight to the IRS, they take what they want and deposit the leftovers in my bank account.

This Prize has to do with child psychology, and more importantly, cultural psychology.

Let’s start here. Some kids do have problems.

If a kid is walking to the grocery store through a hail of drive-by bullets, that’s a problem.

If his father is beating him up three times a month, that’s a problem.

If he has no father and his mother is working two jobs to keep the lights on and she’s rarely home, that’s a problem.

If breakfast every day is chocolate Snuffles and peanut butter pressed between two slices of plastic white bread, that’s a problem.

But I’m not talking about those problems. I’m talking about the fashion trend and the cultural imperative and the outright demand that kids ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE personal problems—and if they don’t, they’re out. They’re barred from belonging. They’re weird. They’re covering up something.

Once you install the need to have problems in a kid, once you convince him he has to be on that starter page, boom, with a leap he’s off and running. Because he has an active imagination.

He’ll go with that proposition, and all kinds of invention will follow.

“I’m trying to root out my systemic racism…climate change is going to kill us all…I think I want to be a girl…my mother doesn’t understand me…I may have early arthritis…I don’t like sports anymore…I’m having a crisis and I don’t know what it’s about…how can we stop people from cutting down trees…I don’t eat meat but I want to…I have neck pains at night…I was getting taller but now I’ve stopped…I may be too thin…we’re not letting in enough immigrants…”

Badges. Badges of belonging. Gotta settle on a good problem. Which one should I have today? Not having a problem is like going to school naked.

Back in the 1940s, when I was growing up, no kid had these problems. No kid was manufacturing problems.

That was before the Age of Psychologizing.

When I was a kid, there were foods I didn’t like. Unfortunately, they would appear on the dinner table. Chicken soup. String beans. Mashed potatoes. So my mother and I would argue, I would force down a forkful and a spoonful or two, and that would be it, until the next night, when we’d go at it again.

But it never occurred to me that this was a problem.

Now, YOU HAVE TO HAVE PROBLEMS is the gateway drug into all sorts of wretched crapola. It’s a set-up.

For a life of hand-wringing.

It’s entirely synthetic.

It’s a form of magic-making. Bad magic.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: Issues




Admiral Rachel Levine Takes a Destroyer to Genital Mutilation Island

Admiral Rachel Levine Takes a Destroyer to Genital Mutilation Island

by Jon Rappoport
July 13, 2023

 

Admiral Rachel Levine—a man who “transitioned” and is now Assistant Secretary of Health in the Biden administration—has made shocking statements in support of transgenderism:

Foxnews (July 18, 2022)Daily Mail (March 17, 2023): Levine:

“We really want to base our treatment and to affirm and to support and empower these youth—not to limit their participation in activities in sports and even limit their ability to get gender affirmation treatment in their state…”

“I can say that you [doctors], the children that you serve, the young people that you serve, their families, and you all have support at the highest levels of the federal government.”

“President Biden supports you. I as the Assistant Secretary for Health will support you and I talk about this topic, everywhere I go, to get the word out…”

And the Word is: backing, at the highest levels of government, children receiving puberty blockers, sex hormones, and genital mutilation surgery.

That’s “gender-affirming care.”

So if you still think the trans movement is just a small collection of misfits, forget it.

This is big-league politics. This is major medicine. This is government policy by fiat.

Realize this is federal power dictating medical treatment and supporting it with all hands on deck.

In terms of power at the helm, this is on the level of the CDC childhood vaccination schedule.

This is also on the level of declaring the RNA COVID vaccine kill shots safe, effective, and necessary.

Full steam ahead.

This is the federal government supporting castration for boys.

And double mastectomies for girls.

National policy.

Colluding with medical societies, doctors, hospitals, clinics, and psychiatrists.

A government is bent on destroying lives and generations of children.

Officially.

The day is approaching when multiple laws will empower Child Protective Services to remove children from their homes, if their parents revolt against “the child’s decision” to change genders.

This is war-crime territory.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image based on creative commons work found at WikiMedia Commons & Pixabay 1 2 3 4




Autism Is MONSTROUS BRAIN DAMAGE. Brought to You by Your Terminally Corrupt Federal Government

Autism Is MONSTROUS BRAIN DAMAGE. Brought to You by Your Terminally Corrupt Federal Government

by Jon Rappoport
July 7, 2023

 

At Age of Autism, there is a riveting piece about the government cover-up and the forced collusion with Pharma, entitled “Sharyl Attkisson, Friend of Ours.” Read it.

Let’s start here. There is no defining physical diagnostic test for autism. No blood test, no urine test, no hair test, no genetic assay, no brain scan.

What??

That’s right.

And you can throw out the official definition of autism. That menu of behaviors and attitudes is arbitrary—complied by a committee of psychiatrists.

But a doctor’s eyeball diagnosis of autism is very valuable. To government and Pharma.

Why?

When a mother comes before the mandatory federal vaccine court to win $$ compensation for her destroyed child, the court can (and will) say:

“We see your doctor diagnosed your son with autism. But there is no proof vaccines cause autism. Compensation denied.”

The mother was really telling the court (but she couldn’t say it), “My child had a vaccine and checked out of the world. It’s VACCINE DAMAGE.”

Of course, that wouldn’t fly, either. Why should it? It’s the TRUTH. And truth doesn’t win.

This is the word game the government plays. It’s a predatory game.

How does the government “prove” vaccines don’t cause autism? Easy. Researchers say: “We have identified children with autism who have never had vaccines.”

What is the government really saying? “We’ve identified children with brain damage caused by factors other than vaccines.”

Of course there are such children. But so what?

So the government wins. With that completely absurd assertion.

Cutting through all this wordplay and mumbo-jumbo—push the label “autism” to one side and speak the facts: The child had a vaccine and it DAMAGED HIS BRAIN.

But again, that won’t work. In court.

It’s too obvious, too clear-cut, too simple, too true.

The court’s rule is: A parent seeking compensation for injury to her child, caused by a vaccine, MUST have a diagnosis of an official disorder or a disease from a doctor.

The most frequent diagnosis is autism—and then, bang, “There is no proof vaccines cause autism.”

That’s how it works.

That’s how scum of the earth play it.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: Drassari


See Related:

Vaccine Woman

Gaslighting Autism Families: CDC, Media Continue to Obscure Decades of Vaccine-Related Harm

When the Blood Boils: Vaccines and Autism

CDC Removes Claim ‘Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism’ From Its Website

One in Every 16 Irish Boys has Autism: Crisis Worse than COVID-19 and Nobody Cares




Music From the Past, When the World Was Young

Music From the Past, When the World Was Young
Brigadoon; Heather on the Hill; a man discovers joy and love

by Jon Rappoport

 

If you can stand it, you might contrast Brigadoon with “Get rich or die tryin’”, or any sample of hip hop lyrics that have infiltrated what is called The Culture.

Once upon a time, American Broadway musicals took the country by storm. South Pacific, Oklahoma, Finian’s Rainbow, Guys and Dolls…

Many of the musicals were made into films. Like Brigadoon.

Here’s a synopsis of that exhilarating show (1947).

Stageagent.com: —When New Yorkers Tommy Albright and Jeff Douglas get lost on a vacation in the Scottish Highlands, they stumble into Brigadoon. Brigadoon is a mythical village that, they learn, appears for a single day once every hundred years. At first, Tommy and Jeff are mystified by the villagers’ 18th century garb as they go to market, but they are soon charmed by romantic liaisons: Tommy, who is engaged back in New York, falls terribly in love with headstrong Fiona, while Jeff enjoys a harmless flirtation with Meg Brockie. It is only when Harry Beaton, the rejected suitor of Fiona’s sister, Jean, tries to leave Brigadoon that the two men realize the complicated truth: at the end of the day, this town will disappear into the mist for the next hundred years – and if anyone succeeds in leaving Brigadoon, the town and the people in it will be lost, forever. Tommy is forced to choose between returning to the world that he knows and his New York fiancee—or taking a chance on life and love in a mysterious new place. Including such famous hits as “Heather on the Hill” and “Almost Like Being in Love,” Lerner and Loewe’s Brigadoon has music that will sweep you off your feet and a whimsical story that is a tribute to the power of true love.—

Tommy risks everything for true love…and grasps it.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport


TCTL editor’s note:

Reading Jon Rappoport’s post (above) inspired me to share the music from Brigadoon here with our readers. The music and the lyrics lifted my heart. I couldn’t help but listen over and over as I prepared the lyrics, and I remember being enchanted by the music when I first heard it so many years ago. 

“There’s a smile on my face for the whole human race. Why, it’s almost like being in love.”

“All the music of life seems to be, like a bell that is ringing for me.”

I hope that as you listen to the videos shared below, that this music will bring a smile to your heart and to your face, and that perhaps you will find yourself swaying with the sounds of joy and the love carried within the music.

The story of Brigadoon is magical in that it reminds us of the many worlds within our world. And that the choice is ours where we hold our attention. Our attention carries our power to create worlds.

I hope you enjoy listening as much as I did while preparing this. I know I’ll be hearing their echo and will be singing these songs for days to come. ~ Kathleen


Music from Brigadoon as performed by Kelli O’Hara and Patrick Wilson, New York City Center in 2017
“Almost Like Being In Love” from Brigadoon 



Lyrics

Maybe the sun gave me the power
For I could swim Loch Lomond
And be home in half an hour
Maybe the air gave me the drive
For I’m all aglow and alive

What a day this has been
What a rare mood I’m in
Why, it’s almost like being in love

There’s a smile on my face
For the whole human race
Why, it’s almost like being in love

All the music of life seems to be
Like a bell that is ringing for me

And from the way that I feel
When that bell starts to peal

I would swear I was falling
I could swear I was falling
It’s almost like being in love

When we walked up the brae
Not a word did we say
It was almost like bein’ in love

But your arm linked in mine
Made the world kind o’ fine
It was almost like being in love

All the music of life seems to be
Like a bell that is ringing for me
And from the way that I feel
When that bell starts to peal

I would swear I was fallin’
I could swear I was falling
It’s almost like being in love


 The Making of Lerner & Loewe’s Brigadoon (New York City Center 2017 Cast Recording)




The Heather on the Hill



Lyrics

Can’t we two go walkin’ together
Out beyond the valley of trees?

Out where there’s a hillside of heather
curtsyin’ gently in the breeze

That’s what I’d like to do
See the heather, but with you

The mist of May is in the gloamin’
And all the clouds are holdin’ still

So take my hand and let’s go roamin’
Through the heather on the hill

The mornin’ dew is blinkin’ yonder
There’s lazy music in the rill

And all I want to do is wander
Through the heather on the hill

There may be other days as rich and rare
There may be other springs as full and fair

But they won’t be the same
They’ll come and go
For this I know

That when the mist is in the gloamin’
And all the clouds are holdin’ still
If you’re not there I won’t go roamin’
Through the heather on the hill

The heather on the hill

~

The mist of May is in the gloamin’
And all the clouds are holdin’ still

So take my hand and we’ll go roamin’
Through the heather on the hill

The mornin’ dew is blinkin’ yonder
There’s lazy music in the rill

And ’tis a lovely time to wander
Through the heather on the hill

There may be other days as rich and rare
There may be other springs as full and fare

But they won’t be the same
They’ll come and go
For this I know

That when the mist is in the gloamin’
And all the clouds are holdin’ still
If you’re not there, I won’t go roamin’
Through the heather on the hill

The heather on the hill

 

Cover image credit: neelam279




Jon Rappoport: I Will Now Translate the Latest Pile of Dog Turds Issued Forth Concerning the WHO Pandemic Treaty

I Will Now Translate the Latest Pile of Dog Turds Issued Forth Concerning the WHO Pandemic Treaty

Welcome to the Show 

by Jon Rappoport
March 5, 2023

 

The upcoming WHO “accords” depend on making Joe Biden’s shaky signature acquire the unconstitutional power of an international treaty—by calling it an “agreement”—bypassing the required 2/3 vote of the US Senate to ratify all treaties—and putting America under the gun whenever the WHO arbitrarily and unscientifically decides to declare new pandemics.

Under the gun means: massive lockdowns (ruination of the economy and millions of lives); compulsory masking, distancing, and testing; contact tracing (widespread surveillance); new killshot vaccines; and mandates forcing universal vaccination.

The Biden administration has now announced it is committed to signing this WHO “agreement” and binding the US to its orders, directives, and commands.

Pamela Hamamoto is the US ambassador to WHO. I don’t know how that’s possible, since the WHO is a bunch of unelected bureaucrats. She may as well be the ambassador to the Auto Club or US Dentists for Bovine Gum Implants. But legality and legitimacy are apparently not problems.

Pamela Hamamoto says: “The United States is committed to the Pandemic Accord, to form a major component of the global health architecture for generations to come. Shared commitment, shared aspirations and shared responsibilities will vastly improve our system for preventing, preparing for, and responding to future pandemic emergencies.”

TRANSLATION: We have to get every national government on board. It’s called Globalism. It’s medical dictatorship on a worldwide basis. We lock down Germany, so we lock down Italy, and Spain, and so on.

Pamela Hamamoto says: “We seek a Pandemic Accord that builds capacities; reduces pandemic threats posed by zoonotic diseases; enables rapid and more equitable responses; and establishes sustainable financing, governance, and accountability to ultimately break the cycle of panic and neglect.”

TRANSLATION: We issue the commands, and populations obey. The money for this will flow. On into the future. “Accountability” means: If any national government tries to weasel out of the “treaty,” they’ll face severe punishments. Breaking the cycle of panic and neglect means: we create panic about “pandemics” and we don’t neglect vaccinating a single human.

Pamela Hamamoto says: “There is a lot to build on in this draft related to these priorities. However, the draft is unbalanced toward response at the expense of prevention and preparedness. While we need to avoid duplicating substantive elements contained in the IHR [International Health Regulations], such as surveillance and alerts, we need to discuss how best to address pandemic prevention and preparedness here. These efforts should be mutually supportive and complementary.”

TRANSLATION: “Prevention and preparedness” mean: wall-to-wall global messaging, which controls and disseminates perpetual fear-porn about “viruses”; censoring free speech that exposes false science and government tyranny; equating criticism of governments with terrorism; government financially supporting citizens as long as said citizens abjectly obey all medical (and other) directives.

Pamela Hamamoto says: “We appreciate the focus on equity in Chapter III but also agree it must be better integrated across the draft. Our work must be inclusive and applicable for the improved health and wellbeing of all people. A commitment to ‘equity’ must address inequities not only between countries, but also within them.”

TRANSLATION: We have to drag black, brown, yellow, and red people into the mandatory medical framework of compulsory toxic vaccination and compulsory toxic drugs. They don’t escape the trap. We’ll say these “life-saving” treatments are free, because “the underserved communities” deserve “equity”. Give us your huddled masses, yearning to be vaccinated, and therefore injured and suddenly dead.

Pamela Hamamoto says: “[We must not have] ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities.’”

TRANSLATION: No nation can decide how to prepare for or handle a declared pandemic. The whole “treaty” depends on uniform action across the whole planet. Just as in, say, a military operation.

Pamela Hamamoto says: “Finally, the Pandemic Accord must stand the test of time while building on the lessons from previous pandemics. By creating solutions that are flexible and adaptable, by laying out commitments that are clear regarding triggers and responsibilities, and by strengthening coordination and capacities, together we can build a stronger global health architecture for all.”

TRANSLATION: This is a clue about what we’re really up to. The enforcement details of the “treaty” will change over time, but the signatures of all government leaders, once obtained, are permanent guarantees of compliance, far into the future. WHO Globalism will morph into a faceless coterie of invisible, international, predatory bureaucrats, controlling and forcing the bleak march of billions of people along a road of TOXIC MEDICAL TREATMENT that starts in the womb, and proceeds all the way to death. We are the medical cartel. We fly no political or partisan banners. As you will realize, we ARE the Brave New World. All humans are merely biological machines programmed by Nature. We will continue to alter and improve that programming. Our arbitrary declaration of pandemics is simply a strategy for attaining a kind of long-range POWER humanity has never seen.

That’s the true translation of the dog turds.

—Welcome to the show. When Biden sits down and affixes his signature to the WHO agreement, there will be court cases. All sorts of court cases. As there should be. Some will be filed by the state governors and their attorneys general, since the US Constitution enumerates SPECIFIC federal powers—none granting the President the right to sign treaties wearing the disguise of “agreements.” All other powers are reserved for the states and the people.

But beyond these court cases, the ultimate backup is outright resistance and rebellion by state Governors AND THE PEOPLE.

Don’t be fooled into thinking we can rely on the courts or any other legal mechanism to secure our freedom.

Governors will be pushed to the wall. And the brave ones will ultimately have to say, “We refuse to obey these WHO agreements under any and all circumstances. Now if you, the federal government, want to force us, you’ll have to INVADE OUR STATES WITH GROUND TROOPS. How do you think, how do you really think the people of America will view and react to such a move?”

Those who believe “the pandemic is over” and we’ve returned to normalcy are sadly, sadly mistaken. The COVID stage production was just one more phase in the war that has been going on since the beginning of history:

Free? Or not free?

Responsible for your own life? Or do others take that responsibility for you and away from you?

Victim? Or alive and accountable on your own ethical terms?

In the crucible, it’s said that everyone has a breaking point. If so, what is yours? How far will you go to stand firm and not yield?

Circumstances loom up, you look to your deepest convictions, and you find out.

We are the cure.

This is the war.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: KELLEPICS




The Pfizer Exec Who Confessed to Project Veritas Now Tells Me the Whole Truth

The Pfizer Exec Who Confessed to Project Veritas Now Tells Me the Whole Truth
And nothing but the truth about the virus and the vaccine—in the back room of an Irish bar after a few Bushmills 

by Jon Rappoport
February 1, 2023

 

Last Saturday, I woke up to the sounds of my pigs squealing out on the land. My wolves were herding them back into their pens.

I struggled out of bed and plowed through the 16 messages on my cell. FOX, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. They somehow knew I was on to The One, and they were clamoring and pleading for an exclusive.

No dice.

My agent and lawyer, Gloria Torquemada, showed up as I as was downing my 4th cup of coffee. Her CIA contacts had located Jordan Walker, the suddenly infamous Pfizer exec. He was now waiting in Mick Flaherty’s bar 16 miles away from my farm. I called Tucker and told him to hold on, I’d get back to him by nightfall.

I donned my white coat, hung a stethoscope around my neck, pinned an old Blockbuster member card to my chest pocket (“Jon Rappoport, MD”), and we were off in the Bentley.

An hour later, Jordan and I were sitting in Mick’s back room. We had a few drinks and chatted. Maybe more than a few.

Then this is what followed:

What about the virus, Jordan?

What about it?

The isolation problem.

Oh, THAT.

Yeah.

You get right down to it, Jon.

Time is money.

Of course. Well, you have to promise, first, that none of what I tell you in this conversation will go public. This is on background only.

Of course. I would never reveal your comments.

OK, good. So, the virus. Well, scientists never actually FIND a new virus. They INFER its existence.

Infer it from what?

A bunch of presumptions about their own lab procedures.

What they’re doing in the lab—

Is really just a hodge-podge of mumbo-jumbo. They don’t isolate anything. And then, using computer programs, they stitch together genetic sequences for “the virus.” These sequences are metaphors.

Metaphors?

Mythical science.

So there is no proof SARS-CoV-2 exists.

No more proof than, say, “demonstrating” there is a bath house on Mars. Or a gay caballero is roaming the galaxy singing Country and Western.

But—

But we need these metaphors. They satisfy so many interests.

Not least of all, vaccine manufacturers.

Right. If there are no viruses, why would we produce and sell vaccines?

Then all this talk about Pfizer intentionally mutating the virus and giving it more power…which is what you told Project Veritas…is sheer nonsense?

No, not nonsense. High level bullshit.

Explain.

It’s simple. 99.999 percent of virologists in the world believe their own bullshit. They really think they’re discovering new viruses. They really think they can increase the power of those viruses. They’re actually doing METAPHOR, but they think they’re doing LITERAL.

My, my.

Yes. It’s a WOW. And it works brilliantly. No one wants to rock that boat. Too many people are making too much money and exerting too much political power.

So there is no need for a COVID vaccine.

No. And it’s not actually a vaccine. It’s a shot of nanoparticles. They supposedly instructs cells of the body to produce a spike protein. The nanos contain RNA, which does the instructing. So I’m told.

A lot of rigmarole.

Right.

So why is the injection injuring and killing so many people all over the world?

I don’t know. There are all kinds of theories. The point is, when you screw around with the human body, forcing unnatural processes on it, with genetic material [RNA], there is a ripple effect down the line. Things happen.

Unpredictable things.

Yes. The processes of the body are interlocking. Disturb one process, and you get bad reverberations.

Does Pfizer understand this?

All legitimate researchers realize it. It’s not a secret. The COVID injection is experimental. The open medical literature is very frank about the dangers of putting nanoparticles in humans.

In a sense, Pfizer is a marketing firm.

I would call it a PR firm that is also injuring and killing huge numbers of people. We front for an operation that aims at political control of populations. Hence the lockdowns. The lockdowns were a prime political objective. The fake science—which Pfizer peddles—was the cover story.

So you’re personally corrupt.

Of course.

You don’t care?

I’m just trying to make a good living.

With no conscience.

Having no conscience helps.

It occurs to me that this claim Pfizer is doing gain of function research on the virus could send people up a blind alley.

Well, sure. Because legally, Pfizer can quite probably get off the hook. They can say they’re protecting the public by mutating the virus and developing new vaccines that prevent these more dangerous variants from harming everybody. Whereas, a real court case that attacks the VACCINE for the harm it’s causing…that would be a jackpot. A verdict against Pfizer THERE would be devastating. If you could ever get the case into court…

Then why did you tell Project Veritas about Pfizer mutating the virus?

I was speaking metaphorically.

In what sense?

I was telling Veritas what Pfizer is doing with an imaginary virus. Think of it this way. This is a rough analogy: At the end of World War Two, an exec at a major American corporation tells the New York Times his corporation supplied badly built weapons to US troops in Europe. There is no truth to that, because his company didn’t make weapons—but the real story is, his corporation was supplying vital parts to the US AND Germany. Parts used in factories that manufactured planes. Making money from both sides. But the exec says nothing about THAT.

He pointed the finger at his own company. But for the wrong reason.

Yes.

And that’s what you did when you talked to Project Veritas.

Sort of. Yes.

Why?

I was pissed off about a few things at work I don’t want to go into. And I might have been a little high.

On drugs?

Absolutely not. On one drug. Maybe.

You fucked up.

Obviously.

So what are you going to do now?

I think the question is, what are they going to do to me?

Will you testify in front of Congress?

I doubt they’ll invite me. Pfizer has a lot of clout. And several hundred Congressional legislators and other federal officials don’t want me in public under oath. But if I had to appear, I’d lie. I’d say my comments to Project Veritas were misinterpreted, with no context.

You’d try to bullshit your way out of trouble.

Yes. It’s a time-honored tradition. And think of how many journalists would come to my aid.

Pfizer is evil.

I thought we’d already established that.

Why do so many people work there? Some of them must know it’s a nest of evil.

They have bills to pay. They want to live a comfortable life.

It’s that simple?

For most people, it always is. Look, there’s a guy at Pfizer. He knows everything I’ve been telling you here today. He makes about 700K a year. He snitched to the head of security about a woman in his department who was about to go all whistleblower. He snitched because he wanted to protect Pfizer, the cash cow, who hands him his paycheck every month. That was the long and short of it for him. His paycheck. His standard of living.

The truth, the facts, the crimes meant nothing to him.

Less than nothing.

Were you always corrupt?

I’d say I went through three stages. As a child, I was pretty much like other children. After I went to work for Pfizer and gradually saw what was really happening there, I was troubled. But when I was promoted and got a substantial raise, I settled in. I experienced the perks of my new life.

“The banality of evil.”

Yes. Hannah Arendt’s phrase. To describe the Nazi bureaucrat, Adolph Eichmann.

Didn’t Arendt say Eichmann was unaware, detached? He was following orders in order to advance his career. You’re aware.

I am, but it doesn’t SINK IN. I’m like a researcher who’s designing a death ray shot from space, but focuses on the MATH problems in front of him. In a sense, he knows what he’s doing, but it doesn’t bite him.

The vaccine. It’s a killer.

Yes. But you have to remember, it’s the first vaccine given to so MANY people. I dare say if this was, say, the HPV [Human Papilloma Virus] vaccine, the results would be even worse.

If nobody from the company goes to prison—

We never do. We’re aliens.

Excuse me?

When you settle into one of the big pharmaceutical companies and work there for a decade or more, you’re not quite human anymore.

Is it cold in here? I just felt a chill.

You’re not the first person I’ve talked to who’s told me that.

— Jon Rappoport

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport — substackwebsite

Cover image based on creative commons work of tusch and GDJ




Part 2: The Steve Kirsch Debate on the Existence of the Virus

Part 2: The Steve Kirsch Debate on the Existence of the Virus
Doing revolutionary science

by Jon Rappoport, Jon Rappoport substack
August 8, 2022

 

I’m moving on from Part 1 into a completely different area.

There is lab work in the sciences that crucially affects populations. Two examples: virologists claiming they’ve isolated SARS-CoV-2; and researchers deciding they’ve found a way to adapt RNA technology to produce a COVID vaccine.

In the first case, the purported discovery of SARS-CoV-2 enabled the launch of the global pandemic announcement, which eventually led to the lockdowns and the crashing of economies. In the second case, the RNA-vaccine “breakthrough” led to the vaccination of billions of people, and massive numbers of injuries and deaths.

These are crucial effects, to say the least.

And yet, those on the outside, who have no access to these labs AS THE WORK IS BEING DONE, those who are independent scientists and analysts and can only read the studies once they are published—

—This is an unconscionable situation, when you stop and think about it.

The whole world is changed by the research, but we can’t watch it IN PROGRESS.

People have been brainwashed into thinking this lack of access to labs is normal. Standard. Non-official persons entering these labs and tracking the work step by step would amount to a criminal invasion. That’s what we’re supposed to believe:

“Just accept our statements about our findings and shut up and obey.”

“We’re the pros. You’re the idiots.”

“We’re certified. You’re the guinea pigs.”

“Call security, call the FBI, call DHS, terrorists are trying to break into our lab.”

“This is a holy sanctum, anointed by God. You’re a mortal sinner.”

Here’s my kind of debate on the existence of SARS-Cov-2. Here’s my bottom, bottom line.

Virologists are compelled to replicate, in the lab, the so-called discovery of SARS-CoV-2. An outside team of truly independent scientists and journalists is present.

So is a camera crew. With many cameras. And many mics.

The team watches every single move the virologists make. Any member of the team can stop the work and ask a question or criticize a move.

The questions and answers and the criticisms and replies are all recorded. Ditto for every action the virologists take.

THIS is a REAL debate. The most real debate.

“Wait. That’s ridiculous. You can’t expect these highly trained virologists to submit themselves to this kind of…inspection.”

Of course I can.

For example: Our team member in the lab says, “All right, you’re observing that the monkey cells and the human cells in this soup you’ve created are dying off. You claim the killer must be ‘the virus’ in the patient’s tissue sample—the sample you dropped in the soup. You claim nothing else in the soup could be killing the cells. So let me ask you this? Where is the control experiment?”

“The what?”

“The control. My, my. You really forgot about that?”

“I don’t understand. Turn off the cameras.”

“Leave them on, boys. This is interesting. Let me explain, Dr. High Horse. You should have a second dish of soup that is absolutely identical to the first dish, except the second dish does NOT contain the tissue sample from a patient. You also keep an eye on that second dish and see whether the monkey cells and the human cells in it die off. If they do…then your contention that ‘the virus’ in the patient sample is killing those cells is worthless. And you have no evidence your virus is in the patient sample. Or that it exists.”

“Oh. Well…”

“Well, what? You don’t mean to say all those virologists in all those labs who claimed they found the new virus omitted the control experiment, do you?”

YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING. THAT KIND OF INVESTIGATION.

On camera, in the lab, in person.

“That would never happen. They would never let you in there.”

Which proves what? I’m just stating what the MOST REAL DEBATE WOULD CONSIST OF, in a half-sane world. It would look exactly like that.

Here’s a parallel for you. A civilian no one ever heard of develops a car he says runs on water. He says he’s got a new process that VERY cheaply splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the car runs on the hydrogen.

Over years and decades, the legend grows. Finally, major media are starting to nibble around the edges of the story.

So one day, a bunch of Saudis and oil execs and scientists and men in suits show up at this man’s garage, and express great interest in his work. THEY REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHETHER THIS CRAZY GUY HAS STUMBLED ON A REVOLUTIONARY WAY TO POWER A CAR.

So what would they ask him to do?

See, they’re the outsiders with no access, and he’s the insider.

Are they just going to ask him for assurances?

Hell no. They’re going to ask him to take the engine apart and put it back together again. They’re going to ask him to take the fuel system apart and put it back together again. They’re going to want to go through his whole car and his garage and his kitchen and his bathroom with a fine-toothed comb. BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS SITUATION, SINCE IT COULD AFFECT THE FUTURE OF CIVILIZATION, AND THEIR PROFITS, AND SO ON.

They’re not screwing around.

And neither should we.

Our lives and futures and the lives of future generations are on the line with this “virus thing.”

We should be looking at every beaker and tube and slide and instrument in the virology lab. We should be looking over the shoulders of the virologists and watching every move they make and asking pointed questions and demanding answers.

So we really know whether they’re doing science or preposterous bullshit.

And of course we wouldn’t be paying attention to random assurances from “highly qualified and respected scientists” along the way. We’d be studiously ignoring them.

If you need another parallel to the real kind of investigation I’m demanding, think of bringing a team into the Vatican and inspecting every inch of space in every building, including the basements and caverns…to see what’s really there. The whole enchilada.

All right, you get the idea. You see what I’m asking for.

Now, short of that, what do we have? What can we get access to?

Well, it’s not entirely reliable, but here it is:

We can read published studies which claim to have found SARS-CoV-2. Those studies all have methods sections. In them, the researchers describe, step by step, what they did to “isolate the virus.”

We have that.

I’m now going to republish one of those methods sections, chunk by chunk, and have Dr. Andrew Kaufman make his criticisms as we go along. I published all this about a year ago.

I want to emphasize that Dr. Kaufman’s analysis should be just the beginning of highly detailed analyses of these methods sections, from a number of other independent critics. We need much more of this.

The devil is in the details.

Here we go:

I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)”.

STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”

KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”

STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”

KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”

STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”

KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”

STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”

KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”

KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO). Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”

STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”

STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”

KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”

STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”

KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”

—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—

Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 500 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past two years) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?

The answer is no.

As I stated, Dr. Kaufman’s analysis should be just the beginning of intense and detailed examination of studies that describe “how the virus was isolated.”

As opposed to a few hours of Zoom debate in which people summarize their opposing positions, and then submit to a vote from a panel of judges who descend from the sky with motives as pure as Superman and Wonder Woman. All this happens with Steve Kirsch in the background holding a million dollar prize. In Vegas, Steve would be called the house. And the house always wins.

No dice.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image based on creative commons works of geralt 




Jon Rappoport With Dr. Sam Bailey: The Virus Cover Story

Jon Rappoport With Dr. Sam Bailey: The Virus Cover Story

by Dr. Sam Bailey
July 12, 2022

 



I’ve just interviewed the one and only Jon Rappoport, who launched his website nomorefakenews.com over 20 years ago. Jon is now 84 years old but continues with his prolific output and is always at the forefront of exposing global scams.

We talked about:

  • identifying the COVID-19 fraud in early 2020
  • why he started investigating virology 35 years ago
  • why people need the virus narrative
  • the state of the health freedom movement
    plus much more!

 

Connect with Dr. Sam Bailey

Connect with Jon Rappoport




“Stop Arguing About the Existence of the Virus”

“Stop Arguing About the Existence of the Virus”

 


“Here’s another fun fact. The entire medical cartel thrives on the insane proposition—launched
with fervor more than a hundred years ago—that people suffer from thousands of distinct
diseases, each of which is caused by a single germ, which must be treated by a toxic drug and
prevented by a toxic vaccine.

It is this great lie that that has killed millions upon millions upon millions of people.”

~ Jon Rappoport


 

“Stop arguing about the existence of the virus”

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
May 20, 2022

 

The headline of this article has become a battle cry among some “alternative journalists,” activists, lawyers, and doctors.

As my readers know, I’ve devoted considerable space, over the past two years, to presenting evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is a scientific fairy tale, a con, and the virus doesn’t exist.

So when I hear this battle cry, I’m motivated to mention a few significant points.

Let me start by countering the claim that debating the existence of the virus is wasting time.

Here’s a shocker. A person can do more than one thing at the same time. For example, he can expose/oppose the toxic vaccine. He can expose the murderous COVID treatments (ventilators, sedatives, antiviral drugs). He can expose using simple flu-like illness to create fraudulent COVID case numbers.

And he can ALSO expose the fact that the virus has never been isolated (discovered) or sequenced.

So highlighting the non-existence of the virus doesn’t rule out dealing with other vital concerns.

This may come as a surprise, but it’s even possible to go to court to challenge a vaccine mandate, while ALSO arguing elsewhere that the virus doesn’t exist. I know. Amazing, right?

Those alarmed by “the virus doesn’t exist” also say: making that statement leaves us open to being called whackos, and leaves us unable to convince people that all our other criticisms of the pandemic are true.

I would counter that in two ways. Millions of people already believe we’re whackos, even those of us who take a sacred blood oath that the virus is real.

And second, people going against the grain, when their vital issue is still in the budding stage, are always called nuts. Trust me, there was a time when criticizing vaccines made people look like total whackos in the eyes of the general public—and it took decades of fighting the consensus to bring that criticism into the open, where many people saw the truth about jabs.

Here’s another fun fact. The entire medical cartel thrives on the insane proposition—launched with fervor more than a hundred years ago—that people suffer from thousands of distinct diseases, each of which is caused by a single germ, which must be treated by a toxic drug and prevented by a toxic vaccine.

It is this great lie that that has killed millions upon millions upon millions of people.

Therefore, the very real question about the existence of viruses in general is more than a weird preoccupation.

Next, those who claim, “OF COURSE viruses exist,” don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. They’re merely PARROTING what they learned in school or what researchers baldly claim in studies.

“Well, all virologists can’t be wrong.”

Yes, Virginia, they can all be wrong. Just as vaccinologists can all be wrong about “the remarkable safety and efficacy of vaccines.”

Some of the OF COURSE VIRUSES EXIST people are new to the way blogs and videos work. They’ve never encountered commenters in any great numbers before. So when a few dozen committed people suddenly tell them they should examine their premises more carefully and consider what really goes on in virology labs, these OF COURSE people are annoyed and irritated. They don’t like being challenged on basic issues. They don’t like feeling that the floor might suddenly shift under their feet. So they turn on their arrogance machines.

So be it.

The issue isn’t going away. Nor should it.

Despite growing digital censorship, the internet is still the Wild West in certain respects. People are going to say THE VIRUS DOESN’T EXIST, and VIRUSES DON’T EXIST.

And foundations will shake.

Foundations of the medical cartel, and foundations underlying people’s cherished assumptions.

In any area of human life, there are conflicts between “this is strategy” and “this is the truth.” There always will be.

Trying to shortchange the truth or casually say the truth is a lie doesn’t work.

NO ONE who is reading this article has ever been in a virology lab and witnessed the step by step process of “discovering a new virus.” I find that stunning. And yet all sorts of people are quite ready to assert with great finality that they know all about isolating viruses.

If by chance, someone reading this article HAS actually been in a lab and “discovered a virus,” you can bet your bottom dollar he won’t let you or me in there with a full film crew and our outlier experts asking very pointed questions about each “scientific” move he makes, as he “isolates a virus.”

To which somebody might reply: “Well, I’ve never seen a car being made in a factory, but I drive one with full confidence.”

Yes, but when the “virus discovered in a lab” results in you or someone you love being dosed with a drug or vaccine that maims you or kills your family member, you damn well should want to get into “that factory where the car is made.”

But you can’t. They won’t let you…

…Despite the fact that, as I’ve documented many times, the US medical system kills, by a very conservative estimate, 225,000 people a year, or 2.25 million people per decade. [0]

Chew on THAT for a while.

Here is one of my articles on the subject of virus isolation:

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 global medical community has been asserting that “a pandemic is being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2.”

But what if the virus doesn’t exist?

People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.

“Isolation” should mean the virus has been separated out from all surrounding material, so researchers can say, “Look, we have it. It exists.”

I took a typical passage from a published study, a “methods” section, in which researchers describe how they “isolated the virus.” I sent it to Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1], and he provided his analysis in detail.

I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [2].

First, I want to provide a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is going on in the study.

The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. Human cells, monkey cells, antibiotics, other chemicals, random genetic material.

The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup, because they’re dropped a mucus sample from a patient in the soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.

They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put in the soup are dying. This cell-death, they claim, is being caused by “the virus.” However, as you’ll see, Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.

There is no reason to infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is killing cells.

Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus.”

Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:

STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”

KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”

STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”

KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”

STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”

KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”

STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”

KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”

KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [3]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”

STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”

STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”

KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”

STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”

KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”

—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—

My comments: Dr. Kaufman does several things here. He shows that isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word “isolation,” is not occurring.

Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to the cells and cell-death as proof that “the virus” is in the soup they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the killing. But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus. Therefore, no proof exists that “the virus” is in the soup or exists at all.

And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic sequencing of “the virus” is absurd, because there is no proof that the virus is present. How do you sequence something when you haven’t shown it exists, and you don’t have an isolated specimen of it?

Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 375 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [4]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?

The answer is no.

 


SOURCES:

[0] https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-primary-care-policy-center/Publications_PDFs/A154.pdf

[1] https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

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

[3] https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home.html

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


FURTHER READING:

Is the virus real? Steve Kirsch suggests a debate

blog.nomorefakenews.com/2022/01/25/is-the-virus-real-steve-kirsch-suggests-a-debate/

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image based on creative commons work of Samillustrando




Does HIV Exist? An Explosive Interview

Does HIV Exist? An Explosive Interview

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
February 18, 2022

 

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.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: madartzgraphics / pixabay




Jon Rappoport: My Bottom Line on the Existence of the Virus, Its Isolation and Sequencing

My Bottom Line on the Existence of the Virus, Its Isolation and Sequencing

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
February 3, 2022

 

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.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: Tumisu / pixabay




The New African Virus Mutation: Right on Time; a Kindergarten Covert Op for the Ignorant

The New African Virus Mutation: Right on Time; a Kindergarten Covert Op for the Ignorant

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
November 29, 2021

 

There are no variants.

Because there is no virus. SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist. I’ve spent the past year and a half proving that. [0]

But fantasies do exist. So do covert ops with intentions to deceive.

Thus, the “scientific world” is agog over the new South African variant, named B11529 (aka Omicron, Botswana). Woo. The ghost is coming out of the closet. Beware. COVID cases are rising…

“We don’t know whether the vaccine will be effective in the face of the new variant. New lockdowns may be necessary. Travel restrictions are coming. Batten down the hatches.”

I mean, really.

As you know, for the past few months stories in the press have been claiming the vaccine-conferred immunity is sinking like a stone. This story is absurd because, again, there is no virus. So there was no conferred immunity to begin with. But anyway, that’s the story that’s been circulating. So NOW…

“It turns out one major reason for the diminished effectiveness of the vaccine is…

“The NEW VARIANT. The South African B11529.”

Uh-huh. “The vaccine is having a tough time preventing infection caused by the new variant. We may need to enforce boosters every three months…”

Keep the fear going. Push harder for the vaccine. Explain away its failures. Fabricate rising case numbers, blaming them on the new variant. Institute heavy new lockdowns.

“The South African variant is deadlier than the Delta, which is deadlier than the original.”

And none of the three exists.

What does exist is fantasy, piled higher and deeper and thicker.

The variant is Fauci. The variant is Bill Gates. The variant is CDC/WHO. The variant is the World Economic Forum. And the Chinese regime. And presidents and governors. And the mainstream press.

And don’t forget this. Vaccine injuries and deaths have been escalating all over the world. In the US alone, reported injuries have broken above 600,000 [1]. As I’ve mentioned, the well-known Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare study [2] concluded that, to obtain a true number of injuries, multiply the reported figure by 100.

Something is needed to explain all these injuries and deaths. That is, to lie about them.

And right on time, here comes the new variant.

“These people who seem to be injured by the vaccine are really keeling over from the original virus, the Delta, and woo, the South African B11529.”

Also: Recently, we’ve seen a spate of press stories with the theme—“scientists are mystified by the low COVID case numbers in Africa, where the vaccination rates are very low.” [3] Boom. That story is now gone. Wiped out. Now it’s THE WORLD IS BEING ATTACKED BY THE SOUTH AFRICAN B111529 VARIANT.


Here is one of my articles covering the non-existence of SARS-CoV-2:

—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 global medical community has been asserting that “a pandemic is being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2.”

But what if the virus doesn’t exist?

People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.

“Isolation” should mean the virus has been separated out from all surrounding material, so researchers can say, “Look, we have it. It exists.”

I took a typical passage from a published study, a “methods” section, in which researchers describe how they “isolated the virus.” I sent it to Dr. Andrew Kaufman [4], and he provided his analysis in detail.

I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [5].

First, I want to provide a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is going on in the study.

The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.

They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put in the soup are dying. This cell-death, they claim, is being caused by “the virus.” However, as you’ll see, Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.

There is no reason to infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is killing cells.

Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus.”

Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:

STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”

KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”

STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”

KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”

STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”

KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”

STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”

KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”

KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [6]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”

STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”

STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”

KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”

STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”

KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”

—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—

My comments: Dr. Kaufman does several things here. He shows that isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word “isolation,” is not occurring.

Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to the cells and cell-death as proof that “the virus” is in the soup they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the killing. But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus. Therefore, no proof exists that “the virus” is in the soup or exists at all.

And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic sequencing of “the virus” is absurd, because there is no proof that the virus is present. How do you sequence something when you haven’t shown it exists?

Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 300 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [7]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?

The answer is no.

—end of Kaufman article—


And while I’m at it, here is another piece I wrote last year about how virus-propaganda (fairy tales) must be managed, in order to make the masses stand up and salute:

—The “hot zone” theory of new frightening diseases—

Remember? There was a 1994 book by that name— and then “experts” began piling on—it went something like this:

“Out of the deep dark rainforests of Earth (cue sounds of native drumming), as a result of modern plane travel, viruses we’ve never encountered before will spread epidemics across the globe. Our immune systems, ill-equipped to recognize or deal with these strange killer germs, will fold up under the pressure, and all of civilization will be threatened with extinction.”

Let’s see. Since planes fly back and forth, and since all sorts of Westerners travel TO the rainforests, why haven’t we seen whole native tribes wiped out by viruses from the deep dark streets of Brooklyn?

It would even seem that viruses, common in, say, Norway, would cause trouble in Oregon.

Why does it have to be “viruses from jungles?” Or other faraway places like China? Why can’t we have the Second City Virus, emanating from a slaughterhouse in Chicago and infecting people in Nigeria? Why can’t we have a Big Easy virus from New Orleans traveling to Beijing?

Is it possible that jungles and Africa and China and Mexico are typically chosen for virus fairy tales because, in the minds of many Westerners, they satisfy a requirement of “strange,” “different,” “primitive,” and so on? We’re talking theater here—and when you stage a propaganda play (fiction), you want to tap into the reflex instincts of the audience. The Hartford Virus, the Des Moines Virus, the Vancouver Virus just don’t fit the bill.

Because they can’t drive up the fear that jungles or Africa or China can.

Unless you’ve been living in an ice cave in the Arctic, you know selling fear of THE VIRUS is big business. To do that, you have to strike the right notes.

I personally would be interested in a Beverly Hills or a Scarsdale or a Park Avenue epidemic virus story. I’d like to see the media try to sell that one.

What about a Bill Gates Seattle virus that some Patient Zero unknowingly carries on a plane flight to Mexico City?

Think it through. We NEVER hear killer virus stories about germs traveling from Europe and America to Asia and Africa. Why not? Because such a story won’t sell. It won’t bite.

This is called a clue.

It tells you that virus-stories are shaped and managed and written and managed and broadcast according to a plan that has nothing to do with actual disease.

If a monkey in Africa can bite a man and thus transmit a virus to the West, then a salesman in Duluth can sneeze on a man at a local airport and thus send a virus to Ethiopia.

But amazingly, through secret communication among viruses, it never happens that way. The germs have decided what the traffic pattern is, and the CDC and the World Health Organization are just discovering What Is.

Sure they are. And if you buy that, I have condos for sale on the far side of the moon.


SOURCES:

[0] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/tag/virus/

[1] https://rickjaffeesq.com/2021/02/19/what-the-heck-is-the-harvard-pilgrim-study-and-did-it-really-say-that-about-the-underreporting-of-vaccine-adverse-events/

[2] https://openvaers.com/covid-data

[3] https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-health-pandemics-united-nations-fcf28a83c9352a67e50aa2172eb01a2f

[4] https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

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

[6] https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home.html

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

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image based on African mask by Viscious-Speed




The Non-Existent Virus; an Explosive Interview With Christine Massey

The Non-Existent Virus; an Explosive Interview With Christine Massey

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
October 7, 2021

 

With a background in biostatistics, Christine Massey has been using Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests as a research tool, as a diamond drill, to unearth the truth about SARS-CoV-2. As in: Does the virus exist?

Her approach has yielded shocking results.

In a half-sane world, Christine’s work would win many awards, and rate far-reaching coverage. In the present world, more and more people, on their own, are waking up to her findings and completely revising their perception of the “pandemic.”

Here is my recent interview with the brilliant relentless Christine Massey:

Q: You and your colleagues have made many FOIA requests to public health agencies around the world. You’ve been asking for records that show the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists. How did you develop this approach?

A: In 2014, a lady in Edmonton submitted a freedom of information request to Health Canada asking for studies relating to the addition of hydrofluorosilisic acid (industrial waste fluoride acid) to public drinking water (water fluoridation). HealthCanada’s response indicated that they had no studies whatsoever to back up their claims that the practice is safe or effective.

A few years later, some high quality government-funded studies showed that common fluoride exposure levels during pregnancy are associated with lower IQs and increased ADHD symptoms in offspring. Nevertheless, dentists and the public health community continued to promote and defend the so-called “great public health achievement” of forcing this controversial preventative dental treatment onto entire communities, and were dismissive of those studies. So I used freedom of information requests to show that various institutions promoting and defending water fluoridation in Ontario, Alberta and Washington State could not provide or cite even one primary study indicating safety with respect to those outcomes.

So once I learned from people like David Crowe, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Stefan Lanka and Dr. Thomas Cowan that the alleged [COVID] virus had never been isolated (purified) from a patient sample and then characterized, sequenced and studied with controlled experiments, and thus had never been shown to exist, I realized that freedom of information (FOI) requests could be used to verify their claims.

Most people are not going to take the time to check all of the so-called “virus isolation” studies for themselves, so FOIs were a way to 1) ensure that nothing had been overlooked, and 2) cut to the chase and back-up what these gentlemen [Kaufman, Cowan, Crowe, Lanka] were saying, if they were indeed correct.

So in May 2020 I began submitting FOI requests for any record held by the respective institution that describes the isolation/purification of the alleged “COVID-19 virus” from an unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient, by anyone, anywhere on the planet.

Q: How many public health and government agencies have you queried with FOIA requests?

A: I have personally queried and received responses from 22 Canadian institutions. These are public health institutions, universities that claim to have “isolated the virus”, and 3 police services – due to their enforcement of “COVID-19” restrictions. I have also personally received responses from several institutions outside of Canada including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). I await responses from a number of additional institutions.

Many people around the world have obtained responses to the same/similar, or related, [FOIA] requests, from institutions in their own countries. One person who has done a lot of work on this in New Zealand and other countries is my colleague Michael S. Also a fellow named Marc Horn obtained many in the UK. A handful of other people obtained several responses, and lots of people have obtained 1 or 2.

I have been compiling all of the responses that are sent to me on my FOI page, and as I type this (October 4, 2021) we have FOI responses from 104 institutions in well over 20 countries all relating to the purification/existence of the alleged virus. Additionally, there are court documents from South Africa and Portugal. In total, 110 instructions are represented at this moment on my website. There are FOI responses from more institutions that I haven’t had a chance to upload yet.

Q: How would you characterize the replies you’ve gotten from these agencies?

A: Every institution without exception has failed to provide or cite even 1 record describing purification of the alleged virus from even 1 patient sample.

Twenty-one of the 22 Canadian institutions admitted flat out that they have no such records (as required by the Canadian legislation). Many institutions outside Canada have admitted the same, including the CDC (November 2, 2020), Australia’s Department of Health, New Zealand’s Ministry of Health, the UK Department of Health and Social Care…

And in some cases, silly excuses were provided. For example, the Norwegian Directorate of Health’s response was that they do not own, store or control documents with information about patients. Public Health Wales told Dr. Janet Menage that they have not produced any such records, and that while they would normally be willing to point her towards records that are in the public domain it would be too difficult in this case.

Brazil’s FDA-like injection-approver, the Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa), told Marcella Picone that they have no record of virus purification and are not required to by law, thus it is (in their minds) not their obligation to make sure that the virus actually exists.

Q: What is the exact text of your FOIA requests?

The text has varied somewhat over time. For example, in the beginning I used the word “isolation”. But since that term gets abused so badly by virologists, I now stick to “purification”.

In all requests I specified exactly what I meant by isolation/purification (separation of the alleged virus from everything else), and that the purified particles should come directly from a sample taken from a diseased human where the patient sample was not first adulterated with any other source of genetic material (i.e. the monkey kidney cells aka Vero cells and the fetal bovine serum that are typically used in the bogus “virus isolation” studies).

I always clarified that I was not requesting records where researchers failed to purify the alleged virus and instead cultured something and/or performed a PCR test and/or sequenced something. I also clarified that I was requesting records authored by anyone, anywhere – not simply records that were created by the institution in question. And I requested citations for any record of purification that is held by the institution but already available to the public elsewhere.

The latest iteration [of the FOIA request] is posted on a page of my website where I encourage others to submit requests to institutions in their own country: Template for “SARS-COV-2 isolation” FOI requests.

Q: These agencies are all saying they have no records proving SARS-CoV-2 exists, but at the same time some of these agencies sponsor and fund studies that claim the virus does exist. How do you account for this contradiction?

I will address this by way of an example.

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is the only Canadian institution that failed to provide a straightforward “no records” response thus far. Instead, they provided me with what they pretended were responsive records.

The records consisted of some emails, and a study by Bullard et al. that was supported by PHAC and their National Microbiology Laboratory, and by Manitoba Health and Manitoba’s Cadham Provincial Laboratory.

Neither the study nor the emails describe purification of the alleged virus from a patient sample or from anything else. The word “isolate” (or “isolation” / “purify” / “purification”) does not even appear, except in the study manuscript in the context of isolating people, not a virus.

…in the Materials And Methods section we find that these researchers performed PCR “tests” for a portion of the E gene sequence (not a virus), and they incubated patient samples (not a virus) on Vero cells (monkey kidney cells) supplemented with fetal bovine serum, penicillin/streptomycin, and amphotericin B, and they monitored for harm to the monkey cells.

No virus was looked for in, or purified from, the patient samples. No control groups of any kind were implemented in the monkey cell procedures. No virus was required or shown to be involved anywhere in the study, but “it” was blamed for any harm to the monkey cells and “it” was referred to repeatedly throughout the study (I counted 26 instances).

Nevertheless, this was the sole paper provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

And although the researchers did not claim to have “isolated” the alleged virus in this paper, they performed the same sort of monkey business / cell culture procedure that is passed off as “virus isolation” by virologists in country after country. (Because virology is not a science.)

…Note the admission in the [study] Abstract: “RT-PCR detects RNA, not infectious virus”.

…So I wrote back to the Public Health Agency of Canada and advised the that none of the records they provided me actually describe separation of the alleged virus from everything else in a patient sample, and that I require an accurate response indicating that they have no responsive records.

In their revised response, the Agency insisted that the gold standard assay used to determine the presence of intact virus in patient samples is visible cytopathic [cell-killing] effects on cells in a cell culture, and that “PCR further confirms that intact virus is present”.

…As you have pointed out to your readers again and again: No one has isolated/purified “the virus”. They simply assume that patient samples contain “it” (based on meaningless PCR tests). They adulterate patient samples with genetic material and toxic drugs, starve the cells, then irrationally blame “the virus” for harm to the cells. They point to something that has never been purified, characterized, sequenced or studied scientifically, in a cell culture and insist “that’s the virus”. They fabricate the “genomes” from zillions of sequences detected in a soup. It’s all wild speculation and assumptions, zero science.

So the people responsible for the blatantly fraudulent claims made by these institutions are either wildly incompetent or intentionally lying.

—end of interview—

To bolster Christine’s final comments, these agencies will respond to FOIA requests with: “we have no records of virus purification”—and then sponsor studies that claim the virus HAS BEEN purified and discovered, because…

The standards for purifying the virus in the studies are no standards at all. They’re entirely irrational.

However, because Christine is very precise and accurate in her FOIA requests, when it comes to what purification means, the agencies are compelled to reply…

“Well, in THAT case, we have no records of virus purification…”

Meaning: There are no records showing the virus has been isolated; there are no records showing the virus exists.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: ErAnger / pixabay




The Failure to Prove the Virus Exists

The Failure to Prove the Virus Exists

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
September 20, 2021

 

Over a year ago, I proposed (insisted on) a procedure to prove SARS-COV-2 exists.

This procedure is essential—and needless to say, it hasn’t been done, and will never be done.

Why? Because the outcome could completely and utterly destroy the COVID narrative.

Here is the procedure: You line up 500 people who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, and you take tissue samples from them.

You properly process these samples, through centrifuging, etc., in order to extract and arrive at what you believe is the virus.

You put that material under an electron microscope and photograph it.

You then place the 500 photos from the 500 “pandemic patients” side by side.

You ask yourself three burning questions.

One: In each and every photo, are there many identical viruses?

Two: Are these viruses in every one of the 500 photos?

Three: Is the virus one you’ve never seen before?

If the answer to question one and two is yes, you appear to have found a common virus for the 500 patients. If the answer to three is yes, it’s a virus never seen before.

If the answer to either question one or two is no, you’ve failed to find the common virus you’re looking for. You’ve failed to prove a viral cause for what you’re calling COVID-19.

If you see many identical virus particles in some, but not all, of the photos, you may or may not have found a virus. To decide that issue, you need three conditions: the researchers are honest and independent; a new team of such researchers will repeat the whole procedure, from the beginning, to see whether their findings match those of the original team; and you need truly qualified experts to determine whether the particles in the electron microscope photos are actually viruses or something else.

Note: This is why one or two photos from a study mean NOTHING.

All right. Moving on, there are other factors involved in the process of discovering a virus. These factors are ISOLATION and GENETIC SEQUENCING.

They’re both covered in a Statement on Virus Isolation, authored and published by Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Tom Cowan, and Sally Fallon Morell. I reprint it here in full:


Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI) [1]

“Isolation: The action of isolating; the fact or condition of being isolated or standing alone; separation from other things or persons; solitariness.” — Oxford English Dictionary

The controversy over whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus has ever been isolated or purified continues. However, using the above definition, common sense, the laws of logic and the dictates of science, any unbiased person must come to the conclusion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been isolated or purified. As a result, no confirmation of the virus’ existence can be found. The logical, common sense, and scientific consequences of this fact are:

* the structure and composition of something not shown to exist can’t be known, including the presence, structure, and function of any hypothetical spike or other proteins;

* the genetic sequence of something that has never been found can’t be known;

* “variants” of something that hasn’t been shown to exist can’t be known;

* it’s impossible to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease called Covid-19.

In as concise terms as possible, here’s the proper way to isolate, characterize and demonstrate a new virus. First, one takes samples (blood, sputum, secretions) from many people (e.g. 500) with symptoms which are unique and specific enough to characterize an illness. Without mixing these samples with ANY tissue or products that also contain genetic material, the virologist macerates, filters and ultracentrifuges i.e. purifies the specimen. This common virology technique, done for decades to isolate bacteriophages [2a] and so-called giant viruses in every virology lab, then allows the virologist to demonstrate with electron microscopy thousands of identically sized and shaped particles. These particles are the isolated and purified virus.

These identical particles are then checked for uniformity by physical and/or microscopic techniques. Once the purity is determined, the particles may be further characterized. This would include examining the structure, morphology, and chemical composition of the particles. Next, their genetic makeup is characterized by extracting the genetic material directly from the purified particles and using genetic-sequencing techniques, such as Sanger sequencing, that have also been around for decades. Then one does an analysis to confirm that these uniform particles are exogenous (outside) in origin as a virus is conceptualized to be, and not the normal breakdown products of dead and dying tissues. [2b] (As of May 2020, we know that virologists have no way to determine whether the particles they’re seeing are viruses or just normal break-down products of dead and dying tissues.) [2c]

If we have come this far then we have fully isolated, characterized, and genetically sequenced an exogenous virus particle. However, we still have to show it is causally related to a disease. This is carried out by exposing a group of healthy subjects (animals are usually used) to this isolated, purified virus in the manner in which the disease is thought to be transmitted. If the animals get sick with the same disease, as confirmed by clinical and autopsy findings, one has now shown that the virus actually causes a disease. This demonstrates infectivity and transmission of an infectious agent.

None of these steps has even been attempted with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor have all these steps been successfully performed for any so-called pathogenic virus. Our research indicates that a single study showing these steps does not exist in the medical literature.

Instead, since 1954, virologists have taken unpurified samples from a relatively few people, often less than ten, with a similar disease. They then minimally process this sample and inoculate this unpurified sample onto tissue culture containing usually four to six other types of material — all of which contain identical genetic material as to what is called a “virus.” The tissue culture is starved and poisoned and naturally disintegrates into many types of particles, some of which contain genetic material. Against all common sense, logic, use of the English language and scientific integrity, this process is called “virus isolation.” This brew containing fragments of genetic material from many sources is then subjected to genetic analysis, which then creates in a computer-simulation process the alleged sequence of the alleged virus, a so called in silico genome. At no time is an actual virus confirmed by electron microscopy. At no time is a genome extracted and sequenced from an actual virus. This is scientific fraud.

The observation that the unpurified specimen — inoculated onto tissue culture along with toxic antibiotics, bovine fetal tissue, amniotic fluid and other tissues — destroys the kidney tissue onto which it is inoculated is given as evidence of the virus’ existence and pathogenicity. This is scientific fraud.

From now on, when anyone gives you a paper that suggests the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated, please check the methods sections. If the researchers used Vero cells or any other culture method, you know that their process was not isolation. You will hear the following excuses for why actual isolation isn’t done:

1. There were not enough virus particles found in samples from patients to analyze.

2. Viruses are intracellular parasites; they can’t be found outside the cell in this manner.

If No. 1 is correct, and we can’t find the virus in the sputum of sick people, then on what evidence do we think the virus is dangerous or even lethal? If No. 2 is correct, then how is the virus spread from person to person? We are told it emerges from the cell to infect others. Then why isn’t it possible to find it?

Finally, questioning these virology techniques and conclusions is not some distraction or divisive issue. Shining the light on this truth is essential to stop this terrible fraud that humanity is confronting. For, as we now know, if the virus has never been isolated, sequenced or shown to cause illness, if the virus is imaginary, then why are we wearing masks, social distancing and putting the whole world into prison?

Finally, if pathogenic viruses don’t exist, then what is going into those injectable devices erroneously called “vaccines,” and what is their purpose? This scientific question is the most urgent and relevant one of our time.

We are correct. The SARS-CoV2 virus does not exist.

—end of Kaufman, Cowan, Morell Statement—


Finally, here is a repost of my article about a claim of virus isolation. Dr. Kaufman does a step-by-step analysis of a quote from a typical study that purports to describe how SARS-CoV-2 was isolated:

—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 global medical community has been asserting that “a pandemic is being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2.”

But what if the virus doesn’t exist?

People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.

“Isolation” should mean the virus has been separated out from all surrounding material, so researchers can say, “Look, we have it. It exists.”

I took a typical passage from a published study, a “methods” section, in which researchers describe how they “isolated the virus.” I sent it to Dr. Andrew Kaufman [3], and he provided his analysis in detail.

I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [4].

First, I want to provide a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is going on in the study.

The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.

They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put in the soup are dying. THAT’S THEIR KEY “EVIDENCE.” This cell-death, they claim, is being caused by “the virus.” However, as you’ll see, Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.

There is no reason to infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is killing cells.

Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus” they never isolated. “We didn’t find it, we don’t know anything about it, but we sequenced it.”

Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:

STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”

KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”

STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”

KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”

STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”

KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”

STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”

KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”

KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [5]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”

STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”

STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”

KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”

STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”

KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”

—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—

My comments: Dr. Kaufman does several things here. He shows that isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word “isolation,” is not occurring.

Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to the cells and cell-death as proof that “the virus” is in the soup they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the killing. But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus. Therefore, no proof exists that “the virus” is in the soup or exists at all.

And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic sequencing of “the virus” is absurd, because there is no proof that the virus is present. How do you sequence something when you haven’t shown it exists?

Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 300 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [6]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?

The answer is no.


SOURCES:

[1] https://www.andrewkaufmanmd.com/sovi/

[2a] Isolation, characterization and analysis of bacteriophages from the haloalkaline lake Elmenteita, KenyaJuliah Khayeli Akhwale et al, PLOS One, Published: April 25, 2019. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215734 — accessed 2/15/21

[2b] “Extracellular Vesicles Derived From Apoptotic Cells: An Essential Link Between Death and Regeneration,” Maojiao Li1 et al, Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 2020 October 2. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2020.573511/full — accessed 2/15/21

[2c] “The Role of Extraellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses,” Flavia Giannessi, et al, Viruses, 2020 May

[3] https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

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

[5] https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home.html

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

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: PaliGraficas / pixabay




More on the Coronavirus That Doesn’t Exist; and the Pink Demon

More on the Coronavirus That Doesn’t Exist; and the Pink Demon

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
May 21, 2021

 

(For Part-1, click here)

I still receive emails that announce: “So-and-so SAYS the virus has been isolated and does exist.”

On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 would indicate “so what?” and 10 would rate “well, that’s it, the virus is real,” someone SAYING the virus exists comes in at minus-12.

Then there is the ever-popular, “OF COURSE this virus exists,” which is meant to dispel all doubt.

Below, I’ll reprint my piece in which Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1] analyzed, step-by-step, a typical excerpt from a published study. The excerpt described how SARS-CoV-2 was isolated. Dr. Kaufman tore the description to pieces. [2]

Since I published that article, I haven’t received a single communication attempting to refute Dr. Kaufman’s analysis.

I have received one or two emails stating, “Dr. Kaufman made several mistakes.” No specifics were mentioned. In the world of traditional logical fallacies, that response comes under the heading of “Vague Generalization.” Ninth-grade students used to be able to recognize it.

I’ve seen many articles in which SARS-CoV-2 is claimed to exist and possess various properties—the articles rely on bald statements from doctors or other so-called medical experts. No proof is offered. That logical fallacy would be Appeal to Authority: Because an authority figure says something is true, it must be true.

On this basis, the network evening news tells you all you need to know about reality.

A third fallacy is worth mentioning. We have this implied statement: “Researchers at the Wuhan Institute were weaponizing the virus; therefore, it exists.” That fallacy is called Circular Reasoning: You assume what you’re trying to prove. Many people fall for it.

“NASA scientists are chaining people to Ford trucks, preparing to launch them at faster-than-light speed in outer space; therefore, faster-than-light speed exists.”

What researchers are claiming or trying to do in a lab is not proof that the “thing” they are working with exists. The researchers may BELIEVE it exists, but what they believe doesn’t matter.

You might believe a pink demon with gold teeth from Mars has spread a pandemic across Earth, but even if Fauci agrees with you and has shoveled three million dollars to your lab, you haven’t established the existence of the demon.

A variation on Appeal to Authority and Vague Generalization: For more than a century, researchers have been doing experiments with viruses; therefore, it’s ridiculous to say SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist.

Well, historically, religious groups have claimed their God is the only God. Therefore…nothing.

“Wait. All those virologists couldn’t be lying and collaborating in a vast conspiracy.”

But they could be true believers. They could be pushing distorted science without recognizing their own warped articles of faith.


And with that, here is my article featuring Dr. Kaufman’s analysis of virus-isolation:

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.

by Jon Rappoport

April 21, 2021

The global medical community has been asserting that “a pandemic is being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2.”

But what if the virus doesn’t exist?

People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.

“Isolation” should mean the virus has been separated out from all surrounding material, so researchers can say, “Look, we have it. Therefore, it exists.”

I took a typical passage from a published study, a “methods” section, in which researchers describe how they “isolated the virus.” I sent it to Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1], and he provided his analysis in detail.

I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [3].

First, I want to provide a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is going on in the study.

The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.

They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put in the soup are dying. THAT’S THEIR KEY “EVIDENCE.” This cell-death, they claim, is being caused by “the virus.” However, as you’ll see, Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.

There is no reason to infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is killing cells.

Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus” they never isolated. “We didn’t find it, we don’t know anything about it, but we sequenced it.”

Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:

STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”

KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”

STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”

KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”

STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”

KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”

STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”

KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”

KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [4]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”

STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”

STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”

KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”

STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”

KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”

—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—

My comments: Dr. Kaufman does several things here. He shows that isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word, is not occurring.

Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to the cells and cell-death as proof that “the virus” is in the soup they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the killing. But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus. Therefore, no proof exists that “the virus” is in the soup or exists at all.

And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic sequencing of “the virus” is absurd, because there is no proof that the virus is present. How do you sequence something when you haven’t shown it exists?

Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 300 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [5]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?

The answer is no.


SOURCES:

[1] https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

[2] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/04/21/isolation-of-sars-cov-2-refuted-in-step-by-step-analysis-of-claim/

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

[4] https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home.html

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

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport




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

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

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
April 21, 2021

 

The global medical community has been asserting that “a pandemic is being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2.”

But what if the virus doesn’t exist?

People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.

“Isolation” should mean the virus has been separated out from all surrounding material, so researchers can say, “Look, we have it. It exists.”

I took a typical passage from a published study, a “methods” section, in which researchers describe how they “isolated the virus.” I sent it to Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1], and he provided his analysis in detail.

I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [2].

First, I want to provide a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is going on in the study.

The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.

They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put in the soup are dying. This cell-death, they claim, is being caused by “the virus.” However, as you’ll see, Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.

There is no reason to infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is killing cells.

Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus.”

Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:

STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage…”

KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”

STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”

KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”

STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”

KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”

STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”

KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”

KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [3]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”

STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”

STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”

KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”

STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”

KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”

—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—

My comments: Dr. Kaufman does several things here. He shows that isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word “isolation,” is not occurring.

Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to the cells and cell-death as proof that “the virus” is in the soup they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the killing. But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus. Therefore, no proof exists that “the virus” is in the soup or exists at all.

And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic sequencing of “the virus” is absurd, because there is no proof that the virus is present. How do you sequence something when you haven’t shown it exists?

Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 300 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [4]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?

The answer is no.


SOURCES:

[1] https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

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

[3] https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home.html

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

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport




David Rasnick: New Strain of the Coronavirus, or a Giant Con? How Deep Do the Lies Go?

David Rasnick: New Strain of the Coronavirus, or a Giant Con? How Deep Do the Lies Go?

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
January 25, 2021

 

David Rasnick [1], PhD chemist, with a long history working in the pharmaceutical industry (Abbott, Prototek, Arris), broke away from official science and served as the president of Rethinking AIDS: the group for the scientific reappraisal of the HIV hypothesis. He was a member of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel of South Africa.

Here is a recent explosive statement Rasnick made [2] about SARS-CoV-2 and HIV. Digesting it brings about a breakthrough revelation:

“Viruses are unstable, RNA [e.g, SARS-Cov-2] viruses especially. They are so unstable, there is no such thing as an un-mutated RNA virus. They are like snow flakes, no two are identical.”

“HIV is an RNA virus with 9,800 nucleotides. You can download the HIV Sequence Compendium here:” [3]

“In the Preface it says:”

“’The number of [genetic] sequences in the HIV database is still increasing. In total, at the end of 2017, there were 812,586 sequences in the HIV Sequence Database, an increase of 8.5% since the previous year.”

“None of the sequences of the world destroying [sarcasm], computer generated coronavirus with its 30,000 or so nucleotides, are identical.”

“The virus maniacs use computers to compare the menagerie of sequences to come up with ‘A Consensus Sequence’ for HIV, Coronavirus, and all the rest. The consensus sequence exists in two places: in computers and in strings of RNA synthesized in the lab.”

“Even consensus sequences are not stable. Different groups, using a variety of computer algorithms will invariably come up with different ‘consensus sequences’.”

The implications of Rasnick’s statement are enormous.

First of all, forget about the idea that SARS-Cov-2 has one genetic sequence.

And these multiple sequences aren’t assembled by looking through a magic microscope. They’re put together by computer programs which have pre-set algorithms.

In other words, the sequences are built by ASSUMPTIONS (not evidence) embedded in the algorithms.

ANY vaccine developed for SARS-Cov-2 (even if you believe in the theory of how vaccines are supposed to work) would face the task of producing immunity to an ever-mutating virus—not just one mutated strain, but endless numbers of mutations.

You would have an analog to seasonal flu, in which researchers make a guess about what the new version of the virus will look like every year and develop a new vaccine for that guess.

How well is this working out? Public health agencies report that, each and every year, there are a BILLION cases of seasonal flu, worldwide.

Going still deeper, if the genetic sequences of the ever-mutating viruses are not discovered, but concocted via computer programs, how likely is it that a vaccine utilizing that “data” would work?

And at the bottom of the whole pile of guesswork, is, of course, the realization that, if these genetic sequences are concocted—where is the ACTUAL isolated virus? WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT IT EXISTS?

Where is it, when, as I’ve been reporting for months now, researchers twist and torture the meaning of “isolated,” so that it indicates “the virus is somewhere in a soup in a dish in a lab”—definitely UN-isolated.

Such is the “science” of modern virology.

But don’t worry, be happy, the test “for the coronavirus” must be accurate, the case and death numbers must be accurate, and the consequent lockdowns which are destroying national economies and hundreds of millions of lives are necessary…right?

Sure. Why not? Let’s say it’s all, all right. Everybody can go back to sleep and let tyrants demolish Earth civilization.

OR, you can REBEL against the Police State built on a house-of-cards hoax called “science.”

As opposed to “the virus,” liberty and freedom are quite real. People can feel them in their bones, in their minds and souls. Even and especially if they are slaves, they can feel them.

Speaking of whether a virus actually exists, here is an article I’ve reposted several times:

DOES HIV EXIST? AN EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW

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 conditions 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 [4] [5]. 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.

CJ: Does HIV cause AIDS?

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 [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.

And so…as I’ve reported these past few months, there is every reason to doubt and reject the existence of the COVID virus, since correct large-scale electron microscope studies have never been done.

I kept the Christine Johnson interview, and other similar information, in mind when, for example, I explored the dud epidemics called SARS and 2009 Swine Flu.

How many viruses have been named as causes of disease, when in fact those viruses have never been isolated or proved to exist?

Of course, conventional-consensus researchers and doctors will scoff at any attempt to raise these issues. For them, “the science is settled.” Meaning: they don’t want to think. They don’t want to stir the waters.

A few years ago, chemist David Rasnick sent a request to the CDC, asking for evidence demonstrating that the Ebola virus had ever been isolated from a human. The answers he received did not begin to approach a level of certainty.

After 30 years working as a reporter in the area of deep medical-research fraud, I’ve seen that false science occurs in levels.

The deeper you go, the stranger it gets. To put it another way: the deeper you go, the worse it gets.


SOURCES:

[1] https://www.davidrasnick.com/

[2] personal communication

[3] https://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-18-25673

[4] http://virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjinterviewep.htm

[5] https://www.immunity.org.uk/articles/christine-johnson/

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit squarefrog, pixabay 




Missing and Unproven Viruses: This Is Nothing New

Missing and Unproven Viruses: This Is Nothing New

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
October 30, 2020

 

As I keep making the case that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been proven to exist, I’m also making this point:

There is no honest and prolonged mainstream debate on this issue, and there has to be. Reputable journals should be opening up their pages to such a debate from all comers, and they aren’t. They’re ignoring, side-stepping, and suppressing a debate. This is not science. It’s not even a shadow of science.

And the COVID virus is not the first time the issue of existence has arisen. If more people understood that, they wouldn’t be so shocked.

Here are several cases from recent history:

In the early part of the 20th century, a very nasty skin disease called pellagra took hold in the American South, affecting several million people.

The elite medical view, of course: a germ was the cause. But no one could find it in the ensuing decades. Finally, a small group of independent researchers, relentlessly pursuing a different course, convinced the establishment that the true cause was a niacin deficiency.

In the 1960s and 70s, Japan experienced a strange nervous-system affliction labeled SMON. Again the clarion call was: find the virus, it must be a virus. But no, in a landmark court case, the cause was shown to be a gastrointestinal drug, clioquinol, manufactured by Ciba-Geigy. The company apologized and paid out damages. Since then, some research has suggested that clioquinol fails to explain all the SMON cases.

SARS, 2003. During the height of hysteria in Canada about this flu-like illness, famous WHO researcher, Frank Plummer, wandered off the reservation and told the press that fewer and fewer SARS patients showed any sign of having the virus—in fact, the percentage was shrinking to zero. Therefore: what virus?

Swine Flu, 2009. As I detailed in a recent article, CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson uncovered the fact that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases, because the overwhelming percentage of patients’ samples coming back from testing labs showed no sign of the Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus.

HIV, first announced as the cause of AIDS in 1984, has been challenged by a number of independent researchers. I have published Christine Johnson’s explosive and detailed interview with Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia.” The subject? Does HIV exist? I’m reprinting my article and the Papadopulos interview below.

There are other illnesses in which the existence of the virus has been challenged: for example, polio and the Swine Flu of the 1970s.

Mainstream and independent investigators should also be aware there are analogous “missing causes” within the medical framework. The most egregious example is certainly psychiatry.

Following the breakthrough work of psychiatrist Peter Breggin, I’ve written extensively on this subject. In a nutshell, there are NO defining lab tests for ANY of the 300 so-called mental disorders. Every one of these disorders is arbitrarily assembled by committees of psychiatrists, from menus of behaviors. This is about as far from science as you can get.

Is there an open and honest prolonged debate about this stunning situation in the psychiatric literature? Absolutely not.


Here is my article, Does HIV Exist? Buckle up:

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 conditions 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.

And so…as I’ve reported these past few months, there is every reason to doubt and reject the existence of the COVID virus, since correct large-scale electron microscope studies have never been done.

I kept the Christine Johnson interview, and other similar information, in mind when, for example, I explored the dud epidemics called SARS and 2009 Swine Flu.

How many viruses have been named as causes of disease, when in fact those viruses have never been isolated or proved to exist?

Of course, conventional-consensus researchers and doctors will scoff at any attempt to raise these issues. For them, “the science is settled.” Meaning: they don’t want to think. They don’t want to stir the waters.

After 30 years working as a reporter in the area of deep medical-research fraud, I’ve seen that false science occurs in levels.

The deeper you go, the stranger it gets. To put it another way: the deeper you go, the worse it gets.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport at No More Fake News

cover image credit susannp4 /pixabay




Does HIV Exist? An Explosive Interview

Does HIV Exist? An Explosive Interview

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
August 11, 2020

 

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 conditions 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.

CJ: Does HIV cause AIDS?

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 [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.

And so…as I’ve reported these past few months, there is every reason to doubt and reject the existence of the COVID virus, since correct large-scale electron microscope studies have never been done.

I kept the Christine Johnson interview, and other similar information, in mind when, for example, I explored the dud epidemics called SARS and 2009 Swine Flu.

How many viruses have been named as causes of disease, when in fact those viruses have never been isolated or proved to exist?

Of course, conventional-consensus researchers and doctors will scoff at any attempt to raise these issues. For them, “the science is settled.” Meaning: they don’t want to think. They don’t want to stir the waters.

A few years ago, chemist David Rasnick sent a request to the CDC, asking for evidence demonstrating that the Ebola virus had ever been isolated from a human. The answers he received did not begin to approach a level of certainty.

After 30 years working as a reporter in the area of deep medical-research fraud, I’ve seen that false science occurs in levels.

The deeper you go, the stranger it gets. To put it another way: the deeper you go, the worse it gets.

SOURCES:

immunity.org.uk/articles/christine-johnson/

virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjinterviewep.htm

blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/08/10/covid-is-the-virus-real/

blog.nomorefakenews.com/2014/11/03/bombshell-scientist-finds-no-reliable-evidence-ebola-virus-ever-isolated-from-a-human-being/

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport




The Chinese Virus, HIV, and a Stranger on a Train

The Chinese Virus, HIV, and a Stranger on a Train

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
February 4, 2020

 

In my research on so-called epidemics and viruses over the last 30 years, I’ve examined a point very few people want to think about.

Does the virus being promoted actually exist?

It might seem absurd to ask that. “Well, of course it exists. Why else would experts be saying it’s causing disease and death? Why else are they developing a vaccine?”

I don’t buy that reply at face value. Never have, never will.

Let me illustrate with a short tale. —Word goes out to an elite intelligence agency that a stranger on a train is a spy, and he is dangerous. He must be captured. The Agency sends a few people to board the train.

Who is the spy? What does he look like? Unknown. The agents move from car to car looking at passengers. From “past experience” in profiling suspects, they decide their target is probably a man in sleeping car 100. They knock on his door. He opens it. They place him under arrest.

The next thing the Agency knows, a week later, the ops director says, “Boys, he was the one, we have our man. He was planning to blow up bridges. Great work.”

Evidence of guilt? Proof? Was the initial story about a spy on a train even true? Answers unknown. But who cares? The job is done.

With a purported new epidemic disease, how do researchers find the man on the train? What method do they use to isolate a unique virus that is present in the bodies of people who are sick?

Various experts will offer various answers. In a moment, I’ll present an interview with a researcher who proposes a method. To sum up this method in simplistic terms: you remove a tissue sample from a person suspected of carrying a virus. Taking a tiny piece of that sample, you place it into a sugar solution and spin it in a centrifuge at high speed. The solution settles out, according to layers of density and weight. You presumably know, from past experience, which layer will contain particles of virus (if they are there). From that layer, you remove a small sample. You look at it under an electron microscope. You photograph what you see. If you’ve found a virus, you should be able to observe many copies of it in the photo. From analyzing these copies, you should be able to tell what kind of virus you’ve found. This is a very rough description of the process.

To announce to the world that you’ve found a virus that’s causing a rapidly spreading and dangerous epidemic, you should be sure of your work. You should have performed the above process on MANY, MANY supposed human carriers of the virus, and you should have obtained the same result in the overwhelming percentage of cases. And independent researchers should be able to replicate your work.

In the Chinese epidemic, and in other past epidemics, I’ve seen no evidence that this process of isolation was employed on many, many patients with the same result—much less the independent confirmation.

Therefore, the whole inquiry and research are in doubt. Simply announcing to the world that “the virus has been found” means nothing.

All right. Here are excerpts from an interview. It gets somewhat technical. It was conducted by a brilliant independent journalist, Christine Johnson. The interviewee is 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…”

CJ: Does HIV cause AIDS?

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 [EMs] 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 question the existence of HIV, because the methods for proving its existence were not followed.

Therefore, more questions emerge. How many other viruses have been named as causes of disease, when in fact those viruses have never been isolated or proved to exist?

Of course, conventional-consensus researchers and doctors will scoff at any attempt to raise these issues. For them, “the science is settled.” Meaning: they don’t want to think. They don’t want to stir the waters.

I want to be clear about what I’m asserting here. There are very serious questions about whether a variety of viruses have ever been isolated, proven to exist, and proven to be causing disease. An OPEN, lengthy, ongoing, published debate needs to be undertaken among researchers—including independent researchers.

These vital issues should never be concealed behind closed elite doors.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport




When the Blood Boils: Vaccines and Autism

When the Blood Boils: Vaccines and Autism

 

Lies passed around like conjured pieces of gold. Medical liars speaking their messages with straight faces, from their pulpits of influence.

We’ve watched them work. We’ve experienced the inner sensation of blood boiling; outrage.

Who are these people? Where did they come from? How did they attain their positions of power? Are they a different species?

And like you, I have watched the passive faces of audiences as they take in these lies, as they know something is wrong, as they refuse to act.

If you control the meaning of words like “evidence,” “cause,” “relationship between,” you own the playing field. You can manipulate outcomes and conclusions, and you can define science itself.

Your power derives from ownership of those simple words.

Suppose a healthy baby with all his faculties intact receives a barrage of vaccines at 15 months. Then, three days later, his temperature soars to 105, he has seizures, he screams, and then he goes silent. He withdraws from the world, from his parents. In the ensuing months, he doesn’t speak. He doesn’t laugh. He shows no interest in life around him. He doesn’t recover from this. He doesn’t regain his former health.

In what sense can it be said that the vaccines caused his condition? That may seem like an absurd question to be asking, but scientists claim it is important. So do judges and government officials. So do drug companies who make and sell vaccines.

They claim it’s very important, because they want to maintain control over the concept of “cause.” It’s their protection in the racket they are running.

Can we track the path, step by step, of these vaccine ingredients as they are injected into a baby and make their way through his system? Can we observe every reaction they produce, in sequence, all the way into and through the recesses of the nervous system and the brain?

Of course not.

By such an impossible standard, everyone falls short.

If perverse officials and scientists suddenly invoke that standard, can anyone fulfill it? No.

But make sure you understand that scientists and bureaucrats judge their own work by far looser principles.

They assert, for example, with psychotic arrogance that the underlying cause of autism is in the genes, although their research has only given them the foggiest of reasons for even beginning to crawl out on that limb—where they crow and lie and ask for more research money.

They say ADHD is created by certain brain abnormalities, even though their scans produce on-again off-again evidence—which, finally, is no evidence at all.

In fact, for every one of the 297 so-called mental disorders that are named and defined and described in the official bible of psychiatric literature, there is not one, not one lucid diagnostic test to back up, biologically, their disease labels and descriptions and definitions.

It’s a game. “We may hold you to an impossible standard. We hold ourselves to no standard at all.”

So you should be aware that, if you choose to enter this game, for whatever reasons, you are playing against a monumentally stacked deck.

The powers-that-be will do everything they can to subvert, deny, and destroy THE STORY OF ONE PARENT ABOUT ONE CHILD.

Why? Because the story is too convincing. It’s too obvious. It’s too real. It’s too DEVASTATING. It’s too dangerous.

“My child was healthy. He was vaccinated. Then he collapsed. He never recovered.”

With that, you are setting dynamite on the rails of the medical princes.

And you are also waking up other parents whose stories are essentially the same. You are igniting a fire in their heads.

Can you imagine what would happen if you said, “Look, my child was hit by a cluster of vaccines delivered when he was fifteen months old, and he was never the same after that, and THAT is what I’m seeking compensation for, and that is ALL I’m seeking compensation for. I don’t care what you call it, what name you give to it.”

And the government said, “Well, all right.”

The ensuing flood would drown them. And would drown the vaccine manufacturers, too.

You must be stopped.

And the way they will stop you is by manipulating the word “cause.” That’s all. That’s their entire policy and program. They execute it on an arcane and pseudo-technical level, employing models and constructs and numbers in their private little universe, while they polish their credentials.

They don’t want YOUR STORY to stand naked in front of the public.

Of course it is obvious that, when health turns to tragedy, the vaccines were at fault, just as when a blow to the head causes memory loss. Of course everyone concerned knows the truth.

But they say: science is not done this way.  We must have “evidence of causation.” They occasionally throw a few crumbs to parents whose child was brain-damaged by a vaccine. But in the main, they conjure up a version of pseudo-science and use it to obfuscate the otherwise unpardonable reality of what the vaccine has done.

And how does this conjured and manufactured science work?

It starts with the owned and operated definition of a disease or disorder. In the case of autism, the old behavioral criteria are dragged out. Here they are. I’m sorry for loading the full display on you, but I want you to see it in print:

The following is from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM IV

(I) A total of six (or more) items from (A), (B), and (C), with at least two from (A), and one each from (B) and (C)

(A) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
2. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
3. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
4. lack of social or emotional reciprocity ( note: in the description, it gives the following as examples: not actively participating in simple social play or games, preferring solitary activities, or involving others in activities only as tools or “mechanical” aids )

(B) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:

1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language
4. lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level

(C) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
2. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
3. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
4. persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

(II) Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:

(A) social interaction
(B) language as used in social communication
(C) symbolic or imaginative play

(III) The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett’s Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder

And now you have the full and complete definition of autism from the official manual. There is no other definition. There are no physical tests or blood tests or brain scans. There is only this menu of behaviors.

And there are many so-called related disorders, and each one has its similar complex behavioral definition. These depictions overlap. But no matter. As far as the psychiatrists and pediatricians and medical bureaucrats are concerned, autism is defined. Engraved on tablets.

Does, in the judgment of a doctor, your child fit the definition or doesn’t he? The word is given from on high. The decision is rendered. And we are then one step removed from the reality of the simple and brutal destroying effects of the vaccines. This is good for them. They are now in familiar territory. Protected land.

Now they can say, “Your child, who at fifteen months collapsed, has autism.”

This is the bridge to the next giant step. Which is:

“We have determined that vaccines are not the cause of autism.”

“We know this.”

“We have proved this.”

Therefore, you’re trapped. Your child has been painted with the label “autism”–and perhaps you were actually hoping for that, because you knew something was terribly wrong, and the designation confirms you were correct. But as far as making a link to the vaccines, you’re suddenly at their mercy.

If they decide to compensate you through the federal vaccine compensation system, they will say, “Well, your child actually is suffering from encephalopathy and has autism-like symptoms.” But far more frequently, they will fall back on their pronouncement that vaccines and autism are unconnected, and you will get nothing.

How did these medical experts and their bureaucratic partners determine that vaccines are not the cause of autism?

They examined studies. And the studies “found no link.” In particular, there is the key Verstraeten study, published in two phases. Three HMOs’ records of babies were considered by Verstraeten and his colleagues.

I’m going to quote from the study and then comment:

“Results. In phase I at HMO A, cumulative exposure at 3 months resulted in a significant positive association with tics (relative risk [RR]: 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05–3.38). At HMO B, increased risks of language delay were found for cumulative exposure at 3 months (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.01–1.27) and 7 months (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01–1.13). In phase II at HMO C, no significant associations were found. In no analyses were significant increased risks found for autism or attention-deficit disorder.”

“Conclusions. No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Conflicting results were found at different HMOs for certain outcomes. For resolving the conflicting findings, studies with uniform neurodevelopmental assessments of children with a range of cumulative thimerosal exposures are needed.”

First of all, notice how far away we are from that basic fact that vaccines were delivered to your child and your child collapsed and never recovered. We are miles from that. We’re now discussing correlations between vaccines containing mercury (thimerosal) and various indicators and labels: tics, language delay, autism, attention-deficit disorder, neurodevelopmental outcomes.

We now have a complex situation. First of all, in order to conclude that mercury-containing vaccines are correlated with autism or attention-deficit disorder, the researchers would have to have observed, in these children’s medical records, reports detailing all the behavioral criteria THE RESEARCHERS ASSUME add up to a positive diagnosis of these two INVENTED disorders—neither of which even exists on the basis of actual biological or chemical tests of any kind.

So essentially, if we make the translation from psychiatric-speak to basic English, we have this: “There is no convincing correlation between mercury-containing vaccines and those disorders we invented by slicing and dicing human behavior into compartments and giving them disease-labels.”

This is staggering when you think about it.

Continuing: In the first HMO records, Verstraeten and his colleages found a significant correlation between the vaccines and tics. As in facial tics. Why is that important? Because tics can be a sign of motor brain damage. They have a name for that: tardive dyskinesia. But it means brain damage.

However, if you look at the concocted definitions of the concocted disorders called autism and ADD, you’ll find no mention of tics or tardive dyskinesia. Therefore, an increased risk of tics doesn’t bring the researchers any closer to connecting vaccines and autism—simply because autism wasn’t defined that way. It wasn’t invented that way.

Perusing the records at the second HMO, Verstraeten found an increased risk of language delay. The babies didn’t start speaking when normally expected to. This is one of the listed criteria for a diagnosis of autism, but of course it is not enough, by the concocted rules of the game, to rate a placing of the invented label, autism, on any of those children.

At the third HMO, which was investigated as a separate phase 2 of the study, researchers found no significant associations—meaning no tics, no language delay…nothing that would rate a diagnosis of autism or suggest the presence of any of the invented symptoms of autism.

All in all, Verstraeten and his colleagues found no reason to conclude that mercury-containing vaccines were correlated with autism or other signals of neurological problems.

He played off one HMO against another: “In this one, we found X. But in the other one, we didn’t. We found Y instead. And in the third one, we found neither X nor Y.” Why didn’t he simply use all three HMOs as one reservoir? Possibly because he was trying to guard against the possibility of biased records at one HMO. Who knows?

And why didn’t he conclude, “All in all, we discovered some evidence of harm from the vaccines.”

Again, notice how far we are from the actual event of vaccines causing brain damage in a child.

The study decides that there is no increased risk, from vaccines, for autism or ADD. And that’s that. “Further research” is needed.

A child harmed by vaccines could have a tiny brain lesion or severe immune deficiency or a rewired connection somewhere deep in the recesses of the brain—undetected—but none of this matches up to the invented criteria for a diagnosis of autism.

But millions of people actually believe that autism is a distinct entity which was “discovered,” like a pre-set embedded pattern of errant pathways in the brain. And when those people are told, by experts, that vaccines don’t cause it, the PR value is enormous. For doctors who give the vaccines, for drug companies, for public-health agencies.

This is all a ruse. It’s a fabrication, and the studies that follow from it serve to mask the facts of vaccine damage.

They invent define the disorder, they have no definitive diagnostic tests for it, they conclude that vaccines don’t cause it. It’s one fantasy after another.

It’s as if you drew a map of a gold mine that doesn’t exist, and then you passed a law forbidding people from searching for it.

There are various degrees and events of tragic and lasting impact-damage that are laid upon children. The causes are multiple. One significant cause is vaccines. There is no such thing as autism. It is a construct ultimately designed to get certain people off the hook. And to make profit. And to engender money for research.

They will never find a cure for autism, because it doesn’t exist, except as a menu of behaviors wrapped inside their fantasy. Of course, if they were in the world, the world you live in, they would acknowledge that vaccines do cause brain and neurological damage, and they would compensate for that. They would act in a straightforward and honest fashion.

I spoke to one psychiatrist off the record, who said, “A genetic cause for autism? Are you serious? Autism is an artifact to begin with. So how do you find a gene that causes a fairy tale?”

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport




Vaccine Woman

Vaccine Woman

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
July 3, 2018

 

there was no way to deny it or get around it
her little boy started screaming after the shot
and then 2 days later
the world shut down
he sat in a corner
he lay in his bed
he didn’t speak
the doctor huffed and puffed in back of his steady blank eyes
he assured her this had nothing to do with the shot
it was a predisposition or a genetic trait or a precondition
he smiled now and then
he said autism could have emerged on its own just after the shot was given
as if the universe rearranged itself
at that moment
she saw she was talking to a psychopath
he had been a machine for a long long time
she went into the darkness and pled her case before a government committee
they sat like ancient high priests
and listened and glanced at documents
and when they had permitted her the allotted time they handed down their judgment:
no
she went home and took her boy in her arms
he was still
he didn’t look at her
he didn’t speak
she consulted a lawyer
who told her
the manufacturer was protected by an iron wall
he would continue to make the vaccine and sell it
and pocket billions
the long night was closing in
the storm was here
the silent boy was sitting in its eye
rage was burning in the middle of her chest
a rage the public would see as insanity
from a distance, the moon and the stars might know
what was going on
but people in their everyday straitjackets
would lash out at her
because they needed a target
they needed to ridicule a defector from their own slave-shuffle
they obeyed all the small print
they were neutered in their cores
paralytics
but she wields
the two-edged sword in the empire
that cuts away the web
and comes to the spider
no matter what defamation
the intermediary whores
lay at her door
lady liberty, liberty from the living death…Vaccine Woman
She and her family are pre-civilization, civilization, and
Post-civilization
And she will go to the ends of the earth
To bare the innards of the crime
Her enemies will never know
What it means to have her mission, her eternal mission
But she knows
Vaccine Woman
Love in her breast for her own is one answer
Justice is the other
She has a two-edged sword in the Empire
That cuts through the web
And comes to the spider
Vaccine Woman…

Connect with Jon Rappoport website | substack




Logic: The Student’s Edge, the Investigator’s Gold

Logic: The Student’s Edge, the Investigator’s Gold

by Jon Rappoport
January 27, 2018

 

Note: This article stems from my Logic and Analysis course, which is part of my collection, The Matrix Revealed; and also from a long audio presentation, Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation, which is part of my collection, Power Outside the Matrix.Part One

Twenty-four-hundred years ago, in ancient Greece, something unprecedented happened.

Three men changed the course of the world by introducing the discipline of logic: Socrates, Plato, and finally, Arisotle, who codified the principles of reasoning in The Organon.

Since then, all the way up the present day, mathematicians and philosophers have added to that store of knowledge, through intensive research.

In many countries, logic used to be an integral part of secondary education. It was often presented as a series of fallacies or errors one needed to avoid while thinking through a problem or assessing an argument.

Now, however, like the dinosaur, it has disappeared.

Why has it vanished from secondary-school curricula? Perhaps for the same reason fewer and fewer students study Latin or Greek. Logic is deemed irrelevant. It’s “old-fashioned.”

We used to understand the formal meaning of the word “argument.” It was a presentation in which the speaker or writer aimed to move from a first set of ideas, along a specific, path, to a conclusion. In order to understand and evaluate an argument, one had to be able to spot departures from the rules of logic. More basically, one had to be able to follow the course of reasoning, like a stream, and not lose the way.

Today’s students are generally lacking in that tracking ability. They often don’t even realize an argument is being made. Rather, they read a chapter in a book and pick and choose what they feel are the most interesting bits of information. They drift; they founder.

They see themselves as consumers in a marketplace of ideas and words, and they buy the most attractive pieces.

This strategy breaks down the farther the student moves along the road of education.

As a former teacher, I have seen students who were, in fact, equipped with a background in logic. In every course they took, they possessed an edge that was enviable.

Logic underlies academic subjects. It is the rock on which those subjects are built. Physics, math, biology, history, languages are taught on the basis that a rational approach to the material is essential. And logic is the essence of rationality.

At best, students pick up logic piecemeal, haphazardly. The obvious step is to teach it as its own subject. If this is done, students suddenly are ahead of the game. They have an indispensable tool for thinking lucidly in any situation, in any classroom, using any text, taking any exam, writing any essay.

It is, so to speak, the difference between mapping a large area by haphazardly walking the land, and filming it from the air with high-resolution cameras.

Academic achievement, as the degree of difficulty grows, is all about mastering larger and larger quantities of information. This is the primary challenge. Armed with logic, a student can win this challenge, because he sees and follows the underlying architecture around which all information is organized.

A youngster can take apart an old clock. He can examine the pieces and figure out what each piece does. But then, if he comprehends the structure, the logic of the clock, he can go further. He can understand, more deeply, how all the parts combine to produce the clock that tells time. At that point, his knowledge is unshakable.

This is what the study of logic accomplishes.

Part Two

We not only live in an age of information, we live in an age of disinformation.

When concealment and deception are official goals, an outside person who is examining facts, arguments, premises, and lines of reasoning needs to spot patterns of propaganda, cover stories, intentionally placed distractions, and purposeful omissions of vital data.

In other words, these days we are routinely dealing with spokespeople and experts who are deploying all manner of anti-logic propaganda, in order to persuade audiences.

Never mind high schools; rarely will you find a good course of study on propaganda at any college or university in the world. I make that statement, because colleges are compromised from the get-go. They receive monies for research involving, for example, vaccines, medical drugs, mind control, climate change, advanced weapons systems, human genetics, pesticides, GMO crops. Propaganda and polemic on these subjects are everywhere. A real course on propaganda would expose the very colleges that teach it.

A professor who went full-bore on propaganda would be cut off at the knees by his administration. He would be attacked, defamed, smeared, hounded, and exiled by his bosses and his own colleagues.

Therefore, the study of disinformation falls outside the academic spectrum.

In my third Matrix collection, Power Outside The Matrix, I include a long audio section called Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation. It is based on my experience as a reporter over the last 30 years.

It all started with my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century. I was inundated with a flood of information on all sides. As soon as people became aware I was writing the book, they gave me their “best opinions” on the subject.

Those opinions ranged all the way from “virus produced in a lab” to “cosmic debris landing on Earth”—and everything in between.

At the same time, I was assembling my own discoveries re the illogical arguments government and university researchers were presenting about “the AIDS virus.”

I was standing in a vast muddle, because I had not yet identified the most basic premises inherent in the official scenario about HIV and AIDS. That was the real kicker. I didn’t see the most basic assumptions.

In other words, I was still unconsciously buying certain official ideas about HIV and AIDS. And given that, I couldn’t move beyond a certain point. I couldn’t take the thousands of pieces of data I had and see them from the correct viewpoint. I had part of the puzzle, but not enough.

Then I realized there was no such thing as AIDS.

The very real suffering, pain, and death that was being called AIDS was not one thing, not one syndrome, not one disease, not one condition. There were a number of causes, not one.

That was the first and foremost error (piece of disinformation) in the official scenario.

Now I could finish the book.

I learned a key lesson, which has stood me in good stead ever since. Go to the most basic of all the basic assumptions in the official scenario.

Check THAT assumption. Very carefully.