Q: What is the major psychological factor at work
A: Above all else, it is people making an
automatic connection between their own frightening image of
Ebola and the statement, "So-and-so is sick."
Q: "Sick" doesn't automatically=Ebola?
A: That's right, even when an authority says some
person is sick and in the hospital and has Ebola.
Q: Is the Ebola epidemic a fraud, in the same way
that Swine Flu was a fraud?
A: In the summer of 2009,
the CDC stopped counting cases of Swine Flu in the US.
A: Because lab tests on samples taken from likely
and diagnosed Swine Flu cases showed no presence of the Swine
Flu virus or any other kind of flu virus.
Q: So the CDC was caught with its pants down.
A: Around its ankles. It was claiming tens of
thousands of Americans had Swine Flu, when that wasn't the case
at all. So why should we believe them now, when they say, "The
patient was tested and he has Ebola." The CDC is Fraud Central.
Q: Where is the fraud now, when it comes to
counting Ebola cases and labeling people with the Ebola
A: The diagnostic tests being run on patients
antibody and PCR tests are most frequently used -
utterly unreliable and useless.
Q: Therefore, many, many people could be labeled
"Ebola," when that is not the case at all?
Q: But people are sick and dying.
A: People are always sick and dying. You can find
them anywhere you look. That doesn't mean they're Ebola cases.
Q: In other words, medical authorities can place
a kind of theoretical grid over sick and dying people and
reinterpret them as "Ebola."
A: Exactly. The map can be drawn in any number of
Q: Could an "Ebola patient" have other viruses in
A: Of course. Many other viruses. The mere
presence of a virus does not mean a person is sick or is going
to get sick.
Q: What test needs to be run, in order to say,
"This person is sick because of Ebola."
A: First of all, the Ebola virus would need to be
isolated from the patient directly. The two tests I mentioned
above are indirect. Then, if Ebola is isolated from the patient
directly, a test needs to show that the patient is harboring
millions of active Ebola virus - that's called a test
Q: Are these procedures being done as a matter of
course on people suspected of having Ebola?
Q: We're told that the Dallas Ebola patient was
vomiting profusely outside his apartment, before he was sent to
the hospital. Isn't this a symptom of Ebola?
A: It could be a symptom of many things. Some
news reports state that the patient had already been to the
hospital, where he was given antibiotics and sent home. All
classes of antibiotics list nausea and vomiting as adverse
Q: So the symptoms of Ebola, like cough, fever,
fatigue, diarrhea - these can be attributed to many causes?
A: Absolutely. The flu, for example.
Q: Now we're seeing a
search operation for contacts of several Ebola patients.
A: This will whip up hysteria to new heights. But
where is the proof that the original patients have Ebola?
Q: Again, the original patients are sick.
A: "Sick" does not automatically equal
Q: What's killing all those people in West
A: With the tests being run on them - and many are
simply eyeballed and called "Ebola" - there is no proof that any
of these people have Ebola.
Q: There are other long-term reasons for death
and dying in West Africa?
A: Protein-calorie malnutrition, hunger,
starvation, extreme poverty, contaminated water supplies,
overall lack of basic sanitation, a decade of horrific war,
toxic medical drugs, prior toxic vaccine campaigns, etc.
Q: And the combined effect of these conditions?
A: Destruction of immune systems. Then, any germ
that sweeps through the population, a germ that would ordinarily
be defeated, instead kills many people. Why? Because the immune
system is too weak to respond. With healthy and strong immune
systems, the germs would have no significant effect.
Q: What about the health workers in West Africa
who have died?
A: Since unreliable diagnostic tests would have
been run on them, we don't have any idea why they died.
But at least some of them were suffering greatly from working
inside hazmat suits, sealed off from the outside. In
a one-hour shift, in boiling heat, they were losing five quarts
of body fluid, then coming out, rehydrating, disinfecting with
toxic chemicals, putting their suits on again, going back to
patients for the next shift, losing extraordinary amounts of
body fluid again, and so forth and so on. That would cause
anyone to collapse.
Q: But this has to be an Ebola epidemic, with all
the press coverage, with statements from the CDC, with
announcements from experts.
A: That's what they said about
Swine Flu, which
was a dud. This doesn't have to be Ebola just because official
sources say it is.
Q: Let's get back to the psychological factors
A: A person has heard all about how dangerous
Ebola is. He has a fear of some unknown invisible tiny killer, a
virus. He has heard about "bad diseases" coming from Africa.
Now, someone from the CDC stands up and talks about the threat
of Ebola and says a patient with Ebola is in a Dallas hospital,
and is sick. What's the effect? Utter acceptance of the idea
that the hospital patient has Ebola. "It's Ebola. It couldn't be
Q: But it could be something else?
A: Of course.
Q: People don't want to accept that, though. They
believe in the
and the CDC and the tests that
are run on people to decide if they have Ebola.
A: That belief isn't based on anything real.
Q: People believe in the power of what they're
A: Yes. It's interesting to see people who
otherwise call the CDC a fraud suddenly accept the CDC's edict
about Ebola. There is no rational substance to that acceptance.
Q: So to be clear, you're saying there might
be an Ebola epidemic at all.
A: What do you need to determine whether people
have Ebola? Accurate diagnostic tests. Accurate tests aren't
being done. So this is an unproven epidemic. And making the
assertion of an epidemic is a hoax.
Q: Like the Swine Flu.
A: Exactly. As I said, in
the summer of 2009, the
CDC stopped counting cases of Swine Flu and yet maintained there
was an epidemic. The samples of blood from patients they sent to
labs showed, in the overwhelmingly number of cases, that there
was no Swine Flu virus present.
Q: And at that time, how many cases of Swine Flu
had the CDC already said were present in the US?
A: Tens of thousands.
Q: And what did the CDC do next?
A: Unbelievably, they doubled down and estimated
22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US. That's the
level of lying we're dealing with here. And now, the CDC says
Ebola is loose. The diagnostic tests they're running and relying
on are useless. But
his brother believes the CDC.
Q: Again, people dying doesn't automatically
equal Ebola? You'll hear, "What else could it be? It must be
A: People have all sorts of preconceptions that
lead them to say, "It must be Ebola." Here is the sequence: We
hear nothing about people dying. Then the press reports, "People
are dying. It's an outbreak. It's Ebola." And that is
automatically accepted. Why? Because populations have been tuned
up by decades of propaganda to make those connections.
Q: Believing what you say here - this would imply
such an enormous level of fraud - it's unthinkable.
A: No, it's not unthinkable. Again, for
comparison, I refer you to the Swine Flu hoax. That was
absolutely staggering. It was exposed by CBS reporter
Attkisson in October of 2009. She published her work on the CBS
website. CBS was about to put the story on the Evening News.
Then it was stopped. Attkisson was cut off at the knees.
A: Because the entire
including the CDC, which is really a PR agency
pharmaceutical companies, would have been exposed for all to
see. By calling Swine Flu an epidemic, millions and millions of
Swine Flu shots were given. The CDC, knowing the "epidemic" was
a fraud, their own fraud, was pitching the vaccine as if their
lives depended on it.
Q: Was the World Health Organization (WHO)
involved in the fraud?
A: They started it.
A: As Peter Doshi has written in BMJ Online, in
the spring of 2009, with only 20 cases of Swine Flu in the
world - 20 - the WHO declared Swine Flu a "level 6 pandemic," their
highest classification of danger. Not only that, they changed
their own definition of "pandemic," so that it no longer had to
mean widespread and severe death and dying. They just changed
the meaning of word "pandemic." Quite Orwellian.
Q: But the US government is buying and
distributing hazmat suits. People are being quarantined. There
is a hunt for contacts of the Dallas patient. Stories in the
press are ramping up fear. All these people couldn't be wrong.
A: I have condos for sale on the moon. I think
you might be an ideal customer.
Q: Speaking of the CDC, a long-term scientist
with the agency,
William Thompson, recently admitted he committed fraud, when he
co-authored a 2004 study that claimed the MMR vaccine had no
connection to autism.
A: Thompson had several co-authors from the CDC
on that study. They all committed fraud. Consider the
conversations that must have taken place at the CDC to arrange
Q: Do you think the fraud went all the way to the
top of the CDC?
In 2004, whistleblower Thompson wrote a letter to Julie
Gerberding, the head of the CDC. He warned her he was
about to present troubling and sensitive data about the vaccine
at an upcoming conference on vaccines and autism. His meaning
was clear. He had
found a vaccine-autism connection.
Q: What did
A: She never answered Thompson's letter, and his
presentation at the conference was canceled.
Q: Is Gerberding still the head of the CDC?
A: No. She left the CDC in 2009.
Q: Where is she now?
A: She's the president of Merck vaccines.
Q: What vaccine do they manufacture?
Q: The same vaccine Thompson found had a
connection to autism?
Q: And for 10 years, from 2004 to now, Thompson
and his co-authors sat on the knowledge that
the MMR vaccine has
a connection to autism?
Q: And this is the same CDC that now wants us to
believe that there is an Ebola epidemic?
A: Yes. As I was saying, I have a lovely condo
for you on the dark side of the moon. Swimming pool, outdoor
grill, playground for the kiddies, nine-hole golf course.
Q: No comment. But since we've come this far,
perhaps you could explain why the tests for diagnosing Ebola are
unreliable and useless.
A: Let's start with the antibody test. Two
problems. First, the test is notorious for what's called "cross-reactions." That means the test isn't really registering,
in this case, the presence of Ebola. It's registering one of a
whole host of other factors. For example, the patient received a
vaccine, and that triggers a falsely positive reading.
Q: What's the second problem?
A: The antibody test doesn't say whether a person
was sick, is sick, or will get sick. At best, if there are no
cross-reactions, it merely says the person had contact with the
virus in question.
So a positive antibody test for Ebola is far
from saying "this person has Ebola." That's a lie. In fact,
before 1985, the general conclusion from positive antibody tests
was: this is a good sign; the patient's immune system contacted
the germ and threw it off, defeated it.
Q: What about the PCR test for Ebola?
A: This test is prone to many mistakes, starting
with the tiny, tiny sample of material taken from the patient.
Is it really genetic material, and is that material really a
piece of a virus, or is it just a piece of general and
irrelevant debris? The test itself takes that tiny sample and
amplifies it millions of times so it can be observed.
it is actually Ebola virus, or a fragment of Ebola virus, there
is no indication there is enough of the virus in the patient's
body to make him sick. There have to be millions upon millions
of active virus in the patient's body to begin to say that virus
is causing problems.
PCR test says nothing about that. In
fact, why was it necessary to do the PCR test at all? If the
patient had enough Ebola virus in his body to cause illness,
there was no need to search for a tiny fragment of a hoped-for
Ebola virus, to start the PCR test.
The virus would have been