by Jon Rappoport
August 6, 2015
"Ebola has returned"
- Has it?
"I have many reasons for exposing
hoaxes about viruses.
One vital reason: when people
realize the truth, they begin to grasp, at a visceral level,
what's possible in the area of fake-reality invention. They see
their own prior assumptions go whirling down the drain.
They see how many pancakes of
propaganda can be stacked up on one plate. The virus hoax cuts
very, very deep, all the way down into what people automatically
accept as Obvious.
It isn't obvious at all. It's a
complete fabrication. It's an artifact made out of nothing."
(The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
Yahoo News, July 3, 2015, "Ebola
Returns to Liberia - Where Did It Come From, and Could It Spread?":
"The return of Ebola in Liberia -
with three new cases reported this week in the previously
Ebola-free country - is worrisome, and raises questions about
whether Liberia was really free of the disease to begin with,
Reader, we're moving into deep waters
This isn't just
about Ebola. This is
about the whole structure of false medical reality. And that reality
begins with the arrogant assurance that what's killing very large
numbers of people can be traced to a virus.
The "experts" present a unified front. They assert that their tests
for these viruses are correct, pure, and extremely useful.
Yes, the tests are
useful to the pharmaceutical companies
who make the drugs that purport to kill the viruses and the vaccines
that purport to give immunity to the viruses.
But as I've shown in prior articles, these tests (antibody, PCR) are
far from accurate. Worse, they're
irrelevant. And they mask the fact
that actual isolation of the virus from the human body is not being
Several readers have asked me what "isolation of a virus" means. The
most obvious answer is: you know you're looking at virus, rather
than something else.
For example, you remove diseased tissue from a human being, and from
it you separate out probable virus from non-viral material, and you
then take electron microscope pictures of the probable, and you look
at those picture, and you see lots and lots of the same virus.
Not what could be or might be virus, but
This is direct. This is virus from a human. This is not indirect
testing that is faulty, irrelevant, and can go wrong in many ways.
Isolation is what you need to begin to say a virus could be causing
Let me take you down a road that is rarely traveled and show you a
few precedents where "everybody knows it's a virus" turned out to be
Peter Doshi, "Influenza
- Marketing Vaccine by Marketing Disease," (BMJ
"…Every year, hundreds of thousands
of respiratory [flu] specimens are tested across the US. Of
those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza
84% of what is considered to be flu
isn't flu. Every year.
The flu virus isn't there.
Here's another Doshi reference - December, 2005, the BMJ Online,
Flu Death Figures more PR than Science?" (BMJ 2005;
"[According to CDC statistics],
'influenza and pneumonia' took 62,034 lives in 2001 - 61,777 of
which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only
18 cases was the flu virus positively identified."
At various times, the CDC has stated that, every year, 36,000
Americans die from the flu… or, after revising that estimate, the
CDC states it could be anywhere from 3000 to 49,000.
But only 18 patients' blood samples showed any sign of the presence
of the flu virus.
Pellagra. In the first half of the 20th century, in the US,
there were three million cases. 100,000 people died. Researchers at
health agencies insisted there had to be germ at the bottom of it.
They looked and looked and looked.
Meanwhile, other researchers found out Pellagra was mainly a
They were pushed into the background.
"A bunch of fools. Pay no attention
Finally, after 100,000 deaths, most of
which were unnecessary, the "experts" grudgingly admitted, "Yes,
Fifty years ago, there was a massive outbreak of a nervous-system
disorder in Japan. It was called
SMON (subacute myelo-optic
neuropathy). Tens of thousands of cases, many deaths. People were in
Researchers were told to look for a virus. So they did. And did. And
did. It had to be a virus.
Against much opposition, a small group of investigators and lawyers
publicly proposed a different answer. SMON was the result of a drug
Ciba-Geigy was selling to alleviate gastrointestinal distress. The
Finally exposed in court, Ciba paid out large $$ damages. It wasn't
a virus. Even though everybody thought it was. Knew it was.
Here's another reference.
Jim West, writing at the
Price Foundation, "The SARS Epidemic
- Are Viruses Taking the Rap for
"An insider, Dr. Frank Plummer,
spilled the beans:
'The director… told The
Scientist yesterday (April 10) that the new coronavirus
implicated as the cause of the disease is certainly around
in the environment but is unlikely to be the causative
agent. Frank Plummer is director of Canada's National
Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg.'
'we are finding some of the
best-characterized [SARS disease] cases are negative [for
the SARS virus]. So it's puzzling. As is the fact the
amounts of virus we are finding, when we find it, are very
small - only detectable by very sensitive PCR [testing].'"
Even when the so-called cause of
was found in patients, the amount was so small there was no way to
say it would create disease.
Frank Plummer eventually admitted
that the percentage of SARS cases in which the virus was present was
the viral cause of SARS couldn't be
Here's another reference, which sheds much more light on what
"isolation of a virus" means: Journalist Christine Johnson's
interview, "Does HIV exist?" with Dr. Eleni Papadopulos,
"a biophysicist and leader of a
HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia.
Over the past decade and more, she [Papadopulos] and her
colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the
Here is a brief edited excerpt - the
entire interview is published at
CJ [Christine Johnson]: Does
HIV cause AIDS?
EPE [Papadopulos]: There is no proof that HIV causes
CJ: Why not?
EPE: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no
proof that HIV exists.
…CJ: Didn't Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo isolate HIV back in
the early eighties?
EPE: 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…
CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.
EPE: Our interpretation of the data differs… To prove the
existence of a virus you need to do three things.
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
CJ: Can't you just look down a microscope and say there's a
virus in the cultures?
EPE: No, you can't. Not all particles that look like viruses are
CJ: So where did AIDS research go wrong?
EPE: It's not so much a question of where the research went
wrong. It's more a question of what was left out. For some
unknown reason the decades-old method of retroviral
isolation… developed to study animal retroviruses was not
followed. Retroviruses are incredibly tiny, almost spherical
particles with diameters of about one hundred nanometers (one
ten-thousandth of a millimeter). Millions would fit comfortably
on the head of a pin.
…CJ: What do we see in [electron microscope pictures of HIV]…
published in 1997?
EPE: These photographs vindicate the position we have held ever
since the beginning. Two groups, one Franco/German… and one from
the US National Cancer Institute… published pictures… The first
thing to say is that the authors of these studies concede that
their pictures reveal that the vast majority of the material… is
cellular. The authors describe all this material as "non-viral",
or as "mock" virus or "microvesicles," which are encapsulated
CJ: Are there any viral particles in these pictures?
EPE: There are a few particles which the researchers claim are
retroviral particles. In fact, they claim these are the HIV
particles, but give no evidence why.
CJ: Are there lots of these HIV particles?
EPE: No…when you take an electron micrograph they [HIV
particles] should fill the entire picture. Instead, these
candidate retroviruses are minority constituents of the
published electron micrographs. Thus, molecules extracted from
these samples can not be assumed to come from those
- end of interview excerpt -
So no, the experts aren't automatically
right when they say, "It's a virus."
In the case of Ebola, why should you believe them now?
I recently had an
exchange of emails with
David Rasnick, PhD.
obtained his PhD from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and spent
25 years working with proteases (a class of enzymes) and protease
inhibitors. He is the author of the book, The Chromosomal Imbalance
Theory of Cancer. He was a member of the Presidential AIDS Advisory
Panel of South Africa.
The subject of our conversation was the isolation of the Ebola virus
from humans. Has it ever been done?
Direct isolation is far different from diagnostic tests such as
antibody or PCR, which are both indirect methods of assessment. In
previous articles, I've covered the irrelevance of these two tests.
Any discussion of the Ebola virus must begin with the question of
direct isolation. The whole presumption of an Ebola outbreak and
epidemic rests on that question.
Was the Ebola virus ever purified and isolated from a human?
Here is what Rasnick wrote, after his search of the published
"I have examined in detail the literature on isolation and Ems [EM:
electron microscope pictures] of both Ebola and Marburg viruses. I
have not found any convincing evidence that
Ebola virus (and for
Marburg) has been isolated from humans. There is
certainly no confirmatory evidence of human isolation.
"I searched the CDC's website and came up dry.
"The CDC claims 7728 Ebola virus cases have been
"I asked the CDC what constitutes isolation of Ebola virus from
human specimens. I also asked for the protocol for isolating Ebola
virus. [No convincing reply from the CDC as of this date.]
"Virtually everything that is known and done with these viruses is
in animals and cell culture."
"There is the possibility that
Ebola and Marburg viruses represent laboratory artifacts.
I'm inclined to think this is the case. What I
mean is the viruses are real but may exist at very low levels in
wild animals and even humans, well-below pathogenic
These 'passenger' viruses may be activated
and amplified in laboratory culturing conditions designed for that
purpose in order to produce enough viral particles to be
"Viruses causing real pathology are abundant in the diseased
tissues. You can see them using EM on the primary tissue. You do not
need to amplify the virus in cell culture.
I'm always suspicious
when cell culture is the only way a virus is observable by EM."
Rasnick's findings are a direct challenge to the basis of the whole
If indeed the Ebola virus has never been isolated
from a human being, the so-called epidemic is unproven.
To say this is shocking would be a vast understatement.
When public-health officials and governments claim there is an
epidemic, the burden of proof is on them.
At this point, they must, first and foremost, show someone,
somewhere, correctly and directly and undeniably isolated Ebola
virus from a human being.
In past articles, I've demonstrated how people could become ill from
factors other than viruses - factors which are ignored and even
maintained, in order to keep populations in a debilitated state,
unable to resist their
political leaders and corporations intent on
taking over land and resources.
Add to that, attributing fake viral causes to illness also
gate wide to the products of Big Pharma -
toxic medical drugs and
These fake viral "outbreaks and epidemics" also serve to
populations in fear, at which point they look to their leaders to
tell them what to do. This is programming for compliance.
One aspect of studying the matrix called civilization involves
unearthing the most basic assumptions which people accept -
assumptions they couldn't possibly believe are false, much less
The analysis I'm presenting here is one corner on one street in a