by Jon Rappoport
August 6, 2015

from JonRappoport Website

Spanish version

 

"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, experts say."

Reader, we're moving into deep waters now.

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 done.

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 definitely virus.

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 a disease.

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 dead wrong.

Peter Doshi, "Influenza - Marketing Vaccine by Marketing Disease," (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

"…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 positive."

Translation:

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, "Are U.S. Flu Death Figures more PR than Science?" (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

"[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."

That's 18.

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.

Consider Pellagra. In the first half of the 20^th 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 deficiency of niacin.

They were pushed into the background.

"A bunch of fools. Pay no attention to them."

Finally, after 100,000 deaths, most of which were unnecessary, the "experts" grudgingly admitted, "Yes, it's niacin."

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 an uproar.

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 drug was Clioquinol.

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 Weston A. Price Foundation, "The SARS Epidemic - Are Viruses Taking the Rap for Industrial Poisons?"

"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.'

"Plummer stated,

'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 SARS 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 approaching zero.

Translation:

the viral cause of SARS couldn't be the cause.

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 group of 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 HIV/AIDS hypothesis."

Here is a brief edited excerpt - the entire interview is published at primitivism.com:
 

CJ [Christine Johnson]: Does HIV cause AIDS?

EPE [Papadopulos]: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.
 

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.

• 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?

EPE: No, you can't. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.
 

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 cell fragments.
 

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 retroviral-like particles.

 - 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.

He 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 literature:

"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 that matter 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 'laboratory-confirmed'.

"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."

Rasnick continued:

"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 [disease-causing] levels.

 

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 characterized.

"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 "Ebola outbreak."

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.

Let's see the evidence...

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 opens the gate wide to the products of Big Pharma - toxic medical drugs and vaccines.

These fake viral "outbreaks and epidemics" also serve to keep 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 intentionally false.

The analysis I'm presenting here is one corner on one street in a massive city-labyrinth called Matrix.