by Jon Rappoport
steal land from
Third World people
and then poison
these people with horrific pollution,
why isn't it
Is that too
Does it offend
Would you say
that a drug gang who
shoots up a bar
and kills ten innocent bystanders
is just carrying
business practices in their field of endeavor',
therefore never be
prosecuted in a
court of law
on a charge of
If a group wants to
stage a fake and frightening epidemic, how would they do it?
First of all, what reasons would they have to launch such an
On one level, they want
to cover up human harm that is already occurring.
They want to explain this
harm with a false story. For example, suppose a combination of
deadly corporate air and water and 5G* electronic pollution is
making people sick and killing them.
The parties responsible
are surely not going to admit their crimes. No. Instead, they're
going to claim a new virus is causing this harm in the form of, say,
The virus just "emerged."
"It showed up out of
nowhere. It crossed species from animals to humans."
So…the first thing needed
is a cluster of cases in one locale.
A small group of people
who have the same symptoms. This is easy to find. How about ordinary
flu symptoms? Fever, fatigue, weakness, with an emphasis on lung
complications [from the forms of pollution]. A few of these people
are very ill. Two of them die.
publicity/news machine swings into
It's called an "outbreak." It isn't, but that's the story. "They
were all 'exposed to something'" at, say, a riverfront dock
The news - shoveled directly into mainstream outlets - comes from
elite public health agencies like
the CDC and the World Health
It's an OUTBREAK...
To use a technical
term, this is all BULLSHIT.
People in the locale of
the "new case cluster" are falling ill and dying as a result of the
actual pollution-causes I listed above. But the news takes a
"Researchers from WHO
and CDC state that a 'mystery illness' has emerged in City X,
and they are working to discover the virus…"
Who said it was a
Who made that
WHO and CDC. They always
say it's a virus.
At this point, suddenly, it's news all over the planet, and most of
the population is roped in, right from the get-go.
Virus. Yes. I see.
And shortly and
miraculously, the answer comes:
it's VX-20. A new
virus, never seen before, "which probably emerged from fish and
crossed over into humans. One fisherman has already died."
Voila... We have a new
actually find this virus?
Follow the next piece
closely. There is sleight-of-hand involved.
Researchers used what
are called "indirect markers" to INFER that a new virus was
there, in samples of tissue taken from several people in the
original "cluster" of riverfront victims.
didn't actually use basic procedures to purify the tissue sample
from even one patient, and they didn't see MANY identical
viruses in an electron microscope photograph of the purified
sample - if they took such a photograph at all.
didn't perform this complete test on several hundred
emerging patients - they should have, but they didn't.
certainly, other researchers, including INDEPENDENT
analysts, didn't perform the necessary electron microscope
test on hundreds of so-called "epidemic patients."
So… the CDC and WHO
researchers came up with a notion, an idea, an inference about a
virus, through these indirect markers.
And via a process of
continuing inferences, they characterized the virus they
Let's be generous and
assume the researchers did bother to look at electron microscope
photos, derived from only a few patients, not hundreds of
patients, as they should have.
What did they
actually see in the photos? Maybe they saw a few particles that
looked similar to each other, BUT quite possibly these
virus-like particles were just passengers that ordinarily live
in the body and cause no harm.
researchers jump up and down and say, THIS IS IT. THIS IS THE
NEW KILLING VIRUS. AND WE WILL NOW ASSEMBLE ITS GENETIC
AND THEY DO.
These researchers don't
bother to make the distinction between viruses that might do harm
and those that do nothing. Why? Because they're determined to find
something. Anything. That's their basic mission...
In both scenarios, they've fallen woefully short of proving that a
new virus is responsible for making people ill.
But never mind - news outlets and governments are already on the
march. THIS IS IT. A new epidemic. VX-20.
A whole city is
already locked down.
Screeners are waving
wands at passengers getting off planes.
Some US talking head
is saying there is now a rush to develop a vaccine.
New cases of VX-20
are showing up in other cities and other countries.
Let's examine that last
part, about new cases and "spreading" - because this is where
people REALLY fall for the con.
"Well, here is a city
where there is no air or water or 5G pollution, and they're
discovering new cases, so how do you explain that?"
The new cases and the
spread are based entirely on DIAGNOSTIC TESTS.
determine whether there is an "epidemic case" or a "spread."
There are two main tests: antibody and PCR. In a nutshell, neither
test is adequate to say HERE IS A NEW CASE. Both tests are
unreliable and worthless. It's more of the con. Both tests will
claim to show "new cases" when they DON'T.
They might show some
antibodies or a few tiny fragments of what might possibly be a
virus, but they show NOTHING that directly points to human illness.
Relying on those tests would be on the order of laying down a bet on
a game that isn't even scheduled. It's a farce.
Antibody tests, which purport to prove illness coming from a virus,
are actually showing, at best, that the patient came in contact with
a virus. Actually, before 1984, this was generally taken to mean the
patient was in good shape.
His immune system had
defeated the germ. But then, for several no good reasons, the
science was turned on its head. All of a sudden, a positive antibody
test was taken to mean the patient was ill or would soon become ill.
PCR test takes a tiny, tiny
sample from a patient that might contain a virus, but the
virus particle is far too small to comprehend.
The PCR blows up that
particle many times, so it can be analyzed.
BUT the test says
nothing about HOW MUCH virus, if any, is replicating in the
patient's body. And you need millions and millions of a virus
replicating in the body to even begin talking about a cause of
AND both tests rely on the unwarranted assumption that a virus
actually causing illness - VX-20 - was truly discovered in the
Armed with these pathetic
tests, public officials begin reporting a new epidemic case here
and a new one there, and pretty soon 40 countries have new
cases, and the public falls for it, hook, line, and sinker.
And THAT'S HOW you stage a fake epidemic.
The rest is pure
publicity and lockdown and theater. Dangerous theater...
Toxic drugs and toxic vaccines will be brought on board to treat the
epidemic that was never there.
The ACTUAL ONGOING causes of illness and dying will remain in place,
shoved into the deep background.
And THIS amounts to a
capital crime. As in: murder. Remember that...
People will be told not
to question the official line on the "epidemic." This is called a
clue. Why not ask questions? Because the answers might lead to a
correct conclusion about the enormous con job.
Let me add a few comments.
The World Health Organization itself states that every year, there
are millions of cases of ordinary flu around the world, and several
hundred thousand deaths. This isn't "coronavirus." But the flu
sufferers can easily be called "new epidemic cases."
Ordinary flu can be
statistically "imported" and called "coronavirus."
Then there is the medical treatment imposed on people who are told
they are "coronavirus cases." I'm talking about highly toxic
antiviral drugs, which have the ability to stop natural reproduction
of cells in the body. Particularly when such people already have
weakened immune systems, or organ-function problems, the results can
The patients can die. Of
course, if they do, they will be called "deaths from the epidemic."
Finally, there is something else you may have heard of. I mentioned
it a few paragraphs ago: murder.
Do you really think
the people who are consciously launching a fake epidemic, with
all its consequences - including covering up and never remedying
ongoing real causes of dying and death - would stop short of
staging a few spectacular incidents of dying and death, in order
to make a splash and convince the public that the virus is
really a killer?
Are you KIDDING...?
For example, suddenly,
out of the blue, a few friends, previously healthy, in a small town,
fall ill, and a few days later, they're dead. Health officials state
they were "positive for the virus."
"It came on quickly."
Are tests run to detect
an intentional covert act of direct poisoning? Of course not.
Media blare this horrible
story all over the world:
"THE VIRUS IS ON THE
Same thing happens to a
previously healthy family in Country X.
They fall ill and
And then a group of
travelers on a mountain in Country Y become ill and die. Murder.
However, the cover story
"THE VIRUS KNOWS NO
BOUNDS. IT CAN COME ON ANYWHERE, AT ANY TIME."
THESE EVENTS OF DEATH
"CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED BY THE VIRUS."
That's right, when the
audience is brainwashed and completely naïve...
"But… but how could
anyone actually commit premeditated murder of innocent people,
in order to convince the public that a virus is spreading in
As I mentioned, such
controllers are ALREADY guilty of murder, because they're hiding the
actual ongoing causes of death with the cover story of a virus.
This sort of cover-up of
crime has been happening, around the world, for a long, long time...
To cite just two
look at parts of
Africa and Haiti, where the "HIV
story" has been promoted and funded, wall to wall, in
order to conceal intentionally created and sustained poverty,
stolen farm land, and corporate takeovers involving massive
poisonous industrial pollution...
When you go back in
history - as I have - you'll realize that fake epidemics are 'standard'
SARS, Swine Flu, West
Nile, Zika, etc...
I've written about every
one of these phonies in detail…
What Real Science would Look Like 'if' it Existed...
Kevin Frayer/Getty Images
This is one of the most
important articles I've written on the current "epidemic."
When you look at the justification for all the lunatic measures
being taken to "stem the tide" of the coronavirus, you come to the
simplicity of CASES.
How many cases are
How many people are
And the answer to that comes from what?
From tests. From diagnostic tests...
Of course, some people
are ridiculously labeled "cases" without tests. I've explained that
nonsense in other articles.
Outside of China, the most widely used test is called the
PCR. It must be done with
tremendous care, because contamination with irrelevant microbes and
cellular material can yield a misleading and absurd result.
The PCR, it is claimed, can take a tiny, tiny bit of material from a
patient and blow it up many times, so it can be identified.
"This is the
coronavirus. This patient is infected"...
Not only that, the test's
proponents assert that, quite easily, the PCR can also determine the
AMOUNT of virus in the patient's body.
Why is that vitally
important? Because, to even begin talking about the patient ever
getting sick, he must have millions and millions of coronavirus
actively replicating in his body.
There are people (and I'm one of them) who challenge the claim that
the PCR can show how much virus is in the patient's body. The
experts try to brush us off - we don't understand the intricacies of
the test, it's highly technical, we're not qualified to make a
I've been searching for a way around this futile argument.
In the process, I've
discovered something important about the PCR.
I SEE NO EVIDENCE
THAT THE ACCURACY OF THE TEST HAS EVER BEEN PROVEN...
Let me explain...
You bring your car to
a good repair shop.
The mechanics hook it
up to a device and run a test to diagnose what's causing the car
to stall. Who says their tests are accurate?
At some point in the
past, these diagnostic procedures have been vetted, to make sure
they work properly.
And sure enough, when the mechanics say, "We've found the
problem," and when they correct that problem, you drive the car
and it doesn't stall anymore.
This is called a
This is not the situation
re the PCR.
Its proponents claim
it can count how much virus is in a patient's body - how much of
a particular virus.
But where is the
proof, in real-life terms, that the PCR can do that?
How was that proof
When I say proof, I don't
mean technical mumbo-jumbo.
I'm not referring to
the highly dense language these scientists use among themselves.
I'm talking about
real live human patients, and results.
After all, if the PCR is
being used to diagnose people, and if the results are being used to
count the number of coronavirus cases in various countries, and if
the number of cases forms the basis for, say, locking down the whole
of Italy in a mass quarantine…
THE TEST IS IMPORTANT,
WOULDN'T YOU SAY?
I have seen no wide-ranging proof that the PCR was ever checked
properly, when it was first introduced, to show it could do what
researchers say it can do.
WHO TESTED THE
I have come up with a process - a simple process - which will check
the veracity of the PCR.
It should have been
carried out decades ago.
The fact that it
wasn't is an enormous scandal.
Here it is.
From a hundred
patients, very small tissue samples are taken.
The PCR lab people
don't take the samples. They don't ever see the patients or know
who they are.
The lab professionals run these hundred samples through the PCR,
obtain results, and then report:
what virus did
they find in each case, and how much of that virus did they
Let's say, in six
instances, the lab techs claim they found a great amount of
virus in the patients.
Well, those patients
should be sick.
Are they? ARE THEY...???
that patients 4, 9, 32, 54, 65, and 86 all have a huge amount of
virus in their bodies."
"Interesting. Thanks. Let's see. Hmm... Turns out these people
are fit as a fiddle. Not sick. I guess your test didn't work.
It's a flop."
Or maybe the test does
work. The six patients are sick.
LET'S FIND OUT. IN THE
WORLD, NOT IN 'JOURNALS'...
That's what I mean by real-life results. No jive, no tap
There is more.
This experiment with
the hundred patients?
It should be done,
not just once, but many times. A hundred patients here at this
facility, a hundred patients there at that facility. Thirty or
forty different facilities, and thirty or forty different sets
of a hundred patients.
It should be done by
independent scientists without conflicts of interest.
It should have been done decades ago. I see no evidence that it
THE TEST WAS
NEVER PROPERLY TESTED - A GIANT SCANDAL...
Think about what that means.
Think it through.
Trace all the implications.
For example, imagine you're the political leader of a country, with
100 "reported cases of the coronavirus."
Are you going to lock
it down? Are you?
everything that's happening now in the world. Use your intelligence.
THINK IT THROUGH...!
Don't jump on the fear bandwagon. Don't jump on the "scientific" b.s.
Use your mind.
You're interested in scandals? I've just presented one. It's blaring
with a thousand trumpets, right out in the open...