“Ebola has returned.” Has it?
by Jon Rappoport
August 6, 2015
“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 vaccines 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 US 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.”
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 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 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. 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.”