Wed, Aug 12, 2015
Subject; Big Pharma Inventing Viruses
"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
But as I've shown in prior articles (note: a link to the sources in this report
is found further below), these tests (antibody, PCR) are far from accurate. Worse,
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;
"…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
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
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
…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
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
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.
You can read Rasnick's bio at his site, davidrasnick.com. 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
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
"There is the possibility that Ebola and Marburg viruses represent laboratory
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
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.
For the links to the sources of this report, click here
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
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
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.
Tags: aids virus, christine johnson, clioquinol, does hiv exist, dr frank plummer, fake virus breakouts, flu virus, hiv virus, Inventing Viruses, Robert Gallo, sars epidemic, sars virus, simon, the sars epidemic, virus hoax, viruses taking the rap for industrial poisons