In the course of an investigation, a clue can turn up that changes everything. It exposes massive falsehoods and fraud.
But the meaning of the clue doesn’t always tap the investigator on the shoulder and reveal its full implications. The force of the rational insight is on a delay mechanism, as it were.
When I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in the late 1980s, I was surrounded by much confusion. A bewildering number of facts and opinions and lies were being fed to me by various sources. I was taping notes to my walls and trying to sort out the mess of spaghetti.
One day, while I was researching the AIDS antibody test, I spoke to an official at the FDA. He mentioned that, if a vaccine were developed for HIV, anyone who received it would be given a special letter from the government. The letter would declare that if this person ever tested positive for HIV, the result should be ignored, because the antibodies that made the test turn positive were resulting from the protective vaccine, not lethal HIV in the body.
After I hung up the phone, I tried to think through what I had just heard. Something strange was going on. What was it?
About a week later, it hit me. The brain fog was gone.
The official government position implied: if an HIV vaccine were ever developed, it would stimulate antibodies to HIV in the body and thus confer protection against AIDS. But…
If an unvaccinated person, taking an HIV test, registered positive, that result would signal the presence of antibodies to HIV in the body—and THAT would mean the person had AIDS or was on the road to developing it.
However, in either case, THE ANTIBODIES WERE THE SAME.
If they were stimulated and acquired through a vaccine, that was a good sign. It meant immunity.
But if these same antibodies were acquired naturally, as a response to making contact with HIV, that was a bad sign. It meant AIDS, now, or just up the road.
Vaccine antibodies GOOD.
Natural antibodies BAD.
THE SAME ANTIBODIES.
Unintentionally implicit in the FDA spokesman’s statements was the logical walkway called reductio ad absurdum; a reduction to absurdity. In other words, if you took the FDA man’s claim about the letter a person vaccinated against HIV would carry with him—and if you thought it through and saw all the implications, you would see the whole proposal was absurd to the highest degree.
A vaccine would produce an effect, X, which would confer immunity. The body, producing the same effect, X, would signal impending disease and even death.
Medical solution GOOD.
Body’s natural solution BAD.
Time and time again in my investigations, I’ve found reductio ad absurdum to be a very good friend and ally. Aristotle originally formulated the strategy, and it has stood the time of time quite nicely.
The overall pattern is rather simple: take an assertion; understand what it claims; lay out the chain of implications that follow from the assertion; show that this chain leads to an impossible or absurd consequence. THEREFORE, reject the assertion.
It’s like following a faulty set of directions. You drive through various streets and shift from one highway to another, all in the process of finding your way home from a distant location. But the directions finally lead you to a series of barriers at the desolate end of a highway, beyond which there is no road, only a pile of construction materials and a dank dark river you’ve never seen before.
It’s not home. It’s not useful. It makes no sense. It’s reductio ad absurdum.
The idea that a HIV vaccine would confer immunity, while a person’s own body—producing the same antibodies—wouldn’t confer immunity, is preposterous.
In the years since AIDS INC. was published, I’ve written about the sea-change that has occurred in disease diagnosis and vaccine “protection.” These days, a person receiving an antibody test for ANY given disease is told he is “positive” for the disease if antibodies show up on the test. But if he receives a vaccine that produces the same antibodies, he’s told he’s immune.
It makes zero sense.
Here is a final clue. A positive antibody test is no reason to tell a person he is sick or is going to get sick. A positive test most often indicates the person’s immune system has swung into gear and neutralized the germ in question. BUT if the medical establishment decides, arbitrarily, to interpret every positive test as a sign of illness, then many, many more people can be diagnosed with diseases. And then…
They can be treated with drugs.
And then, pharmaceutical cash registers ring like crazy with profits.
Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.