Deep Medical Fraud: Logical Insight Cancels Brain Fog

FakeNews

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 28, 2017

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
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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.

Zika, HIV: The Abstract Vs. The Concrete In The Pursuit Of Logic

TruthFact
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 26, 2017

Medical Warning: this article may require THINKING. Ask your doctor if thinking is right for you.

When a philosopher has no more room to move and finds his back up against a cold wall in the middle of the night, he usually throws up his hands and surrenders his abstract position to concrete interests (like money, position, and power). I watched this happen in the late 1980s, when I saw my first book, AIDS INC., come into print.

The book took on CAUSATION, one of the interests of both the medical and philosophical profession. My investigation centered on: how do you decide a particular germ causes a particular disease?

I won’t bother going into all the details here. Suffice it to say, when I contacted a few academic folks I knew from my days as a college student studying philosophy, they shut their eyes tight and pretended they were having a bad dream, nothing more. They built a wall of silence. You see, asking them for a comment about causation was now treading on medical territory—far more real than the realm of their usual philosophical fiddling. If it turned out the entire medical cartel was tap dancing and faking a concept of causation, in order to falsely blame certain viruses for causing certain (high-profit) diseases, THAT was a scandal of immense proportions. And these academic philosophers wanted no part of it. They didn’t want to see their cozy positions in ivory towers ripped asunder. They didn’t want the concrete to intrude on the abstract. It was all well and good to cite Hume and Ayer and various logicians on the issue of causation, when nothing was at stake, but to move forward into a world where, depending on your view of cause and effect, some people made billions of dollars while other people died unnecessarily…that was out of the question. Therefore, my book was “reckless.” Therefore: no comment. Therefore: “Leave us alone. We never meant for you to grab these ideas and actually use them, logically, to shake up the invisible power structure. You’re doing something unseemly. You’re reflecting badly on us. You’re endangering reputations.”

Aha.

Do not upset apple carts. Do not expose crimes.

In my book, AIDS INC., I performed an obscene act. I implied that, by any reasonable standard of cause and effect, HIV had never been proved to cause the condition called AIDS. I was suddenly a philosopher with a weapon. I was shining a light in a cave where researchers were plundering logic to fake a proof. And, to continue the exercise, I was therefore demonstrating that AIDS was not one condition at all. It was an array of circumstances that produced, in different ways, in different people, the destruction of the immune system—and if you wanted to heal THAT, you had to find, in each afflicted person, what had attacked his immune system (not HIV), and then you had to try to reverse that affliction. In doing so, you could save lives. If, on the other hand, you persisted with the HIV myth, and utilized highly toxic drugs like AZT, you would kill people. Many people.

But the “philosophers” I approached saw no benefit in examining that investigation. The benefit (to them) was in ignoring it.

I would have welcomed an honest debate. But no offer was forthcoming.

I already knew, from my college years, that the walled off Territory of the Abstract was its own province; but this experience with my book, in 1988, was the last straw.

I was trying to approach cowards.

Unfettered, reasoned free speech was not their aim.

Up to a point, advanced education exists. But when you go beyond that point, you’re in the Empty Quarter. You’re staring at a vast parched desert.

Turn around. Walk away. You’re on your own. Your education now takes on a completely different cast. You learn how to apply analysis and do investigation independently.

That process, speaking from experience, is exhilarating.

The mines, and the caves in them, contain gold.

Here’s a quick contemporary analysis of causation: the Zika virus. In a nutshell, Brazilian researchers, working at “ground zero of the purported microcephaly (birth defect) outbreak,” declared Zika to be the cause. However, they admitted—before they cut off all communication on the subject—that traces of Zika could only be found in roughly 15% of babies with microcephaly. This correlation was astonishingly weak.

No matter what version of cause and effect you might favor, there is no way under the sun you can conclude that Zika causes microcephaly, when it can’t be found in 85% of cases.

Any honest researcher will tell you this is a reason to reject Zika as the cause and go back to the drawing board.

But that hasn’t happened. In fact, several groups are conducting studies on a Zika vaccine. They’re plunging forward.

One of these candidate-vaccines delivers synthesized genes into the body…where the genes…permanently alter the recipient’s DNA.

In this case, lying about causation leads to unbridled tinkering with populations’ genetic structure.

But why should academic philosophers care about that? They’re in their safe world, apart from, what shall we call it, LIFE.

HIV faced a similar problem that Zika does. Researchers correlated a diagnosis of AIDS with a positive HIV antibody test: many people who tested positive were later diagnosed with AIDS. There was a problem, however. The HIV antibody test will register positive for at least 60 reasons that have nothing to do with the presence of HIV in the body.

Independent researcher Christine Johnson documented this fact. Her classic investigation has been reprinted at aliveandwell.org. Here is just a partial list of factors that will cause an HIV antibody test to read positive for reasons that have nothing to do with HIV:

1. Anti-carbohydrate antibodies (52,19,13)
2. Naturally-occurring antibodies (5,19)
3. Passive immunization: receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies) (18, 26, 60, 4, 22, 42, 43, 13)
4. Leprosy (2, 25)
5. Tuberculosis (25)
6. Mycobacterium avium (25)
7. Systemic lupus erythematosus (15, 23)
8. Renal (kidney) failure (48, 23, 13)
9. Hemodialysis/renal failure (56, 16, 41, 10, 49)
10. Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients (54)
11. Flu (36)
12. Flu vaccination (30, 11, 3, 20, 13, 43)
13. Herpes simplex I (27)
14. Herpes simplex II (11)
15. Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu) (11)
16. Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines (11)
17. Prior pregnancy (58, 53, 13, 43, 36, 65)

Fake causation. It’s a big one.

There is much, much more to the HIV story (including serious doubts about whether HIV actually exists). But you get the general idea. The correlation between HIV and AIDS is irreparably weak…

I had a brief conversation about this with an academic philosophy professor. It went this way:

—So, Professor, you see that this is an issue of causation. If the correlation is very weak, the whole assumption of causation fails.

—Well, I don’t know about that. Other factors could be involved.

—Such as?

—That’s the whole point. We don’t know what the other factors are.

—We know enough. If researchers are going to say a particular virus causes a particular disease, they have to establish, at minimum, strong correlation. They have to prove, for starters, that the virus is present in the overwhelming percentage of cases of the disease.

—So this is the kind of thing you’ve been doing since you graduated from school?

—Yes.

—I think you need to reassess your approach.

—Why?

—Disease causation is an issue best left to medical experts.

—Why?

—It’s their field.

That’s where the conversation ended.

Beautiful, just beautiful.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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.

The Benefits Of Open-Minded Skepticism: A Foray Into Virology

believnothingTheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
September 7, 2016

“The best protection against propaganda of any sort is the recognition of it for what it is.  Only hidden and undetected oratory is really insidious.  What reaches the heart without going through the mind is likely to bounce back and put the mind out of business.  Propaganda taken in that way is like a drug you do not know you are swallowing.  The effect is mysterious; you do not even know afterwards why you feel or think the way you do.”
– Mortimer J. Adler & Charles Van Doren, How To Read A Book, pg. 194.

News and the truth are not the same thing...”
– Walter Lippman

About two years ago, Ebola propaganda began growing quite considerably.  Predictably, the mainstream media manipulation machine ran rampant with fear of every shade in the spectrum.  Similarly, now the mainstream media is lathering Zika propaganda quite saliently.

In any case, being open-minded, this was cause for concern.  However, being a skeptic, my suspicious meter went into the red zone because information like this is always presented as if the issue at hand is a slam-dunk, concrete, case-closed issue.  Thankfully, experience has taught me rarely is that ever the case.

Being naturally curious, the thought came to me to examine what others might have said regarding this bothersome subject.  This is where independent reporter Jon Rappoport from NoMoreFakeNews.com & JonRappoport.wordpress.com comes in.

Rappoport’s been doing investigative work into the field of health for decades now, and he’s put out quality verifiable information at every turn, which is greatly appreciated in the age of media spin.

Nigh two years ago, he wrote a piece entitled:

Bombshell: Scientists Finds No Reliable Evidence Ebola Virus Ever Isolated From A Human Being

In it, Rappoport presented information shared by Dr. Rasnick, Ph.D., where Rasnik questioned the veracity of the Ebola virus.

Rappoport sunk his teeth into the heart of the matter:

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 reply from the CDC as of this date.]

“Virtually everything that is known and done with these viruses is in animals and cell culture.” [Bold Emphasis Added]

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.” [Bold Emphasis Added]

Rasnick’s findings are a direct challenge the foundation of the establishment, the basis of what was the whole “Ebola outbreak.” If indeed the Ebola virus has never been isolated from a human being, the so-called epidemic was unproven.

At the outset, that will sound shocking to many.  That is because the media is often viewed as the gatekeepers of reality, and thus, infallible. This is why people rarely ever question the media. In fact, many will often reference the media as their source, rather than doing some of their own investigation.

Soon after reading Rappaport’s interview of Rasnick, things just got even more interesting.

The mainstream media was stating that the sky was falling and the Ebola plague was coming [1].  Heck, even the alternative media was falling all over themselves in many instances.  Not many people were taking investigations further.  This seemed quite bothersome.  This is why Rappoport’s piece stood out.

For starters, it wasn’t lathered in fear.  His investigation followed a pattern of logic.

Secondly, as Rappaport, Dr. Mercola and others have shown, the media’s history regarding pandemic scares that never pan out did not start at Ebola.

Third, every time the word pandemic is thrown in media, it generates fear, which could potentially generate tens of millions in profits for Big Pharma and their vaccinations, which is another motive to keep in mind as to the propaganda.

For me, further investigation was warranted.  This is where an insatiable appetite at getting to the truth came in handy.

Not being one to like being lied too, it was apparent that to further buttress my understanding of the matter, some additional books would have to be read.  The books below[2] are the ones that were chosen to me at the time right after Rappoport’s article became known to me.

OMS.jpg
Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola, Accident Or Intentional?  By Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz
The Great Bird Flu Hoax by Dr. Mercola
Aids Inc. by Jon Rappoport
AIDS & The Doctors Of Death: An Inquiry Into The Origins Of The AIDS Epidemic by Dr. Alan Cantwell Jr. M.D.
Inventing The AIDS Virus by Scientist Peter H. Duesberg

Reading the books above set depth charges at the foundation of everything that ever stood for “fact” from the media.   The word staggering doesn’t even begin to describe what was found in those books.

It was as if many months of examination into this mystery led to this keen instance lucidity.

To make several long stories short, what the authors in the books made clear in their examination of the evidence of viruses in each of their respective books that tackled AIDS, Ebola & Bird Flu, was that what we as a society know about virology is not only fraught with issues, but it’s laden in immense deception, and downright fraud.

In many instances, viruses are stated as being the cause for issues[3], when the isolation process of them has never taken place, as Rappoport has shown of Rasnick’s work above.

What the above instance has taught me is to question everything that comes my wayBy keeping open-minded skepticism as an ace in the hole, its helped me have parameters to follow when the media claims there’s a certain problem taking place.

At any rate, this is an example.  You, the reader, are not being asked to believe any of it. In fact, don’t believe one iota. 

Do yourself a favor, and research whatever topic comes your way, or is in your interest.  The second someone takes information at face value is the second they become hooked to the narrative, without ever having done any leg work.  And that’s when individuals become cash cows for corporations and the establishment exacerbating fear.

Only by vetting what information passes muster will you be able to see how the deception takes place.

Don’t sell yourself short.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Watch for Zika propaganda to ramp up especially as more ‘cases’ are found even though Zika has been known to be around for decades without causing any major issues.
[2] Notice, going to one source wasn’t good enough.  When attempting to delve deeply into the core of the matter its vital to collate data from various sources to make a thorough syntopical analysis.
[3] Please keep in mind, what is being said is not that people aren’t getting sick whatsoever.  Some of the people experiencing symptoms could easily be experiencing side effects from herbicides/pesticides/insecticides/et al.  [Example Here]  That’s not something that’s ever considered though, because it blows the cover on the whole issue.

[Book Review] The Medical Mafia – Dr. Guylaine Lanctot, M.D.

MM

TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
August 9, 2016

There aren’t many doctors who have historically spoken out against the Medical Industrial Complex, but Dr. Guylaine Lanctot is one of them.  For that, she should be applauded greatly.

The Medical Mafia is not what the usual medical book will be like.  In that lies its strength.

Dr. Lanctot makes takes a multidimensional approach to show almost every corrupt level within the medical establishment, ranging from one side in the spectrum of disease, all the way to the level of individual healing is being controlled by the Medical Mafia.  This level would also entails corruption, how the A.M.A. doesn’t serve the health of the people, how Rockefeller interests took control of health in the earliest 20th century, as well as much more.

The author lays down the gauntlet against all components in the medical system that have served only to bleed people dry of money, health, while also maintain the status quo.  The author makes it a point to show why the medical structure is fraught with issues, and also outlines many ways individuals can take charge of their health once again.

For a book that’s a couple of decades old, this book is more important now than ever.  With preventable medical mistakes costing hundreds of thousands of lives and maiming hundreds of thousands more PER YEAR, it’s time for people to rethink their paradigm of disease we have acquiesced too.

The whole notion of a ‘Medical Mafia’ will stir some people the wrong way, but the enormous amount of evidence compiled in this book, as well as many other makes it undeniable.

As Dr. Lanctot notes within the book:

“In 1978, the Officer of Technology Assessment conducted a major study on scientific medicine and presented its results to Congress.  It concluded that 80% to 90% of treatments used in scientific medicine have not be proven by clinically-controlled studies.  In other words they were being used and taught extensively despite the fact that they were not scientifically proven.”[P173]

Furthermore:

“In 1985, the National Academy of Science repeated the same study.  With the same results.”[P173]

The book is so overloaded with truth, that Dr. Lanctot actually lost her license because of it.  Censorship knows no bounds unfortunately.

Within the land of profits over health, corruption reigns, and when one sounds the alarm on the system, there’s usually hell to pay.  Dr. Lanctot is not the only one either.

The extremely unique way the author tackles how the issue of corruption within the medical establishment takes place is quite notable.  The fact that the author also touched upon the history of medicine was quite refreshing as well.  The author touches upon not only the Flexner Report, but also the Declaration of Alma Ata.  Predictably speaking, Globalist Rockefeller interests are all over these issues.

Other topics discussed quite well by the author regard Cancer, Vaccines, as well AIDS.  These topics are addressed incisively and will leave the reader quite curious, if not downright furious about what’s taking place.

Most importantly though, the fact that Dr. Lanctot made it a point to take a detached, practical and reasonable approach to how individuals can take back their health makes the book quite exceptional.

As a bonus, the list of resources in the back is stellar!  There’s dozens of books from different topics that the reader might want to look into.  As an avid researcher, this was greatly appreciated.

This book is an absolute indispensable masterpiece within the field of health and is an essential tool to understanding how an individual can navigate within the current for-profit and not for-health medical system.

What You’ll Never Read About Virus-Research Fraud

QuestionEverything2
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
August 8, 2016

There are very few investigators on the planet who are interested in this subject. I am one of them. There is a reason why.

In many articles, I’ve written about the shocking lack of logic in the curriculum of advanced centers of learning. When I attended college, I was fortunate to have a professor who taught logic, and taught it in a way that appealed to the minds of his students. In other words, for those of us who cared, we could not only absorb the subject matter, we could think with it; for example, we could approach an area of knowledge and track it back to its most basic premises. And then we could check those premises and see whether they were true and correct. If they were incorrect, we could then challenge many accepted notions that followed from those basic untruths.

That is one of the payoffs of being able to deploy logic.

With this introduction, let me bring up the issue of disease-causation. How do researchers decide that a given virus causes a given condition?

There are many twists and turns involved in answering the question, but before being able to engage in such a discussion, a more basic factor has to be considered:

Has the virus in question ever been isolated and identified? More simply, has it ever been found?

Obviously, in order to eventually say virus A causes condition B, you have to know you’ve found, discovered, isolated virus A from some tissue sample removed from a human being.

I’m not talking about tests run on people in 2016, to decide whether they have virus A. I’m talking about the first time, the first time ever a researcher said, “I’ve found a virus we’ve never seen before. I’m calling it virus A.”

So, for example, with all the chatter about people with Ebola in recent years, the question would be: when was the first time a researcher said, “We’ve verified the existence of a virus we’ve never seen before, and we’re calling it Ebola.”

When was that, and by what procedure was this discovery made?

For many people, it’s unthinkable that scientists would say a given virus is causing many people to fall ill—and yet that virus had never really been isolated and identified—but who knows what you find out when you go down the rabbit hole?

Let’s consider HIV, the purported cause of AIDS. Independent reporter Christine Johnson conducted a magnificent and shocking rabbit-hole interview 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 and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…” The interview was titled: Does HIV Exist?

I’ll highlight part of the exchange, because it’s so telling and instructive. Keep in mind that what Eleni Papadopulos is saying about HIV could apply to any virus — including zika.

The interview takes up a few complex procedures, but if you read through it several times, you should be able to sort out the key points:

Christine Johnson (CJ): Does HIV cause AIDS?

Eleni Papadopulos (EP): There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.

CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?

EP: 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. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]

CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.

EP: 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?

EP: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.

CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.

EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.

The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.

That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.

CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?

EP: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.

CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?

EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [electron microscope photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.

CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.

EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
__________________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Bill Gates & George Soros Fund Monsanto & A World Depopulation Agenda

Eugenics
Source: NaturalNews.com
S.D. Wells
August 6, 2016

Hitler had a depopulation agenda which he kept under wraps, until so many millions of people disappeared that the world started figuring out what was happening. What if he had come right out and announced his plan to create a master race and eliminate everyone else by shooting them in the head with two bullets, starving them to death, or putting them in gas chambers?

How many people around the world would have supported him and said they liked the idea of getting rid of all the “undesirables” and blaming them for all the world’s problems?

Well, Bill Gates and George Soros are also all about depopulation, but there’s no way they’re going to come right out and say it … or has Bill already done so? What if you found out right now, by video, that Bill Gates, along with his partner in crime, are planning on reducing the world’s population by about 5 billion over the next decade, and that they plan on using vaccines and genetically modified food to do so? Here it is.

United States citizens underestimate the devastating power of consuming pesticides daily. Sure, most Americans say they want labels on GMOs, but they’re not getting them anytime soon, so now what? Also, most Americans believe vaccines are a good idea for combating infectious disease, and two out of every three people get a flu shot yearly, but do they know what the typical ingredients are and what chronic damage they’re really doing to their brains and nervous, immune and reproductive systems?

Bill Gates and George Soros know. These two super rich white dudes are not trying to save poor people in Africa, or India or Brazil. They don’t care at all about the health of underprivileged societies, but what they do care about is making sure these folks can’t reproduce, and that if they do reproduce, they are creating deformed, severely autistic, cancer-ridden beings that won’t reproduce or even lead productive lives, but rather cost their parents all of their earnings and savings just to care for them.

Bill Gates has spoken at a TED conference saying he can reduce the world population by billions using vaccines. How so? If vaccines supposedly prevent infectious disease, how does that equate to killing off people or keeping them from multiplying? Great question.

South African ‘test and treat’ mass HIV experimentation begins with funding from Bill Gates

As of 2016, it’s approximated that 7 million people in South Africa have HIV, with over 300,000 new cases arising every year. Of those, nearly 200,000 die each year from an AIDS related death, usually because their immune systems are next to non-existent, so anything from a head cold to the flu could drive them into their graves. What else could “kill off” these “undesirables?” Vaccines that contain known neurotoxins and heavy metal toxins. It’s called eugenics, and some tall white guys are running the show. “Trials” are underway, and Bill Gates, the ultimate population control promoter and self-declared philanthropist, is pumping money into the pharma labs to concoct an AIDS vaccine.

Zika hoax, Bill Gates’ GM mosquitoes, mass media propaganda scare, followed by mass DNA vaccination agenda

The CDC defines DNA vaccines as “purified plasmid preparations containing one or more DNA sequences capable of inducing and/or promoting an immune response against a pathogen,” yet there is no proof that this really works as stated, and research shows that when these sequences are injected they can cause “insertional mutagenesis,” which means gene and cell mutations can result – and that’s also the definition of carcinogenesis, or “cancer.” Care to turn off your tumor suppressor genes? Bill Gates and George Soros would love it if you did. That could help reduce the world population “problem” they are so righteously battling for us.

Could these novel sounding DNA vaccines actually create human tolerance to pathogens instead of immunity? Why would billionaires who support and promote cancer-causing, pesticide-laden GM food support a vaccine that creates immunity? It wouldn’t make sense. That would be like breeding and releasing millions of poisonous snakes while creating and promoting anti-venom inoculation.

Watch out for hoax vaccines that contain neurotoxins. Ask your naturopathic physician if the highly experimental, untested and dangerous Zika, HIV, Ebola, Anthrax, HPV, Swine Flu, MMR and DNA vaccines are “right for you” and your children.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

Nature.com

TruthWiki.org

NaturalNews.com

TruthWiki.org

TruthWiki.org

TruthWiki.org

Invisible Microparticles In Food Can Deliver Vaccines, Drugs

I compare a patent application with what at least one company can deliver to the unknowing public now.

QuestionEverything
NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
June 12, 2016

Thanks to researcher Mary Baker for showing me an explosive patent application and its implications.

Before getting to the details, the overview is this: a technology exists to embed tiny invisible particles in food products, and these particles can deliver nutrients and drugs and vaccines. Apparently, the technology has existed for at least 10 years. Yet, as Baker states, when have you seen a food label that mentions such particles?

Are we to assume the technology hasn’t yet been applied? Is it operating at a stealth level? I’ll try to answer these questions in a minute. But first:

US Patent application ‘US20080044481 A1’. “Microparticles for oral delivery.” May 27, 2005. The inventor and assignee is listed as Mordechai Harel, who was associated with Advanced BioNutrition Corporation of Columbia, Maryland. Here are a group of quotes from the patent application. The statements leave no doubt about the wide, wide application of the technology.

“The particles described herein can be used to deliver bioactive agents (e.g., nutrients, drugs, vaccines, antibodies, and the like), bacteria (e.g., probiotic bacteria), smaller particles, or substantially any other material to the animal.”

“The particles described herein can be prepared and used as free-flowing dry powders, slurries, suspensions, and the like, and are useful for delivering to an animal a drug, a pesticide, a nutrient, a vaccine, a smaller particle, or substantially any other composition that can be contained in the particles. The particles are thus suitable for use in human food products, animal feeds (e.g., pet foods and farmed animal diets), therapeutic compositions (e.g., drugs), prophylactic compositions (e.g., vaccines, antibiotics, and probiotic bacterial preparations), and pest control products among other products.”

“A ‘particle’ is a discrete piece of a (homogeneous or heterogeneous) material having a maximum dimension not greater than 5000 micrometers.”

“Furthermore, when the microparticles are to be used as components of a food product, it can be desirable that the microparticles are not visible.”

“The particles described herein can be used to deliver substantially any chemical species, combination of chemicals, cell, or other piece of matter that can be incorporated into the particle to a component of an animal. All such items are referred to herein as ‘bioactive’ compositions, regardless of what the utility of the composition is. Bioactive compositions include, for example, pharmaceutical compositions or compounds, nutraceutical compositions or compounds, nutritional components, probiotic bacteria, bacteriophages, viruses, flavorants, fragrances, detergents or other surface-active compositions.”

“Examples of these [deliverable micro] agents include antibiotics, analgesics, vaccines, anti-inflammatory agents, antidepressants, anti-viral agents, anti-tumor agents, enzyme inhibitors, formulations containing zidovudine, proteins or peptides (such as vaccines, antibodies, antimicrobial peptides), enzymes, (e.g., amylases, proteases, lipases, pectinases, cellulases, hemicellulases, pentosanases, xylanases, and phytases), liposomes, aromatic nitro and nitroso compounds and their metabolites, HIV protease inhibitors, viruses, and steroids, hormones or other growth stimulating agents, pesticides, herbicides, germicides, biocides, algicides, rodenticides, fungicides, insecticides, antioxidants, plant and animal growth promoters, plant and animal growth inhibitors, preservatives, nutraceuticals, disinfectants, sterilization agents, catalysts, chemical reactants, fermentation agents, foods, animal feeds, food or animal feed supplements, nutrients, flavors, colors, dyes, cosmetics, drugs, vitamins, sex sterilants, fertility inhibitors, fertility promoters, air purifiers, microorganism attenuators, nucleic acids (e.g., RNA, DNA, PNA, vectors, plasmids, ribozymes, aptamers, dendrimers, and the like), antioxidants, phytochemicals, hormones, vitamins (such as vitamins A, B1, B2, B6, B12; C, D, E, and K, pantothenate, and folic acid), pro-vitamins, carotenoids, minerals (such as calcium, selenium, magnesium salts, available iron, and iron salts), microorganisms (such as bacteria, such as probiotics, lactobacilli, fungi, and yeast), prebiotics, trace elements, essential and/or highly unsaturated fatty acids (such as omega-3 fatty acids, and mid-chain triglycerides), nutritional supplements, enzymes (such as amylases, proteases, lipases, pectinases, cellulases, hemicellulases, pentosanases, xylanases, and phytases), pigments, amino acids, agriculturally useful compositions to either prevent infestation (such as herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, mixtures thereof) or to promote growth (such as hormones, fertilizers, or other growth stimulating agents), flavorants, and fragrances.”

I’d say that’s a wide range of application, wouldn’t you?

Did you notice, among the blizzard of compounds deliverable through invisible microparticles, the drug called zidovudine? That’s AZT, a chemo medicine used to treat AIDS patients. To say AZT is toxic would be a vast understatement. It destroys the ability of cells to replicate. And back in 2005, it was mentioned as a drug that can be delivered in food.

So is this technology being applied? Do we, in fact, have these microparticles and their bioactive components in our food?

Let’s go back to the 2005 patent application. As I mentioned, the inventor, Mordechai Harel, was associated with a company, Advanced BioNutrition Corporation. On the company’s website, we find a link to a scientific paper co-authored by Roger Drewes, who became the company’s chief science officer in 2010 (“A novel targeted delivery technology for protecting sensitive bioactive compounds…”). This is an interesting paper. Here is some of the language in the paper. Does any of it remind you of quotes from the 2005 patent application? The paper mentions a novel and proprietary “delivery technology,” MicroMax, which “protect[s] sensitive bioactive compounds through food manufacturing processes.” Also mentioned: a “formulation containing natural polymers surrounding the probiotic bacteria or other biologically active materials…” The probiotic bacteria “remain quiescent while retaining their activity for a long period of time under challenging…gastric conditions…[MicroMax was tested using] bacteria, essential oils, vitamins, enzymes, pigments, and even vaccines in a variety of food and feed products…and the microparticles were sieved to deliver the desired particle range…” [emphasis added]

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_________________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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.