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.

[Book Review] AIDS Inc. – Scandal Of The Century by Jon Rappoport

AIJR
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
June 9, 2016

In his usual top-down, pull no punches fashion, Jon Rappoport dives into the deep end of Big Medica territory and sets enough depth charges to shake the very strata of conventional medicine.

Rappoport’s regular readers already know what kind of investigative reporter he is.

For those that don’t know, Rappoport [NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com] is the type of person that won’t back down when he sees something amyss.  That says A LOT in our era of controlled, cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all, mainstream media manipulation reality that’s been carved for us all.  To that end, Rappoport stands clear above the rest, bringing credibility to countless issues that truly need it.

Another great appeal from this researcher is that he’s not a fear-monger.  Rappoport tells it how it is, which is how it should be – even though some people don’t like to be told the truth – but also relentlessly brings about core issues to the individual level.

As if that were not enough, Rappoport also shows us how important it is for individuals, cognizant of their endless imagination which he speaks about at length, to unleash their creative consciousness to solve any type of issues as well as creating their very reality.

In fact, one could argue all of Rappoport’s work is about showing individuals what reality TRULY is about, and what the individual can unleash to help crack that reality egg, and create a new one from the ground up.

In that sense, AIDS Inc. – Scandal Of The Century by Jon Rappoport is one of those books whose main thesis is so audacious, so phenomenal that it make you question the very fabric of reality.

Why so?

Because it challenges everything we’ve ever known about viruses.

Because it goes places no one would ever dream lies would come from within the mainstream media establishment.

Because the work of Robert Gallo, who was the person that claimed to have found the cause of AIDS, comes into question in an extremely disturbing manner.

Rappoport, in his usual no-holds-barred approach, shows that Gallo’s work regarding viruses wasn’t as ironclad as he would have liked us to believe.  In fact, his work wasn’t ironclad in no way shape or form.

In order to be able to prove that HIV is the cause of AIDS, Gallo should have been able to isolate HIV constantly – EVERY SINGLE TIME.  This was not the case however.

Through his research, Rappoport shows us that not only do many scientists disagree with the mainstream official scenario regarding AIDS, but one in particular was even willing to go on record.

Peter Deusberg.

Duesberg, who is a molecular biologist and is the author of Inventing The AIDS Virus was interviewed at length by Rappoport, and sung like a canary.

Duesberg not only is in thorough disagreement with the official AIDS theory, which is a complete fabrication, but also notes the issues with Gallo’s work, the NIH’s warped view of viruses as well as other issues with virology and such.  That excerpt by Rappoport of the interview with Deusberg alone is worth the price of the book.

Additionally, as Rappoport touches upon a few times, and Deusberg mentions in the interview, the health decline experienced by the individuals who were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS have other causal factors. 

If folks are still having trouble believing what might be possible once the veil of lies is pierced, we’ll quote a small passage from the book to outline the crux of the issue.

To quote the man himself, Rappoport:

“Traditionally, in order to establish that a germ causes a condition, medical researchers invoke what are called Koch’s postulates.

These postulates describe a formula:  From people with a given disease, remove the same germ in every case; then inject this germ into animals and in every case bring about all the symptoms of the disease.

Having accomplished this, one says that germ A causes disease B.

With HIV, this has not been done.  First, depending on which study you read, you find HIV itself has been isolated in roughly 50-80% of those people diagnosed with full-blown AIDS.   Second about a hundred chimps in the US, held in sterile isolation chambers, have been injected with high volumes of HIV.  Two chimps immediately developed infected lymph glands; this condition lasted for thirty weeks and then returned to normal.  In those two chimps, no new symptoms then appeared.  In all the other chimps, no AIDS-like symptoms developed at all.”  [1][Bold Emphasis Added]

As individuals can see, if AIDS/HIV operated as the establishment claims it did, the above should not be possible.

If that’s not bad enough, as Rappoport has noted quite often in his website and has spoken about quite a few times, the Elisa & Western Blot tests that are used to verify HIV have their inherent flaws.  In fact, the tests could end up positive for reasons not connected to HIV whatsoever.  Hear that?  That’s more depth charges going of.

Unfortunately ,the issue doesn’t start and end with HIV/AIDS.  This pervasive dilemma has actually evolved.

Ebola and the Zika virus are now being brought to the forefront for ultra-fearmongering  in the same manner.  Predictably, if one sifts deep through the data with a fine-toothed comb, allegations of people being diagnosed with these viruses are fraught with issues.  And as we’ve learned from the HIV/AIDS smokescreen, the health issues that the individuals are experiencing with Ebola/Zika can be explained by other factors that are not virus-related.

Now you have to ask yourself, if we’ve been lied to about all THAT, what ELSE have we been lied to about?

_________________________________________________________________

Source:

[1] Jon Rappoport, AIDS Inc. – Scandal Of The Century, p. 83

Virus Fakery:My Conversation With A White House Insider

TruthLies

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
April 19, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

There are a number of cases in which a virus is said to be the cause of a disease—but the evidence doesn’t stand up.

I first realized this in 1987. I was writing my book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century.

Robert Gallo, who claimed he had found the cause of AIDS, hadn’t done proper work. From everything I read, he had discovered HIV in 35 to 60 percent of AIDS patients he had studied.

He should have been able to isolate HIV in virtually every patient.

Then there was the fact that the most popular tests for HIV, the Elisa and Western Blot, were fatally flawed. They could register positive for a whole host of reasons that had nothing to do with HIV.

And no one had found sufficient quantities of HIV in humans to justify claiming it caused any kind of illness.

My own research into the so-called high-risk groups revealed that the immune suppression in those groups could be explained by factors other than a virus.

(Note: All my research at that time assumed HIV existed. Since then, several researchers, including the Perth Group, have made compelling arguments that the existence of HIV was never demonstrated.)

As I was winding up the final draft of AIDS INC., I spoke, off the record, with a well-known and well-respected mainstream virologist at a large US university. I expressed my conclusions about HIV.

He spoke, first, about the difficulties in making an absolute decision about a virus as the cause of a disease.

I brought the conversation back to HIV.

He paused. Then he repeated that he couldn’t go on the record. I asked him why.

He said HIV was a subject fraught with problems. Politics were involved.

He said he and his colleagues were taking a pass on getting into a dispute about the virus. They were aware that the science was shaky. They just didn’t want to go near it. They might enter into other arguments about other kinds of research, but as far as they were concerned, HIV was off-limits.

His obvious implication was: careers were on the line.

Attacking HIV as the cause of AIDS could result in blacklisting.

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.