Flu Outbreak Across America – Really?

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 5, 2017

The press is playing up two angles this winter: the seasonal flu vaccine may only be 10% effective; and there is an outbreak of flu across 37 states, at last count.

Underneath these claims, something far different is going on.

Dr. Peter Doshi, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), revealed the monstrosity.

As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

So they don’t have the flu.

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.

What are typical flu symptoms? Fever, chills, cough, sore throat, muscle aches, headache, fatigue. Well, these symptoms can be caused by a variety of circumstances.

Immediately calling them flu is an unwarranted assumption. And as it turns out, respiratory samples from patients, sent to labs, are going to come back with no sign of the flu, in the overwhelming percentage of cases.

But the mainstream press can’t report any of this.

It would topple the flu-treatment money machine.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Does This Make Vaccines and Prescriptions More Dangerous?

Source: iHealthTube.com
July 25, 2017

How much do you really know about potential side effects of prescription drugs and vaccines? This video with Dr. Suzanne Humphries will surprise you! You’ll be amazed at how often doctors report adverse reactions to both. This might change how you see vaccines and prescriptions.

Deep Medical Fraud: Logical Insight Cancels Brain Fog

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 29^th 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

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 29^th 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.

Shocker: Study Unwittingly Links Vaccines To Autism

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 14, 2017

Start with this:

A new study links fever in pregnant women to an increased risk of autism in their babies.

MedicalNewsToday (6/13/17): “A study of a large group of children found a link between raised risk of autism spectrum disorder and their mothers reporting fever during pregnancy. The link was strongest with fevers reported during the second trimester.”

“The study – led by the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University in New York City, NY – also found that the risk of autism increased in line with the number of fevers reported after 12 weeks of gestation – rising to 300 percent higher risk [of autism] with reports of three or more fevers.”

Next, here is a one-word item from the World Health Organization web page, Vaccine Safety Basics. The item comes under the heading of “minor vaccine reactions,” and applies to every vaccine: the reaction is FEVER.

Pregnant woman gets vaccines. Vaccines cause fevers. Fevers are linked to autistic babies.

Here is a CDC list of vaccines given to pregnant women, under various conditions: HepA, HepB, Flu, Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis), meningococcal, polio, Rabies. Fever, as a typical and minor adverse effect, would be expected and ignored for ANY AND ALL of these vaccines.

Accepting the finding of the new study, cited above—routine vaccination for pregnant women is linked to an increased risk of autism in their babies.

That’s it in a nutshell.

No doubt if you pointed out the inevitable conclusion to a doctor or a researcher, they would try to worm out of it. They would say, “Well, we’re not talking about fever resulting from vaccines. We’re talking about fever coming from an infection in the pregnant woman.” Really? Why don’t you think the vaccine is producing fever? It’s causing an infection, and the immune system is reacting. Fever is an entirely expected consequence.

Note: I’m not saying the creation of fever is the only reason vaccines cause autism and various types of neurological damage. I’m saying here is a new connection.

And mainstream medicine and the mainstream press will ignore it completely.

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 29^th 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.

Autism risk 420% higher in vaccinated children vs. non-vaccinated, published science confirms

Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
June 2, 2017

A recent study led by researchers from the School of Public Health at Jackson State University has come to some shocking conclusions about vaccinated children. Perhaps one of the most jaw-dropping finds was that vaccinated children exhibited a 420 percent higher incidence of autism when compared to non-vaccinated children — as well as a staggering increased incidence of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) in general.

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr notes, the researchers stated:

In a final adjusted model designed to test for this possibility, controlling for the interaction of preterm birth and vaccination, the following factors remained significantly associated with NDD: vaccination (OR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.6), nonwhite race (OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.4), and male gender (OR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.2, 4.4). Preterm birth itself, however, was not significantly associated with NDD, whereas the combination (interaction) of preterm birth and vaccination was associated with 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD (95% CI: 2.8, 15.5) (Table 8).

Acclaimed epidemiologist Dr. Anthony Mawson, has authored more than 50 studies and led the astonishing research. In addition to the finding of an overall increased risk of NDD, he and his team also found that there was 420 percent increased risk of both autism and ADHD in vaccinated children. Vaccinated children were also 30 times more likely to have allergic rhinitis and 2.9 times more likely to have eczema than non-vaccinated children. Vaccinated kids also exhibited a staggering 520 percent greater likelihood of having a learning disability.

But it’s not just the matter what risks are increased that is so disturbing about this study. Many proponents of vaccine propaganda are prone to disregarding these kinds of risks as being part of the “greater good,” and maintain that any risk posed by vaccination is worth it to prevent disease. But what if vaccines don’t actually decrease the risk of disease — are these risks really worth it then?

Well, Mawson and his team also examined the risk of so-called “vaccine-preventable” illnesses among vaccinated and unvaccinated children, as well. And what they found was shocking: In most cases, there was no substantial difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. [RELATED: Learn more about vaccine deception at VaccineHolocaust.org]

In the case of chicken pox and pertussis, vaccinated kids did show a statistically significant decrease in the onset of illness compared to unvaccinated children. However, in the case of influenza, mumps, measles, rubella, rotavirus, meningitis, and hepatitis A or B, there was no significant difference in incidence among vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

In other words, vaccinated children are generally just as likely to get sick as unvaccinated children. Are the risks really worth it, if vaccines don’t actually offer increased protection?

Last year, Mike Adams revealed that an FDA document for the Tripedia vaccine actually listed autism as a possible effect of vaccination. You can view the full report here. The document states:

Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.

When even the manufacturer is providing the government with information that shows a vaccine carries the risk of autism, you know it’s got to be pretty risky.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

WorldMercuryProject.com 

NaturalNews.com [PDF]

US government has already paid out $159 million in damages to vaccine injured children so far in 2017

Source: NaturalNews.com
Amy Goodrich
May 26, 2017

America has been under the spell of a vaccine hysteria due to the recent measles outbreak among unvaccinated Somali-Americans in Minnesota. Once again, vaccine skepticism and anti-vaccine activists, such as the “discredited” Dr. Andrew Wakefield, have been blamed for the outbreak that affected 48 people.

Americans are constantly told that vaccines are the safest, most effective prevention measures, only causing mild side-effects in very rare occasions. If vaccines are so safe, why has the U.S. government already paid out nearly $159 million to vaccine-injured families in 2017 alone? Since 1989, a grand total of more than $3.6 billion has been awarded to individuals and their families for injuries and deaths attributed to vaccines, according to data published by the U.S. Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA). (RELATED: Click here to view the latest report on vaccine injuries and payments made by the U.S. government for vaccine damages.)

Not many Americans, however, are aware of the existence of a vaccine fund, known as the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), that pays out claims to people and families whose loved ones were injured by vaccines. This special fund was a direct result of a law passed in 1986 that gave pharmaceutical companies total legal immunity from being sued for injuries and deaths related to vaccines.

With no risk whatsoever for vaccine manufacturers, vaccine production has gone through the roof since the initial passing of the law and the creation of the vaccine injury court. Not entirely surprising, the U.S. government is one of the largest purchasers of these vaccines, spending more than $4 billion in taxpayer dollars each year, reported Vaccine Impact.

Has fear driven us completely insane?

In the past, some vaccine proponents have suggested parents who decide not to vaccinate their children with toxic substances are criminals and should be sued or even jailed to protect public health. However, what these people are suggesting is that we keep poisoning the brains of our children while Big Pharma is laughing all the way to the bank. And they know they can get away with it since the government has their back.

Out of fear, imprinted in our brains through our family doctor, schools, and public campaigns, many Americans keep injecting their children with autism-causing substances. These people want us to believe diseases such as the flu and the measles are relentless killers, stressing once more the importance of vaccines to protect our children’s health.

Amidst the heated debate over the question of whether parents should be forced to vaccinate their child, it is often forgotten that most of these diseases aren’t so deadly after all. Between 2004 and 2010, a total of five people died of measles, according to the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) own data.

Let’s get back to the recent Minnesota measles outbreak for just a second. There are about 5.3 million people living in Minnesota, and only 48 of them got sick. Nobody died. Think of it, is the prevention of 48 cases of people contracting a rather harmless disease in healthy people worth damaging the brains of thousands of children living there?

Even though the mainstream media and government keep spreading fear or lecturing people about how the link between brain damage, autism, and vaccines has been debunked, we should know better by now. Vaccines aren’t the world’s miracle invention. On the contrary. A massive cover-up of their health risks has been ongoing for years. As a country with one of the most aggressive vaccination schedules and skyrocketing numbers of autistic children, it is time we stop ignoring the cold, hard facts and put two and two together.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NaturalNews.com^PDF

NaturalNews.com

VaccineImpact.com

NaturalNews.com

CDC.gov

SuburbanStats.org

What Causes Autism? This Explanation Might Be the Best We’ve Heard

Source: iHealthTube.com
Dr. Suzanne Humphries
May 26, 2017

Dr. Suzanne Humphries discusses the potential connection between vaccines and autism. She says there is an undeniable connection between the two, but that it does deeper than that. Find out what else is going on with most kids before they are diagnosed with autism!

Has Snopes Been Snoped? Will Retraction Watch Retract?

Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Celeste McGovern
May 22, 2017

Originally published on CMSRI.org.

The NEVER-retracted vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study that revealed significantly higher odds in risks of chronic illness among vaccinated children is back online. But will Retraction Watch admit it launched the attack to discredit it? Will Snopes fact-check itself? If not, why not?

The first-ever study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated American children (and a subset study) published two weeks ago in the peer-reviewed Journal of Translational Science have reappeared online after briefly disappearing while under fire from a small band of Skeptics and the staff at Retraction Watch, an organization that reports Science retraction news. Snopes, the fact-checking website, is still misreporting that the study has been retracted, even while it sits, published, in the science journal’s pages.

It is a troubling saga unfolding in the scientific publishing world, and it is worth paying attention to because it’s revealing of powerful forces in that realm that are trying to censor scientific research and to shield important data from public viewing. Not at all the methodical and logical sort of thing you would expect from modern scientific types.  It looks more like a secret 17th century Salem witch trial…interrupted.

Most readers here will be aware of Anthony Mawson et al.’s pivotal pilot study on the health of homeschooled American children. It is one of very few studies to examine the explosion of once rare disorders and conditions affecting modern children (all the millions of 21st century First World earaches, allergies, hayfever, ADD, neurodevelopmental disorders and autism, that is damaging young children’s brains in spiking numbers). And it is the only study (yes, the ONLY study to contain totally unvaccinated American subjects.) There are no other studies of American children who have never had a vaccine compared to kids with the motherload of CDC protection.

The researchers cautiously asked a logical, but unorthodox question: is it possible that all this immune –mediated disease has anything to do with the immune-mediating drugs that children are given in doses five times that of their parents?   (And yes, autism is brain damage but it is almost certainly the result of a damaged immune system). Could it have anything to do with the 50 doses of 15 immune-stimulating vaccines before age six compared to the three doses of three vaccines the last generation — that wasn’t so sick — got?

The researchers got some very troubling answers. They reported Odds Risk ratios similar to smoking and lung cancer for vaccination and immune-mediated allergic rhinitis, for example.  And a more than four-fold higher risk of vaccinated children having been diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum than unvaccinated children. We better have another study, the researchers concluded. A bigger and better study.

Round One: Suppressing the Study Results

Enter the Skeptics. When the Mawson paper was under review at Frontiers last year, a Skeptic named Leonid Schneider leapt into action.

“I pride myself to have caused the Frontiers anti-vaxx retraction with one tweet!” he tweeted. “The anti-vaxx paper was published as abstract, a reader alerted me, I tweeted, Frontiers got scared, pulled the paper.” Before it was published. It was never published. NEVER RETRACTED. Just tweeted away by Leonid and his Skeptic friends.

Most scientists are skeptical — they don’t like claims without evidence – but not all scientists are Skeptics. Skeptics are champions of objective scientific inquiry who fight against anything they see as irrational and unscientific, which is everything outside of pharmaceutical manufacturing interests. Functional Medicine is equal to Bigfoot to them.  They know the difference between Good Thinking and Bad Thinking and some theories (like evolution) they think are very good and some ideas, like God, are particularly bad. They don’t like religion, but Skeptics can be quite dogmatic themselves about some things. Like vaccines. According to them, all vaccines are safe and effective. No one is ever injured by vaccines. Every child is healthier because of vaccines. The epidemic of childhood disorders is caused by something that is not vaccines. Questioning vaccines is heresy.

Retraction Watch, which bills itself as “a window into the scientific process,” got a little more involved than window-watching and inaccurately reported that the study was retracted, based on a Tweet. It ignored that accepting science on its merits, and then rejecting it on Tweets from those who disagree, is in violation of the publishing code of conduct.  Not to mention that there is a big difference in the world of science between having a paper retracted – which implies scientific misconduct or gross scientific error – and having a paper declined because of disgruntled Tweets.

Frontiers publicly posts their retraction policy and affirms that they abide by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and recommendations in cases of potential retraction. Frontiers also abides by two other key principles, as recommended by COPE:

• Retractions are not about punishing authors.
• Retraction statements should be public and linked to the original, retracted article.

There was no retraction statement ever made or posted by Frontiers; therefore Retraction Watch’s statement about Dr. Mawson’s paper being retracted is inarguably false. This proven lie was used to interfere with and misconstrue Dr. Mawson’s research, resulting in a temporary removal of his article from The Journal of Translational Science pending an inquiry. Inquiry resolved, the articles have been reinstated on the journal’s website, demonstrating sufficient proof that the articles were never retracted as claimed by Retraction Watch.

Round Two: Discrediting the Study Results

Retraction Watch was again the first to misreport the retraction of the Mawson paper from the Journal of Translational Science last week. Rather than reporting on the facts, Retraction Watch took an activist role in the attempted takedown of Dr. Mawson’s research. Misconstruing and misrepresenting another scientist’s research is considered scientific misconduct. Retraction Watch still has (at the time of writing) an article posted that claims the paper has been doubly retracted. Their actions have a ripple effect, furthering the harm to Dr. Mawson and his younger colleagues, actions which are harmful to reputations, careers, and their future livelihoods. Snopes, the “fact-checking” entity, was still reporting that the papers were retracted because of methodological flaws, with only a tiny disclaimer at the bottom showing the papers restored to the Journal’s webpages. I pointed out the error to the editors and they updated the story today, without apology for inaccuracies.

Continuing to retain articles that are demonstrably and provably false on their website shows a lack of regard for the integrity and truth they espouse to protect. The public should be aware that their representations are not well researched and supported by the facts, and that the due diligence they claim to conduct in the interest of scientific integrity is not as it appears once you scratch the surface.

No answers have been forthcoming from Retraction Watch’s editor Alison Cook. She has not replied to my inquiries. Snopes founder David Mikkelson and managing editor Brooke Binkowski did not reply to messages. I did not receive explanations from the journal editors either.

The Digital Media Law Project publishes guidelines for publishing information that “harms the reputation of another person, group, or organization.” Injury to one’s reputation that stems from a falsehood is defamation, and claiming an article was retracted when it wasn’t is false, defamatory and should be corrected when notice and evidence has been provided to the author of the defamatory article. In the case of the Snopes article, the DMLP states “the republication of someone else’s words can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won’t be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to its source.”

The DMLP also advises publications to “be prompt and give your correction the same prominent position that you gave the inaccurate information you previously posted.”

Can Snopes and Retraction Watch be Trusted? 

The whole ordeal puts scientific publishing into a bad light. Can it be so easy to push editors out of publishing? Is the code of conduct meaningless? Don’t the researchers have recourse to defend their work if there are allegations against it, in a scholarly manner? Has science stooped so low, so beneath accepted standards of professionalism, that it is time to call in lawyers?

This disturbing event leaves the public bewildered. Is there something to worry about for our children’s health or not? Why did these researchers find such a high risk of autism and other disorders in vaccinated children?  What are the possible mechanisms of immune system injury from vaccination in children?

The way the Mawson study was received undermines public trust in a system that is meant to be seeking better health for humanity. It will continue to erode so long as it fails to answer these questions that our children need answers to, now.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
___________________________________________________________

The Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI) is a medical and scientific collaborative established to provide research funding for independent studies on causal factors underlying the chronic disease and disability epidemic.

Celeste McGovern is an award-winning independent journalist in Scotland. She reports on medical news, drug scandals, alternative health and more at www.ghostshipmedia.com.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

New Ebola Outbreak? Or Is It A Hoax?

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
May 22, 2017

News outlets are reporting a new Ebola outbreak in Africa. Here is a quick summary of the basic mainstream story—

The Huffington Post cites a World Health Organization (WHO) statement: four people are believed to have died from Ebola in the Congo.

There are 37 more “suspected cases.”

Discussions are underway about using an “experimental vaccine” in the Congo.

WHO has declared the Ebola outbreak an epidemic.

There is an effort to find 400 people believed to have come into contact with the “suspected cases.” Residents in the affected area of the Congo, the remote Bas-Uele province, are fleeing in fear.

That’s it so far.

I’ve been around the block on the Ebola story a dozen times. Here are the issues the press isn’t reporting—

There is one predictable outcome: at Congo clinics and hospitals, frightened people who arrive with what are labeled “early signs” of Ebola will be labeled as probable cases. What are those symptoms? Fever, chill, sore throat, cough, headache, joint pain. Sound familiar? Normally, this would just be called the flu.

Here’s another point you won’t see discussed on the mainstream news: the reliability of tests used to diagnose Ebola.

Two of those major tests—antibody and PCR—are notoriously unreliable.

Antibody tests will register positive for disease because they ping on factors that have nothing to do with the disease being looked for. And even when the test is accurate, a positive reading merely shows that the patient came in contact with the germ in question. It says nothing about whether he’s ill or is going to become ill.

In fact, before 1985, when the science was turned on its head, antibody-positive status was taken to mean the patient’s immune system had successfully warded off the germ.

The PCR test is a sophisticated way of amplifying tiny, tiny bits of what are assumed to be viral material, so they can be observed. The problem here is this: if only tiny bits of material could be found in the patient’s body in the first place, there is no reason to suppose they’re enough to cause disease. Very, very large amounts of virus are necessary to begin to suspect the patient is ill or is going to become ill.

Bottom line: huge numbers of people on whom these tests are done are going to be falsely diagnosed with Ebola.

Here is what I wrote about the Ebola outbreak of 2014 in Africa. It applies today:

Ebola, covert op in a hypnotized world, August 2, 2014:

You show people a germ and you tell them what it is and what it does, and people salute. They give in. They believe. They actually know nothing. But they believe.

The massive campaign to make people believe the Ebola virus can attack at any moment, after the slightest contact, is quite a success.

People are falling all over themselves to raise the level of hysteria.

This is what is preventing a hard look at Liberia, Sierra Leone, and the Republic Guinea, three African nations where poverty and illness are staples of everyday life for the overwhelming number of people.

The command structure in those areas has a single dictum: don’t solve the human problem.

Don’t clean up the contaminated water supplies, don’t return stolen land to the people so they can grow food and finally achieve nutritional health, don’t solve overcrowding, don’t install basic sanitation, don’t strengthen their immune systems so they can ward off germs, don’t let the people have power—because then they would throw off the local and global corporate juggernauts that are sucking the land of all its resources.

In order not to solve the problems of the people, a cover story is necessary. A cover story that exonerates the power structure.

A cover story like a germ.

It’s all about the germ. The demon. The strange attacker.

Forget everything else. The germ is the single enemy.

Forget the fact, for example, that a recent study of 15 pharmacies and 5 hospital drug dispensaries in Sierra Leone discovered the widespread and unconscionable use of beta-lactam antibiotics.

These drugs are highly toxic. One of their effects? Excessive bleeding.

Which just happens to be the scary “Ebola effect” that’s being trumpeted in the world press.

(J Clin Microbiol, July 2013, 51(7), 2435-2438), and Annals of Internal Medicine Dec. 1986, “Potential for bleeding with the new beta-lactam antibiotics”)

Forget the fact that pesticide companies are notorious for shipping banned toxic pesticides to Africa. One effect of the chemicals? Bleeding.

Forget that. It’s all about the germ and nothing but the germ.

Forget the fact that, for decades, one of the leading causes of death in the Third World has been uncontrolled diarrhea. Electrolytes are drained from the body, and the adult or the baby dies. (Diarrhea is also listed as an “Ebola” symptom.)

Any sane doctor would make it his first order of business to replace electrolytes with simple supplementation—but no, the standard medical line goes this way:

The diarrhea is caused by germs in the intestinal tract, so we must pile on massive amounts of antibiotics to kill the germs.

The drugs kill off all bacteria in the gut, including the necessary and beneficial ones, and the patient can’t absorb what little food he has access to, and he dies.

Along the way, he can also bleed.

But no, all the bleeding comes from Ebola. It’s the germ. Don’t think about anything else.

Forget the fact that adenovirus vaccines, which have been used in Liberia, Guinea, and Liberia (the epicenter of Ebola), have, according to vaccines.gov, the following adverse effects: blood in the urine or stool, and diarrhea.

No, all the bleeding comes from the Ebola germ. Of course. Don’t think about anything else.

Reporter Charles Yates uncovered a scandal in Liberia centering around the Firestone Rubber Plantation—chemical dumping, poisoned water.

And skin disease.

“Rash” is listed as one of the Ebola symptoms.

Liberia Coca Cola bottling plant: foul black liquid seeping into the environment—animals dying.

Chronic malnutrition and starvation—conditions that are endemic in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea—are the number-one cause of T-cells depletion in the world.

T-cells are a vital component of the immune system. When that system is compromised, any germ coming down the pipeline will cause epidemics and death.

Getting the picture?

But no, blame it all on the germ.

Allow the corporate-government domination to continue.

—end of my 2014 article—

There is more, but I’ll leave it there for the moment.

The mainstream story about Ebola is riddled with hoax.

It’s “blame the virus” for illness and dying that come from other obvious sources.
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 29^th 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.