CDC “Spider” Scientists Attack The CDC, Blow The Lid Off

corruption3
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 15, 2017

There is a group of anonymous scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control—they call themselves the Spider Group—Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research. They have penned a letter to the CDC’s chief of staff, Carmen S. Villar:

Here is the explosive accusation they make:

“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”

“Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right.”

“We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”

I have written at length about another whistleblower at the CDC, William Thompson, a long-time researcher who, in August of 2014, confessed in writing to massive fraud (archive here). He admitted that, in a study on the safety of the MMR vaccine, he and his colleagues literally threw vital sheets of data into a garbage can. The study then gave a free pass to the vaccine, claiming it had no connection to autism—when in fact it did. Thompson is the subject of the film, Vaxxed (trailer).

Now with this letter, we see that other scientists at the CDC are blowing the lid off internal corruption at their Agency.

If, in fact, President-elect Trump gives the green light for an independent investigation of the CDC, as press outlets are now reporting, and if he appoints Robert Kennedy Jr. to head up that panel, as Kennedy claims, we are going to see a large number of hidden facts emerge from the secretive halls of the CDC.

Because this Spider Group is anonymous, I wanted to make sure their letter is real. I contacted reporter Carey Gillam (twitter), who has been covering the story. I received this reply: “I was able to authenticate the letter by contacting CDC’s public affairs office and asking them directly about it after I received it from internal CDC sources.”

You can read the full Spider Group’s letter here at US Right To Know. (More on the letter by Carey Gillam here.)

And now I write a letter to them, so they can deepen their investigation.

Dear Spider Group:

I commend you on making an important start. You’re on the right road. As a reporter who has covered the CDC for many years, I offer you three suggestions. This short list is by no means exhaustive. I’m just pointing to a few areas where your own research will yield very rich and fertile results.

ONE: SWINE FLU FRAUD.

Let me take you back to the late summer of 2009, and the Swine Flu epidemic, which was hyped to the sky by the CDC. The Agency was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine. Remember?

The problem was, the CDC was concealing a scandal.

At the time, star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, was working on a Swine Flu story. She discovered that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases of the illness—while, of course, continuing to warn Americans about its unchecked spread.

The CDC’s main job is counting cases and reporting the numbers.

What was the Agency up to?

Here is an excerpt from my 2014 interview with Sharyl Attkisson:

Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?

Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.

—end of interview excerpt—

It was routine for doctors all over America to send blood samples from patients they’d diagnosed with Swine Flu, or the “most likely” Swine Flu patients, to labs for testing. And overwhelmingly, those samples were coming back with the result: not Swine Flu, not any kind of flu.

That was the big secret. That’s what the CDC was hiding. That’s why they stopped reporting Swine Flu case numbers. That’s what Attkisson had discovered. That’s why she was shut down.

But it gets even worse.

Because about three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.

Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).

Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.

In the summer of 2009, the CDC secretly stops counting Swine Flu cases in America, because the overwhelming percentage of lab tests from likely Swine Flu patients shows no sign of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.

There is no Swine Flu epidemic.

Then, the CDC estimates there are 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US.

TWO: THE CDC BUYS MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF VACCINES AND, AT THE SAME TIME, HEADS UP RESEARCH ON THE SAFETY OF VACCINES. EXPLOSIVE STRUCTURAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

If you wanted to buy a product, and the main source of research on the product was the company selling it, would you automatically assume the product was safe and effective?

But you see, that’s the just the beginning of the problem. Suppose the company’s research was cited thousands of times in the press, as the authoritative standard of proof—and anyone who disputed that research was labeled a conspiracy theorist and a quack and a danger to the community and an anti-science lunatic.

Would you begin to suspect the company had some awesome media connections? Would you suspect some very powerful people were backing the company?

This is exactly the situation that exists at the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Read these two quotes:

“The government’s Vaccine for Children Program (a CDC organization) purchases vaccines for about 50 percent of children in the U.S.” (The Atlantic, February 10, 2015)

“The CDC currently spends over $4 billion purchasing vaccines [annually] from drug makers…” (Health Impact News, October 24, 2016)

However, the CDC is also the gold standard for research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It turns out an unending stream of studies on these subjects. And the results of those studies are dutifully reported in the mainstream press.

Do you think, under any circumstances, the CDC would publish data showing vaccines are ineffective and dangerous? They’d be cutting their own throats.

“Well, we spend $4 billion a year buying vaccines from drug companies, but guess what? These vaccines are often dangerous…”

Every time you read about a CDC study on vaccines, keep this obvious (and clearly illegal) conflict of interest in mind.

THREE: MASSIVE OVERESTIMATE OF FLU DEATHS IN THE US, IN ORDER TO PUSH THE FLU VACCINE.

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

Boom.

You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure.

However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

“Well, uh, we say that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”

The CDC must turn out a steady stream of outrageous lies about the need for vaccines. If they didn’t, they’d have no way to justify the billions of dollars they spend every year buying the vaccines from drug companies.

So, Spider Group, don’t stop now. Deepen your probe. Become true heroes for honest research, expose the deep roots of corruption in your Agency, and do the right thing for the American people you’re sworn to serve.

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The CDC Medical Police State: The Right To Detain Anyone

This is How The CDC Lies and Manipulates Statistics to Promote ...
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
September 5, 2016

—Understand the implications of new CDC rules, if you want to know where the medical dictatorship is heading.

Arbitrary apprehension of citizens, detainment, forced medical treatment, vaccination.

Let me paint a scenario:

You live in a polluted city, so you have a low-level cough. On your flight to another state, the cough becomes worse because the air in the plane cabin is foul. Unknown to you, a passenger complains to a flight attendant. The passenger is a typical meddler. When you arrive at your destination, a health-agency employee is waiting at the gate for you. He apprehends you and takes you to a room, to decide whether you have a communicable disease. His first standard question—are you up to date on your vaccinations? And things go downhill from there…

It can get worse: the same story as above, except when the detained passenger is injected with a load of vaccines, he then becomes very ill, or even dies. Using plane passenger lists, health authorities search out and detain everyone who was on the flight, claiming the deceased passenger died as a result of a disease—not the vaccinations—and now all the passengers will be detained and “treated,” because they are “infected.”

The CDC is doubling down.

The agency is on the verge of expanding its power to detain and force medical treatment on anyone.

The new proposed CDC regulations are contained in the Federal Register dated August 15, 2016, under the heading, “Control of Communicable Diseases—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.”

Reading between the lines, the stark message is: any person in the US suspected of carrying a serious communicable disease, even if his disease is in an “invisible” stage, can be detained, isolated, quarantined, and medically treated (e.g., forcibly vaccinated). Upon conditional release, the person can be monitored, and this can involve wearing electronic tracking devices.

Those are the broad strokes of the new policy, and, obviously, they’re broad enough to cover anyone.

Tortured linguistic gibberish from the CDC guarantees that any American can be assessed with a disease, justifying arrest. Force yourself to wade through the next paragraph, and you’ll get a feel for the lunatic bureaucratic doublespeak, and the loopholes through which the government can drive a truck:

“…to authorize the quarantine, isolation, or conditional release of an individual traveling interstate, CDC must reasonably believe that the individual is infected with a communicable disease in a qualifying stage…As defined by the statute, a ‘qualifying stage’ means that the communicable disease is in ‘a precommunicable stage, if the disease would be likely to cause a public health emergency if transmitted to other individuals’ or ‘a communicable stage’…it is necessary to define the precommunicable stage of a communicable disease to adequately inform the public of when quarantine, isolation, or conditional release may be authorized. HHS/CDC defines precommunicable stage to mean the stage beginning upon an individual’s earliest opportunity for exposure to an infectious agent and ending upon the individual entering or reentering the communicable stage of the disease or, if the individual does not enter the communicable stage, the latest date at which the individual could reasonably be expected to have the potential to enter or reenter the communicable stage…”

Is that clear as mud? The “qualifying stage” of a disease? Translation: “we can arrest you whenever we want to, and we can say you have a disease.”

Here’s more garble from the CDC. Notice the absurd Orwellian definition of “agreement”:

“…HHS/CDC believes that it is important to define for the public what is meant by the term ‘apprehension.’ Apprehension means the temporary taking into custody of an individual or group for purposes of determining whether quarantine, isolation, or conditional release is warranted…When an apprehension occurs, the individual is not free to leave or discontinue his/her discussion with an HHS/CDC public health or quarantine officer….In certain circumstances, the individual may remain apprehended pending confirmation that he or she is not infected or not reasonably believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease…Generally, however, HHS/CDC does not expect that the typical public health apprehension will last longer than 72 hours…HHS/CDC is proposing a definition for ‘agreement’ which refers to an agreement entered into between the CDC and an individual expressing agreement between the parties that the individual will observe public health measures authorized under this part, as the CDC considers reasonably necessary to protect the public’s health, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment.”

Translation: Any person can be arrested, held, and vaccinated, without his consent. That’s what “agreement” means.

And finally: “HHS/CDC has proposed a definition for ‘electronic or internet-based monitoring’ that defines this term as referring to mechanisms or technologies allowing for the temporary public health supervision of an individual under conditional release, including electronic mail, SMS texts, video conference or webcam technologies, integrated voice-response systems, entry of information into a web-based forum, wearable tracking technologies, and other mechanisms or technologies as determined by the Director or supervising health authority.”

Translation: Once released from custody, an individual can be monitored electronically, including by the attachment of tracking devices.

To prepare the public for this version of fascism, the CDC has been promoting a whole series of phony epidemics over decades, using scare tactics. SARS, MERS, bird flu, Swine Flu, West Nile, Ebola, Zika—they’ve all been duds. The CDC has only cared about one thing in this campaign: softening up the public to accept a medical police state.

And as this new document indicates, the CDC is turning the screw several times in that direction.

In 1987, I began warning the public that medical ops are the most dangerous, because they appear to have no political partisan bias. They’re promoted on the basis of “we’re the healers and we only want to protect you.”

Well, what I’ve discussed above is ultimately the kind of protection they’re talking about at the CDC.

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.

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

Zika: Message To Purveyors Of Medical Fraud

QuestionEverything
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
June 7, 2016

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

The Zika-microcephaly connection is scientific nonsense. Let me run it down for you.

My analysis is beyond, “But Expert A says…” I am not dealing in appeals to authority, but instead the standards of evidence anyone can see if he opens his eyes.

First of all, the latest figures out of Brazil, the so-called epicenter of the microcephaly tragedy, reveal the following: 854 confirmed cases of microcephaly; and of those, 97 cases show the presence of the Zika virus.

Inference? Zika is not the cause of microcephaly. If it were, researchers would be able to detect it in all, or the overwhelming percentage of, microcephaly cases.

I’m not making this up. There are standards of proof and evidence. They dictate which inferences are possible, and which are not. 97 out 854 is a dud. Back to the drawing board. 757 microcephaly cases show no trace of Zika.

“But Expert A says…” Who cares what he says? He’s either right or wrong, independent of his presumed status as an expert. And here he would be wrong.

“But the Washington Post and the NY Times and the CDC and the World Health Organization say…” Doesn’t matter.

Two recent studies, if you want to call them that, have tried to make the case that Zika is the cause of microcephaly. Well, they were published because media outlets could then run headlines announcing: ZIKA SHOWN TO BE THE CAUSE; DOUBTS ABOUT ZIKA ERASED. That’s all these studies were good for.

The first study examined several different groups of babies, and in each group they found a very weak correlation between microcephaly and the presence of Zika—but they tried to pull a fast one and say that the (very weak) correlation in several groups somehow added up to a much stronger correlation overall. Absolute gibberish. Weak plus weak plus weak equals weak.

The second study tried to establish a correlation between Zika injected into mice and resultant mouse babies with microcephaly. But as every honest researcher knows, mice are a very poor analogue for humans.

There is more.

In neither of these two studies, and in none of the press reports about microcephaly, is there any suggestion that researchers have discovered, or looked into, HOW MUCH ZIKA WAS PRESENT IN THE SMALL PERCENTAGE OF CASES WHERE MICROCEPHALY WAS ALSO PRESENT.

Why is this important? Because small traces of a virus aren’t going to cause any human disease. You need huge amounts to even begin to think you’ve found a cause of disease—and as I say, there is no indication that babies with microcephaly have huge amounts of Zika in their bodies.

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.

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.

Growing Doubt – A Scientist’s Experience With GMOs

GMOs
Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
January 17, 2016

Scientific misconduct and fraud: most of us have no concept of how they influence our food. Jonathan Latham, a scientist with a master’s degree in crop and a Ph.D. in plant virology, sheds much-needed light on this issue.

Together with his wife, Allison Wilson, who is also a scientist, he founded the Bioscience Resource Project, an organization with a mission “to provide the highest quality scientific information and analysis to enable a healthy food system and a healthy world.”

He’s also the editor of Independent Science News.

Part of his career was spent doing medical research in the genetics department at the University of Wisconsin. He also worked in the U.K., where many of his coworkers were proposing ambitious research projects designed to alter soil microbiology and cure plant viruses using novel transgenic techniques.

As explained by Latham in the video, when you make a transgene, you take different parts of genes from different organisms, and you put them together to (hopefully) get them to do what you want them to do.

Once a transgene performs according to expectation, it is used to develop commercial transgenic plants carrying that particular feature. However, Latham noticed that the end results were frequently potentially very dangerous, both to plants and people, which made him question the purpose of it all.

“There were people proposing ideas in molecular genetics and genetic engineering that were incredibly ambitious and interesting to think about from an intellectual perspective, but really quite scary if you thought about what would happen in the real world,” he says.

U.S. Regulatory System Allows Unsafe Products to Be Brought to Market

Eventually he became quite concerned about the potential implications the commercialization of genetically engineered plants might engender.

“I saw these ideas people were having, which had potentially major implications for human health or for the soil, and were risky in my opinion.

I didn’t worry about them too much because I imagined no serious person would take up these ideas, and the regulatory system would work as advertised …

But when I moved to the genetics department, I started looking at the regulatory system in the United States.

I came to realize that the regulatory system was intellectually bankrupt and also corrupt. It wasn’t asking questions that it should’ve been asking. And they were perfectly happy with answers they shouldn’t have been happy with …

Between people making products that I was really unhappy with, and the risk assessment process that wasn’t functioning intellectually … it didn’t take me long to realize that you can put 2 and 2 together here and see that bad products are going to come on the market. 

Scientific Profession Is Ruled by Secret Culture of Fear

It’s not uncommon for people to be fired from their academic positions or blackballed in the scientific community when disagreeing with the status quo, but fortunately that did not happen in Dr. Latham’s case.

He decided to resign instead, in the late 1990s, after becoming dispirited with the scientific profession. He did see it happen to another virologist however.

“He published a couple of papers, skeptical of the idea that you can put virus genes into transgenic plants and expect nothing to go wrong. He was hounded out of his position and had to take a position in a completely different branch of science to still get grants.

This is a real thing that scientists are facing: professional intimidation, harassment, and personal effects.

Sometimes they lose their jobs over these issues. So there’s a culture of fear in the scientific community. Scientists don’t like to discuss it because it implies all sorts of things about academic freedom and so on. But it’s a real thing.”

After quitting his job with the Genetics department at the University of Wisconsin, he and his wife worked on an organic farm in England and raised a child. Still people would ask him to get involved in GMO issues, asking him to give talks and explain various issues to laypeople.

He eventually got drawn back in when the British government was setting up field trials under false pretenses.

“They were trying to bamboozle people with scientific information that, in my opinion, was incorrect,” he says.

“They were trying to convince the legal system, the media, and the rest of the public that these projects were perfectly well-understood scientific experiments, and that there was nothing to worry about — most of which I disagreed with, so I ended up getting drawn back into all these issues.”        

Genetic Engineering Is an Imprecise Science

Latham and Wilson,ended up writing a scientific paper,1 published in 2006, which reviews what happens when you put a transgenic DNA into the genome of a plant.

Prior to that, no one had ever collected the data to show whether or not the biotech industry was correct in saying that the process of genetic engineering was precise.

“They wanted to argue that this is much more precise than conventional plant breeding, in which you don’t know what’s going on because you’re just crossing plants together. They wanted to argue that their methodology was very precise. We wanted to test that thesis,” he says.

Together with Wilson, he collected a vast amount of data showing the process of plant transformation through genetic engineering was making a mess of plant genomes.2 The process caused:

  • Unexpected gene mutations
  • Movement and activation of transposons
  • DNA damage

Moreover, most genetically engineered (GE) plants contain more than one transgene: some of the plants they evaluated had as many as 40 different transgenes in them.

They even discovered that some of the now commercially available GE plants had transgene insertions that were so complicated the companies themselves had actually given up trying to get to the bottom of how much damage had been done to the plant’s DNA. It was simply too difficult to do so.

“The more complex and damaging the DNA effects are, the more difficult it is to do the research. We published this in the peer-reviewed literature. It was very important in our view because the whole risk assessment process, and the whole of the reassurance process for the public, depends on the idea that we know what we’re doing, and that what we’re doing is precise. None of those things were true,” he says.

Continue Reading At: Mercola.com