Fake viruses and fake epidemics are nothing new

As I keep making the case that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been proven to exist, I’m also making this point:
There is no honest and prolonged mainstream debate on this issue, and there has to be. Reputable journals should be opening up their pages to such a debate from all comers, and they aren’t. They’re ignoring, side-stepping, and suppressing a debate. This is not science. It’s not even a shadow of science.
And the COVID virus is not the first time the issue of existence has arisen. If more people understood that, they wouldn’t be so shocked.
Here are several cases from recent history:
In the early part of the 20th century, a very nasty skin disease called pellagra took hold in the American South, affecting several million people.
The elite medical view, of course: a germ was the cause. But no one could find it in the ensuing decades. Finally, a small group of independent researchers, relentlessly pursuing a different course, convinced the establishment that the true cause was a niacin deficiency.
In the 1960s and 70s, Japan experienced a strange nervous-system affliction labeled SMON. Again the clarion call was: find the virus, it must be a virus. But no, in a landmark court case, the cause was shown to be a gastrointestinal drug, clioquinol, manufactured by Ciba-Geigy. The company apologized and paid out damages. Since then, some research has suggested that clioquinol fails to explain all the SMON cases.
SARS, 2003. During the height of hysteria in Canada about this flu-like illness, famous WHO researcher, Frank Plummer, wandered off the reservation and told the press that fewer and fewer SARS patients showed any sign of having the virus—in fact, the percentage was shrinking to zero. Therefore: what virus?
Swine Flu, 2009. As I detailed in a recent article, CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson uncovered the fact that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases, because the overwhelming percentage of patients’ samples coming back from testing labs showed no sign of the Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus.
HIV, first announced as the cause of AIDS in 1984, has been challenged by a number of independent researchers. I have published Christine Johnson’s explosive and detailed interview with Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia.” The subject? Does HIV exist? I’m reprinting my article and the Papadopulos interview below.
There are other illnesses in which the existence of the virus has been challenged: for example, polio and the Swine Flu of the 1970s.
Mainstream and independent investigators should also be aware there are analogous “missing causes” within the medical framework. The most egregious example is certainly psychiatry.
Following the breakthrough work of psychiatrist Peter Breggin, I’ve written extensively on this subject. In a nutshell, there are NO defining lab tests for ANY of the 300 so-called mental disorders. Every one of these disorders is arbitrarily assembled by committees of psychiatrists, from menus of behaviors. This is about as far from science as you can get.
Is there an open and honest prolonged debate about this stunning situation in the psychiatric literature? Absolutely not.
Here is my article, Does HIV Exist? Buckle up:
Before we get to Christine Johnson’s interview, a bit of background.
My first book, AIDS INC., was published in 1988. The research I engaged in then formed a foundation for my recent work in exposing the vast fraud called COVID-19.
In 1987-88, my main question eventually became: does HIV cause AIDS? For months, I had blithely assumed the obvious answer was yes. This created havoc in my investigation, because I was facing contradictions I couldn’t solve.
For example, in parts of Africa, people who were chronically ill and dying obviously needed no push from a new virus. All their “AIDS” conditions and symptoms could be explained by their environment: contaminated water supplies; sewage pumped directly into the drinking water; protein-calorie malnutrition; hunger, starvation; medical treatment with immunosuppressive vaccines and drugs; toxic pesticides; fertile farm land stolen by corporations and governments; wars; extreme poverty. The virus cover story actually obscured all these ongoing crimes.
Finally, in the summer of 1987, I found several researchers who were rejecting the notion that HIV caused AIDS. Their reports were persuasive.
I’m shortcutting a great deal of my 1987-8 investigation here, but once HIV was out of the picture for me, many pieces fell into place. I discovered that, in EVERY group supposedly at “high-risk” for AIDS, their conditions and symptoms could be entirely explained by factors that had nothing to do with a new virus.
AIDS was not one condition. It was an umbrella label, used to re-package a number of immunosuppressive conditions and create the illusion of a new and unique and single “pandemic.”
Several years after the publication of AIDS INC., I became aware of a quite different emerging debate going on under the surface of research: DOES HIV EXIST?
Was the purported virus ever truly discovered?
And THAT question led to: what is the correct procedure for discovering a new virus?
The following 1997 interview, conducted by brilliant freelance journalist, Christine Johnson, delves into these questions:
How should researchers prove that a particular virus exists? How should they isolate it? What are the correct steps?
These questions, and their answers, reside at the heart of most disease research—and yet, overwhelmingly, doctors never explore them or even consider them.
Johnson interviews 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…”
Here I’m publishing and highlighting excerpts from the interview. Technical issues are discussed. Grasping them is not the easiest exercise you’ve ever done, but I believe the serious reader can comprehend the vital essentials.
Christine Johnson: Does HIV cause AIDS?
Eleni Papadopulos: 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 [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.
CJ: And what was that method?
EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.
CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?
EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.
CJ: But what about their pictures?
EP: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…”
—end of interview excerpt—
If you grasp the essentials of this discussion, you’ll see there is every reason to doubt the existence of HIV, because the methods for proving its existence were not followed.
And so…as I’ve reported these past few months, there is every reason to doubt and reject the existence of the COVID virus, since correct large-scale electron microscope studies have never been done.
I kept the Christine Johnson interview, and other similar information, in mind when, for example, I explored the dud epidemics called SARS and 2009 Swine Flu.
How many viruses have been named as causes of disease, when in fact those viruses have never been isolated or proved to exist?
Of course, conventional-consensus researchers and doctors will scoff at any attempt to raise these issues. For them, “the science is settled.” Meaning: they don’t want to think. They don’t want to stir the waters.
After 30 years working as a reporter in the area of deep medical-research fraud, I’ve seen that false science occurs in levels.
The deeper you go, the stranger it gets. To put it another way: the deeper you go, the worse it gets.
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here — with sources.)
Use this link to order Jon’s Matrix Collections.
Jon Rappoport
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Responses to “Fake viruses and fake epidemics are nothing new”

  1. sovereigntea says:

    Here is a Gem….

    Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing. These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO, and WHO has dismissed inquiries into its handling of the A/H1N1 pandemic as “conspiracy theories.” Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter investigate

    Watch the BMJ/The Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s video on WHO and disclosure. This video has also appeared on Al Jazeera and guardian.co.uk.

    Next week marks the first anniversary of the official declaration of the influenza A/H1N1 pandemic. On 11 June 2009 Dr Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organization, announced to the world’s media: “I have conferred with leading influenza experts, virologists, and public health officials. In line with procedures set out in the International Health Regulations, I have sought guidance and advice from an Emergency Committee established for this purpose. On the basis of available evidence, and these expert assessments of the evidence, the scientific criteria for an influenza pandemic have been met…The world is now at the start of the 2009 influenza pandemic.”

    It was the culmination of 10 years of pandemic preparedness planning for WHO—years of committee meetings with experts flown in from around the world and reams of draft documents offering guidance to governments. But one year on, governments that took advice from WHO are unwinding their vaccine contracts, and billions of dollars’ worth of stockpiled oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza)—bought from health budgets already under tight constraints—lie unused in warehouses around the world.

    A joint investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has uncovered evidence that raises troubling questions about how WHO managed conflicts of interest among the scientists who advised its pandemic planning, and about the …

    https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c2912.full

    • sovereigntea says:

      Scientists who drew up the key World Health Organisation guidelines advising governments to stockpile drugs in the event of a flu pandemic
      had previously been paid by drug companies which stood to profit, according to a report out today.

      An investigation by the British Medical Journal and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the not-for-profit reporting unit, shows that WHO guidance issued in 2004 was authored by three scientists who had previously received payment for other work from Roche, which makes Tamiflu, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), manufacturer of Relenza.

      City analysts say that pharmaceutical companies banked more than $7bn (£4.8bn) as governments stockpiled drugs. The issue of transparency has risen to the forefront of public health debate after dramatic predictions last year about a swine flu pandemic did not come true.
      The Guardian Today newsletter: the headlines, the analysis, the debate – sent direct to you
      Read more

      Some countries, notably Poland, declined to join the panic-buying of vaccines and antivirals triggered when the WHO declared the swine flu outbreak a pandemic a year ago this week. The UK, which warned that 65,000 could die as a result of the virus, spent an estimated £1bn stockpiling drugs and vaccines; officials are now attempting to unpick expensive drug contracts.

      The cabinet office has launched an inquiry into the cost to the taxpayer of the panic-buying of drugs.

      Today, the Council of Europe, produces a damning report into how a lack of openness around “decision making” has bedevilled planning for pandemics.

      “The tentacles of drug company influence are in all levels in the decision-making process,” said Paul Flynn, the Labour MP who sits on the council’s health committee. “It must be right that the WHO is transparent because there has been distortion of priorities of public health services all over Europe, waste of huge sums of public money and provocation of unjustified fear.”

      Although the experts consulted made no secret of industry ties in other settings, declaring them in research papers and at universities, the WHO itself did not publicly disclose any of these in its seminal 2004 guidance. In its note, the WHO advised: “Countries that are considering the use of antivirals as part of their pandemic response will need to stockpile in advance.”

      Many nations would adopt this guidance, including Britain. In 2005, the government said it had begun bulk-buying the drug Tamiflu, initially ordering 14.6m doses after bird flu killed 40 in Asia.

      https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/jun/04/swine-flu-experts-big-pharmaceutical

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.