Tag Archives: Jon Rappaport

Where O-Where is Covid 19

Posted on by

The non-existent virus; an explosive interview with Christine Massey

by Jon Rappoport

With a background in biostatistics, Christine Massey has been using Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests as a research tool, as a diamond drill, to unearth the truth about SARS-CoV-2. As in: Does the virus exist?

Her approach has yielded shocking results.

In a half-sane world, Christine’s work would win many awards, and rate far-reaching coverage. In the present world, more and more people, on their own, are waking up to her findings and completely revising their perception of the “pandemic.”

Here is my recent interview with the brilliant relentless Christine Massey:

Q: You and your colleagues have made many FOIA requests to public health agencies around the world. You’ve been asking for records that show the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists. How did you develop this approach?

A: In 2014, a lady in Edmonton submitted a freedom of information request to Health Canada asking for studies relating to the addition of hydrofluorosilisic acid (industrial waste fluoride acid) to public drinking water (water fluoridation). HealthCanada’s response indicated that they had no studies whatsoever to back up their claims that the practice is safe or effective.

A few years later, some high quality government-funded studies showed that common fluoride exposure levels during pregnancy are associated with lower IQs and increased ADHD symptoms in offspring. Nevertheless, dentists and the public health community continued to promote and defend the so-called “great public health achievement” of forcing this controversial preventative dental treatment onto entire communities, and were dismissive of those studies. So I used freedom of information requests to show that various institutions promoting and defending water fluoridation in Ontario, Alberta and Washington State could not provide or cite even one primary study indicating safety with respect to those outcomes.

So once I learned from people like David Crowe, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Stefan Lanka and Dr. Thomas Cowan that the alleged [COVID] virus had never been isolated (purified) from a patient sample and then characterized, sequenced and studied with controlled experiments, and thus had never been shown to exist, I realized that freedom of information (FOI) requests could be used to verify their claims.

Most people are not going to take the time to check all of the so-called “virus isolation” studies for themselves, so FOIs were a way to 1) ensure that nothing had been overlooked, and 2) cut to the chase and back-up what these gentlemen [Kaufman, Cowan, Crowe, Lanka] were saying, if they were indeed correct.

So in May 2020 I began submitting FOI requests for any record held by the respective institution that describes the isolation/purification of the alleged “COVID-19 virus” from an unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient, by anyone, anywhere on the planet.

Q: How many public health and government agencies have you queried with FOIA requests?

A: I have personally queried and received responses from 22 Canadian institutions. These are public health institutions, universities that claim to have “isolated the virus”, and 3 police services – due to their enforcement of “COVID-19” restrictions. I have also personally received responses from several institutions outside of Canada including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). I await responses from a number of additional institutions.

Many people around the world have obtained responses to the same/similar, or related, [FOIA] requests, from institutions in their own countries. One person who has done a lot of work on this in New Zealand and other countries is my colleague Michael S. Also a fellow named Marc Horn obtained many in the UK. A handful of other people obtained several responses, and lots of people have obtained 1 or 2.

I have been compiling all of the responses that are sent to me on my FOI page, and as I type this (October 4, 2021) we have FOI responses from 104 institutions in well over 20 countries all relating to the purification/existence of the alleged virus. Additionally, there are court documents from South Africa and Portugal. In total, 110 instructions are represented at this moment on my website. There are FOI responses from more institutions that I haven’t had a chance to upload yet.

Q: How would you characterize the replies you’ve gotten from these agencies?

A: Every institution without exception has failed to provide or cite even 1 record describing purification of the alleged virus from even 1 patient sample.

Twenty-one of the 22 Canadian institutions admitted flat out that they have no such records (as required by the Canadian legislation). Many institutions outside Canada have admitted the same, including the CDC (November 2, 2020), Australia’s Department of Health, New Zealand’s Ministry of Health, the UK Department of Health and Social Care…

And in some cases, silly excuses were provided. For example, the Norwegian Directorate of Health’s response was that they do not own, store or control documents with information about patients. Public Health Wales told Dr. Janet Menage that they have not produced any such records, and that while they would normally be willing to point her towards records that are in the public domain it would be too difficult in this case.

Brazil’s FDA-like injection-approver, the Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa), told Marcella Picone that they have no record of virus purification and are not required to by law, thus it is (in their minds) not their obligation to make sure that the virus actually exists.

Q: What is the exact text of your FOIA requests?

The text has varied somewhat over time. For example, in the beginning I used the word “isolation”. But since that term gets abused so badly by virologists, I now stick to “purification”.

In all requests I specified exactly what I meant by isolation/purification (separation of the alleged virus from everything else), and that the purified particles should come directly from a sample taken from a diseased human where the patient sample was not first adulterated with any other source of genetic material (i.e. the monkey kidney cells aka Vero cells and the fetal bovine serum that are typically used in the bogus “virus isolation” studies).

I always clarified that I was not requesting records where researchers failed to purify the alleged virus and instead cultured something and/or performed a PCR test and/or sequenced something. I also clarified that I was requesting records authored by anyone, anywhere – not simply records that were created by the institution in question. And I requested citations for any record of purification that is held by the institution but already available to the public elsewhere.

The latest iteration [of the FOIA request] is posted on a page of my website where I encourage others to submit requests to institutions in their own country: Template for “SARS-COV-2 isolation” FOI requests.

Q: These agencies are all saying they have no records proving SARS-CoV-2 exists, but at the same time some of these agencies sponsor and fund studies that claim the virus does exist. How do you account for this contradiction?

I will address this by way of an example.

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is the only Canadian institution that failed to provide a straightforward “no records” response thus far. Instead, they provided me with what they pretended were responsive records.

The records consisted of some emails, and a study by Bullard et al. that was supported by PHAC and their National Microbiology Laboratory, and by Manitoba Health and Manitoba’s Cadham Provincial Laboratory.

Neither the study nor the emails describe purification of the alleged virus from a patient sample or from anything else. The word “isolate” (or “isolation” / “purify” / “purification”) does not even appear, except in the study manuscript in the context of isolating people, not a virus.

…in the Materials And Methods section we find that these researchers performed PCR “tests” for a portion of the E gene sequence (not a virus), and they incubated patient samples (not a virus) on Vero cells (monkey kidney cells) supplemented with fetal bovine serum, penicillin/streptomycin, and amphotericin B, and they monitored for harm to the monkey cells.

No virus was looked for in, or purified from, the patient samples. No control groups of any kind were implemented in the monkey cell procedures. No virus was required or shown to be involved anywhere in the study, but “it” was blamed for any harm to the monkey cells and “it” was referred to repeatedly throughout the study (I counted 26 instances).

Nevertheless, this was the sole paper provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

And although the researchers did not claim to have “isolated” the alleged virus in this paper, they performed the same sort of monkey business / cell culture procedure that is passed off as “virus isolation” by virologists in country after country. (Because virology is not a science.)

…Note the admission in the [study] Abstract: “RT-PCR detects RNA, not infectious virus”.

…So I wrote back to the Public Health Agency of Canada and advised the that none of the records they provided me actually describe separation of the alleged virus from everything else in a patient sample, and that I require an accurate response indicating that they have no responsive records.

In their revised response, the Agency insisted that the gold standard assay used to determine the presence of intact virus in patient samples is visible cytopathic [cell-killing] effects on cells in a cell culture, and that “PCR further confirms that intact virus is present”.

…As you have pointed out to your readers again and again: No one has isolated/purified “the virus”. They simply assume that patient samples contain “it” (based on meaningless PCR tests). They adulterate patient samples with genetic material and toxic drugs, starve the cells, then irrationally blame “the virus” for harm to the cells. They point to something that has never been purified, characterized, sequenced or studied scientifically, in a cell culture and insist “that’s the virus”. They fabricate the “genomes” from zillions of sequences detected in a soup. It’s all wild speculation and assumptions, zero science.

So the people responsible for the blatantly fraudulent claims made by these institutions are either wildly incompetent or intentionally lying.

—end of interview—

To bolster Christine’s final comments, these agencies will respond to FOIA requests with: “we have no records of virus purification”—and then sponsor studies that claim the virus HAS BEEN purified and discovered, because…

The standards for purifying the virus in the studies are no standards at all. They’re entirely irrational.

However, because Christine is very precise and accurate in her FOIA requests, when it comes to what purification means, the agencies are compelled to reply…

“Well, in THAT case, we have no records of virus purification…”

Meaning: There are no records showing the virus has been isolated; there are no records showing the virus exists.

from:    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/10/07/the-non-existent-virus-explosive-interview-with-christine-massey/

PCRidiculous

Posted on by

Another failure of the COVID diagnostic test

by Jon Rappoport

In previous articles, I’ve detailed several key reasons why the PCR test is worthless and deceptive. (PCR article archive here).

Here I discuss yet another reason: the uniformity of the test has never been properly validated. Different labs come up with different results.

Let’s start here—the reference is the NY Times, January 22, 2007, “Faith in Quick Tests Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.”

“Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing…By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing…”

“For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.”

“Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”

“Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them astray.”

“There are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one the largest, but it was by no means an exception, she said.”

“Many of the new molecular [PCR] tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called ‘home brews,’ are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.”

“’You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,’ with the new molecular [PCR] tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ‘All bets are off on exact performance’.”

“With pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, ‘there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,’ and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. ‘We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,’ Dr. Kretsinger added.”

“Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.”

“’The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,’ Dr. Petti said. ‘No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R’.”

—Sobering, to say the least. Of course, some people will claim that since the date of the Times’ article (2007), vast improvements have been made in the PCR test.

Really? The truth is, something much worse is lurking in the weeds. It has been lurking ever since the PCR was approved for use in diagnostics:

No large study validating the uniformity of PCR results, from lab to lab, has ever been done.

You would think at least a dozen very large studies had checked for uniform results, before unleashing the PCR on the public; but no, this was not the case. It is still not the case.

Here is what should have been done decades ago:

Take a thousand volunteers. Remove tissue samples from each person. Send those samples to 30 different labs. Have the labs run PCR and announce their findings for each volunteer.

“We found the following virus in sample 1…” Something simple like that.

Now compare the findings, in each of the 1000 cases, from all 30 labs. Are the findings the same? Are the outcomes uniform all the way across the board?

My money would be against it. Strongly against.

But this is not the end of the process. SEVERAL of these large-scale studies should be done. In EACH study, there are 1000 volunteers and 30 labs.

Why? Because, as you can readily see, the whole story about a current pandemic is riding on those tests. The story, the containment measures, the lockdowns, the economic devastation, the human destruction—it’s all built on the presumption that the PCR is a valid test.

It’s unthinkable that these validation studies of the PCR weren’t done decades ago. But they weren’t. And there is only one reason why: to avoid the truth. The results of the PCR aren’t uniform. They vary from lab to lab.

One lab says positive for virus B. Another lab says negative for virus B. Both labs are looking at the same sample.

No? Couldn’t be? Then prove it with the several large-scale studies I’m proposing.

I’ll give you a rough fictional analogy for the current testing situation—

In an old-growth forest of immense trees, a government agency tests white spots found on some trunks. The verdict? A highly destructive and novel fungus, for which there is no remedy. Without immediate and drastic action, the fungus will spread to the whole forest and destroy all the trees.

So a government contract is signed with a logging company, and workers move in and start cutting down many trees.

Meanwhile, another lab tests those white spots and reports they’re harmless bird droppings. Yet another lab claims they’re a mild traditional fungus of no great concern.

The reports of these two labs are suppressed and censored. The labs are put on a quiet blacklist, and their business dries up.

The tree cutting continues.

An analyst at the US Forestry Service sends a memo to his boss. It details the fact that the test which found deadly fungus is unreliable. Different labs doing the test come up with different and conflicting results.

Worse yet, that test was never properly validated as a uniform process before being approved for use. In other words, no one did a large study in which multiple labs used the test to determine the composition of spots found on trees. No one made sure that all labs came to the same conclusions using the test.

The Forestry analyst writes: “The test has inherent flaws. Different labs examining the same sample will always come up with different results. This has disastrous consequences in the real world. You can see that now; we are cutting down half a forest to prevent the spread of a fungus which has been noticed for centuries, and never caused serious harm…”

The analyst is fired from his job and firmly reminded that he signed a non-disclosure agreement, and he better keep his mouth shut.

The tree-cutting goes on. A developer buys up the cleared land at a very low price…

In essence, the pipeline of information from actually reliable sources, to the government, and then to the public, is narrowed, and guarded against unwelcome intrusions of TRUTH.

In the case of the PCR test, that’s what is happening.

SOURCE:

nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html

from:    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/07/29/another-failure-of-the-covid-diagnostic-test/

Los Alamos, NM – Vaccine Exemptions

Posted on by

Top Gov’t. Scientists Refuse Vaccines for Their Kids

Posted by

By Jon Rappaport | *No More Fake News

“The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” —Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977

Albuquerque Journal, 3/20, “Los Alamos schools top NM in vaccine exemptions”, reports:

2.3% of kids in Los Alamos public schools don’t get vaccinated. Their parents have received exemptions.

That’s the highest rate of non-vaccination in the state.

We’re talking about parents who work at the US Los Alamos Labs.

People with advanced degrees in science.

People who work for the federal government.

You would think the vaccine rate in that environment would stand at 100%, no questions asked.

What do these people know? Why are they opting out of vaccinations for their kids?

Those are hard questions to answer. Very hard.

Hmm, let’s think. For example, have they done some actual research on their own, and have they decided that vaccines are unsafe and ineffective?

No, that couldn’t be it. Of course not. Who in his right mind would come to that conclusion?

It must be this: these sober PhD federal scientists are being driven into fear by wild-eyed anti-vaccine lunatics. Yes. That’s it. Of course.

These obey-the-government-at-all-costs scientists have gone off the rails.

At Los Alamos Labs, where they do nuclear- bomb and disease research, there must be a Terrorist, whose mission is to subvert “vaccinations for everybody” and, by this covert tactic, aid a revolt against vaccinations and thereby allow the whole USA to succumb and die off from…the measles and mumps.

Yes. That’s it.

Finally. We’ve gotten to the bottom of it.

Terrorism at work.

Call in the FBI and DHS. Surround Los Alamos Labs with tanks. Lock the place down.

Send in brave men and women wearing hazmat suits (protection against measles and mumps) to find the Terrorist and take him, dead or alive.

While I was writing my first book, AIDS Inc. (*), in 1987, I began interviewing people about their health. These interviews branched out into areas that had nothing to do with AIDS.

(*) (AIDS Inc. is included as a bonus in my The Matrix Revealed and Power Outside The Matrix collections.)

I discovered a number of people who were in excellent health and had never received a vaccination.

Of course, “medical science” rarely if ever concerns itself with people who are heathy and how they got that way.

One common factor emerged in my interviews with very healthy people: good nutrition.

Big surprise, right?

The more people I spoke to, the more obvious something became: non-medical, naturally acquired immunity to disease could become a serious problem—for the medical cartel.

Its solution? Pretend such immunity doesn’t exist.

This is a quite insane approach.

Yes, many people around the world don’t have access to the foods that constitute good nutrition.

Regardless, if the goal is really excellent health, that underlying aspect must be addressed. There is no way around it.

You can’t say, “Well, for those unfortunate people, we’ll give them immunity with vaccines and guard their health with drugs.”

That’s preposterous. It doesn’t work. It only makes things worse.

The current rabid campaign in the US to inject every human with a whole host of vaccines is sheer madness (*). It intentionally ignores the fact that natural immunity should be the goal, which can only be achieved through non-medical means.

(*) (And, I might add, the people at the National Vaccine Information Center Advocacy Portal are doing a superb job of tracking this rabid madness. I urge you to check them out.)

To cover up this essential fact about health, public health agencies, doctors, and the pharmaceutical industry assault the population with ceaseless propaganda implying that everyone is sick or on the verge of becoming sick all the time.

Well, guess what? Your body is your own. It’s undoubtedly more your own than anything else you possess.

Apparently, this fact needs reaffirming in these times.

[Read more here]

*Originally entitled: “Top Gov’t. Scientists Say No to Vaccines for their Kids”

from:    http://consciouslifenews.com/top-govt-scientists-refuse-vaccines-kids/1183023/

On Adult Immunization

Posted on by

As always, do your research:

Adult immunization push: Medical Dictatorship

by Jon Rappoport

February 25, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

It’s happening under the leadership of the US Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS): “The Adult Immunization Plan.”

(See National Adult Immunization Plan National Vaccine Program Office DRAFT: National Vaccine Program Office February 5, 2015 and also Solicitation of Written Comments on the Draft National Adult Immunization Plan (HHS, 02/06/2015))

The HHS is a cabinet agency under the President.

The goal of the Plan? To vastly increase the number of adults in the US who are vaccinated against diseases in accordance with the CDC schedule of vaccines.

Here are key quotes from the Plan:

“The HHS Action Plan to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities includes a measure to increase the percentage of the minority population who receive the seasonal influenza vaccination.”

Translation: The government cares about minorities, and to prove it these persons will be injected with a variety of germs and toxic chemicals.

“Increase the use of electronic health records (EHRs) and immunization information systems (IIS) to collect and track adult immunization data.”

Translation: expose confidential patient medical records to many doctors and government agencies, in order to discover all adults who aren’t up to speed on their vaccinations—and therefore must get the shots. Goodbye, privacy. Goodbye, unencumbered free choice.

“Educate and encourage other groups (e.g., community-
and faith-based groups) to promote the importance of adult immunization…A variety of networks can be leveraged, including faith-based and community organizations and individual trusted leaders.”

Translation: Step up government-initiated propaganda at all levels of society, in order to convince adults to come forward and receive their injections.

“All healthcare professionals must ensure that adult patients are fully immunized.”

Translation: During every office visit, doctors must check the vaccination status of their adult patients and pressure them to take their injections.

“The Affordable Care Act [Obamacare]…will help make prevention [vaccination] affordable and accessible for all Americans by requiring health plans to cover preventive [vaccination] services…”

Translation: Increased taxes and the rabid printing of new money will ensure that many more Americans are injected with a variety of germs and toxic chemicals.

The Adult Immunization Plan doesn’t specify compulsory mandated vaccination, but it certainly moves in that direction. Tracking, surveillance, propaganda, doctor-applied pressure are its features.

Note the connection of the Adult Vaccination Plan to Obamacare. As I warned several years ago, one of the main features of Obamacare is the step-by-step evolution toward medical slavery.

As with any health insurance plan, there comes a complete list of diseases and disorders that are covered, as well as the permitted treatments for each condition.

Eventually, this list IS what medical diagnosis and treatment consist of—and nothing else.

No choice for patients, no choice for doctors.

Government makes all the decisions.

Universal coverage for both childhood and adult vaccinations is now on the Obamacare list.

Pressure to comply now, forced obedience later.

In military terms, this is a pincer movement. State legislatures are now considering new bills to limit or entirely cut off vaccine-exemptions.

Media are falling in line. “Experts” are virulently supporting mandated vaccines for all, under the banner of “protect the children.”

Public schools are overtly lying, telling parents their children must be fully vaccinated in order to enroll, when in fact the parents can opt out with exemptions that the states still allow.

Dumbed-down members of the public are responding to all this with: “What? Vaccines aren’t absolutely required for everybody already? I’m shocked. I thought they were.”

power outside the matrix

The freedom and the right to refuse medication is the last bastion. It must not fall.

Highly publicized lawsuits must be filed by honorable and relentless attorneys now. One basis for such suits is informed consent. By law, all patients must be informed, by their doctors, about the risks associated with any medicine, including vaccines, before such medications are taken. Vaccine manufacturers’ package inserts spell out some of the major risks and dangers.

Consider this: informed consent absolutely implies that the patient can refuse the medication. He has that freedom. Otherwise, “informed” means nothing and “consent” means nothing.

How can informed consent have any practical force if the patient must take the medicine?

That would be like saying, “I’m now going to tell you about the dangers of jumping out of this plane without a parachute. The law compels me to spell out the dangers. But when I’m through, you will jump out of the plane.”

This is a sword an attorney can hold and use.

Of course, the monolithic State will argue that protection of the population outweighs any consideration of individual freedom and informed consent. The State always and forever argues in that fashion, in all cases, in all matters.

That is why it is the State. It seeks, first and foremost, to expand its own power. It spreads like a fungus.

Jon Rappoport

from:    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/adult-immunization-push-medical-dictatorship/