The Ebola hoax: questions and answers
by Jon Rappoport
October 22, 2014
“The Reality Manufacturing Company doesn’t just sell ‘fake paintings’ that are easy to spot. No. They also sell images that are geared to mesh with people’s deeply held instincts and thereby produce rigid false beliefs. People are sure that if they gave up such beliefs, their world would fall apart and blow away in the wind.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
Q: Among intelligent people, what’s the biggest barrier to understanding hoaxes pertaining to viruses?
A: Many people will tell you they see through the lies of consensus reality. They know all about them. But when you bring up a virus, and you say there is no reason to suspect a so-called outbreak is caused by a virus, they back away. They can’t imagine that kind of lie. They can’t conceive that such a lie is being told.
A: They accept, as fact, what medical authorities tell them on that subject. Some people connect “the killer virus” with what they already know about high-level elites who are out to control and diminish and debilitate populations. So “killer virus” and “spreading destruction” fit that picture. Therefore, they automatically buy “the virus.”
In fact, and this is odd, there are people who categorically reject almost everything doctors and medical authorities tell them—but they choose to accept this one: the virus. They choose to believe that when the authorities say, “We have an outbreak and it’s caused by the Ebola virus,” it must be true. Very strange.
Q: The word “outbreak” is strong.
A: Yes. People, again, automatically, associate it with a virus. Movies play a role there. But when you stop and think about it, “outbreak” just means, if it means anything at all, that a number of people in the same general geo-area have become sick. A toxic chemical, for example, could cause that. A vaccine campaign could cause that.
Q: When a number of people who, say, live together become ill, the assumption is there must be a transmission of a virus from person to person.
A: Right. But that isn’t necessarily the case. It isn’t person A, then person B, then person C—it’s all of them being exposed to the same conditions. For instance, if you had 42 people all living in filth with no hope, no money, no job, and they were also exposed to a toxic chemical, and their bodies were breaking down from starvation, and they all became ill, would you call that “transmission?” Of course not.
Q: Considering US and European and African Ebola patients as a whole, don’t they prove that Ebola is caused by a virus and these patients caught the virus?
A: No. As I’ve demonstrated before, the most widely used diagnostic tests for Ebola (antibody and PCR) .... Therefore, to assume these patients have Ebola is unwarranted.
To say a patient has Ebola MEANS he tested positive on a reliable and relevant diagnostic procedure. It doesn’t mean anything else.
Q: What made the US and European Ebola patients sick?
A: That can only be answered by a comprehensive examination done on each patient, by an honest and competent researcher, who can, if necessary, go outside conventional assessments and consider, for example, exposure to toxic chemicals, prior treatment with toxic drugs, and other factors that most doctors ignore. The point is, you don’t discover why somebody became sick or died by saying, “What else could it be? It must be Ebola.” That question and answer reveal a titanic lack of understanding.
Q: You’re saying these US European and US patients, and some health workers, may not have been previously healthy?
A: Right. But why speculate? Why not dig in and find out in each case?
When I was writing AIDS INC., I studied a CDC report on the “first five cases of AIDS,” in Los Angeles hospitals. All five men purportedly had no immune systems left. They were called “previously healthy,” and the conclusion was there must have been a virus that wrecked their immune systems and killed them. This conclusion was widely accepted. The doctors and researchers said, “What else could it be?”
But in reading over the report, I found a number of non-viral reasons. It was easy to see that these men were far from “previously healthy.” For instance, a history of dosing with toxic medical and/or street drugs was a huge red flag. Those drugs are immunosuppressive. The rush to judgment—claiming a virus had killed them—was totally unwarranted.
Q: It’s rather mind boggling to consider that the diagnostic tests for Ebola are irrelevant and useless.
A: Without a reliable diagnostic test, there is no reason to say a person has Ebola. And of course, once an “Ebola” patient is in doctors’ hands, we don’t know what treatments he’s getting. The drugs, some of them experimental, could be highly toxic. Then the patient gets very sick, and the doctors say, “It’s Ebola.”
Q: The link between Ebola patients in West Africa and the Ebola patients in the US and Europe—that’s an important factor, isn’t it?
A: It’s important for one reason. It convinces the public that the so-called viral epidemic is real, it travels, and it is a threat, globally. It’s the capper. It sways people’s minds. But think about it. If, in Africa and the US and Europe, you have the same useless diagnostic tests being run, what do you really have? Assumptions, propaganda, and fear mongering. And you also have a cover story (the virus) for corporate and government and pharmaceutical crimes.
Q: OK. What are the two useless and irrelevant diagnostic tests being done on people, to see whether they have Ebola?
A: Let’s start with the antibody test. Two problems. First, the test is notorious for what’s called “cross-reactions.” That means the test isn’t really registering, in this case, the presence of Ebola virus. It’s registering one of a whole host of other factors. For example, in the past the patient received a vaccine, and that triggers a falsely positive reading now.
Q: What’s the second problem?
A: The antibody test doesn’t say whether a person was sick, is sick, or will get sick. At best, if there are no cross-reactions, it merely says the person had contact with the virus in question. So a positive antibody test for Ebola is far from saying “this person has Ebola disease.” That’s a lie. In fact, before 1985, the general conclusion from positive antibody tests was: this is a good sign; the patient’s immune system contacted the germ and threw it off, defeated it.
Q: What about the PCR test for Ebola?
A: This test is prone to many mistakes, starting with the tiny, tiny sample of material taken from the patient. Is it really genetic material, and is that material really a piece of a virus, or is it just a piece of general and irrelevant debris? The test itself takes that tiny sample and amplifies it millions of times so it can be observed. Assuming it is actually Ebola virus, or a fragment of Ebola virus, there is no indication there is enough of the virus in the patient’s body to make him sick. There have to be millions upon millions of active virus in the patient’s body to begin to say that virus is causing problems. The PCR test says nothing about that. In fact, why was it necessary to do the PCR test at all? If the patient had enough Ebola virus in his body to cause illness, there was no need to search for a tiny fragment of a hoped-for Ebola virus, to start the PCR test. The virus would have been everywhere.
Q: People who use the PCR say it is “quantitative.” In other words, it can not only reveal whether a particular virus is in a person’s body, it can reveal “viral load,” meaning how much of the virus is in the body.
A: Yes, I know what they say. However, the inventor of the PCR, Kary Mullis, puts it succinctly: .... The test isn’t geared to detect quantity. For an analogy, imagine someone comes into your home and notices you are watching a This Old House rerun. He suddenly infers that 500,000 people are also watching it at this moment.
Q: What are some of the non-virus reasons people in West Africa are dying?
A: First of all, you need to know that these non-virus causes can create the symptoms that are attributed to Ebola. Fever, fatigue, sweating, bleeding, vomiting, diarrhea.
In West Africa, you’re simultaneously looking at severe malnutrition, starvation, massive displacement by war, grinding poverty, lack of basic sanitation, open sewage, overcrowding in living quarters, highly toxic organophosphate pesticides in growing fields and indoors (spraying against mosquitos in homes and clinics—which causes bleeding)), vast overuse of antibiotics (shreds digestive systems and causes hemorrhaging), other toxic unrefrigerated medical drugs, toxic industrial pollution, vaccine campaigns that push immune systems already on the edge over the cliff.
Q: What about the non-virus factors that have made health workers sick and killed them in West Africa?
A: Again, you need to analyze every case uniquely. But health workers are wearing hazmat suits sealed off from the outside, and they’re taking one-and-two hour shifts in those boiling suits, losing an astonishing five liters of body fluid in an hour. Then they come out, take off the suits, rehydrate, douse themselves with toxic disinfectants, and go back in soon for another shift and lose more body fluids. In one case, a doctor stated toxic chlorine was actually inside his haz-mat suit with him while he worked. What I’m describing here could cause anyone to collapse.
If we can believe the scattered reports that many health workers in West Africa are dying at a very, very high rate, then I have to say something is wrong with those reports.
A: Because if we were talking about a real viral outbreak as the cause, at that rate of death among health workers, the rest of West Africa would be seeing hundreds of thousands of deaths by now. So either the reports of deaths among health workers are false, or if they’re true, somebody or something which is non-viral is killing them. It’s that simple.
Q: What do you have to say about charges that the Ebola virus has been worked on, to weaponize it as an instrument of biowar?
A: People have to realize that, for quite some time, researchers in the US and other countries have been working on many germs, trying to weaponize them. The act of trying is not the same as the act of succeeding. It isn’t a walk in the park. You don’t just get a grant, stick your hand into a pile of viruses and massage them. Biowar researchers are no different from other medical researchers. They inflate their results, they promise breakthroughs, they lie about progress, they say and do anything to keep the research money flowing in their direction.
Let me give you an example from the field of cancer research at the US National Institutes of Health. Forty, fifty years ago, virologists were desperate to prove that a certain class of viruses cause cancer. It was their field. They were working with monkeys. So they radiated the monkeys, they poisoned them with chemicals, they injected them with all sorts of germs that were irrelevant to the specific research at hand. Why did they do all this, and more? Because they wanted to destroy the monkeys’ immune systems and render them as vulnerable as possible. THEN they injected them with the viruses that were supposed to cause cancer. That’s what these “researchers” did. And they called it science. And even then, they failed miserably, and the whole cancer project was shut down.
So when you read an article about possible biowar research on Ebola in West Africa, don’t automatically assume, if it took place, that it was successful.
And again, if people were dosed with “a biowar form of Ebola,” it would be possible to do a straightforward test to see if these people have enough of the virus in their bodies to cause disease. But the workable tests aren’t being done, so claiming all these people are dying of Ebola is a completely and utterly insupportable assertion.
A strong and healthy person’s immune system is remarkably resilient and capable. Saying, “Oh well, I’m sure they designed a virus that can slip past the body’s defense system,” just like that, poof, is simply a random opinion.
Yes, people should continue to research the possibility that Ebola has been weaponized successfully. Again, just remember: “worked on in a lab” doesn’t automatically equal “they succeeded.” And also remember, the “chemical” part of biological-chemical warfare is much, much easier, to do. It’s far more effective and predictable.
Q: You’re saying that the image of a single killer virus infecting people and spreading all over the globe can be an illusion.
A: Of course. In the case of Ebola, the epidemic is completely unproven.
Q: What about the possibility that prior vaccine campaigns in West Africa are the real cause of what’s being called Ebola?
A: As I’ve indicated, when you give standard vaccines to people whose immune systems are already on the verge of collapse, for the reasons I’ve listed above, a vaccine can apply the death blow. But in that case, it’s not just the vaccine. Trying to explain why people are dying in West Africa from just one cause is the wrong approach. They were dying already from the combination of immune-suppressing factors.
Q: There is always the chance that an extra toxic element was added to a vaccine.
A: Yes. And every vaccine that has been given in West Africa in the last ten years should be analyzed very carefully. But don’t expect medical officials to make that happen. It would have to be done independently.
Q: There is a kind of fixation on attributing one cause and one cause only to a situation where people are ill and dying in a given region.
A: That’s part of a larger human tendency, and it’s not a good one. It’s a self-deceiving instinct.
For many centuries, organized religions, constructed by elites bent on control of the masses, have built whole cosmologies on the basis of the “single good cause” vs. “the single evil cause.” It’s worked, too, because people tend to fall in line behind that formulation.
And how many nations have been taken into misery and suffering behind the notion that The One, the great leader, has emerged to rule the people.
If you read the US Constitution and earlier documents based on the idea of individual freedom, you see that The One is firmly rejected. Those documents are all about decentralization of power.
The problem is, not enough people are ready for the decentralized “many”; they prefer to look for, and attach themselves to, The One.
Q: The notion of the single germ-cause illustrates this?
A: It’s yet another case in which people, unthinkingly, attach themselves to The One. They have to have it. They need it, like a drug. They believe it so deeply, they absolutely refuse to consider any other possibility. I’ve received emails from people who say, “Your articles are very interesting, but of course I know this is an epidemic caused by the Ebola virus.” They don’t know. They believe. They accept what they’re being told.
Q: Just to be clear, you’re saying we shouldn’t accept the premise that the US and European “Ebola cases” really have the Ebola virus.
A: Not unless, in each case, the actual virus is found and extracted from their bodies and isolated. That’s step one. Step two is, the virus is found in great quantity in the person.
Q: Why is quantity important?
A: Because you need millions and millions of an active virus to even begin to say that virus is causing disease in a person.
Q: Are you saying that this so-called outbreak is just a natural event, and no one is at fault?
A: Hell no. All those horrendous killer conditions that exist in West Africa? They’re MAINTAINED, to keep people weak and unable to resist the corporate and financial takeover of their resource-rich countries. And the virus is the “blame-free” cover story, behind which that takeover is accelerating.
Do you have any idea how easy it is to invent the false reality of a viral epidemic? You want a conspiracy theory? Imagine this. You’ve already got huge numbers of people dying in West Africa, for the reasons I’ve mentioned above. Bad actors just need a relatively small bump, to claim there is an “outbreak.”
Toxic chemical. They seed a few areas with a chemical. Undetectable, unless you’re looking for it. Ups the death rate.
“Outbreak! Outbreak!” “The killer virus!” “We need a (toxic) vaccine!” “We need quarantines!” “Fear the virus!” “It can spread anywhere!” “Seal the borders!” “Bring in American troops—new staging area for US Africom!” “Fear in the US!” “Quarantines!” “Economic losses everywhere—tourism, air travel.” “Bring the IMF to West Africa—new deal—millions in loans to fight Ebola, in return for selling your country wholesale (again) to elite financiers and corporations.” “Poison some health workers and a few people traveling to the US and Europe, call it the virus.” “Pandemic! The virus can be spread anywhere!”
The bad actors already know the standard tests will falsely come up positive for Ebola—no problem there.
It’s that simple. Creating the appearance of an epidemic is that simple.
Q: Is that what was done with SARS?
A: As one WHO microbiologist, Frank Plummer, innocently revealed (he wasn’t clued in on the script), the so-called coronavirus, the reputed cause of SARS, couldn’t even be found in most of the patients diagnosed with SARS. The cause wasn’t even there. Didn’t stop WHO or the CDC from continuing to promote SARS as a deadly epidemic. And people still clung to the idea of The One—the virus.
Q: What about HIV?
A: Never proved to cause any human disease. The same antibody tests were used there. As journalist Christine Johnson brilliantly documented, there were at least 60 reasons why the HIV blood test came up positive, and none of them had anything to do with HIV.
Of course, the people who were diagnosed positive were then fed an insanely toxic drug, AZT, a failed chemo drug that attacked all cells of the body and had a special affinity for attacking cells of the immune system—the very system that HIV was supposedly attacking. AZT. Killer, killer drug.
The Perth Group of researchers has made an astonishing case for saying that HIV was never even proved to exist.
Just as I’ve done in detailing chronic conditions in West Africa that cause death and disease, in the case of AIDS I’ve laid out (in my book, AIDS INC.) how, for every so-called high-risk group, there are ample non-virus factors that account for all the immune-system suppression called AIDS. In Haitians, IV drug users, hemophiliacs, gay men, Africans, blood-transfusion recipients.
So I’ve been around this block before.
Since 1987, I’ve watched untold numbers of people buy into the one-virus, one-cause idea, thinking they know what they’re talking about. HIV, West Nile, bird flu, SARS, Swine Flu, Ebola. All false. All ops designed for specific reasons.
Modern medicine depends on fake epidemics to condition the masses to following orders, complying, living in fear, ingesting toxic medical drugs and vaccines, from cradle to grave.
That makes populations give in—toxified, they’re too weak and confused and debilitated and sick to resist the top-down takeover of their societies.
Q: One more time, can you discuss the toxic effects of modern medicine?
A: I’ve mentioned this in many of articles, chapter and verse. There is the Starfield review. Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public-health expert, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. On July 26, 2000, her review was published in the Journal of the American Association: “Is US health really the best in the world?”
Her conclusion? Every year in the US, like clockwork, the medical system kills 225,000 people. 119,000 in hospitals, and 106,000 from FDA-approved medical drugs.
That’s 2.25 MILLION medically-caused deaths per decade. Just in the US. And that doesn’t count severe non-fatal adverse reactions to the drugs, of which there are millions more, every year.
As for vaccines, the whole system of reporting severe adverse reactions, in the US, is broken. Barbara Loe Fisher, of the National Vaccine Information Center, has done the best estimates: between 100,000 and 1.2 million serious adverse consequences from vaccines, every year, in the US.
Fake epidemics breed unthinking fear and loyalty, from cradle to grave…loyalty to THIS system of medical death.
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 www.nomorefakenews.com