Jon Rappoport of NoMoreFakeNews.com
COVID-19 RT-PCR Testing and SARS Revisited with Jon Rappoport and Robert Scott Bell.
Suppose one of the most intense “safety practices”—wearing a mask—actually inflates the number of COVID diagnoses?
Needless to say, it would be a bombshell. Suppose PCR and antibody tests turn out false positive results because people are wearing masks every day?
How is that possible?
Actually, it’s quite simple. A person wearing a mask is breathing in his own germs all day long. He breathes them out, as he should, but then he breathes them back in.
It seems evident that this unnatural process would increase the number and variety of germs circulating and replicating in his body; even creating active infection.
Along with this, a decrease in oxygen intake, which occurs when a mask is worn, would allow certain germs to multiply in the body—germs which would otherwise be routinely wiped out or diminished in the presence of an oxygen-rich environment.
Here’s the key: Both the PCR and antibody tests are known for registering false-positive results, since they cross-react with germs which have nothing to do with the reason for the test.
If wearing a mask increases the number and variety of germs replicating in the body, and also increases the chance of developing an active infection…then the likelihood of a false-positive PCR or antibody test is increased.
In other words, masks would promote the number of so-called COVID cases. This would, of course, have alarming consequences.
People labeled “COVID” face all sorts of negative consequences. I don’t have to spell them out.
In past articles, I’ve shown that both PCR and antibody tests DO register false-positives because they react with irrelevant germs.
For those of you who have been following my work concerning COVID-19, you know that the entire foundation of the story of the virus rests on whether the novel “corona virus” has been properly isolated and its entire genome characterized. Many of you have sent papers to me that have been published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals that claim to have isolated and characterized this new virus. They are all incorrect.
In fact, the original Corman-Drosten et al paper on which this edifice of viral causation is based states that they used an “in silico” genome of an “in silico” virus. “In silico” is Latin for “theoretical.” In common English, synonyms for theoretical are “imaginary” or “make-believe.”
An international consortium of life-science scientists have signed a statement asking for a retraction of the Corman Dorsten Report due to it's flawed conclusions about Covid-19.
The CDC in its July 2020 monograph states “no quantified isolated of the 2019-nCov are available.” Again, in simple English, this means they have no examples of an isolated virus in their possession. In Freedom of Information requests, the Canadian health ministry, the Australian health ministry and the governments of many Commonwealth countries admit that they do not possess any studies that show the isolation of this purported virus.
In this interview, and hopefully for the final time, Jon Rappaport and I describe in common language and precise detail the steps that are needed to properly isolate and characterize a virus. We did this so we could empower our readers and listeners to know for themselves how to read and identify fraudulent science. Among the many challenges we face, one is the rampant scientific illiteracy. In some ages this may not have been relevant, but if we are going to live in an era in which “science” is the new religion and its tenets control our lives, we had better understand what its unquestioned “priests” are saying.
I can tell you, the more I look into what passes for “science,” the more I see how rotten it is to the core. If we are to have a new “religion,” let’s have one of truth, freedom, justice and the sense of wonder and awe at the phenomena of life. Let us celebrate what it means to be a human being endowed with a free spirit in a loving relationship with the mystery that is our world. Please join me in this interview. -Dr Tom Cowan, MD
Source: https://www.brighteon.com/c15e2039-a216-4fd9-9624-7259638d9c19
Jon Rappoport has come at the whole issue of ebola from a new angle, questioning the existence of the virus itself. Is it real? If so, where's the proof?
It turns out that he is not alone in asking about the existence of the ebola virus, and what's more, others had also questioned the existence of the swine flu virus. And for some time, there have even been demands from medical "authorities" for evidence of the existence of any medically relevant - vaccine - viruses and those have all gone unanswered.
The issues surrounding vaccines is growing by the day. For those with open minds and a scientific bent, this is a fascinating time. Information on vaccine problems is pouring out, but the questions are now going much deeper: Are vaccine viruses real?
You “show” people a germ and you tell them what it is and what it does, and people salute. They give in. They believe. They actually know nothing. But they believe.
The massive campaign to make people believe the Ebola virus can attack at any moment, after the slightest contact, is quite a success.
People are falling all over themselves to raise the level of hysteria.
And that is preventing a hard look at Liberia, Sierra Leone, and the Republic Guinea, three African nations where poverty and illness are staples of everyday life for the overwhelming number of people.
The command structure in those areas has a single dictum: don’t solve the human problem.
Don’t clean up the contaminated water supplies, don’t return stolen land to the people so they can grow food and finally achieve nutritional health, don’t solve overcrowding, don’t install basic sanitation, don’t strengthen immune systems, don’t let the people have power—because then they would throw off the local and global corporate juggernauts that are sucking the land of all its resources.
In order not to solve the problems of the people, a cover story is necessary. A cover story that exonerates the power structure.
A cover story like a germ.
It’s all about the germ. The demon. The strange attacker.
Forget everything else. The germ is the single enemy.
Forget the fact, for example, that a recent study of 15 pharmacies and 5 hospital drug dispensaries in Sierra Leone discovered the widespread and unconscionable use of beta-lactam antibiotics.
These drugs are highly toxic. One of their effects? Excessive bleeding.
Which just happens to be the scary “Ebola effect” that’s being trumpeted in the world press.
Commentary by John Rappoport
On page 67 [4], we find a warning about potential adverse effects of the vaccine. The abstruse term “study intervention” pops up. It surely means “vaccination.” “Environmental exposure” means contact with elements of the vaccine other than by injection.
Warning of adverse effect: “A female is found to be pregnant while being exposed or having been exposed to study intervention due to environmental exposure. Below are examples of environmental exposure during pregnancy:”
“A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact.”
“A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception.”
These warnings, from the vaccine manufacturer, Pfizer, are shocking. They imply that women can be harmed by breathing in, or contacting by skin, the vaccine as it moves from person to person. Which would be “shedding.”
And what is being transferred from person to person? What is in the vaccine? Genetic material. RNA.