by Jon Rappoport
Researchers are making noises about a possible new pandemic. One or more variations of bird flu. And of course, in all these ramp-ups, the bottom line is: get vaccinated.
The so-called pandemics train you to obey, so you’ll take all the shots they recommend for every disease, like a good little muffin.
“Seasonal flu? Pandemic flu? Meningitis? Hepatitis? Whooping cough? Measles? Polio? Martian Traveler’s Disease? Venusian Restless Leg? Gimme everything you’ve got. Inject me! Protect me!”
Here are few items to consider when the pandemic professionals start grinding out media warnings.
How many confirmed cases of the disease in question are there, at that moment? Ten? Fifty? A thousand? Out of a population of eight billion?
For example, as Peter Doshi pointed out in BMJ online, when the big push on Swine Flu started, in the spring of 2009, there were only 20 purported cases of Swine Flu. Twenty. (BMJ Online, v.339, b3471)
This is a pandemic?
The mere claim that “a novel virus,” never before seen, has emerged in humans is NOT a slam-dunk for a pandemic. Not by a long shot.
Swine Flu was supposed to be one of those, and it was a dud. The number of deaths reported was far lower than the numbers traditionally reported for seasonal flus.
Number 2, how are doctors or researchers testing patients to confirm they have “pandemic flu?” This is a big issue. If, for example it’s antibody testing, they’re conning you straight out. Why? Because the presence of antibodies (a scouting component of the immune system) is not a sure sign that the person has been ill, is ill now, or will become ill.
Antibodies only indicate a person has contacted the virus in question. That’s it. And until the mid-1980s, when the science was turned upside down for no good reason, a positive antibody test was normally taken to mean the person’s immune system was healthy and had kicked out the virus.
If doctors and researchers are testing people for some purported pandemic virus using the PCR method, there are other problems. The PCR is a procedure that takes tiny, tiny fragments of organic matter from a patient and amplifies them, blows them up, so they can be recognized and read.
However, there is no sure-fire guarantee these fragments are really pieces of viruses. And if the original extraction of such organic material yielded so little from the patient, how on earth would one assume it was causing illness?
Which brings us to the next point. In determining whether a patient has some pandemic illness, and especially early in the game when researchers are still trying to figure out what’s going on, they need to actually isolate that virus from the patient and show it is present in huge numbers in his body. Otherwise, there is no reason to infer the virus is causing disease.
The purported cases of flu in patients could be coming from a number of different factors. A person might be ill as a result of: toxic chemicals, environmental or pharmaceutical; nutritional deficits; stress; parasites, etc.
The biggest issue is: the strength or weakness of that person’s immune system.
In devastated areas, where poverty, contaminated water supplies, starvation, lack of basic sanitation, and overcrowding are chronic, many germs can sweep through the population and cause death, because these people’s immune systems are shot, compromised, on the way out, and can’t defend against the germs.
The same germs, in an affluent area, would cause little harm.
The bottom-line is, to know what is making a person ill, you have to examine that person for many different factors. You can’t just say, “Well, we found a virus in him and therefore that’s why he is sick.”
That’s not science, that’s hype. That’s not research, that’s PR.
As the hype expands and health agencies like the CDC and WHO announce there are thousands of cases of pandemic flu and deaths, they don’t tell you how they’re counting.
That’s a gross omission. For instance, in the summer of 2009, the CDC stopped testing patients who walked into clinics and hospitals with generalized “flu symptoms.” The CDC just assumed they were all suffering from Swine Flu. CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson reported this fact and it caused a firestorm, until the story was cut off at the knees by the CBS news division.
You want to know what really happens when so-called flu patients are tested?
Here’s a quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):
“…most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.”
Boom.
Doshi then states: “…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”
In other words, even if you believe in vaccines, even if you think they’re wonderful and the world would collapse without them, when it comes to the flu, things are not what they seem. 84% of supposed or suspected or diagnosed flu patients are falsely labeled. Even by loose conventional standards, they don’t have the flu. It’s a mirage.
No comments:
Post a Comment