Oh, and BTW: the D.C. patients do NOT have ebola. Does this “news” send a signal that “they” are about to ramp down this latest psy-op to generate fear, mayhem and the police state — as in “problem, reaction, solution”? Like — hot damn! — it isn’t working like it was supposed to! Like there are way too many people looking at it askance! Like too many of us, we the people?
Jon Rappoport’s informed articles on pandemics of any kind are, to me, essential reading. Here’s today’s:
The Ebola test: let the test’s inventor speak
Amidst the hysteria about Ebola, one stubborn fact sits like a rock: everything depends upon being able to accurately diagnose Ebola in each patient.
And then it follows: you must examine the test that is being used to diagnose Ebola. Is it accurate? Does it have flaws? Is it being applied correctly?
Because, if there is a serious problem with the test, the whole house of cards collapses. The entire narrative about Ebola is fatally flawed.
Last week, when a man was admitted to a hospital in Dallas, the CDC held a press conference. CDC Director Tom Frieden stated that this patient had been diagnosed with Ebola—with a test that is “highly accurate. It’s a PCR test of blood.”
This is, indeed, the test of choice for Ebola.
However, as I’ve written, the PCR test has problems. It is open to errors. One of those errors occurs right at the beginning of the procedure:
Is the sample taken from the patient actually a virus or a piece of a virus? Or is just an irrelevant piece of debris?
Another problem is inherent in the method of the PCR itself. The test is based on the amplification of a tiny, tiny speck of genetic material taken from a patient—blowing it up millions of times until it can be observed and analyzed.
Researchers who employ the test claim that, as a result of the procedure, they can also infer the quantity of virus that is present in the patient.
This is crucial, because unless a patient has millions and millions of Ebola virus in his body, there is absolutely no reason to think he is sick or will become sick.
So the question is: can the PCR test allow researchers and doctors to say how much virus is in a patient’s body?
Many years ago, journalist John Lauritsen approached a man named Kary Mullis for an answer.
Source: For a brief excerpt from John Lauritsen’s article about Kary Mullis, see Frontiers in Public Health, 23 September, 2014, “Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent,” by Patricia Goodson.
Kary Mullis is a biochemist. He is also a Nobel Prize winner (1993, Chemistry).
And oh yes, one other thing.
Mullis invented the PCR.
That’s why he won the Nobel Prize.
Mullis’ answer was succinct: “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.”
Translation: the PCR test can’t be used to say how much virus is in a person’s body.
Therefore, the CDC’s gold standard for testing Ebola patients says nothing about whether they are sick or will become sick. It says nothing about why some patients do become sick.
And the other problems with the test are significant as well: errors in carrying out the highly sensitive procedure; lab contamination of the sample taken from the patient; choice of a sample that is not a virus at all, or is the wrong virus.
And upon this foundation of sand, the whole “Ebola epidemic” is being foisted on the public.
In analyzing so-called epidemics and their causes for 27 years now, I have often pointed out that the diagnostic test is the key—unless people want to jump to conclusions and spread fear and walk down the wrong road, while patients die for reasons other than the stated causes—including misdirected and highly toxic medical treatment.
Again, I point that out now.
Jon Rappoport
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 atNoMoreFakeNews.com.
4 thoughts on “Jon Rappoport: What the inventor of the "test" for "ebola" says about it's efficacy in diagnosis”
If the virus is found to be present in somebody who is ill with ebola like symptoms, through PCR or otherwise, it is present.
Why would it matter that PCR testing does not quantify the amount of virus?
Is there any reason at all to entertain the farfetched possibility that a person could have ebola virus in their body but actually not be ill from it, but at the same time be ill from another cause?
Strange article.
If we can have viruses and bacteria in our bodies and not get ill from them, it’s because our immune system’s responsiveness prevents them from overwhelming our systems. For example, it’s now said that most of us (all of us?) contain “cancerous cells” in our bodies, but not all of them proliferate to the point where we “get cancer.” Re: “in situ” breast cancers, for example. Some are now saying that they should just be left alone, because they aren’t going anywhere, and the very act of removing them may spread the disease! . . . You might google these topics, or just read more of what Rappoport says about ebola. He addresses your question in at least one of his articles on this virus.
The test is done on ebola patients, the article says. People who are already ill. From something.
Yes, it’s the “best” test they’ve got. And the inventor says the test doesn’t test whether or not there’s enough virus in the system to make a person ill. Flu-like symptoms can have many causes.