John Rappoport on SARS
posted 8 Apr 03, updated 12 April

SCIENTISTS SAY THEY HAVE THE CAUSE OF SARS

April 11.Ý Two studies in the New England Journal, plus WHO, plus the CDC appear to reflect the final judgement on SARS.

It's a peculiar, never-before-seen coronavirus.Ý There seems to be a groundswell at WHO for a name, too, paying tribute to Dr. Urbani, who died right after he IDed the germ.

Get this: The Urbani-SARS-Associated Coronavirus.Ý USAC.

I think WHO wants it to be called the USA virus.

Perhaps this UN agency is trying to extract revenge on the US because Bush went to war in Iraq without UN approval.

Anyway, the Reuters dispatch on all this appears to confirm, by implication, my worst suspicions.Ý They have not tested for titer, which means they have no info on how many viruses are in the body of a given SARS patient.

For them, finding the virus in a few patients was enough.

But of course, it's absurd to say you have the cause of a disease when you haven't bothered to check on how many little germ invaders are supposedly doing damage.

To cover this intentional research flaw, a few researchers are suggesting that the USA virus may provoke a strange response from the immune system---the immune systemÝ attacks not only the USA virus but HEALTHY CELLS AS WELL.

This pure speculation is intended to explain, in advance, how a few USA viruses could bring about "so much damage."

Of course, if germs in general could provoke such a misguided response by the human immune system, the human race would have died out long ago.Ý The immune system is geared to attack a given germ, not healthy cells.Ý To suddenly say the immune system, in this particular case, is so addled---where is the evidence?Ý Where is the proof?ÝÝ

There is more.Ý We are also told that, in looking for the cause of SARS, researchers found antibodies to the USA virus only in people who had SARS.Ý This sounds good on the surface, but it is circular reasoning, because SARS itself is being defined by the presence of the USA virus.

I'll put it another way.Ý Give me a lab and a little money, and I'll show you a hundred patients who have all the listed symptoms of so-called SARS but show no antibodies to the USA virus.Ý At that point, WHO and CDC would say, "See, these are not real SARS patients because they don't have antibodies to the USA virus.Ý They don't have the USA virus."

THIS IS DISEASE DISCOVERY BY ARBITRARY DEFINITION.Ý

I'm very familiar with this strategy.Ý You start out with a list of vague symptoms---cough, shortness of breath, temperature, lung problems.Ý Then you say you've found the germ that causes these symptoms.Ý Then you say that anyone who does not have the germ but has the symptoms must have some other condition.Ý Meanwhile, you have no proof that the new germ is a cause of anything.

It's the old AIDS scam.

Furthermore, to take the scam a step further, you stand the history of medicine on its head and you say that people can die from this new disease even though they have antibodies to the USA virus---whereas, antibodies traditionally have been a GOOD sign, a sign that the immune system has mounted a successful defense against the virus.ÝÝ

It looks like we're going to see a blood test for SARS, which will be a test for antibodies to the USA virus.Ý If so, many people who are very successfully warding off this little virus will be told they are in danger and must be isolated.ÝÝ

And, I predict, the blood test will read FALSELY POSITIVE because it will turn out it reacts to 140 things BESIDES the USA virus.Ý Thus a very wide net will drag in all sorts of people whose tests are false positive.

There is still some question about how far they intend to take this whole SARS hype.Ý But these new studies, and the naming of the germ---these are not good signs.Ý The blood test for the virus---this would be a very bad sign.ÝÝ

All sorts of drug companies are positioning themselves to make THE DRUG TO TREAT THE VIRUS.Ý However, there are no medical drugs of note that, even by conventional standards, are accepted as viral treatments of any kind.Ý That is a good sign, for the moment.Ý Without an accepted drug, no disease invention gets off the ground very far.

However, we may see some additional bold hype along this line.Ý "Voila, we have a drug."Ý Or we may see a vaccine rushed into production.

I can't emphasize enough how shoddy and absurd this "SARS science" is.ÝÝ

Dr. Peter Duesberg, who wrote the first journal article rejecting HIV as the cause of AIDS, tried to set some conventional standards for calling a germ the cause of a disease, in addition to those standards traditionally used by the mainstream.Ý He said you had to show the germ was in plentiful supply in the body.Ý And you had to show that the germ was actually doing something to damage the body.Ý You had to prove there was injurious biological activity.

He was ignored then, and now.

Of course, there will be many people who take off from this "discovery" of the USA virus.Ý They will accept USA as the cause without question.Ý Then they will say it was made in a lab and foisted on the population as a bio-terror attack.Ý They will hit the ground running.

Meanwhile, there is no proof that a unique disease condition called SARS even exists.Ý And there is no real proof that some germ called USA is doing harm to the body.

But that doesn't stop people.ÝÝ

In the background, completely ignored, will be the fact that many people with these vague symptoms who strengthen their overall health will throw off "SARS" like a mild cold.Ý That is the real kicker here.Ý That is the real proof that the medical cartel is out in left field, as usual.

In left field, they want you to think that, if you have these symptoms, you are in real trouble.Ý They want you to go into a tizzy.Ý They want you to be afraid, get diagnosed with the SARS label, get your twelve seconds of notoriety and go into isolation.Ý They want you to become a pariah.Ý They want your friends and family and contacts to look at you as a carrier.ÝÝÝÝ

ONE MORE TIME ON DISEASE INVENTION

April 7.Ý Because even alternative news sites fall for this on a regular basis, I want to trace a pattern.

One, the government or some government health agency announces an outbreak of what looks like a new disease.

Two, the government says it has people on the scene looking for the germ that is causing the new disease.

At this point, all sorts of people accept One and Two and begin to surmise that the germ may have been designed in a lab.

Sure, people do that work in labs, all the time.Ý They tinker with bacteria and viruses and more exotic micro-organisms.

BUT.Ý Why accept, on the face of it, that the government has discovered an outbreak of some singular discrete new disease entity in the first place?Ý Why assume that?Ý Why buy that?

These government agencies are in the business of welding together people and their symptoms and coming up with authoritative disease names.

A cough and a fever in Hong Kong becomes linked to a headache and diarrhea in Miami.Ý They say the folks in Hong Kong and Miami are all suffering from Zabeeweedee, the ONE new disease which is caused by some ONE germ they are presently looking for.

Hold it right there.Ý THIS is the place to pause.

Are they lying?Ý Did they really track those people on the plane?Ý If so, why are they now saying, for example, in the SARS situation, that "the very first person with SARS in China (itself a fatuous idea)" did NOT give SARS to his immediate family?

Before asserting that some new disease was really a planted germ they cooked up in a lab, why not find out if it IS a disease, instead of something more subtle: a linking up of people and their symptoms that don't really fit together.

Come ON.

You know, people in Hong Kong and Singapore and China and Canada die all the time.Ý Every day.Ý And some of them display, among other things, cough and fever and fatigue and respiratory problems.Ý They call it flu, they call it pneumonia, they call it lung complications.Ý But now they call it SARS.Ý And they have found no convincing virus.Ý They have found no root cause.Ý But that doesn't stop them.Ý They are already working on a vaccine against a germ they don't have.

They have admitted, on top of it, that the people in China are dying of pneumonia, but in the US, pneumonia hasn't been seen so far.Ý What's next?Ý Will cervical cancer become the leading US symptom of SARS?Ý Polio?Ý Automobile accidents on lonely roads after midnight?ÝÝ

After 20 years of investigating medical scandals, I've learned to stop the merry-go-round just after it starts, and say PROVE IT.Ý PROVE THAT YOU JUST FOUND A NEW DISEASE.Ý PROVE THAT ALL THESE CASES ARE LINKED.
ÝÝ

March 24, 2003

THE FAKE SARS TEST AND THE FAKE SCIENCE

March 24. The hysteria that has been created by reports of the mysterious global pneumonia (SARS) now claims new victims: media and scientists.

See, the media are reporting that a test has been found to detect the virus that is causing SARS. Of course, if you read far enough into these stories (MSNBC today, for example), you find out that the new test is dubious, at best.

First of all, here is the way the test is done. A person suspected of having SARS gives a little bit of blood to a doctor. The doc sends this to a lab, where they also have blood from SARS people who have recovered. To that "victorious blood" they add the virus just found in the patient in question. If the victorious blood kills the virus, then the patient in question does have SARS.

This is science like Dan Rather is an astronaut.

Because they haven't found a virus that causes SARS. They may hope they have, but they haven't. So how can they add this virus to the victorious blood, if they don't have it, if they haven't isolated it? Oh, they may have isolated SOME virus or another, but they don't know that it is causing SARS.

Get it?

Who knows how many irrelevant viruses are floating around in the human body all the time?

And if they haven't found the true causative virus, they absolutely can't say all these so-called cases of SARS are actually connected in any way. They could very well be various kinds of flu and pneumonia and infections that are unrelated.

Diseases have been invented on the basis of taking unrelated illness and tying it together under one name. AIDS is one example.

Travelers around the world get sick and die all the time. Most recover. But all of a sudden we have SARS, and medical teams are claiming that cases in China are related to cases in Nome.

To have any hope of finding a germ that actually causes an illness, you have to establish a few things. The germ is present in all cases. It is the same germ. It is present in large numbers at locatable sites in the body. The germ is actually doing something. It is attacking cells, it is registering some kind of destructive biological activity.

In the case of so-called SARS, they have NONE of that.

And even when the germ in question passes all the above tests, you still have the overriding factor: how healthy is the PERSON? Is the person able to throw off the germ easily? Are most people with good immune systems able to throw off the germ?

You see, when you get down in the dirt and really look, you don't get hysteria, you get information or lack of same, and you can move on with confidence, not fear.

But fear is what drives the medical cartel.

SARS CHIEFS TAKE NEW STEPS

March 28. An MSNBC/Reuters/AP piece spells it out.

WHO has ordered any airline with international flights out of Toronto, Hong Kong, Singapore, Hanoi, Taiwan, and Guangdong Province in China to screen boarding passengers for SARS.

Since no one knows the cause of the disease or if SARS is one disease, and since there are no blood tests done at airports, how is the screening to be accomplished?

Airport employees will ask passengers if they have flu-like symptoms, or if they've been in contact with someone who has SARS.

If the answer is yes to either question, the passenger is not allowed to board a plane.

To say this is a cosmetic procedure is an understatement.

Governments have the option of following the new WHO guidelines or not.

The other development: Dr. Jim Hughes, head of the CDC infectious disease unit, states that, even though SARS has been described as a pneumonia, many US cases do not have pneumonia.

Here we go.

This is the disease-definition expanding phase, in which more and more people are taken into the net.

The same thing happened with AIDS. New symptoms added.

This is SOP. First it's only pneumonia, then it's any lung problem, then it's high fever plus a cough, then it's fatigue, then it's headache plus fever, then it's a splinter in the foot, then it's anyone with a cup of coffee in his hand.

The definition-expansion is justified on the grounds that health authorities are really constructing a surveillance definition. They're trying to scoop up everybody who MIGHT have SARS, to prevent the spread of the whatever-it-is.

But, as the days and weeks and months go by, somehow these add-on symptoms are never really expelled from the new definitions. They stay on board.

We'll see how far SARS goes. Remember, they have found no root cause. They have no test. They have no assurance that SARS was one thing to begin with, as opposed to a grab-bag of unrelated cases..

The group at the US CDC which always appoints itself in charge of these "emerging diseases" is EIS. Epidemic Intelligence Service. The doctors who are drafted for projects at EIS are all trained to go out into the field and FIND THE ONE CAUSE OF THE ONE DISEASE.

That's their orientation and their predisposition. They never take the attitude that the "outbreak" may well involve a mistake from the beginning. They never start with the idea that all the reports of cases from various far-flung areas may well be WELDING TOGETHER instances which are really not connected.

In the early 1980s at UCLA, researchers investigated many possible causes for AIDS: overuse of antibiotics, recreational drugs, contaminated drugs, cytomegalovirus, intestinal parasites, and so on.

Each potential root cause was eliminated because NOT ALL CASES OF SO-CALLED AIDS SHARED ANY ONE CAUSE.

Why was this a completely wrong way to proceed?

Because it was based on the unproven idea that AIDS was one disease condition.

Whereas, since immune-system suppression was the common denominator in all cases, any sane person would realize that hundreds of different causes in various cases could bring about immune suppression.

This obvious idea was ignored. The researchers were trained to assume, from the get-go, that every case was an example of the same disease condition.

The basic flaw.

One disease, one germ, one basic drug to kill the one germ.

Researchers will tell you that epidemiology is their ace in the hole. They mean: "We have tracked SARS from person to person so we know it's one disease caused by one germ."

Joe got on a plane in Singapore. He was already suffering from flu-like symptoms. Sid, a guy sitting three rows away from Joe, later developed the same symptoms. That kind of thing.

This sounds very convincing, but it really isn't, for various reasons. For example, there are a number of solid studies which show that people with HIV do not pass it on to those they live with. And of course, Joe and Sid may be flu-like for different reasons. Joe ate fish that was a little bit tainted, and Sid was recently walking through a pesticide-laden field of rice.

But no one asks Sid and Joe the right questions, because the hunt is for a germ.

MORE ON SARS AND DELUSION AND MASS FEAR

April 3. Another aspect: airports can use this pretext to come down harder on travelers and question them more closely about all sorts of matters. Where were you? Whom did you see? What did they say? Why were you there?

Now, on to more research matters. There is much material about SARS and what it may be circulating on the Internet. I want to bring up a few points that are not being discussed. For example, how you decide that a germ, any germ, may be related to illness.

There is a thing called titer. It refers to the numbers of germs present in the body. Let's say we have an ill person, and somebody finds germ X in his system. The next natural question is, how many germ Xs are there? One? Two? Six thousand? Fifty thousand?

Why is that question important? Because it is generally known that a lot of germs have to be present to do anything significant.

If only six germ Xs are there, you have nothing to talk about.

In the case of SARS, where no probable germ cause has been found, there is absolutely nothing to say about titer. "Let's try to figure out how many SARS germs he has in his body even though we don't have a SARS germ." Doesn't work. Not in this universe.

Now, a lot of pure speculations are offered when a new germ may have been discovered. You can always count on that.

"We think that even twelve germ Xs can cause great damage in the body, because we believe they turn inside out and whistle Dixie at a certain frequency that obliterates the liver."

Yes, we think so. We imagine so. We fantasize. But we know nothing.

In the case of HIV, which was never proved to cause anything, all sorts of weird and baseless scenarios were posited. HIV started a cascade of reactions in the body that resulted in the body attacking itself. HIV was hiding in the macrophages (certain immune system cells) and covertly destroying them like a stealth bomber. HIV was hiding in the spinal fluid and floating into the brain and wreaking havoc.

Compelling science fiction. People resonated with these ideas. But nothing was ever proved. It was on the order of saying, "The light from planet Lufoo is melting neural connections."

All these scenarios were floated because no one could actually find many HIVs in the body, and that was disturbing. How could HIV be causing lethal damage if there were so few of them?

In the case of SARS, we are nowhere near that stage of lying. We are still in the stage of lying about having a possible germ to look at. We are still in the stage of lying about SARS being one unique disease condition at all.

And yet people are taking off and flying with the premise that SARS IS, in fact, a unique disease condition, and it is caused by a germ somebody designed in a lab.

Wow.

Now, I understand that the designer germ works if you see that SARS is very useful for keeping people in a state of fear and repression. You think, "Since this is a political OP, we must have a germ designed to achieve that effect."

But, as I've been writing since 1987, such an OP is better launched and controlled BY NOT HAVING ANY GERM AT ALL. That's right.

All you do is roll together lots of DIVERSE and DIFFERENT illness in many people, you call it SARS or AIDS or CFIDS or OOBLADEE, you get that name plastered on, and then everybody stands up and salutes and says VOILA, we have a new disease and it's horrible and we need a DRUG to treat the one killer germ. The drug always turns out to be highly toxic, and causes some of the very symptoms you're trying to cure. It's magic.

I hope you get this, because some of you are sending me articles about SARS and saying, "See, this is exactly what you're talking about. SARS is a bio-attack launched by a germ invented in a lab."

Hello?

That's not what I'm saying.

Let me continue to build my point. If you are in the business of launching terror through epidemics, and if you are sophisticated, you know that a trillion or ten trillion germs spread out into the environment will produce an unknown effect. It's very iffy. AND THE IDEA THAT YOU REALLY HOLD A SECRET ANTIDOTE IN YOUR HAND AND SAVE IT FOR THE FAVORED FEW---that is a joke.

It doesn't work that way. Antibiotics are a good example. These drugs sometimes knock out bacteria one two three, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes the germs just continue on their merry way. Sometimes the antibiotics cause very bad adverse effects. Gross overuse of these drugs always causes nasty adverse effects, including severe immune suppression and death. And sometimes, although the drugs do knock out the bacteria, they leave the patient in a weakened state.

So the assumption that a magic bullet antidote to a magic bullet designer germ is reliable---that is pure fluff.

No, if you are creating a medical OP, you want to create a new disease LABEL which draws in, like a propaganda magnet, all sorts of diverse and UNRELATED illness conditions. Then you want to sell a drug treatment that will eat the liver and the kidneys. You want to obscure the fact that most of the UNRELATED illnesses were stemming from immune-system weakness, which in turn was brought on by factors like street drugs, medical drugs, vaccines, hunger, junk diets, starvation, protein-calorie malnutrition, contaminated water supplies, intestinal parasites, toxic pesticides, stress, war, grinding poverty, hopelessness, nutritional deficiencies, excess refined sugar, and so on.

By preying on those who are already ill, by renaming their illnesses, by failing to deal with what really caused them to become ill, by treating them with toxic drugs, you can kill them and scare a whole population back into their homes. You can impose travel bans and quarantines, you can pass new laws, you can forward the medical/police state. And if SARS is called a bio-terror attack, you can work that fear angle as well. You can invent and accuse perpetrators and bomb their cities.

If SARS is never called a bio-terror attack, maybe the next GBC or YDR or FGU or RSO or ZXY or ABC will be. In which case, SARS will have been a test run of sorts. "Let's see how they react. Let's see how much fear and how many travel bans we can make them swallow. Let's test out our global surveillance and security and suppression cops."

WITHOUT EVER FINDING A GERM. WITH NO GERM. NONE. POOF.

April 4, 2003

HOW TO TARGET A SPECIFIC POPULATION FOR DEATH AND DEBILITATION

April 4. In the wake of my recent SARS articles, I thought I'd spell out how certain medical OPS can work.

Clarity in these matters depends on which end of the telescope you're peering through.

The public sees the gradual and then accelerating spread of a plague or an epidemic or a wave of contagious illness. It looks like there was an origin point with a fanning out from that spot. It looks like people are catching a germ from one another and getting sick. It looks like the medical troops are moving in to try to save the day.

But if it's a planned OP, just the opposite is happening.

And here is one version of such an OP. You select the group you want to debilitate. You invent a list of symptoms, and you keep that list vague.

You go into the group and you find people who have the symptoms. Some of those people will be dying, usually because the water supply there is dirty and the food situation is bad, or because they are taking some very nasty drugs, or because they are working in an ag area where the pesticides are from hell. Or because they have just been shot up with loads of bad vaccines. (In China, areas went through a massive vaccine program about a year ago.)

So you start saying cases that have these vague symptoms actually have QRS, a new disease, and you dispatch med pros to the scene to take blood and look for a new germ.

You announce the probable cause, the germ you settle on.

You develop a blood test for the germ, and you say if the test is positive and the person has a few of these vague symptoms, he has QRS.

You already know that the blood test will read positive for a number a reasons that have nothing to do with this germ. That gives you a nice wide net so you can inflate case numbers and scare everybody and obtain travel bans, and:

You can also give all these cases a DRUG that is very toxic, that in fact produces one or two of the vague symptoms of QRS.

You shove in a new policy. If a person tests positive for the QRS germ, you give him the drug, even if he has no symptoms. You say this is a very smart preventive action.

So now these people who tested positive for the germ but had no symptoms WILL GET SYMPTOMS, because the drug will be causing the symptoms. But you say the symptoms are from the QRS germ.

The drug debilitates or kills people. The group you targeted is in a state of hysteria and fear. Of course, you have other people in this group who are dying because of the original reasons they got sick: starvation, dirty water, bad vaccines, other drugs, pesticides, etc. You call all these people QRS fatalities.

Those cases that recover without taking the QRS treatment you downplay. You don't give them press coverage. You call them weird miracles. You say they never really had QRS.

And if any medical pros stumble across the OP in progress and go public, you discredit them. You take away their funding. You say they are crazy.

Suppose a medical pro, a key figure (dupe) who helped establish the existence of QRS to begin with, wakes up and tries to go public and blow the whistle on some part of the scam.

You kill him