Deep medical fraud: logical insight cancels brain fog
By Jon Rappoport
In the course of an investigation, a clue can turn up that changes everything. It exposes massive falsehoods and fraud.
But the meaning of the clue doesn't always tap the
investigator on the shoulder and reveal its full implications. The force
of the rational insight is on a delay mechanism, as it were.
When I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in the late
1980s, I was surrounded by much confusion. A bewildering number of facts
and opinions and lies were being fed to me by various sources. I was
taping notes to my walls and trying to sort out the mess of spaghetti.
One day, while I was researching the AIDS antibody test, I
spoke to an official at the FDA. He mentioned that, if a vaccine were
developed for HIV, anyone who received it would be given a special
letter from the government. The letter would declare that if this person
ever tested positive for HIV, the result should be ignored, because the
antibodies that made the test turn positive were resulting from the
protective vaccine, not lethal HIV in the body.
After I hung up the phone, I tried to think through what I had just heard. Something strange was going on. What was it?
About a week later, it hit me. The brain fog was gone.
The official government position implied: if an HIV vaccine
were ever developed, it would stimulate antibodies to HIV in the body
and thus confer protection against AIDS. But...
If an unvaccinated person, taking an HIV test, registered
positive, that result would signal the presence of antibodies to HIV in
the body---and THAT would mean the person had AIDS or was on the road to
developing it.
However, in either case, THE ANTIBODIES WERE THE SAME.
If they were stimulated and acquired through a vaccine, that was a good sign. It meant immunity.
But if these same antibodies were acquired naturally, as a
response to making contact with HIV, that was a bad sign. It meant AIDS,
now, or just up the road.
Vaccine antibodies GOOD.
Natural antibodies BAD.
THE SAME ANTIBODIES.
Unintentionally implicit in the FDA spokesman's statements
was the logical walkway called reductio ad absurdum; a reduction to
absurdity. In other words, if you took the FDA man's claim about the
letter a person vaccinated against HIV would carry with him---and if you
thought it through and saw all the implications, you would see the
whole proposal was absurd to the highest degree.
A vaccine would produce an effect, X, which would confer
immunity. The body, producing the same effect, X, would signal impending
disease and even death.
Medical solution GOOD.
Body's natural solution BAD.
Time and time again in my investigations, I've found reductio
ad absurdum to be a very good friend and ally. Aristotle originally
formulated the strategy, and it has stood the time of time quite nicely.
The overall pattern is rather simple: take an assertion;
understand what it claims; lay out the chain of implications that follow
from the assertion; show that this chain leads to an impossible or
absurd consequence. THEREFORE, reject the assertion.
It's like following a faulty set of directions. You drive
through various streets and shift from one highway to another, all in
the process of finding your way home from a distant location. But the
directions finally lead you to a series of barriers at the desolate end
of a highway, beyond which there is no road, only a pile of construction
materials and a dank dark river you've never seen before.
It's not home. It's not useful. It makes no sense. It's reductio ad absurdum.
The idea that a HIV vaccine would confer immunity, while a
person's own body---producing the same antibodies---wouldn't confer
immunity, is preposterous.
In the years since AIDS INC. was published, I've written
about the sea-change that has occurred in disease diagnosis and vaccine
"protection." These days, a person receiving an antibody test for ANY
given disease is told he is "positive" for the disease if antibodies
show up on the test. But if he receives a vaccine that produces the same
antibodies, he's told he's immune.
It makes zero sense.
Here is a final clue. A positive antibody test is no reason
to tell a person he is sick or is going to get sick. A positive test
most often indicates the person's immune system has swung into gear and
neutralized the germ in question. BUT if the medical establishment
decides, arbitrarily, to interpret every positive test as a sign of
illness, then many, many more people can be diagnosed with diseases. And
then...
They can be treated with drugs.
And then, pharmaceutical cash registers ring like crazy with profits.
No comments:
Post a Comment