by Jon Rappoport
March 17, 2014
I never grow tired of explaining this issue, because people write to
me with the assumption that they understand disease diagnosis. And
they don't. They're not off by a little bit. They're off by a mile.
Two of the most prevalent tests for diagnosing diseases are antibody
tests and what's called
Prior to 1984, it was well understood by most doctors that the
presence of antibodies specific to a given germ meant: the patient's
body had contacted and successfully thrown off the germ.
Antibodies are scouts for the immune system. They "go hunting" for
germ invaders and ID them, so other troops can knock them out.
That's the conventional view.
Therefore, if a test shows that antibodies are present, it's taken
to mean: victory. The body IDed and rejected the germ in question.
That view was turned upside down in the mid-1980s. All of a sudden,
the presence of antibodies meant: the patient was ill or would get
ill. Actually, the presence of antibodies simply indicates that the
body's immune system contacted the germ in question. That's all it
To say that a positive antibody test means a patient has a certain
disease is fatuous, wrong, and absurd. Yet, that is what doctors do
The PCR diagnostic test takes tiny genetic fragments of what are
assumed (but not always proven) to be germs and enlarges them,
amplifies them, so they can be observed.
That very fact tells you why the test is useless for diagnosing
disease. Even by conventional medical standards, you need lots and
lots and lots of a given germ in the body to even begin to assume
the germ is causing the patient any harm. And the PCR test is based
on the idea that there is so little of the germ available that you
need to enlarge it fantastically, just to be able to see it.
There is a medical term that refers to the quantity of a given germ
in the body: titer. It is usually ignored in today's medical
"science." But it is vital. Saying a germ is present in the body is
irrelevant to disease, unless you can show there are lots and lots
of that germ doing harm.
When researchers say, "We found germ X in the patient," people tend
to assume that means the germ is causing disease, but this isn't
When researchers are trying to discover whether there is a new
disease they haven't seen before, they must isolate the previously
unknown germ as the first step. This isn't done indirectly by
antibody or PCR test.
For example, in my last article
about hepatitis C, I mentioned Nick Regush, the
late ABC News medical reporter, and his discovery that the so-called
virus reputed to cause hepatitis C had never been properly isolated.
Not properly isolated = never really
Doctors and researchers, in a stunning
display of incompetence and/or dishonesty, are misdiagnosing
patients every hour of every day.
They are using tests that don't work.
They are misinterpreting the meaning of the tests they run. They
are lying. And the general public blithely accepts these false
To put the cherry on the cake, on top of everything I've written
here, it is really the individual's immune system that determines
whether a germ causes disease. It's not the germ all by itself.
The medical establishment has it
There may be exceptions to this rule, as in the case of certain
bioengineered germs. But for the wide range of typical diseases
which are said to plague humankind, it's all about immune systems,
and whether they are strong or weak.
And that is not a medical issue. It's an issue involving nutrition,
environmental toxins, poverty, sanitation, overcrowding. No
conventional doctor deploys tests to assess these vital factors, and
he doesn't have drugs to treat them.
False diagnosis of disease is huge problem and a huge hoax.