by Jon Rappoport
March 17, 2014
from JonRappoport Website

Spanish version

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 the PCR.

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 means.

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 every day.

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 necessarily so.

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 discovered.

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 diagnoses.

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 backwards...

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.