by Jon Rappoport
February 26, 2020

from NoMoreFakeNews Website






"When gigantic mega-corporations

steal land from Third World people

and then poison these people with horrific pollution,

why isn't it called murder?

Is that too stark?

Does it offend delicate sensibilities?

Would you say that a drug gang who

shoots up a bar and kills ten innocent bystanders

is just carrying out

'typical business practices in their field of endeavor',

and should therefore never be

prosecuted in a court of law

on a charge of homicide?"

The Underground

Jon Rappoport


If a group wants to stage a fake and frightening epidemic, how would they do it?

First of all, what reasons would they have to launch such an audacious plan?

On one level, they want to cover up human harm that is already occurring.


They want to explain this harm with a false story. For example, suppose a combination of deadly corporate air and water and 5G* electronic pollution is making people sick and killing them.


The parties responsible are surely not going to admit their crimes. No. Instead, they're going to claim a new virus is causing this harm in the form of, say, lung disease.


The virus just "emerged."

"It showed up out of nowhere. It crossed species from animals to humans."

So…the first thing needed is a cluster of cases in one locale.


A small group of people who have the same symptoms. This is easy to find. How about ordinary flu symptoms? Fever, fatigue, weakness, with an emphasis on lung complications [from the forms of pollution]. A few of these people are very ill. Two of them die.


Now, the publicity/news machine swings into gear...

It's called an "outbreak." It isn't, but that's the story. "They were all 'exposed to something'" at, say, a riverfront dock restaurant.

The news - shoveled directly into mainstream outlets - comes from elite public health agencies like the CDC and the World Health Organization (WHO).

It's an OUTBREAK...


To use a technical term, this is all BULLSHIT.



People in the locale of the "new case cluster" are falling ill and dying as a result of the actual pollution-causes I listed above. But the news takes a different slant:

"Researchers from WHO and CDC state that a 'mystery illness' has emerged in City X, and they are working to discover the virus…"

Who said it was a virus?


Who made that unwarranted assumption?

WHO and CDC. They always say it's a virus.

At this point, suddenly, it's news all over the planet, and most of the population is roped in, right from the get-go.

Virus. Yes. I see. Which virus?

And shortly and miraculously, the answer comes:

it's VX-20. A new virus, never seen before, "which probably emerged from fish and crossed over into humans. One fisherman has already died."

Voila... We have a new disease. VX-20...

Next question:

did researchers actually find this virus?


Did they?

Follow the next piece closely. There is sleight-of-hand involved.

One scenario:

Researchers used what are called "indirect markers" to INFER that a new virus was there, in samples of tissue taken from several people in the original "cluster" of riverfront victims.


The researchers didn't actually use basic procedures to purify the tissue sample from even one patient, and they didn't see MANY identical viruses in an electron microscope photograph of the purified sample - if they took such a photograph at all.

They certainly didn't perform this complete test on several hundred emerging patients - they should have, but they didn't.


And most certainly, other researchers, including INDEPENDENT analysts, didn't perform the necessary electron microscope test on hundreds of so-called "epidemic patients."

So… the CDC and WHO researchers came up with a notion, an idea, an inference about a virus, through these indirect markers.


And via a process of continuing inferences, they characterized the virus they never saw.

Scenario two:

Let's be generous and assume the researchers did bother to look at electron microscope photos, derived from only a few patients, not hundreds of patients, as they should have.


What did they actually see in the photos? Maybe they saw a few particles that looked similar to each other, BUT quite possibly these virus-like particles were just passengers that ordinarily live in the body and cause no harm.




So what?


These researchers don't bother to make the distinction between viruses that might do harm and those that do nothing. Why? Because they're determined to find something. Anything. That's their basic mission...

In both scenarios, they've fallen woefully short of proving that a new virus is responsible for making people ill.

But never mind - news outlets and governments are already on the march. THIS IS IT. A new epidemic. VX-20.

A whole city is already locked down.


Screeners are waving wands at passengers getting off planes.


Some US talking head is saying there is now a rush to develop a vaccine.


New cases of VX-20 are showing up in other cities and other countries.



Let's examine that last part, about new cases and "spreading" -  because this is where people REALLY fall for the con.


They say:

"Well, here is a city where there is no air or water or 5G pollution, and they're discovering new cases, so how do you explain that?"

The new cases and the spread are based entirely on DIAGNOSTIC TESTS.


Those test-results determine whether there is an "epidemic case" or a "spread."

There are two main tests: antibody and PCR. In a nutshell, neither test is adequate to say HERE IS A NEW CASE. Both tests are unreliable and worthless. It's more of the con. Both tests will claim to show "new cases" when they DON'T.


They might show some antibodies or a few tiny fragments of what might possibly be a virus, but they show NOTHING that directly points to human illness. Relying on those tests would be on the order of laying down a bet on a game that isn't even scheduled. It's a farce.

Antibody tests, which purport to prove illness coming from a virus, are actually showing, at best, that the patient came in contact with a virus. Actually, before 1984, this was generally taken to mean the patient was in good shape.


His immune system had defeated the germ. But then, for several no good reasons, the science was turned on its head. All of a sudden, a positive antibody test was taken to mean the patient was ill or would soon become ill.


Nonsense. Farce...

The PCR test takes a tiny, tiny sample from a patient that might contain a virus, but the virus particle is far too small to comprehend.


The PCR blows up that particle many times, so it can be analyzed.


BUT the test says nothing about HOW MUCH virus, if any, is replicating in the patient's body. And you need millions and millions of a virus replicating in the body to even begin talking about a cause of actual illness.

AND both tests rely on the unwarranted assumption that a virus actually causing illness - VX-20 - was truly discovered in the first place.

Armed with these pathetic tests, public officials begin reporting a new epidemic case here and a new one there, and pretty soon 40 countries have new cases, and the public falls for it, hook, line, and sinker.

And THAT'S HOW you stage a fake epidemic.


The rest is pure publicity and lockdown and theater. Dangerous theater...

Toxic drugs and toxic vaccines will be brought on board to treat the epidemic that was never there.

The ACTUAL ONGOING causes of illness and dying will remain in place, shoved into the deep background.

And THIS amounts to a capital crime. As in: murder. Remember that...

People will be told not to question the official line on the "epidemic." This is called a clue. Why not ask questions? Because the answers might lead to a correct conclusion about the enormous con job.

Let me add a few comments.

The World Health Organization itself states that every year, there are millions of cases of ordinary flu around the world, and several hundred thousand deaths. This isn't "coronavirus." But the flu sufferers can easily be called "new epidemic cases."


Ordinary flu can be statistically "imported" and called "coronavirus."

Then there is the medical treatment imposed on people who are told they are "coronavirus cases." I'm talking about highly toxic antiviral drugs, which have the ability to stop natural reproduction of cells in the body. Particularly when such people already have weakened immune systems, or organ-function problems, the results can be catastrophic.


The patients can die. Of course, if they do, they will be called "deaths from the epidemic."

Finally, there is something else you may have heard of. I mentioned it a few paragraphs ago: murder.

Do you really think the people who are consciously launching a fake epidemic, with all its consequences - including covering up and never remedying ongoing real causes of dying and death - would stop short of staging a few spectacular incidents of dying and death, in order to make a splash and convince the public that the virus is really a killer?

Are you KIDDING...?


For example, suddenly, out of the blue, a few friends, previously healthy, in a small town, fall ill, and a few days later, they're dead. Health officials state they were "positive for the virus."

"It came on quickly."

Are tests run to detect an intentional covert act of direct poisoning? Of course not.


Media blare this horrible story all over the world:


Same thing happens to a previously healthy family in Country X.

They fall ill and die.


And then a group of travelers on a mountain in Country Y become ill and die. Murder.

However, the cover story is:




That's right, when the audience is brainwashed and completely naïve...

"But… but how could anyone actually commit premeditated murder of innocent people, in order to convince the public that a virus is spreading in unlikely places?"

As I mentioned, such controllers are ALREADY guilty of murder, because they're hiding the actual ongoing causes of death with the cover story of a virus.


This sort of cover-up of crime has been happening, around the world, for a long, long time...


To cite just two instances,

look at parts of Africa and Haiti, where the "HIV story" has been promoted and funded, wall to wall, in order to conceal intentionally created and sustained poverty, stolen farm land, and corporate takeovers involving massive poisonous industrial pollution...

When you go back in history - as I have - you'll realize that fake epidemics are 'standard' operating procedure:

SARS, Swine Flu, West Nile, Zika, etc...

I've written about every one of these phonies in detail…







-   What Real Science would Look Like 'if' it Existed...   -
by Jon Rappoport
March 10, 2020

from NoMoreFakeNews Website



Kevin Frayer/Getty Images




This is one of the most important articles I've written on the current "epidemic."

When you look at the justification for all the lunatic measures being taken to "stem the tide" of the coronavirus, you come to the simplicity of CASES.

How many cases are there?


How many people are "infected?"

And the answer to that comes from what?

From tests. From diagnostic tests...

Of course, some people are ridiculously labeled "cases" without tests. I've explained that nonsense in other articles.

Outside of China, the most widely used test is called the PCR. It must be done with tremendous care, because contamination with irrelevant microbes and cellular material can yield a misleading and absurd result.

The PCR, it is claimed, can take a tiny, tiny bit of material from a patient and blow it up many times, so it can be identified.

"This is the coronavirus. This patient is infected"...

Not only that, the test's proponents assert that, quite easily, the PCR can also determine the AMOUNT of virus in the patient's body.


Why is that vitally important? Because, to even begin talking about the patient ever getting sick, he must have millions and millions of coronavirus actively replicating in his body.

There are people (and I'm one of them) who challenge the claim that the PCR can show how much virus is in the patient's body. The experts try to brush us off - we don't understand the intricacies of the test, it's highly technical, we're not qualified to make a judgment, etc...

I've been searching for a way around this futile argument.


In the process, I've discovered something important about the PCR.


Let me explain...

You bring your car to a good repair shop.


The mechanics hook it up to a device and run a test to diagnose what's causing the car to stall. Who says their tests are accurate?


At some point in the past, these diagnostic procedures have been vetted, to make sure they work properly.

And sure enough, when the mechanics say, "We've found the problem," and when they correct that problem, you drive the car and it doesn't stall anymore.


This is called a real-life result...

This is not the situation re the PCR.

Its proponents claim it can count how much virus is in a patient's body - how much of a particular virus.


But where is the proof, in real-life terms, that the PCR can do that?


How was that proof ever established?

When I say proof, I don't mean technical mumbo-jumbo.

I'm not referring to the highly dense language these scientists use among themselves.


I'm talking about real live human patients, and results.

After all, if the PCR is being used to diagnose people, and if the results are being used to count the number of coronavirus cases in various countries, and if the number of cases forms the basis for, say, locking down the whole of Italy in a mass quarantine…



I have seen no wide-ranging proof that the PCR was ever checked properly, when it was first introduced, to show it could do what researchers say it can do.




I have come up with a process - a simple process - which will check the veracity of the PCR.

It should have been carried out decades ago.


The fact that it wasn't is an enormous scandal.

Here it is.

From a hundred patients, very small tissue samples are taken.


The PCR lab people don't take the samples. They don't ever see the patients or know who they are.

The lab professionals run these hundred samples through the PCR, obtain results, and then report:

what virus did they find in each case, and how much of that virus did they find?

Let's say, in six instances, the lab techs claim they found a great amount of virus in the patients.

Well, those patients should be sick.

Are they? ARE THEY...???

"We've determined that patients 4, 9, 32, 54, 65, and 86 all have a huge amount of virus in their bodies."

"Interesting. Thanks. Let's see. Hmm... Turns out these people are fit as a fiddle. Not sick. I guess your test didn't work. It's a flop."

Or maybe the test does work. The six patients are sick.



That's what I mean by real-life results. No jive, no tap dancing...

There is more.

This experiment with the hundred patients?


It should be done, not just once, but many times. A hundred patients here at this facility, a hundred patients there at that facility. Thirty or forty different facilities, and thirty or forty different sets of a hundred patients.


It should be done by independent scientists without conflicts of interest.

It should have been done decades ago. I see no evidence that it was.



Think about what that means.

Think it through.

Trace all the implications.

For example, imagine you're the political leader of a country, with 100 "reported cases of the coronavirus."

Are you going to lock it down? Are you?

Think about everything that's happening now in the world. Use your intelligence.


Don't jump on the fear bandwagon. Don't jump on the "scientific" b.s. bandwagon.

Use your mind.

You're interested in scandals? I've just presented one. It's blaring with a thousand trumpets, right out in the open...