Ebola: question all basic assumptions
by Jon Rappoport
October 28, 2014
To understand what the sellers are selling, you have to go back to the beginning of their story.
You have to restrain yourself from buying the beginning, because if you do buy it, uncritically, you’re now on their river, you’re now traveling in their boat.
And even if you jump off later and claim, “They’re lying!”, you’re still holding the suitcase with their first assumptions in it.
At the beginning they say there has been an outbreak in three separate areas of West Africa.
The first part of “outbreak” means: accelerated dying is occurring.
How do you know that’s true? Where are the numbers to confirm that? Where is evidence that shows present deaths are jumping beyond recent past deaths?
The second part of “outbreak” means: the new accelerated deaths in all three geo-areas are linked by the same cause.
Where is the evidence for that?
The diagnostic tests? The antibody and PCR tests, both of which are useless, misleading, irrelevant, and rampant with false-positive results?
Is the evidence the symptoms these victims are showing? General symptoms like fever, fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting, bleeding, all of which can and do stem from a variety of causes? Of course not.
The third part of “outbreak” means: researchers have found what the link is among all the new deaths—the Ebola virus.
On what basis do they know this? Those useless diagnostic tests? Divining rods? The solemn assurance of the CDC? Quick eyeball diagnosis of every patient with a fever wandering into a clinic in West Africa?
On all counts, the beginning of the story is unproven—and the burden of proof is not on you, it’s on the “experts” making the claims.
Three cops are called to the scene of a death. In the apartment, a man is lying on the floor. He is, in fact, dead.
Upon examination, the cops and a medical examiner find no holes in his body. They find no shell casings, no weapons, no gunshot residue.
They confer. Their conclusion? He was killed at close range by two rounds from a revolver.
The papers and the local news broadcasts carry the story: “A man was shot to death in his apartment by an unknown assailant last night…”
The next day, the cops arrest a schoolteacher who has a revolver locked in the trunk of his car.
A few days later, you’re sitting in a bar watching the news on television. You see video of the schoolteacher’s arraignment on a charge of first-degree murder.
You say, “How do they know he did it?”
The people sitting near you break out into a chorus: “Who else could it be?”
Sixteen years later, while the schoolteacher is sitting on death row awaiting his execution, a lawyer manages to have the victim’s body exhumed.
On re-examination, the coroner finds no evidence of a gunshot wound…but the remains of the body are decayed beyond the point where a definitive judgment can be made.
Oh well, those are the breaks.
Here is what I’m encountering in many quarters. People are saying, or assuming: the CDC and the World Health Organization lie about everything under the sun EXCEPT…when they launch stories about outbreaks. Then they must be telling the truth. The basic beginning of their tale must be true.
In those crucial moments, they never lie.
Really, now. Think about that.
And then think about this: the 2009 “outbreak” called Swine Flu. In that situation, the CDC stopped counting cases in the US, because the overwhelming number of lab tests on diagnosed and likely Swine Flu patients were coming back…with no sign of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.
So…as a “big lie” strategy, with roughly ten thousand bogus cases of Swine Flu cases on their hands, the CDC suddenly claimed there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US.
That was their “outbreak” story.
And now, when they tell a story about an “outbreak” of a virus called Ebola…well, they must be telling the truth, right?
Egregiously lying THEN means they must be telling the truth NOW, right?