[Mb-civic] JON'S REPORT, more on the FLU SCAM

[Peter Fleming]

And here is one of my favorite Free Press researchers
  (they're all called bloggers now), Jon Rappoport,
 whose accuracy over the years is amazing,
and who has been writing reporting researching
on his own longer than anybody else in my awareness......

jon's flu scam piece  nov 4 05

JAPAN TIMES IS UNCONSCIOUSLY BRILLIANT

NOVEMBER 4, 2005. The September 3rd edition of The Japan Times contained a
short piece on bird-flu vaccines for birds. The article is so confused it's
absolutely brilliant. 

It all has to do with antibodies and their use in detection of bird flu. 

As readers know, I've been writing about antibodies a lot lately, because
they provide a clue as to how insane this whole bird-flu hoax really is. 

Let me review: antibodies are scouts sent out by the immune system to help
in neutralizing a germ. Antibodies are good. Traditionally, when medical
people tested blood for antibodies and found them, they would say, "Well,
this person has handled germ X very well. His immune system is in good
shape." 

At the very least, the medical people would say, "Okay, this person has
antibodies to germ X. That means at some time he has had germ X in his body.
It doesn't mean he got sick. It doesn't mean will get get sick. It just
means germ X was there." 

But now, everybody and his brother has turned all this science upside down.
Now, antibodies are taken to be a sign of present or future illness. That is
dead wrong. That is absurd. That is like saying, "We sent scouts out from
the fort to see what the enemy was doing. Because we sent out those scouts,
we know we are going to lose the war." 

So now, as the Japan Times article indicates, we have a situation where
medical people are holding back a vaccine for birds because they are worried
about producing antibodies in those birds. I'm NOT saying they should use
the vaccine. I'm just pointing out that these doctors are so confused about
what antibodies mean they're in a bind and at a standstill. They're dizzy.
They're contradicting their own practices. They're goofy beyond all
recognition. They're off the cliff and into the river. They're NUTS. 

Read the article and try to figure it out, and then I'll have a few
comments: 

Vaccine may be linked to bird flu cases: JAPAN TIMES, Sept. 3. 

The weak strain of avian influenza recently detected at more than a dozen
farms in Ibaraki Prefecture may have been brought about by artificial
contamination, including by the use of vaccines, a farm ministry panel said
Friday. 

The use of vaccines to prevent bird flu is currently banned by law, and the
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Ministry said it would probe the matter
further. 

According to panel head Hiroshi Kida, a professor at Hokkaido University,
the genetic makeup of the virus found at the Ibaraki farms was strikingly
similar to that of a bird flu virus found in Guatemala and Mexico, too far
for a migrating bird to carry into Japan. It is also different from other
Central American strains of the virus previously found in other parts of
Asia. 

This led the panel to suspect that a vaccine developed using the Central
American virus was brought into Japan and used on some birds, infecting the
animals around them, he said. 

The ministry has a stock of vaccines to be used in the event of a massive
bird flu outbreak, but has banned its general use because vaccinated birds
will develop the antibody and be indistinguishable from animals that have
really come down with the disease. 

end of Times article 

The kicker, of course, is in the last sentence of the article. 

They won't be able to tell the difference between vaccinated birds and birds
that have come down with the disease. 

Why? Because the vaccine produces antibodies. 

Let me walk you through this. 

Animals that have produced antibodies on their own to The H5N1 bird-flu
virus AREN'T SICK AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY WILL GET SICK. 

If these animals produce antibodies on their own, that's a sign that their
immune systems are healthy and they are handling the H5N1 virus just fine. 

But these researchers---who are standing on their heads---now believe that
antibodies are a sign of present or future illness. 

So they don't want to give the vaccine because, then, they won't know the
difference between immunized birds and birds who are sick or are going to
get sick. Argggh! 

Their thought process goes like this: "If birds get antibodies from the
vaccine, they are immune to H5N1. If birds produce THOSE SAME ANTIBODIES ON
THEIR OWN, they are sick or will get sick." 

This is sheer nonsense. Sheer contradiction. Therefore, everything that
follows will be gibberish. 

So these doctors are stuck in neutral with their wheels spinning. 

I'll take this one step further. There IS a difference between taking a
vaccine and producing antibodies naturally without a vaccine. When a bird or
human produces the antibodies on his own, this generally means that his
whole immune system (not just the antibody part) is functioning well. When
the antibodies are induced by a vaccine, this says NOTHING about the health
of the rest of the immune system. And believe me, THE WHOLE IMMUNE SYSTEM
has to be in good shape to ward off problems. A vaccine FORCE FEEDS
antibodies into the system and therefore does not really produce immunity.
It only prouces the appearance of immunity. 

The madness about antibodies...let me give you another analogy: let's say
that you have two stores. Target and Home Depot. They both stock and sell
Brand K juice squeezers. These machines come in boxes and they are sold
inside the box, still sealed. Same juicers. But "experts" say that if you
buy the juicer from Target you'll get a good product. It'll work. If, on the
other hand, you buy the same juicer (sealed in the box) from Home Depot, it
will INVARIABLY fly apart when you use it and you'll be hit by swift-moving
shards of steel and glass. 

Getting your antibodies from a vaccine? You're in great shape. You're
immune. Getting the SAME antibodies because your body is producing them
naturally? You're doomed. 

Overwhelmingly, the tests that are being done all over the world for bird
flu are antibody tests. If they find antibodies, they say the bird or pig or
human is sick or will soon get sick. If the bird or pig or human gets a
vaccine for bird flu, giving it/him/her the same antibodies, radiant health
will ensue. 

The truth is, all those animals that are showing antibodies to H5N1, when
tested, are okay. If they get sick, they are getting sick from something
else: like the horrendously filthy chronic environments that exist in most
factory farms. 

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
NOVEMBER 4, 2005. Bloomberg News is publishing its investigation into yet
another scandal involving clinical trials of new drugs: massive numbers of
these drug tests on volunteers are stopped before their assigned end points
because, according to the researchers, the drugs are proving to be so
effective. 

Then, after FDA approval, the drugs are marketed through doctors to the
public and the trouble starts: they don't work and they're toxic. The usual.


Bloomberg needs to take a look at another aspect of this corruption:
clinical trials of drugs that are taken to the assigned end point, where
they are seen to be no more effective than a placebo---and THEN the
sponsoring drug company rigs the results. The trial is looked at
retrospectively to find an earlier point in time where the human guinea pigs
were, in fact, doing better than the people on a sugar pill (or older drug).
The trial is then writtemn up for publication AS IF IT WERE A SHORTER TRIAL
TO BEGIN WITH. And the damning evidence of ineffectiveness is scuttled,
dropped into a black hole. 

For example, here is a piece I wrote back in 2003 about Xanax, a very
dangerous drug given for panic attacks and anxiety. 

******************************************************************** 

Miami.com reports on an epidemic wave of Xanax use in Florida, among kids.
Xanax is being sold and used as a street drug. It is a wildly popular
anti-anxiety, anti-panic medicine. 

The most revealing point in the article: "Abusers who abruptly stop taking
the drug could experience seizures. Doctors say abusers have to be taken off
the drug in a slow and gradual process, but even then, some people report
that they still experience withdrawal." 

Translation: Xanax is highly addictive. And there is no difference in this
respect between "abusers" and "patients for whom the drug is prescribed by a
doctor." 

Okay, now here is a little useful background. One of the key early studies
done on Xanax, funded by the manufacturer, Upjohn, was led by James
Ballenger and published in the Archives of General Psychiatry 45 (1988):
413-22. 

Psychiatrist and author Peter Breggin checked out Upjohn ads which were
stating that the effects of the drug had been tallied for eight weeks. But
the small print indicated Xanax had only been evaluated for four weeks. 

Breggin then read over Ballenger's study and found that the abstract said
nothing about "Xanax's effect beyond four weeks." 

Hmm. 

Breggin writes in his book, Toxic Psychiatry, "By the end of the eight
weeks, the sugar-pill patients [those on a placebo] were doing about as well
as the drug [Xanax] patients." 

In other words, do an eight-week study and if you don't like the results,
find an earlier point where you do like the results and emphasize that as
the end-point of the research. Lie. Re-write. Omit. 

Compounding this is the fact that doctors on average prescribe Xanax for
months, up to a year. So the study results say nothing about what happens
when the patient stays on Xanax beyond a few weeks. 

Breggin adds, referring to the study in question, "Indeed, the placebo
patients were far better off, because they did not suffer the severe
withdrawal and rebound reaction [when Xanax was stopped], including an
increase in anxiety and in phobic response, plus a 350 percent greater
number of panic attacks." 

To sum up: after eight weeks, the placebo patients were doing about as well
as those on Xanax. Those on Xanax got the mule kick of heavy withdrawal
symptoms once the drug was stopped. 

And the FDA went on to approve Xanax as a safe and effective drug to treat
panic attacks. 

Breggin points out that the editor in chief of the Archives of General
Psychiatry, which published early Xanax studies, was Daniel Freedman.
"Freedman took on a remarkable dual role: editor of the journal publishing
the Upjohn-sponsored Xanax studies and paid consultant to Upjohn as chairman
of the company's oversight committee supervising 'ethical and safety issues'
in regard to the studies." 

There is much more chicanery, but you get the point. 

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com 



ON THE BIRD FLU AGENDA

NOVEMBER 3, 2005. It should be obvious by now that one of the points of the
bird-flu hoax is to enforce mandatory medical treatment with vaccines and
drugs. 

THE SKY IS FALLING. TAKE YOUR DRUGS. 

This counters the most basic principles of freedom. 

OF COURSE, WHO WANTS FREEDOM ANYMORE? 

You may love vaccines or hate them, but if you can't permit a level playing
field on which each person can decide whether to submit to medical treatment
or not, you are moving into the camp of tyranny. 

ACHTUNG, LINE UP FOR YOUR INJECTION. IT DOESN'T HURT AND IT'S GREAT FOR
KIDS. 

Of course, the kicker in the whole deal has to do with the concept of
communicable diseases. In other words, if you refuse medical treatment, you
are "opening the door to unregulated human carriers and spreaders of
disease. You are becoming one of those carriers." 

STOP HIM! OVER THERE! HE'S A CARRIER! 

So, to understand all this, you have to go deeper. You have to discard "what
everybody knows" about so-called medical science, and you have to see that
diseases thrive where living conditions are poor: terrible sanitation,
overcrowding, poverty, contaminated water supplies, hunger, malnutrition,
and toxic chemicals. 

You also have to see that, when a person's immune system is compromised
badly, he is a target for illness. 

So to cure all this, living conditions need to be improved, and people have
to work their way into states of better natural immunity. 

THESE measures are what stop so-called epidemics. 

THERE ARE NO EPIDEMICS WHERE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY HEALTHY. 

THERE ARE NO EPIDEMICS WHERE THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT IS IN GOOD CONDITION. 

CONVERSELY, WHEN LIVING CONDITIONS ARE MISERABLE, THERE ARE ALWAYS WAVES OF
EPIDEMICS AND NO MEDICAL TREATMENTS WILL STOP THEM. THE TREATMENTS MAY ALTER
THE LIST OF LIFE-THREATENING SYMPTOMS AND SIGNS, BUT THE BASIC DANGER
REMAINS. 

Louis Pasteur was wrong. The presence of germs is not enough to cause
disease. Germs are everywhere. They are not occasional visitors. 

If you were to do a serious investigation of thousands of people, you would
find that those already healthy did not succumb to so-called epidemics. If
they became sick at all, that illness was rather brief and it was not
ultimately harmful. The body's immune system threw off the illness and
became stronger in the process. The people survived. 

Such a conclusion does not help drug companies. 

YES, I KNOW, IT'S UNPATRIOTIC NOT TO HELP DRUG COMPANIES. 

In recent years, the global revolution called natural health has spread like
wildfire, endangering the entire modern disease paradigm. 

STOP THOSE REVOLUTIONARIES! WHAT DO THEY WANT? GIVE THEM THORAZINE! 

The drug companies and medical agencies and the rest of the medical
establishment have seen the veil of lies torn aside. 

Hence, the wave of fake diseases like SARS, West Nile, and bird flu, in
order to maintain the illusion of the old germ paradigm. Hence, the PR on
behalf of fear, obedience to authority, and universal mandatory medical
treatment waiting in the wings. 

There is no science behind any of it. There is only fake science supporting
the whole vicious scam. 

The treatments of course are toxic. 

If you don't think so, take them. Take the pills and the shots. 

But if you insist that everyone take them, then you are taking a political
position. You are opposing freedom. 

We are in the process of witnessing the accelerated rise of the Medical
State. That is the basic response to the natural health revolution---a
revolution that has no appointed leaders, no bureaucracy, no pledges or
oaths, no iron hierarchy. It is impossible to derail. It comes welling up
inside millions of people, and those people do not try to force anyone to
join or submit to a handbook of rules. 

It's not my business to move in and try to stop people who drink a quart of
rotgut a day, or swallow Valium like candy, or opt for chemo, or swallow AZT
or the statin drugs or consume rat poison to thin their blood or take
vaccines that contain chemicals like mercury and aluminum and
formaldehyde... 

When I get an email from someone who tries to convince me that vaccines are
wonderful, if I respond at all, I say, "It's up to you. Go ahead if you want
to, if you think you understand what's involved. It's not my business what
you do." 

All I'm looking for, politically speaking, is free choice. When people want
to hammer that out of existence, I see their souls turning to dry ice. I see
them transforming into Nazis. I see them moving out of the range of what is
human. I see what Russians saw early in the last century, as the paradise on
Earth Marx predicted evaporated before their eyes and the armed robots of
the State marched in under the banner of share and care and "a brilliant
future for all" and took over. The State leaders did what was right for
everyone at the point of a gun. Spread compassion with arrests and
interrogations. Gave love with gulags. Made sure everything was right and
good by assembling ranks of citizen informers. Declared people insane for
opposing the leadership and put them into institutions. 

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com





11828 San Vicente Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90049
310-454-1373

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20051123/6e4a1520/attachment.htm