Researchers have determined that, for example, the test that is supposed to determine if someone has AIDS, the HIV blood test that was invented in the 1980s by former cancer researcher Robert Gallo, does not test if someone has that virus. It only determines if the blood has a certain level of so-called “HIV antibodies.” The Gallo test was patented by Gallo and his team before his sensational announcement in the 1980s that he had “identified” the specific virus causing what Gallo called, “the most frightening epidemic illness of the 20th Century, which we today call AIDS.”
Gallo deliberately calibrated his HIV test. When he first tested it on the blood serum of healthy donors, it showed 10% of the healthy, according to Gallo’s test, tested HIV-positive. Because he could not market such a test to the medical profession credibly, Gallo altered the sensitivity of the measuring reaction arbitrarily.
The pharmaceutical industry was delighted to market their very costly AZT chemotherapy drugs. Millions of human beings were condemned to a living hell, HIV-stigmatized, as a result of the Gallo test. The world was told of a “lethal virus” that could infect the global population. Infections such as Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Pneumocistis carinii Pneumonia had morphed into vicious killers. Few honest scientists around the world critically examined the test foundations that Gallo had protected by his patent.
One courageous scientist who did question the Gallo HIV-AIDS hypothesis was Kary Mullis, who in 1996 wrote, “The HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.” Mullis won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1993. His devastating comments were ignored by the ever-vigilant mainstream media and medical profession.
In 1983 Gallo arbitrarily transformed correlation into causality and said he had discovered the “virus” causing acquired immunodeficiency or AID, which was then named a “syndrome,” or AIDS. Gallo had just before that announcement won a patent for the only known test to determine of someone had AIDS. An habitual user of certain drugs like amyl nitrite or poppers, or even a pregnant woman would show HIV-positive with the Gallo test. Fears of a new global plague were stoked in the media by irresponsible scientists. Gallo sold his AIDS test to five pharmaceutical companies and sat back to reap the royalties.
The Ebola Test
Now we are again reading similar terrorizing stories in the mass media, this time about Ebola–fears stoked by the pharma-industry-controlled WHO in Geneva under Director General Margaret Chan’s Scientific Advisory Group of Experts and their ties to Big Pharma giants, and the US Government Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.
What exactly is the Ebola test that is being used by doctors or health workers in Sierre Leone or Liberia to “prove” Ebola in a sick person? When the African man was re-hospitalized in Dallas, the head of the CDC, Tom Frieden, declared the patient was diagnosed with Ebola based on a test that is “highly accurate. It’s a PCR test of blood.”
But that PCR test of blood is not highly accurate. Rather it is highly flawed. As Jon Rappoport points out, “Among the problems of the PCR test is that it is open to errors. Is the sample taken from the patient actually a virus or a piece of a virus? Or is just an irrelevant piece of debris? Another problem is inherent in the method of the PCR itself. The test is based on the amplification of a tiny, tiny speck of genetic material taken from a patient—blowing it up millions of times until it can be observed and analyzed. Researchers who employ the test claim that, as a result of the procedure, they can also infer the quantity of virus that is present in the patient. This is crucial, because unless a patient has millions and millions of Ebola virus in his body, there is absolutely no reason to think he is sick or will become sick.”
Can the PCR blood test tell how much Ebola virus is in a person’s body? The same Kary Mullis cited above regarding the HIV/AIDS hypothesis invented the PCR test in 1983, the basis on which his Nobel Prize was awarded. He told journalist John Lauritsen years back of his test and warned against its misuse. Lauritsen reported:
With regard to the viral-load tests, which attempt to use PCR for counting viruses, Mullis has stated: “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.” PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral-load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.
In late April, WHO announced the emergence of a novel influenza A virus. This particular H1N1 strain has not circulated previously in humans. The virus is entirely new. The virus is contagious, spreading easily from one person to another, and from one country to another. As of today, nearly 30,000 confirmed cases have been reported in 74 countries… On the basis of available evidence, and these expert assessments of the evidence, the scientific criteria for an influenza pandemic have been met. I have therefore decided to raise the level of influenza pandemic alert from phase 5 to phase 6.
She did not state that the WHO had changed their definition of pandemic alert in that same month, April, 2009 to a purely geographic one from the earlier geographic plus severity definition. Chan and her SAGE advisers as well as the folks at CDC must think we are all imbeciles without memory as they try to stoke similar fears about the alarming dangers of Ebola. There was no pandemic in 2009 of H1N1. The number of deaths attributable even to ordinary flu, were embarrassingly (for her at least) low.
Fruit bats in the WHO and CDC?
It is useful to restate what the WHO itself defines as symptoms of Ebola.
WHO’s official fact sheet on Ebola, which now they renamed EVD for Ebola Virus Disease, claims, “The first EVD outbreaks occurred in remote villages in Central Africa, near tropical rainforests, but the most recent outbreak in west Africa has involved major urban as well as rural areas…It is thought that fruit bats of the Pteropodidae family are natural Ebola virus hosts. Ebola is introduced into the human population through close contact with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected animals such as chimpanzees, gorillas, fruit bats, monkeys, forest antelope and porcupines found ill or dead or in the rainforest.”
Then the official WHO Ebola Fact Sheet dated September, 2014, states, “It can be difficult to distinguish EVD from other infectious diseases such as malaria, typhoid fever and meningitis.” WHO then lists symptoms of possible Ebola: “Ebola symptoms include sudden onset of fever fatigue, muscle pain, headache and sore throat. This is followed by vomiting, diarrhoea, rash, symptoms of impaired kidney and liver function, and in some cases, both internal and external bleeding.”
Those symptoms, fever fatigue, muscle pain, headache and sore throat, vomiting, diarrhoea, rash, can occur in many people in the poorest region of west Africa, ravaged by wars over blood diamonds and oil, with catastrophic public health and clean water infrastructure. And the “highly accurate PCR test of blood” cited by the CDC is not at all accurate to identify Ebola virus concentration.
We should put the recent horror stories about Ebola into rational sober perspective, including the accuracy of the tests CDC uses, before we submit to mandatory vaccinations and quarantines or let us be overwhelmed by fear.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
