A historical analysis of the Ebola Virus yields the question, 'Is it real?'

In order to understand the true background to the present and past "Ebola" epidemics, the following booklet from a colloquim held in 1977 is recommended for further personal study. It contains the collective proceedings of 3-day meeting between a large international group of members from the medical and science community also from the WHO which co-sponsored the colloquium held in 1977 in Belgium.

"Ebola Virus Haemorrhagic Fever" (http://ift.tt/UT9WfL )

Pieces of an extraordinary puzzle unfold already on the first 180 pages:

Special Note from Dr. Sircus: In answer to the question Is Ebola Real? The best answer is we cannot be sure. If we do not know where it came from and we are not sure about the tests that test for it how do we really know if it is real? There are many doubts about Ebola though there is no doubt that the world health ministries as well as the press are having a field day doing what they love to do and that is to scare the living daylights out of the public. I am looking deeply into these questions and have been asked to publish this essay by Felicia Popescu.

1. No "Ebola" virus has ever been isolated!

a) The only "tests" performed back then were epidemiological surveys. As always, these so-called tests only showed indirect "proof" of the assumed "virus" (pp. 75, 76, 77 are very interesting in this respect!).

Attempts to isolate the "virus" (as described in detail on p. 112) uncover the broad deception particularly well: First, they admit that "no really satisfactory serological test has yet been devised to detect and quantify antibodies against either Marburg or Ebola viruses ". Not even the antibody test was "reliable" as "crude antigens" had previously been injected into guinea pigs and monkeys only to be "redetected" later in the so-called "indirect immunofluorescence test" (!!); they went on to state that "no really obvious cytopathogenic changes can be readily visualized in any of the cell culture systems used so far although Johnson et al have claimed that some cytopathic changes are discernible in vero cells" (!!); ignoring their own hypothesis that antibodies are proof of the existence of a virus, it was declared (just like they do with "asymptomatic or subclinical infections" also claimed when they find no antibodies after vaccinations) that even patients without antibodies were nevertheless "infected" due to symptoms such as "febrile illnesses" and haemorrhages. In the preconceived minds and despite the very inconclusive results from these highly controversial methodologies only a "pathogenic virus" could be at the root of all symptoms.

b) K. M. Johnson makes the following comment on p. 139: "Looking for something in nature, it is more easy, on a numerical basis, at any time to find evidence of antibodies against infection than it is to isolate the agent itself in the individual animal"; of course one has to assume that Mr Johnson didn't know that no one had ever isolated or documented the pathogen which was delivered to him and against which he tested for antibodies!

c) On p. 141 it is reported that just 17% of the acutely ill people had such antibodies (again measured only by the indirect fluorescent technique) and some people "with or without contact with a case of haemorrhagic fever and no symptoms" were also tested "positive"!

In other words, of the severely ill, only 17% had the antibodies which are considered a proof surrogate for the virus and 83% of the Ebola "diagnosed" did not carry the antibodies as means for evidence of the virus. At the same time these antibodies were also found in people having no symptoms at all. So the results clearly do not support the supposition, the existence of a pathogen, but in fact were even absolutely counter-indicative. Still, all the experts blamed the "virus" for the symptoms.

d) On p. 143 K.M. Johnson surprisingly reaches a quite reasonable conclusion: "It is clear to us that the more work you do with the FA-test, the more interesting, the more complicated complicated and the more biologically sloppy the results become."

e) On p. 180 the authors of the paper on the classification of the so-called "arboviruses" gratefully acknowledge the provision of the "viruses" used for testing (for which there is no proof whatsoever that they had ever before been isolated or photographed or biochemically described): "Viruses were kindly provided by Dr. Yves Robin, Director of Pasteur Institute of Dakar, Robert E. Shope, Director of Yale Arbovirus Research Unit, James D. Converse, U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit, Dr. Brunhilde, Kupper University of Cologne, Dr. Pierre Sureau, Pasteur Institute, Paris."

f) On p. 192 there is another paper about "isolation", this time of the famous Lassa "virus", which they apparently isolated from rodents (Mastomys natalensis), except they didn't, because there is also a note saying that "antigens were supplied by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, USA), as lyophilized betapropiolactone (BPL) inactivated Vero tissue culture propagated Lassa virus".

Seeing that what they tested with were only artefacts of cell culture that they had been previously provided with in the first place and never isolated themselves from genetic material of "infected" patients, it's time to join the German biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka in asking the absolute begging questions: Where do the original proteins, these antigens, come from? Where were they isolated from? Where was the "isolation" published?? Where was the control group? Since the answer to all these questions is, in fact, nowhere, the propagated Ebola virus hypothesis does not live up to even basic scientific standards. Technically speaking it is a showcase example of a circular argument which is the common modus operandi of modern virology as the very basis of almost all of today's medical vaccination campaigns.

2. Barbarous animal testing

The atrocious experiments performed on guinea pigs and monkeys, during which the animals were INJECTED intraperitoneally (into the abdominal cavity) with the suspected "virus concoction" (what a perfect way to imitate the "natural" infection, isn't it?) are simply unbelievable - just reading about them makes your flesh crawl; the "scientists" who had performed the experiments then coolly stated that "no animal survived the INFECTION" ("infection" or MURDER??) (pp. 79-80, p. 109-110); it makes your hair stand on end!

3. Epidemics always started in hospitals

Most epidemics had hospitals as points of origin! Below, a few examples.

a) On p. 94 they state: "People in the community had already associated the mission hospital with the epidemic and had stopped coming to the outpatient department" (!!);

b) On p. 95 they state: "This epidemic was also associated with a hospital."

c) On p. 105 there is a description of three cases of patients who died in hospital; the third patient died "after several short stays in hospital"; it would be interesting to know what medication he received, but here, again, we see that from the point of view of the experts, only the "virus" must be at fault.

d) On p. 106 they stated that "the main focus of infection appeared to have been the cotton factory"; one paragraph further down and the secret is revealed: "The cotton factory also has a small clinic room minor illnesses in the factory employees are treated. Injections of chloroquine [malaria medication] and occasionally antibiotics are given in this dispensary."

e) It goes on on p. 107: "Of the employees found seropositive [...], approx. 50% would have had injections at the dispensary for their minor febrile illnesses" (exactly WHAT they were injected with is not specified).

f) On p. 116 it is explained that the "transmission" of the Ebola "virus" was "interrupted by the closure of Yambuku Hospital with cessation of giving injections" (relevant in this case seems to be rather the closure of the hospital and the discontinuation of all "treatments" - see 4. below)

4. People were more likely to be killed by the "prevention measures" and the "treatments"

a) In the hospitals, patients and sometimes the medical staff who then also became ill (...) were routinely treated with interferon, antimalarial treatment, chloramphenicol, other antibiotics, antipyretic agents etc.! (p. 86, p. 124)

b) In addition to the antimalarial medication, some patients also received "anti-typhoid drugs " (p. 98), whereupon they developed various "haemorrhagic events " (epistaxis, haemoptysis, haematemesis, malaena), which in the context of their general condition and cachexia (cellular exhaustion) led to the breakdown of the entire organism. These obvious adverse effects of the medication were again attributed to the assumed virus!

c) The syringes and needles used "between patients" were also simply "washed in a pan of warm water" (p. 85). Apart from the mind-boggling hygienic standards in the medical centres, we have another proof that the patients were getting a lot of injections.

d) It is reported several times that many patients became ill as a result of "previous injections" (for example on p. 87). Exactly WHAT they were injected with, however, is, once again, never unveiled.

e) On p. 114 it says that "the outbreak became alarming when it was introduced into Maridi hospital." (with "large outbreak among the medical staff" - you will find out why by reading a few lines below!) Another quote: "If it would not have spread to Maridi and Yambuku hospitals, no one would have remembered it. There has never been any outbreak like these before, because amplifying forces have not been there: a needle, an amazing remarkable social structure or a newly established teaching hospital where these kind of outbreaks can happen" (!!). And then comes the cherry on the cake: "During the epidemic in Maridi 13,914 doses of typhoid vaccine were administered"(!!) Remember the "haemorrhagic events" caused by the "anti-typhoid drugs" described in section (b), these are the classic symptoms ascribed to the supposed Ebola virus.

f) Also on p. 114, the author is surprised that in Sudan the mortality in patients admitted to hospitals increased from 25% in August to 44.6% in September and then to 70% in October, i.e. after the massive vaccination campaign had been launched in September!! However, here again, of course, the so-called "pathogenic virus" serves as a scapegoat for the huge leap of the mortality rate!

g) A certain D.P. Francis makes the following comment on p. 115: "We did our very best to administer the typhoid and gamma globulin injections. But actually very few doses were given, a lot of them in the hospital staff" (!!), "because they were at high risk". And then they wonder why the nurses got ill and died as well and of course, once again - despite the fact that the nurses took precautionary measures when working with the patients - only the so-called "pathogenic virus" could be responsible!

h) On the same page, p.115, D.P. Francis says the following: "There were people infected in the hospitals, admitted initially for various diseases, who were treated in the hospitals, including injections [once again, exactly WHAT they were injected with is not mentioned!!] and who 5 to 7 days later came down with usually fatal disease." Like before, no mentioning of what is was they injected.

i) Again on p. 115 M. Isaäcson comments: "The Maridi Hospital was a large teaching hospital and it was noted that the main victims were the student nurses" (remember that it was the medical staff in particular who were vaccinated!).

j) On p. 116 it says that a vaccination campaign with the typhoid vaccination was prescribed for all nursing staff (!!); we can therefore assume that that was common practice everywhere and vaccinations could be a significant factor as to why many nurses - who otherwise only had protected contact with patients - died in droves!!

k) On p. 117 it is described how the hospital staff and the population went crazy with panic and the investigative team had to come to the conclusion that the hospital "had a leading role in the spread of the disease" (!!).

l) The following is reported on p. 128 (brace yourself!) "Except for spraying of DDT (!!) in Maridi, Yambio and Nzara and limited vaccinations against yellow fever, none of the recommended control and preventive measures were carried out because nobody was made to stay and implement the measures in the affected area". No wonder everyone fled when they started spraying DDT (poisonous pesticide) as a "prevention measure"!!

The subsequent symptoms due to heavy poisoning of the population were, once again, attributed to the "dreaded" virus.

5. Coercive "treatment" carried out by the WHO gestapo-style

a) Very relevant within the overall picture of this "epidemic" also seems to be the consistently "hostile" attitude of the local population vis-à-vis the "saviours" who were armed with protective suits and face masks!

b) On p. 116 it says: "There was no strict isolation of patients in Yambuku hospital and some of the patients ESCAPED (!) to go back and die in their villages."

c) On p. 117 it is reported that the "contaminated" areas were blocked off and with the help of the military (!!) roadblocks were erected. Was the population right to be afraid of coercive "treatment"?

d) On p. 123 it is described how the houses and rooms of the dead people were completely fumigated with formaldehyde over FOUR consecutive days; the bodies were wrapped in cotton sheets impregnated with phenol; the subsequent symptoms of heavy poisoning in relatives or neighbours of the dead could of course, once again, only be related to the presumed "pathogenic virus".

e) On p. 129 it says: "We knew there were more cases hidden in homes (!) than those brought to hospital. Because very few in-patients survived the disease [or the treatment!] and because health staff were also affected and killed by the disease [well, let's not forget the many vaccinations!], panic had arisen resulting in the running away of some hospital patients and hiding of those who should have been brought to the hospital." - It would seem that the poor Africans had noticed even back then that a stay in hospital was sure to lead to their deaths and they were quite rightly afraid of the "life-saving Western medicine".

f) The "spread" of the disease was at its worst in Maridi (we haven't forgotten: DDT had been sprayed as a "prevention measure" here!!).

g) On p. 129 it is reported that there were "detection teams" to whom the local authorities had given the right to access and search every house!!! Every house was searched by these "case detectors" who combed the area on foot, by bike or by car and "the epidemic Control Office sent an ambulance to collect patients and take them to the hospital" - Déjà-vu?

The German biologist dr. rer. nat. Stefan Lanka had already explained years ago that Ebola was in his opinion caused by various vaccine experiments carried out in Africa. During a lecture in 2001 he had explained that "cells are destroyed by radioactivity, even if they call it Ebola; it is the consequence of irradiation through genetic vaccinations. These people would bleed to death internally and externally. The feared Ebola virus on the other hand has yet to be found or isolated."

And once more dr. Stefan Lanka a few years ago: "All vaccination programmes in the third world are, from a scientific point of view, under the strongest suspicion of deliberate genocide, the decimation of the indigenous population away from the eyes of the world, even the so-called Ebola cases are in reality some of the worst vaccine-induced injuries, since in Africa they sometimes "work" with doses that are 1,000 times higher than in Europe and so these are more likely side effects of criminal human experiments. "

(Source: http://ift.tt/1tkZz4d)

The German Medical Review 118 of 29 June 2000 (Ärzte-Zeitung) had already admitted that vaccine doses with 100-1,000 higher concentrations than what is used in Europe had been given and had led to numerous deaths of African babies in the nineties.

Dr. Stefan Lanka commented on these "trials" naming them for what they were (or still are?) - secret genetic experiments on African people: "When you are poisoned with such a lethal doses, your liver stops creating the globulins needed for blood-clotting. You then start bleeding internally and externally, it is called hemorrhagic fever... and of course they are blaming it once more on a virus!"

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.