The Ebola hoax: questions and answers

All those horrendous killer conditions that exist in West Africa? They’re MAINTAINED, to keep people weak and unable to resist the corporate and financial takeover of their resource-rich countries.

by Jon Rappoport October 22, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“The Reality Manufacturing Company doesn’t just sell ‘fake paintings’ that are easy to spot. No. They also sell images that are geared to mesh with people’s deeply held instincts and thereby produce rigid false beliefs. People are sure that if they gave up such beliefs, their world would fall apart and blow away in the wind.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Q: Among intelligent people, what’s the biggest barrier to understanding hoaxes pertaining to viruses?

A: Many people will tell you they see through the lies of consensus reality. They know all about them. But when you bring up a virus, and you say there is no reason to suspect a so-called outbreak is caused by a virus, they back away. They can’t imagine that kind of lie. They can’t conceive that such a lie is being told.

Q: Why?

A: They accept, as fact, what medical authorities tell them on that subject. Some people connect “the killer virus” with what they already know about high-level elites who are out to control and diminish and debilitate populations. So “killer virus” and “spreading destruction” fit that picture. Therefore, they automatically buy “the virus.”

In fact, and this is odd, there are people who categorically reject almost everything doctors and medical authorities tell them—but they choose to accept this one: the virus. They choose to believe that when the authorities say, “We have an outbreak and it’s caused by the Ebola virus,” it must be true. Very strange.

Q: The word “outbreak” is strong.

A: Yes. People, again, automatically, associate it with a virus. Movies play a role there. But when you stop and think about it, “outbreak” just means, if it means anything at all, that a number of people in the same general geo-area have become sick. A toxic chemical, for example, could cause that. A vaccine campaign could cause that.

Q: When a number of people who, say, live together become ill, the assumption is there must be a transmission of a virus from person to person.

A: Right. But that isn’t necessarily the case. It isn’t person A, then person B, then person C—it’s all of them being exposed to the same conditions. For instance, if you had 42 people all living in filth with no hope, no money, no job, and they were also exposed to a toxic chemical, and their bodies were breaking down from starvation, and they all became ill, would you call that “transmission?” Of course not.

Q: Considering US and European and African Ebola patients as a whole, don’t they prove that Ebola is caused by a virus and these patients caught the virus?

A: No. As I’ve demonstrated before, the most widely used diagnostic tests for Ebola (antibody and PCR) are unreliable, useless, and irrelevant. Therefore, to assume these patients have Ebola is unwarranted.

To say a patient has Ebola MEANS he tested positive on a reliable and relevant diagnostic procedure. It doesn’t mean anything else.

Q: What made the US and European Ebola patients sick?