The Ebola test: let the tests inventor speakJon Rappoport And then it follows: you must examine the test that is being used to diagnose Ebola. Is it accurate? Does it have flaws? Is it being applied correctly? Because, if there is a serious problem with the test, the whole house of cards collapses. The entire narrative about Ebola is fatally flawed. Last week, when a man was admitted to a hospital in Dallas, the CDC held a press conference. CDC Director Tom Frieden stated that this patient had been diagnosed with Ebolawith a test that is highly accurate. Its a PCR test of blood. (see the 2m06s mark in the video of the press conference.) This is, indeed, the test of choice for Ebola. However, as Ive written, the PCR test has problems. It is open to errors. One of those errors occurs right at the beginning of the procedure: Is the sample taken from the patient actually a virus or a piece of a virus? Or is it 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 patientblowing 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. So the question is: can the PCR test allow researchers and doctors to say how much virus is in a patients body? Many years ago, journalist John Lauritsen approached a man named Kary Mullis for an answer. Source-1: For a brief excerpt from John Lauritsens article about Kary Mullis, see Frontiers in Public Health, 23 September, 2014, Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent, by Patricia Goodson. (See also this.) Source-2: For Johns 1996 article in full, see Has Provincetown Become Protease Town? Kary Mullis is a biochemist. He is also a Nobel Prize winner (1993, Chemistry). And oh yes, one other thing. Mullis invented the PCR. Thats why he won the Nobel Prize. Mullis answer was succinct: Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron. Translation: the PCR test cant be used to say how much virus is in a persons body. Therefore, the CDCs gold standard for testing Ebola patients says nothing about whether they are sick or will become sick. It says nothing about why some patients do become sick. And the other problems with the test are significant as well: errors in carrying out the highly sensitive procedure; lab contamination of the sample taken from the patient; choice of a sample that is not a virus at all, or is the wrong virus. And upon this foundation of sand, the whole Ebola epidemic is being foisted on the public. In analyzing so-called epidemics and their causes for 27 years now, I have often pointed out that the diagnostic test is the keyunless people want to jump to conclusions and spread fear and walk down the wrong road, while patients die for reasons other than the stated causesincluding misdirected and highly toxic medical treatment. Again, I point that out now. The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com. 