SWINE FLU LUNACY

By Jon Rappoport

There are several key flaws in testing a person for Swine Flu. One of those flaws involves the word “probable.” “He is a probable case of Swine Flu.”

Well, is he or isn’t he?

What’s the problem?

You have to understand, for example, that if a person exhibits certain symptoms---fatigue, congestion, elevated temperature, and so on---and he has been around other people who have been labeled PROBABLE SWINE FLU CASES, there is a chance this person, too, will be designated with the “probable” diagnosis.

The medical net is cast as wide as possible.

Millions and millions of people around the world display the so-called symptoms of flu. Ordinary flu. And this in itself is not a cause for alarm. To switch over and call some of these people “probable Swine Flu cases” is meaningless---except that it brings more fear---because the public has been programmed to react with fear when the Swine Flu label is applied.

In other words, there is a self-generated feedback loop of ridiculous and unsubstantiated diagnosis.

Little by little, fake epidemic by fake epidemic, the public is being trained to knuckle under to pronouncements by medical authorities and their government allies.

And in case you haven’t noticed, there is a growing Homeland Security aspect to all of this. “Terrorism” and “epidemic” are being linked under the same umbrella. Both labels, when applied, cause these authorities to swing into action and make dire predictions.

It’s good for business---the business of selling drugs and vaccines (pharmaceutical companies) and the business of government agencies who need “emergencies” to respond to, so they can prove their worth when it comes time to extract funding from Congress.

As I never tire of pointing out (I’ve been writing about this since 1988), medical control of the citizenry is a very good fascist strategy, because there appears to be no partisan or political agenda at work. Everything is done under the banner of: “we’re here to care for you and look out for you and cure your ills.”

And yet, if the citizenry obeys every medical command issued by authorities, you have de facto fascism. You have top-down control. You have edicts that sound like science.

But are they science? Take the case of AIDS and South Africa. Years ago, based on the supposed number of HIV-positive people in the population, there were dire predictions that the whole country was going to disappear under a devastating epidemic.

Then it was found out that HIV testing was based on blood samples drawn from the stores of pregnancy clinics in the country. These samples were analyzed with Elisa and Western Blot screening, and the results were sent to Geneva, where World Health Organization technicians applied the numbers to their computer models and came out with projections for the future. As I say, the projections were dire.

There was one glaring flaw, however. The original blood samples had been drawn from pregnant women---and the condition of pregnancy can cause the screening tests to register a false-positive result. False positive simply means: the positive was actually a negative. What was thought to be alarming was not alarming at all.

The medical predictions crashed and burned.

If you think the edicts issued by medical bureaucrats are always based on pure and good science, you need to think again.