Release Date  2006-03-09 
Time  16:36:00 

Article Text 

MARCH 8, 2006. I've written pretty much all I have to on this subject, at least for the present. But the announcement today by David Nabarro (World Health Organization, WHO)) that bird flu is coming to the US within a year prompts me to review a few facts.

First of all, about two months ago, I connected with Dr. Nabarro. He is the chief honcho at WHO on bird flu. I left a message on his machine, asking him exactly what diagnostic tests had been run on the children in Turkey who died. How was it found that they had H5N1 bird flu? He returned the call and left a message on my voice mail. He basically said this was not his area, which I found quite surprising, and he left an email address for another doctor at WHO. That email address didn't work.

Now, let's be clear. Every single diagnosis of bird flu in an animal or human comes straight out of some kind of lab test. They are using fluid from the body, and they are sending it to a lab, and the lab is testing for the presence of the H5N1 virus.

Without that test, it's all guess and eyeball and assumption and caving into pressure from medical bureaucrats to announce bird flu.

The kind of test they're doing is crucial, because...

Most of the tests are irrelevant.


That's just the way it is.

You have your antibody test, which at best tells you that the person or animal has contacted the H5N1 virus. Contacted it. That's all. Not "got sick from it." In fact, traditionally, a positive test for antibodies means the person's immune system successfully warded off the germ.

However, in the topsy-turvy world of nutso medicine, the meaning of this test has been turned on its head. It has been automatically taken to mean "got sick" or "is sick" or "will get sick." Nonsense.

Astonishingly, this type of antibody test is the one done most often on animals around the world, and it is often done on humans.

Then we have the PCR test. This one involves finding what you think is a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of genetic material from a germ, and it involves blowing that fragment up many times, so to speak---amplifying it---so you can infer what that germ really is.

This is supposed to be a gold standard of tests. However, it has a fatal flaw when it comes to the actual diagnosis of disease. Why did you need that test? Because by other means, you couldn't find millions and millions of whole germs of a particular kind in the body of the chicken or the human. You couldn't find them. And you know what? You need millions and millions of a particular kind of germ to even BEGIN to say that that germ is contributing to the illness of the animal or human. So if you say, "We did a PCR on this little boy and we found H5N1 and so he has the bird flu," you're talking out of your ear.

The two tests I've briefly described here are used very often.

Their results are misinterpreted all over the place.

The garble and the wild predictions and ominous warnings about bird flu are ultimately coming out of diagnostic tests done in labs---and the final backup for these tests is WHO, worldwide. So why don't they publish widely the COMPLETE info on all those tests---what tests were run, what the findings were, and so on, in EVERY CASE? I know where my money is, if we're betting on the answer to that question.

Now these days, most people are talking about the mutation or possible mutation of the H5N1 virus that will, soon, allow it to infect humans all over the world. That's the angle. That's the popular premise.

What I'm saying is, hold on. Let's go to the scorecard. Let's just go to the labs and find out what tests they ran and how they ran them to determine people (only about 100 worldwide!) and a whole bunch of birds have died of H5N1 bird flu. Let's do the simplest thing, and the most important thing.

Why? Again, because the most popular tests are completely misleading when it comes to diagnosis. It's that stark.

When I wrote about AIDS in 1988, I asked for that same analysis. I did, and other people did. And the result was, we exposed one of the biggest scandals of 20th-century science.

Yes, this fraud runs very deep.

I understand that, as of this date, WHO refuses to publish even the complete genetic make-up of the H5N1 virus. If they're holding that back, or if they have cheated and don't know what they're really doing, or if they're telling major lies on purpose, don't hold your breath for the day when they'll release every single test for H5N1 they have run on animals and humans since the hysteria began.

Can you say hoax?

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com