This cannot be explained enough times. it was Jon Rappoport who gave me my first foothold into this story, with his April 2020 revelation of government documents that state clearly that the PCR cannot and does not diagnose infection. Two and a half years later, I am still on the story. Once you wrap your head around this, it's "child's play," as Mike Yeadon put it. Here is another metaphor, involving dandelions. And thank you Jon.


Expand full comment

Unfortunately, the “doesn’t exist” side has yet to explain how my 59-year-old wife died from something that doesn’t exist after a single week of illness. Until they do, I’ll lean toward “intentionally manufactured in the lab” explanation.

Expand full comment
Aug 4, 2022·edited Aug 4, 2022

I am so sorry for your loss. The "not knowing the truth" must be very distressing for you. From your description of your wife's behavior, she seemed to believe wholly in the existence of COVID and believed it to be deadly since she double masked. She apparently fully trusted the allopathic medical industry's talking points about COVID. I can only assume that she also trusted their "treatment" recommendations. The NOCEBO effect is more powerful than the placebo effect. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27145562/

There are many studies about the NOCEBO effect demonstrating that is powerful enough to kill and cause serious illness.

Just as Jon has been frequently discussing how powerful our imaginations are - it is absolutely possible that the nocebo effect contributed to your wife's illness and tragic passing. Just as when a doctor callously gives a patient "6 months to live" they usually do die within that timeframe because of the nocebo effect.

Also, without knowing your wife's full medical history - current medications, underlying medical conditions, past vaccinations, what treatment/medications she was given in the hospital prior to her passing it is difficult to make a determination. I'm assuming she was hospitalized, but maybe she died at home. I'm also confused why an autopsy was not performed because an autopsy could have easily found a blood clot in her lung or heart attack. Many doctors gave toxic antiviral medications without family members being aware. Was she put on a respirator? Was she given sedatives? That could have caused respiratory failure. Was she given vaccines if she was hospitalized? Vaccines are a standing-orders for ALL patients who are admitted. Most patients are not fully informed about what meds or vaccines they are given. A nurse just comes into the room and gives them without informing the patient. Patients are too trusting. Was she given antivirals? Those cause multisystem organ failure. Was she made a DNR behind your back? What "cause of death" did the doctor put on her death certificate? You may want to get her medical records to see everything that was done/given to her. You may find that the "treatments" actually made your wife's condition worse and eventually killed her. Again, I am assuming your wife was hospitalized.

This happened in the case of Grace Schara. She was essentially aggressively "over-treated" for "COVID". The "treatment" killed her. Here is her tragic story. I would imagine there are hundreds more cases like this. Since families were prevented in being with their loved ones, horrific medical crimes were committed under the guise of being medical "heroes" https://www.brighteon.com/38957b81-8865-437a-9d0c-8fa01d1147b7

All the best to you.

Expand full comment

Thank you Laura.

Amy's hospital records don't indicate that they "vaxxed" her but that was one of the first things I wondered. I also didn't see remdesivir in the records. She was on a vent. I think - although I can't know for sure - that Amy would have recovered had she been able to get hydroxychloroquine and/or ivermectin. Here is the story: http://www.kenmcentee.com/2022/02/09/pharmacists-played-god-and-my-wife-died/

Expand full comment

Thank you for the courage to type this up and present it to the world. There is so much value to it alone, and I can only imagine if we had dozens, thousands of reports of the same quality / documentation value to cross-reference and check for similarities.

Apparently, this job is either left up to private investigative citizens, or its completely occulted from the public. I actually think the latter, since it is likely true that private health officials don't trust the public with the data driven analysis from thousands (countless) singular examples - we are left in the dark with only broad strokes regarding statistics, for the most part. Noting there are documented case studies by researchers but they dont cover the home care / life like you did.

Expand full comment


The following is not necessarily relevant to Jon's original post, but upon re-reading your reply I want to conclude with a couple of details, for whatever they are worth.

1. Yes. The nobeco effect may or may not have had an impact - not on Amy getting Covid (or whatever it was) - but rather on her ability to recover from it. She was concerned about the disease, but the fact that my younger son (26 years old) had the same symptoms at the same time, but had generally recovered a day or two before Amy passed, one would think, would have given her the confidence that this was not a fatal condition. In fact, in the hours before she went into cardiac arrest, I am sure she did not expect to die. Her condition didn't appear to be worse than during the previous week or so. She was miserable, but I don't think anybody believed that her life was on the line.

2. As detailed in my article, Amy not hospitalized with "covid." She went into cardiac arrest at home. Our older son performed CPR until paramedics arrived. Paramedics said her heart did stop, but they revived her, then she was taken to the hospital. According to the records, she went into cardiac arrest a couple more times while in ICU and they were unable to revive her on the final episode.

3. I don't believe autopsy was an option. I won't belabor all the details, but my impression was that they were not doing autopsies on every (or any?) "covid" patient, and I didn't press the issue. If I was able to have an autopsy done, I have/had zero confidence that it would have been on the level anyhow.

4. Finally, it is irrelevant to Amy's condition, but relevant to her life story, that her main fear of covid - and her lifelong fear of germs - was not fear for herself. Her mother was a polio and breast cancer survivor and Amy was scared that if she was exposed to covid - with or without symptoms - she would expose, and kill, her mother. This was a lifelong phobia.

Expand full comment

I'm sorry to hear that.

But that too, doesn't get to the heart of the matter, which Jon clearly states above;

It's about the viral isolation procedure, and what it tells us and what it cannot tell us, or rule out when using the "isolate" to inoculate living organisms. For starters, just the fact that the same "purified viral isolate" directly inoculated into a set of human beings (of which there is at least one or two studies wrt SARS-CoV2) does not always produce serious illness. If it rarely produces serious illness (perhaps a function of preparation), and if it does and the symptom profile is across the board.... and the range of symptoms induced are anywhere from asymptomatic to severely symptomatic. What predictive value is this? (Another of Jon's point.)

And furthermore, how do researchers rule out those other adulterants as causing minor symptoms? This is why true isolation is *so* important.

Please read this study for context:


> Eighteen (~53%) participants became infected, with viral load (VL) rising steeply and peaking at ~5 days after inoculation. Virus was first detected in the throat but rose to significantly higher levels in the nose, peaking at ~8.87 log10 copies per milliliter (median, 95% confidence interval (8.41, 9.53)). Viable virus was recoverable from the nose up to ~10 days after inoculation, on average. There were no serious adverse events. Mild-to-moderate symptoms were reported by 16 (89%) infected participants, beginning 2–4 days after inoculation, whereas two (11%) participants remained asymptomatic (no reportable symptoms).


> The virus was isolated by inoculation of a qualified cGMP Vero cell line with the clinical sample

Individual dose inoculum vials were then produced in accordance with cGMP by dilution of the cGMP MVB with sucrose diluent. The challenge virus underwent quality testing performed as part of the GMP manufacturing release processes according to pre-determined specifications (including identity, infectivity and contaminant/adventitious agent tests).

18 became infected, 16 uninfected / unaffected

The claim here isnt that those measurements are necessarily wrong - it is a matter of what they mean and what are they caused by?

Also, note there are no human controls inoculated with saline / placebo mentioned in this paper. W

And what is contained in the inoculation alongside “SARS-CoV2” virions in this example (Vero cell culture maintenance and growth - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2657228/)

- Vero cell stock

- Dulbecco’s modification of Eagle medium (DMEM)

- 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS)

So what is the root cause of disease in these particular circumstances? (and they vary based on which toxin, virus, bacteria used as the experimental challenge.) If inoculation rarely produces serious illness (it failed to in healthy subjects), does this point us in the direction of there being some other defect, perhaps in the terrain, or some tertiary signal correlated with severe cases in which "SARS-CoV2" was detected via nucleic acid screens? (genomic analysis)

What is not being done, for example in human challenge experiments, is inoculation of virions alone. And virions *should* be able to be isolatable if there are physically identifiable pathogenic materia on the order of 100 nm. We are at the precipice of that technology with regards to the filtering and sorting of exosomes from biological samples. Notably, these are physically indistinguishable from virions under electron microscope produced reconstructions.

What is actually being done is the injection of a mix of low or high concentration viral copies / mL *and* cell culture, stock, antibiotics, antifungal, organelles, exosomes, bacteria, fungi. All of these byproducts are not successfully filtered before inoculation.

So no one is saying your wife didn't die from *something*. What specifically the root cause is, may not simply be "exposure to virions".

In any case, one can maintain compassion for his fellow humans and still kindly ask more of the scientific method as applied to virology. And most importantly, remaining critical no matter what the consensus may be.

Expand full comment

Thank you Ben.

Here's my point. I would simply like to know the truth - whatever the truth is.

My son walks around with a tee shirt declaring the virus a "hoax."

Maybe so. Clearly the narrative surrounding the "pandemic" has been loaded with hoax after hoax after hoax. I understand that. I am not "vaccinated" nor will I ever be. Nor was my wife. She was adamantly opposed to the jab. I don't mask. Never did. My wife did. Sometimes double masked. She was a germaphobe. Some might conclude she let fear kill her. Maybe so.

But fear of what? She couldn't breathe. My other son had the same condition at the same time and recovered. A doctor speculated that a blood clot moved from my wife's lung and into her heart and caused cardiac arrest. What would cause a blot clot? Her imagination? Something that doesn't exist? The flu? The PCR test that she took exactly 12 hours before she died? Or the other PCR test she took five hours before she died? (One, by the way was negative, the second positive - a good indication that PCR testing is bullshit.)

So who is right about the existence of - or isolation of - a specific virus that caused so many deaths? I don't know. I've read stuff from Rappoport and Kirsch and many other viewpoints - all with an open mind. Some of the information out there is being planted to cover up the truth. We'll probably never know what the truth is.

Expand full comment

Thanks for responding in kind.

> But fear of what? She couldn't breathe.

On the level of diagnosis and prognosis, the question is like you must suspect, why her and not your son? A "difference in health"? Whatever the answer, if scientists cannot use the pathogen to develop a predictable model of disease prognosis, it is reasonable to remain critical of the main thesis regarding sole causative blame on exposure to a virus. Especially so, if all known experiments utilize cell cultures to replicate / proliferate a certain exosome / virus.

> So who is right about the existence of - or isolation of - a specific virus that caused so many deaths? I don't know. I've read stuff from Rappoport and Kirsch and many other viewpoints - all with an open mind. Some of the information out there is being planted to cover up the truth. We'll probably never know what the truth is.

I mostly agree. But I still do have hope in the scientific progress when it is not co-opted / gamed - and citizens and scientists alike not debased / demeaned simply for bringing up this contentious topic - terrain dependence versus virology centric disease based causation.

That your son walks around wearing a t-shirt declaring the virus a "hoax" means he is heavily decided on this issue. And its quite possible he is attached to a thesis he may not be able to fully verbalize a defense to. The issue is (or can be) more nuanced than "existence", for any that have investigated it seriously. So what *exactly* about it is a "hoax" according to him? It could be a testament only to the massive distortion of the statistics regarding sars diagnosis (via RT-PCR like you allude above.)

Yet beyond this singular pertinant point, there is a lot to learn with regards to these fields of sciences. But my best understanding, it appears to be missing *something* substantial, especially with respect to human challenge experimentation.

Until more scientific clarity is developed and presented to the world at large, my suggestion is to find common ground with your son on these "conspiracy" related threads (of which he may have more opinions / thoughts / research on). Try to understand what he understands about virology, microscopy and genomics in this particular context. If it is little, maybe it will become clearer to him that he hasnt yet formulated his beliefs on enough information. You may need to first inform yourself on these three loose categories (with necessary overlap) which are critically important to have some grasp on before even analyzing it for oneself.

And if he is truly interested in the information and sciences involved, maybe he is young enough to pursue a career in it. If not, I think it a healthful exercise that could even be a bonding experience (instead of tearing you two apart)

Most importantly, I would never suggest for anyone to jump to conclusions and permanently attach themselves to it, which appears to have happened in your son's case.

Expand full comment

Thank you. I appreciate the dialogue.

Expand full comment

My pleasure. I wish you the best with your son.

Expand full comment

To clarify - I don't have a big problem with the "hoax" shirt. My son is very intelligent and is very able to see through the bullshit that we are being fed daily. We agree on most things.

Expand full comment

I'm sorry for the loss of your wife.

You explain in your Stack that she died because they didn't gave her the medicines on time. That has to be a crime, virus or not.

One of the causes of death should be Disinformation. Everyone has been disinformed, which means wrong treatments, delays, censorship of early treatment. Society becomes even more dysfunctional. Most vulnerable people would have not suffered this if not for the Disinformation tactic, in my opinion.

This is a war. It's time for extreme cowardice and extreme courage. You have done a very noble act for speaking out.

Expand full comment

In a world of toxins exponentially shoved down our throats from every angle imaginable, air, food, soil,water,etc. you seem to be content with “the thing”, a lie about a virus that is indeed the cover story to prevent people from investigating or standing up to put a stop to what really causes illness and dis-ease.

Expand full comment

It is pretty clear upon reading the words I typed that I will be "content" with whatever the truth is.

Expand full comment

You've been very gracious to everybody who responded to you. Very sorry to hear you lost your loved one. My two cents: The procedure of "isolation" seems to be outsourced in each step. The in silico sequencing is outsourced to a gen lab. The solution, (bovine solution?) or whichever one is supposed to "grow" the virus must also come from another lab. Then there is always a PCR used for the procedure in which to "match" the sequence. Antibiotics and several other products added along with the mucus come from another place. Lanka's experiments seemed to indicate that these alone could induce a cytokine event. When scientists ask for samples of the virus from major research facilities, they always respond "We don't have it." Malone has said, "They can't get enough of the virus" to reproduce it. My response to that is, "Wow, but it would seem that during an epidemic there would be a whole lot of virus to study." Finally, that these studies don't include control studies or significant numbers of HUMAN test subject, or ongoing field studies or replication or any kind of transparency, it is highly suspect. I would be ok if somebody could prove the existence with these criteria met.

Expand full comment

This is the least we can ask to be done.

Expand full comment

Thank you

Expand full comment

I'm so sorry for the loss of your wife. You say that she did have the PCR nasal assault, if I understand correctly. A friend of mine had that very thing at least once when she was pregnant. Her baby was born with problems and had a few surgeries. This incident led me to be even more suspicious of the nasal assault and even more determined not to allow such an assault on my blood-brain barrier. Who knows what's really on the end of that swab, and what it does once it's so far up the nose cavity?

Expand full comment

Thank you.

Amy insisted on getting a PCR test and had the test taken at a CVS drive thru ironically 12 hours to the minute before she passed. That test, I learned when the results were emailed over, came up negative for covid. About seven hours later, after she was transported to the hospital, they did another test, which was positive.

At best, the PCR tests are diagnostically worthless.

Is there something about the test that is dangerous - and could it have impacted Amy's condition for the worse? I have no clue one way or the other. I have never had a PCR test and I never will. I don't trust them and I encouraged Amy not to have one done.

Expand full comment

Hey Ken, thanks for sharing your story.

Yes, I think the test was that dangerous. I saw so many reports of people coming down with acute 'covid' symptoms right after getting a PCR test, including my sister.

And my strong suspicion is that some of the test swabs were laced with nano-particulate graphene oxide, same poison that's in all the covid vaxes. The most common symptoms from this poison are systemic blood clotting, cardiac damage, and central nervous system damage. One of the give-aways that something illicit was happening with the PCR tests was that they were all using special 'covid-19' swabs. Every medical facility already had sterile swabs to take a nasal sample. How is it that covid is the only supposed disease that needs its own specially-packaged test swabs?? Big red flag.

I think the only chance your wife would've had is if she'd been treated for an acute poisoning (which is why HCQ often helps). Putting her on the ventilator protocol, which includes highly toxic drugs to induce a coma and paralyze the lungs, is a death sentence for someone already poisoned (and the doctors know this!).

And love your son's t-shirt and attitude. Sounds like he's got good instincts.

And BTW, I've been following Stefan Lanka's work for almost 20 years. That's how I knew Jon was a rare journalist as soon as I started reading his articles. Lanka's work motivated me to investigate virology myself, and I followed it all the way back to the early 1920's at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, where the fraudulent lab procedures were institutionalized. Virology is a massive criminal scam spanning more than a century. More people must be willing to investigate this issue, or the mass poisoning and mass killing will continue.

Expand full comment

I’m sorry for your loss.

Expand full comment

Thanks Jon for the usual “cold shower” of fact over fancy when it comes to the existence of ConVid 19. In fact Dr Sam Bailey has suggested a way forward, which is strictly scientific, in her latest video response to Steve Kirsch. It aims at a blind testing by several independent experts of alleged viruses to establish if they can isolate and identify a pathogen. The funding of this experiment by Steve Kirsch would be a better use of his money than the betting farrago he has suggested.

Expand full comment

Standing ovation.

At some point, the other side have to explain in plain language why isolation is not necessary. Which leads to bioinformatics, fabrication of genomes out of thin air, which code proteins that don't exist anywhere else than the memory of the computer. If they insist too much on this, it will seem like they concede that everything prior to the modern PC was false.

Don't let them change the subject or move the goal posts, people!

Demonstrate the traditional methods.

Fellow observers: forget all the other fallacies: the ad hominem, the straw man, the bandwagon.

Focus on the subject! Don't react to traps. Remain on track if you want the truth.

Expand full comment

There's a much bigger issue at play, though. Expecting that the virus cult, or the drones that follow them, at some point must begin using reason & science is a fatal flaw, if that's the plan. No such thing will happen.

Human beings are emotion-driven, not reason-driven, and that means there cannot be real science. It's always been this way. Real scientists are one or two per generation, and they're complete out-casts. The 'establishment' long ago came up with something called 'deductive' reasoning, so that people could then pretend they're a culture of reason & science when nothing could be further from the truth. So even the very concept of reasoning has been corrupted. Reasoning today is non-reasoning, and therefore scientists need only form a consensus and then demand that everyone follow the rules, or die. They are creatures of this corruption, and know nothing else.

Expand full comment

I think it's wrong to present science as an impossible task that requires humans to become omniscient gods.

Painting, for instance, is always a work-in-progress. There are very good painters who paint portraits of people that are almost indistinguishable from a very good quality photo. But the activity of painting in general is not about creating a life-like image on a canvas, it can be about anything. Many styles of painting. Some more appreciated than others.

By analogy, science is not a perfect knowledge of a thing or a process. It is "some knowledge". Many methods to achieve that. Some much more appreciated than others, to the point that scientific knowledge gained in a way that is not authorized is censored and disparaged. Why they speak evil of some notion that is censored and we are not allowed to research?

As I understand it, Jon Rappoport is only saying that viruses don't exist because the explanations given to show they exist are invalid. They need to be investigated, not shoved down the throat of everyone. He proposed a reasonable standard of proof that will probably make him change his views. The other side does not consider the demands here expressed are reasonable, and refuses to address the criticisms of their explanations. We are stuck. It is a pity. Scientific knowledge progresses funeral after funeral.

Expand full comment

i started writing about this whole debate because i find it fascinating. i'm trying to break it down in simple terms everyone can understand. i would appreciate your feedback. thanks



Expand full comment

On kirsch’ substack is an article with a link to his interview with Dr James Lyons-Wilder where in the latter part they talk about this issue. Dr jlw says at some point that he wishes he could take a virus denier into the lab and have them perform all the tests under guidance. It sounds like what JR has been asking for in his writing and podcasts. Of course he (JR) says that this has been tried but they are denied access to the lab, certainly when under the condition that all questions are allowed and will be responded to in a cordial fashion. Dr JLW of course was just wishing out loud but maybe he could get his associate Dr Sang Li (probably spelled wrong) to agree to do this with someone of JR’s choosing and we could put this to rest and concentrate on the real bad guys rather than we who should be allies

Expand full comment

That would resolve nothing, and he's trying to deny the real issue. "All the tests" are the problem. Those "tests" are a scam when the claim is made that they proved a virus. Their "tests" are not science. And the charlatans who make up the 'science' and 'medical' establishments are never going to come clean. When they get run out of the country fearing for their lives, along with their partners the politicians and bankers, is when things will change, and science then might have a chance.

Expand full comment

Is the education decay from cultural Marxism so rampant that people can’t even read scientific papers anymore?

Hilarious article ! I prefer the tv gameshow scientific debate n analysis w bonus points n wild card questions. Prize giveaways would help !

Expand full comment
Aug 8, 2022·edited Aug 8, 2022

I wonder if Mr. Rappoport has seen this article


and if so, does he consider it valid?

Strike that. I made the comment before fully reading reading the piece. The author, like most (well meaning or otherwise), starts with the assumption that the Divoc (or Dybbuk) actually exists.

Expand full comment

Suppose people all over the world are being poisoned with a novel poison, never before in the environment. Maybe something like nano-particulate graphene oxide. Wouldn't we expect to see natural genetic changes as bodies try to adapt to and heal from the new poison? Of course we would. So it's not a question of "are genetic changes happening?" It's a question of why, and via what mechanism. And because the people of 'the science' today can't admit they have no clue why they're seeing genetic changes, we'll continue to be ruled by non-science.

Expand full comment

Thank you Eric. I just found you today. I found Jon a few years ago and Love that guy. Excellent article you wrote here. I will be widely sharing it.

Expand full comment