ISIS, Ebola Uncut: Why the Mainstream is Late Wrong and Corrupt

altOnce again, the mainstream is late to the party.

Apparently, the following is what accounts for breaking news in the mainstream’s glitterati parade…

“ISIS jihadi fighters,” NBC reported yesterday, “have been using bullets manufactured in the United States during the militant group’s bloody campaign across Iraq and Syria, according to a new report.”

Gasp… You don’t say?! (If you missed it, we broke this story two weeks ago, here.)

“It suggests,” The New York Times chimes in, “that ammunition transferred into Syria and Iraq to help stabilize governments has instead passed from the governments to the jihadists, helping to fuel the Islamic State’s rise and persistent combat power.

“Rifle cartridges from the United States, the sample shows, have played a significant role.”

The best part is there’s a hint of surprise in their tone.

altNBC reports: One weapons-tracking organization, Conflict Armament Research (CAR), “worked alongside Kurdish forces to recover more than 1,700 cartridges used by ISIS.”

Here’s what the CAR report says: “[ISIS] appears to have acquired a large part of their current arsenal from stocks seized from, or abandoned by, Iraqi defense and security forces.”

And where did the Iraqi forces get their weaponry? From the ever-generous Uncle Sam, of course.


Just to be clear…

NBC doesn’t bring this story up to shed light to the endless foibles of the American government during the war in Iraq… or to point out the absurdity of ISIS brandishing American-made weapons…

Or even to show that American interventionism isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Nope. Instead, it’s to put the limelight on Iran and point the finger.

In conclusion, NBC wrote, “The study also found modern Iranian ammunition.”

They cite the report:

“If transferred deliberately, the presence of this ammunition outside of Iran violates U.N. Security Council Resolution 1737 (2006), which prohibits Iran’s export of ammunition.”

We’re sure that whatever ISIS got from Iran was a drop in the bucket compared to what they received from the best and brightest.

altSpeaking of mainstream deficiencies, let’s talk about what the mainstream isn’t telling you about Ebola…

Our researchers recently uncovered one report that may hold the key to what sets the survivors apart from those who die (and it isn’t vaccines).

altAfter being accused of “running with the wolves” by one reader last week (you know who you are), we’ve been working hard behind-the-scenes to uncover the truth about Ebola…

During our research, one question stuck out in our minds…

What’s the difference between those who beat the virus and recover fully…

And those who fall into Stage Two and die a painful, and probably pretty terrifying death (and start bleeding out of every hole in their bodies)?

The answer, we found, might be buried deep inside one little-known study on Ebola.

Hold on to your britches. It’s a bombshell.

altThis scientific study flies in the face of everything you’re being told about the coming Ebola vaccines…

It was quietly published in 2003 in the Journal of Virology by researchers from the Vaccine Research Center, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Institutes of Health.

It’s title is, Ebola Virus Pathogenesis: Implications for Vaccines and Therapies .

First, here’s what it says about why Ebola is such a deadly virus…

(This’ll come in handy later…)

The “Ebola virus replicates at an unusually high rate that overwhelms the protein synthesis apparatus of infected cells and host immune defenses…”

In the end, because of this, the virus isn’t actually what ends up killing you. It’s your immune system that finishes the job.

“The normal job of the immune system is to eliminate infections,” virologist Christopher Basler at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City told NPR. “But when it’s activated at extreme levels or it’s out of control, it becomes damaging to the host.”

Essentially, the Ebola sneaks into the cells and shuts off the alarm system.

Then Ebola begins copying itself while the immune system has no idea it should be creating antibodies. By the time it figures out what’s happening, it freaks out and overreacts.

This reaction causes the body to go into severe septic shock and brings on Stage Two symptoms.

altThe study in 2004 was assigned to figure out what types of vaccinations are effective against Ebola…

One vaccine method they studied — called passive immunity — is when antibodies are produced by an animal or human and then transferred to another human, most often by injection.

In this case, we’re talking about taking antibodies from Ebola survivors and putting them in people at risk of becoming infected.

This is, by the way, one of the most conventional methods of vaccine development.

Here’s what the researchers found…

Those who were vaccinated and survived Ebola, says the report, did have traces of those antibodies in their system, “However, anecdotal reports have indicated that serum from recovered patients did not consistently protect against infection or exhibit neutralization of virus replication in cell culture.

“Furthermore, passive transfer of antibodies in animal models only delays the onset of symptoms and does not alter overall survival.”

Catch that?

What this study is telling us is that one of the traditional form of vaccines — passing along antibodies from host to host — didn’t appear to have any effect on Ebola.

Worse, it’s proven to only prolong the onset of symptoms in animals… potentially making the virus all the more unpredictable in humans as well.

But that’s not all this report reveals (more on that in a moment).

First, with this factoid in mind, check out what the wizards of wisdom from up high have to say…

alt“With no proven drugs to treat Ebola and experimental ones in short supply,” The New York Times, once again, reports, “the health authorities are planning to turn instead to a treatment that is walking around in the outbreak zone in West Africa.”

Guess what? According to NYT, the World Health Organization is now calling for the development of vaccines.

Not just any vaccines though: Ones made from antibodies of patients who survived Ebola and made a full recovery.

What does this mean?

First, the largest health organization in the world hasn’t learned the keen art of Googling things.

Else they would know what the researchers who already tried this a decade ago found out: that “antibodies alone do not provide protective immunity in a natural context and that cellular immunity is likely to play a significant role in virus clearance.”

Cellular immunity. Keep that in mind.

More on what it means for you and your health in just a moment.

First, the rabbit hole gets deeper and pretty dark. Follow closely and watch your step.

Check out this passage from an article recently released by The Canadian Press (TCP)…

alt“It is conceivable,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases told the TCP, “that this epidemic will not turn around even if we pour resources into it. It may just keep going and going…

“…and,” he says, getting to the punchline, “it might require a vaccine.”

Everyone is calling for it. It must be the thing to do, right?

Well, not if it’s just going to waste a bunch of time and resources.

It’s really no surprise Dr. Fauci would suggest such a thing, though.

You don’t have to look very far to discover that the NIH owns patents on all the existing Ebola vaccines. (What? You’re surprised?)

And, apparently, the CDC owns a patent on Ebola itself. Whatever that means.

The NIH director is working hand-in-hand with GlaxoSmithKline and another manufacturer named Crucell to create exactly the vaccine he’s rooting (see: shilling) for. And, if everything goes as Fauci implies, Glaxo and Crucell could roll these babies out to entire nations (cha-ching!).

How will GlaxoSmithKline (the first in line) create these vaccines?

Surprise: with antibodies from volunteers’ blood they know are protective against Ebola.

Godspeed, Fauci and friends.

But here’s one surprising thing…

altThere is, in fact, one type of vaccine that was proven effective against Ebola in the 2003 study…

Using old antibodies wasn’t it.

This new type of vaccine, said the report, “dramatically enhanced immune responses in animal studies” with a 30-fold increase in antibody readings.

And there’s only one company — as far as we can tell– that’s creating it.

In fact, our investment director Paul Mampilly has been following this trend — and this company — for a while.

Don’t get us wrong…

We’re not getting our hopes up about a stellar vaccine that’s going to save the world. We’re too skeptical of Big Pharma’s motivations.

And, besides, we don’t think vaccines are the end-all answer. Or that they’ll even be able to roll one out that’s effective enough in time to stop it.

Nonetheless, there’s hope for you and me…

The study from 2004 revealed one more important note about Ebola.

It showed us one simple thing you can do to increase your chances of survival if you find yourself in an infected area.

The solution is closer than you think. In fact, it’s sitting with you right now as you read this.

altHere’s what you need to know about what kills Ebola…

The report reads:

“A comparison of immune parameters in survivors and nonsurvivors of infection has provided clues into the constituents of an effective immune response.”

In another study, researchers “characterized the immune responses of patients in two large Ebola virus outbreaks in Gabon in 1996.”

The result?

“There was no significant difference in viral antigen load between survivors and nonsurvivors, but immune responses varied, suggesting that survival is dependent on the initial or innate immune response to infection.”

The researchers found that the levels of T-cells (a type of white blood cell essential for immunity)… cytokines (the mediators between cells)… and RNA (vital part of immune response to viruses) in patients who died of Ebola “were more indicative of a failure to develop adaptive immunity in the days preceding death.”

altShort and sweet version? The strength of your overall immune system plays a crucial role in whether or not you survive an Ebola infection.

Might sound obvious…

But if your immune system is weak and you catch Ebola? You’re screwed. It won’t adapt fast enough to fight the virus. With or without a vaccine to “save” you.

There’s even reason to believe that certain types of vaccines could only serve to weaken your immune system, making it harder for it to do its job if you do become infected.

Yet, according to our Big Pharma-friendly government… antibody-based vaccines are the only solution.

And, for that reason, they are getting the red carpet treatment in the media.

altEven if these vaccines do help to kill the virus, there’s a bigger problem at hand…

It’s nothing new, but now it’s getting completely out of hand and is threatening millions of lives.

There’s something very wrong about our “health” authorities’ perception on what it means to be healthy

Before I get to that, let’s humor the big humanitarian vaccine-makers.

Let’s say these vaccines will help a teensy-weensy teeny bit.

Let’s forget that the Ebola virus is constantly mutating. And that by the time they come up with a legitimate vaccine, it might be useless against the new strain.

Let’s forget about all the money they stand to make whether it works or not — and how they’re shutting out all competition by snapping up patents.

Even if the vaccine is the saving grace of all that is good and holy…

Let’s ponder this…

Why aren’t the “health” authorities of America suggesting that the American people do things to boost their immune systems?

Why, exactly, are we being told that vaccines are the only solution when common sense (and science) tells us that a strong and healthy immune response will do much more to fight it off than anything else?

Especially when we’re at a stage where vaccines probably won’t make it out in time?

Why not a little bit of information on how we can help ourselves… rather than telling us to just passively sit by like docile dogs and let our leaders “figure it out”?

(Because they’ve done such a fine job thus far, eh?)

You would think that encouraging the population to take steps to boost their immune systems would, at the very least, lessen the risk for all of us, no?

Why are our arbiters of health equating a constant revolving door of synthetic drugs with medicine?

One more time…

Why are no health officials showing the masses how to utilize their body’s natural defenses?

We’re sure you, a savvy reader of our digital leaves, know the answer to these questions…

If you feel a little lost, though, here’s a hint:

The next time a news anchor on any given TV channel says “right after this short break” just after a “hard-hitting” piece about the government’s dramatic race to find a “cure” for Ebola (see: vaccine)…

And then you notice three Big Pharma commercials almost… but not quite… back-to-back… all three peddling a baker’s dozen of side effects each…

You may realize that many of those companies are the same ones the government was rooting for only moments prior to create those vaccines…

Watch closely as the phrase “conflict of interest” takes on a whole new meaning in your mind.

Tighten your grip on the moment you find yourself saying, “Hey… wait a minute…they’re all in bed together… what the f-…”

Then stop right there. It’s come full circle.

In that sparkling split second…

You’ve found your answer. You’ve seen the light.

Until tomorrow,

Chris Campbell

Chris Campbell

Written By Chris Campbell

Chris Campbell is the Managing editor of Laissez Faire Today. Before joining Agora Financial, he was a researcher and contributor to