He doesn't say pathogens don't exist. Pathogens don't include only viruses, there are also some of bacterias, protozoas, fungus.
He neither doesn't say viruses don't exist. He speaks only about Ebola, HIV and SARS-cov21 here. He says theses viruses have never been isolated, neither been identified on electronic microscopes.
Ebola, HIV and SARS-CoV-2
are viruses, they
have been isolated and they
have been identified using electron microscopy. When Rappoport insists on the opposite being true, he is effectively claiming that these viruses don't exist.
In
some contexts in virology, it is true, the reading of DNA - and thus the precise delineation of virus DNA/RNA from other DNA/RNA - is mistaken, perhaps because the sample contains DNA/RNA from other sources (human, animal, plant).
Sometimes laboratories accidentally 'invent' new viruses because their samples become cross-contaminated by other viruses, genetic recombination takes place, then it can be years before someone realizes what happened. (Judy Mikovits describes one such case in Chapter 7 of
Plague of Corruption: 'VP62- The Clone Assassin'.)
DNA sequencing
is error-prone, but they don't get it wrong all of the time, or even most of the time. If that were true, the forensic reports that relied on DNA sequencing in criminal trials over the last half-century would be invalid.
I remember Gallo and Montagnier confessed they didn't isolate the HIV, just saw bits of proteins and nucleotids. We now know these "viruses" are lab-created and injected to humans directly in their body (vaccines, transfusions, IV stuff, engineered IV antibodies...). They don't propagate through air (cf dedicated thread), but on body liquids and are stored in water (like in the syringue).
They may have said something about 'isolation' in the 1980s, but you're implying that those two maintained a fraudulent position about HIV not being a virus... despite jointly winning the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine for discovering HIV!
HIV has been isolated, seen under microscopes, and anatomically and dynamically studied to such an extent that its precise design features and mechanisms of interaction with human immune system cells have been thoroughly mapped.
This doesn't mean that a 'positive' HIV test result is always correct, and it also doesn't mean that a correct HIV positive test result will lead to the subject developing AIDS.
Here's what the Cs said about this particular virus back in 1996:
Q: [...] On the news the other night, there was a new type of AIDS reported. Where did it come from?
A: Mutation of virus.
Q: (L) The story is that it came from Thailand, is this true?
A: Maybe.
Q: (L) Is it already in the U.S?
A: No.
Q: (L) Well, it is supposed to be 8 times more contagious...
A: But still transmitted in the same mode.
Q: (L) Is AIDS transmissible by, for example, insects?
A: No.
Q: (L) By any means other than what is taught?
A: No.
Q: (L) How many people have died of true AIDS in the U.S.?
A: 189,000
Q: (L) How many people have it at present?
A: Approx 1 million are HIV positive. Only 39 per cent will ever develop AIDS.
In short, according to the Cs, the mainstream 'consensus' on AIDS is essentially correct. It's substantially caused by HIV, which is a contagious virus that is sexually transmitted.
And yes, terrain makes the difference. On the thread
germ-theory-vs-terrain-theory we shared knowledge on how important the terrain is. Otherwise, all the tips given in the thread "
health-protocol-for-mandatory-coronavirus-vaccination" would be vain.
Yes, the latter thread provides information for defense against the pathogenic effects of some viruses, and specifically the vaccines. And the former thread swung too far to the side of terrain. Viruses exist!
Jon Rappoport says the epidemics seen in some areas coincides with places where there are awful use of certain chemical toxins. That the symptomes (of chemical toxicity) are the same as the "Ebola" 's, and so it's easy to use this fact to deceive us by using virus as a scapegoat, that it's the perfect coverage.
At the beginning of this 'Covid pandemic', he was claiming that what was really going on in Wuhan was 'air pollution'. There may be some correlation between local factors and the susceptibility for high numbers of (real) cases, but that doesn't mean no virus is involved.
Also, some chemical toxins are highly harmful to our DNA. It creates clusters of specific diseases in given areas. I think about these cases of malformed newborns in Irak due to dirty bombs. But also in France, in recent years, cluster of leukemia in infants in a precise area in West France, cluster of congenital upper limb malformation in a tiny (16 km long) area in East France. Many experts concluded to chemical poisoning but as always that have been denied.
Yes, disease outbreaks or clusters can be caused directly by man-made toxins, in the absence of viral pathogens (or benign viruses that produce pathogenic effects in some people). Such environmental stressors can also alter the local population's terrain, making some of them more susceptible to pathogenic viruses...
It's good that Rappoport is against the socio-economic destruction caused by the lockdowns, but there is no need to call it a 'hoax' on the basis of there being no virus. It doesn't have to be either/or.
Lockdowns are unscientific/tyrannical
and SARS-CoV-2 is a virus. Terrain
and Germ Theory are BOTH (partly) correct. Beware viruses
and don't let them scare you by supporting your immune system through preventive medicine.
