by Jon Rappoport
March 14, 2022
(To join our email list, click here.)
Watch closely. The hat is completely empty, see? But now, as I wave this handkerchief across it and intone a spell derived from ancient Babylonian high priests, poof, here is a large white rabbit crawling out of the hat. And now again, as I wave the cloth, boom, the rabbit is gone. And that is how 400 billion dollars of plaintiffs’ claims are asserted and then rejected. Case dismissed.
Children’s Health Defense, 3/4/22: “A hearing today in federal court will set the stage for upcoming litigation against Syngenta, manufacturer of Paraquat. More than 600 lawsuits alleging the agrochemical giant knew its flagship weedkiller causes Parkinson’s were combined into what is known as multidistrict litigation.”
What is Parkinson’s disease (PD)?
Parkinson.org: “Scientists believe a combination of genetic and environmental factors are the cause of Parkinson’s disease (PD). PD is an extremely diverse disorder. While no two people experience Parkinson’s the same way, there are some commonalities. PD affects about one million people in the United States and ten million worldwide. The main finding in brains of people with PD is loss of dopaminergic neurons in the area of the brain known as the substantia nigra.”
There is no cure. And as you can see from that quote, no definite cause has been established. But it’s a disease. We know that because it has a label. PD. And the label is the proof.
If you buy that, visit my site, ConJobCondosontheMoon.com.
For the moment, let’s go with the notion that PD is defined by loss of those dopaminergic neurons in the brain.
If I’m a lawyer defending Syngenta, the maker of the toxic pesticide Paraquat, part of my argument will go this way:
ONE: There are people who have this neuron loss who’ve never been exposed to Paraquat.
TWO: And there are people who’ve been exposed to Paraquat who don’t develop this neuron loss.
THREE: Therefore, the claim that Paraquat causes PD is unfounded.
FOUR: Therefore, blaming Paraquat for the plaintiffs’ PD has no merit.
Poof. Magic.
Once you accept the notion that PD is a distinct disease, even though no definite cause has been found and no cure exists—and even though the neuron loss could occur for who knows how many different reasons—you’re in a hole.
Why?
Because of the above lawyer’s argument I just sketched out. In fact, the same argument has been used many times to deny compensation to parents of vaccine-injured children:
“Your son has been diagnosed with autism. You claim it was caused by the injection. But we know there are many autistic children who never received that particular injection. And there are many children who received the injection who never developed autism.”
Rejection by definition. By sleight of hand. By con.
“We say we have a distinct disease. Our definition of the disease AUTOMATICALLY precludes law suits, because we can claim the purported cause of the disease cited in the law suits is unproven…”
Whereas, there is a much simpler way to assess causation—if the courts would allow it. It goes this way:
“The defendant struck my son on the head 12 times with a heavy hammer. My son’s brain was damaged. Aside from criminal charges, I want the man who destroyed my son’s life to pay. To pay everything he has.”
See? No disease label at all. No magic trick.
A worker in the field sprayed Paraquat all day long. That’s the hammer. Now he can’t walk, he has uncontrollable tremors, he can hardly speak, and he needs around the clock care for the rest of his life.
No PD, no disease label, no neuron loss, no doctors and researchers on the witness stand. Just the plain facts.
Because in the end, when you put all the medical and legal mumbo jumbo aside, that’s the best case anyone can make. It may not be absolute perfection—which is impossible—but it’s the closest thing to it.
The worker, who was healthy, used Paraquat. Now he’s very badly damaged. Period.
The young boy was injected with a vaccine. Then he checked out of the world and sat in a corner for the next year. Period.
No disease labels. No magic tricks.
I’ll run this by you one last time:
PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: My client, Jim, worked in the fields for six months. He sprayed Paraquat dozens of times. Now here, as you can see from the brain scans, he then experienced a loss of neurons…”
SYNGENTA ATTORNEY: And here are 20 studies that show the same brain scans and same loss of neurons in people who never sprayed Paraquat or even worked on a farm…”
That’s not evidence. That’s a trap.
The good news is: playing the legal-medical game can have a self-incriminating rebound effect.
Since the Syngenta scientists accept their own non-scientific disease-labeling approach as Holy Scripture, there will be memos in internal Syngenta files that show these scientists were “warning of Parkinson’s as an effect of Paraquat for years.”
And THAT could very well sink them in court.
But, again, the truth is much simpler. It’s the hammer and the head. The hammer strikes the head. Then, DAMAGE.
No hats, no handkerchiefs, no ancient spells, no rabbits. Just straight-out CRIME.
CODA: If the pseudo-scientific fog were cleared away, and if stripped-down straight-out CRIME were accepted as the argument in court, there would be a righteous bonus. The corporation executives and scientists who knew they were major criminals would be sent to prison for 50 years.
That BANG would wake up the world.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Yet it’s common belief that smoking cigarettes causes cancer.
However, there are people who smoke all their lives and don’t get lung cancer or any other cancer.
And people who have never smoked, or been exposed to ‘2nd hand’ smoke, do get lung cancer.
Why the difference?
Why is it ‘fact’ that smoking causes cancer but Paraguay doesn’t cause Parkinson’s or vaccines don’t cause Autism?
As we know, Big Tobacco has become a minnow in the corporate pond when compared to Big Pharma/Big Ag (pharmaceutical/petrochemical), the megalodon
TV ads telling us tobacco is bad are funded by the pharmaceutical industry and it’s foot soldier, the CDC. But of course, they have drugs to help you quit! Like Chantix, which is still on the market despite being linked to a massive list of “adverse events,” including violent behavior.
The following article/advice isn’t meant to be a joke, unfortunately:
Chantix Causes Cancer But Don’t Stop Using It – Addiction …
addictionrecoveryebulletin.org/chantix-causes-cancer-but-dont-stop-using-it
Interestingly my father, uncle and grandfather all smoked unfiltered Camels. My father and grandfather died when they were 80 and my uncle at 89. No cancer in any of them. My mother smoked filtered Raleighs and Kools. She died of lung cancer at 59. My sister smoked filtered Mores and died of lung cancer at 62. After smoking from the moment of conception I quit 20 years ago at the age of 50. Still hanging in there.
We have a 10 lb poodle mix dog we got at the shelter in 2009. He was given 1 year shots at the shelter when we got him. The following year he got 2 – 3 year shots and within 5 hours had his first seizure. He has been on phenobaritol ever since. I found out that they give a 10 pounder the same amount as a 150 pounder. Plus they’re loaded with neurotoxins just like the vaccines given to people.
People will tell you it’s not science but anecdotal. I’ll take my experiences over science any day
Well said, Cookiepress.
ALL “vaccines” contain known toxins, cancer cells and dangerous ingredients, yet are not medically considered – or admitted to be – the cause of any disease or illness or condition, whether chronic or acute.
At the same time, the medical industrial complex is weirdly clueless when it comes to explaining what causes cancer, diabetes, hyperthyroidism, dementia, hypothyroidism, allergies, asthma, etc.
Oh, and there are no cures for anything, not even a cold or poison ivy out there, either.
Please, then, why are so many people so duh,,,mb when it comes to connecting the dots?
“pesticide causes Parkinson’s” – Thank goodness mRAN vaccinations can help, right?
Close friend was diagnosed with PD in 2002. He relayed the following conversation with his doctor:
Dr.: Do you happen to use RoundUp around your house?
Friend: Why yes, I spray the weeds on my brick patio every weekend.
Dr: Then I advise you to stop immediately. Regular exposure to glyphosate is known to cause neurological dysfunction in humans.
So doctors have known for 20 years at least. Here is a good review of the current state of glyphosate litigation by an attorney.
https://www.cooneyconway.com/blog/roundup-glyphosate-still-store-shelves
“The defendant struck my son on the head 12 times with a heavy hammer. My son’s brain was damaged. Aside from criminal charges, I want the man who destroyed my son’s life to pay. To pay everything he has.”
~
I realize that this is completely beside the point of Jon’s post, but the quoted scenario brought another pernicious aspect of contemporary civil litigation to mind:
Nowadays the parents of the hammered victim would surely sue the hammer manufacturer– possibly as a co-defendant to the civil suit against the hammerer, but more likely separately.
The lawyer mindset, ostensibly righteous, hardnosed “realism” or “pragmatism”, is that the hammer manufacturer has deeper pockets, so that even a partial victory in the form of a non-disclosed settlement would be preferable to successfully suing yer average hammer-wielding maniac.
Something is wrong with this picture. I’m not a 2nd Amendment zealot or gun aficionado, but it popped into my head because of recent news that the extremely dodgy and dubious “Sandy Hook survivors” seem to have successfully extorted lucrative payouts from gun manufacturers.
I’m just floating this tangent to “tease” Jon, who’s sure to have an interesting take on this phenomenon.
While I agree with the spirit and essence of your post, that poisons cause dis-ease in certain cases, and the purveyors of spreading poisons should be held responsible, Parkinsons is not caused by any poisons.
Parkinsons is the result of profound and lengthy psychological self-devaluation conflicts. Most commonly, the functional self-devaluation is “not being able to hold onto something”, which is why the most common symptom is hand tremors, physically manifesting the psychological self-devaluation of not being able to “hold” something.
The tremors themselves are the body attempting to heal/resolve the trauma, but are seen as further physical evidence of one’s inability to hold/maintain something.
The lack of understanding of both doctor and patient reinforce the symptoms and, in a vicious cycle kind of way, reinforce and deepen the symptoms.
The “cure” is coming to terms with, allowing, accepting whatever the person determined they “lost”. Effectively, self-forgiveness, self-compassion. Easier said than done of course, as it is typically a lengthy and profound psychological conflict that isn’t easily reversed overnight.
The problem with GNM is that it discounts toxaemia as the number one cause of illness. That’s a major flaw.
Somebody may have an excess cell growth in an area as a result of an emotional shock or trauma, but that doesn’t mean they will develop cancer there UNLESS there were previously injected, with cancer cell lines that lay dormant in that area where the cells eventually multiplied over time. Or after a traumatic event.
GNM also discounts the fact that a patient who was previously healthy but was exposed to a highly carcinogenic or mutagenic toxin, can’t become ill and attempt to detox.
For those living near cell towers, satellite arrays or high voltage power lines, GNM is misleading.
Toxicity is the number one cause of illness and because illness is almost always multi-factorial, with more than one contributing cause or trigger, all possible causes, including toxaemia, biologics, radiation, micronutrient deficiencies and toxic thoughts or thought processes, should be examined.
“The problem with GNM is that it discounts toxaemia as the number one cause of illness. That’s a major flaw.”
I’m not sure this is true that toxaemia is the number one cause of illness. Nevertheless, I think you raise a very important point that needs addressing.
Unfortunately, I think both critics and advocates of GNM are making some unwarranted assumptions. My understanding of GNM is that it accepts physical causes and triggers for diseases, including cancers, as well as purely emotional ones. Unfortunately, I often see some well-intentioned people promote GNM by focusing on the emotional and mental triggers exclusively. This naturally and rightly raises the hackles of many people such as yourself who are rightly concerned about the pollution of the ecosphere – our very air, food, water – and how this relates to illness.
While I appreciate Mika’s point about Parkinson’s, I never got any sense that Parkinson’s or any other illness had to be of purely emotional origin. By framing it in this way, GNM proponents often unwittingly, I believe, push people away from it and create a very misleading and simplistic picture of what it says. After all, its originator, Ryke Geerd Hamer, applies GNM to the animal kingdom as well, and obviously a deer or a wolf is not undergoing some complex psychodrama when it gets sick, is it?
As I understand it, nothing about GNM precludes the possibility of a pollutant or a complex of pollutants in one’s environment being the initial trigger or impetus for the disease process to become activated. Yet so often I will see GNM advocates write things like, for instance, “Leukemia is caused by a self-devaluation conflict,” yet providing no context for this remark. But think about it. Leukemia may be caused by a self-devaluation conflict, but this conflict doesn’t necessarily spring up out of nowhere. Here’s a website that goes into some detail about leukemia and other cancer:
https://www.gnmonlineseminars.com/environmental-poisons-and-cancer/
Over the years cancer researchers have looked at many different possibilities for the onset of cancer. The most obvious, a biological shock, which is what Dr. Hamer discovered, has never been taken seriously.
Instead of looking to the individual’s personal experience, researchers have concentrated on an external source for the cancer. Or they blame it on a “mistake of nature”.
When Dr. Hamer is asked about what causes a disease, his answer is “the DHS is responsible for the onset of all diseases, outside of poisoning”. However in this case we must differentiate between the toxicity levels which can “poison” an individual and they subsequently die or they have a build up of toxins in their system that have destroyed specific cells in their body.
In the world of cancer research it has been suggested that certain “carcinogens” such as PCB’s, dioxin, or formaldehyde cause cancer.
Wikipedia defines that “a carcinogen is any substance, radionuclide, or radiation that is an agent directly involved in causing cancer”.
Dr. Hamer agrees that extreme radiation toxicity, such as the amount of radiation a person is exposed to in a nuclear disaster, can cause what we know as cancers down the line, meaning eventually. However certain criteria must be fulfilled that are also dictated by the second biological law, “The Law of Two Phases”.
We already know that radiation degenerates cells, as a matter of fact radiation is a recognized cancer treatment used by conventional medicine. Radiation is also used in “destroying” thyroid function if someone has an over active thyroid. But how does it cause cancer?
According to what Dr. Hamer discovered, the radiation destroys specific cells in the body, that when the radiation levels decrease systemically and the body tries to recover from the damage, we can be presented with specific diseases.
For example, if those cells happen to be from the middle germ layer (new mesoderm) such as our skeletal structure, they can “react” in the same way as a DHS which is related to a conflict of self-devaluation.
A deep self-devaluation conflict shock affects the bone marrow during the conflict active phase by degenerating or destroying the cells which are responsible for blood production.
When those cells begin to recover from the damage, be it through conflict activity or through extreme radiation exposure, the person will develop what we know as leukemia with a “start up” of blood production through a proliferation of immature blasts which are mistakenly seen to be a “blood cancer”!
About 12 years ago a study out of Italy stated that microwaves generated by a cell phone that a woman carries either in her pocket or in her hand bag on a constant basis was responsible for ovarian cysts and possibly sterility in women.
How does one explain that within the context of the GNM?
If we observe this with GNM eyes then we know that the ovaries are derived from the middle germ layer (as is the skeletal structure). During conflict activity, the cells necrotize (degenerate) and as a result, the woman may eventually not be able to ovulate and be considered “sterile”.
Microwaves are able to “mimic” conflict activity by degeneration of the ovarian tissue, hence stopping ovulation. When the exposure to microwaves stops, the ovaries are given a chance to recover and ovarian cysts will develop.
So, we can now understand how a “carcinogen” such as radiation and microwaves affect the body.
I had an interesting conversation today which prompted me to blog about carcinogens. The question I was asked was in regard to prostate cancer being associated with high level of PCB’s.
Bearing in mind what I have just explained, I asked the person the question, “when the body goes through a detoxification for this environmental poison, is the prostate cancer reversed?”
The answer is “no it cannot be reversed because it was not caused by the PCB’s in his system. The prostate cancer is caused by shock-conflict”.
It is also important to note that a poisoning does not register on the brain, in which case a condition caused by a poison would not be visible on a Catscan as a target ring configuration.
##################
Obviously, this particular GNM practitioner goes into the necessary detail clarifying the role that radiation and microwaves or other carcinogens can play in triggering the body to go into “disease” mode or “leukemia” mode. But most GNM advocates, I’ve found, don’t do that. They offer a drastically over simplified account and make it seem like all disease is a purely an internal matter of the psyche, when that’s clearly not the case and Hamer was perfectly aware it wasn’t the case.
While I agree with New German Medicine theories, I believe that, as what the body undergoes are biological programs (in response to mental conflicts), biological factors do affect their resolution. Hence, while PD may has a mental cause and can be resolved by dealing with the mental conflict, biological poisoning may hamper the bodily functions so that the program fails to resolve smoothly on the biological side, hence leading to the symptomatic manifestation of PD.
You are right: all pathologies are of psychosomatic origin (cf doctor Hamer); except for poisonings and deficiencies (particularly in vitamin C), all illnesses have their origin inside the body, there are no pathogenic germs (bacteria or viruses) coming from outside and causing it. would attack and want to destroy it. This explains why some smokers do not develop cancer: it is because they have not suffered any psychological shock, which has not led to any conflict and no pathology. CQFD
~
Vous avez raison : toutes les pathologies sont d’origine psychosomatiques (cf docteur Hamer) ; excepté pour les empoisonnements et les carences (en vitamine C notamment), toute maladie trouve son origine à l'”intérieur” du corps, il n’y a pas des germes pathogènes (bactéries ou virus) venant de l’extérieur et qui l’attaqueraient et voudraient le détruire. Ce qui explique que certains fumeurs ne développent pas de cancer : c’est parce qu’ils n’ont subi aucun choc psychologique, ce qui n’a entraîné aucun conflit et aucune pathologie. CQFD
i love you Jon. and if you hadn’t put in a plug for a major un ngo, kennedy no less, i would have continued reading. you are the last of the long-term bloggers/investigative journalists i still subscribe to. corbett and fitts are out (architects of the new paradigm etc). the rest are academy of divine wisdom, freemasons, un shills. you were the last man standing. did i deceive myself?
“We say we have a distinct disease. Our definition of the disease AUTOMATICALLY precludes law suits, because we can claim the purported cause of the disease cited in the law suits is unproven…”
There is a Monty Python sketch where an aggrieved insured party is seeking help from his insurance company. To which, his insurance agent gleefully replies… ‘In your policy is CLEARLY states that any claim made You… CAN NOT BE PAID.’
To which the crestfallen insured man laments, ‘Oh dear, oh dear…’
So it is with many of the State Corporate entities that run the World including our Government. Our ‘contract’ with the Corporate State clearly states that any grievances we have with Them can never be satisfied to the benefit of We the People.
“If the pseudo-scientific fog were cleared away, and if stripped-down straight-out CRIME were accepted as the argument in court, there would be a righteous bonus. The corporation executives and scientists who knew they were major criminals would be sent to prison for 50 years.”
Sending such criminals to prison would set a bad precedent. That would leave NO ONE to ‘govern’ and lead us. The Empty Suits will have left lots and lots of empty chairs.
But at least, They wouldn’t be around to con and jive and gaslight us for a while. And wouldn’t that be a breath of fresh air for a change.
Ever wonder why insurance contracts policies and contracts are so damn long? They need not be. The bottom line to them all is:
ANY CLAIMS MADE BY YOU CANNOT BE PAID. AND THANKS FOR ALL THOSE PREMIUMS YOU’VE BEEN SENDING. KEEP IT UP!
OH BY THE WAY… YOU RATE IS GOING UP NEXT WEEK…
Great approach Jon!
No doubt the pesticide is poison. I’m not suggesting that the pesticide doesn’t cause Parkinsons. But is there a possibility that there are also, other causes of Parkinson’s. Not to mention ALS and Alzheimer’s? A ruling or multiple suits like this might, inadvertently conceal a highly toxic, additional cause that may be more easily proven and probable?
Such as poisonous, pathogenic injections, masquerading as vaccines.
Has anyone seen the 10,000 pages of Pfizer data with nine pages of side effects, and a mortality rate in the clinical trial of almost 1 in every 35? It’s being suppressed in the alt-media.
Yep and that Bang would start making a better world.
Of your many hundreds of brilliant articles Jon, this is amongst the best. It might be more simply titled, ‘The Dangers of Labelling’.
This problem is also endemic to the entire US legal system of precedent – or how the Supreme Court has come to interpret precedents. It has for decades now so narrowly labelled particular precedents that they are all but useless to defendants in most cases. Just to slightly simplify for the purpose of this post: the court establishes a precedent that it is permissible for someone to shoot an armed intruder with a pistol but in a later case rejects the use of the precedent because the homeowner used a rifle. Same as the medical cases. Instead of focusing on the actual circumstances – the armed nature of an attacker, the loss of neuronal activity in a poisons victim – the label pinpoints a particular aspect and limits the utility of the law in being applied.
Vaccines and other pharmaceuticals have always been the delivery system for pestilence. Only 2 things that cause disease, toxins/acids and the bodies inability to eliminate them at the cellular level,
Lawyers have already tried this method and the courts shoot it down immediately. Specific ailments and bodily harms works for slip and falls but it doesn’t work for cases against chemicals and substances. The legal system finds that symptoms are too broad and thus would take too long or be near impossible to rule out all other possible causes. If you don’t list a disease your case will never make it.
Someone tell Michael J Fox. I bet he’ll be pissed and he maybe has funds to do something about it.