Magic trick: promoting diseases that don’t exist

by Jon Rappoport

October 10, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The disease/treatment/profit machine requires more and more diseases, even if they aren’t real.

Here is an unspoken but largely accepted medical notion of what a disease is:

A group of physical symptoms shared by many people, which has a single cause.

For example, take the flu. Wikipedia lists the common symptoms: chills, fever, muscle pains, headache, coughing. For each type of flu, there is single virus announced as the cause. E.g., Swine Flu; H1N1 virus.

Drug companies develop medicines and vaccines to kill the virus or prevent it from gaining a foothold in the body. They sell the drugs and vaccines. Profits soar. Nice and neat.

Of course, many doctors don’t bother to test patients to see if they have a disease like seasonal flu. It’s too time consuming to take a blood sample and send it to a lab and wait for the results.

So the doctor makes an eyeball diagnosis based on symptoms and the season of the year.

As I explained in my previous article, “What happens when only 16% of flu patients have the flu?”, a cursory investigation of this practice can lead to embarrassing results.

Every year, many blood samples from patients are, in fact, sent to labs, and only a small fraction of these “flu cases” turn out to reveal any flu virus at all.

But this fact is blithely ignored.

You have hundreds of thousands of people in the US who display the general “flu symptoms,” but it turns out most of them don’t have the flu. They have a variety of other problems.

But admitting this is bad for business. How can drug companies justify making flu drugs and vaccines when most “flu cases” don’t have the flu?

The solution? Fake it. Pretend all people diagnosed with the flu actually have it.

Bottom line? Just because you have a group of people who have the same general symptoms…that doesn’t mean they have the same disease…and it doesn’t mean the same germ is causing their symptoms.

Consider Autism. If you were to go to startpage.com and search for “Diagnostic Criteria for 299.00 Autistic Disorder,” you would come to autreat.com where you would read through a whole menu of behaviors. These behaviors are, in fact, the definition of Autism. They are the entire definition.

There is NO cause listed. There is no single cause. No germ or fungus or mold or errant gene or neurological defect.

So in this instance, the medical cartel pretends they already somehow know Autism (the collection of behaviors) is a single disease, and “they will eventually find the single cause.”

But again, just because you have a great many children who have the same GENERAL symptoms (behaviors)…that doesn’t mean they have the same disease…that doesn’t mean the cause of disease is the same across the board.

Nowhere in the definition of Autism will you find a single cause or any sort of bottom-line physical explanation. You will only find lists of behaviors.

So…how do they know Autism (or each sub-category in the so-called spectrum) is a single disease?

THEY DON’T KNOW.

YES, the children are suffering. YES, they have serious problems. Yes, they are not like other children. YES. But is Autism a single disease? Is it even a spectrum of different types of “developmental disorder,” as advertised? No persuasive evidence exists to affirm that.

I chose Autism for a special reason: the vaccine connection.

I’ll try to boil it down. The medical bosses assert that vaccines COULD NOT be the cause of Autism. On what basis do they say this?

Follow closely. The reasoning goes like this… ‘There are diagnosed cases of Autism where the child did not receive any vaccines. Or the child didn’t receive any vaccine containing the neurotoxin mercury.’

‘And since vaccines are demonstrably not the cause IN EVERY CASE OF AUTISM, vaccines are not the cause at all.’

You might want to read that last sentence again.

Single cause of a single disease means: the cause is the same in every case of the disease.

This is how the medical bureaucrats refute vaccines as the cause of Autism. This is their “proof.”

“Okay. We know (pretend) Autism is a single disease. So it has to have one cause across the board, in every case. Let’s see. Can we find any diagnosed cases where the child didn’t receive vaccines with mercury in them? Yes. We can. All right, end of story. Vaccines couldn’t cause Autism.”

But is Autism (or any sub-type of Autism) a single disease? Is there any convincing proof? Is there a single cause in all cases?

No. If there were, you would find it in the official definition of Autism, and it isn’t there.

At this point, people repeat familiar medical-propaganda slogans: “We’re on the cusp of a breakthrough in finding a genetic cause.” “We’re closer than ever.” “It could turn out to be a virus.” “It might relate to early childhood infections.” “Its roots are neurological, and these days we understand that system at a deeper level than ever before.” “We’re seeing similar patterns in brain scans.”

All supposition. All speculation.

No reason under the sun to accept the idea that what is called Autism is one thing with one cause.

In many cases of what is called Autism, we are looking at vaccine damage, pure and simple. Then CALL IT VACCINE DAMAGE, NOT AUTISM.

In other cases, the cause would be chemical poisoning from a variety of non-vaccine sources. SO CALL IT CHEMICAL POISONING, NOT AUTISM.

In other cases, a severe oxygen deficit. CALL IT OXYGEN DEFICIT.

In other cases, major nutrient deficiencies. CALL IT NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCY.

In other cases, all four of these. CALL IT ALL FOUR OF THESE.

Call “it” what it is found to be, in that given child.

Look into the life and body of each unique child.

Stop using the generalized label, Autism.

Ah, but if that happened, doctors would be forced to do things they aren’t trained to do. And drug companies, the last time I looked, don’t have a safe and effective drug to reverse vaccine damage.

These companies wouldn’t be able to make billions on a drug aimed at some single mythical cause for “Autism.”

If Autism isn’t one disease with one cause, there is no single way to treat all children diagnosed with Autism.

The diagnosis itself is a misnomer and a deception. The label is a deception. A lie.

“Then what’s wrong with my child?” a parent says. “If it isn’t Autism, what is it?”

The answer could only come with a truly honest and competent and skillful examination of the child. That unique child.

Holding out for one grand solution to a problem that isn’t one general problem is doomed.

Many children are waiting for a successful universal treatment that will never come.

There are reports that, in some of cases of “Autism,” hyperbaric oxygen has shown good results.

But what about cases where the real problem is severe nutritional deficit?

It comes down to this: do parents want a solution to what their unique child is really suffering from? If so, then someone has to discover what that is. And then that practitioner has to come up with an answer that truly helps.

Calling all children who have similar generalized symptoms “Autistic” doesn’t help.

But it does provide an avenue of profit for drug companies. Their paid researchers can announce “breakthroughs” and “partial answers” and come in behind that with new drugs.

And then they can even say, “We’ve found the cause,” when they haven’t. They can market a whole raft of drugs that “alleviate the cause.” And make billions of $$, while children still suffer.

Here’s a real-life illustration. The parents of a young boy are at their wit’s end because he has withdrawn from the world. He can’t communicate. His physical coordination is lacking. He has other problems.

The doctor says: Autism.

But another doctor, someone who practices medicine but also has human instincts and a genuine desire to go the distance and help that boy, investigates.

And he finds several crucial things. The boy, who has never had vaccines, has severe nutritional deficiencies. On top of that, he’s extremely sensitive and reactive to certain artificial colors and dyes in processed foods. He has bowel problems, debilitating gastrointestinal infections. He almost strangled on the umbilical chord at birth.

Suppose the the doctor can prepare a comprehensive non-drug program to correct these problems. And after a time, the boy begins to emerge from his isolation. Into the world.

Did he have Autism?

This is like asking whether the victim of an automobile accident had Broken Bone Syndrome.

There is a simplicity at the bottom of all this. When the doctor says, “Your son has VCR$#S or some other label, the parent can say, “Do you have a treatment that will correct the situation?”

If the answer right now is no, there is no reason to buy the label and walk down the tortuous path the label implies.

If later on, the doctor says yes, we definitely do have a cure, then the parent can look at it through a high-power magnifying glass of intelligence and justified skepticism, to find the fine print, and understand what the doctor is really talking about.

Is he telling the truth? Is he lying? Does the supposed cure have such dire adverse effects the child is merely trading one set of crises for another? Are the new crises just masking the old ones?

Here is the rule: if someone claims that a cluster of symptoms adds up to a disease label for many people with that cluster, but the doctor has in his hands no cause for the cluster, there is no reason to assume the label means anything.

Yet still, the parent says, “All right, but the doctor said my son is Autistic. What am I supposed to do?”

Yes, and the doctor probably also says Autism is a neurological disorder and much research is underway, and the prospects are looking better…

But does the doctor have the cause of Autism? Does he have a treatment that really works? Is the parent in better shape by assuming her boy has “Autism,” whatever that is supposed to mean? Is the boy helped in any way by this?

Or is the mother of that child simply assuaged and relieved, because the doctor has put a label on her child who, up to now, was a troubling mystery?

I know people are going to write me with alt. solutions for Autism. They are going to assume there is such a thing (across the board) as Autism and it has a single cause, and there is a brilliant treatment for all of it.

To them I would suggest reading this article again and thinking about what it actually means.

People are also going to say, “But Autism researchers are making progress. They may not have the single cause yet, but they’re getting closer.”

Really? They SAY they’re getting closer. That’s different. What do you expect them to assert? They’re getting farther away?

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

The ultimate medical experiment

Oct9

The ultimate medical experiment

~a short story~

by Jon Rappoport

October 9. 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Fifty years ago, on June 4^th, 4191, a medical experiment was concluded. It had enveloped the entire planet.

This was the working hypothesis: if you could replace the DNA in a human being with new synthetic DNA that was highly protective, you could expose a human to fierce assaults and he would survive.

The environments chosen for the experiment were the McDonald’s Plateaus in 657 locations across Earth. These were basically pools of intense radioactive water, plus lead, other heavy metals, a soup of virulent (natural and engineered) bacteria, viruses, fungi, molds, and parasites, mixed with dangerous medical drugs, industrial pollutants, chemical warfare agents, and Pentagon nerve gases.

One by one, humans engineered with the new replacement DNA were lowered into the pools.

The first 12 humans died within minutes.

Based on autopsies and tox screens, changes were made to the synthetic protective DNA structure because, to be frank, the scientists really had no idea which configuration would produce the desired result.

Over the next 300 years, succeeding sets of 12 humans were brought to the pools and immersed.

With each set, death was the end point, and it was unfortunately achieved.

After every “death of a dozen,” as it was called, the scientists would reconfigure the DNA structure, hoping for a lucky break.

It never came.

Eventually, 13 billion humans (aka, the population of Earth) were tested, and they all died.

The researchers announced they had run out of test subjects. They stated they were confident that, had they been given enough time and enough human subjects, they would have eventually discovered the correct keys to “robust survival.”

At the end of the experiment, there were 17,000 humans left on Earth. Bankers, key politicians, mega-corporate CEOs, scientists, and a small unit of soldiers.

They, along with a select group of ideal “breeding stock,” began the job of repopulating the planet.

Naturally, I am a descendant of the 17,000.

The population of Earth now stands at roughly four million.

The New Global Institute of Biology has issued the following press release:

“It is apparent that the conditions under which the The Great Experiment was originally carried out no longer apply. We are not subject to former levels of pollution and harmful substances. In that very important sense, The Experiment was a resounding success.

“Neither is there a compelling reason to continue the search for a synthetic DNA configuration that will provide ultimate protection.”

A week of official celebrations is planned.

I must say, however, that had The Experiment never been mounted and launched in the first place, eventually the outcome it achieved would have come about naturally.

The end point would have taken longer to achieve, but the result would have been the same. This was apparent even in the early days of the 21^st century, given the pollution levels at that time.

Food for thought…which is now merely academic and theoretical.

Before I sign my name to this brief historical note, I must make it clear that birth records and lines of heredity have been muddled, over the last several centuries.

Apparently, I am a direct descendant of one of the original researchers involved in The Great Experiment. As a result of much literature and counter-literature, I cannot assure you my name retains any significant meaning.

It is “FD Rock Meng Mons Wall.”

Here are several current Wiki entries that might shed light on the separate components:

“It is presumed that FD is a shortened form of FDA, an ancient agency of government that successfully and brilliantly protected the public by certifying medical drugs as safe or unsafe.”

“Rock is sometimes explained as Rockefeller, an American family dedicated to ending war and starvation and ensuring cooperation among governments. A family foundation sponsored early research on The Great Experiment. Fragments of a paper titled “The Need for Depopulation” exist at the Kissinger Memorial Library.”

“Meng may refer to a brilliant German surgeon, Joshua or Joseph Mengele, who carried out tests on the limits of human endurance.”

“Mons is almost certainly an abbreviated form of Monsanto, a 21st-century corporation that revolutionized planetary agriculture through genetically modifying food crops to provide spectacularly enhanced nutritive value.”

“Wall, it is argued, stands for Wall Street, which may have been a company or consortium. It assembled a large portion of the initial funding for The Great Experiment, by selling shares of ‘mortgage derived securities.’ The meaning of this phrase is not presently known.”

Sincerely,

FD Rock Meng Mons Wall, PhD, Biology

Jon Rappoport

What happens when only 16% of flu patients have the flu?

Oct9

by Jon Rappoport

October 9, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Here is how serious propaganda works: Over a a long period of time, you build up a gigantic lie. You keep reinforcing it.

You have major money behind you, as well as institutions of government, and corporations. You forge that lie, and you keep repeating it over and over.

Finally, and this is the payoff, you reach a point where a refutation of the lie would seem, to most people, like a piece of incomprehensible insanity, like gibberish.

Therefore, the refutation of the lie would tend to be invisible. It would sink like a small stone, leaving no trace.

After writing about fake vaccine science since 1988, I thought I’d seen it all:

Wild falsehoods about vaccines creating immunity; suppressed information about toxic ingredients in the shots and their devastating health effects; the absence of proper controlled studies proving vaccines are safe and effective.

But Peter Doshi, PhD, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals a new monstrosity. It’s all based on the revelation that most “flu” is not the flu.

Follow this closely. If you blink, you might miss it.

You see, as Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

SO THEY DON’T HAVE THE FLU.

Therefore, even if you (falsely) assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases. The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Here’s the exact quote from Doshi’s BMJ review, “ Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem…Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive….It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.

A patient walks into a doctor’s office. He’s sick. He’s coughing. He has a fever. His muscles ache. The doctor says, “You have the flu. Did you get your flu shot this year?”

“No,” the patient says.

The doctor gives him a stern look. “Well, you should have. See? You’re sick now. The vaccine would have prevented that.”

Wrong.

Again, even by conventional standards, the odds are very high the vaccine would have made no difference at all. Because the odds are very high this patient doesn’t have an influenza virus.

Overwhelmingly, doctors diagnose the flu with a casual eyeball glance. The patient has a familiar cluster of symptoms? It’s flu season? Okay, it’s the flu. Period.

With an ongoing blizzard of psyop-marketing, people accept “flu” and react emotionally to the propaganda about it.

In 2009, as the heralded Level 6 global pandemic, Swine Flu, was proving to be a bust and a trickle, Sharyl Attkisson (CBS News) discovered that the CDC had stopped counting the number of Swine Flu cases in America.

The CDC had stopped counting, because their tests on diagnosed flu patients showed so many who didn’t have the flu virus, who didn’t have the flu at all.

Atkisson’s reporting was explosive. It was threatening to expose the whole flu psyop. What would happen if it became common knowledge that most people diagnosed with the flu don’t have the flu? What would happened to the campaigns to get people to take flu vaccines?

Attkisson was muzzled. And the CDC doubled down and suddenly claimed there were undoubtedly TEN MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US. This, after only several thousand cases had been reported.

This is on the order of saying a dry creek-bed in the woods is actually the Mississippi River.

Twisting words and numbers and painting false pictures is the CDC’s job.

Do you have an advanced degree, and are you a liar and a criminal? The CDC needs you.

(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 29^th 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.

Obamacare: the ticking time bomb in “better health”

Oct8

by Jon Rappoport

October 8, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Ask yourself this question: if you’re forced to buy a product, will the seller also want to make sure you use it?

The first part of the question is called a clue. Who forces you to buy a product? What kind of person or group?

Forced purchase and forced use go hand in hand.

So it will be, some day, with Obamacare.

Up the road, when the program really gets going, this means: take your psychiatric drugs after your diagnosis of clinical depression; submit to the installation of a pacemaker, whether you want it or not; hand your children over to the doctor so he can shoot them 60 times with vaccines.

In the trade, it’s called “patient compliance.”

We can already see the outline forming.

On September 22, 2011, the Department of health and Human Services issued a press release titled, “HHS announces $224 million to support evidence-based home visiting programs to help parents and children.”

“U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced $224 million to help at-risk families voluntarily receive home visits from nurses and social workers to improve maternal and child health, child development, school readiness, economic self-sufficiency, and child abuse prevention….”

“…They [the “home visitors”] work with families to evaluate their circumstances, help parents gain the skills they need to succeed in promoting healthy development in their children, and connect families to the kinds of help that can make a real difference in a child’s health, development, and ability to learn…improving the rate at which children reach developmental milestones…”

This is just the beginning.

What are the odds that, during one of these home visits, the nurse or social worker inquires about the child’s vaccine status? Are all his shots up to date?

“No?? My, my. What seems to be the problem here? You know, we look into all forms of child abuse, and not getting vaccines is on the list. Do you understand?”

And if the parent says, “Well, we don’t believe vaccines are safe. We don’t want our child to suffer possible damage…”

The social worker nods and says, “I see. So you’re anti-government then. Does anyone in the house own a gun?”

And you’re off to the races.

Here’s the kicker. Millions of people across America, who have been sufficiently brainwashed, will agree with the social worker. Including people in your own community.

“They don’t vaccinate? My God. And the father owns two guns? I always thought he was a little strange. I’m glad we found out what’s going on at that house before something terrible happened. I mean, those kids play with our kids!”

Welcome to the show.

Upright citizen neighbors vs. the social pariah.

At some point in the future, this whole unfortunate scenario will be avoided by simply making all childhood vaccines mandatory under the Obamacare program.

They force you to buy the product. They insist you use it. Makes perfect sense.

Voluntary becomes compulsory.

“Oh yes, these home visits used to be by agreement of all parties, but now there’s a new rule. To avoid endless red tape, and to be able to utilize the information we collect on citizens, we pick the homes and we make the visit. Do you have a problem with that? If so, you enter a new category called RESISTANT. At which point, everything stops and we invoke a whole different set of procedures.”

You’re pregnant?

“Congratulations. What’s the due date? Who’s your doctor? What hospital will you be staying at?…..Excuse me? Home birth? Midwife? Charlie, call the bomb squad and the hazmat team. Institute a search for nuclear weapons.”

Silly parents. You thought it was your family. You thought you had a wide range of choices. No. You see, you bought the product they forced you to buy. The product just happens to come with a whole raft of additional features.

Don’t worry. Be happy. Use the features. Enjoy them and their fallout.

Or else.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention a particularly thorny category you could fall under: the person “who does his own medical research.”

Talk about red flags.

Up the road somewhere in the future, show your knowledge to an Obamacare rep: “Say, Nurse, did you know that every year in the US, hundreds of thousands of people who are diagnosed with flu have their blood samples sent to labs—and only 16% show any sign of a flu virus? All the others don’t have the flu at all. Therefore, no flu vaccine could conceivably work on the 84%.”

You’ll find yourself sitting across from a psychiatrist who says, “You’re showing symptoms of IRS, Independent Research Syndrome…”

I’m fully aware there are people who are steadfast in their belief that “it can’t happen here in America.” They only think about today. For them, the future is non-existent.

But think about this:

Sixty years ago, what would people have said if you told them, “By the year 2013, five million children in America will be taking speed, because they sit in class and stare out the window and fidget in their seats. Doctors will prescribe the speed. They’ll call the fidgeting ADHD. There will be no lab test to diagnose it. No physical test of any kind…”

Or this:

Sixty years ago, what would people have said if you told them, “By the year 2013, medical experts will claim 20% of the population is suffering from depression. The psychiatric profession will have its own bible, and it will list 300 separate and distinct mental disorders.”

Or this: “By the year 2013, psychiatrists will be seeding the whole American population with drugs for depression, and these drugs will cause people to commit suicide and murder…”

Or this: “By the year 2013, based on a grossly over-exaggerated risk for breast cancer, women will be walking into doctors; offices and asking to have both breasts removed.”

It can’t happen here?

It already has happened.

Jon Rappoport

Are GMO ballot measures just another covert op?

Oct7

Are GMO ballot measures just another covert op?

by Jon Rappoport

October 7, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Here’s a quote in an ad Monsanto has run in the UK: “Food Labelling. It has Monsanto’s Full Backing.”

The catch? The mandatory labeling of GMO food is already widespread in the UK.

But in the US, where the whole issue is quite contentious, Monsanto has poured millions of dollars into campaigns to defeat GMO labeling on foods.

There was Prop 37 in California, and now Prop 522, coming up for a vote this November in the state of Washington.

In these campaigns, Monsanto falsely claims labeling is unnecessary, confusing to consumers, and would make food prices escalate.

So which is it? Which position does Monsanto take? Yes on labeling? No?

Both. Whatever works. The truth doesn’t matter. Never has. Never will.

The Prop 522 campaign in the state of Washington is going up against the Monsanto slime. It appears the Yes on GMO labeling forces there have split apart.

I pointed out, during the Prop 37 debacle in California, that telling voters they had a right to know what’s in their food isn’t enough. Voters have to understand the health dangers of GMOs.

They have to understand GMO farming in the US is a disaster, in terms of the amount of chemical poisons sprayed on crops, in terms of crop yields, and resistant superweeds taking over growing fields.

But that wasn’t what the Yes on 37 bosses decided in CA. They firmly ordered their foot soldiers to stick to the “right to know” issue, first, last, and always.

I had a good inside source, after Prop 37 went down in California, who said the Washington state campaign to label GMOs would be very different.

The anti-GMO forces there would educate voters on the dangers of GMOs. The campaign wouldn’t only be about consumer choice.

So…today I found a USA Today article reporting on the Washington campaign (“Washington State battles over genetically modified food”). It contained a statement from an anti-GMO spokeswoman:

“We believe that we have a right to know what’s in our food,” said Elizabeth Larter, the Seattle-based communications director for the Yes on 522 campaign. “This campaign is not about whether GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are good or bad; this is really just providing more information for consumers.”

Really. This is just about “providing more information.”

Good and bad are irrelevant.

If so, then why should consumers care whether the food they buy and eat is labeled?

I can’t imagine a more disastrous message from the anti-GMO forces in the State of Washington. It’s pathetic, destructive. It’s a wet noodle.

Was Elizabeth Larter, the spokeswoman, misquoted, or is she working for Monsanto?

I urge all the people in Washington campaigning for GMO labeling to ask her. These people work their guts out. They sacrifice their time, energy, and in some cases their own money and jobs for the cause—and in return they get this:

GMOs, not good or bad, just nice information for consumers to have.

Yes, by all means, let’s stick to Nice. Let’s sport a big grin and a shrug and say good or bad GMOs don’t matter at all.

Maybe the Prop 522 people in Washington think they have the election all wrapped up. Maybe they think GMO labeling is coming to WA and they can soft-pedal the campaign.

Well, Monsanto and other big biotech corporations have just injected millions of $$ into the WA scene. They’re not going to soft-pedal it between now and November.

Now, another insider has told me that the YES on 522 campaign in WA has split apart. On one side are the bosses, who insist on utilizing the same disastrous uni-message to voters: you have a right to know what’s in your food.

On the other side are some of YES ON 522 ground troops, who are determined to tell people: you have a right to know AND this is why—GMOs are dangerous to your health and dangerous to the future of agriculture.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq0HMBQfdI0&w=560&h=315]

The YES ON 522 bosses, as in California, are quite content to coexist with Monsanto and millions of their acres of of GMO crops. They’re resigned to the gene drift that will blow GMOs into American food crops from coast to coast.

As as you can see from Monsanto’s reaction to mandatory labeling in the UK, Monsanto can deal with GMO labeling wherever it’s passed.

The real threat to Monsanto is a massive popular uprising against the corporation and its horrendous desecration of food. For example, when a US county passes a law against the growing of any GMO crop within its borders, that’s a dagger.

Were such a movement to spread, Monsanto would be shaking in its boots.

But these ballot initiatives on behalf of labeling GMOs are soft. Their organizations are yuppified at the top. They’re Nice.

Which has led me to suspect that the ballot initiative movements have been infiltrated.

In intelligence-agency parlance, they’re limited hangouts. They seem to solve a problem, but they barely scratch the surface of it.

They misdirect attention. They frame the wrong questions. They dampen the much-needed outrage against Monsanto, which is an evil company.

They suck up available money. They co-opt volunteers who could otherwise be taking a much tougher position.

Instead of seeing hundreds of thousands of people in the streets rallying against Monsanto, the public is seeing press releases from spokespeople like Elizabeth Larter, who, if quoted correctly by USA Today, sounds like a Girl Scout selling cookies.

One more time, the public is being treated to a cartoon of dueling PR nonsense.

The effect? A dulling of the senses and the mind.

The ultimate message? Keep sleeping.

Because, you see, to do otherwise would not be Nice.

“Yeah…ballot initiatives, that sounds good. Yes or No on GMO labeling. Two sides. We can handle that. We’ve got plenty of money for false ads. And it’s all so remote. It’s a cool op, not a hot one. Stick with cool and polite and nice. Anger is bad. Outrage is bad. We can make this whole thing seem like slightly contentious diplomats exchanging memos. No real passion. Therefore, in the long run we win. The whole country is GMO.”

It’s a mind-controlled trance.

Jon Rappoport

Shock: Comparing deaths from medical drugs, vitamins, and all US wars

Oct7

Shock: Comparing deaths from medical drugs, vitamins, all US wars

by Jon Rappoport

October 7, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

People want to believe medical science gives us, at any given moment, the best of all possible worlds.

And of course, the best of all possible worlds must have its enemies: the quacks who sell unproven snake oil.

So let’s look at some facts.

As I’ve been documenting in my last several articles, the medical cartel has been engaged in massive criminal fraud, presenting their drugs as safe and effective across the board—when, in fact, these drugs have been killing and maiming huge numbers of people, like clockwork.

I’ve cited the review, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”, by Dr. Barbara Starfied (Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000), in which Starfield reveals the American medical system kills 225,000 people per year—106,000 as a direct result of pharmaceutical drugs.

I’ve now found another study, published in the same Journal, two years earlier: April 15, 1998; “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.” It, too, is mind-boggling.

The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate:

Every year, in the US, between 76,000 and 137,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs.

Beyond that, every year 2.2 MILLION hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs.

The authors write: “…Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and administered.”

So this study had nothing to do with doctor errors, nurse errors, or improper combining of drugs. And it only counted people killed who were admitted to hospitals. It didn’t begin to tally all the people taking pharmaceuticals outside hospitals who died as consequence of the drugs.

I found the link to this study at the Dr. Rath Health Foundation, in the middle of a very interesting article by Dr. Aleksandra Niedzwiecki: “Commentary on the Safety of Vitamins.”

Here are two key quotes from her article:

“In 2010, not one single person [in the US] died as a result of taking vitamins (Bronstein, et al, (2011) Clinical Toxical, 49 (10), 910-941).”

“In 2004, the deaths of 3 people [in the US] were attributed to the intake of vitamins. Of these, 2 persons were said to have died as a result of megadoses of vitamins D and E, and one person as a result of an overdose of iron and fluoride. Data from: ‘Toxic Exposure Surveillance System 2004, Annual Report, Am. Assoc. of Poison Control Centers.’”

Summing up:

No deaths from vitamins (2011), and three deaths (2004) from vitamins (plus fluoride!).

106,000 deaths every year from pharmaceutical drugs (Starfield).

Between 76,000 and 137,000 deaths from pharmaceutical drugs every year in hospitalized patients (Lazerou).

The FDA and its “quack-buster” allies go after vitamins, demean “unproven remedies,” and generally take every possible opportunity to warn people about “alternatives,” on the basis that they aren’t scientifically supported.

Meanwhile, the very drugs these mobsters are promoting—and in the case of the FDA, CERTIFYING AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE—are killing and maiming people at a staggering rate.

The masses are treated to non-stop PR on the glories of the US medical system.

In the Wikipedia entry, “US military casualties of war,” the grand total of all military deaths in the history of this country, starting with the Revolutionary War, is 1,312,612.

In any given 10 years of modern medical treatment? 2,250,000 deaths.

Consider how much suppression is necessary to keep the latter number under wraps.

Jon Rappoport

Introduction: The Matrix Revealed

Oct6

INTRODUCTION TO

THE MATRIX REVEALED

by Jon Rappoport

Brief note: October 6, 2013—Once in a while, I give myself a plug. This is the introduction to one of my two products, The Matrix Revealed. It spans 25 years of research dedicated to learning how this Matrix is put together.

It’s not a list of groups who “run things.” It’s about Matrix construction, how false realities are built, and it’s also about the human mind and its two competing tendencies: the desire to be in the Matrix and the desire to escape it.

Matrix IS as much about the mind as it is about external reality.

Okay. Here is the Introduction:

Let me start with the nuts and bolts of this product. It is enormous in scope and size.

250 megabytes of information.

Over 1100 pages of text.

Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

My complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and audio to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

The complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

The heart and soul of this product are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together:

EILLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

RICHARD BELL, financial analyst and trader, whose profound grasp of market manipulation and economic-rigging is formidable, to say the least. 16 interviews, 132 pages.

JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet. Jack’s anti-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages.

Then there are several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix, including recent conversations. 53 pages.

The ten and a half hours of mp3 audio are my solo presentation, based on these interviews and my own research. Title: The Multi-Dimensional Planetary Chessboard—The Matrix Vs. the Un-Conditioning of the Individual.

Here is some background on the product and my own history:

In 2001, I essentially left a career as an investigative reporter and rolled the dice on the emerging internet. I started a site called www.nomorefakenews.com

I didn’t stop investigating and publishing, but my field of operation widened. My first big question was: WHO REALLY RUNS THE WORLD?

And my second was: WHOEVER THEY ARE, HOW DO THEY MANUFACTURE REALITY FOR THE POPULATION OF EARTH?

I was prepared to deal with these enormous questions, because I had contacts. These were people I had come to know well during my days as a reporter, writing for LA Weekly and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe—and also during a stint on radio at KPFK in Los Angeles.

These people, these contacts, were insiders.

They had deep knowledge in their fields:

PROPAGANDA; FINANCE; HYPNOTISM; MIND CONTROL; MEDICINE; INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS…

There was a catch. They were unwilling to be cited as on-the-record sources in my articles. They knew they would suffer consequences if they went public.

Once I started my website, I did extensive research to confirm the credentials of my insiders. I wanted to make sure they were who they said they were. I wanted to verify they had worked where they said they had worked. This was a laborious process.

When I was sure, I began to interview them.

I wasn’t certain where all this would go.

Gradually, I realized I was getting VERY high-level information on The Matrix. But this was the real Matrix.

As one of my sources described it:

“Imagine a factory that turns out illusions. And these illusions are woven together to make up what we think the world is.”

The actual Matrix involves a number of areas: government; money; energy; the military; intelligence agencies; medicine; mega-corporations; psychology and mind control; science…

I started a members-only newsletter, and word quickly spread. Every Friday, I would email a newsletter to subscribers. Many of these newsletters were interviews with my insiders.

It was quite a job, keeping up with writing (public) daily articles for my site and also putting out the (private) newsletter. I was also collating the high-level information from my sources and making maps of the expanding territory.

I saw that I was looking at global CARTELS. As you will discover in reading this material, these cartels are not frozen organizations. They are evolving.

So now I’ve had some very competent assistance, and I’ve assembled the most important newsletter-interviews for you.

But in addition to that, I’m publishing, for the first time, interviews that never made it into those newsletters. And I’m presenting interviews from very recent days as well.

It’s very instructive to talk to people who have been there on the inside. They are bright, they are informative, they convey the depth of situations they were involved with. They go beyond relaying dry facts, and in doing so, you learn how elite players play the game. You receive a rounded and three-dimensional picture of: the process of constructing The Matrix. How it’s built.

In every case, each insider was relieved to be able to talk with utter frankness, with no fear that his words would be twisted or taken out of context or deleted. So you’re getting the full story.

I met my first two insiders while I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., SCANDAL OF THE CENTURY, in 1987-88. The book was my initial experience in putting together a vast amount of data—which contradicted every official position on a supposedly rock-hard subject: medical science.

At the time, I didn’t really understand how deep I was drilling down into a cardinal aspect of The Matrix. I only knew I was I digging up and exposing long-held delusions broadcast as facts by the Medical Cartel. These false realities went far beyond the subject of AIDS.

That first book of mine started as a pure lark. I had just published a piece in LA Weekly about certain televangelists and their support of an intentionally staged Armageddon in Israel. When the piece was published, I sat back and thought, “Where do I go from here? What could be weirder than this?”

Like other investigative reporters, I was excited by strange and bizarre stories that could blow readers’ minds. I was motivated by that.

So, in 1987, I wondered what could be stranger than the Armageddon story I had just done.

Sitting in my Los Angeles studio, a thought popped into my head. “AIDS. I bet there’s something about that whole thing that’s pretty weird.”

Little did I know…

That was my first big leap.

I had studied logic extensively in college. I had been taught by a philosophy professor who was a very generous soul and a relentless thinker. If you were an inch from accuracy, he would point it out, and he would give you the full reason and understanding that pulled you back to the straight and narrow.

Once I dove into research for AIDS INC., I was amazed at the sloppy thinking and contradiction that was posing as science.

And then I met my first two insiders.

Their basic message to me was: keep going; you’re on the right track; we have a great deal more to share with you.

They weren’t just talking about medical issues.

They were talking about the whole construction of reality from a number of angles.

Each of the insiders I have gotten to know over the subsequent years has a different personal story. They have all left their particular corner of The Matrix-Construction Group. Jack True, my late friend and colleague, was a different man altogether. He was never part of that Group. He was the most informed and brilliant researcher I’ve ever come across on the subject of the mind—the essential link that makes The Matrix work.

Jack started the ball rolling. He was instrumental in making the deal that got AIDS INC published. He introduced me to a few key figures along the way—insiders who proved invaluable.

Why did these insiders want to talk and spill secrets? Well, the process of interviewing them wasn’t always easy. They could be thorny at times. But they all had seen, finally, the abyss toward which they were heading, toward which they were leading the population. And they pulled back.

So…

This Volume is for individuals.

Because:

Beyond The Matrix is true individual power.

Despite all the illusions, it has always been there.

It waits for you.

And it IS your power.

Jon Rappoport

Obamacare: here come the toxic psychiatrists

Oct5

Obamacare: here come the toxic psychiatrists

by Jon Rappoport

October 5, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The toxic psychiatrists are already here, but under Obamacare their mission will expand.

A recent Washington Post article parroted the usual unscientific statistic on numbers of people in America with mental disorders: 20% of all adults have “experienced a mental-health issue.”

Propaganda focuses heavily on children, with claims that “half of all mental-health disorders first show up before a person turns 14.”

“Three-quarters of mental-health disorders begin before 24. But less than 20% of children and adolescents with mental disorders receive the treatment they need.”

Obamacare has an “essential list” of services, and “mental-health treatment” is one of them. You can be sure the targeting of children will expand.

More and more children will be brought into the system and receive diagnoses of mental disorders and the toxic drugs psychiatrists routinely prescribe. More kids will be screened for depression and undergo “behavioral assessments.”

The influence of psychiatry in young children’s lives is going to expand beyond anything we’ve yet seen. America is going to experience another sea change: the medicalization of children’s behavior will blanket the country.

First of all, as I’ve established many times, NO so-called mental disorder is defined scientifically. There are no physical diagnostic tests: no blood tests, no urine tests, no saliva tests, no genetic tests, no brain-scan tests.

If there were, you would find them in the DSM, the bible of the psychiatric profession, which lists the, yes, 300 mental disorders.

Instead, disorders consist of menus of behaviors assembled by committees of psychiatrists, who decide which clusters of behaviors rate a disorder label.

In a PBS Frontline interview, during the episode called “Does ADHD Exist?”, Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, was asked about the lack of a blood test for ADHD. He made this extraordinary statement:

“That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid.”

Dr. Barkley has his own definition of science. If, say, physics surrendered the need for physical tests, it could claim the sun revolves around the Earth, all oceans end in steep cliffs, and unexplored forests automatically contain dragons.

But “psychiatry is different.” Committees of men can assemble lists of behaviors and call them disorders. 300 and counting.

This is why all assessments of numbers of people who have mental disorders are useless. The disorders themselves are arbitrarily concocted.

But there are very serious consequences: drugs and more drugs.

When it comes to their toxicity and behavioral effects, I recommend several sources. The website “SSRI stories” presents a number of studies of the SSRI antidepressants (e.g., Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft). Consult the work of Dr. Peter Breggin, David Healy, and Robert Whitaker. Read Breggin’s essential book, Toxic Psychiatry.

Here is important information about one psychiatric drug: Ritalin.

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse affects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

Paranoid delusions
Paranoid psychosis
Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
Activation of psychotic symptoms
Toxic psychosis
Visual hallucinations
Auditory hallucinations
Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
Effects pathological thought processes
Extreme withdrawal
Terrified affect
Started screaming
Aggressiveness
Insomnia
Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
Psychic dependence
High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
Decreased REM sleep
When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
Convulsions
Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

Ritalin and other speed-type drugs are given to kids who are slapped with the ADHD label. Speed, sooner or later, produces a crash. This is easy to call “clinical depression.”

Then comes Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. These drugs can produce temporary highs, followed by more crashes. The psychiatrist notices the up and down pattern—and then produces a new diagnosis of Bipolar (manic-depression) and prescribes other drugs, including Valproate and Lithium. (To see some of the toxic and dangerous effects of these two drugs, read my article, “The lying liars who lie about psychiatry.”)

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land. Under Obamacare, with psychiatry firmly placed on a par with other branches of medical practice, the plague is going to spread further, as previously uninsured people enter the system.

At the website, “SSRI stories”, you can also read numerous reports of antidepressants’ links to violent behavior, including suicide and homicide. The correlation is not meant to establish a perfect causative chain, but the shocking number of incidents is more than suggestive.

After commenting on some of the adverse effects of the antidepressant drug Prozac, psychiatrist Peter Breggin notes, “From the initial studies, it was also apparent that a small percentage of Prozac patients became psychotic.” Paxil and Zoloft are in the same class of drug as Prozac.

Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a time. Stories on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off. But on February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.” She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”

Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, “Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?”

In his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin mentions that the Donahue show (Feb. 28, 1991) “put together a group of individuals who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous after taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response confirmed the problem.”

Breggin also cites a troubling study from the February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) which reports on “six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed `intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment.’ The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk. While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding `suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”

An earlier study, from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

The well-known publication, California Lawyer, in a December 1998 article called “Protecting Prozac,” details some of the suspect maneuvers of Eli Lilly in its handling of suits against Prozac. California Lawyer also mentions other highly qualified critics of the drug: “David Healy, MD, an internationally renowned psychopharmacologist, has stated in sworn deposition that `contrary to Lilly’s view, there is a plausible cause-and-effect relationship between Prozac’ and suicidal-homicidal events. An epidemiological study published in 1995 by the British Medical Journal also links Prozac to increased suicide risk.”

When pressed, proponents of these SSRI drugs sometimes say, “Well, the benefits for the general population far outweigh the risk,” or, “Maybe in one or two tragic cases the dosage prescribed was too high.” But the problem will not go away on that basis. A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

In wide use. This despite such contrary information and the negative, dangerous effects of these drugs.

Under Obamacare, mental-health professionals are looking forward to a much larger piece of the “treatment pie.” Huge numbers of previously uninsured people, including vulnerable children, will now move under the psychiatric umbrella, and their futures are at extreme risk.

Psychiatry has deeply troubling similarities to the Surveillance State. It profiles people and labels them. However, it then treats them with highly toxic and dangerous drugs.

In the wake of recent mass killings, Obama has shown his preference for psychiatric treatment in a number of statements. He’s also launched the so-called “brain mapping project,” which aims to detect more “mental problems” that need fixing by drugs and other invasive methods, and he’s promised to establish new community mental-health centers across the nation.

This, taken together with Obamacare, signals a catastrophe, and spells out the need for public resistance.

Jon Rappoport

The government knows it’s a medical killing machine

Oct4

The government knows it’s a medical killing machine

by Jon Rappoport

October 5, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Here are four smoking guns that substantiate the title of this article.

Smoking gun #1: As I detailed in my two previous articles (click here and here), Dr. Barbara Starfield’s article in the July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”, spelled out the damage:

The US medical system kills 225,000 Americans per year. That’s well over two MILLION deaths per decade.

The US government supports, in numerous ways, this system. And now, through the implementation of Obamacare, many more previously uninsured Americans will enter the killing fields.

Dr. Starfield’s data are not classified. They’re not a state secret. Any doctor or medical bureaucrat has access to them.

Yet nothing of note is being done to remedy the ongoing crime.

Smoking gun #2: Starfield’s report indicated that, every year in the US, 106,000 Americans die as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs.

The FDA is the only agency tasked with certifying these drugs as safe and effective. With such certification, the drugs enter the public pipeline.

On the FDA’s own website, under the heading, “Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions,” appears the following text: “Over 2 MILLION ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions] yearly; 100,000 DEATHS yearly; ADRs 4^th leading cause of death…”

Astonishingly, the FDA takes no responsibility for any of this. They, and only they, can approve the drugs as safe and effective. They list the numbers of deaths and maimings, and they never admit culpability.

Smoking gun #3: It’s common knowledge that there is a revolving door between the FDA and drug companies. Employees come and go from one organization/agency to another. The FDA and the pharmaceutical industry are, in significant respects, partners.

For years, there were reports of payoffs and pressure, at the FDA, to grant approval to drugs that were, in fact, harmful and dangerous.

Then, in 2009 and again in July 2012, a scandal erupted. As Truthout reported, it focused on “an institutionalized FDA spying program on its own scientists, law makers, reporters and academics that included an enemies list…”

At the heart of the scandal: FDA pressure on its own people to approve medical devices that were dangerous.

Truthout took a further step. It interviewed Ronald Cavanagh, a former drug reviewer for the FDA. (July 29, 2012, “Former FDA Reviewer Speaks Out About Intimidation and Marginalizing of Safety”)

In a stunning interview with Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg, Cavanagh, exposed the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies.

Cavanagh: “…widespread racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation.”

“I was threatened with prison.”

“One [FDA] manager threatened my children…I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators.”

Cavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the Agency, who insisted that the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public. That’s why he was under the gun.

Honest appraisal wasn’t part of the FDA culture, and Cavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children might be on the line.

What was his secret and unofficial task at the FDA supposed to be? “Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs.” In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.

Cavanagh’s revelations are astonishing. He recalls a meeting where a drug-company representative flat-out stated that his company had paid the FDA for a new-drug approval. Paid for it. As in bribe.

Cavanagh remarks that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the later effects of nerve gas, “actually increased the lethality” of certain nerve agents.

Cavanagh recalls being given records of safety data on a drug that was up for approval—and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.

The FDA is an ongoing criminal enterprise, and any government official, serving in any capacity, who has become aware of it and has not taken action, is an accessory to mass poisoning of the population.

Smoking gun #4: Before the FDA considers approving a new drug, studies and clinical trials have to be done. The drug companies do those clinical trials and submit the results to the FDA.

Obviously, the results look good; otherwise the FDA wouldn’t be able to certify the drugs as safe and effective.

This raises the specter of research fraud—because, since the drugs kill 106,000 Americans every year, how can published studies praising these drugs be authentic and credible?

On January 15, 2009, the NY Review of Books published a devastating quote from a woman who, for 20 years, edited the most prestigious medical journal in the world:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

(Marcia Angell, MD, “Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)

Here is another quote of a similar nature, also published in the NY Review of Books (May 12, 2001, Helen Epstein, “Flu Warning: Beware of Drug Companies”):

“Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false.”

Here’s another quote from the same

“Last year, GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia was linked to thousands of heart attacks, and earlier in the decade, the company’s antidepressant Paxil was discovered to exacerbate the risk of suicide in young people. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx was also linked to thousands of heart disease deaths. In each case, the scientific literature gave little hint of these dangers.”

And finally, here is yet another statement from Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine:

“A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies [that praised the drugs] were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.”

It turns out that the informational pipeline that feeds the entire perception of pharmaceutical medicine is a rank fraud.

Could any major newspaper add up these quotes and launch an all-out attack on the massive crimes surrounding medical studies? Of course. And that attack, if carried out long enough, would shake the pillars of the Church of Modern Medicine. But it doesn’t happen.

Neither do we see extensive Congressional hearings on the horrendous effects of the US medical system. The Dept. of Justice does nothing, when they should be making mass arrests and laying on criminal prosecutions.

They know the scope of the medical killings and maimings. They choose to do nothing.

And now, into the maw of this dragon of death, will step millions of previously uninsured Americans, glad recipients of Obamacare.

Jon Rappoport

Obamacare and the medical destruction of human life

Oct4

Obamacare and the medical destruction of human life

by Jon Rappoport

October 5, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

In yesterday’s article about Obamacare, I pointed out a simple fact:

If you have a system that is already killing a huge number of people, and you make that system bigger and bring millions more people under the same umbrella, the death toll will accelerate.

The key journal paper on medical destruction is: Dr. Barbara Starfield, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

I laid out the statistics yesterday. Every year in the US, the medical system kills 225,000 people. 106,000 die as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs. The other 119,000 die as a result of mistreatment in hospitals.

I use the Starfield report because it is right down the middle of mainstream medicine. Before her death, Starfield was a widely respected public health expert. For many years, she worked at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. The Journal of the American Medical Association is as mainstream and prestigious as you can get.

I’m fully aware that independent researchers have pegged the death toll from the US medical system at a much higher number. But I wanted to show that, even in “The Club,” the statistics are known to be horrendous.

Think about it. The US medical system kills 225,000 Americans per year. That adds up to well over 2 MILLION deaths per decade.

Not long before her death, I interviewed Dr. Starfield. I asked her whether anyone from the federal government had ever asked her to consult, to help fix the medical system. Her answer was a stark No.

I asked her whether she was aware of any significant government program directed at fixing the system. Again, she answered No.

Try this imaginary fictional analogy. You work for the government in auto safety. You know two things. Every tenth car in America contains a fatal flaw that will cause a crash at speeds in excess of 40mph. And, as a result of new legislation, millions more Americans will be on the road driving cars. What would you do?

US politics lives and thrives on PR, and PR makes its money from empty generalizations and promises. In the medical arena, it’s all about “better care for all,” “humane concern for everyone,” “breakthroughs coming soon,” “money for more research,” etc.

This has nothing to do with the actual effects of the system. It has nothing to do with reality.

Well, here is the reality. By the most conservative estimate, the US medical system kills 2,250,000 people per decade.

That’s the system that’s heading for massive expansion under Obamacare.

You have a choice. You can go with the empty PR, or you can face the facts and realize what’s going to happen.

“Well,” some people have told me, “the politicians in charge don’t really understand what the medical system is doing to people. It’s just ignorance. Their hearts are in the right place.”

And that matters? That argument is meant to exonerate the flavor of the week inside the Beltway. It has nothing to do with ongoing death stemming from standard medical practice.

The death statistics I’m citing in this article aren’t a state secret.

Doctors chopping off women’s breasts for no reason. Medical drugs putting people into the grave. Vaccines causing neurological damage. Psychiatric drugs blasting brains and pushing people over into violence, including suicide and murder…no problem. The politicians’ hearts are in the right place.

Walk through a cemetery and try that defense.

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Author Archives: Jon Rappoport

Magic trick: promoting diseases that don’t exist

The ultimate medical experiment

What happens when only 16% of flu patients have the flu?

Obamacare: the ticking time bomb in “better health”

Are GMO ballot measures just another covert op?

Shock: Comparing deaths from medical drugs, vitamins, and all US wars

Introduction: The Matrix Revealed

Obamacare: here come the toxic psychiatrists

The government knows it’s a medical killing machine

Obamacare and the medical destruction of human life