Two words that don’t go together: “medical” and “journalism”

by Jon Rappoport

March 6, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Yesterday, I was scanning through medicalnewstoday.com, catching up on the wacky and highly dangerous world of medicine.

What caught my attention were the story headlines themselves. In the news biz, everything depends on those headlines and what they mean, imply, suggest. They’re magnets.

So take a trip with me through one day of the magnetic field.

First, let’s get a few OOPS headlines out of the way:

“Common Cancer Vaccine Ingredient Diverts T-cells From Tumors”

“Shelf Life of Blood Nearer 3 Than 6 Weeks”

“One-Third of Doctors Miss Electronic Test Results”

These headlines should be rewritten and blasted across the front pages of newspapers and jammed into the top spots on the evening television news. But no. They aren’t. They might disturb the sleeping masses.

GIGANTIC CANCER VACCINE SCREW-UP

ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO GET A BLOOD TRANSFUSION?

DOCTORS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL…AGAIN

The common cancer vaccine ingredient referred to in the first headline is mineral oil. It’s used in experimental cancer vaccines being tested on animals. Seems the T-cells in the body, stimulated by the vaccine, fail to attack the cancer tumors. Instead, they attack the injection site. Where the vaccine was jabbed. Oops.

The T-cells are attacking the mineral oil!

You mean, all these studies of cancer vaccines, for all these years, were goofing on a monumental stupidity? The immune systems of all these mice were turning around and attacking the hole where the vaccine went in? Yes, the T-cells, in fact, were attracted to the mineral oil. Wonderful. And for a bonus, the result was infection. Good work. Splendid work.

In case mineral oil is ever found to be lethal, we can make the body attack it.

The next headline refers to the fact that, finally, researchers have figured out something important about blood used for transfusions: better not use blood stored for six weeks—it’s not any good. Oops.

Hospitals have been using six-week-old blood forever. But that blood doesn’t transfer enough oxygen to the patient. No. Doctors shouldn’t be transfusing blood older than three weeks.

In fact, a Johns Hopkins newsletter drops this little nugget. “One previous, large study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has already shown that cardiac surgery patients who received blood stored longer than three weeks were almost twice as likely to die as patients who got blood that had been stored for just 10 days.”

Oops, oops, oops.

“Remember Frank? Hell of a guy. Always on the go. He went to the hospital for surgery and they gave him old blood. He died. Tragic. But hey, the doctors tried. They thought that, like wine, blood is best when it’s aged.”

The third headline has to do with the problem we all face in sorting through the ton of emails we get every day. In the wacky wonderful world of medicine, many test results on patients are now transmitted to doctors via email. How modern. One little problem, though. The doctors miss them. They don’t read the emails. Oops.

“Mr. Jones, your test results have been delayed. Don’t know why. So I’ll just wing it. Let’s see. I’ll put a blindfold on and reach into this cabinet full of different medicines and grab a bottle. Here, take this twice a day. And don’t call me. If you convulse, try 911.”

Now we come to a type of headline I love. The maybe-could be headline. Actually, it’s a lying headline, but it’s couched cleverly—if you have no more than three brain cells to work with:

“Obesity Gene Linked to Skin Cancer”

First of all, this assumes researchers have really found a gene that causes obesity. That’s sheer baloney. Generally, baloney causes obesity. Second, the word “linked” means, “Might be relevant, we don’t know, we’ll see, or maybe we’ll just drop the whole idea…but we did get some grant money for the research.”

“Investigators Identify Genetic Risk Factors for Age-Related Macular Degeneration”

Translated, this means: “There might be two or three or possibly six or 40 genes related to macular degeneration, we don’t know, but we can build a little model that quantifies what we call risk, which is a probability, but this makes no difference, because we don’t have a genetic treatment for macular degeneration; in fact we don’t have ANY genetic treatment which works across the board for ANY medical condition. But we did get grant money for this study.”

“Two genes linked to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s Disease)”

Ditto. “Linked” means maybe, could be, we don’t know, and we have no genetic treatment for Lou Gehrig’s Disease and we don’t know whether we ever will. It also means: this disease may not be a disease at all; it could be head injury or exposure to a chemical, but we call it a disease because disease-names equal money.

Next, we have the DUH headlines.

“Sleeping Pills Raise Hip Fracture Risk in Nursing Home Residents”

Really? You mean people who live in a daze because they’re loaded with sleeping pills day after day actually fall down and break something? Astounding. And you discovered this by doing a full-bore study? Good for you. Here’s a suggestion for your next grant application: “Bright lights suddenly turned on, accompanied by sirens, cause people who are sleeping to wake up.”

“Inappropriate Use of Opoids, FDA Extremely Concerned”

Again, astounding to learn—people are using too many opoids. And the FDA concern is felt coast to coast. We appreciate that. While you’re at it, you (FDA) might express some concern about the fact that you’re certifying drugs as safe and effective that are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 Americans every year. And that’s a very conservative estimate.

There’s one more DUH headline. It took me an hour to figure out what it means:

“Optimism and Feelings of Vulnerability Skewed Following Tornado, Should Be Reflected in Emergency Preparedness”

As far as I can tell, they’re talking about people who feel optimistic after a tornado hit their town. Meaning: these residents say they don’t expect another one in the future. Wow. Researchers state this optimism is inappropriate, and therefore emergency responders should prepare for it…or something. Again, study completed, grant money deposited in bank account.

“Are you going to be home tonight for dinner, Daddy?”

“No, Jimmy, I’m going to be working. I have to drive to Small Town USA and nag the local residents, who were hit by a tornado last year, by asking them whether they feel optimistic about a lack of tornadoes in the foreseeable future. This is vital information I’m gathering. I can’t remember why at the moment, but it is putting food on our table. So clean your plate at dinner tonight.”

Then we have a feel-good headline. Maybe.

“Good Quality Hospital Care Indicated by Facebook ‘Likes’”

Well, isn’t that special. Forget hospital records. Forget the fact that hospitals kill 119,000 Americans every year (by conservative mainstream estimates). Who cares? Our hospital got 489 Facebook Likes from patients. Good work, guys. Here, let me read one Like to you:

“Although I was given a heart bypass for my broken ankle, the recovery period was highlighted by balloons which the staff brought into my room and the candy bars they placed on my night table. Was that a nurse who walked into my room at three in the morning, or was it a hooker paid for by the assistant director, who seemed very concerned about my well-being and had me sign some kind of waiver while I was drugged to the gills with morphine?”

Finally, we have this headline:

“Children with ADHD Require Long-Term Treatment Well Into Adulthood”

Let’s see. ADHD is a fake disorder for which no diagnostic test exists. The drugs used to treat it are cheap speed, which can cause very dangerous effects, like hallucinations, aggressive behavior, and deep sadness. But no problem. Keep drugging kids all the way into adulthood. Ruin their lives. It’s good for business.

Well, there you are. That’s just a partial list of one day’s medical headlines.

Kudos to the headline writers and the conscientious journalists who got their stories right and really let us know what’s what. We’re now much wiser, and we feel confident that medical science is marching forward into a future where, for example, tiny nanobots can be injected into our blood streams. These bots, armed and programmed with such useful and true medical information, will automatically make changes inside our bodies and correct any problems they discover.

We’ll feel better and be better. We’ll take a moment every day to bow down to the guardians of our health.

Give us more medicine! Give us more care! Heal us! We trust you! We love you!

Here are a few basic headline-rewrites that better reflect medical journalism in today’s world. I’m 100% sure that if the NY Times ran them across the top of the front page, day after day, the readership would explode and the Times would rescue itself from impending financial ruin.

HA-HA-HA; WHEN DOCTORS SAY ‘GENETIC LINKS FOUND’ THEY MEAN ‘WE HAVE NO IDEA BUT WE’RE BANKING $$$’

ADHD A FICTIONAL FANTASY, BUT THE DRUGS SELL LIKE CRAZY AND SCREW KIDS INTO PRETZEL SHAPES

VACCINE ATTACKS HOLE IN THE BODY WHERE THE NEEDLE WAS STUCK

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE STONED ON PAIN KILLERS ARE TURNING INTO ZOMBIES, HIP-REPLACEMENT BUSINESS SOARS

THOUSANDS OF DOCTORS DON’T READ YOUR MEDICAL TESTS, WING IT FOR FUN AND PROFIT

WANT A DEFICIT OF OXYGEN? GO TO A HOSPITAL AND GET SOME OLD BLOOD

FACEBOOK-LIKES CURE CANCER, ALTHOUGH DEATH MAY BE A SIDE EFFECT

I’m available for freelance headline work.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

Miracle: no one shot by strawberry tart shaped like a gun

Mar4

Miracle: no one shot by strawberry tart shaped like a gun

by Jon Rappoport

March 4, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Josh Welch. Seven years old. Park Elementary School, Baltimore. Bit off pieces of strawberry tart, trying to make shape of mountain. Tart ended up looking like gun. Josh suspended for two days. No bullet wounds reported.

On top of all that, the students at Park Elementary were sent home with a letter stating there had been a disruption at the school.

So far, no federal troops have been deployed to guarantee the security of the students.

I can think of a solution to this problem. Every pupil at Park Elementary should make a gun out of his/her next strawberry tart. All at once. An armed rebellion.

Then the parents should yank their kids out of Park and start their own school. I’m reasonably certain they can find, among themselves, teachers and a principal who aren’t absolutely insane.

In the wake of this Strawberry Statement, perhaps we’ll see waves of supporting protests across America: kids bringing paper guns and pictures of guns and pastry guns and bubble gum guns and water pistols to school.

“Suspend all of us!”

Thousands of new private schools and home schools then spring up. Parents defect out of the public school nightmare. No more random diagnoses of ADHD and drugging with cheap speed called Ritalin or Adderall. No more pressure to take dozens of toxic vaccines. No more social engineering programs in classrooms. No more sex ed for kids. No more junk food lunches. No more pastry scares.

No more federal funding accepted for public schools. No more no child left behind or left ahead or left in the middle. No more textbook publishers ripping off schools with new editions of the same old books every year. No more “every child has to have a computer or else they won’t learn anything” nonsense.

Just thousands upon thousands of empty school buildings, which are then razed, leaving open land on which fresh clean food crops can be planted for the community. By the community. No outside help required. No Monsanto.

The US public school system was originally invented for one purpose. To teach children how to be citizens of a newly minted Republic.

Obviously, that mission has failed. To even mention “Republic” or “individual freedom” these days in a school, with serious intent, with the goal of exploring their meanings in depth, could provoke an alarm bell, a lockdown, and a phone call to the DHS.

Therefore, nullify. Defect. Decentralize. Get out.

Let these “strawberry tart” teachers educate their own kids and make a mess out of it. You don’t have to allow them to make a mess out of your kids.

In their own homes, these psychos can act out their own social programming, until hopefully their children rebel and refuse to knuckle under.

Need I even say it? The elites behind the public school apparatus in America send their kids to private academies. They wouldn’t get within sniffing distance of the mind-numbing factories they’ve designed.

Decades ago, I taught in three private schools. But these were special places. They were built to take on the discarded refuse of public education, the kids of the zombie parents who gladly got rid of their little ones every day so they could forget about them. I saw the wrecks, the boys and girls who drifted, clueless about what was happening to them. They were virtually unteachable. They’d already been blasted out of whatever interested them in life.

On my last day at one of these baby-sitting horrors, a teacher told me: “In five years, I haven’t taught one student one thing he remembers.”

For me, there was a saving grace. I saw that my students had imagination. It was some kind of immortal and indestructible quality that survived, no matter what. It came out in bizarre and sudden ways, and the buttoned-up classroom certainly wasn’t the best setting for it, but it was there.

It was the bottom-line refusal to go under. As bad as things got, these kids still wanted to create something different. That’s why I admired them.

They were canaries in the coal mine, because what they’d experienced was a cameo of where this whole society was (and is) going.

As the pressure builds, people are driven back on their own resources, and those resources turn out to be the capacity to invent.

People eventually say, “I don’t like this reality. I want to make another one.”

If they hear themselves loudly and clearly enough, they can do something. They can defect, opt out, and decentralize. They can become the artists they always were.

They can offload the mind control and the garbage they’ve been tuned up with, and they can step out into the sunlight.

When enough of that happens, the robots who are in charge of running the day-to-day details of a mad overweening system, like public education, will gradually wake up and realize they’ve been conned, and they’ve been conning themselves.

They’ll walk out the door, too.

None of this happens without crisis. There is an internal struggle to shake free, shake loose. But victory is there to be had.

If I had a kid, I’d teach him to make a Glock-shape out of a strawberry tart long before I’d let him near the door of one of those android factories called a public school.

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD 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. For more information on how increasing your command of Logic can help you navigate your convictions more clearly, see the FREE article I wrote entitled “Matrix programming 101: destroy logic”.

That’s why I think public schools aren’t doing enough to indoctrinate children. We need more recycling of cans, more fake talk about global warming science, more tolerance of inter-species sex, more hundred-dollar textbooks filled with social messages, more overt anti-religious propaganda, more intervention by counselors who fantasize about being psychologists, more metal detectors, more verbal attacks on students who ask uncomfortable questions, more junk food in cafeterias, more information about living gay in the third grade, more lockdowns, more anti-terror drills, more DHS pamphlets, more instruction on how to snoop and meddle and snitch, more “we’re all in this together,” more teachers breaking down and weeping and flipping out, more unionization, more control, more administrative pronouncements from educrats, more uniform curricula from government, more studies and task forces getting nothing done to stem the tide.

Until finally, the whole business crashes.

Until finally, the light goes on in people’s minds.

Until this thing we call public education is exposed for anyone with three working brain cells to see.

Until this product is recalled to the factory—except there is no factory.

Then the canaries in the coal mine will be vindicated.

Then people will have to take their destiny in their own hands.

Then my student, James, who came to the West LA loony bin where I taught, who showed up every day with a different propeller hat he’d made, who danced in the aisles in the assembly hall, who sang little improvised ditties about snowstorms in July and doctors taking off their clothes and examining themselves…James will be vindicated.

He’ll be remembered (at least by me) as the kid who saw the crackup coming and tried to create works of art to explain it.

James was a happy inventor. He was the court clown. He delivered messages from his own psyche. He was more alive than the president or Congress, and far more knowledgeable than the evening news.

I dream of meeting him after all these years. I, wearing one of his propeller hats. I take it off and tip it to him. He grins and nods. Finally, I understand what he was telling us.

Propeller hat, strawberry tart. Listen to the canaries.

Jon Rappoport

225,000 US patients die in doctors’ hands: silence of the lambs

Mar3

225,000 American patients die in doctors’ hands: silence of the lambs

by Jon Rappoport

March 3, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

In my previous article, I examined the silence of the lambs (media) concerning the collusion between Monsanto and the FDA.

In the case of medical care in America, that purposeful silence reigns supreme as well.

By the most conservative estimate, researched and published by mainstream medical sources, the US medical system kills 225,000 people each year.

That’s 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.

You’d think such a mind-boggling fact would rate a relentless series of page-one stories in the press, along with top-story status on the network evening news.

But no. It’s wall-to-wall silence.

Why? We can list the usual reasons, the medical/pharmaceutical advertising dollars spent on television and in newspapers being the most obvious reason.

We have the reality that, of those 225,000 annual deaths, 106,000 occur as a direct effect of pharmaceutical drugs. The FDA is the single government agency tasked with certifying all medicines as safe and effective before they’re released for public use. Any exposure of the medical death statistics would automatically indict the FDA. Major media won’t take on the FDA at that level.

One of the many truths which would come to light in the event that the press did attack the FDA full-on? The FDA spends an inordinate amount of time, energy, and money going after the nutritional supplement industry, which causes virtually no deaths in any year or decade.

The public would of course discover that, by certifying medical drugs as safe and effective, drugs that kill, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the FDA is colluding with, and serving, Big Pharma.

You can’t possibly approve so many drugs that wreak so much human destruction through mere incompetence. Apologists for the FDA might like to think so, but they are terribly, terribly wrong. They are whistling in the dark, trusting “science” as our guide.

Since I’ve been reporting these medically-caused death figures—I started 12 years ago—people have told me, “This is impossible. If it were true, the media would be reporting it.”

That argument is upside down. The statistics are real and true. In fact, they are very low estimates. Therefore, the press is colluding to keep them well under the radar.

The mainstream press is built to be able to maintain silence on issues such as this. It’s part of their job. Although many reporters and editors are simply ignorant and clueless, at the highest levels of media we are looking at sheer manipulation. We are looking at the crime of accessory to murder.

I don’t say murder in any non-literal way. It’s murder because, when you know the facts, when you know what a huge government institution (FDA) is doing to the population, and when that institution itself is well aware of its lethal impact on the public and does nothing about it, year after year, decade after decade, it’s FDA murder and it’s media’s accessory to murder.

It’s not merely negligent homicide. There is no negligence here, any more than there would be if you took a loaded gun out into the street and started firing randomly at crowds of people.

Underneath it all, the press maintains silence because they are not permitted to hammer a huge fracture in what is called “the public trust.”

And what is the public trust? It’s the false illusion that basically things are all right. That’s the simplest way to say it. Things are all right.

They’re especially all right when it comes to the medical profession. Doctors are modern priests in white coats.

But the priests are the ones who are prescribing the drugs that are killing people. If the extent of their crimes were made known, trust would evaporate in seconds. And not just trust in the medical profession. Trust, or the lack of it, is contagious. It spreads to other areas quickly.

“Well, if they’re lying abut this, and killing people, then who else is lying and killing?”

“We know that people die in wars. But the doctors are supposed to be saving lives. They’re not supposed to be giving people drugs that kill them at the rate of 106,000 a year, every year.”

The press and the people who own media companies are aware they are guardians of the public trust. However, that has nothing to do with telling the truth. The press is guarding the illusion of truth. That’s how they interpret their mandate.

Nowhere is this perversion more clear than in the medical arena.

As I do every so often, I’m presenting my interview with the late Dr. Barbara Starfield, who for many years was a revered public health authority at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. She was the researcher who exposed the truth about medically caused death in America.

Her review, “Is US Health really the best in the world?”, was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.

It presented three key facts. Every year, the US medical system kills 225,000 people. 106,000 die from the direct effects of FDA-approved medical drugs. 119,000 die from the effects of treatment in hospitals.

Soon after her review was published, it gained some media attention. Not headline attention, but the press carried the story. Then, like a report of a car crash or a storm, Starfield’s revelation disappeared, vanished without a trace.

In other articles, I’ve made it clear that Starfield’s journal paper is confirmed by other sources. In fact, on a page of the FDA’s own web site, it is admitted that 100,000 people die every year in America from the effects of pharmaceutical drugs. However, as in the case of every psychotic criminal, the FDA takes no responsibility.

Here are excerpts from my interview with Dr. Barbara Starfield:

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

NO.

Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews [of its new drugs]—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.)

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

What was your personal reaction when you reached the conclusion that the US medical system was the third leading cause of death in the US?

I had previously done studies on international comparisons and knew that there were serious deficits in the US health care system, most notably in lack of universal coverage and a very poor primary care infrastructure. So I wasn’t surprised.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

In THE MATRIX REVEALED, the 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

The first bonus is 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 second bonus is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD 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. For more information on how increasing your command of Logic can help you navigate your convictions more clearly, see the FREE article I wrote entitled “Matrix programming 101: destroy logic”.

INTERVIEWER COMMENTS:

This interview with Dr. Starfield reveals that, even when an author has unassailable credentials within the medical-research establishment, the findings can result in no changes made to the system.

Many persons and organizations within the medical system contribute to the annual death totals of patients, and media silence and public ignorance are certainly major factors, but the FDA is the assigned gatekeeper, when it comes to the safety of medical drugs.

The buck stops there. If those drugs the FDA is certifying as safe are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the Agency must be held accountable. The American people must understand that.

As for the other 119,000 people killed every year as a result of hospital treatment, this horror has to be laid at the doors of those institutions. Further, to the degree that hospitals are regulated and financed by state and federal governments, the relevant health agencies assume culpability.

It is astounding, as well, that the US Department of Justice has failed to weigh in on Starfield’s findings. If 225,000 medically caused deaths per year is not a crime by the Dept. of Justice’s standards, then what is?

To my knowledge, not one person in America has been fired from a job or even censured as result of these medically caused deaths.

Dr. Starfield’s findings have been available for 12 years. She has changed the perception of the medical landscape forever. In a half-sane nation, she would be accorded a degree of recognition that would, by comparison, make the considerable list of her awards pale. And significant and swift action would have been taken to punish the perpetrators of these crimes and reform the system from its foundations.

The pharmaceutical giants stand back and carve up the populace into “promising markets.” They seek new disease labels and new profits from more and more toxic drugs. They do whatever they can—legally or illegally—to influence doctors in their prescribing habits. Many studies which show the drugs are dangerous are buried. FDA panels are filled with doctors who have drug-company ties. Legislators are incessantly lobbied and supported with Pharma campaign monies.

Nutrition, the cornerstone of good health, is ignored or devalued by most physicians. Meanwhile, the FDA continues to attack nutritional supplements, even though the overall safety record of these nutrients is excellent, whereas, once again, the medical drugs the FDA certifies as safe are killing 106,000 Americans per year.

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the whole literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjyspoyCg2o&w=470&h=264]

Jon Rappoport

Monsanto and the FDA: 2 crime families working a trillion-dollar hustle

Mar1

by Jon Rappoport

March 1, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Perhaps you remember the ill-fated Just-Label-It campaign. A number of activist groups petitioned the FDA for a federal regulation that would make labeling GMO food mandatory.

The petition amassed over a million signatures. But the FDA decided only 394 of these were legitimate, because all the others were electronically submitted in one document.

Infuriating? Of course. But that was nothing. Let’s get down to the core of the crime.

Imagine this. A killer is put on trial, and the jury, in a surprise verdict, finds him not guilty. Afterwards, reporters interview this killer. He says, “The jury freed me. It’s up to them. They decide. That’s what justice is all about.”

Then the press moves along to members of the jury, who say: Well, we had to take the defendant’s word. He said he was innocent, so that’s what we ruled.

That’s an exact description of the FDA and Monsanto partnership.

When you cut through the verbiage that surrounded the introduction of GMO food into America, you arrive at two key statements. One from Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing, licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.

Quoted in the New York Times Magazine (October 25, 1998, “Playing God in the Garden”), Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, famously stated: “Monsanto shouldn’t have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

From the Federal Register, Volume 57, No.104, “Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” here is what the FDA had to say on this matter: “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”

The direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements is no accident. It’s not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or a miscommunication. It’s a clear signal that the fix was in.

Passing the buck back and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which Pandora’s box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food supply.

In order for this titanic scam to work, the media had to cooperate. Reporters had to be a) idiots and b) sell-outs.

With few exceptions, reporters and their editors let the story rest there, as a “he said-he said” issue. No sane principled journalist would have cut bait at that point, but who said mainstream reporters are sane or principled?

Underneath the Monsanto-FDA buck-passing act, there was a conscious deal to give a free pass to GMO crops. This had nothing to do with science or health or “feeding the world.” It was about profits. It was also about establishing a new monopoly on food.

Not only would big agribusiness dominate the planet’s food supply, it would strengthen its stranglehold through patents on novel types of seeds which were technologically engineered.

It’s very much like saying, “A cob of corn is not a plant, it’s a machine, and we own the rights to every one of those yellow machines.”

How was Monsanto able to gather so much clout?

There was one reason and one reason only. Putting the world’s food supply into fewer hands was, and is, a major item on the Globalist agenda. If it weren’t, the FDA-Monsanto scam would have been exposed in a matter of weeks or months.

Major newspapers and television networks would have attacked the obvious con job like packs of wild dogs and torn it to pieces.

But once the scam had been given a free pass, the primary corporate-government tactic was to accomplish a fait accompli, a series of events that was irreversible.

In this case, it was about gene drift. From the beginning, it was well known that GMO plants release genes that blow in the wind and spread from plant to plant, crop to crop, and field to field. There is no stopping it.

Along with convincing enough farmers to lock themselves into GMO-seed contracts, Monsanto bought up food-seed companies in order to engineer the seeds…and the gene-drift factor was the ace in the hole.

Sell enough GMO seeds, plant enough GMO crops, and you flood the world’s food crops with Monsanto genes.

Back in the 1990s, the prince of darkness, Michael Taylor, who has moved through the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto several times, and is now the czar of food safety at the FDA—Taylor said, with great conviction, that the GMO revolution was unstoppable; within a decade or two, an overwhelming percentage of food grown on planet Earth would be GMO.

Taylor and others knew. They knew about gene drift, and they also knew that ownership of the world’s food, by a few companies, was a prime focus for Globalist kings who intended to feed the population through Central Planning and Distribution.

“We feed these people; we hold back food from those people; we send food there; we don’t send food here.”

Control food and water, and you hold the world in your hand.

Here is evidence that, even in earlier days, Monsanto knew about and pushed for the Globalist agenda. Quoted by J. Flint, in his 1998 “Agricultural Giants Moving Towards Genetic Monopolism,” Robert Fraley, head of Monsanto’s agri-division, stated: “What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of [Monsanto-purchased] seed companies. It’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain.”

And as for the power of the propaganda in that time period, I can think of no better statement than the one made on January 25^th,2001, by the outgoing US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Glickman said:

“What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of these issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.”

Glickman reveals several things in these remarks: he was spineless; people at the Dept. of Agriculture were madly buying into the Monsanto cover story about feeding the world; and there had to be a significant degree of infiltration at his Agency.

The last point is key. This wasn’t left to chance. You don’t get a vocal majority of Dept. of Agriculture personnel spouting the Monsanto propaganda merely because the fairy tale about feeding the world sounds so good. No, there are people working on the inside to promote the “social cause” and make pariahs out of dissenters.

You need special background and training to pull that off. It isn’t an automatic walk in the park. This is professional psyop and intelligence work.

I’ve done some investigation of various groups on both the left and the right, and I’ve seen some pros in action. They’re good. They know how to leverage ideas and slogans and ideals. They know how to defame opponents and find just the right words to sink them. They know how to turn high-flying but vague words about “humanity” into moral imperatives.

This isn’t rinky-dink stuff. To tune up bureaucrats and scientists, you have to have a background in manipulation. You have to know what you’re doing. You have to be able to build and sustain support, without giving your game away.

Truth be told, governments are full of these pros, who will take any number of causes and turn them into what falsely sounds like good science, good government, good morality, all the while knowing that, on the far shore, sits the real prize: control.

These psyop specialists are hired to help make overarching and planet-wide agendas come true, as populations are brought under sophisticated and pathological elites who care, for example, about feeding the world as much as a collector cares about paralyzing and pinning butterflies on a panel in a glass case.

Here is David Rockefeller, writing in his 2003 Memoirs:

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

The Globalists play for keeps.

Owning the food of the world is part of their strike-force action plan, and Monsanto is the technocratic arm of that plan.

Meanwhile, the controlled press treats the whole sordid Monsanto story with its time-honored policy of “he said-he said.” This policy dictates that stories merely present both sides of a conflict without drawing conclusions.

It applies across the board—except when it doesn’t. For example, for reasons too complex to go into here, the Washington Post decided to suspend its policy in the Watergate case. Woodward and Bernstein were assigned to investigate what was going on behind White House denials and obfuscations.

The same thing could be done with Monsanto, and it would be far easier. The lies and crimes and cover-ups are everywhere. You could wear sunglasses and find them in the dark.

The NY Times and the Washington Post could sell millions more papers on the back of the Monsanto story alone. It would be a bonanza for them. But no. They don’t care. They’d rather keep declining and losing readers. They’d rather die.

Normally, a business doesn’t commit suicide, especially when it sees exactly how to resuscitate itself. But here we are dealing with an agenda which can’t be disturbed. Globalism, and its agri-techno partner, Monsanto, are creating a planetary future. Major media are part and parcel of that op. They are selling it.

Even as their bottom lines erode, these newspapers and television networks have to stay on their present course. By pretending they’re reporting the real news, they’re giving the impression that Monsanto and the FDA are home free.

Again, we aren’t talking about sloppy reporting or accidental omissions of fact or boggling incompetence or ignorance about science. We are talking about conscious intent to deceive.

Yes, now and then the controlled media will release a troubling piece about Monsanto. But placement and frequency are everything. How often do these stories run? Do they run as the lead or do we find them on page 7? Are reporters assigned to keep pounding on a basic story and reveal more and more crimes? Does the basic story gather steam over the course of weeks and months?

These are the decisions that make or break a story. In the case of Monsanto and the FDA, the decisions were made a long time ago.

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

Part of every new reporter’s training, if he has any ideals at all, is marching into his editor’s office with his hair on fire demanding to be given an assignment to expose a crime. The editor, knowing the true agenda of his newspaper or television network, tells the reporter:

“We’ve already covered that.”

“It’s old news.”

“People aren’t interested in it.”

“It’s too complicated.”

“The evidence you’re showing me is thin.”

“You’ll never get to the bottom of it.”

“The people involved won’t talk to you.”

And if none of those lies work, the editor might say, “If you keep pushing this, it would be bad for your career. You’ll lose access for other stories. You’ll be thought of as weird…”

This is how the game works at ground level. But make no mistake about it, the hidden agenda is about protecting an elite’s op from exposure.

If NBC, for example, gave its golden boy, Brian Williams, the green light, he would become an expert on Monsanto in three days. He’d become a tiger. He’d affect a whole set of morally outraged poses and send Monsanto down into Hell.

Don’t misunderstand. Brian hasn’t been waiting to move in for the kill. He’s a neutral entity. Wind him up and point to a target and he’ll go there.

But no one will point him at Monsanto or the FDA.

All the major reporters at news outlets and all the elite television anchors are really psyop specialists. It’s just that most of them don’t know it.

One outraged major reporter who woke up and got out of the business put it to me this way: When he was in the game, he looked at the news as a big public restroom. His one guiding principle was: Don’t piss on your shoes. Stand closer to the urinal. Pissing on your shoes was covering a story that was considered out of bounds. If you pissed on your shoes and walked into the boss’s office, he’d look at you and see the telltale sign. He’d say, “Hey, you pissed on your shoes. That’s disgusting. Get out of here. You’re fired.”

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 OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Explosive report: 98% of newborn babies are genetically screened

Feb27

by Jon Rappoport

February 27, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Newborn Screening in America,” a report from the Council for Responsible Genetics, states: “Before they are even a week old, ninety-eight percent of the 4.3 million babies born annually in the United States have a small sample of blood taken from their heels.”

The report continues: “These newborn bloodspots (NBS) are then screened for a variety of inherited conditions and may later be stored in state-operated databases…parents are often unaware of these screening programs and their consent options.”

This shocking national program, flying under the radar, is of course explained as a humane medical undertaking. But there is no across-the-board genetic treatment for any disease or illness. All the “maybe-possibly-in-the-future-cure” nonsense does nothing to justify this rank incursion on newborns and their unsuspecting families.

The report goes on: “With respect to [bloodspot] sample storage and use, there is also little transparency regarding storage procedures or the use of the samples after they have been screened…many states do not have clearly articulated policies about consent for the storage and use of samples or may not effectively communicate these policies to parents.”

Then there is the question of who now has, or will have in the future, access to all these millions of blood samples and the results of the genetic screening.

Reliable and trustworthy assurances of citizen-privacy from the government have gone the way of the dinosaur and other extinct species.

Let’s see…DNA samples of nearly every newborn baby in America: surveillance and tracking, anyone? We have here the makings of a universal DNA database for “crime prevention.”

Controversial legislation introduced to obtain a DNA sample from every adult? It’s already being done covertly in hospitals, at birth.

What about technocrats obsessed with re-engineering humans? What about other researchers who want to run comparative DNA studies in thousands of different ways, for any purpose under the sun—who for example are intensely interested in making (or inventing) genetic distinctions between various socioeconomic sectors of society? This newborn database is irresistible.

You can be sure social, medical, and genetic engineers are looking at all this raw data like wild animals look at prey on the plains.

The idea of correlating genetic factors with “failure in life” is the Holy Grail for eugenicists. They will find a way to gain access to the data, because they want to build “a better world” and eliminate the “inferior” people.

Right now, we have rapid abortionists who earnestly believe and advocate the destruction of life after birth as a viable option. They even call it abortion. So a doctor could tell a parent, “The genetic profile of your baby is very problematic. You should consider terminating life…”

Again, all this illegal and immoral collection of genetic data from babies is justified as a “humane medical endeavor.” So ask your doctor, “Where is the ironclad proof that you have any genetic treatment for any disease that works across the board?” Don’t accept blue-sky predictions and promises.

Get real.

Because the State is getting real. They want control. And taking blood samples from babies is a giant step on the road to a genetic dictatorship.

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

To read Jon’s articles on Substack, 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.

US farmers flood fields with dangerous poison to fight Monsanto superweeds

Feb25

US farmers flood fields with dangerous poison to fight Monsanto superweeds

by Jon Rappoport

February 25, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

You’re a farmer. Season after season, you watch your fields being taken over by Monsanto superweeds, which are resistant to the herbicide Roundup.

What are you going to do? You’re locked in. You’re buying your GMO seeds from Monsanto, and the food crops that grow from those seeds are supposed to be resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup, so that’s what you spray on your crops.

But the weeds aren’t resistant. They spread and they grow taller. They’re taking over.

So you, along with many, many other US farmers, go to a strategy called “burndown,” which is just as bad as it sounds. You use something a lot stronger than Roundup to kill those weeds: Paraquat, for example, which has been banned in 32 countries.

You drench your fields with it in the fall. You kill anything growing. And you drench the fields again in the spring, before you plant. Then, just as you’re going to plant, you hit the fields a third time with the poison.

This is in addition to all the sprayings with Roundup, which is toxic, too.

Then you harvest the crops and you sell them. And consumers eat the food along with all the poison.

Tom Philpot, writing in Mother Jones (Feb.6), reports the alarming stats on the superweed takeover of US farmland. As of 2012, almost 50% of US farms had superweeds. In 2011, it was 34%. In Georgia, it’s now 92%.

The total acreage of US farmland with resistant superweeds jumped by 51% in 2012. In 2011, it was a 25% increase. That upward- percentage escalation is called a nightmare.

Well, so farmers are poisoning the hell out of their food and their fields. But with Monsanto’s super-duper GMO technology, the crop yields are still much bigger than they would be without the GMO seeds, right?

The Institute for Responsible Technology cites and quotes three reports on that score.

An International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development study, signed on to by 58 governments and 400 scientists, states that GMO crop production is “highly variable,” and in some cases it has “declined.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report, “Failure to Yield,” emphatically stated: “Commercial GE [genetically engineered] crops have made no inroads so far into raising the intrinsic or potential yields of any crop.”

A US Dept. of Agriculture report: “GE crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential. In fact, yield may even decrease…”

Let’s summarize. Using Monsanto GMO technology to grow food crops results in massive poisoning of the farm land and the food. And increased crops yields are a fiction.

Nothing to see here, move along. Don’t worry, be happy. Stand back, technology at work. Progress is our most important product. Better living through chemistry. Ignorance is strength.

What would a president and his administration do to make sure the truth is overrun and squashed?

In addition to silencing the media, they would appoint a host of GMO insiders to key government posts, and they would bring to market as many new GMO crops as possible, to construct a fait accompli.

So let’s go to the scorecard and review the actions of Obama in his first term.

The new president filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had preciously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s detail the extraordinary parade of GMO crops that have skated through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

A GMO papaya strain.

And perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

That’s how you control and squash the truth.

Jon Rappoport

The secret at the bottom of psychiatry’s rabbit hole

Feb24

The secret at the bottom of psychiatry’s rabbit hole

by Jon Rappoport

February 24, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Nightmares, out-of-control aggressive behavior, extreme sadness and passivity, confusion, hallucinations, mania, brain damage, suicide, homicide—these are just a few central effects of psychiatric drugs.

Read the staggering statistics reported by Robert Whitaker, the author of Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill: “The number of adults, ages 18 to 65, on the federal disability rolls due to mental illness jumped from 1.25 million in 1987 to four million in 2007. Roughly one in every 45 working-age adults is now on government disability due to mental illness.

“This epidemic has now struck our nation’s children, too. The number of children who receive a federal payment because of a severe mental illness rose from 16,200 in 1987 to 561,569 in 2007, a 35-fold increase.”

My exploration started in 1999, as I covered the Columbine school shooting.

I was already familiar with the pioneering work of Dr. Peter Breggin and his classic book, Toxic Psychiatry. I knew the drugs were toxic and that some of them could push people into violence.

It emerged that one of the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris, had been on Luvox, a violence-inducing drug, an SSRI antidepressant.

This, of course, was very troubling, because children and adults all over America were taking these antidepressants. And in Dr. Breggin’s book, I saw a summary of a review-study on Ritalin, done in 1986 by Joseph Scarnati. Ritalin, far from being a “soft” drug, was essentially speed, and it carried with it significant dangers.

It could cause hallucinations, aggressive behavior, and even psychotic breaks. Several million children in America were taking Ritalin.

What I came to call a “Johnny Appleseed specter” loomed over America. If psychiatrists dispensed enough of these drugs, seeding the population, we would be in for random shootings and killings and suicides on into the indefinite future. And psychiatrists were, in fact, handing out these drugs like candy. No one at the FDA or any enforcement government agency was ringing alarm bells.

In the wake of Columbine, I wrote a white paper, “Why Did they Do It: School Shootings Across America,” for The Truth Seeker. It gained wide online attention. The report mentioned other instances where children, on psychiatric drugs, had committed murder and suicide.

In the ensuing years, I became much more aware of the influence of drug companies in this Johnny Appleseed operation. They had, in fact, struck a deal to rescue the sinking profession of psychiatry. The arrangement was simple and potent: Big Pharma would bankroll psychiatric conferences and education, prop up flagging journals with advertising money, and generally promote the repute of psychiatry, in return for a certain kind of research:

The research would “prove” that all mental disorders were the result of chemical imbalances in the brain, and no amount of talk therapy would resolve these issues. Instead, it would take drugs, which of course would be developed and sold by Pharma.

In order for this scheme to work, the FDA, which certifies all medicines as safe and effective before releasing them for public consumption, would have to play along. That was no problem. The FDA basically serves the pharmaceutical industry.

Roughly five years after Columbine, I (and other investigators) began to see how widespread the research fraud really was. Peter Breggin was already aware of it and had published extensively on the subject.

For example, clinical trials of psychiatric drugs were being done over very brief periods of time; in some cases, the trials were as short as six weeks. This was the case with Xanax. A brief testing period would hide many of the adverse effects of the drugs.

But then I also saw how clinical trials that were failures, that revealed how badly the drugs were performing, could be hidden altogether, as if they’d never happened. The results of these trials weren’t published at all. A pharmaceutical company, running a number of studies on a drug, could cherry pick a few studies that looked good and shelve the others.

In 2009, searching the literature and interviewing several psychiatrists off the record, I came to understand that the whole idea of “chemical imbalances in the brain” was a fraud. No one had ever established a normal chemical level of balance. In other words, there was no scientific standard that, by comparison, could show what an “imbalance” was. It was a myth, and it was widely accepted, even by the public.

I began talking to parents. The full force of what was happening, on the ground, was driven home to me. Lives were being derailed and destroyed at an early age. Children were being warped by these drugs. A diagnosis of one psychiatric condition, followed by a drug prescription, often resulted in another diagnosis, and more drugs. The effects were devastating.

The time of childhood, of innocence, was being destroyed. It was all in the service of carving up behavior into categories of mental disorders and then selling drugs behind those diagnoses.

Children’s brains were being twisted.

There was a growing trend to diagnose children at six, at four, or even earlier, with mental conditions—and give them drugs. Papers and books were being written to justify this. The publications were called “breakthroughs.” A whole industry of “bipolar children” was created out of thin air, and the scientific fraud was accepted as holy writ.

This was not just fraud. It was evil. It was remorseless evil, perpetrated by elite academics and researchers. These were people who should have been put in prison for the rest of their lives. But nothing was happening to them. They were praised instead, and celebrated.

Where was the national conscience? Where were the people in the Department of Justice, who should have been serving warrants and making arrests and building court cases?

What I saw was obvious, and it had been in front of my face for more than a decade. The federal government was supporting and certifying psychiatry/psychology as the single science of mental health. This wasn’t just a wink and a nod; it was rock solid.

Where in the Constitution was there any basis for that? Nowhere. The very idea, when you isolated it and held it in your hand and looked at it, was preposterous. The federal government has no conceivable right to enable psychiatry in any way.

Yet, it was happening. It was happening to such a degree that nothing was being done to punish the whole profession for destroying countless lives with toxic drugs. Indeed, this was government-approved behavior.

It still boggles my mind to think about that. Yes, one can offer many excuses and rationalizations, but at the end of it all, that’s what we’re left with: the government is certifying the destruction of millions of lives.

Read Toxic Psychiatry, and Dr. Breggin’s later book, Medication Madness. Read Robert Whitaker’s Mad in America and Anatomy of an Epidemic. That will get you started. You’ll find lucid evidence of the many destructive effects the drugs produce, all the way from mania to motor brain damage.

I thought I had reached the end of the road. What more was there to discover? What more did anyone need to know? No matter which way you sliced it, psychiatric destruction was a government-certified program.

But then, several years ago, I realized I didn’t know how many mental disorders existed. I knew, of course, there was a bible of the psychiatric profession. It is called the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. So far, there have been four editions. A fifth is due out in the spring of 2013.

The editions of the DSM are put together by committees of psychiatrists. The DSM, published by the American Psychiatric Association, lists and defines every officially-certified mental disorder. It is used by psychiatrists to bill insurance companies.

So I quickly found out there are 297 mental disorders. This is absurd on the face of it. Reading the descriptions of these disorders, one sees they are menus of behaviors.

I assumed some of these disorders were based on nothing but speculation. They were inventions. Concoctions.

But after a few conversations with psychiatric sources, I saw I had been underestimating the extent of the fraud.

In fact, all 297 mental disorders are arrangements and clusters of behaviors. The DSM committees hold meetings and argue and hash out the composition of the clusters and the accompanying mental-disorder labels.

Then I found an article: Wired Magazine, December 27, 2010, “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness,” by Gary Greenberg. It was an interview with a psychiatrist, Dr. Allen Frances.

Frances wasn’t just any psychiatrist. He was a star of stars. He had been in charge of assembling the fourth edition of the bible, the DSM.

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances, “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances, talking to Wired’s Greenberg, said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

This was on the order of the Pope asserting there was no real reason to believe in God.

After a pause, Dr. Frances remarked, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been referring to the fact that his DSM-IV had expanded earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar, to permit many more diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds, like Valproate and Lithium.

Finally, at the end of the Wired interview, Frances flew off into a bizarre fantasy:

“Diagnosis [as spelled out in the DSM-IV] is part of the magic…you know those medieval maps? In the places where they didn’t know what was going on, they wrote ‘Dragons live here’…we have a dragon’s world here [with the DSM]. But you wouldn’t want to be without the map.”

Frances was basically admitting that the nice neat definitions of mental disorders were a delusion. But to justify it, he called the whole enterprise an exercise in partial map-making.

The Wired interview was explosive, to say the least. The most influential psychiatrist in America was confessing that you couldn’t clearly define mental disorders.

But no, that wasn’t all. There were a few more steps to the bottom of the rabbit hole. They were taken by Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center.

In an episode of the PBS Frontline series, titled “Does ADHD Exist,” the Frontline interviewer stated: “Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.”

Dr. Barkley replied: “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.”

First of all, Dr. Barkley’s comments are not unique. I have heard his points echoed by many psychiatrists. It’s time to take this assertion apart, because it is truly staggering.

The “illiteracy about science” belongs to Dr. Barkley. The scientific method requires that when a researcher draws a conclusion, he provides the evidence for it. The burden of proof is on him.

If a committee of psychiatrists says disorder X exists, it must demonstrate that.

Barkely confirms that no mental disorder has a lab test to back up a diagnosis. It doesn’t matter what disorder you pick. Schizophrenia, ADHD, Bipolar, clinical depression. None of them can be tested for.

No blood test, no urine test, no saliva test, no brain scan, no genetic assay.

That is a titanic fact.

And being a fact, it destroys the whole DSM and everything it stands for. It destroys the validity of every one of the 297 official mental disorders.

Science requires that the claim for the existence of a mental disorder must be backed up by hard evidence. Since there is no evidence, and since the burden of proof is on the psychiatric profession, the inevitable inference is clear:

Retract every one of the 297 mental disorders. Erase their names. It’s over. There is no proof any of these disorders exist. They only have the status of fictions. Psychiatry doesn’t have some special dispensation to do “a different brand of science.”

When this was finally made clear to me, I knew I had reached the bottom of the rabbit hole. There were other paths to follow, concerning the issue of conscious intent to do harm to millions of people, but as far the science was concerned, that was It.

Of course, those who are confused by this bottom-line revelation will say that many people are suffering from mental illness. They will say it is obvious.

No, what is obvious is that many people have problems. Many people suffer. Many people are desperate. Many people experience emotional and physical pain. The actual causes for all this can’t be neatly categorized and labeled. To make a meaningful diagnosis or assessment involves much deeper investigation—and also an appreciation of what is front of one’s own eyes.

When it comes to human suffering and emotional distress, we could be talking about causes ranging from severe malnutrition to brain lesions; from environmental poisoning to a history of toxic medical drug and vaccine-use; from extreme poverty and hopelessness to false arrest; from oxygen deprivation at birth to physical abuse and imminent danger in the immediate household, or in the community; from massive food sensitivities and other allergies to blood-sugar problems; from guilt at having committed crimes to being on the receiving end of political oppression. The list goes on.

This is a partial collection of real causes—instead of the false, non-existent mental disorders, which are excuses to drug people.

The whole profession of psychiatry is an outright fraud and an ongoing crime of the highest order.

At the same time, as long as psychiatrists sit in offices and the drugs are available, and no one is prosecuted and sent to jail for dispensing these “medicines,” adults have the freedom to choose to take the drugs or not. And if some of them say they have benefited, that’s also their decision.

But without knowledge and authentic informed consent beforehand, the landscape is rife with danger.

When it comes uninformed or uncaring parents dealing away their children’s lives to psychiatrists, that is an ever-expanding tragic nightmare.

Each day that the profession of psychiatry continues to practice its sophisticated brand of poisonous fakery, and each day that the federal government of the United States continues to back it up and support it and fund it and give it primacy and monopoly, there is an ongoing RICO crime in progress. A crime of gangsters and thugs organized as a mob.

It is as if the Mafia declared its shootings and beatings to be scientifically based. It is exactly like that.

Here are several quotes, out of hundreds I could offer, on the subject of the adverse and chilling effects of psychiatry:

Dr. Peter Breggin, the eminent psychiatrist and author (Toxic Psychiatry, Talking Back to Prozac, Talking Back to Ritalin): “With Luvox [an antidepressant] there is some evidence of a four-percent rate for mania in adolescents. Mania, for certain individuals, could be a component in grandiose plans to destroy large numbers of other people. Mania can go over the hill to psychosis.”

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo is a psychiatrist in private practice in Washington DC. He is the past-president of the Washington chapter of the American Society of Psychoanalytic Physicians. Tarantolo states that “all the SSRIs [including Prozac and Luvox] relieve the patient of feeling. He becomes less empathic, as in `I don’t care as much,’ which means `It’s easier for me to harm you.’ If a doctor treats someone who needs a great deal of strength just to think straight, and gives him one of these drugs, that could push him over the edge into violent behavior.”

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.”

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.”

“Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al, reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The well-known Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics states that Ritalin is “structurally related to amphetamines … Its pharmacological properties are essentially the same as those of the amphetamines.”

In Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin discusses the subject of drug combinations: “Combining antidepressants [e.g., Prozac, Luvox] and psychostimulants [e.g., Ritalin] increases the risk of cardiovascular catastrophe, seizures, sedation, euphoria, and psychosis. Withdrawal from the combination can cause a severe reaction that includes confusion, emotional instability, agitation, and aggression.”

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 over a hundred adverse affects of Ritalin and indexed published journal articles for each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects then, 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 amphatamine-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.

In commenting on Dr. Lawrence Diller’s book, Running on Ritalin, Dr. William Carey, Director of Behavioral Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, has written, “Dr. Diller has correctly described … the disturbing trend of blaming children’s social, behavioral, and academic performance problems entirely on an unproven brain deficit [ADHD]…”

The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard): “Stimulants [such as Ritalin] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity, conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment.”

In his book, Talking Back to Ritalin, Peter Breggin expands on the drug’s effects: “Stimulants such as Ritalin and amphetamine … have grossly harmful impacts on the brain-reducing overall blood flow, disturbing glucose metabolism, and possibly causing permanent shrinkage or atrophy of the brain.”

Dr. David Healy, professor of psychiatry and former Secretary of British Association for Psychopharmacology, author of Let Then Eat Prozac and Mania: “I approached ACLU about the fact that there are people in prison who are likely there because their drugs caused them to become violent but didn’t even get an acknowledgment from ACLU that I had written.

“In the same way the Boston Women’s Collaborative don’t want to hear that antidepressants could cause birth defects or mental handicap in children. They only want pregnant women to have access to antidepressants and are part of a movement that has pushed the use of antidepressants in pregnancy up to record levels.”

Dr. David Healy: “In the case of prescription [antidepressant] drugs, what defence does a doctor have to fall back on? The risk of violence on these drugs has been known for 50 years. It’s known that even giving these drugs to healthy volunteers can cause them to become violent. The data has been out there in warnings in many countries for 10 years. It may be disputed but there is no doctor who can say that they simply couldn’t have been aware of this issue. If there are, they are simply not professional.”

Dr. David Healy: “About 4000 families in the US have children born with major birth defects each year because of antidepressants taken in pregnancy. Up to 20,000 women per year have a miscarriage because of these drugs and a large number have voluntary terminations linked to antidepressants.”

Robert Whitaker, author of Mad in America and Anatomy of an Epidemic: “…the prescribing of psychiatric medications to children and adolescents took off during this period (1987 to 2007), and as this medical practice took hold, the number of youth in America receiving a government disability check because of a mental illness leapt from 16,200 in 1987 to 561,569 in 2007…”

Robert Whitaker: “[See] Coryell, W. American Journal of Psychiatry 152 (1995):1124-9.NIMH-funded investigators tracked the outcomes of medicated and unmedicated depressed people over a period of six years; those who were ‘treated’ for the illness were three times more likely than the untreated group to suffer a ‘cessation’ of their ‘principal social role’ and nearly seven times more likely to become ‘incapacitated.’ The NIMH researchers wrote: ‘The untreated individuals described here had milder and shorter-lived illness (than those who were treated), and, despite the absence of treatment, did not show significant changes in socieoeconomic status in the long term.’”

Dr. Thomas Szasz, psychiatrist and author of The Myth of Mental Illness: “Psychiatrists look for twisted molecules and defective genes as the causes of schizophrenia, because schizophrenia is the name of a disease. If Christianity or Communism were called diseases, would they then look for the chemical and genetic ’causes’ of these ‘conditions’?”

Jon Rappoport

The era of programming the mind

Feb22

by Jon Rappoport

February 22, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

If you want to track a civilization as it collapses, watch what happens to the concept of the rebel.

On a profound level, mass shootings and assassinations (whether staged or not) are used to define the ever-present “lone assassin” as the REPRESENTATION AND THE SYMBOL OF WHAT THE INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL IS.

You’re a separate and distinct individual? An outsider? Watch out. Overnight, you could turn into a raging killer.

You happen to know an outsider, a loner? He’s dangerous. He doesn’t live by the rules the rest of us accept. He’s deranged. Stay away from him. Shun him. And if you see the slightest indication of (insert your own term here), report him to the authorities.

“See a rebel, say something,” to paraphrase the DHS motto.

Any human being who has courage, intelligence, eyes to see, and a determination to express his power in uncompromising terms can now be redefined as a potential threat to the stability of society—if he criticizes the prevailing Authority.

From the 1960s onward—starting with Lee Oswald and the assassination of JFK—the whole idea of “the rebel” with power has been sequentially updated and repackaged. This is intentional.

The objective is to equate “rebel” with a whole host of qualities—e.g., runaway self-serving paranoia; random destruction; out-of-control drug use; generalized hatred; the commission of crimes—qualities that will defeat the very notion of honorable and righteous and powerful opposition to fascist authority:

On a lesser, “commercialized” level, the new rebel can define himself by merely showing up at a concert to scream and drink heavily and break something, having already dressed to make a dissident fashion statement. He can take an afternoon off from college classes and have his arms tattooed. All the while, of course, he functions as an avid consumer of mainstream corporate products.

You even have people who, considering themselves rebels of the first order, support a government that spies on its people 24/7, launches military attacks all over the world, and now funds a Manhattan Project to map every move of the 100 billion neurons of the brain, for the ultimate purpose of controlling it.

More than ever, the individual has to explore and discover, with intelligence, a position that is FOR himself and AGAINST the concocted and sustained illusion called consensus reality.

When the individual embarks on this path, the external false definitions of him as rebel or outsider or mentally ill or criminal no longer matter. Instead, what matters is his deepest nature.

Even going back as far as the 1950s, the so-called decade of conformity, psyops professionals sculpted notions of The Rebel: He was the person who didn’t want to take part in the emerging bland corporate culture.

He was presented as troubled and morose, a wobbly unfocused JD Salinger Holden Caulfield, or a beatnik, a Madison Avenue caricature of somebody who opposed Madison Avenue.

In other words, the people who were shaping the consumer culture were programming the image of the rebel as a cartoon figure who just didn’t want to buy into “the good life.”

Time Magazine ran a cover story on the beatniks, and characterized them as a disaffected trend. Marlon Brando, heading up a bunch of moronic motorcycle riders, invaded a town of pleasant clueless citizens and took it over, wreaking destruction. The 1953 movie was The Wild One. James Dean, who had the same trouble Brando did in getting out a complete sentence, was “the rebel without a cause” in the “iconic film” of the same name. He raced cars toward cliffs because his father couldn’t understand him.

These were all puff pieces designed to make rebels look ridiculous, and they worked. They also functioned to transmit the idea to young people that being a rebel should be a showbiz affectation. That worked, too.

Then the 1960s arrived. Flower children, in part invented by the major media, would surely take over the world and dethrone fascist authority with rainbows. San Francisco was the epicenter. But Haight-Ashbury, where the flowers and the weed were magically growing out of the sidewalks, turned into a speed, acid, and heroin nightmare, a playground for psychopaths to cash in and steal and destroy lives. The CIA, of course, gave the LSD culture a major push.

For all that the anti-war movement eventually accomplished in ending the Vietnam war crime, in the aftermath all those college students who had been in the streets—once the fear of being drafted was gone—scurried into counselors’ offices to see where they might fit into the job market after graduation. The military industrial complex took its profits and moved on, undeterred.

The idea of the rebel was gone. It later resurfaced as The Cocaine Dealer, the archangel of the 1980s.

And so forth and so on. All these incarnations of The Rebel were artificially created and sustained as psyops, for the purpose of deflating attempts at genuine and powerful rebellion. And, at bottom, the idea was to discredit the Individual, in favor of The Group.

Now, in our collectivist society of 2013, The Group, as a rapidly expanding victim class, is the government’s number one project. While extolling this group as heroic and in constant need of help, the government is doing everything it can to crash the economy and widen the population of victims. It’s a straight con. “We’re here to make you worse off while we lift you up.”

In the psyop to demean, distort, and squash the rebel, there is a single obvious common denominator: the establishment media are doing the defining; they are the ones who are setting the parameters and making the descriptions; they are the ones who build and program the cartoons; looking down their noses, pretending to a degree of sympathy, they paint one unflattering picture after another of what the rebel is and does and says; they have co-opted the whole game.

These days, the ultimate rebels, the media would have you believe, are the Tea Party and their affiliated “gun-toting racist bitter clingers who have religion.” Another distorted unflattering portrait, meant not only to drive people away from the Tea Party, but also to prove the guilt, by association, of any person who says the federal government is unconstitutional and out of control.

“All the fascism is on the political Right. There can be no fascism on the Left.” This is the major domestic policy of this administration—this absurd assertion.

The Rebel is real. But he has been covered up by media fabrications and caricatures.

You can take a whole host of political films and television series of the past 50 years, and look at them for signs of the Rebel: Seven Days in May, Advise and Consent, The Candidate, The Seduction of Joe Tynan, Dave, Primary Colors, The Contender, Good Night and Good Luck, The American President, West Wing, Scandal, The Newsroom…

Good acting, bad acting, drama, message—at the end you’re looking for the core. What do the rebel heroes really stand for? What are their principles? It’s all bland. It’s vague. It has the posturing of importance, but little else. It’s not meant to have real substance, only undefined affectation. The rebel takes action, but it’s based on superficial slogan. It’s another deflating caricature.

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

As I was finishing this piece, a friend wrote with a quote attributed to Robert Anton Wilson: “The universe is a war between reality programmers.”

This is exactly where the real rebel enters the scene. He’s not trying to program people. Freedom means cutting loose from programming.

The rebel dismantles inhibiting and artificial structures.

He doesn’t go to the market and choose which reality program he wants. They’re all used up as soon as they come out of the package.

The political fancy or trend or program of the moment is a hardened dream somebody borrowed to make mince meat out of the population. The rebel has no allegiance to any of this.

Albert Camus one wrote: “The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.It would be easy, however, to destroy that good conscience by shouting to them: if you want the happiness of the people, let them speak out and tell what kind of happiness they want and what kind they don’t want! But, in truth, the very ones who make use of such alibis know they are lies; they leave to their intellectuals on duty the chore of believing in them and of proving that religion, patriotism, and justice need for their survival the sacrifice of freedom.”

“THIS or THAT” is the modern history of civilization: choose reality program A or B. The choice was always a con.

We’re well into a time period when the experts and scientific authorities are settling on the human being as a biological machine that can only respond to programming. That’s their view and their default position.

It’s sheer madness, of course, but what else do you expect? We’re in an intense technological age, and people are obsessed with making things run smoother. They treat their precious little algorithms for control like the Crown Jewels. They’re terribly enthusiastic about the problem they’re solving, and that problem is us.

We’re the wild cards, a fact which they take to be result of our improper and incomplete conditioning. They aim to fix that.

There is—and has been, for a long time—a blended sequence in operation: a) observe; b) predict; c) control; d)re-create. “Well, we can see many patterns in this society. So we can make some predictions about what is going to happen. Actually, if we covertly introduce certain elements from the outside, we can control what happens. Why not stop diddling around and just make the whole thing over? Why not reshape humans?”

Having decided that, the battle begins between competing programmers of the mind. Which program for humans is better?

The rebel is against all such programming, no matter how “good and right” it sounds. Good and right are the traps:

“Well, certainly we could make a list of qualities we want all people to have. You know, the best qualities, like bravery and determination. Who could be against that? So suppose we could actually program such qualities into humans? Wouldn’t that be a fine thing? Then people would just BE that way…”

The ultimate rebellion is against programming, whatever it looks like, wherever it occurs.

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.

Update: a perspective on Facebook shutting down my links

Feb21

Update: a perspective on Facebook shutting down my links

by Jon Rappoport

February 20, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Our systems are safe and sound. This goes all the way from blog posts to the ordering pages for my products.

The only issue is Facebook shutting down the capacity to post links with “blog.nomorefakenews.com” in them. We have solved that on our Facebook page by directing people to my site instead, www.nomorefakenews.com

At the site, people will see the list of my recent articles, and they can click on them and move directly to my blog posts. You, too, can direct people to nomorefakenews.com.

How did the limited Facebook censorship occur? It could have been triggered by people making untrue “spam” or “abusive content” reports. These would have been people who couldn’t stand the heat of analysis that was deeper than what they were looking for.

They could have been paid trolls or agents. They could have been people with partisan political views and no understanding of, or loyalty to, the 1^st Amendment.

Or the “Facebook team” might have taken it upon themselves to limit access to my wordpress links, because Facebook is partnered with political players and intelligence agencies, and they decided I was too critical of current government/corporate agendas.

The main thing is my articles continue to go out, and people are reading them. NoMoreFakeNews has grown considerably over the past six months.

I thank you for your support and interest.

If you want to help me and yourself, too, consider ordering my products, which you will find in my store at nomorefakenews. I believe in giving value for value, and over the last 10 years I have been offering all the value I can assemble and report on.

My frequent articles are free to everyone. My products, which explore even deeper layers, are dedicated to exposing every aspect of the Matrix and offering solutions which involve returning to each one of us our power.

When I say power, I mean extraordinary innate creative capacities. It turns out, on analysis, that our civilization and the reality that underpins it are “subnormal.” What each one of us is capable of—as extraordinary as that is—is really a normal state of affairs.

It is just that we have forgotten what we can do.

That is why I started nomorefakenews, and my path and purpose remain the same now. I continue to research individual power and what it means and what it is and how far we can go with it.

I see no limit.

This is the great adventure. It always was.

Changing this world for the better, in all the ways it can be done, also relies on each one of us regaining and expanding our inherent and buried capabilities.

Again, many thanks for your interest and support. It means a great deal to me.

Back in the day, when I was writing for newspapers and magazines, I had a nagging feeling I was only applying about 5 percent of my energy to it. All in all, it was rather amusing to consider I was making strides in that arena deploying so little of what I could do.

Then I realized what really motivated me was not possible to report on, given the bias and fear of editors. So I quit.

In those days, there was no Internet. If you wanted to “get the word out,” you had to find your own way. In my case, I gave lectures, and a fabulous two-person outfit called She Who Remembers often showed up and taped those talks and turned out audiocassettes.

The tapes worked their way around the US and even into other countries. It was makeshift, and very exciting.

Then, the Internet emerged. It took me a while to leave my, yes, typewriter behind, but I forced myself out of the Stone Age and on to what everybody was then proudly calling The Information Highway.

I took a few test drives and loved it. The idea that I could write a piece and then publish it in a matter of seconds was sheer ecstasy, given that I was used to pitching stories to editors, getting the green light, then writing, then submitting, then waiting, then finally seeing my stories in print weeks or even months later.

Now, a decade later, the old media are dying. They’re gasping for air. Internet technology is always cited as the cause, and of course that’s true, but even more than that, those of us who investigate and report without crippling restraints are covering material that millions of people want to know about.

Major media refuse to cover what we cover. They are sold out to the point where they simply can’t. That’s what’s really squeezing them. They have no choice. They’re trapped. Exactly what could give them a renaissance of audience interest is what they can’t touch, because their masters won’t allow it.

One of our jobs today is making sure the Internet remains free enough to allow us to keep working and publishing and reaching the global population. Waking up to new realities is not that hard to do now. We just have to keep the channels open.

The other day I wrote and published a piece headlined: “The Ruthless State of the Union: the current crime boss speaks.” That may have been the article that triggered the Facebook Blip. In it, I responded to Obama’s statement that, in order to make progress we all had to work together.

I asked, who is this WE he keeps talking about?

Well, in the case of keeping the Internet free and open, the far more important WE is you, I, and everybody else who accesses online information that trumps old, stale, decaying propaganda reality.

This WE is taking over the news and, at the same time, creating a different world, the one we’ve all been wanting for a long time.

And this is just the beginning.

Jon Rappoport

This is your brain on neuroscience

Feb20

This is your brain on neuroscience

by Jon Rappoport

February 20, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The Obama administration has just announced a far-reaching 10-year program to map the human brain down to the last neuron of activity.

So let’s begin with this:

“The mind is not a material object at all. The mind is not the brain.”

If you made that statement to a modern neuroscientist, the odds are overwhelming he would look at you as if you were visiting from the Stone Age.

“The brain emits the electrical consequences of what the mind originally produced.” Same response from the neuroscientist: you’re crazy.

Backing up still further, you could say that mind is a series of spaces the person himself creates, in order to think, in much the same way a canvas is a space on which the painter imagines and creates.

From at least the time of the classic Bhagavad Gita (written perhaps 2000 years ago), and in ancient Egyptian texts, writers and philosophers have been describing the soul, the spirit, the psyche in various terms.

In the Gita, as Krishna engages Arjuna in their famous debate about war and duty, Krishna moves back and forth between depicting the individual as distinctly and separately and powerfully immortal—and then as part of a greater spiritual Whole.

In either case, the individual is not physical, but inhabits a physical form, and after the body passes away, the individual survives and usually returns for another incarnation.

The soul or spirit or mind are not explainable in physical terms. This is the basic view expressed over and over by philosophies and religions from the dawn of time on this planet.

In the 20th century, that view was subjected to the bulldozer of science.

The chief implication of scientism is: freedom is an illusion.

If you assert that all of life’s processes are ultimately reducible to tiny particles in motion, you are saying this is true of the brain and the mind as well. And that means everything we believe and experience about our own freedom and choice is nothing more than an absurd dream.

And how is that delusional dream produced? It is somehow fired up by these tiny cause-and-effect particles that swim through the universe. The particles are not free. Therefore, neither is the brain, which is made up of such particles.

It gets worse. The tiny particles that compose rocks and concrete and plastic and stars and galaxies have nothing in them that could be called alive.

No research discovers anything in the electron or quark or wavicle that can be identified as Life.

These are the same particles that constitute our brains and our DNA.

The rarely expressed neuro-scientific conclusion? We are all robots made out of flesh with no freedom and no “extra quality” called life.

People profoundly fail to understand this conclusion of neuroscientists and others who tinker with the brain, who now intend to map the brain and its activity down to the last neuron. These scientists don’t care what changes they make in the brain, to render it more “normal and healthy.”

There is, as far as conventional science is concerned, nothing inviolable about the brain.

I’m not talking science fiction. This is the way most neuroscientists, if forced to admit it, see us.

And they are the ones steering the ship of research. They are the ones who will guide the newly announced government Manhattan Project of the brain for the next 10 years. It’s called Brain Activity Map (BAM).

Under the banner of “improved mental health,” BAM looks benign. But it isn’t. It looks like the way to stop the next James Holmes or Adam Lanza, but it isn’t.

It is a far-reaching State program to create The Neurological Society. This is the goal. It now has a major jolt of funding and the blessing/mandate of the federal government.

Think about this. We have a problem posed by the Constitution versus the underlying premises of modern brain science.

On the one hand, we have the founding document which guarantees freedoms. On the other hand, we have the assumptions of science, which cannot affirm the existence of those freedoms.

Well, I can tell you with certainty that the government has just taken a giant step toward Brave New World, and again, this isn’t science fiction. It’s real. BAM is unconstitutional, of course. The notion of the central government using monies to fund a program that will map the brain is so far outside the powers granted to it, it’s absurd.

But why should federal neurological scientists care? They don’t really believe the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution exist or could exist or might exist. As far as they’re concerned, freedom is a dead issue. It was just a story we told ourselves to feel stronger, better, happier.

Now they have drugs for that. They can change the brain. They will develop new drugs and new electromagnetic strategies for brain alteration. They will develop the ability to remotely observe the brain in much, much greater detail. And from this will spring the means to tweak and change what they observe, on the level of neuronal activity.

Their basis for making those changes will remain obscure, hidden in a welter of technical language. But we know what their fundamental premises will be.

They will involve control of behavior. Parameters will be drawn. Any person whose brain registers activity beyond those boundaries will be judged as a danger, a threat. The threat will be curtailed by limiting and diverting neuronal/synaptic processes.

Thus, good citizens of the State will be created and monitored.

But if soul and spirit and psyche and freedom do exist (and they do), they will be beyond control, since they are non-material.

Thus, efforts at control will have to be more radical and destructive, in order to induce deeper levels of physical stress and glue the consciousness of the individual human being to these artificially created brain states.

And that’s where the gloves come off and the mask comes off. Then we see the real controllers. Far from being sophisticated and subtle and humane guides into our future, they are just the old tyrants in new costumes.

Their major trump card is this. They have, through sheer propaganda, hypnotized a significant percentage of the population into believing that science and research are always good things.

The mere mention of the word “science” is connected with “help.” A better day is coming. More knowledge is always beneficial. People’s needs will be met.

Nowhere is this propaganda more successful than in the arena of medical science.

That is why most people will shrug off the federal brain mapping project as a promising development. “Sure, sounds good.”

Does it? Does a future, up the road, in which all brains are monitored for “problematic activity” sound like a humanitarian system?

Does it suit your personal view of life, soul, spirit, freedom?

Consider this quote from neurologist VS Ramachandran. Read it carefully:

“How can a three-pound mass of jelly that you can hold in your palm imagine angels, contemplate the meaning of infinity, and even question its own place in the cosmos? Especially awe inspiring is the fact that any single brain, including yours, is made up of atoms that were forged in the hearts of countless, far-flung stars billions of years ago. These particles drifted for eons and light-years until gravity and change brought them together here, now. These atoms now form a conglomerate- your brain- that can not only ponder the very stars that gave it birth but can also think about its own ability to think and wonder about its own ability to wonder. With the arrival of humans, it has been said, the universe has suddenly become conscious of itself. This, truly, is the greatest mystery of all.”

No, the greater mystery is how a scientist can believe the brain alone is really capable of all these things—the brain that is nothing but atoms in motion.

Here’s another statement from a well-known neuroscientist, David Eagleman:

“Imagine for a moment that we are nothing but the product of billions of years of molecules coming together and ratcheting up through natural selection, that we are composed only of highways of fluids and chemicals sliding along roadways within billions of dancing cells, that trillions of synaptic conversations hum in parallel, that this vast egglike fabric of micron-thin circuitry runs algorithms undreamt of in modern science, and that these neural programs give rise to our decision making, loves, desires, fears, and aspirations. To me, that understanding would be a numinous [spiritual] experience, better than anything ever proposed in anyone’s holy text.”

It might be a numinous experience if it were true. But it isn’t. The brain, composed of tiny particles, isn’t producing our decision- making or our greatest thoughts. It can’t. There is nothing about atoms that allows for those grand realities.

For the numinous experience, we need spirit, psyche, mind, soul.

And these two neuroscientists I’ve just quoted? They’re the good guys. They’re the people within that community who even try (wrongheadedly) to make something poetic out of the brain.

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

The overwhelming majority of their colleagues are mechanics, obsessed with tinkering and tweaking and derailing and re-channeling brain activity.

Into their hands, the federal government has just dropped the task of mapping everything that goes on inside our skulls—as a prelude to changing it.

These scientists are, despite their education, Luddites of consciousness. Instead of studying the great works of human history, the art and literature and invention, and trying to grasp our greater non-material faculties, neuroscientists jump to the naked assumption that it all proceeds from the brain.

They believe it must be so. They then dedicate themselves to mapping and charting.

Who is the real threat, the real danger?

They are.

If any monitoring should be done, it should be of them.

Coda: To take this even further, were we to acknowledge our own non-material aspects, beyond the physical, it would imply that we have capabilities that exceed the so-called normal range.

We would realize that, beneath the surface of our social relationships, beneath this culture, we are concealing powers that not only make us free and independent, but open out into creative vistas where we invent formidable and awesome realities.

This is still largely unexplored territory, and it makes what the neuroscientists are doing look like child’s play in a demented sandbox.

For us to understand what we are actually capable of is the controllers’ worst nightmare.

In a subterranean psychic landscape, this is the crossroads where a prime struggle has been taking place for at least 20,000 years of human civilization.

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Author Archives: Jon Rappoport

Two words that don’t go together: “medical” and “journalism”

Miracle: no one shot by strawberry tart shaped like a gun

225,000 US patients die in doctors’ hands: silence of the lambs

Monsanto and the FDA: 2 crime families working a trillion-dollar hustle

Explosive report: 98% of newborn babies are genetically screened

US farmers flood fields with dangerous poison to fight Monsanto superweeds

The secret at the bottom of psychiatry’s rabbit hole

The era of programming the mind

Update: a perspective on Facebook shutting down my links

This is your brain on neuroscience