Author Archives: Jon Rappoport

The basis of mass mind control

The basis of mass mind control

by Jon Rappoport

September 18, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

It’s so simple. And everybody knows it.

Mass mind control focuses on two elements: image and feeling.

By linking the two primary elements, it is possible to short-circuit thought and “cut to the chase,” when it comes to enlisting the allegiance of huge populations.

Two seemingly unrelated events spurred my interest in mass mind control.

On the evening of April 12, 1945, I listened to a radio report on the death of Franklin D Roosevelt. I was seven years old.

I became upset. I didn’t know why. I was angry at my own reaction.

Forty years later, I pulled into a gas station near my apartment in West Los Angeles. I got out of my car and took the cap off my gas tank. I looked to my right and saw Tony Curtis sitting in his car. I was shocked.

A few days later, I began making notes under the heading of “image-emotion cues.” At the time, I had just started working as a reporter, writing articles for LA Weekly. I knew next to nothing about mind control, MKULTRA, Soviet psychiatric gulags, Chinese re-education programs, or US psychological warfare operations.

But because I had been painting for 25 years, I knew something about the power of images.

I remembered my first exhibition of paintings in LA, at my friend Hadidjah Lamas’ house. We had hung my work in her large living room and dining room. Hadidjah had enlisted the services of a friend who had videotaped me painting in my studio, and at the exhibition she set up a television set out on her patio and continuously played the videocassette.

People came through her front door, almost automatically walked through the house to the patio, as if guided by an unseen hand, and watched the video; then they came back inside and looked at the paintings.

They would stop at a painting and say: “That picture was in the video!” “ You see that one? It was in his studio!”

My first note on “image-emotion cues” was, “Investing an image with importance. Projecting emotion into an image.”

Projecting emotion into a newspaper image of the president, FDR. Projecting emotion into the screen image of Tony Curtis. Projecting emotion into a video of a painter working in his studio.

When people encounter an image, when they invest it with importance, they project feeling into the image—and this all happens in a private sphere, a private space.

If this didn’t happen, there would be no way to control populations through images. It wouldn’t work. It all starts with a person setting up his own personal feedback loop that travels from him to an image and back again.

Coming out of World War 2, US psychological warfare operatives knew they could turn their skills to political purposes. They had just succeeded in making Americans believe that all Japanese and German people were horribly evil. They had been able to manipulate imagery successfully in that area. Why couldn’t they shape America’s view of a whole planet that lay beyond personal experience?

They could and they did. But the power to do that emanated from the fact that every person invests images with feeling. That’s where it really starts.

I had seen the 1957 film, Sweet Smell of Success, a number of times. I admired it. Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis gave tremendous performances. When, decades later, I saw Curtis sitting in his car at that gas station, I was “working from” the emotion I had invested in his onscreen image. It produced a sense of shock and paralysis for a few seconds.

Other people might have rushed up to Curtis and asked for his autograph. With me, it was shock, cognitive dissonance. Ditto for the death of FDR. I was working off newspaper pictures I’d seen of him, and the feeling I’d invested in those presidential images. Other people, when FDR died, went out into the street and hugged their neighbors and wept openly. For me, it was upset and shock and anger.

There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with investing emotion in images. It can be exhilarating. It can be uplifting. As a painter, I know this in spades. Putting emotion into images can, in fact, vault you into a different perception of reality.

But on the downside, it can also take you into lockstep with what media operatives want you to experience, second-hand.

We focus to such a degree on how we are being manipulated that we don’t stop to consider how we are participating in the operation. And our own role is clear and stark: we invest images with feeling.

So how does one individual’s projection of feeling into an image become a uniform projection of the same feeling into one image, by millions of people? How does what one person invests privately become mass mind control?

Through external instruction or cues.

Why does this work? Why do millions of people fall into line?

Because they don’t realize they started the whole ball rolling themselves. All they know is: images are connected to feelings.

If they knew they were the real power in the whole operation, if they knew they were investing feelings into images all day long, if they could actually slow down enough to see how they do this….then they would be far less prone to taking instruction about what feelings they “ought to” invest in second-hand images.

Hypnotherapist Jack True unceremoniously put it to me this way: “If a dog could analyze how he got from eating meat to drooling at the sound of a bell that came at feeding time, he could stop drooling.”

I would add: If Chris Matthews could analyze how his own voluntary investment of feeling in the image of Barack Obama sends a tingle up his leg, he could stop tingling.

We’re now seeing images of people rioting all over the Middle East. We’re seeing burning flags and crowds outside embassies. We’re supposed to invest our own anger into those images. Outrage.

We see an image of miles of flat farmland and wheat waving in the breeze. We’re supposed to invest that image with feelings of happiness and pride.

Nowhere are we told we can back up a step and realize that we are the ones who begin the whole process, by projecting feelings into images. Any images.

Imagine a thought-experiment. You’re watching your computer screen. It holds an image of a tall blue vase. With purpose, you project the feeling of joy into the vase. Then you project the feeling of disgust. Then, fear. Then, worry. Then, pleasure…on purpose.

The objective is to gain some measure of consciousness about an unconscious process.

When I was 19, I was sent to a trained expert in New York to take a Rorschach (ink-blot) Test. I was displaying signs of what would now be called Oppositional Defiance Disorder.

The expert said he wanted me to tell him everything I saw in each ink-blot. I took him at his word.

An hour later, I was still working on the first blot. I was describing everything from bats and owls and chickens to space ships and buckets of hidden treasure in caves.

Well, I was cheating a little. I wasn’t really describing what I saw. I was imagining. I was taking off from what was on the page and improvising. This was outside the bounds of the Test.

The expert was seething. He was sweating, because he had many other blots to show me, and it was late in the afternoon, and he was looking at spending the entire evening with me. Finally, he held up his hand and put an end to the Test.

I wasn’t playing his game. Among other sins, I wasn’t investing feelings in the images. Therefore, my choices of “what to see” in the blots expanded greatly.

When I go to a museum, I like to watch people stand in front of abstract paintings. Many of them are stumped. They’re trying to figure out what feelings they “are supposed to” project into the painting. They’re looking for “instruction,” and there isn’t any. They’re asking for mind control, and they’re not getting it.

Fanaticism of any kind begins with individuals projecting feelings into images. This is harnessed by leaders, who then choose the images and direct which feelings are permitted. The tempting prospect for the follower is: participation in a drama that goes beyond what he would ordinarily experience in life. This is bolstered by the idea that what he is doing is moral.

In this election season, people on the left are urged to project messianic feelings into images of Barack Obama. People on the right are cued to invest feelings of pride, hope, and “tradition” into images of Mitt Romney. On both sides, it is principally images that are presented. The real candidates aren’t actually experienced.

Since Vietnam, shooting wars have been more difficult to sustain among soldiers. “In the old days,” feelings of hatred could be projected into images of enemies that included civilians, so overtly killing everybody on foreign soil was easier to accept. Now, soldiers are taught “enemy combatant” and “civilian” are two different images that require the injection of two different feelings.

Here at home, police and military are taught, more and more, to invest feelings of suspicion into images of American civilians. This is a acceleration of mass mind control for law enforcement.

The astonishing number of civilians who participate in government and corporate surveillance of the public, through technological means, learn to invest “dead empty feelings” into images of citizens, as if these targets are nothing more than ciphers, units.

The recent bizarre instances of police detaining and questioning parents who allow their children to play unsupervised reveal another accelerating trend. These confrontations start with neighbors snitching on the parents. The neighbors have learned to invest feelings of panic, suspicion, and anger in images of “free children.”

In all these cases, there is no real experience. It’s all second-hand. It’s all feeling-projected-into-image.

In the medical arena, countless advertisements and news stories are geared to convince people to invest feelings of trust in images of doctors. The suggestion, “Ask your doctor if X is right for you,” is framed as the solution to a little problem. The problem is set this way: Drug X is wonderful; drug X has serious adverse effects; what to do? Solution: ask your doctor; trust him; he knows.

As the class of victims in society has grown by leaps and bounds, including any group that can organize and promote itself as needing help or justice—going miles beyond the people who really do need assistance—citizens have been trained to invest feelings of sympathy and concern for all images of victims everywhere, real or imagined. This, too, is mass mind control.

Pick an image; invest feelings in it. Facts don’t matter. Evidence doesn’t matter.

We shouldn’t leave out a peculiar twist on the feeling-image op. The very people who are portrayed, image-wise, as objects for us to invest feelings into, take their cues from this game as well: doctors act like the doctors on television; gangsters acts like gangsters on television; FBI agents and cops act like law-enforcement officers on television. They’re roped in, just like everyone else.

You’ve heard people say, So-and-so has become a caricature of himself. Well, that’s what it means. The person has projected massive feelings of approval into an image of himself—often an image shown on television.

As a society, we can go on this way until we become a horrific cartoon of ourselves (some people believe we’re already there), or we can step back and discover how we invest emotion into images, and then use that process to pour feeling into visions of our own choosing and invent better futures.

Since the dawn of time, leaders have portrayed themselves as gods. They’ve assembled teams to promote that image, so their followers could project powerful emotion into the image and thereby cement the leaders’ control and power.

The game isn’t new. Understanding the roots of it within each individual could, however, break the trance of mass mind control.

During the first West Nile “outbreak” of 1999, I spoke with a student who had just dropped out of medical school. He told me he’d been looking at electron-microscope photos of the West Nile Virus, and he suddenly realized he was “supposed to” invest feelings of fear in those images.

Somehow, he broke free from the image-feeling link. He was rather stunned at the experience. His entire conditioning as a medical student evaporated.

Parents all over the world are having the same experience vis-a-vis vaccines. They realize they’re supposed to invest fear in images of germs and disease, and they’re also supposed to invest feelings of hope and confidence in images of needles and vaccines. They see the game. They’re supposed to ignore evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective. They’re supposed to remain victims of mass mind control.

But they’ve awakened.

We’ve all been taught that what we feel is always and everywhere out of our control. These feelings are simply part of us, and we have to act on them. The alternative would be to sit on them and repress them and turn into androids, robots.

This is simply not true. There are an infinite number of feelings, and as strange as it may sound, we can literally invent them.

This, it is said, is inhuman. It’s a bad idea. It’s wrong. It would lead us to “deserting the human community.”

Nonsense. That’s part of the propaganda of mind control. If the controllers can convince us that we’re working from a limited map of emotions and we have to stay within that territory, they can manipulate that limited set of feelings and trap us.

The power of art is that it shows us there are so many more emotions than we had previously imagined. We can be much freer than we supposed.

The synthetic world of mind control and the handful of feelings that are linked to images is what keeps us in thrall.

The natural world—the world of what we can be—is so much wider and more thrilling and revealing.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

SHOCKER: HOW MANY DRUG PRESCRIPTIONS ARE WRITTEN IN THE US EVERY YEAR?

Mind boggling report

by Jon Rappoport

September 15, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

Medical News Today reports that, in 2011, there was a modest uptick in the number of prescriptions written in the US.

The increase brought the total to: 4.02 billion.

Yes, in 2011, doctors wrote 4.02 billion prescriptions for drugs in America.

That’s an average of roughly 13 prescriptions for each man, woman, and child.

That’s about one new prescription every month for every American.

The Medical News Today article concluded, “…the industry should be heartened by the growth of the number of prescriptions and spending.” Yes, I’m sure the drug industry is popping champagne corks.

We’re talking about prescriptions here. We’re not talking about the number of pills Americans took. We’re also not counting over-the-counter drugs or vaccine shots.

Pharmacopoeia, a 2011 exhibition at the British Museum, estimated that “the average number of pills a person takes in his or her own lifetime in the UK is 14,000.” That’s as a result of prescriptions. Including over-the-counter drugs, the 14,000 number would swell to 40,000 pills taken in a lifetime.

What are the effects of all these drugs?

We are looking at a supreme Trojan Horse that is rotting out America and other industrialized countries from the inside. Wars, no wars, economic deprivation, economic prosperity, the drugs continue to do their work, debilitating and ruining and terminating lives.

Many sources can be cited to confirm this assessment.

On January 8th, 2001, the LA Times published an article by one of the best medical reporters in the business, Linda Marsa: “When Good Drugs Do Harm.” Marsa quoted researcher Dr. David Bates, who indicated that, in the US, there are 36 million serious adverse reactions to medical drugs per year.

On July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published the most stunning mainstream estimate of medical-drug damage in history: “Is US health really the best in the world?” The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a respected public-health researcher at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

Starfield concluded that medical drugs were killing Americans at the rate of 106,000 per year.

The Matrix Revealed

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

This is a conservative sketch of the Trojan Horse that has been placed in the center of the industrialized world.

The pharmaceutical juggernaut will continue, no doubt about it. The only question is, how many people will wake up and seek another way?

The destruction of societies by medical drugs goes far beyond what some people call “over-prescribing.” This isn’t just a tilt in the wrong direction. It isn’t simply errors of judgment compounded by the number of doctors dispensing medicines.

Those are all polite terms suggesting the situation can be corrected through a show of good will and better judgment. That will never happen.

Countries of the world are literally being assaulted by pharmaceutical companies and their foot-soldier doctors. It’s chemical warfare.

To even begin to see light at the end of the tunnel, hundreds of millions of people must add themselves to the rolls of those who already are pursuing better health through natural means.

We need an all-out rebellion against the Pharmacopoeia.

Not even the Nazis and their dearly beloved cartel, the monster IG Farben, dreamed of the day when the citizenry would line up and demand to ingest more and more life-destroying chemicals.

Sources:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/250213.php

http://healthbeat.areavoices.com/2011/10/12/pill-city/

http://humanitiesandhealth.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/pharmacopoiea-or-how-many-pills-do-we-take-in-a-lifetime-a-wellcome-trust-exhibition-at-the-british-museum/

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2009/12/09/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-barbara-starfield-medically-caused-death-in-america/

http://www.whale.to/drugs/iat.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/08/health/he-9609

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The government’s demonic strategy against parents of autistic children

The government’s demonic strategy against parents of autistic children

by Jon Rappoport

September 13, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Let me start with this controversial statement: The worst thing parents can do is obtain a diagnosis of autism for their vaccine-damaged child.

The primary fact to keep in mind is: the government must deny any link between vaccines and autism, because to admit the connection would force it to pay out gigantic sums of money to parents, under its Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

VICP was created in 1988, through an agreement between the US government and pharmaceutical companies, to funnel all law suits for damage away from those companies, and into a bureaucratic maze of government madness, where the parents’ chances of compensation are minimal, where the deck is most assuredly stacked against them.

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

Once parents enter the maze, hoping to gain funds to care for their children, they are immediately confronted with a list of disorders and diseases. This list essentially tells them:

“If your vaccine-damaged child has been diagnosed with any of the following medical conditions, you may be able to win financial support. If not, you’re out of luck.”

Autism isn’t on the list.

Here is the list:

Vaccine Injury Table

(See also the “About the Omnibus Autism Proceeding,” here).

Can things be any clearer than that? A diagnosis of autism is a trap.

One: a young child receives a vaccine.

Two: he suddenly withdraws from life.

Three: a doctor makes a diagnosis of autism.

Four: the parents want to sue the company that makes the vaccine, but they can’t; they must apply to the VICP for funds to care for their child for the rest of his life.

Five: as soon as they enter the VICP system, they learn that the label “autism” is the very thing that will keep them from the funds they desperately need.

That is the long and short of it.

Forget about the fact that the parents never wanted to involve themselves with a federal government program. They wanted to sue the vaccine maker. They wanted a court award. But they were barred from suing.

At this point, you might say, “But if their child really does have autism and it was obviously caused by a vaccine, then they should be able to find justice somehow.”

You don’t understand how deep this deception goes. You don’t understand how criminally insane it is.

Because, you see, the label of “autism,” the very label that keeps parents from getting help for their children, is an arbitrary word that means nothing.

A deviously designed word that means nothing is keeping parents in a lifelong state of desperation, as they go bankrupt trying to care for their vaccine-damaged child.

We begin here: all 297 official mental disorders, listed in the (DSM) publication of the American Psychiatric Association, are defined and approved by committees of psychiatrists. Whether it is schizophrenia or autism or ADHD or clinical depression or bipolar disease, the definitions consist wholly of described behaviors. That’s all.

Psychiatrists will tell you these symptomatic behaviors are signs of underlying chemical imbalances or genetic aberrations, but they have no tests to back up this assertion. Therefore, all they are left with are the behaviors, their own menu-like clusters of those behaviors, and the “mental disorder” label they place on each cluster.

If they had more, if they had blood tests or brain scans or genetic assays, they would publish those tests and claim they are definitive for diagnoses of mental disorders. But they don’t.

Here is an exchange between a respected psychiatrist and a PBS interviewer, which occurred during a Frontline report titled, “Does ADHD Exist?”

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: 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.

BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): 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. [Emphasis added]

Yes, it actually DOES make all those disorders invalid, unless “science” suddenly means “the opinions of psychiatrists sitting in a room, collecting together various human behaviors, and labeling them.”

Here is a link to the official psychiatric definition of autism disorder. It’s worth reading:

https://www.firstsigns.org/screening/DSM4.htm

Notice that all the criteria for an autism diagnosis are behavioral. There is no mention of laboratory tests or test results. There is no mention of chemical imbalance or genetic factors.

Despite public-relations statements issued by doctors and researchers, they have no laboratory findings to establish or confirm an autism diagnosis.

But, people say, this makes no sense, because children do, in fact, withdraw from the world, stop speaking, throw sudden tantrums. Common sense dictates that these behaviors stem from serious neurological problems.

What could cause the behaviors listed in the official definition of autism disorder?

Vaccine injury; a toxic medical drug; a head injury; ingestion of a poison; an environmental chemical; a severe nutritional deficit; oxygen deprivation at birth; perhaps the emotional devastation accompanying the death of a parent…

There are many possible causes of the behaviors arbitrarily called autism.

However, then, why bother to say “autism?” Why not just say vaccine injury or head injury? Why not try to find the crucial event that brought on a specific child’s sudden and unique withdrawal from the world?

The answer should be clear. By establishing a label like autism, medical drugs can be sold. Studies can be funded. An industry can be created.

Something more can be done, too. The government can reject vaccine injury as a defining event in a child’s life, and reject the need to pay out compensation for it.

The government can say, “Since we know that some children who are diagnosed with autism have not received vaccines, or have not received vaccines containing a neurological poison (mercury), we do not compensate parents whose children are vaccine-injured on the basis that they have autism.”

Poof. It all goes away. Did you catch the sleight-of-hand trick?

Let me expose it. A child is given a vaccine. The child goes into a massive withdrawal from life and communication. A doctor, assessing the child’s behaviors, connects them with the official menu of behaviors labeled “autism.” The doctor then says, “This child has autism.”

Then the parents try to obtain government compensation through the VICP, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

The parents, who now have alarmingly high expenses for ongoing care of their vaccine-damaged child, go to the VICP and say, “Our child has been diagnosed with autism, and we want to collect funds for the vaccine-injury he sustained.”

The government replies, “This is impossible. You see, we know that autism isn’t caused by vaccine injury. We know it because many children who are diagnosed with autism have never been injured by vaccines. Some autistic children have never had vaccines.”

Do you see what is going on here? The parents stepped into a fatal trap. They said “autism” and the government said “vaccine injury does not cause autism.”

You might think the parents could back up and regroup. They could say, “We don’t care what you call it, we just know our child was severely damaged by a vaccine, and we need funds.”

But it’s not as easy as that. The government has no category called “vaccine damage.” The government demands some disease or disorder that is diagnosed and officially attributed to a vaccine injury. As I established earlier, the government has a specific list of diseases or disorders that it will allow—to even begin thinking about financial compensation.

The Matrix Revealed

But, you say, this is an evil word game. Of course it’s a word game. The whole notion of “autism” based on no definitive tests was a word game to begin with.

What is called autism (merely a label) is not one condition caused by one factor. It is a loose collection of behaviors that can be caused by various traumas.

Parents say, “My child’s life was stolen away from him. He must have autism.”

A label provides some measure of relief for the parents. It doesn’t prove that the label actually means something. In fact, the label can be a diversion from knowledge that would actually help the child. Suppose, for example, after receiving the DPT vaccine, the child went into a screaming fit and then withdrew from the world. Calling that autism tends to put the parents and the child in the medical system, where there is no definitive effective treatment. Outside that system, there might be some hope with, say, hyperbaric oxygen treatments, or other strategies.

If all this creates a sense of outrage in you, you are not alone.

If a hundred thousand parents of children who have been devastated by vaccines traveled to the headquarters of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, at the Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland, and if they stayed there and Occupied the area, and if they had a unified position that cut through the word game and the purposeful official delusion, perhaps this criminal insanity would end.

A doctor’s diagnosis of autism most assuredly does not end the insanity. It adds to it.

power outside the matrix

I once had a conversation with a parent whose child was vaccine-injured and then diagnosed with autism. She spent years trying to obtain compensation from the VICP and failed. Here is a paraphrase of how our conversation went:

“I found out my child wasn’t the point of the VICP proceeding at all. The government’s attorney was doing everything possible to deny us compensation. I felt I was up against a monster.”

“They denied you benefits because your son had been diagnosed with autism?”

“Yes. They said there was no established connection between the vaccine-damage and autism, so they rejected my claim.”

“So you see that the label ‘autism’ was the very thing they used to reject your claim.”

“I know it now. I didn’t know it then.”

“You also know there is no reason to use the ‘autism’ label. It’s an arbitrary word.”

“It’s a word that is ruining us.”

“Do you realize that, if your doctor had diagnosed your son with a different catch-all label, you would have stood a better chance of gaining compensation?”

“What label?”

“Encephalopathy, for example.”

“So you’re telling me it was all a game, and if I could have gotten the doctor to understand that, he might have written a different diagnosis in my son’s chart, and my chances [of compensation] might have improved.”

“That’s right. A different word.”

In a just world, a parent whose child is damaged by a vaccine would be permitted to sue the vaccine maker. In a less just world, the parent would be able to enter the VICP system and claim a right to compensation based on the simple stand-alone fact that her child was damaged by a vaccine.

In the world we live in, that parent has to prove her child was diagnosed with a condition that the government admits could be caused by a vaccine.

And if the doctor wrote down the word “autism,” the chances of compensation are suddenly very, very remote. They’re zero, unless the parent was able to obtain an accompanying word like “encephalopathy.”

Finally, people will insist that researchers are getting closer to discovering the true and basic cause of autism. This is just more arbitrary verbiage. The “symptoms” listed as definitive for autism are just a collection of behaviors. I could put together a list, and so could you:

“Fatigue, eye flutters, sadness, lack of desire to participate in school, loss of appetite, halting communication…” I could give these behaviors a name, “Remoteness Syndrome,” and call it a disorder, and then I could raise a few billion dollars to search for the underlying cause…but there would be no underlying single cause, because the list was a non-starter. It was just an arbitrary collection of behaviors.

“Autism” is nothing more than a catch-all phrase that indicates a variety of possible unconnected neurological insults. Each patient should be examined by a health practitioner who can really find the cause in that case. Then, perhaps, a treatment plan can be devised for that child.

Meanwhile, the government and its VICP program embroils parents and works them over and tortures them for years, and dumps most of them out on the street with no compensation.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

THE REAL REASON REASON THE STANFORD ORGANIC FOOD STUDY WAS A FRAUD

 

THE REAL REASON THE STANFORD ORGANIC FOOD STUDY WAS A FRAUD

by Jon Rappoport

September 12, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

No matched groups. That’s the short answer. It’s a basic principle in scientific studies.

 

Whether it’s vegetables or humans, you create two matched groups that are as close to each other as possible in all relevant ways, and then you expose them to different protocols and record what happens.

 

For example, Washington State University did the right thing with strawberries. John Reganold and his colleagues took the same strain of berry and planted it in two plots of earth right next to each other. One patch was conventionally grown (with chemicals) and the other was raised organically.

 

Same soil, same weather, same strain of berry. The result? The organic strawberries had higher nutritional content.

 

In the recent infamous Stanford study that is raising a ruckus, the conclusion was: conventional and organic food are nutritionally equal. But no planting of food was done. No study was done at all, in fact. It was a review of prior published studies, and there is no indication that those prior studies handled crops the correct way, as the Washington State strawberry researchers did.

 

Therefore, it’s not science. It’s perhaps cogitation, contemplation, comparison, but it’s not science.

 

Sorry. Try again. Try again to raise doubts about organic food, try to label people who want organic food as cultists, try to make a sociological point, try to save the world with GMOs. Whatever. You failed this time. You may have served Big Biotech, but again, that has nothing to do with science.

 

How about the recent “golden rice” study in China? There is quite an uproar about that one, too. It appears two dozen children were taken into the protocol and fed GMO rice without informed consent. One Chinese health official has been suspended while an investigation is done.

 

The point of the study was to show that this engineered form of rice could save millions of lives in poverty-strickened lands, where people have an acute Vitamin A deficiency.

 

The golden rice, injected with viral genes and daffodil genes, produces beta-carotene, and the body makes that into Vitamin A.

 

Well, there are a few unannounced problems here as well. First, if the rice is polished, the sector of the grain where the beta-carotene is stored is wiped away. But the bigger issue is the human diet itself, the requirements for basic survival.

 

To put it simply, no one absorbs and uses Vitamin A or any other vitamin productively when they are eating nothing but rice, when they are deprived of a minimal diet, when they are chronically living in a near-starvation zone.

 

So to claim that golden rice can save millions of lives is sheer folly and criminal fraud.

 

Now, if instead of planting miles of golden rice (to eventually benefit Big Biotech’s bottom line), you planted ordinary green vegetables, you might achieve uptake of some Vitamin A. But that’s too easy and too real. It’s not exotic. It’s not “sophisticated.” It’s not technocratic.

 

Actually, if the golden rice “solution” is implemented in a big way all over the impoverished and starving Third World, it could rightly be called depopulation. Because that’s what it will be.

 

People need to eat varied food to survive. That’s not hard to understand. They need calories and protein. They need a number of vitamins and minerals in their food. They need clean water. They need land on which to grow this food—rather than being crowded into cities while big agribusiness corporations, who have stolen their farms, plant coffee and other cash crops for export out of the country.

 

This is not high-tech knowledge, either. Half of what big agribusiness does is spout pseudo-scientific propaganda to overwhelm basic common sense and obscure their crimes of theft and murder.

 

Murder? Yes. What would you call it, when the Monsantos of this world push a land-grab solution (that doesn’t work) on populations, when the people need to use the same land to grow a variety of food, in order to survive?

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

THE ULIMATE GOAL OF THE SURVEILLANCE STATE

by Jon Rappoport

September 10, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

Surveillance is coming at us from all angles. Chips, drones, TSA checkpoints, smart meters, back-doored electronic products, video cameras, spying home appliances; our phone calls and emails and keystrokes and product purchases are recorded.

The government and its allied corporations will know whatever they want to know about us.

What then?

What happens when all nations are blanketed from stem to stern with surveillance?

Smart meters give us one clue. Public utilities, acting on government orders, will be able to allot electricity in amounts and at times it wishes to. This is leading to an overarching plan for energy distribution to the entire population.

Claiming shortages and limited options, governments will essentially be redistributing wealth, in the form of energy, under a collectivist model.

National health insurance plans (such as Obamacare) offer another clue. Such plans have no logistical chance of operating unless every citizen is assigned a medical ID package, which is a de facto identity card. In the medical arena, this means cradle-to-grave tracking.

Surveillance inevitably leads to: placing every individual under systems of control. It isn’t just “we’re watching you” or “we’re stamping out dissent.” It’s “we’re directing your participation in life.”

As a security analyst in the private sector once told me, “When you can see what every employee is doing, when you have it all at your fingertips, you naturally move on to thinking about how you can control those patterns and flows of movement and activity. It’s irresistible. You look at your employees as pieces on a board. The only question is, what game do you want to play with them?”

Every such apparatus is ruled, from the top, by Central Planners. When it’s an entire nation, upper-echelon technocrats revel in the idea of blueprinting, mapping, charting, and regulating the flows of all goods and services and people, “for the common good.”

Water, food, medicine, land use, transportation—they all become items of a networked system that chooses who gets what and when, and who can travel where, and under what conditions.

This is the wet dream of technocrats. They believe they are saving the world, while playing a fascinating game of multidimensional chess.

As new technologies are discovered and come on line, the planners decide how they will be utilized and for whose benefit.

In order to implement such a far-reaching objective, with minimal resistance from the global population, manufactured crises are unleashed which persuade the masses that the planet is under threat and needs “the wise ones” to rescue it and us.

We watch (and fight in) wars and more wars, each one exacerbated and even invented. We see (planned) drought and famine. We are told about desperate shortages and a frying Earth. We are presented with phony epidemics that are falsely promoted as scourges.

The only response, we are led to believe, is more humane control over the population.

On top of that, we are fed an unending stream of propaganda aimed at convincing us that “the great good for the greatest number” is the only humane and acceptable principle of existence. All prior systems of belief are outmoded. We know better now. We must be good and kind and generous to everyone at all times.

Under this quasi-religious banner, which has great emotional appeal, appears The Plan. Our leaders allocate and withhold on the basis of their greater knowledge. We comply. We willingly comply, because we are enlisted in a universal army of altruistic concern.

This is a classic bait and switch. We are taught to believe that service for the greater good is an unchallengeable goal and credo. And then, later, we find out it has been hijacked to institute more power over us, in every way.

The coordinated and networked surveillance of Earth and its people is fed into algorithms that spit out solutions. This much food will go here; that much water will go there; here there will be medical care; there medical care will be severely rationed. These people will be permitted to travel. Those people will be confined to their cities and towns.

Every essential of life—managed with on-off switches, and the consequences will play out.

An incredibly complex system of interlocking decisions will be hailed as messianic.

Surveillance; planning; control.

The surveillance is expanded, not because we are constantly under threat and must be protected from terrorists, but because we can then be labeled and entered on to 10 billion squares of the game board, to be moved around or held in place.

This is the vision.

It isn’t ours. It never was. But we are not consulted.

Instead we are made witness to watershed events: the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center; the 2001 assault on the Trade Center and the Pentagon. These ops paralleled the unleashing of better and more far-ranging methods of surveillance.

We are profiled down to the threads on our clothing and DNA in our cells. But what is our profile of the technocrats and their bosses?

They are divorced from human life. They live in a vacuum. They take pleasure from that vacuum.

In 1982, I interviewed Bill Perry, who had just left his job as PR chief at Lawrence Livermore Labs, where scientists design nuclear weapons. Perry had been given the kind of job PR people long for. But one day, when he passed the desk of a researcher and listened to his complaints about budget limitations, Perry said, “Listen, America already has the means to blow up the whole planet eight times. What more do you need?”

The researcher looked up at him with a genuinely puzzled expression. He said, “You don’t understand, Bill. This is a problem in physics.”

In the same detached sense, the technocrats who want to calculate and direct our future, move by move, minute by minute, see us as components of a complex and very interesting problem.

Yes, they indeed expect to exercise power and control. But they also live in an abstraction. They deal their answers from that realm. They exercise cool passion. They see, for example, that not every single twitch of thought of every person on earth is yet mapped, so they want to finish constructing the means by which they can chart those “missing elements.” They want to complete the formula.

They view their research as a wholly natural implication of the mathematics they can manipulate. They swim in technology and they want to extend its architecture. To abandon the program would be tantamount to denying their own intelligence. They climb the mountain because it is there.

They do perceive that one factor does not fit their algorithms: the free individual. It’s the wild card. Therefore, they are compelled to analyze freedom and break it down into DNA functions and brain processes. They assume, because they must, that the free individual is an illusory idea that flows from some older configuration of synaptic transmission, at a time in our evolution when we needed it. But now, they suppose, the engineering of human activity and thought has superseded such quaint notions. Now we all can be tracked, traced, and studied on a different and wider scale. Now we can be seen for what we really are: a hive.

Therefore, we must be instructed, within tight limits, about our various functions.

I’m reminded of a statement attributed to Nobel Laureate, Alfred Szent-Giorgi: “In my search for the secret of life, I have ended up with atoms and electrons, which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am retracing my steps…”

Today’s technocrats will admit no such disappointment or existential crisis. They flourish with great optimism as they design the future world and its single society. If they run out of pieces of their puzzle to study, they’ll try to track the motion of every atom and electron and quark in the universe. They’ll delight in it.

Knowing all this, we know the terms of the war we are in.

The Central Planners have an equation: “free=uncontrolled=dangerous.”

By the gross terms of that equation, they lump us in with thugs and murderers and terrorists. They even see the normal functioning of the brain as a threat, as an intrinsically defective process, and they have long since decided that organ must be corrected with drugs.

We, on the other hand, must assert, in every way possible, that freedom is real and inviolable, and we must back that up with our actions.

When individual freedom is no longer discussed in great depth by people who should know better, when it is left to wither on the vine, many programs and structures are built to take its place. When freedom is not understood beyond a superficial level, the question, WHAT IS FREEDOM FOR, goes begging.

Of all the criticisms of our education system, this one should be primary. Thomas Jefferson envisioned public education purely as a way to teach children what being a citizen in a Republic meant—because, until the Constitution was enacted, there had never been an experiment in freedom on such a scale. It was a new premise.

Now, in one of our greatest cities, Chicago, people are scrambling to ensure that, during a teacher’s strike, schools can remain open as baby-sitting warehouses for half-days.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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.

REALITY IS MANUFACTURED FOR THE MASSES

REALITY IS MANUFACTURED FOR THE MASSES

by Jon Rappoport

September 9, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

In major media, there is always a potential Threat Level. Reporters feel it. Editors who assign reporters stories feel it. Even CEOs can feel it.

It happens when a story is about to break through containment and show the public that a cherished belief or institution is as phony as a three dollar bill.

Bells start ringing. Red flags go up.

Time to pull back. Time to lie. Time to pretend there is nothing to see.

If not, jobs will be on the line. Heads will roll.

The JFK assassination was that kind kind of story. 9/11 is that kind of story. The true statistic on medically caused death in America is that kind of story. Such stories are not permitted to be exposed in the mainstream. And by exposed, I mean “pounded on, ripped from stem to stern, day after day, revealing true conspiracies and heinous crimes.”

Instead, false fronts are erected. Cover stories are built and sold to the masses. A secret faith is kept.

There are so many false fronts in so many areas of life that, woven together, they form an overall picture of reality.

When people buy this picture, the price they pay is very steep. They sacrifice their capacity to invent their own futures. They lose touch with their own imaginations.

They live within a defined space that grows smaller as they grow older. They compromise their core freedom again and again. They train themselves to “fit in.” In fact, they become experts at fitting in, right down to what they will allow themselves to think.

They lose the desire to express their freedom. Their physical health suffers and deteriorates. Their energy drains away.

This is what happens to most people.

I’ve known several mainstream reporters who felt they were on the verge of a breakthrough in their work. They were investigating major stories that, when published, would punch a hole in the picture of mass reality.

These reporters felt like explorers who had found a buried treasure at the end of a long and arduous journey.

Then the bells went off and the red flags went up. Editors shut them down. The editors, said, “We can’t touch this one.”

So the reporters stopped in their tracks. They buried their files. They put themselves in harness.

This is a metaphor for what happens to many, many people in their lives. They suddenly sniff the air of real freedom and discovery. They climb out of the morass called consensus reality, and know why they are alive. And then they think, “What will happen if I break the pledge to remain a normal and average person? How will my friends and family and co-workers react?”

They pause.

Then they retreat. They adjust. They go back to their former role of fitting in. Their friends and family breathe a sigh of relief.

For a moment or two, a physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual crossroad had been reached. A person saw beyond the picture of ordinary reality. He saw huge open space. He knew he could act on the basis of an inner leverage that defied the laws of the material world. He knew there was a greater power within him.

But no…he wouldn’t take such a path. He would buy the reality created for him.

And then one day:

THE REALITY SALESMAN CALLS.

Step up, folks. This is a deal you can’t afford to miss. You know that thing you cling to like a drowning man in a turbulent sea?

It’s called reality, and I represent the company that manufactures it. I’m proud to say I’ve held this job for over a hundred thousand years. So as far as product knowledge is concerned, you just aren’t going to find anybody like me.

I’m here to tell you that reality is never anything more than rocks and bricks and concrete and steel. Reality is never anything more than a house and all the things in it, and the mementos you hold on to, to remind you of the past.

And in conjunction with that, I’m really selling…guess what? A little thing called perception.

I’m selling How You See Things, and what you think about what you see.

Because, no matter what time period you live in, it all comes down to that: how you see what’s in front of you.

And believe it or not, perception comes in different forms. My company makes the perception that endures. It’s the package you’re living with right now. It’s the down-to-earth here-it-is straight-ahead common-sense type. We call it: IT IS WHAT IT IS. That’s trademarked, by the way. ISWII. It is what it is.

ISWII was invented by a very smart guy whose name has been long forgotten. He was a flaming genius, and he realized something great. People would go for ISWII because it would lock them in.

Who wants to wake up on a Tuesday morning and suddenly see life in a completely different way? Who wants that kind of shock to the system?

ISWII is the most popular perception package in the universe, bar none. It has Reliability. Consistency.

All those centuries and epochs ago, when I was a rookie training for this job, the guys let me try on a whole bunch of different perception packages, so I could see what kind of competition I was up against.

I saw things I wouldn’t want to describe to you. Horrible things. And when I was given ISWII, our product, I felt like I was home.

ISWII gives you a stability you can count on for your whole life. And, believe me, that’s no small feat. We’ve built slow decay (SD) into the package, so things gradually deteriorate—because, think about it, do you really want that tree in your back yard to stay at one stage of growth forever? Do you?

ISWII is time-tested. It’s as solid as solid can be. It doesn’t break down.

But it does need vaccine boosters from time to time, and that’s why I’m here today talking to you.

Every twenty thousand years, we institute a planet-wide upgrade, just to make sure nothing goes wrong. And you’re all due.

Now, you could refuse, in which case you’ll have to take full responsibility for the ugly consequences, or you could do the right thing and just re-up. I have to tell you, our re-up rate is 99.859 percent. I’m proud of that figure.

By the way, the holdouts, the deniers, and the self-styled rebels? The governments of your planet keep close track of them. I feel obligated to let you know that. Without boosters, when your ISWII breaks down, you’re going to fail to fit in. Most definitely you’re going to experience some things other people just won’t understand. And your governments will hunt you down and lock you up, or worse.

That’s not my doing, because I believe in the free market, but it’s part of my service to clue you into the whole picture.

But here’s the good part. You can get your vaccine booster now, during our pre-op special, by simply signing for it and taking the pledge, and continuing to pay a mere sixty percent of of your annual income for the rest of your lives. Which when you think about it, is nothing for what you’re getting. Again, reliability, and consistency.

In the small print, the pledge lays out a few details concerning IMAGINATION. This is for your own protection—because if you take imagination too far (and who knows how far that is, until it’s too late), you’ll set up what we call an interference field, which means ISWII will tend to malfunction. You don’t want that.

So here’s the contract and the pledge. Sign on the dotted line, and pay the fee, and we’re done.

Thank you very much.

I love you guys. Really, I do. I admire your tenacity and your willingness to stay with our package. Our company continues to prosper because of you. Visit the ISWII website and Facebook page and find out about upcoming picnics and vacation tours. We’re hosting booster events at thousands of locations.

If you don’t come to us, we’ll come to you.

We’ve got you on our list.

THE PLEDGE: “I promise to see reality as the perception package presents it for me. I promise not to mess with the package. I promise to bury my own imagination and creative power and refrain from inventing realities of my own. When I take this perception-vaccine that installs and boosts the package, I understand that I must obey all the rules of reality that form the substance of my life. I will not stray. I will interact as a good and obedient citizen. I will follow the straight and narrow. I will see exactly as I’m suppose to see. I will report all suspicious activity to Central Planning. If I believe someone is operating outside the boundaries of the package, spewing strange ideas, rebelling, defecting from the consensus, I will report him or her promptly. If I myself stray, I will turn myself in and receive treatment. If not, I understand I will be hunted down like a dog and forcibly treated. All hail to the ISWII perception package!”

The reality salesman knows what he’s doing. He makes a very good living. Secretly, he knows our perception of our own lives and futures is grossly limited by his product, his package, just as our eyes can only see part of the light spectrum. He is aware of this.

He’s selling limitation and we’re buying limitation.

He works for a set of controllers. The controllers have long since realized that the package they’re selling cements their hegemony and their power over us. Because we can only act on what we see.

The one crack in their armor is our inner conviction that we can create new realities that go beyond what we ordinarily perceive.

And so they do everything in their power to indoctrinate us in a planetary cult of self-regulation, wherein we try to pull down “defectors” and rebels into our common swamp of acceptance and acquiescence.

In other words, the controllers need us to police ourselves.

And this is called Life.

It’s essentially a cartoon. Yes, it can be a vicious and nasty and inhibiting animation, but it’s a cartoon nonetheless, when is all is said and done.

Whether we sit still for it or break out is entirely up to us. It’s our choice.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

Bombshell: 18 people died of the flu, not 36,000

Bombshell: 18 people died of the flu, not 36,000

by Jon Rappoport

September 8, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Time and time again, as an investigative reporter, I’ve had the job of informing readers that their most basic assumptions are wrong.

In the medical arena, this is compounded by public acceptance of lies that seem to be absolute science. However, the “science” turns out to be manufactured delusion. The subject of this article is another such case. It flies in the face of massive propaganda that medical authorities have launched to literally brainwash the population.

The flu season is approaching, and of course we will see the Centers for Disease Control urge all parents to act like good little robots and have the whole family jabbed with flu shots.

The usual warnings and predictions will be trumpeted by the CDC and their compliant media.

The one persistent fact that will be shoved across is: every year in the US, 36,000 people die of the flu. We’ve all read and heard that figure, over and over.

It’s a “necessary” statistic for the CDC. They need to promote it. They need to convince the population that seasonal flu is dangerous.

The American people don’t understand that it’s a lie, a grossly manufactured delusion that bears no resemblance to reality.

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which spelled out the delusion and created tremors throughout the halls of the CDC.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report:

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

You see, the CDC had created one category that combined flu and pneumonia deaths. Why did they do this? Because they assumed that the pneumonia deaths were complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes. But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 were traced directly to a flu virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of the flu in 2001.

Doshi continues his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).”

This is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure. However, Doshi is only reporting numbers of flu deaths estimated by the CDC in those years. As he showed from the year 2001, the CDC actually finds the flu virus in a tiny proportion of people who are estimated to have died from the flu.

In other words, it’s all guesswork. It’s also promotion and hype.

But the overwhelming percentage of Americans buy the hype because it’s been repeated so often. To them, the idea that only 18 people were positively identified as flu deaths in a year is impossible.

Doshi goes on to mention a 2004 flu vaccine summit held by the CDC and American Medical Association. One of the important speakers at this conference, Glenn Nowak, lectured about generating interest and demand for the flu vaccine.

Nowak said this demand occurs when medical experts and public health authorities “state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes)—and urge influenza vaccination…[there should be] continued reports that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people, helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.”

Repeating the mantra that 36,000 people die every year from the flu is, of course, the key strategy for creating demand for the vaccine.

It’s an entirely false sales pitch. It always has been.

Naturally, many people will rally to the side of the CDC. They will tell you how difficult it can be to actually discover and isolate a flu virus from an ill human being and, therefore, label his death as a flu statistic.

The CDC annual budget hovers around the $10 billion level. With its resources, it can certainly do what’s necessary to determine whether people are dying from the flu or some other cause.

The CDC has been lying through its teeth to the American people about flu deaths. The exposure of that lie has been choked off by the press.

The CDC’s main job is accurately reporting statistics on illness and death. If it can’t perform that function, its duty is to admit it. The reality, however, is that the agency is fatally compromised. It is allied with the pharmaceutical industry, as part of the huge overarching medical cartel. Its reliability is, therefore, zero.

Virtually everything you’ve been told about flu deaths by the US government is unsupported by facts.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com.

How many of these vaccine facts do you know?

How many of these vaccine facts do you know?

by Jon Rappoport

September 6, 2012

NoMoreFakeNews.com

In 1988, I was researching my first book, AIDS INC. (*) Interested in the subject of vaccines, I delved into published accounts of vaccination gone wrong.

(*) A copy of AIDS INC. is included in my collection Power Outside The Matrix.

The following series of quotes from authors only begins to cover the territory of vaccine damage, deception, and failure. It is nevertheless the start of a history which has been hidden from the public by corporate media, whose ties to pharmaceutical interests are infamous.

In 1988, I knew nothing about mercury in vaccines, or about the numerous chemicals and contaminating germs in vaccines that cause human illness and damage. I was merely looking for evidence that past vaccination campaigns had backfired.

What I found was shocking.

Here are the statements I uncovered:

“The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” (Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977)

“In a recent British outbreak of whooping cough, for example, even fully immunized children contracted the disease in fairly large numbers; and the rates of serious complications and death were reduced only slightly. In another recent outbreak of pertussis, 46 of the 85 fully immunized children studied eventually contracted the disease.” (Richard Moskowitz, MD, The Case Against Immunizations, 1983, American Institute of Homeopathy)

“In 1977, 34 new cases of measles were reported on the campus of UCLA, in a population that was supposedly 91% immune, according to careful serological testing. Another 20 cases of measles were reported in the Pecos, New Mexico, area within a period of a few months in 1981, and 75% of them had been fully immunized, some of them quite recently. A survey of sixth-graders in a well-immunized urban community revealed that about 15% of this age group are still susceptible to rubella, a figure essentially identical with that of the pre-vaccine era. (Moskowitz, The Case Against Immunizations)

“Of all reported whooping cough cases between 1979 and 1984 in children over 7 months of age – that is, old enough to have received the primary course of the DPT shots (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) – 41% occurred in children who had received three or more shots and 22% in children who had one or two immunizations.

“Among children under 7 months of age who had whooping cough, 34% had been immunized between one and three times…

“… Based on the only U.S. findings on adverse DPT reactions, an FDA-financed study at the University of California, Los Angeles, one out of every 350 children will have a convulsion; one in 180 children will experience high-pitched screaming; and one in 66 will have a fever of 105 degrees or more.” [Note: All these symptoms can indicate serious neurological damage.] (Jennifer Hyman, Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, New York, special supplement on DPT, dated April, 1987)

“A study undertaken in 1979 at the University of California, Los Angeles, under the sponsorship of the Food and Drug Administration, and which has been confirmed by other studies, indicates that in the U.S.A. approximately 1,000 infants die annually as a direct result of DPT vaccinations, and these are classified as SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) deaths. These represent about 10 to 15% of the total number of SIDS deaths occurring annually in the U.S.A. (between 8,000 and 10,000 depending on which statistics are used).” (Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, CW Daniel Company Limited, Saffron Walden, Essex, England, 1987.)

“Assistant Secretary of Health Edward Brandt, Jr., MD, testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, rounded… figures off to 9,000 cases of convulsions, 9,000 cases of collapse, and 17,000 cases of high-pitched screaming for a total of 35,000 acute neurological reactions occurring within forty-eight hours of a DPT shot among America’s children every year.” (DPT: A Shot in the Dark, by Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fischer, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich)

“While 70-80% of British children were immunized against pertussis in 1970-71, the rate is now 39%. The committee predicts that the next pertussis epidemic will probably turn out to be more severe than the one in 1974/75. However, they do not explain why, in 1970/71, there were more than 33,000 cases of pertussis with 41 fatal cases among the very well immunized British child population; whereas in 1974/75, with a declining rate of vaccination, a pertussis epidemic caused only 25,000 cases with 25 fatalities.” (Wolfgang Ehrengut, Lancet, Feb. 18, 1978, p. 370)

“… Barker and Pichichero, in a prospective study of 1232 children in Denver, Colorado, found after DTP that only 7% of those vaccinated were free from untoward reactions, which included pyrexia (53%), acute behavioral changes (82%), prolonged screaming (13%), and listlessness, anorexia and vomiting. 71% of those receiving second injections of DTP experienced two or more of the reactions monitored.” (Lancet, May 28, 1983, p. 1217)

“Publications by the World Health Organization show that diphtheria is steadily declining in most European countries, including those in which there has been no immunization. The decline began long before vaccination was developed. There is certainly no guarantee that vaccination will protect a child against the disease; in fact, over 30,000 cases of diphtheria have been recorded in the United Kingdom in fully immunized children.” (Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 58)

“Pertussis (whooping cough) immunization is controversial, as the side effects have received a great deal of publicity. The counter claim is that the effectiveness and protection offered by the procedure far outweigh the possible ill effects… annual deaths, per million children, from this disease over the period from 1900 to the mid-nineteen seventies, shows that from a high point of just under 900 deaths per million children (under age 15) in 1905, the decline has been consistent and dramatic. There had been a lowering of mortality rates of approximately 80% by the time immunization was introduced on a mass scale, in the mid-nineteen fifties. The decline has continued, albeit at a slower rate, ever since. No credit can be given to vaccination for the major part of the decline since it was not in use.” (Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 63)

“… the swine-flu vaccination program was one of its (CDC’s) greatest blunders. It all began in 1976 when CDC scientists saw that a virus involved in a flu attack outbreak at Fort Dix, N.J., was similar to the swine-flu virus that killed 500,000 Americans in 1918. Health officials immediately launched a 100-million dollar program to immunize every American. But the expected epidemic never materialized, and the vaccine led to partial paralysis in 532 people. There were 32 deaths.” (U.S. News and World Report, Joseph Carey, October 14, 1985, p. 70, “How Medical Sleuths Track Killer Diseases”)

“Despite (cases) in which (smallpox) vaccination plainly failed to protect the population, and despite the rampant side-effects of the methods, the proponents of vaccination continued their attempts to justify the methods by claims that the disease had declined in Europe as a whole during the period of its compulsory use. If the decline could be correlated with the use of the vaccination, then all else could be set aside, and the advantage between its current low incidence could be shown to outweigh the periodic failures of the method, and to favour the continued use of vaccination. However, the credit for the decline in the incidence of smallpox could not be given to vaccination. The fact is that its incidence declined in all parts of Europe, whether or not vaccination was employed.” (Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, pp. 6-7)

“Smallpox, like typhus, has been dying out (in England) since 1780. Vaccination in this country has largely fallen into disuse since people began to realize how its value was discredited by the great smallpox epidemic of 1871-2 (which occurred after extensive vaccination).” (W. Scott Webb, A Century of Vaccination, Swan Sonnenschein, 1898)

“In this incident (Kyoto, Japan, 1948) – the most serious of its kind – a toxic (vaccine) batch of alum-precipitated toxoid (APT) was responsible for illness in over 600 infants and for no fewer than 68 deaths.

“On 20 and 22 October, 1948, a large number of babies and children in the city of Kyoto received their first injection of APT. On the 4th and 5th of November, 15,561 babies and children aged some months to 13 years received their second dose. One to two days later, 606 of those who had been injected fell ill. Of these, 9 died of acute diphtheritic paralysis in seven to fourteen days, and 59 of late paralysis mainly in four to seven weeks.” (Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization, Athone Press, University of London, 1967)

“Accidents may, however, follow the use of this so-called killed (rabies) vaccine owing to inadequate processing. A very serious occurrence of this sort occurred at Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, in 1960. No fewer than 18 out of 66 persons vaccinated with Fermi’s carbolized (rabies) vaccine suffered from encephalomyelitis and every one of the eighteen died.” (Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization)

“At a press conference in Washington on 24 July, 1942, the Secretary of War reported that 28,585 cases of jaundice had been observed in the (American) Army between 1 January and 4 July after yellow fever vaccination, and of these 62 proved fatal.” (Wilson, Hazards of Immunization)

“The world’s biggest trial (conducted in south India) to assess the value of BCG tuberculosis vaccine has made the startling revelation that the vaccine ‘does not give any protection against bacillary forms of tuberculosis.’ The study said to be ‘most exhaustive and meticulous,’ was launched in 1968 by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) with assistance from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia.

“The incidence of new cases among the BCG vaccinated group was slightly (but statistically insignificantly) higher than in the control group, a finding that led to the conclusion that BCG’s protective effect ‘was zero.'” (New Scientist, November 15, 1979, as quoted by Hans Ruesch in Naked Empress, Civis Publishers, Switzerland, 1982)

“Between 10 December 1929 and 30 April 1930, 251 of 412 infants born in Lubeck received three doses of BCG vaccine by the mouth during the first ten days of life. Of these 251, 72 died of tuberculosis, most of them in two to five months and all but one before the end of the first year. In addition, 135 suffered from clinical tuberculosis but eventually recovered; and 44 became tuberculin-positive but remained well. None of the 161 unvaccinated infants born at the time was affected in this way and none of these died of tuberculosis within the following three years.” (Hazards of Immunization, Wilson)

“We conducted a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial to test the efficacy of the 14-valent pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide vaccine in 2295 high-risk patients… Seventy-one episodes of proved or probable pneumococcal pneumonia or bronchitis occurred among 63 of the patients (27 placebo recipients and 36 vaccine recipients)… We were unable to demonstrate any efficacy of the pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia or bronchitis in this population.” (New England Journal of Medicine, November 20, 1986, p. 1318, Michael Simberkoff et al.

“But already before Salk developed his vaccine, polio had been constantly regressing; the 39 cases out of every 100,000 inhabitants registered in 1942 had gradually diminished from year to year until they were reduced to only 15 cases in 1952… according to M. Beddow Baylay, the English surgeon and medical historian.” (Slaughter of the Innocent, Hans Reusch, Civitas Publish ers, Switzerland, and Swain, New York, 1983)

“Many published stories and reports have stated, implied and otherwise led professional people and the public to believe that the sharp reduction of cases (and of deaths) from poliomyelitis in 1955 as compared to 1954 is attributable to the Salk vaccine… That it is a misconception follows from these considerations. The number of children inoculated has been too small to account for the decrease. The sharp decrease was apparent before the inoculations began or could take effect and was of the same order as the decrease following the immediate post-inoculation period.” (Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, vol. 20, no. 1, 1987)

“So far it is hardly possible to gain insight into the extent of the immunization catastrophe of 1955 in the United States. It may be considered certain that the officially ascertained 200 cases (of polio) which were caused directly or indirectly by the (polio) vaccination constitute minimum figures… It can hardly be estimated how many of the 1359 (polio) cases among vaccinated persons must be regarded as failures of the vaccine and how many of them were infected by the vaccine. A careful study of the epidemiologic course of polio in the United States yields indications of grave significance. In numerous states of the U.S.A., typical early epidemics developed with the immunizations in the spring of 1955… The vaccination incidents of the year 1955 cannot be exclusively traced back to the failure of one manufacturing firm.” (Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, 1980, vol. 19, no. 4, “Story of the Salk Vaccine,” Part 2)

“Suffice it to say that most of the large (polio) epidemics that have occurred in this country since the introduction of the Salk vaccine have followed the wide-scale use of the vaccine and have been characterized by an uncommon early seasonal onset. To name a few, there is the Massachusetts epidemic of 1955; the Chicago epidemic of 1956; and the Des Moines epidemic of 1959.” (Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, 1980 vol. 19, no. 4)

“The live (Sabin) poliovirus vaccine has been the predominant cause of domestically arising cases of paralytic poliomyelitis in the United States since 1972. To avoid the occurrence of such cases, it would be necessary to discontinue the routine use of live poliovirus vaccine.” (Jonas Salk, Science, March 4, 1977, p. 845)

“By the (U.S.) government’s own admission, there has been a 41% failure rate in persons who were previously vaccinated against the (measles) virus.” [In other words, these persons were vaccinated and then contracted measles.] (Dr. Anthony Morris, John Chriss, BG Young, “Occurrence of Measles in Previously Vaccinated Individuals,” 1979; presented at a meeting of the American Society for Microbiology at Fort Detrick, Maryland, April 27, 1979)

“Prior to the time doctors began giving rubella (German Measles) vaccinations, an estimated 85% of adults were naturally immune to the disease (for life). Because of immunization, the vast majority of women never acquire natural immunity (or lifetime protection).” (Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, Let’s Live, December 1983, as quoted by Carolyn Reuben in the LA WEEKLY, June 28, 1985)

“Administration of KMV (killed measles vaccine) apparently set in motion an aberrant immunologic response that not only failed to protect children against natural measles, but resulted in heightened susceptibility.” (JAMA Aug. 22, 1980, vol. 244, p. 804, Vincent Fulginiti and Ray Helfer. The authors indicate that such falsely protected children can come down with “an often severe, atypical form of measles. Atypical measles is characterized by fever, headache… and a diverse rash (which)… may consist of a mixture of macules, papules, vesicles, and pustules… “)

power outside the matrix

The above quotes reflect only a mere fraction of an available literature which shows the public has been kept in the dark about vaccination. It is certain that undisclosed, unlooked for illness occurs as a result of vaccines, or as a result of infection after protective immunity should have been conferred but wasn’t.

A certain amount of this sort of illness is immunosuppressive in the widest sense, and some in a narrower sense (depression of T-cell numbers, etc.). When looking for causes of unusual illness and immune suppression, vaccines are one of those areas which remain partially hidden from investigation. That is a mistake. It is not adequate to say, “Vaccines are simple; they stimulate the immune system and confer immunity against specific germ agents.” That is the glossy presentation.

What vaccines often do is something else. They engage some aspect of the body’s immune-response, but to what effect over the long term? Why, for example, do children who have measles vaccine develop a susceptibility to another more severe, atypical measles? Is that virulent form of the disease the result of reactivation of the virus in the vaccine?

Official reports on adverse vaccine reactions are often at odds with unofficial estimates because of the method of analysis used. If vaccine-reaction is defined as a small set of possible effects experienced within 72 hours of an inoculation, then figures will be smaller. But doctors like G.T. Stewart, of the University of Glasgow, have found through meticulous investigation, including visits to hospitals and interviews with parents of vaccinated children, that reactions as severe as brain-damage (e.g., from the DPT vaccine) can be overlooked, go unreported, and can be assumed mistakenly to have come from other causes.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Are the banksters wrecking the global economy really the Trilateral Commission?

Are the “banksters” wrecking the global economy really the Trilateral Commission?

by Jon Rappoport

September 5, 2012

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Yes, the infamous Trilateral Commission still exists.

Many people think the TC, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, is a relic of an older time.

Think again.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.” Knowing that you have to break eggs to make an omelette, consider how the following TC members, in key Obama posts, can help engender further national chaos; erase our sovereign national borders; and install binding international agreements that will envelop our economy and money in a deeper global collective: a new world order:

Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;

James Jones, National Security Advisor;

Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;

Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

All Trilateralists.

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

In Europe, the financially embattled nations of Greece and Italy brought in Lucas Papademos and Mario Monti as prime ministers. Both men are Trilateral members, and Monti is the former European chairman of the Trilateral Commission.

In the US, since 1973, author Wood counts eight out of 10 US Trade Representative appointments, and six out of eight World Bank presidencies, as American Trilateral members.

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Several other noteworthy Trilateral members: George HW Bush; Bill Clinton; Dick Cheney; Al Gore. The first three men helped sink the US further into debt by fomenting wars abroad; and Gore’s cap and trade blueprint would destroy industrial economies, while vastly increasing the numbers of people in Third World countries who have no access to modern sources of energy.

Does all this offer a clue as to why the US economy has failed to recover from the Wall Street debacle of 2008, why the federal bailout was a handout to super-rich criminals, and why Obama took actions which prevented a recovery?

A closer look at Tim Geithner’s circle of economic advisers reveals the chilling Trilateral effect: Paul Volker; Alan Greenspan; E. Gerald Corrigan (director, Goldman Sachs); and Peter G Peterson (former CEO, Lehman Brothers, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations). These men are all Trilateral members.

How many foxes in the hen house do we need, before we realize their Trilateral agenda is controlling the direction of our economy?

The TC has no interest in building up the American economy. They want to torpedo it, as part of the end-game of creating a new international currency, ushering in a de facto Globalist management system for the whole planet.

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003): “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.”

Even in what many people mistakenly think of as the TC’s heyday, the 1970s, there were few who realized its overarching power.

Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s a through-the-looking-glass secret—in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others?After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

SOURCE: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.

Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.

The Matrix Revealed

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.

Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.

Source: Patrick Wood, “Trilateral Commission Endgame,” http://www.newswithviews.com/Wood/patrick133.htm

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

MORE EVIDENCE PSYCHIATRY IS A FAKE SCIENCE

More evidence psychiatry is a fake science

by Jon Rappoport

September 4, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Evidence isn’t something you make up out of thin air. You dig it up. If you’re fortunate, you find crucial evidence in statements of the very people who are pretending to tell the truth. That’s the jackpot.

I’ve written several articles debunking the “science” behind psychiatry. As you might guess, this is not a popular approach with the gatekeepers of our culture.

The gatekeepers want psychiatry to be thought of as a science, and since it isn’t, they exercise their only option: they lie. And then they lie again. It’s the time-honored strategy of all propaganda. Keep repeating the falsehood until people believe it and accept it.

Evidence doesn’t work that way. You don’t need to keep repeating it in order to make it real. If you’re digging in the sand to uncover clues to a lost city, you don’t need to re-dig that area of sand hiding the temple and the road and the statues. You do it once and that’s enough. You say, “See? Here’s the city.”

But culturally speaking, you do need to keep flashing photos of the lost city, because people have been trained to think there was no civilization way back when. You have to separate people from the false thinking and indoctrination.

So now I’m flashing evidence I’ve uncovered before. It’s a statement made by a prominent psychiatrist on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”

Here it is.

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: 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.

BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): 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. [Emphasis added]

Dr. Barkley blows the whistle on his own profession, and then he turns around and makes it even better by claiming the incontrovertible evidence isn’t evidence at all. He claims we’re all illiterate when it comes to fathoming what science is all about.

So let’s take Dr. Barkley to school. Medical science, and disease-research in particular, rests on the notion that you can make a diagnosis backed up by lab tests. If you can’t produce lab tests, you’re spinning fantasies.

These fantasies might be hopeful, they might be “educated guesses,” they might be launched from traditional centers of learning, they might be backed up by billions of dollars of grant money…but they’re still fantasies.

If I said the moon was made of green cheese, even if I were a Harvard professor, sooner or later someone would ask me to produce a sample of moon rock that was tested for “cheese qualities.” I might begin to feel nervous, I might want to tap dance around the issue, but I would have to submit the rock to a lab.

In the case of psychiatry, the DSM, which is the bible of the American Psychiatric Association, currently lists 297 official mental disorders. They are named, labeled, and described. Dr. Barkley admits there is no lab test for any of those 297 disorders.

Yes, there is a lot of chatter about “chemical imbalances in the brain,” but there is no test.

Dr. Barkley employs a version of logical analysis in his statement to the PBS Frontline interviewer. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. But if a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have science at all, and that would mean our whole profession rests on nothing—and that is absurd, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”

That logic is no logic at all. Barkley is proving the case against himself. He just doesn’t want to admit it.

If psychiatry were nothing more than an intellectual game in a vacuum, it wouldn’t matter. But each diagnosis is followed by powerful and dangerous drugs, and people take those drugs.

In a business sense (and psychiatry is a business), the DSM is really a book that tells psychiatrists what they can bill insurance companies for. That’s the essence of the book. There are 297 ways a psychiatrist can get paid. No insurance company is going to step up to the plate and declare psychiatry a rank fraud. Insurance companies don’t operate that way. They are in partnership with psychiatry. Insurance companies employ actuaries to figure out how claims can be paid and still leave nice profit margins. That’s the game.

Think of all the studies that have been done to show that street drugs harm people. Has that stopped traffickers from selling heroin and cocaine? Well, the analogy has merit. Do you expect psychiatrists and insurance companies to hold a press conference and admit their whole operation is a top-to-bottom fraud with devastating health consequences?

At the root of this ongoing RICO crime is the issue of personal freedom. Do people have the absolute right to refuse psychiatric medication? If, for example, in the United States, Obamacare is not repealed, there are going to be many, many more diagnoses of mental disorders. Eventually, accepting these diagnoses, and the drug prescriptions that follow, is going to be made a condition of membership in the national insurance plan. That’s why drug companies and insurance companies are on board. They are looking forward to more business.

I have made this offer before, and I’m making it again. Let’s have an extensive web debate about the science of psychiatry. Let’s air the whole thing out, with people from both sides at the podium. I’m not talking about sound bites. I want a thorough exposition. Let’s see who makes more sense.

Here is what I believe would be exposed. People would finally understand that committees of psychiatrists, in their deliberations, take menus of human behavior, and then they group behaviors into clusters. For each cluster, they determine there is a disorder. They sit in a room and argue all this out, and come up with labels and symptoms—and in this thoroughly unscientific fashion, they recycle human suffering and emotional pain and confusion and problems into neat categories. They provide no tests. They simply make the rules, and they expect obedience, because they are the self-appointed authorities.

This is a staggering fact. It may be hard to acknowledge the depth and breadth of the fraud, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t fraud. It only means people have been indoctrinated to salute “the experts.”

It also means other explanations are going to be needed for what we say are “crazy behaviors.” But that need doesn’t imply that the experts are right. It simply indicates we have been following an unproven path and we need to shift gears.

It’s always easier to give in to the experts. But Easier is not a scientific standard that should win our approval. Easier is what we opt for when we prefer a manufactured rigged consensus.

Independent thinking is a whole different animal. It applies and it challenges us across the board of our entire civilization. Should we believe what we are told without reflection? Should we buy the most popular items for sale? Or should we explore what lies beyond the comfort zone?

Close to 50 years ago, psychiatry was dying out as a profession. Fewer and fewer people wanted to see a psychiatrist for help, for talk therapy. All sorts of new therapies were popping up. The competition was leaving medical psychiatry in the dust.

As Dr. Peter Breggin describes it in his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, a deal was struck. Drug companies would bankroll psychiatry and rescue it. These companies would pour money into professional conferences, journals, research. In return, they wanted “science” that would promote mental disease as a biological fact, a gateway into the drugs. Everyone would win—except the patient.

So the studies were rolled out, and the list of mental disorders expanded. The FDA was in on the deal as well, as evidenced by their drug approvals, in the face of the obvious damage these drugs were doing.

So this is how we arrived at where we are. This was the plan, and it worked.

Under the cover story, it was all fraud all the time. Without much of a stretch, you could say psychiatry has been the most inept and widespread profiling operation in the history of the human race. Its goal has been to bring humans everywhere into its system. It hardly matters which label a person is painted with, as long as it adds up to a diagnosis and a prescription of drugs.

Fake science comes in many forms. Psychiatry is one of the most egregious forms ever invented.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com