Author Archives: Jon Rappoport

AMERICA’S LEADING PSYCHIATRIST CONVICTS HIMSELF OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

AMERICA’S LEADING PSYCHIATRIST CONVICTS HIMSELF OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

by Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

SEPTEMBER 2, 2012.  The medical cartel, one of a handful of evolving super-cartels that strive for more power every day, is rife with so much fraud it’s astounding.  In the psychiatric arena, for example, an open secret has been bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

But we have a mind-boggling twist.  Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public.  He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues.  And for 2 years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way.  It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV.  This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder.  The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

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

Well, sure.  If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the  297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.

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

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

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

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

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

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

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

Translation: People need to hope for the healing of their troubles; so even if we psychiatrists are shooting blanks and pretending to know one kind of mental disorder from another, even if we’re inventing these mental-disorder definitions based on no biological or chemical diagnostic tests—it’s a good thing, because people will then believe there is hope for them; they’ll believe it because we place a name on their problems…

If this is medical science, a duck is a rocket ship.

If I were an editor at one of the big national newspapers, and one of my reporters walked in and told me, “The most powerful psychiatrist in America just said the DSM is sheer b.s. but it’s still important,” I think I’d make room on the front page.

If the reporter then added, “This shrink was in charge of creating the DSM-IV,” I’d clear more room above the fold.

If the reporter went on to explain that the whole profession of psychiatry would collapse overnight if the DSM was discredited, I’d call for a special section of the paper to be printed.

I’d tell the reporter to get ready to pound on this story day after day for months.  I’d tell him to track down all the implications of Dr. Frances’ statements.

I’d open a bottle of champagne to toast the soon-to-be-soaring sales of my newspaper.

And then, of course, the next day I’d be fired.

Because there are powerful multi-billion-dollar interests at stake, and  those people don’t like their deepest secrets exposed in the press.

And as I walked out of my job, I’d see a bevy of blank-eyed pharmaceutical executives marching into the office of the paper’s publisher, ready to read the riot act to him.

Keep in mind that Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definition of Bipolar was expanded to include more people.

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

  • acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;
  • life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;
  • brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

  • intercranial pressure leading to blindness;
  • peripheral circulatory collapse;
  • stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:

  • serious impairment of cognitive function;
  • fainting;
  • restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).

Dr. Frances self-admitted label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of Ritalin (and other similar compounds) as the treatment of choice.

So what about Ritalin?

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

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

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

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

A recent survey revealed that a high percentage of children diagnosed with bipolar had first received a diagnosis of ADHD.  This is informative, because Ritalin and other speed-type drugs are given to kids who are slapped with the ADHD label.  Speed, sooner or later, produces a crash.  This is easy to call “clinical depression.”  Then comes Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft.  These drugs can produce temporary highs, followed by more crashes.  The psychiatrist notices the up and down pattern—and then comes the diagnosis of Bipolar (manic-depression) and other drugs, including Valproate and Lithium.

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”).  Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major tranquilizers.  (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991)

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on it week after week?  They are in harness.

And Dr. Frances is somehow let off the hook.  He’s admitted in print that the whole basis of his profession is throwing darts at labels on a wall, and implies the “effort” is rather heroic—when, in fact, the effort leads to more and more poisonous drugs being dispensed to adults and children, to say nothing of the effect of being diagnosed with “a mental disorder.”  I’m not talking about “the mental-disease stigma,” the removal of which is one of Hillary Clinton’s missions in life. No, I’m talking about MOVING A HUMAN INTO THE SYSTEM, the medical apparatus, where the essence of the game is trapping that person to harvest his money, his time, his energy, and of course his health—as one new diagnosis follows on another, and one new toxic treatment after another is undertaken, from cradle to grave.  The result is a severely debilitated human being (if he survives), whose major claim to fame is his list of diseases and disorders, which he learns to wear like badges of honor.

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

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

OBAMA AND ROMNEY ADORE THE THIRD LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN AMERICA

OBAMA AND ROMNEY ADORE THE THIRD LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN AMERICA

By Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have done everything they can to bring more people into the US medical system.  Radically changing that system has never occurred to these two clueless politicians.

Like much of America, they accept the cliches and slogans about American medicine.  “It’s the best in the world.”  “People are being denied treatment.”  “We must take care of our citizens.”

How about this accurate slogan: “Let’s force more Americans to die in the care of doctors.”

The American healthcare system, like clockwork, causes a mind-boggling number of deaths every year.

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when one of its most respected public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America. Starfield was associated with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

The Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, came to the following conclusions:

Every year in the US there are:

12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000.

THAT’S 2.25 MILLION PEOPLE KILLED PER DECADE.

This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer.

The Starfield study is the most explosive revelation about modern healthcare in America ever published in the mainstream.  The credentials of its author and the journal in which it appeared are, within the highest medical circles, impeccable.

Yet, on the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, although media reporting was extensive, it soon dwindled.  No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation.  Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this mind-boggling situation preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, two years before her death, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email.  Here are excerpts from that interview.

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

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

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

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

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

NO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies.  Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated…The US public does not seem to recognize that inappropriate care is dangerous—more does not mean better…Some drugs are downright dangerous; they may be prescribed according to regulations but they are dangerous.

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

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

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

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

Some comments from the interviewer:

Both presidential candidates ignore the truth about the US medical system.  They argue about whose plan is better for bringing more people into this killing machine.  And the major media play along.

There are reports, outside the mainstream, which conclude that far more than 225,000 people in the US die every year as a result of medical treatment.  For example, see the work of Carolyn Dean, Trueman Tuck, Gary Null, Martin Feldman, Debora Rasio, Dorothy Smith.

http://www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf

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

Yes, many persons and organizations within the medical system contribute to the annual death totals of patients, and media silence and public ignorance are certainly major factors, but the FDA is the assigned gatekeeper, when it comes to the safety of medical drugs.  The buck stops there.  If those drugs the FDA is certifying as safe are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the Agency must be held accountable.  The American people must understand that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are talking about crimes on the scale of holocaust and genocide.  Yet, we can hold a presidential election in which neither candidate even mentions the truth.  They sail on into the nominating conventions; they argue about issues on which they basically agree; they play the left-right paradigm like a harp; they practice the art of sounding sincere; they drag us further into a collectivist future in which murderous medical care will be required for all, from cradle to grave.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihm8NwzIZtg&w=480&h=270]

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

Global society collapsing! Water shortages! Baloney!

by Jon Rappoport

August 30, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

A new study from the Stockholm International Water Institute claims the planet’s fresh water supply is buckling under the weight of population growth.  In 35 years, we’ll all be vegetarians or we’ll go under.  No more cow meat for you, Bubba.  Raising cows uses too much water.  Reach for the soy cakes.

These projections are being trumpeted by the same people who assure us the world is heating up so fast that, if we want to avoid frying, we’d better give Al Gore another Nobel Prize and worship at his feet on the tarmac, as he jets off, spewing toxic fuel behind him, to address another inconvenient conference.

The radical environmentalist stance is: cows are out as human food; find your protein elsewhere.  Better yet, eat no flesh at all.

Fully intending to sidestep an endless debate about which of ten thousand diets are best for the human species, I would merely point out that, when humans enter the zone of protein malnutrition, they function badly and they weaken.  Their thought processes blur.  This suits many governments and elites to a T.  Dictators want debilitated subjects.  (I would also suggest that most soy products, when consumed in extreme amounts, produce toxicity.)

But the answer to the planetary water problem is staring us in the face: desalination.  Turn sea water into fresh water for drinking and irrigation.

In fact, this holy grail of research isn’t a distant dream.  As of 2009, the International Desalination Association stated there were 14,000 desalination plants operating all over the globe.

There are more than a dozen technologies for water conversion, including multistage flash, multiple-effect distillation, vapor compression, reverse osmosis, solar desal, and seawater greenhouse.  In other words, people know how to convert sea water to drinking water.  And new methods are coming online every year.

The problem begins when multiple government agencies get into the act with task forces, reviews, press conferences, committee appointments, more press conferences, drawn-out requests for information, hearings, and further press conferences.

Every petty bureaucrat everywhere has to be allowed to get his/her two cents in, to justify position and salary.  Preferably the two cents are spent before cameras, after suitable time with a make-up artist.

This madness is only matched by corporate bunglers and liars, who seek to build desalination plants in typical corner-cutting fashion.

In Carlsbad, California, the Poseidon Corporation, the Coastal Commission, public utilities, and various environmental groups have been going at each other for a decade.  It’s hard to tell who is more incompetent.  The overriding agenda seems to be: “Listen to me.  I want to talk.”  And this is the just the run-up to deciding whether to build a desalination plant, in order to relieve the growing state water shortage.  Untold millions of words have been spoken and written, and a shovel has yet to break ground.

A reasonable person can isolate the key desalination issues in about an hour.  How much sea life will be killed in the intake pipes that bring ocean water to the factory?  How will the concentrated toxic brine, after processing, be disposed of?  How much energy is required to make fresh water and what will it cost, per cubic foot?  Who will buy the fresh water, and at what price?  How will the water be shipped to customers?

A real leader could command the warring groups to answer these questions truthfully in a timely fashion, while keeping their mouths shut and foregoing braying press conferences.

Of course there are people with agendas who don’t want to solve the problem.  For example, certain environmentalists long for the fresh water supply of the planet to run out, to prove we humans are horrible creatures who don’t deserve to share Mother Earth with zebras and goats and scorpions.

They would be willing to sacrifice a billion or two thirsty people to make their point.  If we can’t survive on roots and tubers and live naked in trees, we should be dead-ended as a species.

Then there are governments who, on “principle,” deny the right of any evil corporation to convert sea water.  Water should be free, which is to say, paid for by taxes.  So it isn’t free at all, but it appears to be a government service donated for humane objectives.  The government needs its PR face time and press conferences, too.

If desalination approaches the point of threatening to solve the planetary water problem, the United Nations will undoubtedly present a plan that insists on a share-and-care approach.  For every cubic foot of water converted in California and shipped to in-state customers, a cubic foot must be delivered to sub-Saharan Africa, at an outrageous price, which will be subsidized by the bankrupt California government.  Otherwise, shut down every desalination plant in the state.  A round of press conferences will explain this thinking.

Public utilities have their own agenda.  They would prefer water-conversion plants utilize electricity from already existing facilities.  They want in on the action.

And of course, to the degree that the federal government cares about desalination as a solution, it will want to create its own agency to oversee a national program, whose m.o. will be: no bureaucratic idiot or piece of red tape or budget dollar left behind.

On the international front, the IMF will have its say (and its press conferences).  Its strategy is: make loans to Third World countries, wait for the countries to default on their repayments, move in, initiate a bailout, on the condition that public utilities must be sold to multinational corporations, who in turn will jack up the price of electricity, gas, and water and drive populations deeper into poverty.  These corporate giants will consider investing in desalination only if their profit margins are through the roof.  Currently, desalination costs don’t yield such profits.

Finally, dyed-in-the-wool heavy-hitter Globalists, who back the most extreme environmental groups, don’t want desalination at all.  It runs counter to their agenda of sowing chaos on a grand scale and then coming in behind that to build their new world.  They don’t want the water to flow.  They prefer dry ashes, out of which their fascist management system will rise, to run planet Earth.

One small and simple solution to all these roadblocks might be enacted in a state like Texas.  An honest start-up company builds a small desalination plant, a pilot project, a showcase, to prove how well and quickly water conversion can go online and succeed.  From inception, ten thousand heavily armed citizens surround the plant and defend it against all incursions.

The tag-line?  Decentralize Power.

Now, those press conferences I would show up for.

We have the water.  We have the technology.  We have the solution.  Don’t believe the prophets of doom.  It turns out they want doom.

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.

Dirty tricks alert: Bill Gates will smear and slime anti-vaccine advocates

Dirty tricks alert: Bill Gates will smear and slime anti-vaccine advocates

by Jon Rappoport

August 28, 2012

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Here is the direct quote from Bill Gates’ grant-award machine:

July 18, 2012… An anti-vaccine surveillance and alert system: Seth Kalichman [twitter, blog] of the http://www.uconn.edu/ in the USA will establish an Internet-based global monitoring and rapid alert system for finding, analysing, and counteracting communication campaigns containing misinformation regarding vaccines to support global immunization efforts. …(via technet21.org)… TechNet21 is generously supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, under the oversight of WHO and UNICEF. The information in this forum is provided by users, as a service…

Source:

http://www.technet21.org/index.php/issue-166/gates-foundation-awards-17-million-to-inspire-supply-chain-innovation.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:STCtOoU0cwQJ:www.technet21.org/index.php/forum/technet21/general-discussion/2972-gates-foundation-awards-1.7-million-to-inspire-supply-chain-innovation.html+gate+supply+chain+innovation&hl=en&gl=us&prmh

http://jonrappoportmedia.blogspot.com/2012/08/gates-foundation-awards-17-million-to.html

This means the attack is on.  Gates intends to do a surveillance operation across the Internet and locate anti-vaccine advocates.  His minions will then undertake a counter-insurgency campaign to neutralize them.

How does such an operation work?  I’ll tell you how it works: “This writer has no medical credentials.”  “This writer is spreading dangerous information that will harm children.”  “This filmmaker tells lies about the most important medical technology the world has ever seen.”  “The evidence for vaccination is overwhelming, and this writer is operating out of the Dark Ages.”

And that’s just the nice stuff.

“This writer was once an MD, but it’s been said he gave up his practice after several patients made complaints to the medical board.  Now he spends all his time attacking vaccines.  He’s a criminal menace.”

“Don’t read anything by this writer.  He’s obviously mentally ill.  He wants you to stop vaccinating your children, so they can catch life-threatening diseases.”

And it will go downhill and get nastier from there.

This is Nixon’s dirty-tricks war all over again.  But instead of having a few million dollars in a slush fund, Gates has billions at his disposal.

He’s going to use surrogates to do his work for him, so it will be difficult, in many cases, to know where the attacks are coming from.  That’s how cowards operate.  They slink around behind the scenes and let other people do the heavy lifting.

The last thing they want is an honest and open debate about the issue itself.  That would expose them.  The truth would expose them.

Gates is obviously out to create an atmosphere and set a tone for legislation that would make vaccination mandatory everywhere, with no exemptions allowed.  That’s what he’s shooting for.  That’s his wet dream, the one that goes hand in glove with depopulation, his mountaintop desire.

http://www.infowars.com/in-vaccines-we-trust-vaccine-inventor-paul-offit-seeks-end-to-religious-and-philosophical-vaccine-exemptions/

The press, as always, will be on his side.  They were on his side by giving short shrift to the explosive story out of India, where 47,000 cases of paralysis were caused by his polio vaccine.

http://www.naturalnews.com/035627_polio_vaccines_paralysis_India.html

He intends to create his very own Surveillance State, in which the targets are all Internet reporters and groups that have dug up the real facts about vaccines.  The facts the medical cartel wants to hide in their vaults: vaccine deaths, paralysis, maiming, brain damage, autism, immune dysfunction…

He wants to create a chilling effect, for those who are thinking about covering the vaccine issue honestly.

Well, here’s a newsflash.  Those facts are already out there, on thousands and thousands of sites.  The horse left the barn years ago.

He’s late to the party, but he’s going to throw a lot of money at the problem.  Essentially, he’s opting for suppression of accurate journalism.  Like so many before him, once he wrangled his fortune in the free market (?), he turned around and realized he didn’t want a semblance of freedom anymore.  He only wanted control.

Those of us who have been writing and speaking about vaccines for years would love to go up against Gates’ medical doctors in an open debate.  Nothing would please us more.  But Bill doesn’t want that.  People like him are terrified of openness.  So be it.

He can take the low road.  He’ll only induce more opposition.  That’s the way his style of attack works.  People who were asleep will wake up, once they realize he’s just another puffy Marmaduke who, when he doesn’t like the game, decides to take his bat and ball and go home.

And he will go home.

His money against our freedom is a game in which many of us like the odds.

Go ahead, Bill.  Deal your first greasy card from the bottom of the deck.  We’ve got eyeballs on you, too.

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.

HOW THEY CAN BRAINWASH YOU IN A PSYCH WARD

 

HOW THEY CAN BRAINWASH YOU IN A PSYCH WARD

by Jon Rappoport

August 27, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

In the wake of the Batman murders, there is much speculation about what psychiatric drugs James Holmes may have been taking. People are realizing, as never before, the power of these drugs to cause homicidal behavior and damage the brain.

 

In the case of the Marine, Brandon Raub, the “Facebook thought criminal” who was recently held against his will in a lockup and threatened with the drugs, we see how easy it is for the government to kidnap a citizen and subject him to Soviet-style incarceration.

 

Washington’s Blog, linked through infowars, has presented a compelling round-up of the reality of forced psychiatric care in America. It is clear that the federal government, on the vaguest of pretexts, can override state laws and put people in psych wards.

 

http://www.infowars.com/are-people-being-thrown-into-psychiatric-wards-for-their-political-views/

 

In the early 1990s, while researching the extension of the CIA MKULTRA (mind control) program, I had occasion to interview people who had been placed in mental institutions. This article is derived from their testimony, from numerous articles about the horrendous medical torture at two California prisons, Atascadero and Vacaville, and from Jessica Mitford’s landmark 1974 book, Kind and Usual Punishment.

 

The October 9, 1970, issue of Medical World News contained an article, “Scaring the Devil Out,” which revealed the use of a drug called succinylcholine at the Atascadero hospital for the criminally insane, and at the Vacaville Medical Facility. Succinylcholine (and a later drug, prolixin) were administered in a dosage “sufficient to induce general paralysis and respiratory arrest lasting up to two minutes.”

 

In a state of complete terror, the inmates would be lectured to by doctors, who told them they had to change their unacceptable behavior.

 

There is no essential difference between early basic CIA MKULTRA methods and the worst practices of psychiatrists in mental lockups. They both involve: isolation, duress, force, torture, and drugging.

 

There is no mystery about how and why these inhuman methods work. The patient is experiencing intense physical and emotional pain, and his response is often submission and compliance.

 

The patient wants to find out what is expected of him, and he agrees to it. A confession of a crime? Silence about what he knows? An expression of regret for what he has done or what he is accused of doing? A concocted story? He goes along.

 

This is why, for defendants like James Holmes, who is accused of mass murder and whose attorneys want to enter an insanity plea, the period of incarceration, during which he is “examined” to judge whether he is mentally competent, can be a very dangerous time.

 

As with the Arizona shooter, Jarod Loughner, the covert objective of this imprisonment can be the extraction of a guilty plea, which will eventually be entered in court.

 

The psychiatric drugs, particularly the so-called anti-psychotics, are used to put the patient in a state of semi-trance. Not only is he more suggestible and malleable, his brain is undergoing an assault, one effect of which is motor-damage. This is labeled tardive dyskinsia, to cover over the stark reality that the drugs are scrambling brain circuitry, often permanently.

 

Ordinary tranquilizers and sedatives can assist in this Nazi-like program.

 

Sometimes, friendly overtures from “good-guy guards” are used to make patients bond with their handlers, who then enlist patients’ cooperation in telling the right story and sticking to it.

 

Isolation from friends, family, and even lawyers makes the situation worse. The patient has to navigate his own way through a maze, deciding what to agree to and what to resist.

 

Early CIA MKULTRA experiments in the 1950s were not very sophisticated. Hypnosis, drugs, induced disorientation, force, threats, and suggestions were employed to forge “new personalities” for the victims. However, often the true result was simply victim compliance, offered with the hope of escape from the “treatments.”

 

It is the same in psych lockups. Barraged with crippling drugs, cut off from outside communication, the patient cooperates to avoid pain and fear.

 

One patient who had been held in a California psych ward told me: “I never lost track of the truth, but I could see they wanted me to agree with their diagnosis. They said I was a schizophrenic, and although I knew that wasn’t true, I went along after a while. I invented symptoms for the doctors. I played the part. I think they knew what I was doing, but they didn’t care. They just wanted to make sure their diagnosis would stick, so that when I was let out, my parents would be satisfied that I was crazy. That was the whole issue. My parents wanted to get off the hook. They wanted to believe they had never done anything wrong. They wanted to tell their friends I had a disease, schizophrenia, that’s all. I was ‘taking medication’ for it. I was ‘recovering.’”

 

Another patient from a mental lockup in the Midwest said: “They threatened me with electroshock treatments. I had heard how bad that could be. They just shoot electricity into your brain. It causes a seizure. They told me they could never be held responsible for it, because it was legitimate treatment. They said I could either be a very depressed patient who needed the shocks, or I could be a willing witness in a criminal case. I chose the second thing…”

 

He went on to say that, a year or so later, he realized “how much of a daze I had been in from the drugs,” particularly Haldol, a so-called anti-psychotic. “It was like slowly coming out of a blizzard, back into reality.”

 

These incarcerated people are not only placed in lock-up because their parents want to escape criticism, or the police want them to cooperate, or prosecutors want them to plead guilty to a crime. There are political prisoners as well. Law-enforcement agents are trained to believe these people, who speak out against the government, are inevitably holding dark secrets about terror plots.

 

Such a man, who was held for 72 hours after a court order, told me he was given “something like LSD or mescaline. They must have thought it was a truth drug, and I would spill my plans…I didn’t have any plans. I was just upset with the IRS. So I went on a weird trip from the drug. They interrogated me while I was high. I made up stuff. I don’t remember most of it. They were disgusted with what I was saying. I guess it didn’t make much sense. When they let me go, one guy told me they could get me back and give me a much higher dose of the drug, and then I’d be lucky to find my way home…”

 

None of the above touches on some of the worst horrors experienced by long-term mental inmates. Forced sex, frequent high-dose drugs that slam people into a barely coherent state, talk-therapy that degenerates into long hours of interrogation. Such a patient told me that, for a month or so, he actually believed he was “getting the best care in the world.” The interrogation was all about what he would reveal or not reveal about his treatment, if he was released from incarceration. Apparently, in his case, he was considered an experimental subject in a test of unapproved drugs.

 

Then there are the chronic casualties. After their confinement, they don’t have the competence to talk about what happened to them. They are too damaged to speak. In one such case, I was told by the patient’s parents, who were trying to pursue a lawsuit against the hospital, that as far they could tell, their son had received nothing but drugs. He hadn’t been overtly tortured. The drugs alone, which are prescribed by many psychiatrists in out-patient settings every day, had wrought so much destruction that the young man couldn’t finish his sentences or think in a straightforward fashion. He alternated between periods of silence and tantrums.

 

I did find one man who, refusing to talk about what had happened to him during his months in a psych ward, claimed he was a “secret agent for the other side.” This new assertion was contradicted by every available fact. Yet he believed it. He was never prosecuted as a spy. It is possible that he was worked on as part of an MKULTRA experiment, just to see whether this absurd belief could be successfully planted in his mind.

 

We are presented with psychiatry as the epitome of advanced brain science, practiced for the good of humanity. This is a lie. It is a lie in the psychiatrist’s office, and in the mental institution.

 

As I’ve written before, there isn’t a single laboratory test to confirm the diagnosis of any of the 297 officially designated mental disorders. Yet, the drugs given after the diagnoses all carry the high risk of terrible effects on the body and brain. From Adderall and Ritalin to Paxil and Zoloft, from Valproate and Lithium to Haldol and Risperdal, the prescribing doctors are playing with fire.

 

The FDA, who approves these drugs as safe and effective, sits on a mountain of lies and crimes against humanity.

 

We must, at a bare minimum, maintain the inviolable freedom to refuse medication. It is a basic right, and we must protect it.

 

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

PROZAC? ZOLOFT? PAXIL? DID ONE OF THESE DRUGS DRIVE THE EMPIRE STATE SHOOTER?

 

PROZAC? ZOLOFT? PAXIL? LEXAPRO? DID ONE OF THESE DRUGS DRIVE THE EMPIRE STATE SHOOTER TO COMMIT MURDER?

By Jon Rappoport

August 25, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Jeffrey Johnson, a disgruntled ex-employee of a Manhattan company, Hazan Imports, is accused of killing a former co-worker before engaging police in a shootout that left two people dead and nine wounded at the Empire State Building.

In assessing possible reasons for the attack, police and FBI will omit one glaring possibility: Johnson’s festering resentment was ignited and driven over the edge by an SSRI antidepressant: Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.

On September 14, 1989, in Louisville, Kentucky, another disgruntled ex-employee, Joseph T Wesbecker, entered the premises of his former company, Standard Gravure, killed eight people, and wounded 12. He then killed himself.

A month earlier, Wesbecker had started on a course of Prozac. Eventually, the people he wounded, and families of the deceased, filed a lawsuit against Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, claiming that the drug had pushed Wesbecker into murder.

At the time, Lilly was facing a number of potential lawsuits on this very issue, and the Wesbecker case was crucial to establishing a precedent. Lilly knew Prozac could induce violence. If they lost the Wesbecker case, they would face a flood of similar court actions and a loss of business and reputation.

An instructive article, “Protecting Prozac,” by Michael Grinfeld, in the December 1998 California Lawyer, describes the astonishing Wesbecker trial.

Grinfeld details a set of maneuvers involving attorney Paul Smith, the plaintiffs’ lead counsel.

After what many people thought was a very weak attack on Lilly by lawyer Smith, the jury came back in five hours with an easy verdict favoring Lilly and Prozac.

Grinfeld writes, “Lilly’s defense attorneys predicted [their victorious] verdict would be the death knell for [anti-]Prozac litigation.”

“Rumors began to circulate that [prior to the trial] attorney Smith had [illegally] made several oral agreements with Lilly concerning the evidence that would be presented, the structure of a postverdict settlement, and the potential resolution of Smith’s other [anti-Prozac] cases.”

In other words, the rumors said: This lawyer made a deal with Lilly to present a weak attack, to omit evidence damaging to Prozac, so that the jury would find Lilly innocent of all charges. In return for this, the case would be settled secretly, with Lilly paying out monies to Smith’s clients. In this way, Lilly would avoid the exposure of a public settlement, and through the favorable verdict would discourage other potential plaintiffs from suing over Prozac.

The rumors congealed. The judge in the case, John Potter, asked lawyers on both sides if “money had changed hands.” He wanted to know if the fix was in. The lawyers said no money had been paid.

Judge Potter didn’t stop there. In April 1995, Grinfeld notes, “In court papers, Potter wrote that he was surprised that the plaintiffs’ attorneys [Smith] hadn’t introduced evidence that Lilly had been charged criminally for failing to report deaths from another of its drugs to the Food and Drug Administration.”

Judge Potter alleged that “Lilly sought to buy not just the verdict, but the court’s judgment as well.”

In 1996, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued an opinion on all this: “… there was a serious lack of candor with the trial court and there may have been deception, bad faith conduct, abuse of the judicial process or perhaps even fraud.”

After the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the state attorney general’s office, the whole matter dribbled away, and then resurfaced in a different form, in another venue. Finally, the original judgment in the case was allowed to stand. Lilly had won the battle.

It’s important to note that the violence-inducing effects of Prozac apply, as well, to the other SSRI antidepressants, such as Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, and Lexapro.

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

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

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

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

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

An earlier study, from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases, people on Prozac developed what is called akathisia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.”

Breggin comments that akathisia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathisia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathisia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

Akathisia can also occur after taking a non-SSRI antidepressant, Wellbutrin.

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

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

July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”

September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.

In the current case of the Empire State shooter, why don’t police and district attorneys immediately check on the accused’s psychiatric-drug status? Why isn’t that right at the top of the list?

Because, in a crime of murder, how many cops and prosecutors want to go to war with “psychiatric experts” and drug companies?

As time passes, fewer and fewer.

It may appear that the days of accusing psychiatric drugs of inducing murder are over, because “we have better knowledge now,” or “the newer drugs are safer.” That’s what the drug companies would like you to assume. But the truth is, the drugs are just as dangerous. The law-enforcement community has decided to take a pass, though. They would rather keep blinders on.

However, the configuration and unfolding of the James Holmes case in Aurora is going to ignite new fires, despite the police and FBI wanting to leave the lid on.

Warning: Sudden withdrawal from any psychiatric drug can be highly dangerous to the patient. See www.breggin.com for advice on this subject.

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

West Nile: They’re lying to you again

West Nile: They’re lying to you again

by Jon Rappoport

August 23, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The government PR machine has swung into high gear promoting West Nile disease. It’s a “national outbreak.” 1138 cases in 38 states. 41 deaths. Planes are spraying toxic aerial pesticides.

Never mind that the US Centers for Disease Control claims 36,000 people die every year from ordinary seasonal flu—and there are no announcements of an “epidemic” or an “outbreak.”

Never mind that the World Health Organization (WHO) claims between 250,000 and 500,000 people die every year from ordinary seasonal flu—and this isn’t called an “epidemic” or an “outbreak.”

If you added up the death count from all the hyped and predicted epidemics of the last decade, including West Nile, SARS, bird flu, weaponized smallpox, and Swine Flu, the total would come to about one year of deaths in the US from ordinary flu.

But who cares about facts? What’s important is how much fear can be generated. That’s the statistic that counts, when you’re talking about the CDC or WHO.

And when it comes to the public, it seems that some people feel a morbid attraction for viruses. Every time a new one is announced, they rub their hands together and say, “This is the big one! It’s going to spread like wildfire!”

Other people, involved in natural health, who reject huge amounts conventional medical wisdom, nonetheless make the mistake of buying the virus of the moment. They automatically accept it as real and then figure out how to treat it naturally. That can be a big mistake.

Have researchers ever actually isolated (found) the West Nile virus? You should be asking that question.

You should always question what the CDC tells you.

The deepest form of medical-research chicanery comes when scientists claim they’ve found a new virus and they haven’t. They haven’t nailed it down. They say they have, but that’s not true.

People have a hard time fathoming this. They will accept the fact that a medical drug touted as miraculous really causes heart attacks, strokes, and death, but for some reason The Virus is sacred territory. “Scientists would never lie about that.” Really? Why not?

Do you think discovering a new virus is like dipping a tweezer into a dish of liquid and picking out a little critter who is shaking his legs? And therefore, nobody can lie about it, because it’s either there or not? No, that’s not the way it works.

A new virus is discovered by taking a tissue sample suspected of harboring it; then that sample must be transferred to a fine filter that will trap the virus. That’s how the initial all-important isolation process is begun.

In the case of West Nile, this was attempted in 1999. It was called a success, but there was a major problem. As I stated in a previous article:

Researchers claim the West Nile virus is 0.04 micrometers. At the same time, they admit that the original fishing expedition for the virus employed filters that were 0.22 micrometers. The obvious conclusion? The filter was too porous. It was nearly six times larger than the virus.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117258&page=4

In fact, Robert McLean, director of the National Wildlife Center of the US Geological Survey, told ABC’s Nick Regush, “We don’t have a purified form of the [West Nile] virus.”

A stunning admission.

The late ABC reporter, Regush, followed up on McLean’s pronouncement with this: “I find no evidence anywhere in the scientific literature that the rules of virus purification and isolation were thoroughly followed [in the case of the West Nile virus].”

People respond to these assertions with an accusatory tone: “Then what’s making people sick? Why are people dying?”

People getting sick and dying doesn’t necessarily have a connection to why health authorities are telling you they’re dying.

If a newspaper reported that a hurricane in Missouri killed 12 people, and then you discovered there had been no hurricane, would you insist on pretending there was, because 12 people died? No, of course not. You would assume the people died for other reasons.

It’s the same situation with West Nile. People get sick and die all the time. If the virus that supposedly is causing an outbreak of illness has never been found, you look for other causes.

Again, from my previous article:

There are some good reasons people in the Dallas area are getting sick. These reasons have nothing to do with “West Nile.”

A decade ago, independent journalist, Jim West, launched an original investigation into the so-called “West Nile epidemic” in New York City.

http://www.naturalhorse.com/archive/volume4/Issue6/article_8.php

West correlated clusters of human and bird “West Nile” cases with several factors; among them, nearby polluting oil refineries, other air pollution (certainly exacerbated by hot summer weather), and the presence of toxic MTBE, an additive that makes gasoline in cars burn cleaner.

There are listings for at least eight refineries in the Dallas area. There are also reports of increased air pollution coming from natural gas production in the Barnett Shale. The 2012 summer has been hot. As of of the year 2000, Texas refineries were producing 75% of all the MTBE in the United States.

And since this has been a very hot and dry summer in other areas of the US, high-air-pollution locales have intensified.

Am I saying that the never-isolated “West Nile virus” might be functioning as a cover story, to conceal what is really making people sick? Absolutely.

As an illustration, the medical history of the African continent is replete with such cover stories. Over and over, germs have been heralded as the cause of people dying in great numbers.

Centuries-old causes of ongoing death in Africa were intentionally overlooked: contaminated water supplies; horrible sanitation; overcrowding; generation-to-generation malnutrition and starvation; stolen farm land.

Most Americans automatically assume the arrival of western doctors with drugs and vaccines is a good sign for Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth. The doctors are sent there to cover up the truth.

Why? Because many interested parties, powerful players inside and outside of Africa, want the true and persisting causes of illness and death to remain, in order to keep the population weak and controllable. It’s easy to hide this agenda by advertising a fake disease-cause and a fake medical remedy. Medical intervention will never cure what’s ailing Africa. If you walked through a swamp of filthy contaminated water every day on your way to work, do you think a course of antibiotics would keep you healthy?

Here in America, when various toxic environmental causes of illness bring people down, there needs to be a cover story as well. The most believable cover is The Virus. It works. People stand up and salute it. They’re saluting it now in Dallas and other places.

I don’t care how many pictures of how many mosquitoes are adorning television screens and newspapers. “Oh, the mosquito carries the West Nile virus!” Really? Even if no one ever found such a virus?

Buy the virus story if you want to. Everyone has that freedom. But science is supposed to be about proof, and in the case of West Nile, it’s all supposition and presumption and lying.

The medical PR machine will grind on. New stories will appear. “The worst summer ever.” “New deaths from West Nile.” “More mosquitoes carrying the deadly West Nile virus found.” “The very young and elderly at greatest risk.” “Medical experts try to discover why West Nile returned with a fury.”

How many people will give in at each new barrage of propaganda and accept the virus story?

Remember Swine Flu? The whole planet was going to go down. In the end, WHO announced the total global death figure as 20,000. Then, in a mindless burst of revisionism this year, the total was changed to 580,000.

Here’s a number for you. Three maniacal spokespeople from the CDC, backed by five major television networks, can brainwash the public about a virus in seven 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

MEDICAL REPORTERS ARE DESTROYNG OUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT MEDICINE

 

MEDICAL REPORTERS ARE DESTROYING OUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT MEDICINE

by Jon Rappoport

August 22, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

As a medical investigative reporter for the past 30 years, I’ve found facts and connected dots. I’ve discovered that reporters in the mainstream are opposed to connecting dots. They won’t go there. They know they’ll be rejected by their editors and, if they persist, they’ll be demoted or fired. That’s the way the job works.

Mainstream reporters aren’t supposed to make inferences from facts. They’re supposed to solicit comments from “experts” on both sides of an issue and then slant the story toward the favored side.

This is especially true in the medical arena, which is a sacred cow. When editors want to restrain wandering medical reporters, they take them off hot stories and assign them something pedestrian.

In the summer of 2009, Sharyl Atkisson of CBS exposed the fact that the CDC, responsible for counting the number of Swine Flu cases in America, had stopped counting. This was a blockbuster revelation. On the heels of Atkisson’s discovery, the CDC announced a lie so absurd it produced gasps of shock even within the mainstream medical-reporting community: suddenly, the several thousand cases of Swine Flu in the US were TEN MILLION.

Anyone with a grain of common sense could connect the dots: the CDC was lying to cover up the fact that Swine Flu, at best, was a very light non-epidemic, and all the fear-based hype was empty. The push for everyone to get vaccinated was venal and stupid.

In a reasonable world, CBS and other networks, to say nothing of the NY Times and other major papers, would have gone after the CDC with hammer and tongs. They would have attacked until the CDC was a smoking wreck.

But these media outlets backed off and pretended there was nothing to see, nothing to infer, nothing to connect.

At CBS, Atkisson was sent off to cover other stories. That’s the way it works.

Here is the interesting part. If these dying networks and newspapers had actually pursued the CDC story, they would have attracted huge audiences. The public wants this kind of information. The public is hungry for it.

So you could say major media are digging their own graves. They’re not so much being phased out by the Internet; they’re committing suicide.

They insist on remaining part of the problem, at their own peril.

Here is another example:

Glaxo, the drug giant, was recently fined $3 billion for bribery, fabricating drug-safety data, and fraud.

Only a fool, however, would assume this legal attack against Glaxo would stop them from lying, cheating, and endangering the public in the future.

The $3 billion Glaxo fine covered scheming, lying, and cheating in connection with three of its drugs: Paxil; Wellbutrin; and Avandia. Total sales of those drugs during the period of time in question? 27.9 billion dollars. Three billion dollars is a drop in the bucket. And Glaxo was comfortably prepared to pay the fine. It had money set aside for that day.

So the fine was just the beginning of the story. An outlet like the NY Times could have set their hounds loose and dug up inside information on how Glaxo managed their crime and their anticipated fine, from the get-go. That would have been, in time, a hurricane of a story. It would have exposed Glaxo as an ongoing RICO operation.

And then the question of why no Glaxo executives were prosecuted by the Dept. of Justice and sent to prison would have had teeth.

Day by day, week by week, the media story would have gained legs. The public would have been transfixed as Glaxo executives came out and made confessions to reporters.

This is what connecting the dots means. This makes stories grow and expand, and nets more criminals. This is what reporting is supposed to do.

So why don’t major media outlets become relentless in their coverage? Why don’t they multiply their readership and viewership by millions of people? Why don’t they succeed?

The answer to those questions has layers. First, there is the obvious advertising revenue at stake from drug companies. A former reporter for a Los Angeles daily paper told me that, on the heels of publishing a story critical of vaccines, the editor of the paper received a visit in his office from pharmaceutical executives of a company that was buying ads in the paper. These execs didn’t stand on ceremony. They read the editor the riot act.

On another layer, all major media outlets understand that stories highly critical of the medical cartel—when pursued to full exposure—are a taboo. They’re not allowed, because the cartel deeply involves the federal government as an active partner. The cartel is one of those too-big-to-fail institutions. The money at issue is enormous.

On a third layer, we have the ever-popular “national security” dictum. That’s right. The interlock among medical schools, the FDA, doctors, drug companies, and researchers is considered “vital to the interests of the nation.” If the NY Times went up against that, they would pay a big price. They would find themselves on the receiving end of FBI investigations and IRS investigations and bank foreclosures on their debts and union work stoppages. It would be a pitched battle.

I’ll tell you something, though. If the NY Times had the balls and the commitment, the outcome would be a toss-up. If the paper didn’t blink and kept turning out copy on deepening medical investigations—including copy on how the paper was being attacked for speaking the truth—they could print three editions a day and they would have readers knocking each other down to snatch a copy off a newsstand.

But this is just a fantasy, because finally, it turns out that the Times, and every other major media operation in America, is inextricably linked with top-level globalist criminals. These media giants are engaged in an ongoing pysop of programming their audiences to accept official authority without questioning it. The medical cartel is a key player in the Globalist takeover of nations:

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/08/16/the-medical-cartel-is-king-in-a-globalist-world/

In medical circles, it’s known that the American medical system kills 225,000 people a year. That’s 2.25 million killings per decade. (See: Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”)

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

Even an idiot can see that, as a story, this has gigantic staying power. The NY Times and the Washington Post could attack it from so many angles and chase so many rats out of the woodwork, they would make Watergate look like a biddies’ embroidery club in Kansas.

You would have front-page revelations for months on end. Just for starters, the FDA, which approves as safe all the drugs that cause these deaths, would be exposed as the Gambino or Gotti of the medical universe.

Obamacare, which will drag millions of new unwary customers into the system, exposing them to death and destruction, would be crushed underfoot like an old beer can in the street.

But the operating strategy of media megaliths is limited hangout. They squeeze out a few facts like toothpaste from a tube, and then they back away. They don’t make the connections they know are there. Reporters, their foot soldiers, acquiesce and whiten their teeth and buy new suits and visit psychiatrists, where they’re diagnosed with clinical depression and given drugs.

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

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

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

For any ambitious medical reporter, the quote could have been the jumping-off point for an investigation aimed at taking down medical journals and the whole peer-review system that underpins medical publishing.

But nothing happened. No dots were connected. The quote was left hanging in mid-air like a Hindenburg whose explosion had been indefinitely postponed.

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

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

Here’s another quote from the same article:

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

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

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

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

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

And when it doesn’t happen, even bright readers tend to think they haven’t read those quotes correctly, because if they had, surely some investigation would have been mounted; surely somebody would have been indicted and prosecuted; surely the whole medical system would have undergone a revolution.

No. Instead, by failing to connect the dots, the major media are killing themselves off; they are faking it day by day; they are putting on mask after mask and pretending to be wise and cognizant of the latest developments. It’s all a con. It’s a con of cons, and it’s going bankrupt, as Internet reporters now carry the real freight.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new 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

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Facebook, the CIA, DARPA, and the tanking IPO

Facebook, the CIA, DARPA, and the tanking IPO

By Jon Rappoport

August 20, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.

Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.

Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.

In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”

That’s not the only connection between Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.

With these CIA/Darpa connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who could fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?

But now the Facebook stock has tanked. On Friday, August 17, it weighed in at half its initial IPO price. For the first time since the IPO, venture-capital backers were legally permitted to sell off their shares, and some did, at a loss.

Articles have begun appearing that question Zuckerberg’s ability to manage his company. “Experts” are saying he should import a professional team to run the business side of things and step away.

All this, despite the fact that Facebook’s first posted revenue as a public company has exceeded analysts’ predictions, according to the LA Times.

This has the earmarks of classic shakeout and squeeze play. It’s how heavy hitters gain control of a company. First, they drive down the price of the stock, then they trade it at low levels that discourage and demoralize the public and even semi-insiders. As the stock continues to tank, they quietly buy up as much of it as they can. Finally, when the price hits a designated rock bottom, they shoot it up all the way to new highs and win big.

And they hold enough shares to exert more control over the company itself.

That is how Facebook will survive. Zuckerberg’s grip on Facebook will loosen.

The company is too important as a data-mining asset of the intelligence community to let it fall into disrepair and chaos. The CIA and its cutouts will save it and gain more power over it. It’s what they’ve wanted all along.

From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for “exceptional children,” CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track.

CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a standard operation for agencies like the CIA.

When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Now it’s time for Zuckerberg to pass the baton to his handlers, so they can maximize the economics of Facebook and utilize it to spy even more extensively.

The media will play along, pretending the eventual upswing-recovery of Facebook stock happens for fundamental reasons connected to the company’s “better level of performance.” The media take this approach to every stock and every company, to avoid letting the public know how massive manipulation actually runs these trading markets.

Sources:

http://www.crunchbase.com/person/jim-breyer

http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=1601

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 OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Dear Dallas: No one ever proved West Nile disease exists!

Dear Dallas: No one ever proved West Nile disease exists!

By Jon Rappoport

August 17, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Now that Dallas officials have decided West Nile Disease has killed 14 people in the area and infected 557 more, the aerial spraying of a pesticide called Duet will begin (has begun). The objective? Wipe out mosquitoes that carry the virus.

But here’s the bombshell: there is no evidence that the supposed virus causing West Nile exists. This means there is no proof West Nile disease exists.

And this fact has been known for years. Scientists don’t like to talk about it. It’s extremely embarrassing.

The West Nile virus has never been isolated. “Isolated” means discovered. This is a simple notion. Just as you can ask whether an explorer on a ship, journeying to the tip of South America, ever arrived, you can ask whether researchers ever found the West Nile virus.

The answer is no.

Researchers state the virus in question is 0.04 micrometers. At the same time, they admit that the original fishing expedition for the virus employed filters that were 0.22 micrometers. The obvious conclusion? You cannot assume that whatever was trapped in the filter was West Nile virus. The filter was too porous. It was nearly six times larger than the virus.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117258&page=4

In fact, Robert McLean, director of the National Wildlife Center of the US Geological Survey, told ABC’s Nick Regush, “We don’t have a purified form of the [West Nile] virus.”

A stunning admission.

The late ABC reporter, Regush, one of the few bright and independent minds in mainstream medical reporting, followed up on McLean’s pronouncement with this: “I find no evidence anywhere in the scientific literature that the rules of virus purification and isolation were thoroughly followed [in the case of the West Nile virus].”

The bottom line? In your search for a new virus, if you don’t purify the material in which you suspect the virus is contained and filter out everything except the virus, and if you don’t finally isolate it, you cannot claim to have located it at all. This is not a mere academic distinction.

Two questions immediately pop up. How are people being diagnosed with West Nile if the virus has never been proved to exist; and what is making people sick if not West Nile?

The answer to the first question is: antibody tests. These extremely unreliable diagnostic tests are indirect. They supposedly show that elements of the patient’s immune system have encountered, in this case, the West Nile virus, in the patient’s body.

But antibody tests can and do register positive for irrelevant reasons. It’s called cross-reaction. The test is pinging positive because other germs or debris in the patient’s blood have caused the sensitive material in the test to respond.

It’s a notorious fact in the case of HIV, for example. In the early 1990s, independent journalist Christine Johnson published a report showing that the HIV test could read falsely positive for 60 reasons—none of them having anything to do with HIV. Other researchers followed suit.

http://www.healtoronto.com/hivtest.html

A patient “testing positive” for West Nile proves absolutely nothing.

As to the second question, there are some good reasons people in the Dallas area are getting sick. These reasons have nothing to do with “West Nile.”

A decade ago, another independent journalist, Jim West, launched an original investigation into the so-called “West Nile epidemic” in New York City.

West Nile Virus: Horse Puckey?
http://www.naturalhorse.com/archive/volume4/Issue6/article_8.php

West correlated clusters of human and bird “West Nile” cases with several factors; among them, nearby polluting oil refineries, other air pollution (certainly exacerbated by hot summer weather), and the presence of toxic MTBE, an additive that makes gasoline in cars burn cleaner.

Citizens of Dallas should take a clue from Jim West’s work and examine their own environment for these factors.

There are listings for at least eight refineries in the Dallas area. There are also reports of increased air pollution coming from natural gas production in the Barnett Shale. The 2012 summer has been hot. As of of the year 2000, Texas refineries were producing 75% of all the MTBE in the United States.

Now that 20 states have banned or reduced use of MTBE, the domestic market has declined. However, there are new horizons for the chemical: China wants it. The Huntsman Corporation, which owns one of the largest MTBE-producing plants in the US, in Texas, has signed a licensing and production agreement with the Chinese chemical company, Yantai Wanhua.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/huntsman-and-yantai-wanhua-polyurethanes-sign-pomtbe-license-agreement-122577543.html

How embarrassing would it be for Huntsman’s burgeoning business if, in its own Texas backyard, MTBE was found to be contributing to illness and death?

Much easier to blame it on a virus that has never been found. And much easier if other Texas sources of air pollution are also let off the hook.

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