Author Archives: Jon Rappoport

FALSE SCIENCE FOR THE MASSES

DECEMBER 21, 2009.  In modern times, false science is based on the notion that “overwhelming consensus” rules.

That’s the mantra.  ALL THE EXPERTS AGREE, so how could the truth be any different?

The mantra is recited as if the scientific method really IS about experts agreeing and NOTHING ELSE.

To deconstruct this idiocy, consider, first of all, that a few leaders can always affect the outlook of the many, even in the fields of scientific research.

If the top journals align themselves with a few “experts,” then the mid-range “semi-experts” will fall into line.  If they don’t, they won’t get their papers published.

Then, we have the closely related funding game.  The researchers who get grants to carry out their studies, so they can publish those studies, must follow the party line in their conclusions; otherwise, no $$ to do further studies.

These are the hard facts of life.

For example, in March of 1987, Peter Duesberg, a world-renowned molecular biologist, managed to get a paper published on the subject of HIV.  He offered evidence to suggest that HIV didn’t cause AIDS.

From that moment on, he was hounded by the “top experts,” there was no rational debate on his points, and eventually his funding and status at UC Berkeley were greatly diminished.

By this process, scientific dissidents in many fields are weeded out and sidelined, and then power players can say, “Well, the consensus is overwhelming in the direction of our conclusions.”  Yes, but the consensus is false and artificial and distorted and manufactured.

“We killed our enemies.  Now, we can write history, and we will be the consensus.”

Early in the 20th century, there was widespread Pellagra in the American South.  This skin disease was found, in 1915, to be caused by a deficiency in niacin.  However, for 20 more years, the experts refused to consider this simple cause and cure, and persisted in trying to find the germ that was at the root of Pellagra.  The consensus was wrong.

In the 1970s, a terrible neurological affliction dubbed SMON was prevalent in Japan.  Researchers, once again, were determined to find a germ cause.  However, through the heroic efforts of a few rebels, challenging the consensus, the problem was finally pinned down to a medical drug, clioquinol, manufactured by Ciba-Geigy.  A landmark court case settled the issue.

People insist that manmade global warming is threatening the planet.  Why?  Well, THE EXPERTS AGREE.  Therefore, it must be so. 

The reliance on consensus carried the day during the scourge of Pellagra and SMON, too, and many gullible people rode along on that tide, until the truth emerged.  They, too, said THE EXPERTS AGREE—until the experts were shown to be wrong.

In 2003, amid much media fanfare, a new disease was announced: SARS.  It was coming out of Asia, to the West, and it could decimate populations.  Medical researchers at 11 World Health Organization labs, linked by a closed Internet connection, worked furiously and came up with the cause: a so-called coronavirus.  No other labs were allowed to participate in this work.  In other words, a consensus was developed within a small circle.

But because the World Health Organization was in charge, the coronavirus finding was given top billing.

A few months later, it was discovered that many patients in Canada being diagnosed with SARS had no trace of this virus in their bodies. 

And finally, when all was said and done, and the hysteria died down, the official death figure, globally, for SARS was 262. 

Yet even today, there is still a consensus that SARS was a genuine epidemic.  “The experts agree.”

So there is science, and there is science for the masses.  In the latter version, manufactured consensus is all that’s required. 

Manmade global warming was, until recently, looked upon by most people as solid evidence-based science.  Now, the united front is splitting apart.  The skeletons are falling out of the closet.  The rational challenges are severe. 

All this should not come as a shock, but to most people, it does.  They have fallen under the spell of PR.  They believe it when the experts attack the skeptics as “denialists.”  They think the battle is between science and fundamentalist superstition.  But that’s one of the goals of the PR: to place all skeptics in the worst possible light.

The global-warming “experts” don’t want honest debate.  They simply want to say the debate is over and science has triumphed.  They have a kingdom to defend, and they do it by spewing generalities.

EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING.

EXPERTS AGREE.

WE’RE LONG PAST THE NEED FOR DISCUSSION.

THE SKEPTICS ARE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.

IF WE DON’T TAKE ACTION NOW, WE’LL LOSE THE PLANET.

THE SKY IS FALLING.

It’s not going to work. 

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

Consider supporting Jon’s work by doing your shopping through Jon’s Amazon link.

Climate Gods

DECEMBER 18, 2009.  At the core of the false science of manmade global warming is a project to transfer wealth.  However, precisely to whom this wealth would be given is unclear, and the question of how the money would be used is, at this stage, up in the air.

We know it’s a con and a fraud and yet another money-making proposition, but the details need to be spelled out.

This post (below) at EUREFERENDUM is a start.  It tells a very interesting story about power and money in the game of climate-change—the plan to build up developing nations through green technology.

The billions (trillions?) of dollars to carry out the job would come from governments (taxpayers) of wealthy countries. 

Lest you imagine vast garden paradises springing up in the Third World, read the EUREFERENDUM post carefully, and note some of the backers of this scheme.  It’s clear that transnational corporate control of agri-business and resource mining would go on unabated.  The green revolution may look nice on the surface, but it’s far from the whole story.

Here’s the article:

No one but the utterly naïve greenies believe that the Mann-made global warming hype is anything to do with climate – much less saving the planet. It is, as always, about power, influence – and money.

Out of literally thin air, the money-men have been able to conjure up a brand new product on which to increase their riches, the fabulous “carbon” which in less than a decade will – they hope – underpin an “industry” worth more than $2 trillion a year.

That alone justified the enormous effort which is being made to cement global warming as an issue in the public consciousness and, more importantly, in the legislative systems of the world. And it is the latter which is most important. Once the elimination of “carbon” is locked into enough legislative systems, it does not matter what people think – the revenue stream will be secure.

Bearing in mind that the issue is based on the central deception that the life-giving gas carbon dioxide is a “pollutant”, behind the push to create this multi-trillion dollar industry is a vast nexus of influence, at or near the heart of which – it is emerging – is the chairman of the UN’s IPCC, Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri.

Carefully cultivating the image of the concerned “scientist”, he has on the back of the global warming hype not only been able to amass a considerable personal fortune (about which he is extraordinarily shy) but has also built a powerful global organisation under the brand-name “TERI”, as the front for his lobbying and power-broking activities.

And, as one might expect, part of the Pachauri empire is a branch office in Washington DC, based at 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, within sight of the Capitol. Called TERI-NA (The Energy and Resources Institute, North America), it was set up as a “501(c)(3) company” (non-profit) in 1990, it is not even very discrete in its objectives, telling us that:

Its activities have centred around conducting research and organizing workshops/conferences to sensitize the decision-makers in North America to developing countries’ concern about energy and environment.

With Dr Pachauri as its president, it is being headed by a United Nations official, supposedly an impartial public servant, in charge of advising government on climate change. What is stunning, therefore, is to see the number of oganisations which are paying fees (sponsorship) to Pachauri’s Washington operation.

US readers, for instance, might be intrigued to learn that their tax dollars take a four-way hit. No less than four US government agencies pay into Pachauri’s pot, the US Agency for International Development, the US Department of Energy and US Environment Protection Agency. plus the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, a US Department of Energy National Laboratory, which also pays a contribution.

They are joined by the Norwegian Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency. We also have the World Bank and the World Bank Institute listed.

Indirectly, US taxpayers take another hit, being the major bankrollers of the United Nations. Four UN agencies contribute to the pot: the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Development Programme (GEF), the United Nations Office for Project Services and (strangely) the United Nations, Procurement Division, Missions and Project Procurement Service (MPPS).

Given Pachauri’s background, it is no surprise to find Big Oil represented, with Amoco Oil and Oman Oil listed amongst his sponsors. Then there is an outfit called FACTS Inc, described as “leading consultants in global energy”. They, no doubt, sit easily with the giant defence contractor Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation and Science Applications International Corporation, the ninth largest defence contractor in the United States.

Then there is the company specialising in pesticides and GM crops, Monsanto Enterprises Limited, plus Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited. It was incorporated in 1967 in financial and technical collaboration with the US Steel Corporation to manufacture urea. In 1973, Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited set up Goa’s first mega industrial undertaking.

This collection though, surely represents a greenie nightmare, which makes it all the more surprising to see the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) on the sponsor list.

Another interesting sponsor, the Econergy International Corporation. Founded as a consultancy firm in 1994, Econergy became a world leader in Carbon Credit generation, the General Manager of a $20 million clean energy investment fund in Latin America, and through its public listing on AIM (a market operated by the London Stock Exchange), an investor and project developer in clean energy projects in Latin America, the Caribbean (LAC) and other emerging economies.

In the same line of business, we also have GCSI Global – Global Change Strategies International – which has been taken over by Natsource Asset Management Services. This operation calls itself “a leader in the rapidly growing environmental markets, with a focus on the carbon market.” It has approximately $800 million in assets under management and commitments and attempts to assist its industrial clients reduce the cost of complying with emissions targets and provide superior returns to its investment clients.

Conflicts of interest anyone?

Then we have organisations pushing renewables, including the Pembina Institute of Appropriate Development, and the International Development & Energy Associates, a Swiss-based organisation which has a remarkably low internet profile. And we also have ICF International. This calls itself a “global professional services firm, partners with government and commercial clients to deliver consulting services and technology solutions in energy, climate change, environment, transportation, social programs, health, defense, and emergency management.”

Another interesting sponsor is SNC Lavalin, a company with a distinctly unsavoury past, having been involved in fixing power construction contracts in India.

Alongside such stars, of course, we have the great and the good, such as the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Foundation America, The Rockefeller Foundation (on which advisory Board Pachauri sits), the John D and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Ford Foundation.

Needless to say, there is then a whole raft of greenie and quasi-greenie organisations, such as the Alliance to Save Energy co-chaired by James E. Rogers, President and Chief Executive Officer of Duke Energy, and the Global Environment Facility, chaired by Mrs Monique Barbut, formerly Director of the Division of Technology, Industry and Economics of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

There is also money from the Burns and Roe Services Corporation, Charities Aid, the East-West Centre, the Environmental Law Institute, the Global Development Network, the Health Effects Institute, the International Development Research Centre and the International Institute for Sustainable Development plus the International START Secretariat.

So it goes on. We have the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility and an outfit called Resources For the Future which aims to improve “environmental and natural resource policymaking worldwide through objective social science research of the highest caliber.” The list of its board of directors makes interesting reading.

Also counted as sponsors are the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the SARI/Energy Small Grants Program, START (System for Analysis Research and Training) and the United States-Asia Environmental Partnership. American universities are also represented, with the University of California at Davis, the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and the University of Waterloo in the line-up.

The list finishes with the World Resources Institute, whose strategic director is William D. Ruckelshaus, a former administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the V Kann Rasmussen Foundation, Energy Foundation, which has “emphasized environmental grantmaking since it was founded in 1991.”

No one, it seems, can accuse Dr Pachauri of not having any friends and supporters. But, standing at the centre of this vast nexus of influence, he makes for some strange bedfellows, all apparently with a common cause. (end EUREFERENDUM clip)

Thus far, the notion of supplying and powering a whole Third World country with various types of alternative energy—solar and wind, primarily—has very little real-life traction.  The cost of carrying out such a plan would be staggering.  The amounts now being discussed are only a drop in the bucket.  A few years up the road, there would be further demands for more cash.  More wealth transfers.  And still the job would not be done.

And aside from this, are we to assume the dictators of some of those nations would stand aside and welcome in new green conquerors?  The bribes would reach to the stars.

There is much more to learn about the racket of the climate gods…

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

Absurd and MORE Absurd

DECEMBER 18, 2009.  As a reporter, whenever I run into something that sounds, looks, feels like, and adds up to, a non-sequitur, a chunk of absurd illogic, my eyes light up and rays of eager anticipation shoot out of my head.

I’ve got one of those absurdities, as far as I can tell, and I’m chewing on it.  It has to do THE THIRD WORLD and GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS.

I know I’m supposed to assume those two items go hand in hand and are intimately connected.  I’m supposed to assume the tie-ins are obvious.  But I restrain myself from believing as I keep chewing.

So let us begin.

I keep reading about efforts to help developing, poor, Third-World nations vis-à-vis climate change.

Forgetting, for the moment, fraudulent climate science, I want to understand what this “help” means.

On the one hand, there seems to be an implication that developing countries are inordinately spewing CO2 into the air.  Really?  Nations with a tiny fraction of the industry of First World countries are major bad actors?

Oh, you mean China and India.  Oh.  Well, in that case, just say China and India.  Are there any other “developing” countries that are major CO2 producers on a level with, say, the US and the EU?  I don’t see them.  Am I missing something here?  I thought part of the definition of “developing” was “very little heavy industry.”

On the other hand, there is a big push to help developing countries avoid the effects of global warming: massive floods, contaminated water, and deforestation.

Hmm.  Lots of developing countries already feature contaminated water, which is a prime cause of illness.  The problem has existed for a very long time—and there are many companies that could go into those areas and, for very little money, clean up the water.  Apparently, the men who run those nations don’t want their citizens to be healthy.

As for the devastating flooding and deforestation—if I’m not mistaken, the doomsday scenarios being painted by the climate PR gods would imminently affect EVERYONE on the planet, right?  Seacoasts washed away, drowning of cities and towns and villages and empty land.  I mean, according to these dire predictions, who would survive?  Fish?  So why focus on Third World countries? 

Then there is the “climate-change” goal of installing green energy technology in Third World nations, where, presently, relatively little energy technology and infra-structure exist at all.  Well, use all the windmills and solar collectors you want to, and the impact would be very small.  The cost would be huge.  With present green technology, you can’t make a dent in overall energy needs.  It doesn’t work.

However, you can doom those people to energy solutions that don’t pan out, and therefore you can provoke decades of continued primitive conditions. In other words, more of the same.  Grinding poverty, starvation, illness, death.

Since these issues aren’t hard to understand, I have to conclude that the real motives for (absurdly) linking climate-change and Third World “help” are different from the announced goals. 

In other words, behind these climate-change-Third-World non-sequiturs, certain people will make “green” fortunes; ultimately, depopulation in the Third World will quicken; “help for the poor” will function as a feel-good distracting cover story for the parallel weakening and destruction of carbon-based industry in the First World; the billions and trillions in money transfers from the First World to the Third World would aid in further bankrupting industrial nations, and certain perspicacious men would find ways of diverting and stealing those extraordinary sums of money in transit.

In this nightmare scenario, the agenda for a global management system (de facto world government) would advance, based on “the environmental threat.”  Save the planet by wrecking societies and economies.

Severely limit the legal ability and personal freedom to create new companies and businesses that aren’t overtly green.  Issue every citizen a ceiling-limit carbon card, from which deductions are made every time he buys energy or travels.  Base political/economic planetary control on set numbers for “total available Earth resources,” and from those numbers begin to allocate—from a central control point—how those resources will be accessed and deployed from one end of the planet to the other.

In this effort, it would be made clear that capitalism and the free market are passé, and the new wave would be “compassion for all” emanating from share-and-care world leaders who are governing and managing Earth.  You know, the people we can really trust.  The people who have no conflicts of interest.  The people who have nothing personal to gain.  The people who are kind and loving and gentle.  The people who can issue edicts and make them stick, with force if necessary.

Those people.

JON RAPPOPORT
www.nomorefakenews.com
www.insolutions.info

Warming the political planet

DECEMBER 17, 2009.  If the fraud called climate science is accepted by governments around the world, what actions will they launch?

First of all, judging by the Copenhagen Conference fiasco, the economic/political agenda has taken a hit.  But they’ll keep coming back for more, you can be sure of that.

Meanwhile, here is something I found at Watts Up With That?, a popular climate-science site.  In an article titled “Revealed: the UK government strategy for personal carbon rations,” by Tony Brown, there is a quote cited from the Environmental Audit Committee minutes, House of Commons:  

“Personal carbon rations would have to be mandatory, imposed by Government in the same way that food rationing was introduced in the UK in 1939… Each person would receive an electronic card containing their year’s carbon credits …the card would have to be presented when purchasing energy or travel services, and the correct amount of carbon deducted. The technologies and systems already in place for direct debit systems and credit cards could be used.”

Lovely.  Is there is also a deduction for the CO2 emitted during heavy breathing while watching porn?

Proposals like the one offered by the environmental audit committee stem from the imposed notion of LIMITS.  The total “safe” limit for carbon emissions on the planet.  The total limit of available resources in the world.  The limit of population. 

The Club of Rome is famous for discussing limits.  Implicit in all these boundaries is the idea that economies and governments must be planned and arranged, from the top down, based on calculations and models for “what is available on the planet.”

Some one-world thinkers also try to factor in “the pace of technical innovation,” as absurd as that guess would be.

Of course, throughout these models, we see plans for wealth/resource allocation and redistribution.  “The rich give to the poor.”

In fact, based on climate science, there is much talk of reparations to Third World nations.  For what?  The answers range from “poverty” to “loss of dignity.”  And this is connected to (fake) global warming exactly how?

If you want to repay Third World nations for insult and injury, why blame the millions of taxpayers who would shoulder the expense now?

But, I digress.  Actually, this wealth transfer and reparations scheme is just a cover story.  You can be sure that, among the miles of solar collectors and windmills in Africa, mining and drilling and giant agri-farming will step up operations—and grab some of that “reparation” to do it.  Free money is always welcomed.

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

Tricks in the globalist bag

DECEMBER 13, 2009.  Two important channels are being carved out by international UN agencies: medical intervention and climate-change.

In the first case, industrial nations are being urged to share medical supplies, drugs, vaccines, and doctors with poor countries, in order to “stem the rolling tide of epidemics.”  But this is just the tip of the iceberg.  The real push is for these wealthy nations to fork over money to support a vast global agency that would, increasingly and permanently, “govern epidemics.”  This would include all the tactics and logistics associated with such an enterprise: travel bans; quarantines; satellite hospital clinics; the dispensing of drugs and vaccines to far-flung regions of the globe; the selection of drugs and vaccines; new labs for testing; media PR; global computer networks; constantly roving virus hunters; medical embassies in every nation on Earth.

In the second case, nations are being told they must limit carbon emissions by a significant degree, in order to save the planet from manmade warming.  The infra-structure necessary to regulate that gargantuan wealth-redistribution plan would require a virtually limitless money hole.

Aside from the economic implications, these campaigns are preludes to agreements undermining national sovereignty.  IPCC and WHO (UN agencies spearheading climate-change and epidemic handling) are trying to become de facto governments with the power to regulate the behavior of national governments.

The Matrix Revealed

On the medical front, a permanent global agency would guarantee the promotion of more and more phony pandemics.  It would have to.  Otherwise, the agency would be unable to justify its budget and its existence.

The actual science on both manmade global warming and pandemics is fraudulent.  We are witnessing an Orwellian scheme to acquire international power over populations and government.

In the background, of course, are profit-making partners: pharmaceutical companies working hand in glove with the World Health Organization, and striving “carbon billionaires” who stand ready to adapt to any scheme laid on for CO2 regulation.

President Obama is eager to advance this double-barreled agenda, from America’s side.  At this point, the only monitor on his efforts to sell the farm is his own Centers for Disease Control, a powerful agency in its own right, which wants to share medical power with WHO.

The principles of globalism were engraved in stone a long time ago.  For at least half of the 20th century, the only questions were about strategy.  We have seen global trading markets and global money coalesce—now we have medical and industrial fascism on the march.    

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

Global warming fruad: agendas don’t care

DECEMBER 14, 2009.  Many environmentalists don’t care whether manmade global warming is real.  They see the Gore movement in a positive light because it fits their agenda.

Less heavy industry, low petroleum use, the potential return to “a better time,” in which simple living in nature triumphs over urban misery.

They don’t really care what the global warming science says, in its details, or how it says it or whether it is substantiated, fake, incompetent, or politically motivated.

What’s important is the overall vision, and whoever aids that vision, by any means, is invited to the party.

If Al Gore wants to live in his mansion and burn enough electricity to power a small town, if he and his cohorts fly to conferences in private jets that consume fuel like there is no tomorrow, who cares?  Al is their friend.  He’s on the right side of the overall issue.

If cap and trade, massive carbon taxes, wealth distribution among nations, new carbon billionaires are the means to the end, so be it.

All industry is evil, so suffering in that sector is perfectly acceptable.

IPCC, the UN agency pushing for a new global economy based on the notion of manmade warming, is a hero.  It doesn’t matter whether the warming science is valid.  It doesn’t matter how much political and economic control is placed in the hands of IPCC.

Toxic pesticides, looming water shortages, genetically modified food, giant agri-business rubbing out the small farmer, industrial pollution impacting health—these and other authentic problems stand a better chance of being resolved if manmade warming is accepted as fact.

If the sudden emergence of a new Nature religion, catching on like fire across the planet, could achieve the same results as manmade warming science and its political gunmen, then it would be all hail to the Goddess of Nature.

Agendas don’t care.

This is political realism.

This is the way the game works.

Holes in the ozone, a coming Ice Age, a sweltering planet, envisioned aerosol disasters, celebrities driving hybrid cars—there is no rhyme, reason, or logic to an agenda.  There is only a pragmatic calculation about the result.  What helps to bring about that result is good.  What hinders it is evil.

If five or ten fake pandemics can place the fate of nations under the control of agencies that also promote, like the IPCC, coerced wealth distribution among nations, then these “pandemics” are good.

If medical researchers can badly assert that unstoppable epidemics are emerging out of rainforests, and therefore half the world’s industries must be heavily curtailed and air travel must be restricted on a more or less permanent basis, then these researchers are allies.

Of course, the environmental agenda, at its highest levels, has covert aspects.  Oil producers see how restricting output can put far more money in their pockets.  A few corporations that build nuclear power plants are licking their chops.  They envision the day when most of the energy on the planet will stream from their reactors.  (They still haven’t figured out how to get rid of the spent fuel rods safely, have they?  Oh well.)

Personal and business taxes will rise to extraordinary levels.  In fact, national economies will exist, eventually, under the umbrella of a global management system.  “What is needed for all” will be determined by regulators.  Production quotas and price controls will become as established feature of everyday life.  The entrepreneurial spirit will become a dinosaur of a lost age.

Share-and-care collectivism will go global, and the masters of this system will, of course, care about nothing and share nothing, because, well, they are different.

For those who do care, the actual science behind manmade warming, which is the engine that is driving the next phase of this planetary collectivist revolution—what about the science?

Cracks and gaping holes emerged long before the recent release of emails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University.  The emails confirmed these problems.

There was the pesky MWP, the Medieval Warming Period, which appeared to mirror today’s temperatures—in which case, industrial CO2 emissions couldn’t be blamed for modern warmth.

There were periods in which trend-spoiling temperature declines took place, and the watchword became: Hide the Decline.  This admonition was echoed in the East Anglia emails.

Overall, charts showing a steady historical rise in Earth’s temperature were using a mixed cherry-picking strategy.  Use raw temp data here, use averaged homogenized data there, use “proxy” data from tree rings there, etc.  Eliminate annoying data.  Lose data.  Employ data in obviously invalid fashions.  “Make a collage” that suits the objective.

The now-famous “Harry please read me” emails reveal the enormous frustration felt by a technician brought in to make sense of East Anglia temp data records.  He found such a mess, he fell to his knees before the task.  In other words, there was no way to reconstruct the data upon which the whole assertion of manmade warming was based.

The East Anglia emails revealed illegal efforts to thwart FOIA requests for temperature data, efforts to keep certain skeptics’ papers from being published in “top journals.”  Eventually, Phil Jones, head of the East Anglia team, stated that reams of raw temp data had been destroyed.  He claimed he could reconstruct this gigantic set, but the effort, he said, would be a waste of time, since the science was already clear.

Because vast numbers of separate temperature measurements had been made over many years, in many places, on land, sea, and air, there was no way to simply look at them and decide what story they told.  Therefore, various models or systems had been applied to these measurements, in order to arrive at a coherent theory.  But the models had never been subjected to real and free and independent peer review.  A model is often just a complex structure built to spit out a predetermined result.  Conclusion?  The manmade warming models are not products of true science.  They are methods favored by those who are already devoted to a claim of manmade warming.

In fact, how one actually chooses a valid model is a very thorny question, and to this day, the question is unsettled.

In any case, no model now in use is precise enough to make specific temperature predictions about next year, five years from now.  Therefore, the basic test of any model—its capacity to make accurate projections which can be confirmed—is off the table.

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

AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH Dr. Barbara Starfield: Medically Caused Death in America

by Jon Rappoport

December 9, 2009

(To join my email list, click here.)

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock to the system, when one of its most respected and honored public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America.

The landmark Starfield study, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?,” (for pdf, here) 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 a total of 2.25 million medically-caused deaths in the US every 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.  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, it seemed that those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this mind-boggling situation preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email.

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

My papers on the benefits of primary care have been widely used, including in Congressional testimony and reports. However, the findings on the relatively poor health in the US have received almost no attention. 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).  They, of course, would like an even greater share of the pie than they now have, for training more specialists.  (Of course, the problem is that we train specialists—at great public cost—who then do not practice up to their training—they spend half of their time doing work that should be done in primary care and don’t do it as well.)

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate 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—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.

Do medical schools in the US, and intern/residency programs in hospitals, offer significant “primary care” physician training and education?

NO. Some of the most prestigious medical teaching institutions do not even have family physician training programs [or] family medicine departments. The federal support for teaching institutions greatly favors specialist residencies, because it is calculated on the basis of hospital beds. [Dr. Starfield has done extensive research showing that family doctors, who deliver primary care—as opposed to armies of specialists—produce better outcomes for patients.]

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

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

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

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

Has anyone from the FDA, since 2000, contacted you about the statistical findings in your JAMA paper?

NO. Please remember that the problem is not only that some drugs are dangerous but that many drugs are overused or inappropriately used.  The US public does not seem to recognize that inappropriate care is dangerous—more does not mean better.  The problem is NOT mainly with the FDA but with population expectations.

… Some drugs are downright dangerous; they may be prescribed according to regulations but they are dangerous.

Concerning the national health plan before Congress—if the bill is passed, and it is business as usual after that, and medical care continues to be delivered in the same fashion, isn’t it logical to assume that the 225,000 deaths per year will rise?

Probably—but the balance is not clear. Certainly, those who are not insured now and will get help with financing will probably be marginally better off overall.

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.

106,000 people die as a result of CORRECTLY prescribed medicines.  I believe that was your point in your 2000 study.  Overuse of a drug or inappropriate use of a drug would not fall under the category of “correctly prescribed.”  Therefore, people who die after “overuse” or “inappropriate use” would be IN ADDITION TO the 106,000 and would fall into another or other categories.    

‘Appropriate’ means that it is not counter to regulations.  That does not mean that the drugs do not have adverse effects.

Some comments from the interviewer:

I’m aware there are reports, outside the mainstream, which conclude 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.

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 nine 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.

In these times, medical schools continue turning out a preponderance of specialists who then devote themselves to promoting the complexities of human illness and massive drug treatment.  Whatever the shortcomings of family doctors, their tradition speaks to less treatment, more common sense, and a proper reliance on the immune systems of patients.

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

Nutrition, the cornerstone of good health, is ignored or devalued by most physicians.  Meanwhile, the FDA continues to attack nutritional supplements, even though the overall safety record of these nutrients is good, 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 or, at the very least, massively incompetent.  In other words, the whole literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.

At the same time, without evidence, doctors off-handedly tout their work with great confidence.  Some years ago, a resident at a major New York hospital harangued me about the primacy of controlled studies.  She boasted, in passing, that the hospital’s heart-bypass surgery team was considered the best in the city, and one of the best in the country.  I asked her for a reference.  Was her statement a combination of folk-wisdom and rumor, or was there a proper study that confirmed her opinion?  A bit chagrined, she admitted it was hearsay.  I was sure she would repeat her tune, however, many times.

Claiming evidence where there is none, and denying the evidence that the medical system does great harm, are apparently part of the weave of the modern Hippocratic Oath.

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 here.

The Big Medical Con Game: Teleseminar Dec 7th

The Big Medical Con Game: Teleseminar Dec 7th

by Jon Rappoport

December 4, 2009

This is a telephone seminar. After you sign up, you’ll receive an email giving you the phone number to call, and your personal passcode, to get into the seminar.

We’re keeping the cost as low as we can. Your $15 helps keep Jon’s work going, and it also means you’ll receive an mp3 of the event—so even if you can’t make the live call, you’ll receive the mp3 (4-5 days after the seminar).

Here is a note from Jon:

Lately, my work as escalated on the investigative front. I’ve been doing a number of radio shows and webcasts. The phony Swine Flu pandemic has focused millions of people on the practice of modern medicine.

So in this seminar, I’m going to explore central elements of the medical con game and cover new ground. Psychiatric drugs, more on vaccines, how medical PR and propaganda work, the true epidemic of medical-research fraud, and the granddaddy of all pharmaceutical cartels, the infamous Nazi IG Farben and its medical allies.

I’ll be expanding the time of the seminar to 90 minutes, and I’ll take as many of your questions as I can.

In these times, it’s absolutely necessary that we understand the true agendas of the medical complex and its deceptions and cons.

I hope you’ll be there, and I hope you’ll spread the word to your friends. Join me as I lay bare the medical machine.

And now, here is the first backgrounder for the seminar.

THE MEDICAL CON

The history of emergency, crisis, acute trauma medicine is the history of applying one cruel measure of success or failure: did the patient live or die?

There was no hiding the result. It was there for all to see.

The soldier lying wounded on the battlefield, the crash victim extracted from his car, the rescued half-frozen mountain climber—do the doctors put them back together, or do the patients fail to make it?

Over time, this branch of medicine achieved spectacular results. Yes, even ER heroics can be overworked and drive the patient into chronic disability, but all in all, we would have to say the field of emergency medical practice has been a major success.

The Big Con enters the scene when doctors pretend that such achievements can be assumed and inferred over the whole range of practice: all surgeries, drug therapy, treatment of chronic diseases, so-called mental disorders.

But through favoritism, partnerships with governments, and other monopolistic practices, modern medicine has been able to blur the standards of success or failure.

“We are the Only Ones. If we save a patient, if the patient succumbs, if the patient is injured by our work—it doesn’t matter, because no one in the world would be able to do better. Every treatment we apply is the best that science can offer at the moment. Therefore, we’re exempt from blame.”

Modern medicine has awesome PR capability. It has used that force to disseminate the notion that its successes in the ER are mirrored in all other branches of its work. And, of course, this is the big lie.

Because a doctor can repair a broken leg, does this mean he can wield a dangerous drug like Ritalin and better the life of a child who is bored in the classroom? Because the doctor can break up a blood clot that is threatening to kill a patient in the next hour, does that mean he can help a woman whose breast tumor would never progress to a dangerous stage—by removing both of her breasts?

Because the doctor can temporarily beat down an inflammation that is cutting off vital organ function, does that mean he can assist an immune-deficient patient by giving him a drug that nullifies the ability of immune cells to reproduce?

Because the doctor can stay an infection that has spiraled out of control, does that mean he can erase a prolonged state of depression by prescribing a medicine that unpredictably scrambles brain neurotransmitter processes?

These are questions that make no sense to most doctors. Relying on unscientific, slanted, fraudulent, incompetent studies, doctors will assert that their treatments for hundreds of conditions represent the frontier of what humans are able to do to help one another.

In these treatments, all real standards of success and failure are missing. There is no yardstick. There is only self-inflating propaganda.

When the practice of healing loses its way, and refuses to confess its lies, one result is the telling of bigger and more damaging lies.

The whole efficacy testing of vaccines relies on the faulty premise that the production of antibodies is the only goal. If a new vaccine can induce antibodies, it is deemed an unqualified success. However, in the last 25 years, antibody tests used to diagnose diseases have gained a new ascendance. If a patient is found to have antibodies to a particular disease-germ, he can be said to be infected by that disease.

On the one hand, production of antibodies via a vaccine is a sign of immunity to a disease-germ. But discovering those same antibodies during a diagnostic test is taken to mean the patient is ill or will become ill.

Admitting this gross contradiction would be akin to prosecutors, all over country, saying the last 20 years of their criminal cases have been wholly tainted by invented lab work, whose sole purpose was gaining convictions in court.

Once upon a time, it was well understood that the mere detection of a germ in the patient was insufficient for a disease diagnosis. It was necessary to establish that an army of millions of these germs was active in the body. Now, that is overturned. Again, the standard has been blurred and decimated. This sea change has paved the way for the declaration of epidemics where no epidemics exist. It has emboldened and empowered public health agencies all over the world to force vaccines and medicines on populations.

Following the money is easy. Drug companies accrue enormous profits from these escalating medical lies. In fact, the companies work hand in glove with medical researchers to foster the various cons.

In the immunization arena, no true controlled trials of new vaccines are carried out. There are no long-term studies which compare the outcomes in matched groups, where one group receives a vaccine and the other group does not. By “matched,” I mean equivalent nutritional status, equivalent environmental (toxic burden) status, equivalent immune-function, equivalent medical history.

The absence of such trials—and the accompanying lies about “scientific veracity”—benefits the vaccine manufacturers, who can claim efficacy and safety for their products without the application of a true standard of success or failure.

When a child who has just received a DPT shot begins to scream and suddenly spikes with a high fever and experiences seizures and subsequent brain damage, you are seeing the result of these lies and the intentional eradication of all standards.

You’re seeing how cold and vicious the practice of medicine can be, and how far it can depart from the simple notion of saving a human being’s life when he is lying on a battlefield or a highway.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Official Science: The Big Medical Con Game

Official Science: The Big Medical Con Game

by Jon Rappoport

December 4, 2009

The recent scandal surrounding fake climate–change science, and the scandal around Swine Flu, are both reflections of the same premise:

There are official scientists; everyone else is irrelevant.

This is a game that works, but in the age of the Internet, the walls are coming down. More and more independent researchers and investigators are challenging officialdom.

This challenge is not only aimed at exposing the con game in which some scientists hold power regardless of their ability; no, it’s more than that. It’s exposing the fake science itself.

And it’s catching on.

But in order to take the next step forward, people have to realize that, regardless of their training, they can recognize certain aspects of fake science.

For example: Where is the evidence that a mere trace of a virus can cause illness?

You see, these days, when a so-called new virus is found, it’s automatically assumed it is the cause of some illness.

So the question is: Who says so?

Where is the proof for that assumption?

Asking the question is already planting a dagger in the heart of disease research.

None of the standard tests for Swine Flu determine how much H1N1 virus is in the patient. If evidence exists that any amount of H1N1 is present, researchers assume it’s the cause of flu.

This is a lie.

I’ve approached several scientists with this issue, and they have all begged off. They say they don’t know “all the facts.” That’s a diversion.

All traditional research is based on the common-sense notion that, in order to contribute to disease, many millions of a particular germ have to be present in the patient’s body. You need an army.

About 30 years ago, this standard was thrown out the window. No reason was given.

If you think about it, this change opened the door to saying any old or new germ is causing disease.

That’s like saying any increase in the level of sun spots, no matter how tiny, can destroy the Earth.

It makes no sense.

And people everywhere can understand that, if they leave behind the foolish idea that “the experts must know what they’re doing.”

If some piece of science makes no sense to you, there’s a decent chance that it’s made-up science.

That’s how I got into medical reporting. I just started asking questions. If an idea seemed weird to me, I asked people about it, and I kept digging. Most of the time, what sounded weird to me turned out to be fraudulent.

Inner circles of official science don’t like that approach. They have their arcane language and their computer models and their projections all dressed up in obscure formulae—and they protect that territory. They don’t want intrusion.

“We know. You wouldn’t be able to understand it. Let us do our work.”

That used to fly, but not so much anymore.

The walls are coming down.

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

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.