Interview with a Retired Vaccine Researcher

“[These days,] If I had a child, the last thing I would allow is [my child to be vaccinated].”

by Jon Rappoport

December 18, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher who worked for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government’s National Institutes of Health.

Mark retired in the 1990s. He says he was “disgusted with what he discovered about vaccines.”

As you know, since the beginning of NoMoreFakeNews, I continue to launch attacks against non-scientific and dangerous assertions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Mark was one of my early sources.

At the time this interview was originally published — in January 2002, Mark was a little reluctant to speak out, even under the cover of anonymity. But, with the push to make vaccines mandatory and with penalties like quarantine lurking in the wings (even back then), he decided to break his silence.

Like many of my sources, he developed a conscience about his former work. Mark was well aware of the scope of the medical cartel and its goals of depopulation, mind control, and general debilitation of populations.


(Q) Jon Rappoport

(A) Retired Vaccine Researcher (given the pseudonym of “Dr. Mark Randall”)


Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.

A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won’t say which ones.

Q: Why not?

A: I want to preserve my privacy.

Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?

A: I believe I could lose my pension.

Q: On what grounds?

A: The grounds don’t matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.

Q: Harassed by whom?

A: The FBI.

Q: Really?

A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.

Q: So much for free speech.

A: I was “part of the inner circle.” If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.

Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?

A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall “brilliance” of modern medicine.

Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?

A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It’s one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.

A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.

Q: Why?

A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.

Q: And then?

A: I did my own investigation.

Q: What conclusions did you come to?

A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.

Q: What conditions?

A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don’t contract the diseases as easily.

Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?

A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies.

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?

A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I’m concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.

Q: Why?

A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.

Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?

A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases — say, meningitis — that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.

Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.

A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.

Q: Which is?

A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.

Q: So you’re saying that we have been treated to a false history.

A: Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.

Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.

A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.

Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.

A: Well yes, that happened. But that’s not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I’m talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors — that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don’t know are in those kidneys.

Q: Okay, but let’s ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?

A: All right. I’ll give you some of what I came across, and I’ll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here’s a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called “brain-eating” amoeba.

Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I’ve found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.

Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don’t belong in the vaccines.

A: That’s right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don’t really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It’s a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don’t know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time — which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn’t be there, but you don’t know exactly what you’ve got. I have found what I believed was a very small “fragment” of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called “foreign protein,” which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.

Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.

A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.

Q: How were your findings received?

A: Basically, it was, don’t worry, this can’t be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animals’ tissue, and that’s where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I’m not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines.

Q: This information is pretty staggering.

A: Yes. And I’m just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don’t find because we don’t think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea. We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.

Q: And beyond the purity issue?

A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn’t work that way. A vaccine is supposed to “create” antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related “killer cells.”

Q: The immune system is?

A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It’s all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.

Q: So the level of general health is important.

A: More than important. Vital.

Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?

A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you’ve concealed the root cause of the problem.

Q: And that happens?

A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it’s circular reasoning. It’s a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the disease.

Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?

A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.

Q: What was the turning point for you?

A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.

Q: Did you investigate?

A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way.

Q: What do you mean?

A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.

Q: Why doesn’t it make sense?

A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn’t that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn’t that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?

Q: And that is what you found?

A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time.Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation.

Q: Has it been enough?

A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.

Q: Which is?

A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, “This vaccine is safe.” But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.

Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.

A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It’s discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations.

Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?

A: Yes I did.

Q: What happened?

A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labeled with “guilt by association.” All in all, though, I behaved myself.I made sure I didn’t create problems for myself.

Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?

A: First of all, there is no “if.” They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn’t. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you’ve said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it’s true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network.

Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation?

A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realizing the whole truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.

Q: This network you speak of.

A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue.

Q: And in the industrialized nations?

A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefare germs are going to win out. This is an important time.

Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one good avenue.

A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine-and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles — is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from “unknown causes,” and that’s why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and the so-called studies that back it up.

Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.

A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blair’s wife is involved with alternative health. There is the possibility that their child has not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to invasive questioning of his “personal and family life.” In any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to all the families who have come forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR.

Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.

A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national security.

Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel.

A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation. It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.

A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.

Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?

A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don’t need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers — a few — might start leaking information.

Q: A good idea.

A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.

Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?

A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period.

Q: Then we have the fall flu season.

A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.

Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?

A: Yes. But after this interview, I’ll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well.

Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?

A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there.

Q: The things that are not there.

A: Yes.

Q: To avoid any confusion, I’d like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.

A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn’t get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what’s called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.

Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?

A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I’m saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don’t get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe.In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings.They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.

Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he didn’t get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine?

A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time.

Q: How long did you work with vaccines?

A: A long time. Longer than ten years.

Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?

A: No, I can’t. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I’m not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.

Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.

A: The operative word is “appear.” What about all the children who can’t focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both.

Q: So we come to the level playing field.

A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.

Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don’t get shots.

A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person’s responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win.


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.

The great big Autism obfuscation

by Jon Rappoport

December 17, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

“How is a self-contained world built? Well, you can take a major situation which has an obvious cause, and then relabel the situation with a new name and say the cause is unknown. Then you can claim you’re looking for the cause, and you can keep looking and stalling for 50 years.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

First of all, there is NO definitive evidence that autism is a specific condition with a single cause.

If you doubt this, look up the definition of autism in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and try to find a definitive lab test that leads to a diagnosis of autism. There is no such test.

That means there is no confirmed cause of autism. And THAT means there is no proof autism is a single and specific condition.

Like other so-called developmental disorders or neurological disorders, autism is a collection of behaviors and symptoms, clustered together by committees of psychiatrists.

Basically, what is being called autism is DAMAGE. Various forms of neurological damage.

This means the cause(s) could be coming from a variety of places.

For example, vaccines can and do cause damage.

Neurological damage, brain damage.

Parents of damaged children know this. There were there. They saw their children before vaccination and after vaccination.

Everything else claimed about these children is diversion. High-class sophisticated deceptive diversion.

For example: shuffling various disease and disorder labels; studies claiming there is no link between vaccines and autism; the hoops the government makes parents jump through, in order to try to obtain financial compensation for their damaged children; the legal deal allowing vaccine manufacturers to avoid law suits; the invented cover stories claiming autism begins in utero or is a genetic disorder; the pretension that autism has even been defined—

All lies. All avoidances.

A child gets a vaccine. The child suffers brain damage. That happens.

That’s the truth which the government buries in a mountain of obfuscation.

In general, how much damage do vaccines cause every year in the US?

Unsurprisingly, there is no reliable count.

For a sane reference, see “In the Wake of Vaccines,” by Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the private National Vaccine Information Center. Her article was published in the Sept./Oct. 2004 issue of Mothering Magazine.

Gathering information from several sources, Fisher makes a reasonable estimate of vaccine damage—actual figures are not available or carefully tracked or vetted. The system for reporting adverse effects is broken.

Fisher: “But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, ‘Introducing MEDWatch,’ [JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]”

“There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.”

“Even so, each year about 12,000 reports [of vaccine damage] are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. [See RT Chen, B. Hibbs, ‘Vaccine safety,’ Pediatric Annals, July 1998: 445-458]”

“However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events [damage]. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.”

Then why does the government say, over and over, that vaccines are safe?

Because they want to lie.

What about all the studies that show this vaccine and that vaccine are safe?

The following quote will give you a clue. The writer is an insider’s insider, and a doctor. She’s scrutinized more published medical studies than all the “highly educated” science-blog writers in the world put together.

Dr. Marcia Angell, for 20 years, was the editor of the most prestigious medical journal in America.

On January 15, 2009, the NY Review of Books published Dr. Angell’s devastating assessment of medical literature:

“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.)

Vaccine damage is being called autism.

It diverts attention from the grave harm vaccines are causing.

Autism is essentially any kind of severe neurological damage a child suffers from unknown causes.

When the cause is obvious and known—as in the case of vaccines—the names and labels are changed:

To protect the guilty.


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.

Prozac mass murders: the truth comes to light

by Jon Rappoport

October 2, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

If you were the head of a drug company…

If you had no conscience (the key fact)…

If one of your drugs was causing people to commit murder…

If MANY law suits against your company were waiting to go to trial…

And if the first such trial was convening…

And if the verdict in that case would influence the outcome of all the other law suits…

What would you do?

This is the story of a medical drug, a famous drug company, trust, betrayal, and mass murder.

After 30 years, the truth is confirmed—Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, secretly paid off plaintiffs in a court case.

The plaintiffs were families of victims killed by a man who went violently crazy after taking Prozac.

The mass shooting took place in 1989, in Kentucky. I covered the case in 1999, by which time the Lilly payoff was an open secret among some lawyers, doctors, and reporters.

But NOW we have confessions from the plaintiffs who took Lilly’s money. In the trial, Eli Lilly was exonerated, absolved of any blame for murders by the jury.

Ahrp.org: “The Louisville Courier Journal reports that thirty years after Joseph Wesbecker went on a deadly shooting rampage in Louisville Kentucky, on September 14, 1989, the families and survivors of his actions have finally come forward to tell the truth. They were plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Eli Lilly because they had reason to believe that Prozac, manufactured by Lilly, had been the trigger that propelled Wesbecker on his violent rampage. Eli Lilly had paid these plaintiffs $20 million in hush money to conceal damaging evidence about Lilly’s culpability in marketing defective, deadly drugs from the jury in the Wesbecker- Eli Lilly trial.”

The Louisville Courier Journal: “On the eve of the jury’s verdict, which absolved Lilly of liability, the company made the secret payment without telling the judge overseeing the case. In exchange for the payment, the plaintiffs – eight estates and 11 survivors – agreed to withhold damaging evidence about the arthritis drug Oraflex that Lilly withdrew from the market. Lilly [had previously] pleaded guilty to 25 criminal misdemeanor counts for failing to report adverse reactions that patients suffered from the drug [Oraflex], and the drug company feared that the Prozac jury would be more inclined to rule against the drugmaker [on Prozac] if it learned of it.”

In other words, the court, which was willing to hear evidence about Lilly’s Oraflex cover-up, never did hear that evidence, which would have alerted the jury that Eli Lilly had a track record of concealing damning truths about its drugs.

AHRP: “Circuit Judge John Potter, the judge in the [Prozac] case, suspected that Lilly bribed plaintiffs and their lawyers before the jury verdict. He uncovered evidence of bribery, and fought Eli Lilly for years but failed to obtain [proof of] the terms of the [Prozac payoff] deal. Lilly succeeded in keeping its criminal action from a judicial proceeding. As is Eli Lilly’s norm and practice; it trashed the judge for his pursuit of the truth.”

The Louisville Courier Journal: “The drugmaker that produces Prozac, the antidepressant that Joseph Wesbecker’s victims blamed for his deadly shooting rampage 30 years ago at Standard Gravure, secretly paid the victims $20 million [in 1994] to help ensure a verdict exonerating the drug company. Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly vigorously shielded the payment for more than two decades, defying a Louisville judge who fought to reveal it because he said it swayed the jury’s verdict.”

“Wesbecker began taking Prozac about a month before his murderous spree that killed eight and wounded 12 in the print shop attached to the Courier Journal. All but one of the victims sued Eli Lilly, the company that manufactured the popular but controversial drug.”

“On Sept. 14, 1989, Wesbecker, a pressman who had been placed on long-term disability leave for severe mental illness, entered Standard Gravure around 8:30 a.m., carrying a bag full of weapons, including a semiautomatic rifle. Over the next 30 minutes, Wesbecker walked through the building, firing more than 40 rounds at those he encountered before shooting himself in the [head] with a handgun. It is the worst mass shooting in Kentucky’s history.”

You need to understand that a diagnosis of “severe mental illness” is a far cry from “killing eight people and wounding 12 people.” The two factors are not automatically connected as cause and effect. If they were, we would see a dozen mass murders every day. That said, according to press reports, Wesbecker did have thoughts about committing violence before he was started on Prozac, and even made threats to commit murder. But he didn’t kill anyone until after taking Prozac. And the charge against Prozac was: it was the chemical trigger that pushed Wesbecker over the edge from thought into horrific action. (In that regard, see the brief collection of studies I cite below.) In any event, no argument about motivations for murder justifies Eli Lilly’s $20 million bribe to the plaintiffs. Lilly wanted an absolute slam dunk in the Wesbecker trial, to protect itself from many other law suits where, no doubt, the role of Prozac in suicide and murder was more vivid.

You also need to understand the status of Prozac in the years leading up to the rigged 1994 trial in Kentucky that falsely exonerated Eli Lilly. I’m talking about media coverage, psychiatric literature, the court system, and the mindset of the public. Prozac was precariously perched on a ledge. Would it gain universal acceptance? Would it be exposed as a gross danger? At the time of the Kentucky court case, there were roughly 100 other law suits against the drug heading toward trial. The outcome of the Kentucky Wesbecker case would send a powerful signal to lawyers and plaintiffs about the odds of winning judgments against Eli Lilly and Prozac. If Lilly were exonerated in Kentucky (and it was, through payoffs), lawyers in other such cases would back off. They would see little point in trying to prove Prozac was a grave danger.

Here is some background about Prozac in those years. It illustrates how great the threat was to Eli Lilly’s blockbuster antidepressant then—and, by comparison, how little any concern is allowed into the public arena now.

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.’”

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 fluoxetine (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.

(What is true about Prozac is true about Paxil or Zoloft or any of the other SSRI antidepressants. And be warned: suddenly withdrawing from any psychiatric drug can be extremely dangerous to the patient. Gradual withdrawal must be done under the supervision of a professional who understands exactly what he/she is doing.)

So—A drug company, Eli Lilly; a drug, Prozac; mass murder; trust; betrayal.

A final piece of the truth now comes to light in the Wesbecker case.

In this sordid drama, there are many other actors. I’ve covered them in other articles. But I can’t let this article end without mentioning the FDA, the sole federal agency responsible for certifying all medical drugs as safe and effective for public use. That agency went rogue a long, long time ago. It takes no responsibility for launching killer chemicals on the population. It operates as a colluding partner with the pharmaceutical industry. Trusting the FDA to protect people from drugs such as Prozac is like trusting a PR company, hired to promote war, to maintain the peace.


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.

Opioid drug crisis: could the whole US Congress be impeached?

by Jon Rappoport

September 30, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

First, a little background. Then I’ll get to the Congress. And Obama.

Severe addiction, mental dislocation, death. Millions of people are facing the devastating effects of the pharma drugs called opioids, on the streets of America—illegally trafficked.

2 MILLION OPIOID ADDICTS IN THE US.

300,000 DEATHS SINCE THE YEAR 2000 IN THE US.

Those are the official estimates, as of about 2 years ago. The numbers are rising.

We need to understand that people with deep physical pain should be able to obtain sufficient painkillers from doctors. Shortages being experienced are coming from drug over-enforcement in the wrong direction.

The situation is made more complex by the fact that traditional morphine, plus another few synthetic opioids, would be sufficient to handle all patients’ needs. BUT, when I started counting the pharmaceutical opioids in the marketplace, I stopped at 50. This is insane. There is absolutely no need for all these derivatives. And they make regulation and enforcement far more difficult. But the drug companies don’t care. They pursue profit.

Where are all the opioids that are maiming and killing people coming from? Who is launching these drugs on to the streets of nations?

Three main criminal sources of US opioids: pharmaceutical companies, like Purdue, who’ve filled gargantuan orders they KNOW are going to traffickers; Chinese labs; and Mexican processors and smugglers.

The rush of immigrants coming across the US southern border has diverted so many US agents, they can’t possibly stem the tide of opioids being smuggled through those borders. That’s just one effect of massive immigration that so-called “liberals” don’t think about. Millions of lives destroyed by the drugs are essentially being traded for open borders.

As ABC News reported on July 19, 2019, “U.S. Customs and Border Protection has stored enough fentanyl in the past year to kill an estimated 794 MILLION people…” That would be seized opioids at the US border. Fentanyl is 100 TIMES MORE POTENT than morphine. Mexico is a major pipeline. A significant percentage of the smuggled drugs comes to Mexico out of China. If that much fentanyl has been seized, how much of the drug has gotten through?

CBS News, August 30, 2019: “Law enforcement officers in Virginia have seized enough fentanyl to kill 14 million people, busting a massive three-state drug ring…one of the 39 people charged ordered fentanyl from Shanghai and had it delivered to Virginia through the mail.” So there is that route as well—China direct to the US through the US Postal Service.

If you’re getting the idea that this is a kind of chemical warfare against the population, you’re correct.

For the moment, let’s focus on pharmaceutical companies who are basically trafficking opioids on to the streets of America. Why can’t federal law enforcement stop that murderous flow in the blink of an eye?

Is there some secret we don’t know about? No. In fact, the answers are right out in the open. I had them confirmed over a year ago, from a source inside the DEA. But talk about “open—” the Washington Post laid out the sordid story in detail. AND AS USUAL, THERE WAS NO FOLLOW-UP. That’s how major media work. They have a piece of very ugly truth. They expose it. But then it mysteriously dies and is forgotten. In this case (opioid trafficking), a real follow-up would have led the public down into a Hell of evil influence, exerted by Pharma, on the US Congress.

Buckle up.

A 2016 LAW SIGNED BY OBAMA SHACKLED THE DEA (DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION) IN ITS EFFORTS TO CRACK DOWN ON BIG PHARMA OPIOID TRAFFICKERS.

That law is the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2016, passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on 4/9/16.

And that is the federal government’s role in perpetuating and expanding the opioid crisis.

Honest agents inside the complacent DEA want to have the right to march into a pharmaceutical company headquarters and say, “We know you’re shipping millions of opioid pills to little pharmacies and clinics that, in turn, are selling the pills to street dealers. We’re going to freeze those shipments now, and we’re going to arrest your key executives.”

But that 2016 law raises the bar so high, the whole law-enforcement effort is hamstrung, throttled, and loaded down with legal complications.

In essence, the US Congress gave drug companies a free pass.

And no one in the Congress is admitting it or talking about it.

The Washington Post, on October 15, 2017, talked about it. The article was headlined, “The Drug Industry’s Triumph Over the DEA”:

“In April 2016, at the height of the deadliest drug epidemic in U.S. history, Congress effectively stripped the Drug Enforcement Administration of its most potent weapon against large drug companies suspected of spilling prescription [opioid] narcotics onto the nation’s streets.”

“A handful of members of Congress, allied with the nation’s major drug distributors, prevailed upon the DEA and the Justice Department to agree to a more industry-friendly law, undermining efforts to stanch the flow of pain pills, according to an investigation by The Washington Post and ‘60 Minutes’…”

“The law [which was passed with an overwhelming YES count by both house of Congress] was the crowning achievement of a multifaceted campaign by the drug industry to weaken aggressive DEA enforcement efforts against drug distribution [pharma] companies that were supplying corrupt doctors and pharmacists who peddled [opioid] narcotics to the black market. The [drug] industry worked behind the scenes with lobbyists and key members of Congress [to pass the 2016 law], pouring more than a million dollars into their election campaigns.”

“The new [2016] law makes it virtually impossible for the DEA to freeze suspicious narcotic shipments from the companies, according to internal agency and Justice Department documents and an independent assessment by the DEA’s chief administrative law judge in a soon-to-be-published law review article. That powerful tool [freezing opioid shipments] had allowed the agency to immediately prevent drugs from reaching the street.”

The Washington Post article mentioned there was an attempt to reach Obama (who had signed the law) and obtain his comments. The effort failed. Obama kept his mouth shut.

EVERYONE IS NOW AWARE OF THE LAW’S HORRENDOUS IMPACT. WHY DOESN’T THE CONGRESS REPEAL IT?

The fact that no one is stepping up to the plate with a fast repeal is proof that multiple parts of the federal government are, in fact, tacitly supporting the opioid crisis and its devastating impacts on human life.

Failure to act swiftly amounts to collusion in Death by Opioids.

President Obama, the Congress, and key officials within the Justice Department and the DEA are all guilty.


My article is not about current efforts to impeach Trump. But, having read this piece, you should weigh the proposed charges against Trump, versus the potential charges against Obama and the whole Congress, Democrat and Republican, for the opioid crisis. I don’t care what you think of Trump or Obama, the leaders of both Parties, the Congress, liberals, conservatives, Communists, racists, socialists, Biden, Warren, Sanders. The facts about opioid crimes are clear. The corruption is deep. The human damage and loss of life are terrible.

If you speak to people who have a naïve and lasting faith in the good will of political leaders, they will probably tell you that the heinous 2016 law I detailed above was “an unfortunate mistake.” The members of Congress “didn’t know what they were voting for.” And somehow, that lets everyone off the hook. Really? Congress has known what they voted for (if indeed they were all ignorant back in 2016) for the past two years. SO WHY HAVEN’T THEY REPEALED THE LAW? Why haven’t they remedied their “error?” Why have they let untold numbers of people die for those two years while staying silent? Why hasn’t the whole Congress risen up to squash the “mistake?” They could do it in an hour. Obviously, they don’t want to admit their prior guilt. They don’t want an investigation which, if done with even a vague imitation of honesty, would expose some of their members as WILLING AND KNOWING COLLABORATORS IN DEATH. They don’t want to admit that the pharma campaign money they take is sufficient inducement to fake a blindness to the death they’re assigning to their own constituents and people all over America.

Still assigning. Now.

You Congressional representatives running for the Presidency on the Democratic side, and you Republican Congressional representatives who are thinking of challenging Trump for the Presidency, and you Congressional leaders from both Parties, (and you, Trump), get back into session and repeal the murder law you passed. Don’t wait for the stupid and mindless Health and Human Services “public comment period” on the law to be digested. For one real moment in your lives, stop lying and covering up and selling yourself and submitting to blackmail and do the right thing—not for forgiveness—but because you have to do it. Just take a collective breath and get back in that room and repeal the law. At least for the hour or so you’ll need to do the job, prove to the majority of the American people, who believe you’re incorrigible frauds, that you can do one thing once. One necessary thing once.


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.

5G wireless: a ridiculous front for global control

by Jon Rappoport

September 9, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

First, a few quotes to give a bit of background.

5G speed, for people who must download a whole season of their favorite show in two seconds:

“It’s the next (fifth) generation of cellular technology which promises to greatly enhance the speed, coverage and responsiveness of wireless networks. How fast are we talking about? Think 10 to 100 times speedier than your typical cellular connection, and even faster than anything you can get with a physical fiber-optic cable going into your house. (You’ll be able to download a season’s worth of ‘Stranger Things’ in seconds.)” [CNET.com]

Lunatic 5G installation of small transmitters packed close together every few hundred feet:

“The next big thing in cellular technology, 5G, will bring lightning-fast wireless Internet — and thousands of antenna-topped poles to many neighborhoods where cell towers have long been banned.”

“Wireless companies are asking Congress and state lawmakers to make it easier to install the poles by preempting local zoning laws that often restrict them, particularly near homes. The lobbying efforts have alarmed local officials across the country. They say they need to ensure that their communities do not end up with unsightly poles cluttering sidewalks, roadsides and the edges of front yards.”

“They also are hearing from residents worried about possible long-term health risks. Until now, much of the cell equipment that emits radio-frequency energy has been housed on large towers typically kept hundreds of feet from homes [also harmful to health]. The new ‘small cell’ technology uses far more antennas and transmitters that are smaller and lower-powered, but clustered closer together and lower to the ground.” [The Washington Post]

I keep hammering on this 5G issue, because it contains the blueprint of a future only elite madmen want.

For the rest of us, it’s a catastrophe in the making.

I’ve covered the extreme health dangers of 5G in another article. Here, I want to flesh out the hidden agenda.

A few decades ago, a movement was started to create an interconnected power grid for the whole planet. We were told this would be the only way to avoid wasting huge amounts of electricity and, voila, bring all nations and all people into a modern 21st century.

But now, it’s a different story, a classic bait and switch. The bait was the promise of One Grid for all. The switch is what 5G will bring us:

100 billion or more NEW devices online, all connected to the Internet and the Cloud. What could be more wasteful? What could be more ridiculous? This is the opposite of sane energy use.

Who really cares whether his 5G-connected refrigerator keeps track of the food items inside it and orders new items when the supply dwindles? Who has to have a 5G driverless car that takes him to work? Who must have a 5G stove that senses what is being cooked and sets the temperature for four minutes? Who lives and who dies if a washing machine doesn’t measure how much soap is stored inside and doesn’t order new soap? Who is demanding a hundred devices in his home that spy on him and record his actions?

With 5G, the ultimate goal is: every device in every home that uses energy will be “its own computer,” and the planetary grid will connect ALL these devices to a monitoring and regulating Energy Authority.

As Patrick Wood details in his classic, Technocracy Rising, that worldwide Energy Authority was the dream of the men who launched the Technocracy movement, in America, in the 1930s.

They set out the key requirements—which weren’t technically possible then, but are quite doable now: continuous real-time measuring of both energy production and energy use from one end of the planet to the other…

So that both energy production and energy consumption could be controlled. “For the good of all,” of course.

5G is the technology for making this happen.

The Globalists: “We’re promising a stunning long-range future of ‘automatic homes’, where everything is done for you. But really, that’s the cover story. Ultimately, we want to be able to measure every unit of energy used by every device in every home—and through AI, regulate how much energy we will let every individual consume, moment to moment. We control energy. We are the energy masters. If you want to run and operate and dominate the world, you control its energy.”

Terms and projects like smart grid, smart meters, sustainability, Agenda 21, smart cities, climate change—all this is Technocratic planning and justification for Rule through Energy.

The beginning of an actual rational plan for energy would start this way: DUMP 5G. Dump the whole plan of installing small transmitter-cells on buildings and homes and trees and lampposts and fences all over the planet. Forget it. Don’t bring 100 billion new devices online. Aside from the extreme health dangers, it’s ridiculously expensive. It’s on the order of saying we need thousand-foot robots standing on sidewalks washing the windows of office buildings.

If some movie star wants to install 30 generators on his property and have engineers build him an automatic home, where he can sit back, flip a switch, and have three androids carry him into his bathtub and wash him and dry him, fine. But planning a smart city? Who voted for that? Who gave informed consent? Nobody.

A global Energy Authority, of course, is going to decide that a small African country needs to be given much more energy, while Germany or France or the US will have to sacrifice energy for the cause of social justice. But this is yet another con, because you won’t see government cleaning up the contaminated water supplies of that small African country, or installing modern sanitation, or curtailing the forced movement of populations into poverty-stricken cities, or reclaiming vast farm land stolen by mega-corporations and giving that land back to local farmers.

The whole hidden purpose of an Energy Authority is control.

And because the Authority is Globalist and Technocratic, it aims to lower energy use in industrial nations and help wreck their economies, making it much easier to move in and take over those countries.

Who in his right mind would propose a wireless system that relies on many, many, many cells/transmitters placed closely to each other, all over the world? This system would be far more vulnerable to physical disruption than the present 4G.

You can find many articles that claim the US military must have 5G for their most advanced planes—and for their developing AI-controlled weapons. How does that work? Where will all the transmitter/cells be placed on the ground and in the air?? Something is missing here. Is there another version of 5G we’re not being told about? Is geoengineering of the atmosphere the means for tuning up space so 5G signals can be passed along without cells/transmitters?

Part of the US obsession to bring 5G online quickly stems from competition with China, which at the moment is in the lead on developing and exporting the technology. “If China has it, we have to have it sooner and better.” This attitude sidesteps the issue of why we must have 5G in the first place.

And now there are reports that the US government is considering a plan to build the whole 5G network itself—rather than leaving the job to corporations. Of course, a few favored companies (like Google) would be chosen by the government in a non-bid situation to provide VERY significant help. If such a plan were to launch, we would have a very tight club at the top of the communications and energy pyramid. And that club would maximize 5G to expand already-saturated surveillance of populations.

Wouldn’t you—if you had nothing better to do than control the world?


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.

Scuzzball Twitter Inc.

by Jon Rappoport

August 21, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Apparently, Mitch McConnell doesn’t support more restrictive gun control. Therefore, protests…

Earlier this month, The Washington Post and other outlets reported that Twitter has locked Senator Mitch McConnell’s re-election Twitter account, until he deletes a video showing protesters outside his house shouting threats.

(Update: After politcal pressure from Mitch’s campaign and some of his supporters, Twitter has since unlocked the account and restored the tweet. “It shouldn’t have taken an avalanche of outrage from across the country to stop Silicon Valley from launching an effort to silence conservatives like the majority leader of the United States Senate in the first place,” said Kevin Golden, Mitch’s campaign manager in a statement.)

One of those protesters was identified, by the Courier Journal, as a Black Lives Matter member, Chanelle Helm, who shouted, “Just stab the mothefucker [McConnell] in the heart, please.”

Twitter, which makes no attempt to curtail the phrase “massacre Mitch” on its platform, had wanted the McConnell video taken down because it “violated our violent threats policy, specifically threats involving physical safety…”

How much bullshit does Twitter think it can get away with? Apparently, a mountain of it.

The “violent threats policy” is aimed at individuals or groups that promote their attacks as a way of gaining advocates and publicizing their actions. THIS video was posted by McConnell, who was the TARGET of a violent threat. Anyone who fails to see the difference should redo their education, starting with the first grade.

Let’s see. Suppose a hundred people gathered outside the headquarters of the FBI and shouted violent threats against the Bureau? And suppose the Bureau posted a tweet about it with video? Do you think Twitter would lock the FBI’s account?

Suppose a few people stood outside a building where Barack Obama was giving a speech and shouted violent threats at him, and suppose a Twitter user posted video of THAT? Do you think Twitter would suspend his account?

Twitter’s initial ruling in the McConnell situation implied that any posted video urging violent action anywhere in the world in any context should be deleted. Such video couldn’t possibly be news. It couldn’t possibly be a response from a target of violent threats. No. Such video is a “violation of standards.”

Actually, Twitter Inc. is violating a standard that any reasonable person would advocate: DON’T DEFEND YOUR BIAS WITH HALF-COCKED LIES. DON’T CONTRIBUTE TO DESTROYING THE 1ST AMENDMENT.


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.

Monsanto keeps riding a path of corruption

by Jon Rappoport

August 12, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Here’s a ripe fantasy for you. Imagine this—

You’re the head of a multi-billion-dollar global corporation.

You know your most famous, best-selling product is toxic and can cause cancer. It’s an herbicide used around the world— not only in public locations, but even by people spraying their own lawns.

Your company has recently lost law suits, with gigantic payout penalties, because you covered up what you knew: the herbicide is carcinogenic.

A fearless reporter has written articles, and now a book, exposing your company. What to do about her?

Among other actions, talk to Google. Maybe they can help. They’re like you. They’re experts in cover-ups.

Wait. This isn’t a fantasy. It’s real. A real newspaper, The Guardian, has the details. Here are quotes from their new blistering investigation:

“Monsanto operated a ‘fusion center’ to monitor and discredit journalists and activists, and targeted a reporter who wrote a critical book on the company, documents reveal.”

“The records reviewed by the Guardian show Monsanto adopted a multi-pronged strategy to target Carey Gillam (twitter), a Reuters journalist who investigated the company’s weedkiller and its links to cancer. Monsanto, now owned by the German pharmaceutical corporation Bayer, also monitored a not-for-profit food research organization through its ‘intelligence fusion center’, a term that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies use for operations focused on surveillance and terrorism.”

“Monsanto paid Google to promote search results for ‘Monsanto Glyphosate Carey Gillam’ that criticized her work.”

“The internal [company] communications add fuel to the ongoing claims in court that Monsanto has ‘bullied’ critics and scientists and worked to conceal the dangers of glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide [Roundup]. In the last year, two US juries have ruled that Monsanto was liable for plaintiffs’ non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a blood cancer, and ordered the corporation to pay significant sums to cancer patients…”

“’I’ve always known that Monsanto didn’t like my work … and worked to pressure editors and silence me,’ Gillam…said in an interview. ‘But I never imagined a multi-billion dollar company would actually spend so much time and energy and personnel on me. It’s astonishing.’”

“Monsanto had a ‘Carey Gillam Book’ spreadsheet, with more than 20 actions dedicated to opposing her book before its publication, including working to ‘Engage Pro-Science Third Parties’ in criticisms, and partnering with ‘SEO experts’ (search engine optimization), to spread its attacks. The company’s marketing strategy involved labeling Gillam and other critics as ‘anti-glyphosate activists and pro-organic capitalist organizations’.”

“Gillam, who worked at the international news agency Reuters for 17 years, told the Guardian that a flurry of negative reviews appeared on Amazon just after the official publication of Whitewash [her book about Monsanto], many seeming to repeat nearly identical talking points.”

“’This is my first book. It’s just been released. It’s got glowing reviews from professional book reviewers,’ she said. But on Amazon, ‘They were saying horrible things about me … It was very upsetting but I knew it was fake and it was engineered by the industry. But I don’t know that other people knew that’.”

Boom.

We’re talking about reality-construction here. Or should I say, reconstruction. Companies that can manipulate the ranking of search results online, and customer reviews, and professional reviews, and science, paint over the truth with lies, and the public believes what it is permitted to see.

That’s a pretty good description of tons of what is called Fake News.

“Well, we don’t like what this reporter is doing because it exposes us as naked and culpable and criminal, so let’s hide and defame the reporter’s work. Let’s move a cloud over it. In time, the reporter’s work will fade out, and we’ll still be here. We’ll keep pounding out the notion that we’re doing good, we’re devoted to public service, we’re providing a marvelous product, we’re cutting-edge researchers, and so on. Our product causes cancer? That’s ridiculous. We would never sell such a product. We’re fine people…”

The one big thing this company has going for it? A major segment of the public doesn’t want to believe something so visible and huge (the company) is committing evil acts left and right, out in the open. A company isn’t like a deranged individual with a gun who walks into a store and shoots people. No. A company is an organized and competent and polite entity that BELONGS. It’s part and parcel of the COMMUNITY. The idea that the company could be guilty of destroying and maiming life on a continuing basis…that would be tantamount to saying it is an organized-crime operation—which is absurd.

Yes. It’s absurd. Until it’s shown to be true.

And then, on top of it all, suppose the government, which has the resources and the laws and the agencies to bring this company to justice doesn’t lift a finger, but in fact supports the company with its own official brand of fake news?

Why, that’s a…a conspiracy.

Yes. The dreaded word.

Another absurdity. Until it’s shown to be true by the simple act of opening one’s eyes and looking.

Shall we take this a step further? Why not? In for a penny, in for a pound. We’re entering a new phase in the battle to expose high-level, society-wide, institutional crimes. In part, owing to a recent FBI “finding” that conspiracy theories can fuel individuals to commit “terrorist acts,” there will be increased propaganda aimed at persons who unearth actual conspiracies. They will be accused of fomenting violence. In order to “protect the community” (where have we heard that before?), there must be a limiter and a monitor on information. The public must be guarded against false news. Righteous censorship must prevail. For the greater good, the 1st Amendment must undergo a reformation.

To understand this, think “money laundering.” Criminal organizations, like drug cartels, have so much cash on hand they have to find ways to hide it. So they funnel it into friendly banks and legitimate businesses and shell corporations. Likewise, with the advent and expansion of the Web, there is so much information exposing high-level crimes, it must be hidden—but certainly not by its authors. Agencies of government and secret corporate units and social media giants must conceal this information by obscuring it and defaming it and dead-ending it and blacking it out and blaming it for inspiring heinous crimes. That’s the laundering operation, and it extends to every true conspiracy.

A final note for now—here’s a wrinkle on the laundering campaign. In the defunct subject called Logic, it’s called the Straw Man fallacy. You build up a patently ridiculous icon to represent a wide field of information, you knock down that icon, and then you claim it invalidates the whole field. For example, some pathetic paid agent publishes a piece claiming JFK never died in 1963, he’s living under the name, Jack Kenn, in Brooklyn, on Oswald Street. A paid blogger jumps on this “conspiracy theory,” and in the process declares that all conspiracy theorists are lunatics. The one becomes the many.

It’s a version of “we’re all normal people living normal lives and here are disruptors who want to take us off course into a storm and make us believe that official truth is different from actual truth.”

I have news. Millions and millions and millions of people are way past that moronic construction, and they aren’t turning back.


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.

Using “alternate realities” as a form of analysis

by Jon Rappoport

June 25, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

When I finished putting together my collection, The Matrix Revealed, I wrote several prefaces to it. Here is one:

—Start here: if things weren’t the way they are, if they were quite different in specific ways…

What implications would follow?

This can be a very instructive question.

Most people automatically reject alternate realities on the basis of: “Well, they don’t exist, they’re fantasies, so who cares?”

That reaction speaks to a paucity of imagination and little else. It’s a profoundly low-IQ response.

I’ll flesh out an example of an alternate reality and trace the implications. You’ll see it illuminates “things as they are” in an interesting way. This example is based on my experience writing, reading, and watching news for over 30 years. It’s also based on numerous off-the-record conversations I’ve had with mainstream reporters.

Suppose the NY Times, which is drowning in red ink, which re-finances its debt to stay afloat, which is losing its reputation as the paper of record faster than a rowboat full of holes sinks in a lake, changed its whole method of finding and presenting news.

Suppose the Times latched on to major scandals beyond its corporate mandate with the extreme ferocity of an attack dog. Suppose, for instance, it went after the deadly impact of medical drugs on the population. Suppose it began with the July 26, 2000, review, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” (see also here), authored by Dr. Barbara Starfield, of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, in which Starfield concludes that, every year, FDA-approved medicines — correctly prescribed — kill 106,000 Americans?

Extrapolating that number out to a decade, the death toll comes to over a million. A million Americans killed every decade by medical drugs.

Suppose the Times made this its number-one story, not just for a day, but for a year or more? It lets the hounds loose on the FDA, who approves the drugs as safe, it sends the hounds to the offices of medical journals, which routinely publish fraudulent studies praising the drugs that kill people. So far we’re talking about nothing less than RICO felonies—continuing organized-criminal acts. Suppose the Times’ hounds probe medical schools, where students are taught to believe in the killer drugs, where Pharma money funds the teaching programs.

There are so many nooks and crannies where Times reporters can extract confessions from medical players: “I knew about the horrific death toll years ago, but my superiors ordered me to shut up.”

“Which superior was that? You may as well tell me. I’m going to find out anyway…”

The Times reporters move in on the Dept. of Justice, which has never lifted a finger to prosecute these ongoing crimes, despite knowing exactly what’s been going on.

Day after day, as new confessions and facts emerge, the Times puts its searing stories on page one of the paper.

The size of the headlines increases.

The public is wakened. The public, as it turns out, is unable to turn away.

The Times puts out two print editions a day and the papers fly off the newsstands.

Under intense pressure, Congressional hearings are laid on. New liars come to the fore, and under oath some of them crack and reveal how medical murder has survived in the shadows all these years. It’s a grisly tale.

The Times’ profits soar. The public is on fire.

And then, just when the whole story seems to have lost a bit of its force, new revelations explode. Major medical reporters for many press outlets—including the Times—have been sitting on this story for more than a decade. They’re instrumental in the cover-up. Mass firings occur.

At the same time, it becomes apparent that several blockbuster global trade deals have been engineered, behind the scenes, to further engorge Pharma profits. Those deals go down the drain and are canceled.

I could go on. This story would have more legs than a phalanx of centipedes.

But of course, neither the Times nor any other major press outlet would ever pick up or cover this story. These media operations are locked in partnership with Pharma. They’re on the same side.

Yet, understanding how the story could play and evolve and explode in an “alternate universe” gives you clues. For example, the public is asleep because the news keeps it asleep.

The public could wake up.

And if it did, there would be hell to pay.

In a universe of true news, the entire society would be different because the people would be different. They wouldn’t be acting as if they’re brain-damaged. They wouldn’t be acting as if they’re goggled-eyed glazed-over New Agers. They wouldn’t be afraid to speak out and speak up. They would be alert and active and forceful. A great deal of delusional scum would be scraped off the top of consciousness. Vague generalities would no longer suffice. Empty words would no longer suffice. Business as usual would no longer suffice.

In this highly instructive “alternate universe” metaphor, the public would learn that nothing is too big to fail—a valuable lesson. Big Pharma, exposed to its roots as a crime mob, toppled from all its pillars of trust, would not, by its fate, doom society. Far from it. Society would be cleansed.

People would look around and wonder how they had slept for so long. The purveyors of fake news, with their touted experts, would experience a level of (justifiable) paranoia they’d never imagined. Not just in their coverage of the medical arena, but in every sphere where lying and cover-up and diversion have been the order of the day.

The overarching position of “Elite News Anchor” would drown in its own corrupt juices. The networks would scramble like rats to survive a ratings crash beyond their wildest nightmares.

And yet, again, society would not be doomed.

Many, many, many more individuals would wake up.

Information, the neutral god of the technocratic secular church, would suddenly be colored with purpose. It would reveal. It would expose. It would take on muscle. It would range along dynamic lines of force and unseat criminals in the highest of places, with no restraint.

The population would develop a new appetite. Instead of alpha-wave hypnotic trance, people would insist on the demise of false idols. And lawful application of justice would finally mean something.

All this…this is what the mainstream news could deliver. In an alternate universe.

In the “real” universe where we live, the task falls to independent investigators. But the aim is the same: rousing the people from their slumber.

When you can envision the implications of a preferable “other-universe,” all the way across the board, you can understand what your work is here and now.

You can summon the energy to go all-out. You can throw off insubstantial roles. You can create your own engine, shove it into gear, and move up to high velocity.

The imagining of alternate universes creates energy.


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.

The stone cold conservative socialist

by Jon Rappoport

May 9, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Is he a meth goony bird? He seems to be flopping around the stage like a creature who’s lost his wings. He’s talking about VALUES, but it’s clear he’s lost those, too. Something happened to his brain somewhere along the line. Something bad. Maybe it all came from too much preaching. Talking super-simple to simpletons could cause contraction and shrinkage in both lobes. He’s running for the US senate…He’s a chunk of cardboard standing on the shoulders of cardboard, going back centuries.” (fragment from “New Conservatives and Old Conservatives,” by Jon Rappoport)

In this piece, I’m not writing about what the conservative position should be; I’m writing about what it is most of the time. And when it comes to Welfare, the attitude is: pay the individual less, the family less, and the corporation more. Find every possible way to chisel money out of the government on behalf of corporations. And don’t worry—you’ll find many allies in elected government positions. They’re basically there to please and assist the “conservative.” Insurance companies, oil companies, construction companies, biotech, drug companies, defense contractors—they’re the real constituency. They always need more money. They always need government help. They always need Welfare to keep going. They talk about freedom and strength, but what makes them super-strong is government tax money and invented money. Whoever came up with the term “corporate welfare” wasn’t kidding around. Scratch a conservative candidate for Congress and this is what you usually find below the surface: a Welfarist. Try to find justification for corporate welfare in the Constitution. Good luck. A typical conservative may shower praise on the Constitution and the original intent of the Founders, but he somehow misses the point when it comes to shoveling huge amounts of government budget money on to corporate tables. To put it another way, he wants to be known as a pure priest of Original Intent, but he’s actually a whore. And, to put a cherry on the cake, all his life he’s assumed bullshit is the only reliable product in the marketplace. Maybe that’s why he wears such a big grin in public. Maybe that’s why his clothes and his hair and his tone of voice keep screaming FAKE.

A long time ago, I interviewed a “conservative politician” off the record. When the subject turned to re-election, he said, “Of course I know who the major companies are in my district. You can’t get elected unless you’re on their side. They want government money for new pet projects. They expect you to get it for them. Actually, this creates jobs. I’m a bleeding heart for companies and their workers. I want to get them more money, no matter what tricks I have to pull off…”

Imagine, I don’t know, 20 thousand politicians, at various levels of government, operating in this way across the whole country. Do you think this comes pretty close to government owning the means of production—in other words, socialism?

“Hi, I’m a stone cold conservative socialist. Let me explain. I think you’ll be on my side when you understand the realities of the situation…”

What I’m describing in this article is a major reason big government is such a convoluted mess. It’s a Rube Goldberg machine, contradicting itself and turning forward and backwards at the same time. Almost all elected officials are socialists of one brand or another, no matter what they profess. Speaking of messes, many people remember Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld’s famous statement about the “unaccounted for” trillions of dollars in Pentagon bookkeeping accounts. Without going into the deeper darker implications of that remark, it illustrates an (intentionally) hopeless tangle of hundreds of separate accounting government money records. This is what you’d expect from a behemoth dedicated to unconstitutional spending from one end of the sky to the other…

What about governments’ contracts with biotech giants like Monsanto/Bayer? How much government money has flowed into the coffers of those toxic outfits? That’s tax money plus money invented out of thin air. You might think a conservative politician would staunchly oppose this practice, but in most cases you would be wrong. No, gigantic government $$ landing in corporations’ laps is characterized as being “in line with the basic principles of Constitutional government.” After all, “the business of America is business.”

One of the central tenets of conservatism is preservation of property rights. How does EXPANDING THE PROPERTY of major corporations, through filling their coffers with government money and more money, have anything to do with property rights? How is the right to Pork a conservative notion, in any traditional sense?

When a so-called conservative pol gets up on his hand legs and speaks in favor of one of the Globalist trade treaties, like GATT or NAFTA, he is essentially handing major corporations billions of dollars in tariffs THAT DON’T HAVE TO BE PAID. What article or amendment of the Constitution is that in line with? Granted, the whole subject of international trade is complex and fraught with interventionist tactics from the get-go—but tariffs on imported goods go a long way toward protecting free and open competition among domestic companies. Globalism picks and chooses favored corporations, to the gross detriment of smaller businesses.

In case some readers think this article isn’t delving deeply enough into conspiracies (in that case, see my articles on Antony Sutton and Gary Allen), consider the vast culture that has been created around fake conservatives, who rake in votes through appearing to be “traditionalists.” Accepting the honesty of such politicians, with all their phony tells, is on the level of believing in a Sunday TV preacher who is spouting clichés at six mile a minute, while “raising cash for God.” How is a nation being engineered to include millions of these believers? What chemicals, education system, “family values” are being launched at their minds, on a continuing basis? Why aren’t “conservative” pols laughed out of court? (Of course, the political Left is no better; I consider it worse, and I’ve written many words on the subject.) For every monumental con game to succeed, you need true believers; and the growth and nurturing of such suckers in turn requires a culture of programming that can successfully reduce all issues to super-literal and super-simple thoughts.

Now that’s a covert op worthy of the name.

Addendum: An example of who and what I’m talking about, on the Left, would be Joe Biden. Earlier in his political career, as a US senator, he was an extremely sharp talker on matters of foreign policy. Perhaps because of a life-threatening brain aneurysm, and two surgeries, he changed. By the time he became vice-president under Obama, the press considered him a kind of loose-talking clown, a joke. He seemed “off.” But then, the media reshaped him as a “competent politician.” The creepy-Joe scandal aside, Biden has actually turned into a cliché machine. Who can believe that what’s coming out of his mouth should be taken seriously? Apparently, many brainwashed people…


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, 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.

Bayer and the ownership of all life

by Jon Rappoport

May 1, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

In a recent article, I explained how Bayer—with its $66 billion purchase of Monsanto—is “taking one for the team.”

The team consists of several biotech giants. Its agenda? The reconfiguring of all life under the rubric of radical genetic manipulation. Bayer aims, long-term, to swallow the universally hated Monsanto whole and make it disappear, as if it never existed. It’s called re-writing history. The goal in this case: protection of the evolving reputation of a genetic Brave New World.

Here is a very brief background sketch of Bayer—

After World War 2, the highest ranking scientist on the executive board of IG Farben, the infamous Nazi cartel, Dr. Fritz Ter Meer, was put on trial at Nuremberg. The charges? Mass slavery and murder.

Farben had built a rubber factory at Auschwitz. In fact, it built Auschwitz in order to ensure cheap labor in its adjoining rubber factory. Farben paid the SS to send over inmates every day of the week to work in that factory. Those who were too weak to make it through the day were killed.

Well, for all this, Fritz Ter Meer was given seven years in jail. A pathetic seven years.

…Sixteen years later, on August 1, 1963, the Bayer Corporation was celebrating its hundredth anniversary at Cologne. Big festivities.

The three largest original components of IG Farben—Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF—were back in business and roaring on profit highs. They were now sanitized separate corporations, no longer parts of an official Nazi-aiding IG Farben.

The keynote speaker at the Bayer celebration was the one and only Fritz Ter Meer.

Out of jail.

Murderer.

Mass murderer.

Anointed chairman of the supervisory board of Bayer.

Chairman. Of the Supervisory Board. Of Bayer.


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.