Category Archives: Government Fraud

The US government colludes in Mass Deaths by Opioids

Get the truth out and spread it

by Jon Rappoport

April 10, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

The major pipeline for trafficking opioid drugs starts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, who are intentionally distributing opioids far beyond any legitimate need.

2 MILLION OPIOID ADDICTS IN THE US.

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

A significant percentage of this human carnage results from illegal distribution of opioids.

Here is the open secret:

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

But that 2016 law raises the bar so high on what the DEA can do, 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, October 15, 2017, “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 was the crowning achievement of a multifaceted campaign by the drug industry to weaken aggressive DEA enforcement efforts against drug distribution companies that were supplying corrupt doctors and pharmacists who peddled [opioid] narcotics to the black market. The 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.”

“For years, some drug distributors were fined for repeatedly ignoring warnings from the DEA to shut down suspicious sales of hundreds of millions of pills, while they racked up billions of dollars in sales.”

“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.”

“Besides the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill, few lawmakers knew the true impact the law would have. It sailed through Congress and was passed by unanimous consent, a parliamentary procedure reserved for bills considered to be noncontroversial. The White House was equally unaware of the bill’s import when President Barack Obama signed it into law, according to interviews with former senior administration officials.”

“Michael Botticelli, who led the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy at the time, said neither [the Department of] Justice nor the DEA objected to the bill, removing a major obstacle to the president’s approval.”

BUT SINCE 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.

“We didn’t know what we were voting on” is, at best, a temporary excuse, until the truth comes to light.

After that, failure to act swiftly amounts to collusion in Death by Opioids.

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

Astonishing California bill would shut down free speech, require fact-checkers

Astonishing California bill would shut down free speech, require fact-checkers

by Jon Rappoport

April 9, 2018

California used to be trumpeted as the cutting edge of American culture.

It still is, except the culture is now all about censoring free speech.

California Senator Richard Pan, who was behind the infamous 2015 law mandating vaccinations for schoolchildren (SB277), has stepped up to the plate and introduced another bill.

This one would clamp down on criticism of ANY Official Story.

The bill is titled “SB1424 Internet: social media: false information: strategic plan.”

It targets social media based in California. But as you read the bill, you see it appears to define social media as any Internet blog, website, or communication.

SB1424 is brief. Read it:

This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site. The bill would require the plan to include, among other things, a plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

(a) Any person who operates a social media Internet Web site with physical presence in California shall develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Internet Web site.

(b) The strategic plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:

(1) A plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories.

(2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories.

(3) Providing outreach to social media users regarding news stories containing false information.

(4) Placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

(c) As used in this section, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.

Getting the picture?

It’s a free speech killer.

If it passes, agencies of the California government will develop numerous regulations for enforcement, including penalties for “speech criminals.”

Saying this bill violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution is a vast understatement. The last time I looked, the Founders mentioned nothing about fact checkers or warnings attached to speech.

“Open borders and a flood of immigration into California are destructive to—wait. My statement has been precluded by warnings and fact-checker overrides…”

Or: “VACCINES ARE DANGEROUS. Ahem, I am making a debatable assertion and I must warn you that official experts strenuously disagree with me, and furthermore, the California Fact Checkers United, a division of Merck-Snopes Thought Police, has determined that my assertion is groundless and harmful to children’s health…”

There needs to be a relentless tsunami of protest in California over this Orwellian bill. I know of a number of Internet news operations in the state. They must jump in and lead the way.

In case you believe there are too many websites and blogs based in California to enforce a new draconian law, let me explain how the game works. Behind closed doors, the state government would decide to focus on a few big issues. For example, gun control, vaccines, and immigration. Enforcement agencies would go after the biggest Internet operations expressing politically unacceptable points of view on those subjects. At first. A spread of smaller operations would feel the heat later.

So-called fact checkers would come from government supported groups who agree with Official Positions. In other words, they wouldn’t be fact checkers at all. They would be prime news fakers.

When it comes to the issue of vaccines, for example, they would cite the notoriously biased “experts” at the Centers for Disease Control, never mentioning that the CDC buys and sells $4 billion of vaccines a year.

If, 10 or 15 years ago, someone told you a bill like SB1424 was going to come before a state legislature for a vote, you would have thought you were listening to a Hollywood pitch for a sci-fi movie script.

But now it’s real. It’s here. Believe it.

CRUSH IT.

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

April 3, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

First, two 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.

“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.

Having said all this, there are gaps in our knowledge about 5G. For example, 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.

Five thousand inventions in limbo and under “secrecy orders” at the US Patent Office

by Jon Rappoport

March 28, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

How many of these patents, if granted, would be game changers for planet Earth? Who knows?

Buckle up. Here we go.

From FAS (Federation of American Scientists), Secrecy News, Oct. 21, 2010, “Invention Secrecy Still Going Strong,” by Steven Aftergood:

“There were 5,135 inventions that were under secrecy orders at the end of Fiscal Year 2010, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office told Secrecy News last week. It’s a 1% rise over the year before, and the highest total in more than a decade.”

“Under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, patent applications on new inventions can be subject to secrecy orders restricting their publication if government agencies believe that disclosure would be ‘detrimental to the national security’.”

“The current list of technology areas that is used to screen patent applications for possible restriction under the Invention Secrecy Act is not publicly available and has been denied under the Freedom of Information Act. (An appeal is pending.)…”

“Most of the listed technology areas are closely related to military applications. But some of them range more widely.”

“Thus, the 1971 list indicates that patents for solar photovoltaic generators were subject to review and possible restriction IF THE PHOTOVOLTAICS WERE MORE THAN 20% EFFICIENT. Energy conversion systems were likewise subject to review and possible restriction IF THEY OFFERED CONVERSION EFFICIENCIES ‘IN EXCESS OF 70-80%’.” (Emphasis is mine.)

“One may fairly ask if disclosure of such technologies could really have been ‘detrimental to the national security,’ or whether the opposite would be closer to the truth. One may further ask what comparable advances in technology may be subject to restriction and non-disclosure today. But no answers are forthcoming, and the invention secrecy system persists with no discernible external review.”

If you’re one of those people who maintains that advanced technology is being held away from the public, here is an overall smoking gun that validates your stance.

And you can see that breakthrough energy tech, which would radically lessen the need for oil, would be on the secrecy-do-not-release list.

What else is on the list? Old Tesla patents, for example?

The US Patent Office is an official chokepoint for the “planned society”—or should we say the “restricted society.”

But this is not to say advanced technology is always shelved or scuttled. The patent applications, in suspended animation at the US Patent Office, can be quietly disclosed, for example, to government researchers engaged in black-budget projects, where the data and the research are turned to “other uses.”

Innovative inventors, who can revolutionize society for the good, incur risks if they submit their patent applications to the State. Getting trapped in limbo, while outright theft of their research occurs, is one of those risks.

On the other hand, if a giant corporation has an invention that deploys the genetic engineering of food crops, and adds millions of tons of toxic pesticides to the environment, its patent application sails through review at the Patent Office.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside 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.

CDC vaccine science covers up giant conflict of interest

CDC vaccine science covers up giant conflict of interest

by Jon Rappoport

March 21, 2018

If you wanted to buy a product…

And the main researcher of the product was the company selling it to you…

Would you automatically assume the product was safe and effective?

But you see, that’s the just the beginning of the problem. Suppose the company’s research was cited thousands of times in the press, as the authoritative standard of proof—and anyone who disputed that research was labeled a conspiracy theorist and a quack and a danger to the community and an anti-science lunatic.

Would you begin to suspect the company had awesome media connections? Would you suspect some very powerful people were backing the company?

This is exactly the situation with the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Read these two quotes:

The government’s Vaccine for Children Program (a CDC organization) purchases vaccines for about 50 percent of children in the U.S.” (The Atlantic, February 10, 2015)

“The CDC currently spends over $4 billion purchasing vaccines [annually] from drug makers…” (Health Impact News, October 24, 2016)

However, the CDC is also the gold standard for research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It turns out an unending stream of studies on these subjects. And the results of those studies are dutifully reported in the mainstream press.

Do you think, under any circumstances, the CDC would publish data showing vaccines are ineffective and dangerous? They’d be cutting their own throats.

“Well, we spend $4 billion a year buying vaccines from drug companies, but guess what? These vaccines are often dangerous…”

Every time you read about a CDC study on vaccines, keep this obvious conflict of interest in mind.

When, in 2014, William Thompson, a long-time CDC researcher, publicly admitted he and his colleagues had buried data that would have shown the MMR vaccine increases the risk of autism, he was throwing a stick of dynamite into the whole CDC operation. He was also saying, in recorded phone conversations, that the CDC was lying about vaccine safety in other studies.

This is why major media refused to cover or investigate Thompson’s claims. This is why they spread a blanket of silence over his revelations.

Thompson was threatening a $ 4-billion-a-year enterprise.

The CDC is both a PR agency for, and a buyer from, Big Pharma.

Speaking of PR, would you like to see an example of how the CDC promotes the yearly flu vaccine by lying egregiously about flu deaths in the United States?

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

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

Boom.

You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure.

However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

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

“Well, uh, we used to say 36,000 people died from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”

The CDC must turn out a steady stream of outrageous lies about the need for vaccines. If they didn’t, they’d have no way to justify the billions of dollars they spend every year buying the vaccines from drug companies.

Since the sold-out major media won’t connect these dots, I and others need to.

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.

Only crazy people drink raw milk?

Only crazy people drink raw milk?

The wider implications

by Jon Rappoport

March 21, 2018

For a moment, don’t think about whether raw milk is safe or dangerous, health-giving or harmful. Stop. There are wider implications here. And they affect every citizen.

Here is my article, from August 5, 2011. The issues are still quite relevant.

The federal raid on Rawesome Foods in Venice, California, is based on the insistence (with guns) that private citizens can’t make contracts with each other to buy and sell raw unpasteurized milk.

Some uninformed types believe the raid was solely focused on the fact that Rawesome doesn’t have a business license. But it is a private club, and the last time I looked, a club doesn’t need a license to carry on its activities.

Do private citizens have the right to form an association, by contract, and then engage in exchange of goods and services, among its members, regardless of the opinion of the State?

Well, if we return to the basic document, the Declaration of Independence, can we interpret the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without understanding that private contracts are fundamental to this pursuit?

In the case of Rawesome, the government believes it can garner wide public support, and therefore it feels confident its prosecution will make no one nervous. Whereas, if the product Rawesome club members were buying and selling was homemade oatmeal, the public might balk and see the intrusion on Rawesome as invasive and quite insane.

Speaking of which, the government is using what I call the The Crazy People Doctrine.

If more than, say, 60% of the American people believe Rawesome is crazy, the government is good to go in court. If that wide majority thinks raw-milk dealing would only be carried out by nutcases, then the whole issue of whether private contracts are inviolate can be set aside and dropped in the trash.

Well, we know government agencies have been warning the public about raw milk for at least 70 years, and claiming that pasteurized milk is wonderful and safe and scientific. So The Crazy People Doctrine seems like a slam-dunk here, regardless of how the specific charges against Rawesome’s owner are worded.

“He’s crazy, who cares whether we (the prosecutors) say he was doing business without a license or was making a contract he had no right to make.”

And the public will say, “Find him guilty, he’s a whacko. Nobody in his right mind would sell raw milk.”

As usual, I’ll resort to one of my analogies:

Let’s say eight of us form a private club, and we buy and sell, among ourselves, little gold balls of plant matter which, when ingested, have been shown, invariably, to cause one-hour headaches. The balls have been tested, over and over again, and amazingly, the verdict is precise across the board. Eat a gold ball of this plant substance, you get a one-hour headache.

And suppose the eight of us believe this activity of buying and selling and eating the gold balls is part of our pursuit of happiness. We’ll assume responsibility for the headaches. Do we have the right to have our club and engage in our activity—or does the government have the legal power to destroy the club and prosecute us on a criminal charge?

The government says, “Gold balls are food products for sale. Therefore, they fall under our jurisdiction when it comes to the issue of safety. Period.”

The public says, “Put these crazies in jail, or in a mental institution, and drug them to the gills.”

Government says, “Citizens have no fundamental and overriding right to make private contracts among themselves. We can intercede at any moment we choose to. Any rule or law we make automatically trumps the so-called right to private contracts.”

If we accept this judgment, then we are admitting that private relationships are a thin illusion that can be swept away without notice.

If you and your friends own a piece of land and build a community vegetable garden there, and then exchange squashes and tomatoes and grapes and cucumbers with one another, from your individual plots, the government can send in a food safety inspector, he can walk on your land, and he can decide whether your vegetables are legal. Your contract with your friends is null and void and without meaning—and always was.

If 50 of us form a health club, and buy and sell amino acids among ourselves, and if we happen to have printed a sheet, for internal distribution, claiming these products cure arthritis, the FDA could invade our office, confiscate the products, and charge us with practicing medicine without a license.

And if the public, by and large, believes we are “crazies,” the government feels confident it will escape blowback.

You now, perhaps, see one clear reason for government/media/science propaganda: “creating convenient crazies.”

Take, for instance, the arena of vaccines. If government succeeds in outlawing all claimed parental exemptions from the jabs, based on its own version of good science, how many people will rise up and revolt? Versus how many will say refusing vaccines was always just for Crazy People?

The Crazy People Doctrine, behind the scenes, is the standard of prediction that government employs—and propaganda is the tool it uses to manufacture perception about its targets…

So that the matter of private contracts is tossed into the garbage.

WHEN, IN FACT, CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT CONTRACTS AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS ARE THE BASIS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

The Matrix Revealed

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

(New piece up at my OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE blog entitled
“My experience with a forgotten language”)

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.

How about life in prison for doctors who prescribe psychiatric drugs to toddlers?

by Jon Rappoport

March 20, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Over the past 25 years, I’ve documented and exposed the horrendous effects of psychiatric drugs.

To take this a giant step further, what doctor, in his right mind, would DIAGNOSE a baby, a toddler, a very young child with a mental disorder and then PRESCRIBE one of these drugs?

“Your six-month-old baby has clinical depression.” What lunatic would say such a thing?

In case you’re a new reader, I’ve firmly established that NO so-called mental disorder is diagnosed on the basis of a defining laboratory test. Not a blood test, not a urine test, not a brain scan, not a genetic assay.

And yet, here are MDs saying—on the basis of psychiatric committee decisions that arbitrarily define these disorders—that babies have specific mental illnesses.

On February 19, 2015, the Wall St. Journal reported:

“Psychiatric drugs are now being given to infants and toddlers in unprecedented numbers.”

“An analysis of 2013 IMS Data, found that over 274,000 infants (0-1 year olds) and some 370,000 toddlers (1-3 years age) in the U.S. were on antianxiety (e.g. Xanax) and antidepressant (e.g. Prozac) drugs. This report also found over 1,400 infants were on ADHD drugs.”

“A 2014 Georgia Medicaid analyses…when extrapolated nationwide by the New York Times found that over 10,000 toddlers were put on ADHD treatments [amphetamine-type drugs].”

“Prescriptions of powerful antipsychotics such as Risperdal for infants and very young children have also sharply risen. Office visits for childhood bipolar disorder have risen 40-fold over the past decade in the U.S.”

The doctors who prescribe these dangerous and highly harmful drugs are worse than street dealers. What street dealer would try to sell a drug to a parent for her one-year-old child?

If the Department of Justice won’t take action, professional medical societies, such as the American Medical Association, should publish the names of doctors who prescribe psychiatric drugs to toddlers, and state medical boards should strip these doctors of their licenses to practice. But this is a fantasy, because every major medical group is a partner of the pharmaceutical industry.

It falls, then, to parents to keep their babies miles away from brain-killing MDs who prescribe the drugs.

Here is a tiny sample of available open-source literature. You can multiply the reported drug-effects many times, when babies are the patients—and in many cases, the specific damage to adult patients, when applied to babies, is impossible to predict, except that it will be far-reaching and chaotic.

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

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse effects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms. (Scarnati’s findings would apply to all ADHD drugs, which are amphetamine-like.)

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

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

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

February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) 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.”

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.” Psychiatrist Peter 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…”

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.”

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

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.”

For an overview of the effects of psychiatric drugs, consult the following authors: Peter Breggin, Robert Whitaker, Fred Baughman, David Healy, Peter Gotzsche.

Wake up, parents. Your children are under grave threat from psychiatrists.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside 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.

The London police now have a firm definition of thought-crime

The London police now have a firm definition of thought-crime

And they’re going to use it

by Jon Rappoport

March 19, 2018

“Whether he went on with the diary, or whether he did not go on with it, made no difference. The Thought Police would get him just the same. He had committed—would still have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper—the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.” (George Orwell, “1984”)

Welcome back, George. Things are playing out as you predicted.

From the UK Met Police website, here is the latest official attempt to censor speech. It’s actually more than that. Read carefully while pointing a fan at the screen to disperse the noxious fumes:

“If someone does something that isn’t a criminal offence but the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we would class this as a ‘hate incident’. Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence.”

Really.

It—an action or statement—isn’t a crime, but the perpetrator’s reasons for “doing it” may spring from hatred—and then it turns into a crime. Magic.

You speak or write publicly, and somebody/anybody believes what you uttered was MOTIVATED by hate. If the police decide that’s true, they can prosecute you.

They have read your intent. They have read your inner thoughts and feelings.

“Mr. Jones wrote a paragraph that, in and of itself, did not constitute a criminal offense, but the thinking behind what he wrote contained hatred and was instigated by hatred. Guilty.”

Imagine something like this happening in the near-future: “A report by the National Crime Prevention Service indicated that a disproportionate number of rapes in British towns were committed by MusXXXX (censored). The report, which was scheduled to be released today, was stopped, when a room-service attendant in a London hotel pronounced that the report was motivated by hate. The police are investigating.”

Or this future absurdity: “After a local journalist reported several killings at a homeless shelter, when a dispute broke out over serving pork for dinner, the journalist was taken into custody by the police. The journalist was charged with a hate offense for using the word ‘pork.’ A co-worker at the town newspaper stated that ‘pork’ was incendiary and motivated by hate. ‘That’s why I called the police,’ he said.”

Imagine a court case like this:

PROSECUTOR: Sir, isn’t it true that you called your brother-in-law a danger to his family?

DEFENDANT: Yes, because he threatened to hurt his wife, my sister.

PROSECUTOR: And your brother-in-law’s religion is MusXXXX (censored)?

DEFENDANT: Yes, but that has nothing to do with my statement to him.

PROSECUTOR: Your next-door neighbor heard the argument you two were having and adjudicated your thoughts were “of hatred.”

DEFENDANT: She read my thoughts?

PROSECUTOR: Exactly. And the State agrees with her assessment.

For those people who claim that paranormal events are a scientific fraud, here is your comeuppance. The UK Met Police have just written these events into law.

Telepathic insight is real enough to warrant an arrest and prosecution.

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.

Would the government let Jesus cure cancer?

by Jon Rappoport

March 14, 2018

In the 1990s, I watched a federal trial in a Los Angeles courtroom. The defendant was charged with selling medical drugs without a license to practice medicine.

The defendant was prepared to argue that a) the substance he was selling was naturally produced in the body and b) it was effective.

The prosecution moved to exclude such testimony, on the grounds that it was irrelevant.

The judge agreed. Therefore, the trial was nasty, brutish, and short. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to prison for several years.

This is how the federal bureaucracy operates. “Do you have a government-issued license to heal? No? You’re a criminal. End of story.”

I believe that if Jesus of Nazareth were walking the Earth today, in the United States, he would be arrested on the same grounds.

This would be particularly so if he were curing cancer.

Imagine this extreme case: In a stadium packed with 50,000 people who have been diagnosed with cancer, Jesus of Nazareth waves his hand and cures all of them in a few seconds.

Now he is threatening the profits of many companies, to say nothing of the power of the government, which backs the chemo-radiation-surgery monopoly to the hilt.

So he is arrested. He is put on trial. He opts to defend himself without an attorney. He tells the court that curing cancer is no crime.

The prosecuting attorney objects. “Your Honor,” he says, “whether or not this man has cured cancer is beside the point. He has no license to practice medicine. That is why we are here today. We are simply establishing that a) he was practicing medicine and b) he has no government-issued license. That is the scope of this proceeding.”

The judge agrees. The verdict is issued. Guilty.

Of course, on another front, the major media, who depend for their existence on pharmaceutical advertising, take the ball and run with it. The networks and major newspapers seek out “experts,” who emphatically state that what Jesus of Nazareth “performed” in the stadium was mere hypnotism. It was placebo effect. Whatever sudden “remissions” may have occurred are just temporary. Tragically, the cancers will return.

Not only that, these 50,000 people have effectively been sidetracked and diverted from seeking “real care from real doctors.” With chemo, with radiation, with surgery, they would have stood a chance of surviving and living long normal lives.

Other media pundits send up this flag: “Many of those present in the stadium were clinging bitterly to their religion. They refuse to accept science. They are living in the past. They favor superstition over real medical care. In fact, they are threatening the whole basis of healthcare, since other confused and deluded Americans may now turn away from doctors and seek snake-oil salesmen and preachers for healing.”

From the highest perches of political power in this country, the word quietly goes out to the media: don’t follow up on those people who were in the stadium; don’t try to track them; don’t compile statistics on their survival rates; move on to other stories (distractions); let this whole madness die down.

But among the citizenry, an awareness spreads: the government is controlling healing through its issuance of licenses. That’s how the government is essentially protecting one form of “healing” and enabling it to become an all-encompassing cartel.

What would be the alternative to licenses?

Contracts.

Contracts are agreements entered into by consenting adults, who assume responsibility for the outcomes. In the case of healing, a contract would specify that people have a right to be wrong.

Let’s say two consenting adults, Jim and Frank, agree to allow Frank to treat Jim for his arthritis with water from a well on Frank’s land.

The two men acknowledge that no liability will be attached to the outcome. In other words, whether Jim gets better or gets worse, no one is going file a suit. No one is going to go to the government for redress of wrongs.

The well water may be wonderful or it may be completely useless. Both men understand and acknowledge that. But they assert a right to try the treatment, because they are free.

Immediately people say, “This is ridiculous. Water can’t cure arthritis. Frank is cheating Jim. Jim is a victim. He needs to see a doctor. He needs to go on arthritis drugs.”

No, Jim doesn’t have to do anything. He is free.

To put it another way, Jim has the right to be right or wrong. It’s his decision, which is beyond the scope of any authority.

If government tries to remove that right from all of us, it is essentially saying it knows what is correct, it knows what is true, it knows what we need and require, and it’s going to give it to us even if it has to shove it down our throats. Does that sound like freedom to you?

If Jesus of Nazareth lived in the United States today, and if he went around curing cancer, he would be arrested. He wouldn’t be charged with blasphemy or treason. He would be charged with something much simpler and more mundane: practicing medicine without a license.

And he would be convicted and sentenced.

Because the government, in its throne of corruption, in its partnership with corporations, wants to monopolize proprietary and illegal interests.

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.

Shocking victory for proponents of alternative medicine

Shocking victory for proponents of alternative medicine

by Jon Rappoport

March 8, 2018

Breaking: In Australia, an effort to label all alternative (traditional, complementary) medicine products as “based on pseudoscience” has failed.

Traditional remedies (much older than mainstream medicines) are defended as appropriate, and can include health claims.

The Crazz Files, a major defender of health freedom in Australia, reports: “In a major win, the Federal Government has ignored the Australian Greens and anti-complementary medicine activists like Doctor Ken Harvey…and passed a reform package that protects traditional medicine.”

“The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill, which passed Parliament on February 15, supports positive claims for complementary medicines based on traditional evidence, and abolishes the current complaints system.”

“Greens voters were shocked to learn Greens Leader and General Practitioner, Senator Dr Richard Di Natale was aligned with skeptics, whose platform is: ‘There is no alternative to [modern] Medicine’.”

“One of his [Dr. Di Natale’s] ‘concerns’ was that people were being ‘misled’ by traditional claims about the effectiveness of complementary medicine. He, and the skeptics, wanted labels on complementary and traditional medicines to state: ’this traditional indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and there is no scientific evidence that this product is effective’.”

“The Minister for Rural Health, Senator Bridget McKenzie, told Di Natale: ‘I think it is offensive and disrespectful to those who practice traditional medicine’.”

“’For some, particularly those using Chinese medicine, the history of practising in that traditional medicine paradigm goes back thousands of years. It’s been extensively refined, practised and documented and in many cases incorporated into mainstream medicine. So, a statement required by the Australian Government that the indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and that there is no scientific evidence will be seen as arrogant and insensitive to those practising and using traditional Chinese medicines,’ Senator McKenzie said.”

Boom.

All right. Now I want to treat readers to a brief analysis of “modern medicine,” the so-called scientific system that is the “only valid system.” It is the system employed in Australia, America, and virtually all countries in the world.

People who watch the news or read mainstream news have the impression that “scientific” medical research is remarkably valid and always progressing.

Doctors and medical bureaucrats line up to confirm and ceaselessly push this view.

But they are concealing a dark truth.

Let’s go to the record. Here are two editors of two of the most prestigious and respected medical journals in the world. During their long careers, they have read and scrutinized more studies than any doctor, researcher, bureaucrat, or so-called medical blogger. And this is what they have written:

ONE: “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.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)

TWO: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)

There are many ominous implications in these two statements. I will point out one.

Incompetent, error-filled, and fraudulent studies of medical drugs—for example, published reports on clinical trials of those drugs—would lead one to expect chaos in the field of medical treatment. And by chaos, I mean: the drugs cause widespread death and severe injury.

Again, if a person obtains his news from mainstream sources, he will say, “But I see no evidence of such a vast scandal.”

That is a conspiracy of silence. Because this widespread death and grievous harm HAS been reported. Where? In open-source medical literature.

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

The Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), came to the following conclusion, among others:

Every year in the US, correctly prescribed, FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 people. Thus, every decade, these drugs kill more than a MILLION people.

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

All in all, those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this ongoing tragedy preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here is an excerpt from that interview.

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

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

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

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

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

A: NO.

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

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

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

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

—end of interview excerpt—

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

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO ESTEEMED MEDICAL EDITORS I QUOTED ABOVE—MARCIA ANGELL AND RICHARD HORTON—ARE SAYING.

If you know a doctor who enjoys sitting up on his high horse dispensing the final word on modern medicine, you might give him the quotes from Dr. Angell and Dr. Horton, instruct him to read them, and suggest he get in touch with Angell and Horton, in order to discover what has happened to his profession.

As in: DISASTER.

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.