Category Archives: Government Fraud

What if you sell medicine that causes men to grow breasts?

Who’s reserving prison cells for Johnson & Johnson executives?

by Jon Rappoport

March 21, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

Who’s reserving the prison cells? The answer: no one.

These Johnson & Johnson execs are free and rich and powerful, although their crimes should have landed them in jail years ago.

And before I read the riot act, chapter and verse, let’s get something straight. Everybody’s talking about the Deep State? Well, Big Pharma is an essential part of the Deep State.

These princes are affecting, with toxic substances, the world population every day. All their lobbying efforts, all their behind-the-scenes political control guarantees they can continue to wage what amounts to chemical warfare on the public.

Today’s focus: Johnson & Johnson.

SCANDAL ONE: RISPERDAL.

March 8, 2017, ibtimes: “More than 100,000 patients are suing US group Johnson & Johnson, alleging that some of its products have caused them harm. They are claiming an antipsychotic medicine [Risperdal] has resulted in 18,500 men developing a condition known as gynecomastia, or breast swelling after taking the drugs as children.”

“Between 2016 and 2017, the number of lawsuits disclosed by J&J dramatically increased from 28,300 to 104,700, and along with it, the company’s legal costs, the Financial Times reports.”

“However, the troubles of J&J with Risperdal are not new. The company has been accused before of wrongly marketing the drug between 1999 and 2005, promoting it for uses not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration – including for the treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).”

“In 2013, this led to the company paying more than $2.2bn to settle investigations into its marketing of the drug and other products.”

“This includes the case of a couple awarded $70m last year by a jury in Philadelphia after their son developed gynecomastia at the age of five, and a man who received $2.5m after growing size 46DD ‘female breasts’.”

This isn’t the only problem associated with Risperdal. Psychiatrist and author of Toxic Psychiatry, Peter Breggin, writes: “On May 26, 2000, a jury in the circuit court of Philadelphia awarded $6.7 million to a patient afflicted with tardive dyskinesia caused by the neuroleptic (“antipsychotic”) drug Risperdal (generic name, risperidone). In Liss vs. Doeff, the jury found the psychiatrist negligent in his treatment of Mrs. Elizabeth Liss. The case is among the first involving Risperdal, a relatively new neuroleptic that was put on the market in 1994 and originally promoted as relatively free of the risk of tardive dyskinesia. Peter R. Breggin, M.D., referred the case to the attorneys and acted as a medical consultant throughout the case.”

“Ms. Liss developed tardive dyskinesia during a fourteen-month period of exposure to Risperdal as a maintenance treatment for manic-depressive (bipolar) disorder. In previous years, she had several relatively brief exposures to other neuroleptics.”

“Tardive dyskinesia is a movement disorder caused by neuroleptic or ‘antipsychotic’ medications. It can afflict any voluntary muscles of control. It can become severe and disabling, and there are no effective treatments…[NOTE:] Withdrawal from antipsychotic drugs can cause overwhelming emotional and neurological suffering, as well as psychosis in both children and adults, making complete cessation at times very difficult or impossible.”

Is that enough? There’s more.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SCANDAL TWO: TALC POWDER.

Ibtimes, 2017: “Other [Johnson & Johnson] drugs have also been blamed for causing harm to patients. More than 3,000 women have so far sued the company, claiming its talc powder caused them to develop ovarian cancer. They accuse J&J of failing to warn them about talc’s potential to increase the risk of ovarian cancer.”

“At the beginning of March, a St Louis jury rejected one of such lawsuits against J&J related to its talc-based products. However, other cases had previously been lost by the group. In February 2016, J&J was for instance ordered to pay out $72m to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer after using the firm’s products for years.”

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SCANDAL THREE: LEVAQUIN.

And then there was this—In 2012, Johnson & Johnson settled lawsuits against them for their antibiotic, Levaquin. FiercePharma writes:

“Johnson & Johnson ($JNJ) appears to be in settlement mode. It has knocked off some more pending litigation, having settled about 25% of the 3,400 lawsuits it faced tied to the dangers of taking antibiotic Levaquin…”

“In a filing in federal court, the drugmaker said it had agreed to settle, for an undisclosed sum, 845 of the legal actions brought by patients who claimed the drugmaker didn’t do enough to warn about the dangers of antibiotic Levaquin, which has been tied to tendon problems, Bloomberg reports. It said it is in negotiations to settle another 190 of the cases.”

“In 2008, the FDA required all makers of antibiotics that fell in the same class as Levaquin to add a ‘black box’ warning to the products that the fluoroquinolones were tied to higher risks of tendon ruptures.”

Medlineplus,gov spells it out further: “Taking levofloxacin [Levaquin] increases the risk that you will develop tendinitis (swelling of a fibrous tissue that connects a bone to a muscle) or have a tendon rupture (tearing of a fibrous tissue that connects a bone to a muscle) during your treatment or for up to several months afterward. These problems may affect tendons in your shoulder, your hand, the back of your ankle, or in other parts of your body. Tendinitis or tendon rupture may happen to people of any age, but the risk is highest in people over 60 years of age…Taking levofloxacin may cause changes in sensation and nerve damage that may not go away even after you stop taking levofloxacin…Taking levofloxacin may affect your brain or nervous system and cause serious side effects. This can occur after the first dose of levofloxacin.”

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SCANDAL FOUR: OVER-THE-COUNTER MEDICINES FOR CHILDREN AND INFANTS.

Let’s go even further back in time.

Washington Post, May 2, 2010: “A division of Johnson & Johnson is recalling 43 over-the-counter medicines made for infants and children — including liquid versions of Tylenol, Motrin, Zyrtec and Benadryl — after federal regulators identified what they called deficiencies at the company’s manufacturing facility.”

“The voluntary recall, which was announced late Friday by McNeil Consumer Healthcare [a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson], affects hundreds of thousands of bottles of medicine in homes and on store shelves throughout the United States and its territories and in nine other countries — a vast portion of the children’s medicine market.”

“In a statement, the company said: ‘Some of the products included in the recall may contain a higher concentration of active ingredient than is specified; others contain inactive ingredients that may not meet internal testing requirements; and others may contain tiny particles.’ It said the problems may affect ‘purity, potency or quality’.”

“This is at least the third major recall of Tylenol products by McNeil since 2008.”

“In January [2010], McNeil recalled 49 types of Tylenol products made for adults and two Tylenol products made for children after consumers complained of a mold-like odor and of temporary and minor nausea, stomach pain, vomiting and diarrhea. The company determined that some of the medicines had been contaminated by trace amounts of a chemical that is sometimes present on shipping and storage material.”

The NY Times, May 1, 2010, reported that Johnson & Johnson indicated the products might be contaminated with “tiny metal specks.”

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SCANDAL FIVE: HIP-REPLACEMENT RECALL.

Also, in 2010, Johnson & Johnson instituted a hip-replacement recall. Wikipedia: “On August 2009, 2010, DePuy, a subsidiary of American giant Johnson & Johnson, recalled its ASR (articular surface replacement) hip prostheses from the market…Pathologically, the failing prosthesis had several effects. Metal debris from wear of the implant led to a reaction that destroyed the soft tissues surrounding the joint, leaving some patients with long term disability. Ions of cobalt and chromium—the metals from which the implant was made—were also released into the blood and cerebral spinal fluid in some patients.”

“In March 2013, a jury in Los Angeles ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay more than $8.3 million in damages to a Montana man in the first of more than 10,000 lawsuits pending against the company in connection with the now-recalled DePuy hip.”

“Some lawyers and industry analysts have estimated that the suits ultimately will cost Johnson & Johnson billions of dollars to resolve.”

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SCANDAL SIX: 2010 SHAREHOLDERS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COMPANY.

Wikipedia: “In 2010 a group of shareholders sued the board for allegedly failing to take action to prevent serious failings and illegalities since the 1990s, including manufacturing problems, bribing officials, covering up adverse effects and misleading marketing for unapproved uses. The judge initially dismissed the case in September 2011, but allowed the plaintiffs opportunity to refile at a later time. In 2012 Johnson and Johnson proposed a settlement with the shareholders, whereby the company would institute new oversight, quality and compliance procedures binding for five years.”

SCANDAL SEVEN: THE JOHNSON & JOHNSON/BIEDERMAN AFFAIR.

From psychcentralcom: “The trickle of incriminating evidence against Dr. Joseph Biederman, a Harvard world-renowned child psychiatrist known for his advocacy of ‘pediatric bipolar disorder,’ has turned into a torrent — of emails and internal documents.”

“The New York Times reports, based upon the release of court documents containing internal documents and emails, that Dr. Biederman was allegedly paid by Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for his promotion of pediatric bipolar disorder and research into showing the efficacy of a [highly toxic and dangerous] drug used to treat it, Risperdal.”

“The Philadelphia Inquirer’s take: ‘Johnson & Johnson gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to a research center run by an influential child psychiatrist [Biederman] explicitly to generate data to help expand sales of the company’s antipsychotic drug Risperdal in children, according to court documents.”

Essentially, Biederman was the prime figure who convinced the psychiatric community that childhood bipolar disease was a real condition—and then took money to promote drug treatment for it, including Risperdal, a Johnson & Johnson drug. Johnson & Johnson paid Biederman to run a research center that would help the company market and sell the drug.

Note: there is no defining physical test of any kind that diagnoses pediatric bipolar disease. No blood test, urine test, brain scan, genetic assay.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SCANDAL EIGHT: NOBODY GOES TO PRISON.

The assessed fines for scandals and crimes haven’t put the company out of business. Not by a long shot.

These Johnson & Johnson executives roam free.

What would they have to do to find themselves behind bars for 20 years?

Carpet-bomb the US?

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.

Trump seeks to slash $6 billion from gov’t. medical research: why not more?

by Jon Rappoport

March 21, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH), a federal agency, is the largest medical research institution in the world.

Its 2010 budget was $30 billion. It employs 20,000 people.

Trump wants to cut $6 billion from its budget.

Here’s what you need to know: no one has ever done a comprehensive investigation of the results of NIH’s research over the years. No one has done a proper assessment of its value.

If NIH were a corporation, it would have undergone numerous assessments of its products. But government work is different. There are no standards. “We’re trying our best” is good enough. Especially when in-house PR flacks with media connections trumpet “breakthroughs” and “upcoming innovations right around the corner.”

Back in 1987, I interviewed Jim Warner, a White House policy analyst in the Reagan administration. Warner told me he had to pull rank to even get through and talk to scientists at NIH.

“These guys [at NIH] assume that it’s their show. They just assume it,” he said. He was referring to the then-current research on AIDS.

I suggested that someone should do an overall investigation of NIH, to see how valuable its research had proved to be over the past 20 years. He agreed. He said he hadn’t thought of that, and it was a good idea.

Of course, it never happened.

The situation at NIH is preposterous. If you owned a company that made parts for planes, wouldn’t you do quality control? Wouldn’t you want to know how well those plane parts were performing in the real world?

Let’s take one area, out of the 27 separate NIH centers that do medical research: NCI, the National Cancer Institute. How is the War on Cancer going?

From The Skeptical Inquirer, Jan.-Feb. 2010, author Reynold Spector:

“…Gina Kolata [reporter] pointed out in The New York Times [2009] that the cancer death rate, adjusted for the size and age of the population, has decreased by only 5 percent since 1950…She argues that there has been very little overall progress in the war on cancer.” (see here and here)

Author Spector points out how researchers can manipulate results to create the impression that cancer treatment is becoming more successful: “…there are several types of detection bias. First, if one discovers a malignant tumor very early and starts therapy immediately, even if the therapy is worthless, it will appear that the patient lives longer than a second patient (with an identical tumor) treated with another worthless drug if the cancer in the second patient was detected later. Second, detection bias can also occur with small tumors, especially of the breast and prostate, that would not harm the patient if left untreated but can lead to unnecessary and sometimes mutilating therapy.”

Spector discusses prostate cancer: “…prostate cancer therapy also presents a serious quandary. At autopsy, approximately 30 percent (or more) of men have cancer foci in their prostate glands, yet only 1 to 2 percent of men die of prostate cancer. Thus less than 10 percent of prostate cancer patients require treatment. This presents a serious dilemma: whom should the physician treat? Moreover, recently, two large studies of prostate cancer screening with prostate specific antigen (PSA) have seriously questioned the utility of screening. In one study, the investigators had to screen over a thousand men before they saved one life. This led to about fifty “false positive” patients who often underwent surgery and/or radiation therapy unnecessarily (Schröder et al. 2009). The second study, conducted in the United States, was negative (Andriole et al. 2009), i.e., no lives were saved due to the screening, but many of the screening-positive patients with prostate cancer were treated. Welch and Albertson (2009) and Brawley (2009) estimate that more than a million men in the U.S. have been unnecessarily treated for prostate cancer between 1986 and 2005, due to over-diagnostic PSA screening tests. In the end, screening for prostate cancer will not be useful until methods are developed to determine which prostate cancers detected by screening will harm the patient (Welch and Albertson 2009; Brawley 2009).”

What about so-called smart drugs for cancer? Spector: “Smart drugs are defined as drugs that focus on a particular vulnerability of the cancer; they are not generalized but rather specific toxins. But the Journal of the American Medical Association (Health Agencies Update 2009) reports that 90 percent of the drugs or biologics approved by the FDA in the past four years for cancer (many of them smart drugs) cost more than $20,000 for twelve weeks of therapy, and many offer a survival benefit of only two months or less (Fojo and Grady 2009).”

Spector cites an example of such a smart drug: “The FDA has approved bevacizumab…Since the median survival of colorectal cancer is eighteen months, bevacizumab therapy would cost about $144,000 (in such a patient) for four months prolongation of survival (Keim 2008)…Moreover, bevacizumab can have terrible side effects, including gastrointestinal perforations, serious bleeding, severe hypertension, clot formation, and delayed wound healing (PDR 2009)…bevacizumab is at best a marginal drug. It only slightly prolongs life, demonstrable only in colorectal cancer, has serious side effects, and is very expensive.”

Cancer research at NIH is plunging ahead, of course. If we could be sure these scientists are on the right track, and their failures and shortcomings are wholly owing to the fact that cancer is such a tough problem, then perhaps they should be funded for their ongoing work.

But that is not the case.

The scientists themselves tell us they’re on the right track. That is the only assurance we have.

I’m fully aware of much cancer research that has taken place outside the mainstream over the past hundred years. In this article, I’m not exploring those efforts. I’m making the point that NIH is flying without navigation tools and pretending they are preeminent princes. WITH NO COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF NIH’S WORK FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS—we are not looking at science.

We are looking at an unaccountable boondoggle—and the brutal effects of conventional treatment.

Trump wants to slash $6 billion from the NIH budget? That’s a start.

But a truly sane approach would result in shutting the place down with NO funds for research, until a truly independent body figures out what the hell has been going on there.

As a reporter who has been investigating deep medical fraud and harm for the past 30 years, I can assure you the scandals that would slither out of deep corners at NIH would fry the brains of the average American.

Just one example: leading researchers, in the mid-1980s, took a failed, highly toxic, chemo drug called AZT off their dusty shelves and decided it was their best shot at treating AIDS. AZT attacks all cells of the body. It decimates bone marrow, where cells of the immune system are manufactured. And this drug became the treatment for AIDS, whose hallmark was: depletion of the immune system. AZT was the medical version of Vietnam: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it…”

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 government’s real war on natural health

The government’s real war on natural health

by Jon Rappoport

February 6, 2017

In 1994, after a lifelong aversion to politics, I ran for a seat in the US Congress out of the 29th District in Los Angeles. My platform was Health Freedom.

At the time, the FDA was raiding offices of natural practitioners, and threatening to cut off citizens’ access to a full range of nutritional supplements.

I watched a trial, if you can call it that, in downtown Los Angeles, in which the federal government was prosecuting a young man for selling, and making health claims about, a substance that occurs naturally in the body.

The defendant told the Judge he was prepared to present extensive evidence that the substance was safe and effective. The Judge refused, saying the only issue was: did the defendant violate an FDA rule? If so, he was guilty. At that point, the trial was over, and indeed, the Judge soon pronounced a verdict and the young man was led away to serve a prison sentence in a federal lockup.

At that moment, I began to construct my case against the State, and consider what Health Freedom was all about.

Let’s start here. The FDA, the CDC, and several other federal agencies have blood on their hands. This blood doesn’t wash away. On July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, published a review in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

Starfield concluded that that US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. That would extrapolate to 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade. I subsequently interviewed Starfield (2009), and she told me the US government has never made a significant effort to end this ongoing holocaust.

So, when the government talks about FDA rules governing safety and efficacy of treatments, they should be referring to their own crimes, since, for example, FDA-approved medicines are responsible for roughly half the 2.25 million deaths per decade.

On the other hand, natural health treatments kill virtually no one.

And here is where the situation becomes basic. The decision by a responsible adult, to manage his own health, by his own measure, and to seek out any other person to help him in that regard, is not the business of the State.

The State can license anyone it chooses to, as a health practitioner. Who cares? But there is no exclusive monopoly on healing. There is no monopoly on recovery from illness. There is no monopoly on the quality of a life.

The legal aspect of this is clear: contracts vs. licenses. The State has no Constitutional right to turn its licensing procedures into monopolies. On the other hand, two consenting adults can designate each other “patient” and “healer,” accepting full responsibility, with no future liability attached, for the outcome of their treatment-arrangement (contract).

The State has no Constitutional right to stick its nose into this business.

The State needs to clean up its own act, which is a euphemistic way of saying the State needs to stop killing 2.25 million Americans per decade. Obviously, the government front of “we can’t let people try to heal themselves apart from licensed practitioners, we must protect the people” is a piece of phony propaganda.

It’s a piece of Nanny-Mommy-Daddy State bullshit. This country wasn’t founded on the premise of the government protecting everyone everywhere all the time.

The State has no right to presume it knows, in advance, what will happen when two responsible citizens decide to engage in their own healing contract.

There’s more. If one state in the Union decided to allow this form of responsible contract in the field of healing, people from all over the country would move there—seeking freedom. As a result, the economy of that State would bloom. Other States, seeing this, would follow suit. There would be a genuine Health Freedom revolution…

And the government of the country could focus on an effort to stop killing people through medical interventions.

As for the people of America, their job is to stop giving in to a reflex- reaction of fear when they contemplate health freedom. “Oh, we can’t just let people decide, on their terms, which health treatments to choose. That could lead to terrible consequences.”

The terrible consequences are right in front of your face. They’re already here. They stem from the federal government’s attempt to run a monopoly on healing, which turns out to be a killing field.

That’s the result of rules and regulations set by the experts.

People either have freedom to choose or they don’t. They have a right to be right or wrong in those choices, or they don’t.

There is no State Mommy or Daddy decreed by some higher power.

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.

Trump’s toxic agriculture policy will be as grotesque as Obama’s

by Jon Rappoport

February 1, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

In articles about Trump, I have praised the man for certain things he’s done and is doing. But that isn’t a reason for closing my eyes and accepting his programs wholeheartedly.

This is what I predicted in recent articles. Unless some miracle turnaround occurs, Trump’s pick for Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, will be a catastrophe. Lights out. Bang.

Big Ag vs. the small American farmer? No contest.

Katherine Paul, the associate director of the Organic Consumers Association, has the story:

“Trump heaped predictable praise on Sonny Perdue, promising that the former governor of Georgia will ‘deliver big results for all Americans who earn their living off the land’.”

“The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), that multi-billion-dollar lobbying group that represents Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Coca-Cola, General Mills (you get the picture) rushed to praise Perdue’s nomination. In a statement, GMA’s president said her group ‘looks forward to working with [Perdue] on issues key to keeping America’s food the safest and most affordable food supply in the history of the world’. Coming from the GMA, leader of the charge to keep labels off GMO foods, we know that ‘safest and most affordable food’ is code for ‘industrial chemical GMO food’.”

“And by now, we also all know that Perdue, who was named 2009 Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, counts both Monsanto and Coca-Cola among his many corporate campaign donors.”

“A former fertilizer salesman, Perdue at one time owned Houston Fertilizer and Grain which, after its acquisition of Milner Milling Co., morphed into AGrowStar, a grain business with operations across Georgia and South Carolina. His supporters cite his business operations as proof that he’s qualified to lead the USDA. They fail to mention the role chemical fertilizers play in water pollution and global warming [I reject that latter connection], much less the cost to farmers of relying on synthetic inputs…”

“Perdue has no qualms about taking government handouts. Environmental Working Group (EWG) reports that between 1995 and 2014, he cashed in on $278,679 in taxpayer-funded subsidies for his various businesses. Will he be open to overhauling the current system which doles out $25 billion/year in subsidies (paid out mostly to large producers, not small farmers) for commodity crops, like wheat, GMO corn, GMO cotton and GMO soy?”

“At a 2003 meeting organized by his wife (then first lady of Georgia) and sponsored by Coca-Cola and Chick-fil-A, Perdue praised the soda giant for its ‘its continued effort to grow its business presence and invest in Georgia, as the Company prepares to open a $100 million plus expansion to its Atlanta production facilities’.”

“Before his nomination, Perdue served on Trump’s ag advisory committee whose talking points, as reported on November 15, by Politico, ‘offer a roadmap on how President-Elect Donald Trump’s agriculture secretary could shape agricultural policies, including the sweeping promise to “defend American agriculture against its critics,”’. Of course, what the committee means by ‘American’ agriculture is industrial factory farm and GMO commodity agriculture. And we all know who the committee sees as its critics—that would be us and a host of other groups that advocate for healthy food and a clean environment.”

“…in 2009, Perdue signed a bill that blocked local communities in Georgia from regulating animal cruelty, worker safety and pollution related to factory farms. That’s hardly ‘looking out’ for the little guy.”

—No need to read between the lines. Perdue will be Big Ag’s man in Washington.

But just in case you think he’ll reverse all the wonderful farm policies promoted by Obama, read on. Obama was nothing less than Monsanto’s man in the Oval Office. Here is my piece, from 2013:

After his victory in the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

* Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

* Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

* Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

* Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

* Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

* Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

* Pioneer GMO soybean.

* Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

* Bayer GMO cotton.

* ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

* A GMO papaya strain.

* And soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

This is an extraordinary parade.

Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

He didn’t make that many key political appointments and allow that many new GMO crops to enter the food chain through a lack of oversight.

Nor is it coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

Obama, while on the campaign trail in 2008, was promising transparency in government, was claiming that every person has the right to know what’s in his food (GMO labeling). But clearly, that was all cover and fluff. He was lying through his teeth and he knew it. He hasn’t changed. He’s been a covert agent since the beginning.

Imposter. Charlatan. These words fit Obama. He doesn’t care that GMO food is taking over the country and the world. He wants it to happen. He’s always wanted it to happen.

Obama, Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow, among others, are prepared to do whatever is necessary to make GMO food and their attendant pesticides dominate America and, through exports, the world.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

—Whether Trump has his eyes open or closed, he’s walking down the same path. His meetings with small farmers, and his pledge to protect clean water and air, were so much fluff.

Theoretically, he has time to reverse course, but don’t bet on it, don’t hold your breath—unless you’re living in an area downwind from a corporate factory farm, where the air is full of gently wafting toxic pesticides and GMOs.

Jon Rappoport

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

Actual hacking: Every reporter needs to understand Sharyl Attkisson’s case against the US government

Actual hacking: Every reporter needs to understand Sharyl Attkisson’s case against the US government

by Jon Rappoport

January 31, 2017

Sharyl Attkisson was a star investigative reporter for CBS News. After two decades at the network, she resigned on March 10, 2014.

Among the controversial stories she covered: the Fast and Furious gun-walking program, in which the government “purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them” (LA Times, 10/3/11); the Benghazi attacks and murders; the CDC fraud in grossly overestimating the number of Swine Flu cases in America.

Attkisson now hosts a weekly television news program, Full Measure, for the Sinclair Broadcast Group. She writes at sharylattkisson.com.

Attkisson is also engaged in a struggle with the federal government.

Attkisson writes: “I just filed my latest appeal to the FBI’s improper withholding of my FBI file. You may not know it, but every American citizen—even a lowly reporter—is entitled to see his FBI file, if one exists.”

I queried Attkisson about this yesterday, and she replied: “I find it unacceptable that the federal government, and specifically the nation’s top law enforcement agency (DOJ), would be party to improperly—and I believe unlawfully—withholding public and personal materials that we (not they) own.”

For some reason, Attkisson isn’t permitted to see her FBI file. Why? The answer may lie in the government’s role as a hacker. A hacker of Attkisson’s computers.

Attkisson writes at her website: “I have a separate federal lawsuit underway against the federal government over illegal surveillance of my work and home computers by intruders using software proprietary to a U.S. intelligence agency. The intrusions were detected and confirmed by three independent forensics exams in 2013.”

“So far, the government has not cooperated with my lawsuit. For example, without even filing the required motion, government officials failed to show up for a properly-noticed deposition in the case.”

Here, from a press release, are details about the hack of Attkisson’s computers:

“On December, 27, 2014, Investigative Journalist Sharyl Attkisson filed administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Postal Service, and certain unnamed employees and/or agents of the federal government. Shortly thereafter, a lawsuit was filed in the District of Columbia alleging certain violations of Attkisson’s constitutional rights based on information implicating the federal government in illegal electronic monitoring and surveillance of her home and business computers and phones.”

“As outlined in the claims, three separate computer forensics exams revealed that intruders used sophisticated, remote capabilities to monitor Attkisson’s work. The intruders installed and periodically ‘refreshed’ software used to exfiltrate data, obtain Attkisson’s passwords to various personal and work accounts, access the CBS News computer system, and monitor Attkisson’s audio using a Skype account. Forensics also revealed evidence of U.S. government-related involvement in the surveillance.”

“Through a Freedom of Information Act request, Attkisson learned that the F.B.I. opened a case on her computer intrusions in 2013, listing her as the victim, but the agency failed to interview her in the investigation or even notify her that one had been opened. To date, U.S. government officials have failed to fully cooperate with Attkisson’s efforts to learn about the intrusions, and have failed to fully respond to numerous requests to help provide information necessary to learn the truth. As a consequence of the government’s choice to ignore Attkisson’s requests, Attkisson and her family have chosen the only available option left to them.”

Yesterday, I asked Attkisson: in your opinion, why were your computers hacked?

She wrote: “On the lawsuit over the hacking: The reason I had my computers analyzed in the first place is because government sources had approached me and told me I was likely being ‘surveilled’ due to the reporting I had been conducting, especially some of my CBS News stories that were published online. They specifically mentioned my Benghazi reporting, which I began in fall of 2012. The forensics analyses were able to determine multiple unauthorized remote intrusions of my computers using software (proprietary to a federal government agency) that occurred prior to my Benghazi reporting, however. One such intrusion, for example, occurred in February 2012 (we have the date, time and method of entry) and another in July 2012. Stories I covered during this time period included Green Energy Waste stories that the Obama administration worked very hard to stop from airing on CBS, as well as Fast and Furious reports, among others. Among other details, the forensics exams were able to determine that the intruders not only accessed the CBS system, and used Skype to surreptitiously listen in on conversations, but also examined several files and photos related to Fast and Furious.”

“In addition to two separate forensics exams that I had conducted, CBS hired a forensics company that confirmed the remote intrusions. The analyst informed CBS, among other things, ‘I have definitive evidence that shows commands were run from Sharyl’s user account that she did not personally authorize during the timeframe of concern’ and ‘This history has been deliberately removed from Sharyl’s hard drive’ by a third party.”

—Read Attkisson’s next paragraph carefully. It’s explosive. It indicates Dept. of Justice (DOJ) lying and cover-up:

“A fourth forensics exam conducted by DOJ Inspector General of a different computer (only my personal computer that I asked them to examine in hopes they would recognize the government software, CBS would not give them the CBS computers in question) also confirmed the suspicious activities and that a third party deliberately removed files from my personal computers to cover their tracks. However, this information was omitted from a summary the DOJ IG released, which instead made it incorrectly sound as though intrusions had been ruled out. (The DOJ IG will not lawfully respond to FOIA requests for the documentation showing the investigators confirming the suspicious activities. I know the documents exist because the investigators let me review them during the investigation and briefed me on their findings.)”

“The 2012 intrusion dates I mentioned were NOT the sum total of intrusions—they were two dates we know of during which software was planted in my computers. The software was then used on an ongoing basis to access files, watch my keystrokes, etc.”

CBS agrees that Attkisson’s computers were hacked. Here is an excerpt from an August 7, 2013, article posted at the CBS news site:

“CBS News announced Friday that correspondent Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was hacked by ‘an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions,’ confirming Attkisson’s previous revelation of the hacking.”

“CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair said that a cybersecurity firm hired by CBS News ‘has determined through forensic analysis’ that ‘Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions in late 2012’.”

“Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data. This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion. CBS News is taking steps to identify the responsible party and their method of access.”

“Several months ago, Attkisson had reported suspected intrusions of her computers, including her CBS News work computer, prompting CBS News to hire a firm to look into the hacking.”

My comment: As indicated at the beginning of this article, Attkisson is unable to see her FBI file. The FBI won’t show it to her. This is a breach of law. They won’t show it to her because it would reveal the FBI and DOJ stance on her investigative work at CBS. They didn’t like her work. They considered it a threat. They considered it an exposure of truths they wanted kept under wraps, relating to Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Green Energy Waste, etc.

That FBI file would lend further strength to Attkisson’s claim that the Dept. of Justice has been lying about what they found when they investigated the hacking of her computers.

For example: They found that some of their own people (FBI/DOJ) and/or people at other government agencies had done the hacking.

Major media consider this story “dead until further notice.” But independent journalists all over the world shouldn’t. They should cover it aggressively and keep the pot boiling, and make sure the public understands what is at stake: the right to report actual news, free from government interference and intimidation.

And the right to call government on the carpet, in court, under oath, to account for their crimes.

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.

Medical fake news is the Mt. Everest of fake news

Medical fake news is the Mt. Everest of fake news

by Jon Rappoport

January 25, 2017

Deep medical fraud and the destruction of health: this was the subject that prompted me to exit the news business.

As I probed deeper into that swamp, I found editors running away from my story-pitches. They didn’t want to go there. It was too scary. Too threatening to the status of their newspapers and magazines.

Lesson learned in the late 1980s: if you want to go deep, go independent.

I never looked back.

Here are three examples of going deep:

ONE: Proponents claim a vaccine stimulates a person’s immune system to produce antibodies, which are immune-system scouts.

This is supposedly a rehearsal. The immune system gets a chance to respond to a “test run,” so that when the real disease hits, the immune-defense will be ready and will knock out the disease quickly.

Except there are many diagnostic tests for disease that look for antibodies, and if antibodies show up, the doctor tells the patient he has the disease.

It’s absurd.

Antibodies from a vaccine=immunity. Same antibodies produced by the body in response to a germ entering the body=illness.

On top of this insanity, antibodies are only one component of a very complex immune system. The production of antibodies doesn’t guarantee a person’s whole immune system is in good shape.

In 1987, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., I queried the FDA about the development of an HIV vaccine. Here is what I was told: if a vaccine was ever deployed, it would produce antibodies to HIV and the person would be given a letter to carry around with him in case he was ever tested for HIV.

The letter would say, this person is immune from HIV. The antibodies are an indication of immunity, not disease.

You see, the two standard diagnostic tests for HIV were the Elisa and the Western Blot. They both tested for antibodies. If a person tested positive, he was told he had AIDS.

But if the SAME antibodies were produced by the vaccine, he’d be designated immune from AIDS.

No, that couldn’t be.

Yes, it could be and was.

TWO: Obamacare is about control, so it’s an answer to the prayers of the medical cartel.

So what do we know about their mainstream medicine, the hospital-based drug-addled modern version?

On July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a landmark review by Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), “Is US health really the best in the world?” In it, Starfield revealed what many people inside the medical establishment already knew: every year, like clockwork, the medical system was killing huge numbers of people.

Each year in the US, as Dr. Starfield reported, there are:

12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

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

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000. (a conservative estimate)

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

In the wake of Starfield’s devastating report, other facts came to light: 2.1 million people in America, every year, are hospitalized as a result of reactions to FDA-approved medicines. Annually, 36 million serious adverse reactions to those drugs occur.

So, inclusive health coverage for many more Americans under the Obama Plan means these horrendous figures will rise.

This is the dirty secret.

Obama and his allies are promoting a medical system that is the third leading cause of death in America. It’s that stark and it’s that simple.

THREE: The gold standard test for disease diagnosis is called the PCR.

Example: ABC New York reports (in “Mount Sinai patient likely does not have Ebola, health official says”):“Testing for Ebola is done at the CDC. According to a CDC spokesperson testing for Ebola takes 1-2 days after they receive the samples. The primary testing is PCR. This is performed on blood that has been treated to kill and live virus [sic]. So far CDC has tested samples from around 6 people who had symptoms consistent with Ebola and a travel history to the affected region.”

But the PCR test is completely unreliable for a disease diagnosis. Why? Two reasons. First, technicians start with a tiny, tiny sample of genetic material from the patient. This sample is supposed to be part of a virus. It may or may not be. Mistakes can be made. Obviously, the techs want the sample to be viral in nature; otherwise, the diagnostic test will be complete bust.

But more importantly, the whole rationale for PCR is wrongheaded. Doctors and researchers only find a miniscule bit of hopefully relevant material in the patient to begin with. The PCR amplifies that bit many times so it can be observed. That’s the whole rationale behind the PCR.

But to consider the possibility that a virus is causing a disease in a patient, there must be huge numbers of that virus working actively in his body.

The PCR never establishes that.

Finding a tiny, tiny trace of viral material in a patient says absolutely nothing about whether he is ill, has been ill, or will become ill.

The PCR test is an irrelevant bust and a lie.

—Those are just three examples, out of many, where “going deep” gets you a strange stare and glare from medical editors at newspapers and magazines.

They run away. They disappear. They huff and puff and turn red in the face. They do whatever they can to let you know you’re no longer welcome in their presence.

It’s fun. I used to enjoy pitching stories like these to the guardians on the watchtower of truth. Their various reactions were priceless. I used to call it “watching the egg crack.”

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

And it’s instructive. You find out where the boundaries are. You learn, in your gut, how shallow and fear-ridden the mainstream news business is, behind its pompous front.

You discover what “going independent” really means. That’s very important. Because if you’re going to leave the fold, your commitment to what you’re writing has to become relentless.

Fortunately, I discovered “relentless” was right up my alley.

It makes a cloudy day turn sunny.

Since those days when I made my exit, I’ve watched many reporters I know stop being reporters. Some of them went into real estate. Some started selling cars. Some became teachers at prep schools. Some landed jobs with partisan think-tanks and foundations.

And some are still around, turning out fake news like pancakes at a diner. Their faces are gray. They’re standing over their griddles like robots.

In off-the-cuff conversations, I told them they were making a mistake. They didn’t want to listen. I told them how vastly bored they would become.

They said it wasn’t a problem.

But it is a problem. Especially when the truth is the first casualty.

It always is the first casualty, in the news biz.

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 big one: how environmental killing becomes a medical disease

The giant pig farm disaster: a medical hoax and cover story

The full truth has never been told—until now.

by Jon Rappoport

January 18, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

“To handle all that [pig-farm feces] waste, farmers in North Carolina use a standard practice called the lagoon and spray field system. They flush feces and urine from barns into open-air pits called lagoons, which turn the color of Pepto-Bismol when pink-colored bacteria colonize the waste. To keep the lagoons from overflowing, farmers spray liquid manure on their fields nearby. The result, says Steve Wing, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is this: ‘The eastern part of North Carolina is covered with shit’.” —National Geographic, 10/30/14

The above quote describes corporate pig farming around the world.

In order to carry out this operation, giant companies like Smithfield have influenced legislators and government-agency officials. Environmental laws and regulations are ignored, or changed. Lawsuits are fought, hammer and tongs.

Here is what Robert F Kennedy Jr. told radio interviewer, Rachel Lewis Hilburn on 6/3/16:

“…a hog produces ten times the amount of fecal waste by weight as a human being, so if you have a facility that has ten thousand hogs in it, it’s producing as much sewage as a city of a hundred thousand people. Smithfield has one plant in Utah—they call it Circle Four Farms—that has a million hogs on it, so it’s producing the same amount of waste as New York City every day.”

Here is Kennedy’s kicker:

“There’s no difference between hog waste and human waste in terms of its danger to human health. They [Smithfield and other giant corporate pig operations] ought to have to have a sewage treatment plant that cleans it up. And yet, if they had to build that sewage treatment plan, it would drive the price of hogs up so that they could no longer function in the marketplace… they ought to have to build sewage treatment facilities but nobody’s making them do that because they have used political clout…”

All right, that’s a bit of background. Now I’m going to shift to the subject of Swine Flu, the phony epidemic of 2009.

Where did it start?

At a Smithfield pig-raising operation in Perote, Mexico; in a village called La Gloria. Smithfield raises 950,000 hogs a year there.

Press reports described outdoor “pig feces lagoons” on the property. When workers began to get sick, the area was sprayed with unknown chemicals. More workers fell ill and died.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of public health could testify that this combination of mind-boggling (non-) sanitation, plus strong germicides, plus other toxic chemicals routinely dumped in the feces lagoons, could and would cause human disease.

In fact, it doesn’t matter which particular germs are present in the mix.

People at the CDC had to be well aware of this. Yet, in 2009, their choice was to rush researchers to the Smithfield operation in La Gloria, Mexico, armed with the unfounded assumption that some novel virus, never before seen, was the culprit, and their job was to take blood samples and discover what the new germ was.

Why? Why assume, when workers who operate in that kind of environment get sick, there is some new disease at work? The symptoms of the workers were not unusual, given the circumstances.

Workers dying in that vat of filth and chemical soup should be expected.

But, up front, based on no evidence, the CDC on-site team was going for a new germ and a new disease, and that’s what they announced they had found. A gullible world, fed by press reports, bought in.

And that’s how the fake epidemic called Swine Flu was launched.

All the focus that could have centered on the highly toxic Smithfield pig operation in La Gloria was diverted.

Diverted to a virus.

H1N1 it was called. The Swine Flu virus.

Suddenly, it was a medical problem. Not an environmental disaster.

It was RE-INVENTED as a medical problem.

If you don’t yet get what I’m pointing out here, imagine this:

You’re living in an old sewage tunnel under a city. You’re surrounded by human excrement and biting insects and fetid waste water and foul air—and when you fall ill, you suddenly see virus-hunting researchers, not haz-mat rescue workers, approach you and take blood samples. Are they crazy?

No, they’re just doing what their bosses tell them to do. Because the CDC is fronting for, and protecting, major corporate agricultural criminals. Because your illness has to be shifted over to a “new disease and a new virus.”

On top of all this, the virus that these “researchers” do find, which, by the way, is in no way proven to cause disease, can be found all over the world. Why? Because it’s been around for a long, long time, and it has never caused any dire condition at all.

This is how the game works.

This is the medical hoax.

In the case of Swine Flu, it gets worse. It turns out that the virus is not so prevalent after all. That is why, in the early autumn of 2009, CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson discovered that the CDC, ignoring its mandate and charter, had secretly stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. You see, the overwhelming percentage of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, when sent to labs for testing, were coming back with no trace of the so-called Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus. CBS put Attkisson’s published report on the shelf and never followed up on it.

Again, the virus as the cause of illness, was the cover story. Intelligence agencies float cover stories on a regular basis. It’s no accident that CDC has a large unit of virus hunters called the Epidemic Intelligence Service.

Right off the top, I can tell you they create disinformation on a scale that must make the CIA jealous.

Graduates of this EIS program, as proudly stated by the CDC, have gone on to occupy key positions in the overall medical cartel: Surgeons General; CDC directors; medical school deans and professors; medical foundation executives; drug-company and insurance executives; state health officials; medical editors and reporters in major media outlets.

It’s a loyal insider’s club. They collaborate to float prime-cut, A-number-one cover stories of extraordinary dimensions. They invent medical reality out of thin air.

Here is a brief excerpt from the CDC’s website, “50 Years of the Epidemic Intelligence Service”:

“In 1951, EIS was established by CDC following the start of the Korean War as an early-warning system against biologic warfare and man-made epidemics. EIS officers selected for 2-year field assignments were primarily medical doctors and other health professionals…who focused on infectious disease outbreaks. EIS has expanded to include a range of public health professionals, such as postdoctoral scientists in statistics, epidemiology, microbiology, anthropology, sociology, and behavioral sciences. Since 1951, approximately 2500 EIS officers have responded to requests for epidemiologic assistance within the United States and throughout the world. Each year, EIS officers are involved in several hundred investigations of disease and injury problems, enabling CDC and its public health partners to make recommendations to improve the public’s health and safety.”

Several hundred investigations a year. An unparalleled opportunity to shape the truth into propaganda. Control of information about disease. Control out in the field, where EIS agents rush to the scene of “outbreaks,” all the way back through the hallowed halls of academia, into the press, into Big Pharma, into the government.

When I say control of information, I mean disinformation. That’s what the EIS is for. They’ve never met a virus they didn’t love, and if they couldn’t find one, they pretended they did.

They front for the medical cartel. And they provide cover for the crimes of mega-corporations. There’s a town where poverty-stricken people are dying, because horrendous pesticides are running into the water supply and soil? No, it’s a virus. There’s a hotel where the plumbing is broken and human waste is getting into all the bathrooms, and they want this hotel to be the epicenter of a new epidemic? No, it isn’t the plumbing, it’s a novel virus never seen before by man. There’s a section of a city where the industrial pollution is driving people over the edge into immune-system failure? No, it’s a virus.

And here’s the capper. Their propaganda is so good most of the EIS people believe it themselves. You don’t achieve that kind of robotic servitude without intense brainwashing. The first installment of the mind-control program is called medical school.

Psy-op and propaganda begin with the virus hunters of the EIS. They control and own the chokepoint of disease research. They blow up their scanty findings into ex-cathedra pronouncements.

And of course, this strengthens the vaccine establishment because, for every virus, there must be a vaccine: the shot in the arm, loaded with toxic chemicals and a variety of germs.

The EIS. The CDC’s band of brothers. The medical CIA.

“Show me vast pig-feces lagoons, and I’ll show you a virus you’ve never heard of before. I’ll protect corporate criminals from here to the moon…”

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.

Analyzing mainstream news anti-logic

Analyzing mainstream news anti-logic

by Jon Rappoport

January 17, 2017

Thousands of articles have been written about the so-called Russian hack of the US election. The term “Russian hack” suggests the Russkies actually found a way to subvert the results of voting machines.

But of course, no convincing evidence has been presented to support such a charge. In fact, when you drill down a few inches below the surface, you find this charge instead: Russia hacked into email accounts and scooped up Hillary, DNC, and Podesta emails, and passed them to WikiLeaks, who then published them.

No chain of evidence supporting this claim has been presented to the public, either. But even assuming the assertion is true, an important factor is intentionally being ignored: THE CONTENT OF THOSE LEAKED EMAILS.

In other words, if making all this content publicly available cost Hillary the election, and if no one is seriously questioning the authenticity of the emails, then THE TRUTH undermined Hillary. However, no major media outlet is reporting the story from that angle.

After all, how would this headline look? TRUE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS SINKS HILLARY CLINTON. Or this? HILLARY COULDN’T REFUTE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS AND SO SHE LOST THE ELECTION.

Those headlines would attract millions of clicks. Why weren’t they printed? It’s reasonable to assume big news outlets didn’t want readers to think about the story from that perspective.

Why not? Why was the heavy emphasis put on the hacking of the emails? To obscure the importance of their content: for example, DNC collusion to obstruct and undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders.

“Let’s make the story all about WHO we claim stole the emails, rather than WHAT THE EMAILS CONTAINED.”

When a tape surfaced in which Trump spoke about women who were eager to have sex with famous men, did major media make the story all about who had the tape and who released it to the press? No.

Perhaps you remember this 2009 email-hack controversy. Wikipedia sums it up: “The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as “Climategate”) began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker, copying thousands of emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.”

One of the most revealing elements in the email exchanges: an obvious attempt to sideline scientific critics of global warming. But major media quickly began to reframe the story. It was all about illegal hacking, and investigations were launched to determine the criminal. The contents of the emails were brushed off as “proprietary work product” and “misleading” because “context was missing.”

The case of Edward Snowden was somewhat different. There the media felt compelled to expose the CONTENT of the NSA documents Snowden stole. They also gave considerable space to Snowden himself. To some degree, this was a fait accompli, because The Guardian newspaper was committed, from the beginning, to publishing NSA documents and an analysis of their meaning—so other media outlets followed suit.

Getting the picture?

Big news media decide whether to focus on the WHO or the WHAT, in each case. “Should we give primary coverage to the leaker or what he leaked?”

But that is not a choice you are making. It’s a choice being made for you.

Government agencies and spokespeople leak news to the press all the time. In these instances, the press doesn’t turn around and launch a probe aimed at exposing the WHO and discovering WHY a particular tidbit was passed along for publication. Newspapers and television news departments simply run with the stories.

“Okay, Bob. Here’s a little gem for you. The White House and the Congress are cooperating on this one. In the next few days, a piece of legislation is going to be inserted into a current bill in the House. It’ll establish a working group to combat ‘fake news’ operations that confuse the public…”

Does Bob bite the hand that feeds him? Does he write a story accusing the White House of trying to knock out independent news competitors who contradict official reality? Of course not. Bob plays along.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Sometimes, both the WHO and the WHAT are censored. Such was the case with CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, who confessed publicly, in August of 2014, that he and colleagues at the CDC committed fraud in a 2004 study of the MMR vaccine and its possible connection to autism. Thompson admitted the study was cooked, to make it seem the vaccine didn’t increase the risk of autism, when in fact it did. The mainstream press put a chokehold on the story. Aside from scattered references, and official denials, the story faded quickly. The leaker and what he was leaking remained in the shadows. Independent news outlets (such as this one) kept the story percolating.

In summary, there is no logic in the mainstream approach to leaks and leakers. These days, the WHO and WHAT are decided on the basis of serving official interests and agendas—and repressing the public interest.

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.

Russian agent: who gave US uranium to Putin, Trump or Hillary?

by Jon Rappoport

January 16, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

Putin controls 20% of US uranium production. That fact is established. But how did it happen?

Now that we know Trump is a hard-core Russian agent who has been undermining America on behalf of his secret twin brother, Vladimir Putin, it stands to reason Trump was the one who gave 20% of US uranium to the Russkie leader. Right?

I mean, why wouldn’t he? All that uranium was up for grabs, it was there, and Trump somehow engineered the deal. I’m shocked the Washington Post and its CIA pals haven’t reported the story by now.

Anybody who passed that much US uranium to our eternal enemy, Russia, would have to be a secret agent working undercover for the Kremlin. No doubt about it.

Therefore, Trump…

Oh, wait a minute, my mistake.

Oops.

The Clintons were instrumental in making the uranium deal.

For proof, let me go to the irrefutable authority on all news in the known galaxy, The New York Times. They’ll settle the issue.

On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal”.

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. The company was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions).

So Putin then possessed 20% of US uranium production!

From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

From the Times: “The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.”

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that [Canadian] group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One. [Uranium One controlled 20% of US uranium.]”

“Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton…”

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

“At the time, both Rosatom [the Russian energy agency] and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.”

“…the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.”

—The US State Dept. had to sign off on the deal giving Putin control over US uranium. Hillary headed up the State Dept. Much money from Canadian mining executives, who owned the American uranium, who obviously wanted the Russian deal to go through, found its way into the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation concealed these donations.

If you’re Putin and you’re sitting in Moscow, and the uranium deal has just dropped this bonanza into your lap, what’s your reaction—after you stop laughing and popping champagne corks? Or maybe you never really stop laughing. Maybe this is a joke that keeps on giving. You wake up in the middle of the night with a big grin plastered on your face, and you can’t figure out why…and then you remember, oh yes, the uranium deal. The US uranium. Can we give our girl Hillary a medal? Can we put up a statue of her in a park? Does Bill need any more hookers?

Exit From the Matrix

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

So there it is. By all standards of current mainstream news “logic,” Hillary Clinton is the Russian agent. She and her crooked husband and their Foundation are working for Mr. Putin.

Therefore, Putin didn’t order the hacking of the DNC, Hillary, and Podesta emails and send them to WikiLeaks. No. He never would have torpedoed his own secret agent, Hillary Clinton.

Again, I’m just applying mainstream news “logic” to see where that “reasoning” process goes; and where it goes is: a) the Russians didn’t hack; and b) Hillary Clinton is their secret agent.

Cue the James Bond theme.

Ask yourself: if Trump had been instrumental in turning over 20% of US uranium to Putin, how many decibels of mainstream-news screaming would be assaulting the public day after day after day?

But Hillary and Bill were instrumental. How much screaming do we hear now?

Zero.

Jon Rappoport

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

CDC “Spider” Scientists attack the CDC, blow the lid off

CDC “Spider” Scientists attack the CDC, blow the lid off

They write a letter to the CDC chief of staff

And I write a letter to them

by Jon Rappoport

January 15, 2017

(Update: for Part-2, click here)

There is a group of anonymous scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control—they call themselves the Spider Group—Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research. They have penned a letter to the CDC’s chief of staff, Carmen S. Villar:

Here is the explosive accusation they make:

“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”

“Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right.”

“We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”

I have written at length about another whistleblower at the CDC, William Thompson, a long-time researcher who, in August of 2014, confessed in writing to massive fraud (archive here). He admitted that, in a study on the safety of the MMR vaccine, he and his colleagues literally threw vital sheets of data into a garbage can. The study then gave a free pass to the vaccine, claiming it had no connection to autism—when in fact it did. Thompson is the subject of the film, Vaxxed (trailer).

Now with this letter, we see that other scientists at the CDC are blowing the lid off internal corruption at their Agency.

If, in fact, President-elect Trump gives the green light for an independent investigation of the CDC, as press outlets are now reporting, and if he appoints Robert Kennedy Jr. to head up that panel, as Kennedy claims, we are going to see a large number of hidden facts emerge from the secretive halls of the CDC.

Because this Spider Group is anonymous, I wanted to make sure their letter is real. I contacted reporter Carey Gillam (twitter), who has been covering the story. I received this reply: “I was able to authenticate the letter by contacting CDC’s public affairs office and asking them directly about it after I received it from internal CDC sources.”

You can read the full Spider Group’s letter here at US Right To Know. (More on the letter by Carey Gillam here.)

And now I write a letter to them, so they can deepen their investigation.

Dear Spider Group:

I commend you on making an important start. You’re on the right road. As a reporter who has covered the CDC for many years, I offer you three suggestions. This short list is by no means exhaustive. I’m just pointing to a few areas where your own research will yield very rich and fertile results.

ONE: SWINE FLU FRAUD.

Let me take you back to the late summer of 2009, and the Swine Flu epidemic, which was hyped to the sky by the CDC. The Agency was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine. Remember?

The problem was, the CDC was concealing a scandal.

At the time, star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, was working on a Swine Flu story. She discovered that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases of the illness—while, of course, continuing to warn Americans about its unchecked spread.

The CDC’s main job is counting cases and reporting the numbers.

What was the Agency up to?

Here is an excerpt from my 2014 interview with Sharyl Attkisson:

Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?

Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.

—end of interview excerpt—

It was routine for doctors all over America to send blood samples from patients they’d diagnosed with Swine Flu, or the “most likely” Swine Flu patients, to labs for testing. And overwhelmingly, those samples were coming back with the result: not Swine Flu, not any kind of flu.

That was the big secret. That’s what the CDC was hiding. That’s why they stopped reporting Swine Flu case numbers. That’s what Attkisson had discovered. That’s why she was shut down.

But it gets even worse.

Because about three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.

Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).

Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.

In the summer of 2009, the CDC secretly stops counting Swine Flu cases in America, because the overwhelming percentage of lab tests from likely Swine Flu patients shows no sign of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.

There is no Swine Flu epidemic.

Then, the CDC estimates there are 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US.

TWO: THE CDC BUYS MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF VACCINES AND, AT THE SAME TIME, HEADS UP RESEARCH ON THE SAFETY OF VACCINES. EXPLOSIVE STRUCTURAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

If you wanted to buy a product, and the main source of research on the product was the company selling it, 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 some awesome media connections? Would you suspect some very powerful people were backing the company?

This is exactly the situation that exists at 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 (and clearly illegal) conflict of interest in mind.

THREE: MASSIVE OVERESTIMATE OF FLU DEATHS IN THE US, IN ORDER TO PUSH THE FLU VACCINE.

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 say that 36,000 people die 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.

So, Spider Group, don’t stop now. Deepen your probe. Become true heroes for honest research, expose the deep roots of corruption in your Agency, and do the right thing for the American people you’re sworn to serve.

Jon Rappoport

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