Category Archives: Government Fraud

Government monitors in newsrooms: the solution

Government monitors in newsrooms: the solution

by Jon Rappoport

February 19, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Ajit Pai, an FCC commissioner, has blown the whistle on a government plan to put federal monitors in newsrooms.

The plan is billed as a study, to determine how major networks assemble their stories—and also as a teaching program to show newspeople what stories are vital and critical, and what stories aren’t.

The Orwellian op even covers newspapers, to which the FCC has no regulatory connection.

Pai writes in the Wall St. Journal:

“…the agency [FCC] plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, SC, is scheduled to begin this spring.

“The purpose is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about ‘the process by which stories are selected’ and how often stations cover ‘critical information needs,’ along with ‘perceived station bias’ and ‘perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.’”

Keep this in mind: major media outlets are already heavily censored. As collaborators with governments and other corporations, they lie on a regular basis and omit stories that would expose the men who are actually running things.

So this FCC crackdown is about the leftover bones and bits of flesh. “Leave that bone alone. Talk about this bone.”

If media outlets cared about government agents trampling their home turf, they could implement an easy solution and jack up their ratings through the roof.

Film the monitors.

Film everything they say and do. Film them at lunch and in the bathroom. Film them when they’re giving advice about which stories to run and why.

And live-stream that raw film 24/7. Post it online.

Watch the watchers.

Of course, that won’t happen.

Here’s what will happen. Government monitors will say, “That story on transgender 10-year olds? You’re running it at the bottom of the line-up, just before the weather. We think you should put it up higher. And in the story, in paragraph three, we detect a micro-aggression against transgender boys. You should change the wording. The transgender community is underserved. It needs more positive exposure…”

“Why do you keep running stories about Benghazi? That issue is dead. What are you trying to accomplish? You’re showing bias. Instead, you should be highlighting the progress the people of Libya have made since the death of Gaddafi.”

And so on and so forth.

Government news. Don’t worry, be happy.

The upside is, even more people will shut off mainstream news and go to alternative sources.

Meanwhile, the State will shape news tighter, because they believe they can get away with it.

Jon Rappoport

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

The Starfield Revelations

By Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

Barack Obama and his allies have done everything they can to bring more people into the US medical system. Changing that system has never occurred to these politicians.

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

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

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

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

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

Every year in the US there are:

* 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

* 7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

* 20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

* 80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

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

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000. That’s 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.

The Starfield paper can be downloaded freely (as a .pdf) from here (via www.drug-education.info). The paper is fully cited as Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world?. JAMA. 2000; 284(4):483-4. Dr. Barbara Starfield’s wiki page is here.

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

The Starfield study is the most disturbing revelation about modern healthcare in America ever published in the mainstream.

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 situation preferred to ignore it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Matrix Revealed

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

INTERVIEWER COMMENTS:

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

Many persons and organizations within the medical system contribute to the annual death totals of patients, and media silence and public ignorance are certainly major factors, but the FDA is the assigned gatekeeper, when it comes to the safety of medical drugs.

The buck stops there. If those drugs the FDA is certifying as safe are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the Agency must be held accountable. The American people must understand that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Further comments on 9/11 and internet attacking

Further comments on 9/11 and Internet attacking

by Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

After I posted my piece about molten metal at the World Trade Center, I received an unusually large number of emails offering explanations.

My article was simply meant to point out an anomaly: melting dripping steel at the WTC, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, in some cases long after the attacks, did not mesh with the official scenario about how the buildings came down.

Soon after September 11th, 2001, I advised people to look at the explosion(s) itself, the impact, the profile of the damage, as one good starting point for investigation.

This was because I had done that in 1995, after the Oklahoma Bombing. It turned out that a truck bomb, exploded from the curb in front of the Murrah Building, could not have caused the pattern of damage that resulted.

Of course, after 9/11, numerous hypotheses about how the buildings had been taken down, were presented. This effort continues. It was thermite. It was cutter charges placed on columns inside the buildings. It was charges placed inside columns when the Trade Towers were originally built. It was mini-nukes. It was an energy weapon.

Because I am not, first and foremost, a 9/11 researcher, I reject none of these scenarios. I also know that with any hypothesis, trying to establish it with evidence can bump into facts not covered by the hypothesis.

“If hypothesis X is true, then how do you account for observations Q,R.S. And T. You can’t.”

It’s possible that more than one method of destruction was employed on 9/11. It’s possible that was done precisely to confuse independent researchers who would come along and try to develop one and only one explanation for how the Towers came down.

It’s also possible a multiple method of destruction was employed so that independent researchers would attack each other and accuse each other of lying, deceit, cover-ups, and so on.

If you read some of the back-and-forth among independent researchers, you’ll occasionally find these online attacks. They serve to drive people to distraction. They poison the atmosphere. They push people away.

It’s also possible that one and only one method was, in fact, used to take down the Towers—and I’m not talking about planes. But trying to establish what that one method was certainly isn’t helped by online attacks between these independents.

If you read independent research and then go to the comments sections, you’re really in the Wild West. People taking potshots at each other, name-calling, trolls changing the subject, etc.

In any major society-changing event, like 9/11 or the JFK murder, there will be false trails that dead-end. These trails are laid down by people paid to distract and divert. Yes, that makes things confusing.

“Let’s see. Is this a paid troll, or is it just a person whose highest aim in life is anonymously screaming at others?”

The Matrix Revealed

But no one said it would be easy. Keeping one’s eye on the ball (the actual investigation) is of paramount importance.

Investigation requires that certain bottom-line approaches are used. If you provisionally believe, for example, that the WTC was taken down by cutter charges placed in the buildings, and someone comes along and says, “But if that’s true, how do you explain the incredible amount of pulverized material found at the site,” you need to look at that. You need to determine a) if there was a tremendous amount of pulverized material, and b) if so, how it came to pass.

I’m just offering that as an example, not as the whole story. The whole story is quite complex.

You say, “What do we find at the WTC site after the 9/11 attacks? We find the following 21 things which seem to be important. What hypothesis can I frame about causation that will explain and account for those 21 things? Ah, here is one. Yes. Let me lay it out in detail…”

Then someone comes along and says, “Yes, but there are more than 21 important things. There are five more. Does your hypothesis account for them as well?”

And you need to consider that.

An independent investigator works from passion, but he also works from keeping a cool head.

In researching my first book (1988), AIDS INC. (included in The Matrix Revealed), I eventually decided there was no reason to conclude HIV caused what was being called AIDS. I had a number of reasons for that decision. But then I had to come up with an alternative explanation—and that explanation had to account for all the phenomena associated with AIDS.

I did that.

But of course, people came along and said, “Wait a minute, how about the hemophiliacs who are getting AIDS in their injections, how about Africans and green monkeys, how about the journal papers that say HIV is attacking T-cells…and so forth and so on.

These points were not always offered to me in the spirit of kindness and fellowship.

But I wrote them down and dealt with them, one by one.

And then, when I had covered the waterfront, my publisher went to press with the book.

And then, I was happy to ignore criticism (from independent researchers) if it was offered in bad faith… and as for mainstream critics who were parroting the official scenario, I attacked them mercilessly.

Jon Rappoport

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

9/11 official scenario: what about the pools of melted metal?

9/11 official scenario: what about the pools of melted metal?

by Jon Rappoport

February 8, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

I began by reading reports of melting dripping metal at the World Trade Center after the attack on September 11th.

Some of these reports come from weeks after the attack.

This seemed quite strange.

Following links, I arrived to Dr. Steven Jones and his famous paper, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?”

Jones takes up this issue and much more. His paper is well worth reading.

Jones’ approach goes beyond the argument about whether the buildings collapsed because the steel construction melted or just weakened.

The molten pools of metal are the anomaly. They need to be explained. Jones is arguing that these long-lasting pools wouldn’t have resulted from burning jet fuel.

His conclusion, which he states needs further investigation, is that thermite charges were the cause of the pools. And why else would thermite be present in the buildings, except for the purpose of bringing them down?

I fully understand that all sorts of assertions have been made to explain the collapse of the buildings. And I’m sure people will write me with their assurances about what really happened on 9/11.

But in this article I’m simply pointing out that what appears to be confirmed observation of molten pools of structural metal from the WTC is a key.

Why? Because it cannot be explained or accounted for by the official 9/11 scenario.

Yes, there are other facts that can’t be explained by the official scenario. The molten pools are one important fact, and Jones takes it up. Here are quotes from his paper:

“We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7.”

“There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer, ‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6.)”

“…the observed surface of this metal is still reddish orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time — once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various materials entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions which would tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any thermite cutter charges which did not ignite during the collapse could also contribute to the prolonged heating.”

Jones goes on to explain thermite reactions.

“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. [See Grimmer, 2004] Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting.”

“Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, which we call ‘thermate,’ will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report.”

“On the other hand, falling buildings (absent incendiaries such as thermite) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal; any particles of molten metal somehow formed during collapse will not coalesce into molten pools of metal!”

“The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams—then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology]) stated: ‘Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt.’ (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)”

“And in a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST states: ‘In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.’”

“None of the official reports tackles the mystery of the molten metal pools. Yet this is clearly a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis.”

“Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel: ‘The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true… The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was definitely not capable of melting steel.. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C — hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.’”

Jon Rappoport

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

297 scientists, experts sign statement: GMOs not proven safe

297 scientists, experts sign statement: GMOs not proven safe

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

The statement was drawn up by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility. It was released on October 21, 2013.

Since then, 297 scientists and experts have signed it.

Thus exploding the myth that “the science is settled.”

Exploding the claim that a consensus about GMOs has been reached.

You can read the statement and the signatories at ensser.org.

http://www.ensser.org/media/0713/

Here are two excerpts from the statement:

“As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is ‘over’.”

“We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.”

Exit From the Matrix

The number of scientists on either side of a question does not, alone, imply a final answer. But it does indicate whether the question is closed or still open. It does indicate that those who claim the question is closed are wrong.

Completely wrong.

Monsanto PR and government PR and media PR are so many tongues wagging in the wind.

In previous articles, I’ve highlighted dangers and lies re GMOs. Here I’m simply reporting that a consensus about GMO safety is a delusion.

In other words, anybody can say “everybody knows…” And if those people have access to, or control, major media, they can make a persuasive case.

But the persuasion is nothing more than one voice drowning out other voices.

Other voices who, for example, make this declaration:

(Signatory, Dr. Margarida Silva, biologist and professor at the Portugese Catholic University)—“…research has been mostly financed by the very companies that depend on positive outcomes for their business, and we now know that where money flows, influence grows. The few independent academics left must work double shift to address the vast array of unanswered questions and red flags that keep piling up.”

Or this voice: Signatory, Dr. Raul Montenegro, biologist, University of Cordoba, Argentina—“As things stand, the governments of these countries [Argentina, Brazil] deny that there is a [GMO] problem even in the face of numerous reports from the people who are affected and the doctors who must treat them.”

So far, there are 297 such voices.

Will CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX report this story in full and overturn the false consensus? Will they make room for the 297 voices?

Of course not. Their job is to invent consensus by consulting “reliable sources.” Meaning: liars who also want to invent false consensus.

Jon Rappoport

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

Flashback: when Jimmy Carter was a pawn for David Rockefeller

Flashback: when Jimmy Carter was a pawn for David Rockefeller

by Jon Rappoport

February 4, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Presidents don’t run the real show. They follow rules others make. They stand out in front and try to look Presidential. They agree to the Big Con.

For example, Jimmy Carter was a pawn on David Rockefeller’s chessboard. Carter was plucked out of nowhere to run for President by Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission (TC).

The TC is explained, by its members, as a “forum for discussion of issues,” but of course it isn’t. It’s much more powerful than that.

Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s a through-the-looking-glass secret—in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper.

The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others?After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

(Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.)

The Matrix Revealed

Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.

Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.

When Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Jon Rappoport

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

Under the radar: prestigious mainstream editor torpedoed the FDA

Under the radar: prestigious mainstream editor torpedoed the FDA

by Jon Rappoport

February 3, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Seven years ago, Marcia Angell, who, for two decades, edited one of the most famous medical journals in the world, the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote a piece for the Boston Globe.

It was titled, Talking Back to the FDA (February 26, 2007).

In his book, Medication Madness, Dr. Peter Breggin quotes Angell’s article:

“The FDA also refuses to release unfavorable research results in its possession without the sponsoring company’s permission…It’s no wonder that serious safety concerns about drugs such as Vioxx, Paxil, and Zyprexa have emerged very late in the day—years after they were in widespread use.”

Serious safety concerns? Heart attacks, strokes, suicide and homicide, etc.

What’s this ongoing bureaucratic insanity Marcia Angell is referring to?

The drug companies do the human studies on new drugs before they are submitted to the FDA, who then decides whether to approve the drugs for public consumption.

The FDA examines these studies. But here is the catch. A drug company might submit four studies on a new drug to the FDA. The FDA might choose to render a favorable decision based on two studies.

Now, somebody like Angell, while she was editing the New England Journal, would approach the FDA and say, “We want to see all the study-data you have on this new drug. Not just the most positive findings.”

And the FDA would refuse. Why? Because these studies are “property” of the drug companies, and those companies don’t want the studies to see the light of day.

Those are the human clinical trials that reveal heart attacks, strokes, and deaths are quite real results for people taking the drug.

The FDA, tasked with protecting the public, says no. “No, you can’t see the data.”

Angell’s column in the Boston Globe was a blockbuster. It should have provoked action from the Department of Justice. After all, people having strokes and dying…and the drug companies and the FDA concealing this…if that isn’t a crime, what is?

But no. Angell’s revelation goes nowhere. It’s published and it sinks like a stone.

And people think, “Well, I guess there really isn’t a problem. If it were serious, the government would have done something about it.”

Wrong. The government isn’t in the business of sending pharmaceutical executives and FDA bureaucrats to jail. A drug company might have to pay a hefty fine and promise to behave, but the profits from the killer drug are already in the bank. Pay a fine of $2 billion? Chump change, when the drug already made $20 billion in sales.

So, as Angell reveals, we have a hidden definition of pharmaceutical science: “Conceal the dangers, get the drug on the market, ignore the human destruction, and at worst pay a fine.”

The FDA hiding and burying the truth about medical drugs? This helps explain how, in the US, every year, 106,000 people die as a direct result of ingesting FDA-approved medicines.

Yes, 106,000. See “Is US health really the best in the world?”, Dr. Barbara Starfield, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000. Her statistics were a conservative estimate.

In one of the last interviews (2009) she did before she died, Dr. Starfield told me as much. She remarked that later studies reported higher death rates from the effects of the American medical system.

This is the FDA at work. This is the federal agency whose wet dream is limiting people’s access to nutritional supplements, which cause virtually no deaths.

Jon Rappoport

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

Soviet psychiatric drug for dissidents given to US patients

Soviet psychiatric drug for dissidents given to US patients

by Jon Rappoport

February 1, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

It’s called Haldol. The generic name is haloperidol.

It’s classified as an “anti-psychotic.”

You’ll read that Haldol is being phased out in the US, but “PM: The Essential Resource for Pharma Marketers” reports that Haldol accounts for 5% of anti-psychotic prescriptions handed out between 2010 and 2011.

That’s 2.7 million prescriptions for Haldol. In one year, in the US.

The major and frequent adverse effects of the drug? Akathisia (the irresistible and painful impulse to keep moving, the inability to sit still), dystonia (severe muscle contractions that twist the body grotesquely), and Parkinsonism.

In short, torture.

All three of these effects can indicate motor brain damage.

Here is a quote from a news-medical.net article, “Haloperidol—What Is Haloperidol?”:

“There are multiple reports from Soviet dissidents, including medical staff, on the use of haloperidol in the Soviet Union for punitive purposes or simply to break the prisoners’ will. Notable dissidents that were administered haloperidol as part of their court ordered treatment were Sergei Kovalev and Leonid Plyushch.”

From the same article, there is this blockbuster statement:

“Haloperidol has been used for its sedating effects during the deportations of aliens by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). During 2002-2008, federal immigration personnel used haloperidol to sedate 356 deportees. By 2008, follow[ing] court challenges over the practice, haloperidol was given to only 3 detainees. Following lawsuits, U.S. officials changed the procedure so that it is done only by the recommendation of medical personnel and under court order.”

The Matrix Revealed

In his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin quotes Leonid Plyushch, a scientist and political dissenter in the USSR, who escaped to the US: “[In a Soviet prison, after dosing with a small amount of Haldol] I was horrified to see how I deteriorated intellectually, morally and emotionally from day to day. My interest in political problems quickly disappeared, then my interest in scientific problems, and then my interest in my wife and children.”

In the 1960s and 70s, Haldol was given to “angry black men” in America, after laying on the justification that they were suffering from schizophrenia.

Here is a quote from the 2012 edition of Virtual Mentor, the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics. It concerns a pharmaceutical ad that ran in the May 1974 issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry:

“…in the ad, an angry African American man shakes his fist menacingly…the text above the image…’Assaultive and belligerent?’ ‘Cooperation often begins with Haldol.’”

Yes it does. Cooperation begins with the the torture delivered by Haldol.

Warning! Do not try to withdraw from Haldol or any psychiatric drug without proper guidance. The effects of the withdrawal can be more dangerous than the drug’s effects. See, for example, the work of Dr. Peter Breggin and his advice on withdrawal, at www.breggin.com

“…in the disputes between the East and West concerning the Russian opponents of the Soviet regime… [m]any dissidents went to lunatic asylums and were treated as mentally sick. Western doctors and the press accused Soviet doctors of being blind instruments of the regime and of having broken the solemn oath of their calling. The Russian doctors thought the West had gone mad in reproaching their behavior. For them, anyone who opposed such an efficient police power must be mentally disturbed. In their view, only those who had what Seneca called Libido morienti (the death wish) would dare to provoke the State. The Russian doctors were convinced that they were undertaking a humanitarian mission by placing the opponents of the regime in asylums and thereby reducing their aggression–the only hope for their survival. To reduce the outstanding to mediocrity was always a medical and human duty in a state where mediocrity had the better chance of survival.” — “Man: The Fallen Ape” by Branko Bokun

Jon Rappoport

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

“Big government isn’t a problem, it’s those damn corporations”

“Big government isn’t a problem, it’s those damn corporations”

by Jon Rappoport

January 31, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

I know. All our problems come from mega-corporations. That’s it. End of story.

The Surveillance State, for example, knows what brand of paper towel you’re using and whether you put on your left or right shoe first, because “we’re all potential terrorists.” That’s the NSA, which isn’t really part of the government. No. Not really.

NSA may be organized under the Dept. of the Navy, but it’s something different, right?

No? Hmm.

Well, maybe NSA is part of big government, but it’s an exception to the rule. Or something.

And then we have the FDA, which routinely approves medical drugs that kill, at a conservative estimate, 106,000 Americans a year, which comes out to more than a MILLION deaths per decade. The FDA isn’t really part of big government. No.

Murder at the FDA

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

Well, it is, but after all, pharmaceutical corporations control the FDA, yes? Those poor earnest victims at the FDA can’t do anything about it. Isn’t it tragic? Those FDA employees, who work for the government and draw a government paycheck, can’t stand up and resist, while millions of deaths pile up.

Poor little victims at the FDA. It’s not their fault. No one should expect them to be honest. They’re under a spell.

Likewise, when the members of Congress (both sides of the aisle) take money from corporations to vote on a bill, when these elected members take a bribe, it’s not their fault. You see, the one who offers the bribe is the criminal, but the one who takes the bribe can’t be blamed. No. He or she is the victim, and we have to sympathize with victims. It’s in the Constitution somewhere. I’m looking for the quote. “The bribe taker is always innocent.” Yes. There it is.

And when a President opens the door to a parade of toxic GMO crops and Monsanto, when he appoints ex-Monsanto people to key federal posts, it’s not the President’s fault. He’s the victim, too. Commander in Chief of all those soldiers, the Dept. of Justice at his beck and call, but he’s the victim. Poor Mr. President. See my tears.

Meet Monsanto’s number one lobbyist: Barack Obama

How about the FBI? Is that part of big government? Hmm. Well, yes, I guess so, but these huge agencies, I mean, they aren’t elected, they’re just there.

Oh. Isn’t that a major aspect of what big government means? Unelected?

Remember way back, in the Oklahoma Bombing case, when whistleblower Fred Whitehurst revealed that the FBI lab was a nest of liars and had never really tested materials before concluding (from press reports) that an ammonium nitrate bomb blew up the Murrah Federal Building? Ha-ha. Well, that’s “history,” and history doesn’t count. COINTELPRO doesn’t count, either. Who remembers that?

Then there is the CIA and its various crimes, going way back. You know, overthrowing governments, that sort of thing. The CIA is part of big government last time I looked. Ditto for DHS.

And the Federal Reserve? They’re a special case. They’re private banks but they’re part of big government because big government says so. That’s pretty fantastic.

And wars. Lots and lots of people die. Our government declares wars. The President does, sometimes with the approval of Congress. Sometimes not. But there again, the President is just the victim, he’s surrounded by evil people who make him go to war. Right. He can’t say no. Just can’t say no. Amazing. See, the President really has no responsibility. When he does a good thing, he does it, but when he does a bad thing, it’s other people making him do it. Nice setup.

“Surrounded by evil people, evil corporations, the President had no choice but to send many young Americans to die, to lose arms and legs and eyes…” Sure. Who would expect a President to stand up and say no?

Can’t do it. Just can’t. The man’s a victim, and we weep for him.

“Well, if the President went against the powers-that-be, they’d kill him.”

Bingo. Here’s a little secret: if somehow an honest and honorable person were running for President, he’d be crazy to ignore that possibility. He’d know exactly what he was getting into. Unless he were a complete idiot. And he’d take the ride anyway. He’d take that risk.

Otherwise, why is he in the game? To compromise and bargain away and withdraw from his position as an honest person?

Exit From the Matrix

That phrase, “the military-industrial complex,” has two parts. Military and industrial. The military part is government. And they have weapons. But, well, they just cave in when the corporate CEOs come calling.

I could go on, but you get the point.

And in case you’re wondering, in the mid 1990s I launched a boycott of the eight biggest chemical/pesticide/GMO/pharmaceutical companies in the world. So yes, I’m aware of what mega-corporations are doing.

But to say that accusing big government of major ongoing RICO crimes is a DISTRACTION from blaming big corporations…no, that’s not going to fly. Afraid not.

They’re both guilty. Big government and big corporations. Neither one gets off the hook. Not a chance.

So….when the political Left (liberals, progressives) gives the impression big corporations are the problem…and when the political Right (conservatives) gives the impression big government is the problem, they’re both, to put it politely, completely full of shit.

It’s a straight con. Both sides know they’re lying through their teeth.

This country has been sold out and taken down by BOTH big government and mega-corporations, working hand in hand. And yes, banks are corporations, in case you thought I was leaving them out.

Consider this article a run-up to the next Presidential election. You know, Hillary, Jeb, Mitt, whoever. A vote for any of them is a vote for destruction.

Big government, big corporations. Together.

Eyes straight ahead. Salute!

Love it. The biggest government in the history of the world is surrounded by corporations and can’t do a thing about it. Beautiful. I’ve heard a lot of victim stories in my time, some real, some fake, but this one is number one on the chart. With a bullet.

Jon Rappoport

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

Flashback: 9/11 and the gold in the NY Federal Reserve

by Jon Rappoport

January 30, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

With reports that Germany can’t get back much of its gold stored in the NY Federal Reserve, I remembered what I was writing just after 9/11.

Here are a few quotes. Most are from my posts on 9/11 and 9/12, 2001:

“Still no word on the condition of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, which is 2.5 blocks away from the destroyed WTC. This bank, underground, holds $75 billion in gold from [about five] dozen countries.”

“CNN has a large map posted today, which shows the condition of a number of buildings by name in the area, but, curiously, the NY Fed Reserve is not one of them.”

“And now that workers are going down underneath the remains of the WTC, where $100 million in gold is admittedly stored (Reuters), we have no word on the condition of that gold, either.”

“Yesterday, I brought up the issue of the gigantic fed gold reserve stashed underground 2.5 blocks from the WTC. And mentioned that no press accounts were covering damage to nearby buildings. Which I find odd.”

“Here is an account from [a reader] on the ground in NYC, as of an hour ago. ‘It seems like we are getting the same limited [TV] shot on all networks…kind of a tight angle shot of damage of the base of the towers…no shots of damage to nearby buildings, including the gold reserve building. No one knows anything because the whole island [of Manhattan] has been shut down below 14th St. Camera crews not allowed to wander. If you live below 14th St. and you leave your apartment you need identification in order to get back in.’”

“The WTC took up several blocks in lower Manhattan. From the Liberty Street side, it is about 2 blocks to the Fed Reserve Bank of NY, at 33 Liberty St. Under the Bank, 5 levels down, in bedrock, is the $75 billion in gold.”

“The NY Federal Reserve keeps a facility for storing gold in NYC. It handles the gold reserves of about five dozen countries. $75 billion in a vault. About 1/4 of the world’s gold supply. At least, that’s the Fed Reserve press release on this, from 1999. This vault is located close to the WTC, where the towers fell. Is it [the vault] buried? Is the vault open? Anyone see Die Hard 3? A gigantic terrorist ‘diversion’ leading to the theft of all the gold in the vault.”

In the days following 9/11, I also wrote that there were no reports or video of troops guarding the NY Federal Reserve building. This was very curious. 75 billion in gold and no troops present? Nor have I found any video from that time, later posted on YouTube, showing troops around the Fed Reserve.

There is debate about whether a tunnel existed connecting the basement of the old WTC and the basement of the Federal Reserve. A 2010 piece at Cryptome indicates (with photos) that, during the post-9/11 WTC cleanup, an old railroad tunnel between the WTC and Fed Reserve basements was uncovered. (Diehard 3 featured such a tunnel and track.)

Was the Fed Reserve gold taken away after 9/11?

Or had it been taken before 9/11? Perhaps long before.

Clearly, in the immediate wake of 9/11, there was a concerted press effort to omit or limit mention of the Federal Reserve building.

On March 2, 2013, Tyler Durden, writing at zerohedge.com, in Why Is JPMorgan’s Gold Vault, The Largest In The World, Located Next To The New York Fed’s?, reported his finding that “the de facto largest private gold vault in the world [is] located across the street [from the NY Federal Reserve building] 90 feet below 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza.”

This private vault, at the same level as the NY Fed Reserve vault, could front right up against it.

The private vault belongs to JP Morgan Chase. It is larger than a football field.

Under circumstances deemed “essential,” it would appear to be easy to transfer an enormous amount of gold from the Fed Reserve to JP Morgan Chase.

Silverdoctors.com reports that a US Treasury Dept. audit of all US gold reserves inadvertently exposed a total figure of 466 tons, far less than previous claims of 8,133 tons.

Anyone trusting that US-held gold reserves are safe and sound needs to examine his own head.

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.