Hydroxychloroquine, COVID, FDA; and Pharma and all its whores around the world

by Jon Rappoport

July 30, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

“We are talking about private contracts outside the scope of government. We’re talking about local barter, and the issuing of local currencies, the building of private money systems. During the Great Depression, many citizens looked around and said, ‘We still have land and food, we still have commodities. Nothing has changed here. We just have to invent a way to conduct commerce among ourselves.’ One estimate states that, during the Depression of the 1930s, there were 1500 private money systems across America.” (My notes for “The Underground”)

I have made my case concerning the fake pandemic. Many times now.

From the beginning—the failure to isolate, purify, or actually discover a novel coronavirus by correct procedures. The meaningless diagnostic tests and the meaningless case numbers. The propaganda. The use of “the virus” as a cover story obscuring high-level corporate and government crimes.

Of course, many people believe in the COVID-19 virus. And of these, some have been seeking treatments outside the bounds of government certification.

This is their right. They are exercising freedom in managing their own health. And so some of them are taking hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).

The FDA, which certifies all medical drugs as safe and effective, before they are released for public use, has not recommended HCQ for COVID treatment. It has banned the drug for that purpose, outside of hospitals and clinical trials.

The FDA‘s track record—which I’ve been documenting for the past 25 years—is a horror show. The first key review I became aware of was authored in 2000, by Dr. Barbara Starfield, and published on July 26th of that year, in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Starfield stated that, annually, FDA-approved medicines kill 106,000 Americans. That’s over a million Americans per decade. So relying on the FDA to decide whether HCQ is a useful drug is not a concession some Americans are willing to make.

Pharma and all its allies and minions and whores are focusing on a jackpot bonanza for COVID treatment: vaccines and new antiviral drugs. Pharma does not want competition. It definitely does not want to see a landscape in which all sorts of alternative treatments for COVID (or any purported disease) are rampant and free-wheeling.

We are seeing multiple censorship actions across platforms, when people, including doctors, speak positively about HCQ.

Fauci is very much in the pro-Pharma camp, of course. He and Gates want an RNA vaccine to come to market, by any means necessary. They also want antiviral drugs to dominate COVID treatment.

A very sharp reader spelled out the Pharma-anticipated future for these new (toxic) antiviral medicines. And not just for COVID. Up to now, there has been very little mainstream progress in getting drugs specifically designed to treat viruses into the marketplace. This is Pharma’s big opportunity. They envision a trillion-dollar operation that will elevate antivirals (for treating any viruses) to the level of, say, antibiotics, which are used against bacteria. COVID would simply be the first major “breakthrough.”

So we have a war going on. HCQ and other alternative modalities vs. vaccines and antivirals. Pharma does not want to lose this one. It would be disastrous.

I am not touting HCQ. I am putting it this way: if many people are convinced, or become convinced, that HCQ is a drug of choice, and if they believe it is helping them, then a major rebellion against Pharma and the FDA and its counterparts around the world takes off. It soars. And it spurs the use of other alternatives on which Pharma makes zero profits.

So-called natural health and alternative medicine have been booming since the 1980s. A new escalation would send very serious shock waves through the pharmaceutical industry.

Fauci is well aware of this. He is fronting for the industry in every possible way. Trump, with his statements favoring HCQ, has become a major threat in that regard.

When you see new reports of soaring COVID case numbers—a con which I’ve documented six ways from Sunday—you’re not only witnessing a planned strategy to maintain the war against the economy and therefore against billions of people whose lives are at stake; you’re also watching a justification for pushing antivirals and vaccines. For the benefit of Pharma.

The last thing the pharmaceutical industry wants to see is their own case-number con giving birth to wildcat outbreaks of health freedom. People leaving the nest. People going elsewhere for treatment.

Individuals making decisions about their own treatments—this is very serious business. People should look deeply before making choices. In the case of various HCQ protocols, they should consider: dosage levels; when in the course of illness the drug would be given (early or late); whether there is illness requiring treatment to begin with; whether people may have a heredity condition which could make HCQ perilous or even lethal—these are some of the relevant considerations.

The FDA and Pharma want to be the first and last word.

Life and Liberty say they are not the first and last word.

In that regard, there is another issue: licenses vs. contracts. The medical cartel, backed by governments, has established medical boards which grant licenses to practice medicine. These special persons, doctors, are handed the right to treat and cure diseases. This is an attempt to create a monopoly.

There is another avenue: private contracts. Here is the analogy I’ve used to describe this situation. Two adults, Joe and Fred, enter into an agreement. Joe says he has a health condition. He will be the patient. Fred will be the practitioner. Fred has a well on his property. Fred believes the water has a special healing quality. He will give some of it (or sell it) to Joe, who will drink it over the course of two weeks.

Both men, in their contract, agree that no legal liability will be attached to the outcome. They are both responsible. They are of sound mind. They don’t require government permission to sign or fulfill their contract.

That’s it in a nutshell.

Joe and Fred are operating on their own. They have that natural right. They also have the right to be wrong—in case the water treatment doesn’t work, or is harmful.

Of course, all sorts of meddlers will claim this arrangement is illegal and absurd. Meddlers always try to curb freedom. That’s their crusade in life. They can’t stand the idea of people making their own choices and decisions and then accepting the consequences.

I’m not saying governments will honor such contracts. Governments are prime meddlers. I’m saying these contracts (and not just in the arena of healing) stand outside governments. They are citizen-to-citizen. They are prior to government. They are intrinsically more real than government.

THIS is what COMMUNITY actually means.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

The capture of Health Freedom

by Jon Rappoport

October 9, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“So you start off in charge, you’re an independent operator, you don’t work inside the system, but then you figure out the system thinks it includes you, some moron must have slipped in that clause while you weren’t looking, so you go talk to him, and it’s a pretty congenial meeting, although he does come across like a company man, and then later on you get an engraved invitation to come to a party. The food is very good and the people seem reasonable in a sort of washed-out way, but the upshot is, you can come in out of the cold if you want to. They’ll take you in. You can sit in an office and make twice as much as you were making on your own. That’s what they tell you. The only thing is, you have to sign a piece of paper that says you were never born and you’re actually a desk ornament. They assure you it’s just a formality and they’ve signed the same paper, and look, it hasn’t hurt them…” — The Magician Awakes

When I was running for a Congressional seat in 1994, I was also in the middle of a fight to preserve access to alternative health care, against FDA attack—and during that process, I was enlightened through meeting various members of the Pod People species, who had their own ideas about what health freedom meant.

These were high-IQ idiots who had some sort of access to politicians and academics. They were expert compromisers and sell-out artists, who saw their mission in life as something on the order of “integrating” everything they could get their hands on.

In coming years, they would become hangers-on at Center for Alternative Medicine (CAM) (later renamed as Center for Complementary and Integrative Health), the new office of alternative health established at the National Institutes of Health. Think “seedy tout at the racetrack.”

CAM was, for many people, the realization of a wet dream. Finally, the federal government, gripped in a new cloud of Love, was going to admit that alternative medicine existed and could be “integrated” into “real medicine.”

Yes, yes. A new day was dawning. A day of recognition. A big gold star would be pinned to chests of chiropractors and naturopaths and acupuncturists. O joy.

“You like me! You really like me!”

In these meetings with the Pods, I observed their loafers, their pressed jeans, their safari jackets, their carefully arranged thinning hair, their casual smiles. Holy shit, these were recent incarnations of the frat boys I had gone to college with:

“Everything’s good. All we have to do is craft language the politicians and bureaucrats can understand and accept, and they will reach their hands across the divide, because, in the final analysis, all that separates people is a diversity of background and experience. We can integrate that.”

The sub-text was:

In the coming years, alt. medicine will be recognized. Professorships and bureaucratic jobs and positions at hospitals will spring up out of tax money, and we can dig into that stash and find cushy work, if we play our cards right. But don’t rock the boat. Don’t attack the feds. Don’t go after the FDA. Don’t be “negative.” Love may not conquer all, but it can worm its way into government budgets.

And that was right and true. These days, the professions of chiropractic and naturopathy and acupuncture have, at the highest levels, sold their souls to allopathic medicine and federal regulators. Therefore, for them, the fight for health freedom is over. They think they’ve actually won.

In the 1960s, this whole process was called co-opting. Government or big business would find ways to absorb (“integrate”) its opposition.

Whereas, once upon a time, the naturopaths were tough seasoned fighters who were holding government at bay and plowing ahead with the work of healing, now they have their own bureaucrats cashing checks and enlightening the young dewy-eyed generation of practitioners on how the game is played:

“Hey, it’s all legal now, baby. Don’t sweat it. (cough, cough) I mean, we are in conference with major players at NIH, and a task force has been created to elucidate the work of two prior study groups, and in this regard we have secured ex-officio membership on a sub-committee to examine the psychological effect, on medical doctors, of reading published studies on minimal supplementation with extremely low-dose Vitamin C during the first five hours of head colds which were preceded by a tingling sensation at the back of the throat and a genital twitching in rabbits…in fact, and you’ll really like this, at the new complementary-medicine wing of a hospital in Northern Alaska, some of our fourth-year students here at the naturopathic college will be able to apply for positions as interns applying a citrus concentrate to toilets in the men’s rooms on the third floor, to assess the results, vis-a-vis germ eradication, against the old toxic cleaning solutions…”

And that about sums up what will happen to the chiropractors and the naturopaths and the acupuncturists up the road. Chiros will adjust the spines of hard cases in homeless shelters who refuse Thorazine and then publish their findings on government-issued toilet paper.

Gradually, the great golden promise of integration will come true, only not in the way this new brand of alt. practitioner expects.

I have news for the New Age Pod alt. bureaucrats. Once you’re in with the government, you’re all the way in. You take the scraps they leave on the table. You learn how to love the scraps. You primp and pump up your pretended achievements and cash your checks. That’s your role. When you’re called on to sell out further, you do it with a smile. You kiss the ring. And you come to realize your profession of natural healing has become a cartoon of itself. You live in that cartoon and you make your little speeches and mount your plaques on the office wall. When you want more money, you stand in line at the federal trough and wait. Bullshit is thy name.

What the Pods never learned is that, when you negotiate with your your opponents, you are you and they are they. Since that is the case, especially when you are coming from a position of relative weakness, your “victories” are wholly a function of who your opponents are and what they really want and what they are willing to do to get it, in the long, long run. Can I make it any simpler?

In this context, integration means you will eventually find yourself in quicksand holding a long stick, and the person on the other end of the stick will be your enemy. Then, he can re-negotiate everything. Immediately.

Yes, Virginia, there are enemies. They exist. They aren’t just an illusion fostered by “old discredited modes of thought.” You don’t make them vanish through some puerile trick. For starters, you don’t put any stock in their promises. Instead, to begin with, you make public their bad deeds. Come on. Wake up. This strategy goes back to the cave men. The first time it was used, a guy stopped his girl friend from marrying some oaf when he said, “Hey, Oaf Dude rolled four boulders we use for bonfires into his own cave. I’ve got him in the act on video. Look.”

This was my strategy when I was running for Congress. I went on the offensive against the FDA. The material at my disposal then, as now, was voluminous. It’s in the public record.

The Pods castigated me for my approach. They saw this as a hindrance to, yes, integration. They told me we were in a new age, and now the preferred method was extensive negotiation. Conflict resolution.

One night in 1994, a few months before the passage of the so-called Health Freedom Bill in Congress, which I was assured would protect us against the FDA forever, I sat in a last-ditch meeting with a dozen other people. We wanted to draft an amendment to the Bill that would nail down the protections we really needed.

A towering hack from UCLA, whose specialty was apparently Brainstorming and Conflict Resolution, a fat domehead who was as interested in health freedom as a scuttle fish is interested in the orbit of the moon, chaired this meeting. He had been invited in as an expert.

So he asked us all to introduce ourselves, one by one, and after that little excruciating exercise, he said he would write, on the blackboard behind him, each of our ideas about why this amendment was important. Well, of course, we already knew why it was important. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have come to the room in the first place.

I saw he was going to take a couple of hours, moving us through his hoops, to get to the heart of the matter, so I said, in my usual gracious style, “This is stupid.”

He looked at me. He tried to smile.

I said, “Let me summarize. We’re here to draft an amendment to the Hatch Bill that will give us more guarantees. We can write this sucker in twenty minutes. I will write it. Does anyone in the room want to go off and write his version? Then we can compare.”

One hand was raised.

“Good,” I said. “Do it. I’ll go into this next room here and type out mine. Let’s take a break and come back in twenty minutes.”

So that’s what happened, and we did hash out an amendment, and of course nobody in Washington wanted to give it three seconds of time, because all the elements of the Hatch Bill had already been agreed upon, behind closed doors.

After our meeting, a man in the room who knew the UCLA hack came up to me and said, “You were pretty harsh there.”

“Really?” I said. “If we’d followed his little Chinese torture technique, it would have taken us six hours to come to the same place we are now. Who did he think he was dealing with, second graders?”

The man frowned.

“That’s not the point,” he said. “Brainstorming has its own style, and we needed to follow that.”

“Why?” I said. “We already knew what we needed. We’re not building a rocket ship here.”

“Okay,” he said, “but this meeting was supposed to be about integrating our ideas, so that, in Washington, the same spirit of integration might prevail and get us what we wanted.”

“By osmosis?” I said. “That’s quite a leap of logic. Do you have a church?”


“A church.”

I looked him over. He was lean and bronzed. I imagined he did push-ups under a tanning lamp in his home gym. He was crinkled around the eyes, probably from forced smiling, a practice I don’t normally advocate. His combover seemed to be threaded with minor extensions. I couldn’t be sure. He was wearing one of those bush jackets with the many pockets. His nails were done with transparent polish.

He wasn’t smiling now.

“I sense a church here,” I repeated. “With a doctrine derived from As So Above, So Below. If we’re nice here tonight, ‘Washington’ will mystically pick up the vibe and be nice. Anyway, you don’t remember me, but I was with you at a meeting last month, and you were pushing for a committee to study the amendment, which would have put us so far behind schedule the Bill would have passed before we got our pencils correctly sharpened.”

The man blushed.

“Don’t worry,” I said. “You’re winning. You’re going to get a gig in whatever structure comes out of this war we’re waging. You’ll always be the good guy in the room. The folks in Washington like that.”

And by God, he did get a gig. Within the swelling bureaucracy of alt. medicine. A series of gigs. I was told he’s a brainstorming expert, and when he holds meetings of his minions, he bores them so greatly a few of them want to push him out a window.

But he’s simultaneously for health freedom and for “sensible government regulations,” and he’s for cooperating with the FDA and he’s for integrating medical drugs and nutrients—judiciously, of course—and he’s for increased government inspections of organic farms and he’s for genetically modified food, with some (again, “sensible”) restrictions, and he’s for 15 rather than 49 doses of vaccines for babies, and he’s for bringing naturopaths and chiropractors and acupuncturists into the fold, and drafting new “standards of practice and external monitoring” for them.

I believe he calls himself, on occasion, an ex-hippie who still applies the lessons of his youth to the exigencies and realities of our time. I’m thrilled. (Integral integration with integrity.)

With Pods like this working for us, our job is complete. We can take heart and look forward to a new century of love, during which our great-great grandchildren will be birthed in organic oak vats where, synthetic genes imparted, they’ll bathe in a solution that delivers 60 or 70 vaccines at the moment of emergence into the world.

A chiropractor with an advanced degree will clean out the vat and dump the contents into a drain, mop the floor, and take out the garbage.

Outside the baby factory, a fully licensed government naturopath will be raking the leaves on the lawn.

A PhD acupuncturist who’s done post-doc work at the Mayo Clinic will be smoothing out the sand and picking up candy wrappers in the kiddies’ playpen.

They’ll stop working and look up as the hospital dietitian, who researches processed-food injectables, rolls by in her Mercedes.

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.

Tom Brady, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant: celebrity health treatments are blasting the boundaries of mainstream medicine

by Jon Rappoport

May 7, 2018

Mainstream doctors and sports teams’ medical staffs aren’t happy.

Their sacred words from on high are being ignored by their patients. In case you missed the memo, doctors don’t like to be contradicted and disobeyed. Their god-like status must not be jeopardized.

Tom Brady is a headliner. He and unknown numbers of his Patriots teammates have gone outside the boundaries for help—to independent trainer/nutritionist Alex Guerrero (site). This move obviously raised conflicts with the Patriots’ medical staff. Coach Bill Belichick eventually restricted players’ access to Guerrero—the trainer could no longer fly with the team, stand on the sidelines during games, or treat players inside the New England stadium. Belichick’s dictum was apparently a mere gesture of good will to team doctors, because Guerrero has an office within walking distance of the stadium, where players visit.

As for Brady, he continues to play football at a high level, at age 40, and has developed, with Guerrero, his TB12 system for natural health and peak performance. Grossly out-of-shape sports writers tend to be irked by Brady’s longevity in the game. They enjoy predicting he’ll suddenly fall apart.

Kobe Bryant, now retired from the NBA, managed to overcome a serious arthritic knee injury near the end of his career—not through treatments administered or recommended by LA Lakers doctors. Kobe went to Germany.

Grantland reports: “[Kobe opted for] the Regenokine approach, a patented method developed by Dr. Peter Wehling, a spinal surgeon in Düsseldorf, Germany. The procedure begins with the removal of a small cup of blood from a patient, which is then incubated at a slightly elevated temperature. (The goal is to give the blood a fever.) The liquid is then spun in a centrifuge until it’s separated into its constituent parts…The relevant fluid is the middle yellowish layer — it looks like viscous urine — which is dense with agents that, at least in theory, can accelerate the natural healing mechanisms of the body. ‘The inflammatory response is normally part of the recovery process,’ says Chris Renna, one of the only American doctors administering Regenokine. ‘But sometimes the body can’t turn the inflammation off, and that’s when you get chronic pain and arthritic degeneration. The goal of Regenokine is to stop that response so your body can begin getting better’.”

“Kobe is clearly a believer in Regenokine and biologic medicine…He even recommended the treatment to Alex Rodriguez, which led the baseball star to undergo the same treatment on his knee late last year. Bryant hasn’t commented publicly on the treatment, but A-Rod has described the feelings of his friend. Bryant ‘was really adamant about how great the procedure was for him,’ Rodriguez told reporters. ‘I know that he was hurting before, almost even thinking about retirement, that’s how much pain he was under. And then he said after he went to Germany he felt like a 27-year-old again…’”

Again, the mainstream doctors on the Lakers staff, and almost all US physicians, were left in the dust. Something outside their purview and control worked. The FDA has not approved this German treatment in America.

LeBron James (33 years old, playing in his 15th season in the NBA) spends more than a million dollars a year to stay in peak shape. His home layout includes a hyperbaric oxygen chamber and a cryochamber, which is reputed to aid tissue healing by exposing the body to low temperatures. James also employs a former Navy Seal as a “biomechanist.” No one challenges James’ unorthodox methods, which obviously go beyond what his team doctors would advocate. He’s a sports untouchable.

On lower levels of sport fame and excellence, large number of athletes are opting for experimental, unapproved protocols of healing. They aren’t listening to their mainstream doctors.

Glenn Frey, of the Eagles [rock band], listened to his doctors. His death led to his wife, Cindy, filing a lawsuit against Mt. Sinai Hospital and Dr. Steven Itzkowitz.

Frey’s longtime manager, Irving Azoff told The Wrap: “The death of Eagles cofounder Glenn Frey…at age 67 can be blamed in part on the medications he was taking.”

The Wrap: “Frey died from rheumatoid arthritis, colitis and pneumonia, according to the band’s website. Azoff said the latter two were caused by medications that he was taking for the inflammatory disorder [arthritis].”

“’The colitis and pneumonia were side effects from all the meds,’ he told TheWrap. ‘He died from complications of ulcer and colitis after being treated with drugs for his rheumatoid arthritis which he had for over 15 years’.”

“Azoff declined to specify the drug in question, saying that he had been counseled by an attorney not to do so.”

“Glenn Frey initially went in [to the hospital] to get medication to treat his rheumatoid arthritis. According to Eagles manager Irving Azoff, this medication caused him to develop acute ulcerative colitis and a weakened immune system, which then led to pneumonia.”

“After gastrointestinal surgery, he was placed in a medically induced coma [!] and subsequently died of complications from rheumatoid arthritis, acute ulcerative colitis and pneumonia on January 18, 2016.”

“While patients have a right to participate in their own treatment, Mrs. Frey’s complaint claims that Dr. Itzkowitz and Mount Sinai Hospital failed to advise the Grammy Award-winning musician and his wife of the risks, purposes and advantages of doing or not doing certain procedures, the health risks associated with proceeding or not proceeding, and the risks and advantages of available alternative procedures.”

“Cindy Frey claims that the negligence and carelessness of Dr. Itzkowitz and Mount Sinai Hospital rendered her husband ‘sick, sore, lame and disabled, suffering injuries, pain, and mental anguish, was compelled to seek medical care and attention, incurred expenses thereof, and was permanently injured and disabled until the time of his death’.”

The lawsuit is ongoing.

—What will happen when a world-famous sports figure decides to reject a yearly flu shot and speaks out about it? Or announces his pregnant wife won’t take the vaccine because it contains mercury, a neurotoxin that could damage her baby for life?

Celebs—no matter what you think of them—are key figures in influencing the public. This is one reason Pharma enlists their aid and pays them well for fronting for medical drugs. Celebs must also be kept in line. The more of them who stray from official medical protocols, the more the public wakes up and realizes they are being corralled inside walls of “respectable” treatments.

Yes, some alternative treatments are expensive, and no, insurance companies don’t cover them—but this only fires the public’s demand to be let into the “inner circle,” where successful non-approved methods are being deployed, and, in some cases, health is being restored. Without dangerous drugs.

When Tom Brady promotes his system of natural health, it’s especially irking and troublesome to mainstream medical honchos, because Brady’ performance on the football field lends credence to his claims…

Ditto for Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and others.

Brady, especially, has a major target on his back, and it isn’t painted by opposition players who want to rush him and throw him to the ground. Mainstream medical top guns want him to fade into obscurity. Quickly.

Wikipedia: “Brady, alongside Boston Private and Robert Paul Properties, announced the formation of the TB12 Foundation. The purpose of the nonprofit foundation is to provide free post-injury rehabilitation care and training to underprivileged, young athletes. In March 2017, Brady moved beyond his snack line and partnered with meal-kit startup Purple Carrot to offer his own line of TB12 Performance Meals. The meals utilize whole foods and focus on providing nutrients for workout recovery. On September 19, 2017, Simon & Schuster published Brady’s first book, The TB12 Method: How to Achieve a Lifetime of Sustained Peak Performance. Within 48 hours, it had become a number one best-seller on Amazon.com. The book also reached #1 on the New York Times’ weekly Best Sellers list…”

The walls of ignorance and arbitrary authority are coming down.

Exit From the Matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Study: can toxic aluminum be removed from the body by drinking water containing silicon?

Study: Can toxic aluminum be removed from the body by drinking water containing silicon?

by Jon Rappoport

November 29, 2017

(For Part-1, click here.)

I’m not recommending a treatment for aluminum here. I’m reporting on a very interesting preliminary study.

First of all, there is widespread agreement that aluminum is a neurotoxin. Whether it enters the body through vaccination, environmental pollution, geoengineering, or any other route, it can pass through the blood-brain barrier and wreak havoc.

The study I’m quoting is, “Silicon-rich mineral water as a non-invasive test of the ‘aluminum hypothesis’ in Alzheimer’s disease.” (The citation is J Alzheimers Dis. 2013;33(2):423-30. doi: 10.3233/JAD-2012-121231. PMID 22976072)

Here is the abstract. I’ve highlighted key passages in caps:

“THERE HAS BEEN A PLAUSIBLE LINK BETWEEN HUMAN EXPOSURE TO ALUMINUM AND ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE FOR SEVERAL DECADES. We contend that the only direct and ethically acceptable experimental test of the ‘aluminum hypothesis’, which would provide unequivocal data specific to the link, is to test the null hypothesis that a reduction in the body burden of aluminum to its lowest practical limit would have no influence upon the incidence, progression, or severity of Alzheimer’s disease. Herein we are testing the hypothesis that silicon-rich mineral waters can be used as non-invasive methods to reduce the body burden of aluminum in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and a control group consisting of their carers and partners. WE HAVE SHOWN THAT DRINKING UP TO 1 L [LITER] OF A SILICON-RICH WATER EACH DAY FOR 12 WEEKS FACILITATED THE REMOVAL OF ALUMINUM via the urine in both patient and control groups without any concomitant affect upon the urinary excretion of the essential metals, iron and copper. WE HAVE PROVIDED PRELIMINARY EVIDENCE THAT OVER 12 WEEKS OF SILICON-RICH MINERAL WATER THERAPY THE BODY BURDEN OF ALUMINUM FELL IN INDIVIDUALS WITH ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE AND, CONCOMITANTLY, COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE SHOWED CLINICALLY RELEVANT IMPROVEMENTS IN AT LEAST 3 OUT OF 15 INDIVIDUALS. This is a first step in a much needed rigorous test of the ‘aluminum hypothesis of Alzheimer’s disease’ and a longer term study involving many more individuals is now warranted.”

The reduction of aluminum in the body, plus improved cognitive ability in several patients in this small group, is a promising start.

Obviously, the cost is very low, because we’re talking about water.

If this study had used a drug, you would have read about it in the mainstream press. The drug company would have trumpeted the results as a potential breakthrough.

But pharmaceutical companies, and their medical and press and government allies, put up barriers against all natural solutions…

An historical example—Consider Pellagra. In the first half of the 20th century, in the US, there were three million cases. 100,000 people died. Researchers at health agencies insisted there had to be germ at the bottom of it. They looked and looked and looked.

Meanwhile, other researchers found out Pellagra was mainly a deficiency of niacin. They were pushed into the background. “A bunch of whackos. Pay no attention to them.”

Finally, after 100,000 deaths, most of which were unnecessary, the “experts” grudgingly admitted, “Yes, it’s niacin.”

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.

Radical healing outside the boundaries

Radical healing outside the boundaries

by Jon Rappoport

October 8, 2016

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

There is a whole other aspect of my work that involves healing. I have occasionally written and spoken about it, but most of that work remains in notes. I want to present a few excerpts here. It’s important to know these pieces are meant to stimulate your own path(s) of healing; they aren’t necessarily meant as specific advice. After all, you are unique. You’re not anyone else.

“Suppose it turned out that a chronic condition wasn’t truly a disease. Instead, it was part of a search meant to connect deeply with someone or something. It was a clue about what you should connect with. It wasn’t really a negative. It was a marker on a path to a location you would never have otherwise suspected was there. Suppose that were true. And suppose you might have to travel a long way to see how the condition is a clue and what you needed to connect with.”

“There are certain healers whose physical touch brings frozen thought-forms to the surface. These forms then disperse and vanish in the light of day. Immediately, the energy field and certain physical processes in the body change. An influx of fresh energy occurs. Physical posture may change. I would say most of these healers are unknown. They’re not famous for being able to work such changes…”

“In my collection, Exit From The Matrix, I present and describe over 50 imagination techniques and exercises. Most of these are not specifically aimed at healing…but increasing the scope and range of imagination can, incidentally, bring about healing on several levels. One level is energy. Fresh, new, alive energy, entering the body, expanding through the person’s own energy field, even stimulating new outputs of natural substances in the body.”

“The search for healing is a path that can, if pursued with commitment, take a person into many new areas of experience. The search has a dual quality: the effort to find a cure, and the deepening of understanding/intuition about life itself. Both qualities lead toward the very heart and core of healing, in ever-widening dimensions. Some of these dimensions are non-rational; that is, they bring a person into contact with deep realities that lie outside the boundaries of science and ordinary discovery. At the same time, the person does not “lose” himself. He doesn’t try to obliterate what he is or what he holds in the highest esteem. He finds “a different place to sit,” so to speak. He commences a new dialogue with himself…”

“Healing encompasses all the levels: mind, body, spirit, feeling, energy, consciousness, imagination. Liberating one level affects the others. Healing is not only passive. It doesn’t stop with a cure. Ultimately, on the far shore, it isn’t something separate from you or your actions. It isn’t just something that happens to you. It can be that, but that isn’t the whole story. You are participating in the story. You are telling it. You are finding new pieces of it. In your search, synchronous elements occur out of nowhere. There is an aspect of experience that IS synchronicity…”

Exit From the Matrix

“A person takes a 6000-mile trip for reasons which are obscure to him. He knows the usual reasons, but they are merely the ‘cover story’. During the trip, a thought occurs to him which he has never thought before. One thought. And that is the beginning of a journey inside the journey. His life breaks out of its old patterns and concerns. A new fragment of a larger secret has emerged. Will he see this as an opportunity for healing, against which opportunity he had previously closed the door? If his answer is yes, his whole orientation toward his present and future will instantly change—no small feat…”

“Being obsessed with the next herb, the next leaf, the next tincture, the next powder is perfectly reasonable. The only question is, where does the present obsession lie on the path to healing? Does lie on the outskirts of the forest, where, for example, the person has circling for years? Does it lie deep within the forest, after a series of progressions has already been experienced? Going farther and deeper is the key. The heart of the matter is, in a sense, waiting to be discovered and entered. The outward actions of a given individual do not reveal his place in the unfolding of the story…”

“For each individual, there is a level and an aspect where his life is an abject failure. This is strangely a cause for celebration. It exposes a truth and, more importantly, points the way. To larger healing. He may be brilliant and wonderful on 78 levels, but there, on the 79th, is a key note. There is the “situation.” There is the chance to travel toward open infinity…”

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.

Part 2: The secret political issue: Health freedom

Part 2: The secret political issue: Health Freedom

A call from the wilderness

by Jon Rappoport

October 3, 2016

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

For Part 1, and, for the backstory regarding the re-posting of this two part series, click here.

(NOVEMBER 10, 2010) Millions of advocates of health freedom see that no major political candidate, with one or two exceptions, voices their concerns or stands up for their right to improve their health by any and all self-chosen methods.

To understand the landscape in which this deafening silence continues, we need to realize that the one industry which could and should make a difference—the nutritional supplement sector—is dominated by ostriches.

Once a powerful voice for health freedom, the industry has stepped back into the shadows. It nurtures the illusion that it is safe from government intervention. It even supposes it has sufficient allies within the government to stave off attacks by the FDA.

Since 1993, I have been calling for the creation of a powerful “PR wing” funded by nutritional companies. This group would dedicate itself to obtaining ongoing media coverage, showing that nutrition scores many victories in preserving and expanding health, that nutrition is a brilliant success.

At first glance, this may not seem very important. But, in fact, it is THE vital way to turn public, media, and political opinion to the side of nutrition.

The FDA and other government bodies see no reason to curtail their attacks on nutritional supplements if the media aren’t even covering the issue.

Every PR campaign works toward a tipping point, where the very idea of opposing its goals is politically suicidal.

If you don’t understand that, you know nothing about PR.

And what is a campaign? Is it a one-time promotion? Is it a vaguely flailing effort to marshal support? Is it a token outreach? For amateurs, perhaps. For dreamers.

But the reality is far different. A campaign is a well-funded, sustained, and highly organized operation, aimed at gradually creating a shift in widespread perception.

In this case, the campaign TELLS THE TRUTH. That is its weapon. That is its intrinsic strength.


Media outlets, editors, reporters are always looking for interesting stories. The brutal fact of life is, they need copy to fill space and time. They must have it.

What about a boy in Arkansas who was ill for three years, unable to learn or play with his friends, who was brought back from the brink by supplements?

Is that a story?

You bet it is.

What about a husband who had to quit his job and go on the dole, because he no longer had the strength to put in eight hours in a factory? And then he regained his strength with nutrients. Is that a story? It sure is.

Does a fledgling PR campaign start from the top of the media chain? Does a story suddenly appear on the front page of The New York Times? In a fantasy world, perhaps.

No, you build up your book of clippings. You gradually move up the ladder.

You establish a foothold. You lay a firm foundation.

You find experts who will give you favorable and truthful quotes.

You shove in your chips for the long haul, and you don’t back out because you wish paradise would come tomorrow.

On the other side of this PR campaign, you tell the truth about your target, your opponent, your nemesis, your threat. The FDA.

You build up an accurate dossier documenting the widespread damage this agency had done over the years. And it’s there, believe me. For the past 20 years, I’ve been finding it and reporting it.

FDA-certified drugs have been killing American citizens at the rate of 100,000 a year. That’s a good place to start. (Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000; “Is US health really the best in the world?”)

You put your opponent, your threat back on its heels. You force it to play defense. Instead of trying to limit people’s access to supplements, the agency is busy warding off truthful, pointed attacks.

You obtain the right, correct, and honest coverage of the FDA in the press. On an ongoing basis.

This is the double-pronged PR campaign. There is much more to say about it, but you get the idea.

You want politicians to aggressively support health freedom? You have to show them they would have public opinion on their side. And how do you do that? You obtain TRUTHFUL media coverage.

Coverage isn’t accomplished by waving a magical wand. It’s done through PR.

Over the years, since I ran, in 1994, for a Congressional seat in Los Angeles on the issue of health freedom, I’ve seen the most haphazard, amateurish, wasteful, silly, and delusional PR launched out there, in the stratosphere, on behalf of health freedom. Drunken men with no tools would have a better chance of building a mansion than this kind of demented PR would have in congealing public opinion.

This must change. The nutritional industry must come into the 20th, and then the 21st century.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the basic ideal of individual freedom is under assault from many quarters. Health freedom will not escape this net.

Something EFFECTIVE needs to be done.

Read my long interview with brilliant constitutional attorney, Jonathan Emord of Emord and Associates. He spells out what the FDA is doing and planning to do to nutritional supplements in this country.

Jonathan explains the situation in detail.

Naysayers out there will give you a litany of reasons why the media will never cover health freedom or the massive success of nutritional supplements. “Media ad space is dominated by drug companies.” “Media are controlled by the government.” “Medical power is too great.”

I’ve heard all the excuses. Mostly, they are offered by people who refuse to believe any good change can happen in any sphere. But the fundamental flaw in their arguments lies in a complete misunderstanding about the way PR works.

Here is the secret. Most PR DOES work. If the people behind it are smart, if they have money, if they put in the time and the effort, if they aren’t scared away by a few failures, they will come out on top.

Every PR campaign knocks its head on the ceiling many times. “We can’t break through!” “They won’t listen to us!”

You complain, and then you roll up your sleeves and keep going. Because the goal is worth it. Because you truly want the desired end result. And because PR works.

The Matrix Revealed

When I began writing as a reporter almost 30 years ago, I knew nothing about the business. I quickly learned that media need copy. That was the basic reality. Media need stories. They will respond.

PR works the same way. You dig in for the long haul, and you gain success.

Of course, the other advantage of an excellent PR campaign is, no one person has to stick his neck out and take the heat. Instead a whole industry is involved. “You want a battle? Then come after all of us.”

Then can you imagine how the millions of people who buy those supplements would appear in full view, ready to stake their claim for freedom?

In the early 1990s, this is exactly what happened. A few nutritional executives bankrolled a massive outreach program, enlisting American citizens, who wrote millions of letters to Congress demanding a new law protecting supplements.

Congressional sponsors were lined up. They felt confident because the outcry from citizens was huge. The law was passed. It didn’t offer us the guarantees we really needed, but it was better than nothing.

Now we need more. Better laws, and also a PR campaign that doesn’t fold up its tent just because the Congress moved in a somewhat positive direction.

This time, we may need all those citizens to write to supplement companies demanding their action. I have sketched out that action in this article.

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.

The secret political issue: Health Freedom

The secret political issue: Health Freedom

by Jon Rappoport

October 2, 2016

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

Six years ago, on the eve of the midterm elections in Obama’s first term in office — which happened to be seven months after Obama had signed Obamacare into law — and, with another 3-years to go before Obamacare went into effect, I posted this article.

Fast forward to now… on the eve of one of the most historic presidential elections in American history…

I would like to hear from you my loyal readers on the topic of Health Freedom. What does Health Freedom mean to you? What has changed over the last six years? What have been some of the victories? What have been some of the setbacks? Let me know in the comments below.

For Part 2 of this two-part re-posting series, click here.

(OCTOBER 21, 2010) As this year’s election draws close, it’s business as usual, as far as Health Freedom is concerned. This issue isn’t just in the shadows. It’s in the closet behind the shadows, locked in tight.

The avalanche of pharmaceutical ads on TV drones on. The attacks on natural health set off firecrackers here and there: “Patients shouldn’t be allowed to choose alternative remedies, because that will take them away from medicines that really help.”

“We, the medical elites, know what’s best for you, and we’ll shove it down your throats.”

But wait. This is supposed to be the Year of the Conservative. Conservatives want less government intrusion, more individual freedom. Why isn’t Health Freedom front and center?

I have four answers to that question. One, the pharmaceutical lobby and money machine are bankrolling overwhelming numbers of candidates. Two, the millions of people who participated in the Health Freedom movement of the early 1990s have gone back into their cocoons, and the funding of that movement, which came from nutritional companies, has dried up. Three, many leaders of the old Health Freedom campaign actually believe Barack Obama is a forward-thinking guy who would never permit a real crackdown on the nutritional industry. And four, conservative candidates running for office see no reason to put Health Freedom up high on their agendas, because they’ve never had to before—the pressure to do so is minimal. Why rock the boat?

In case you’ve forgotten, Health Freedom means: every person has the right to choose how to take care of their own body and health. The government has no business interfering. The right extends to refusal to accept conventional medical treatments. It’s a simple thing, really.

And perhaps reading this, you imagine there is no urgent need to press home this issue at this time.

Well, Health Freedom is always a major issue. The federal government, in the person of the FDA, an agency that is actually a bought and paid for subsidiary of the drug companies, is always seeking new ways to apply a chokehold on nutritional companies and natural health practitioners.

In a radio interview I did with Jonathan Emord, the most successful American lawyer in cases launched against the FDA, Emord told me he has sufficient reason to believe the FDA never intends to abide by the court decisions rendered against them. That’s right. In other words, the FDA is a rogue agency.

In another interview, this one with Dr. Barbara Starfield, of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Starfield confirmed that, in the wake of her 2000 finding that FDA-approved drugs have been killing Americans at the rate of 106,000 people a year, no federal agency has approached her to consult on ways of reducing this horrendous outcome. Not in the past ten years. Her virtually unchallenged report, published in the July 26, 2000, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, has stirred no government response.

How much willful political ignorance and avoidance does it take to walk away from A MILLION DEAD AMERICANS over the last ten years?

In reading a number of conservative political blogs, I’ve seen no mention of the Health Freedom issue or the effects of Big Pharma on Americans. Why is that? Is it because drug companies are blithely assumed to be bastions of free enterprise and, therefore, sacrosanct? That’s my suspicion, because I do encounter statements that ObamaCare is trashing the greatest medical system in the world. Obamacare is a disaster in all ways, but “greatest medical system” is a massive lie.

The Matrix Revealed

Face it. The overwhelming number of Americans are still, after all these years, hooked on drugs. Medical drugs. They live to swallow pills. They live to receive diagnoses from doctors. Therefore, the notion that we all have the right to choose whether to take a medical drug or an herb is beyond their ability to think and reason. They’re in the hole deep, and they don’t even know they’re addicted.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, take notice. You’re missing the boat here. You’re way out in left field. You’re a victim of doctor-induced hypnosis, and it’s time you woke up and put this issue on the table. You’ll be surprised at the response, once you open the gates. Millions of people will come out and respond. And that’s called RATINGS.

Bottom line: even if you worship at the altar of modern medicine, in all cases, all the time, the right to choose any form of healing therapy is basic to the intent of the Constitution, and that right is always in jeopardy as the Parental State decides what’s best for you, decides what “science” is good science, decides how stupid you are and how much help you need to see the light.

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.




by Jon Rappoport



In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s an election year…


Usually, when politicians discover a large voting bloc that has no champion, they move in like gold prospectors with a fever in their heads. Tap that bloc; mine it; use it.


However, in the case of millions of Americans who passionately want to manage their own health without government interference, who want access to the full range of nutritional supplements and unlimited access to alternative practitioners, there is dead silence in Washington.




First, few politicians are willing to challenge the agenda of the pharmaceutical companies (drug everybody from cradle to grave). Second, these health-freedom advocates are radical decentralists—which means they know how it feels to be denied the right to take care of their own bodies. They have met the enemy and they know how it operates on a very personal level.


There is no chance politicians will be able to finesse these voters or make empty promises to them or wow them with “task forces” created to “study problems.” Health-freedom folks are too smart for any of that nonsense.


They want unbridled freedom. They want, for example, to be able to say no to vaccines for their children without having to walk the gauntlet of officials who try to dissuade and intimidate and threaten them.


They want to find alternative treatments for cancer in many cases, and cancer happens to be one of those tightly guarded provinces, where big money and big government insist on radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery, come hell or high water.


If politicians aggressively and publicly courted health-freedom people, they’d be exposing themselves to vicious attacks from the medical/government axis and its media allies.


They’d be opening the door to the notion that people can really choose their own solutions, despite “the best science” and authoritarian pronouncements of doctors, who are modern priests in white coats wielding hypnotic power.


In other words, FREEDOM would become the top issue and the trumping issue all the way across the board—and very few politicians of either party want to step out into that world.


It’s too raw, too real, too much about naked choice.


See if you can find, in the halls of Congress, any representatives or senators who will speak up about health freedom and push it to the head of the agenda.


Good luck.


It remains a taboo on The Hill.


This means individuals will have to carry the burden themselves. They will have to speak out and keep speaking out. They will have to challenge government repression on the most fundamental level. They will have to make this issue electric.


In doing so, they will be accused of everything under the sun. They will be called anti-science Luddites, and religious crazies, and even killers of their own children.


Notice that I’m not advocating the wholesale rejection of modern medicine; I’m saying every individual has the right and the freedom to choose to how to manage his own health. Period. That right takes precedence over anyone’s idea of science or “best evidence.”


On that basis, the fight can be won, in the long run. On any other basis, defeat is certain.


I have lobbied for the formation of a PR agency, funded by nutritional companies, that would widely disseminate information about the health benefits of supplements and the false science behind many conventional medical treatments—and the response has been zero. These companies have no stomach for such a campaign. They, too, fear health freedom, in their own way. They continue to exist in a twilight zone of hope and fantasy. “Maybe the government will ignore us and let us go on doing business.”


In 1994, when I ran for a Congressional seat in the 29th District (Los Angeles), on a platform of health freedom, I gained profound knowledge about who would come out of the woodwork to offer help and who would stay in the shadows. The results, in that regard, were quite sobering. One or two nutritional companies supported me. The rest stayed away.


When the inessentials are stripped away and you are talking about sheer freedom, and when people realize this is your sole concern, they tend to retreat and find other things to do. On the one hand, they will admit their own health is a top concern, but they won’t come out and fight for the right to pursue it according to their own dictates. It’s a strange landscape.


Call me crazy, but I believe a presidential candidate, fully funded, who argued vigorously and widely for health freedom (and other freedoms), could win an election, even in this day and age.


But we are not about to test that hypothesis, because the fear of health freedom is too deep.


And this tells us something.


It tells us we are in the right pew. We are mining a red-hot idea. We’re discovering a lever and a fulcrum that could move the nation.


Back in 1994, I saw passion about politics that far exceeded anything I’d ever run into before. The health-freedom supporters who emerged from their homes were battle-tested veterans in a war that, out of media range, had been going on for decades. They carried a revolutionary spirit of outrage. They weren’t opting for empty slogans. They had a spirit toward which the Founders would have tipped their hats.


I’ve learned it’s never too late for freedom, because freedom is not part of ordinary time. It’s stands above the passage of events. It IS. It’s waiting.


In this ever-expanding allopathic octopus is the intent to force all Americans into a straitjacket of pharmaceutical insanity.


That’s what’s up the road.


But we can take other roads.


If we will.


Neither mainstream political party will ever admit that the government/pharmaceutical axis is a perfect example of an oligarchic operation. Neither party will ever state, in clear terms, that every citizen has the right to define and follow his own dictates in managing his health. They are afraid to touch that electric core.


But we aren’t.


And that is where hope resides.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.






By Jon Rappoport

July 13, 2012



Melinda Gates has just unrolled her new program to reduce population in Africa and South Asia. Speaking at the Family Planning Summit in London, the other half of the Gates-Messiah operation pledged to bring contraception to millions of women and girls in the Third World.


Flying under the radar, however, is the partnership between The Gates Foundation and drug giant, Pfizer, and therein lies the dirty little secret.


The method of choice to prevent births? Injectable Depo-Provera (Medroxyprogesterone), long known as a highly dangerous drug. It actually carries a black-box warning on its label, stating that severe bone loss is a consequence of its use. It also thins the vaginal lining, and research is ongoing to investigate the possibility that it increases the risk of breast cancer.


Here is the relevant black-box quote: “Women who use Depro-Provera Contraceptive Injection may lose significant bone mineral density. Bone loss is greater with increased duration of use and may not be completely reversible.”


Change.org and several other groups are petitioning the US Congress to cut all federal funding for Depo-Provera.


Despite cheerful PR about education of women on the benefits of contraception, and the need for informed consent, these programs have a way of turning into something else out in the field, where the needle meets the body.


Depo-Provera also happens to be a drug of choice for the “chemical castration” of male sex offenders. That fact testifies to its powerful impact on the body.


Nobody at the London Family Planning Summit was talking about Depo-Provera and its severe effects. The conference sponsors, the UN Population Fund, the USAID, and The Gates Foundation, are far more interested in population control.


If millions of girls and women in Africa and South Asia are crippled by the Depo-Provera injections, well, that’s just collateral damage. Several years from now, we’ll no doubt see studies claiming an unexplained epidemic of osteoporosis in the Third World, which will lead to the application of some other highly toxic drug as the treatment of choice.


Pfizer, the maker of Depo-Provera, happens to make such a drug: Fablyn (Lasofoxifene). So far, the FDA has withheld approval, but the EU gave it the green light in 2009. Fablyn has a serious problem. It causes blood clots in veins, which can be life-threatening.


Watch out, Africa. Melinda’s coming with Pfizer. You should ask her why she doesn’t supply money to clean up contaminated water supplies, install rudimentary sanitation, provide real nutrition, and help restore stolen fertile land to local farmers.


But you see, those actions aren’t in line with the elite agenda. They make things better. The agenda is dedicated to Worse.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.






By Jon Rappoport

February 17, 2012

This is a big, big one. And I’m going to build up to it, so have patience, because I want to make several absolutely vital points.

I’ve had many requests for a reprint of my 2009 interview with Dr. Starfield. And in the last few weeks, we’ve had an influx of new readers who aren’t aware of this vital chapter in the annals of US medical crime. Yes, crime. I don’t say that lightly.

There are vast implications in the substance of the late Dr. Starfield’s writings. At the top, I want to mention an implication that escapes most people.

US newspapers are dying. The internet is crushing them. And yet, if the NY Times and the Washington Post and the LA Times wanted to resuscitate themselves, they could do it with stories like this. The American people would be motivated to the hilt to read about the true extent of medically caused death.

I’m not just talking about a one-day headline. I’m talking about a Watergate-like investigation that pounds and pounds on corruption day after day, month after month—only much, much bigger. Because once Dr. Starfield’s findings hit page one, and after a few relentless reporters went on the hunt, corroborating witnesses would come out of the woodwork. Witnesses with impeccable mainstream credentials. And their stories would shock people to the core.

People would buy newspapers off the rack like they buy coffee and beer and video games and cell phones and gasoline and underwear and toilet paper and lipstick and fast food. The Times would have to schedule extra press runs just to keep up with the demand. Its financial bottom line would soon look like Christmas.

The floodgates would open, and the medical system in the US would take hit after hit. The alarming and staggering truth would break huge holes in the medical Matrix.

But that won’t happen.

Why? Because the great esteemed centers of American journalism are part of that Matrix. They are in the business of falsehood, omission, diversion, and obfuscation. They live by those hallmarks.

You could talk to the publisher of the New York Times and present him with an ironclad business plan for pulling his paper out of its deep financial trouble, based on covering true stories like Dr. Starfield’s, and you would find no joy, because he would rather go down with the ship than go against the Matrix.

The Times and other hoary media outlets live by the rule of limited hangout. In intelligence parlance, that means admitting a small piece of the truth in order to hide the rest.

So in the medical arena, it means running stories on the harmful effects of a pharmaceutical drug that has just been pulled off the market. BUT NEVER doing a full investigation of the effects of all medical drugs.

We’ll show you a tree in the forest, but not the whole forest.”

I know how it works, because as a reporter I’ve been there. I’ve approached editors of various media outlets with stories that crack the Matrix trance, and I’ve had those stories tossed back at me.

We’re just not interested,” they say. “This isn’t our kind of piece.” Or: “Well, we already covered that.” But they didn’t cover it. They did a limited hangout on it. They ran a story that exposed one tiny corner of the whole bloody mess.

I want you to keep all this in mind as you read what Dr. Starfield has to say in this interview. Until her death last year, she was one of those people with impeccable mainstream credentials. She was respected and revered by her colleagues. She was a woman who had set off an explosion TEN years earlier, in one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, and the media silence that followed was profound, eerie, and deafening.

If the mighty newspapers of our age had jumped in with both feet, Dr. Starfield would have become one of the most famous people in America. Her work would have shaken the medical cartel down to its foundations. She would have saved more lives and averted more suffering than anyone else in this nation. With no exaggeration, we would now be living in a different world.

I fully understand that media outlets black out stories that would endanger their own advertising dollars, and pharmaceutical ad dollars are extensive and precious. But that’s just the beginning of the true reason the major newspapers and television networks decline to run pieces that would once again make them gigantically successful.

To understand the true reason, you need to grasp something about the Matrix itself. It is a reality that maintains its power because it can engineer SILENCE. It can create EMPTY SPACE. Not only can it invent pictures that are false, not only can it pander to certain emotional links in people’s shrunken universes, it can make Swiss Cheese appear as if it has no holes in it. This is an art.

It’s the same art a man like David Rockefeller can deploy to make himself seem like an old man who is genuinely puzzled by accusations that he exercises vast power.

To see what the Matrix is and how it operates, you need imagination. You need to use that imagination to understand what COULD BE but ISN’T. You need to be able to project how the truth could actually storm the bastions of planned ignorance and impel people to create startling new realities beyond the dross of what we have now.

To illustrate what I mean, I’ll make a temporary sharp right turn and tell you a story. I was part of it, in a parallel world of academia, in the 1980s. I was working as a “technical staff member” at Santa Monica College, in California. I tutored remedial students in the Learning Center, which was located on the top floor of the new library. I tutored English and I directed students to programmed materials they could use to improve their reading skills.

Through the kind help of a colleague, I had just sold two paintings to the College, and they were hanging there in the Learning Center.

One day, not long after the sale, I became aware of an obvious fact. How could I have not seen it before? There were MILES of dead empty wall space in the corridors and classrooms and offices of the College. In a flash, I had idea. I would create and occupy a new position, a new job for myself: art consultant. I would scout out and visit the studios of hundreds of artists in Los Angeles, unknown artists, and I would offer them that wall space, and the College would take their works on loan, and we would have an influx of something quite new on campus. A vacuum would be filled. An empty space would come alive.

We would have group shows. Openings every two months. The press would come and cover them. Residents of the city would show up. Celebrities would appear. The College would become internationally famous as a home for art. It would be a bonanza on many fronts. Most importantly, artists and art would take front and center. I would make sure of that.

Successful, the idea would spread to other colleges and schools who, likewise, had their own miles of empty wall space. There would be a flood of art.

In our own way, we would crack the Matrix lie of ONLY ONE DEAD SPACE. Paintings are worlds, are universes. Paintings would proliferate. People would begin to realize the implications of imagination, invention, improvisation, the making of new realities in every field of endeavor.

So I sketched out a business plan and approached a high official of the College. We had a meeting. I spoke about the kind of future we could engender.

After a few minutes, I saw two things. The face of a bureaucrat. And the face of a selfishly small man. A man who wanted to be The Man. A man who felt my plan would push him into the background away from his prestigious perch in the pecking order.

He told me the problem was INSURANCE. We would need coverage for all the paintings, and we wouldn’t be able to get it. I told him I could find hundreds of artists who would sign waivers releasing the College from any liability if the paintings were harmed or stolen. He shook his head. Not possible.

At that moment, as clear as I’m seeing this keyboard right now, I saw a parallel future in which the triumph of art and artists at the College and beyond was THERE, floating in space and time, filling in the vacuum, destroying the “limited hangout” in which the College existed, expanding vistas in all directions, bringing fierce new originality and courage and daring to a moribund institution…

And then I saw the reality this high official of the College was fronting for. The one he was devoted to.

He prevailed.


That was his version of art. More importantly, it was his limited hangout, his way of saying, protectively, “See, we DO HAVE ART HERE. We are a progressive institution. You can’t criticize us or me. I’m in charge. I’ve done a wonderful thing. There was empty space, and now I’ve filled it…so move along.”

I hope you get the analogy to the main point of this article. You can take any fading institution under the sun and inject into it startling new truth and invention and recreate it as a tremendous and positive and wide-ranging force. And if that injection means the end of that institution as it was, because it was so harmful, so be it. You’ll make it entirely new and alive and free in a way it never was before. You’ll transform it. Or: you can go down with the ship.

So back to my original discussion about the media. I say this—partially as a boast and partially as simple fact. If I were the managing editor of the New York Times and I was given the corner office and free rein, I would have that paper back in the black in a year. I would have it roaring on all cylinders. I would have people fighting each other in the streets to grab the last copy off the newsstands. Every day. Journalism schools all over the country would close down in shame. Because we would be running stories that would crack the whole rotting edifice of cartel-control along many fronts, and we would be filling up the PLANNED VACUUM with something super-real.

All right. Now, read my intro to Dr. Starfield’s interview and then her words, and imagine this was above the fold on page one of the New York Times, on the first day of a all-out relentless campaign. You know, what they used to call, when the fairy tale was still promoted, JOURNALISM!


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

The figures have been known for ten years. The story was covered briefly when a landmark study surfaced, and then it sank like a stone.

The truth was inconvenient for many interests. That has not changed. “Medical coverage for all” is a banner that conceals ugly facts.

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock to the system, 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. 2.25 MILLION PEOPLE PER DECADE.

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

The Starfield study is the most disturbing revelation about modern healthcare in America ever published. The credentials of its author and the journal in which it appeared are, within the highest medical circles, impeccable.

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, it seemed that 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.

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

My papers on the benefits of primary care have been widely used, including in Congressional testimony and reports. However, the findings on the relatively poor health in the US have received almost no attention. The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

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

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency). They, of course, would like an even greater share of the pie than they now have, for training more specialists. (Of course, the problem is that we train specialists–at great public cost–who then do not practice up to their training–they spend half of their time doing work that should be done in primary care and don’t do it as well.)

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


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

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews—which puts the FDA into 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Yes, many persons and organizations within the medical system contribute to the annual death totals of patients, and media silence and public ignorance are certainly major factors, but the FDA is the assigned gatekeeper, when it comes to the safety of medical drugs. The buck stops there. If those drugs the FDA is certifying as safe are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the Agency must be held accountable. The American people must understand that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nutrition, the cornerstone of good health, is ignored or devalued by most physicians. Meanwhile, the FDA continues to attack nutritional supplements, even though the overall safety record of these nutrients is 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.

Yes, that’s right. By Dr. Starfield’s published figures, FDA-approved pharmaceutical drugs kill over A MILLION Americans per decade.

Does that sound like a legitimate ongoing subject for journalism to you?

At its height, if I recall correctly, when I published this interview in 2009, Google entries ran to about 40,000. Other websites picked it up. I sent it to a well-placed CBS reporter. The overall major media response? ZERO.

You can take that as a reason to give up. Or you can press down harder on the gas pedal.

Jon Rappoport has worked as an independent investigative reporter since 1982. The LA Weekly nominated him for a Pulitzer Prize, for a interview he did with the president of El Salvador University, where the military had taken over the campus and was disappearing students and burning books. He has written for In These Times, Village Voice, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, CBS Healthwatch, Stern. He is the author of a new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, and the co-author, with Robert Scott Bell, of a new ten-hour audio seminar, VACCINES, ARMED AND DANGEROUS. His work can be found at www.nomorefakenews.com