Category Archives: Medical Fraud

Who owns diseases?

by Jon Rappoport

July 24, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

—All right, look, here’s what we’ll do. We’ll take a few general symptoms like fatigue, fever, and swelling, and we’ll invent one new disease label that covers them. We’ll say this is a specific new disease and we’re looking for the cause. Of course, there is no single cause because this isn’t a single disease. It’s a vague generality. But since we control the disease label, the name, we can convince everyone that this is a specific and real disease. It’s a total con, but we can sell it—

Over the years, my readers have seen how I attack disease labels and disorder labels; how I expose them as fictions.

Let me show you an example of the disease label game. The citation is: Blackman, JA. MD, MPH; Gurka, MJ, PhD, “Developmental and Behavioral Comorbidities of Asthma in Children”, Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 28(2):92-99, April 2007:

“Children with asthma have higher rates of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; diagnoses of depression, behavioral disorders, learning disabilities; and missed school days (all p < .0001). The more severe the asthma is, the higher the rates are of these problems.”

Let’s start with asthma. We know that many cases of lung-airway obstruction are called asthma. Try to find a single known cause for asthma. You can’t. The many instances of airway obstruction can have many different causes (e.g., allergies to different environmental substances). Therefore, “asthma” has never been proved to be one unique condition.

In the citation above, the researchers state that asthma in children is associated with higher rates of ADHD, depression, behavioral and learning disorders. But these conditions, too, don’t have a single proven cause. Try to find one.

Go to the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and look for a lab test that would confirm a diagnosis of any of these conditions (ADHD, depression, etc.)—you won’t find one. No blood test, no urine test, no brain scan, no genetic assay.

What are we looking at here? We’re looking at attempts to define, label, and own disorders and diseases which have never been proven to be singular and specific.

While treating, say, asthma with a drug might bring relief (along with adverse effects), long-term treatment that gets to the root cause and creates a cure—well, that’s never going to happen unless the unique individual with the problem is addressed—rather than invoking generalities.

Modern medicine floats disease labels that are generalities, as if they were specific. Often, they’re not.

Here’s the rule: IF YOU CAN’T FIND A SINGLE CAUSE OF A DISEASE CONDITION, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL IT A SPECIFIC DISEASE CONDITION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

IT MAY WELL BE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CONDITIONS COMING FROM A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CAUSES.

FOR LONG-TERM RESULTS, WORK WITH THE INDIVIDUAL PATIENT, NOT THE GROUP.

“Children with asthma tend to have higher rates of depression.” The first condition—asthma—for which a single cause has not been found, leads to the higher rate of a second condition—depression—for which a single cause has not been found.

Of what possible use is such gibberish? It’s useful in marketing and selling gigantic amounts of drugs.

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.

Bang: another China vaccine scandal

by Jon Rappoport

July 23, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Reuters: “The Food and Drug Administration said in a statement on Sunday evening that its investigation had found that Changsheng fabricates [vaccine] production records and product inspection records, and arbitrarily changes process parameters and equipment, ‘serious violations’ of the law.”

Tainted products from China? Who ever heard of such a thing? Isn’t China the most quality-conscious nation on the planet? No?

Here’s a headline on this story from fiercepharma.com (7/17): “Top Chinese rabies vaccine maker ordered to stop production over forged data.” Oops.

Fiercepharma: “China’s drug regulator just pulled a manufacturing permit for the country’s second-largest maker of rabies vaccines over data falsification, marking the latest episode in China’s drug safety scandal.”

“During an inspection, China’s State Drug Administration found Changchun Changsheng Life Sciences forged production records for its Vero cell-based rabies vaccines. The agency immediately moved to revoke the company’s GMP license tied to the vaccine—just three months after its issuance—and dispatched a team to investigate the incident on site, according to a Sunday statement…”

“In its announcement filed to Shenzhen Stock Exchange, the Changchun, China-based company said it has started recalling all unexpired rabies vaccines, even though the batches under question weren’t released to the market, and it hasn’t received any adverse event report related to the quality of the vaccines through years of monitoring.”

“Changsheng’s recent scandal comes eight months after a batch, or 252,600 doses, of its diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis (DTP) combo shot was found below the potency requirement. It also comes shortly after the company became one of the first two companies to get Chinese approvals for quadrivalent flu vaccines.”

“Besides rabies, DTP and flu vaccines, Changsheng also sells vaccines against chickenpox, hepatitis A and group ACYW meningococcal. A small proportion of its business comes from abroad, including India, Cambodia, Egypt and Belarus, among others. It’s not yet clear whether it sells its rabies vaccines outside of China.”

CNBC drops this bomb: “It [the current China vaccine scandal] is very much a case of deja vu. China’s pharmaceutical industry has been exposed to a slew of scandals recently. Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical, a Shanghai-listed drug maker, found a toxic impurity called N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in ingredients it exports to medicines for treating hypertension in laboratory tests. The substance, a by-product of industrial processes, is toxic to the liver and classified as a carcinogen for its ability to cause cancer in humans.”

I issued an extensive warning about China pharma in 2017. Here it is:

I’ll put it to you this way. Your child is about to get vaccinated. You believe in the efficacy of vaccines. In the doctor’s office, there is a large wheel. It has two sections. One is marked: ‘this injection for your child comes from the US or Germany.’ The other section is marked: ‘this injection for your child might come from China, or if not, the raw ingredients in the shot might come from China, and, keep in mind that even if the injection and the raw ingredients don’t come from China, in a pinch, because the Chinese vaccines are cheap, the US might buy the injection or the ingredients from China—now spin the wheel…and let’s see where the arrow stops…for your child’.

In the spring of 2016, a vaccine scandal erupted in China.

Time Magazine reported:

“Furious parents and health care professionals in China are demanding to know how almost $90 million of improperly stored and potentially fatal vaccines were distributed across some two-thirds of the country over the past five years, in the latest public-health scandal to raise serious questions over the efficacy of the Chinese Communist Party’s rule.”

“According to state media, a mother and daughter from eastern China’s Shandong province have been caught peddling 25 kinds of unrefrigerated vaccines — including for polio, mumps, rabies, hepatitis B, encephalitis and meningococcal diseases — to medical facilities across 24 Chinese provinces since 2010.”

“Inflaming the public backlash, authorities had apparently known about the case since last April, though only publicized the news late Friday in a belated attempt to trace potential victims. Moreover, the elder suspect, a 47-year-old woman surnamed Pang, had apparently been convicted of the same offense in 2009 but only received a suspended sentence. State media admitted the compromised inoculations could have resulted in paralysis and even death.”

“’Twenty-four provinces, five years already, and how many children! It’s been nearly a year and then they reveal this! Isn’t this genocide? Words cannot express how angry I am!’ posted one user of China’s Twitter-like microblog Weibo, reports the BBC.”

“’This is a matter of life and death,’” one Beijing-based doctor told Radio Free Asia. ‘They should make an announcement about this as soon as possible … so we can locate these items and cut off the supply, so no more people are harmed.’”

Major media couldn’t even keep their stories straight.

The NY Times, reporting on the China scandal, and relying on the World Health Organization (a PR front for the vaccine industry) took an assuring tone:

“Despite such fears, the tainted vaccines are more likely to be ineffective than harmful…The World Health Organization has said that outdated or poorly stored vaccines rarely if ever trigger illness or toxic reactions. Chinese government investigators said last week that they had not found any cases of adverse reactions or spikes in infections linked to ineffective vaccines.”

Really?

Perhaps editors at the NY Times and the World Health Organization would like to prove their faith and confidence by taking shots in the arm of those spoiled vaccines.

Now, here are quotes from an excellent article by Marco Caceres at thevaccinereaction.org (4/13/16). The article points up the uncertainty about whether processed and/or raw vaccine ingredients are entering the US from China:

“The past few weeks, there have been a series of news reports coming out of China revealing that thousands of doses of improperly stored and expired vaccines for children and adults were illegally sold for millions of dollars on the black market by more than 100 people associated with Chinese companies and vaccination centers.”

“Most Americans do not understand that many pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, are not made in the United States and foreign pharmaceutical companies are not subject to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) quality control regulations.”

“It is unclear what percentage of the vaccines currently used in the United States are made by Chinese pharmaceutical companies in China or by Western companies with manufacturing facilities in China. We do know that major U.S. and European vaccine makers such as Merck & Co., GlaxoSmithKline plc, and Sanofi Pasteur SA maintain vaccine manufacturing operations in China, that this activity is on the rise, and that Western vaccine makers are also establishing joint venture partnerships with Chinese vaccine companies.”

“Consequently, it is increasingly difficult to distinguish which vaccines are manufactured by American and European firms and which are produced by the Chinese. A 2012 article in USA Today, however, did report that the FDA estimates that 80% of the ingredients in pharmaceuticals [only drugs, or vaccines as well?] produced by U.S. companies and 40% of the ‘finished medications’ Americans take come from outside the U.S. and, increasingly they come from China and India.”

“The article cited a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that found the FDA inspects drug manufacturing facilities in China and India only once every 14 years, and that FDA inspectors are not permitted to enter those facilities unannounced. USA Today noted that, according to the GAO report, ‘Up to two-thirds of foreign pharmaceutical sites have never undergone an FDA inspection’.”

So: even if you believe in the safety and efficacy of vaccines, do you want to spin the big wheel in the doctor’s office? Do you want to take a chance? Do you want to have your child injected?

Do you want to say, “Well, the news media and the government and the experts and the doctors all tell me vaccines are safe, so I’ll go along with that. I’ll believe. And I’ll risk the future and the life of my child on that belief.”

Do you?

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 secret behind fake bipolar disease in children

by Jon Rappoport

July 18, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

ABC News, 5/11/12: “…Columbia University researchers found a 40-fold rise in office visits among youth diagnosed with bipolar disorder between 1994-95 and 2002-3.”

In 1995, a new wind began blowing across the psychiatric landscape. The public wasn’t aware of it. But among professionals, it was big, very big:

Children, including the very young, could, for the first time, legitimately be diagnosed with bipolar disease (aka manic depression).

The impetus for this “revelation” was a 1995 report, “Is Your Child Bipolar?” written by two doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital, Janet Wozniak and Joseph Biederman.

Biederman would go on to become the target of internal investigations at Harvard and Mass General—did the pharmaceutical money he took influence his judgment in deciding bipolar was a real disorder among children? The charges against him were ultimately reduced to a few light slaps on the wrist; he retained his prestigious position.

But back in 1995, he and Wozniak, as the NY Times Magazine recounts (9/12/08, “The Bipolar Puzzle”), arrived at an earthshaking conclusion about children coming through their hospital clinic: a number of them fit the description of “bipolar irritable manic.”

It was a huge wow for the psychiatric profession. No one had seriously insisted, with “convincing evidence,” that very young kids could develop bipolar.

But now, psychiatrists were going to pick up that ball and run with it. Drug companies were going to develop and promote drugs (very serious and toxic drugs, like Risperdal) to treat childhood bipolar.

However, what the Times Magazine story mentions—but no one pays attention to—is this: Every one of these original manic “bipolar children” coming through Mass General, minus only one child, HAD ALREADY BEEN DIAGNOSED with ADHD, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

Boom.

What Biederman and Wozniak—and the rest of the psychiatric profession—failed to realize, or didn’t want to see, was: drugs given to treat ADHD (e.g., Ritalin, Adderall) are versions of speed; and speed causes, among other reactions, very irritable hyper emotions, which are indistinguishable from “manic.”

In other words, the obvious takeaway, which no one took away, was that the “manic” symptoms of these kids were reactions to the prior speed drugs prescribed for ADHD.

There was no bipolar.

In fact, and you can find this repeated in many press reports, there are no lab tests for diagnosing bipolar. No blood tests, no brain scans. It’s all done by consulting menus of “indicative” behaviors assembled by committees of psychiatrists. See, for example, the National Institute of Mental Health, “Bipolar Disorder in Children and Teens”: “There are no blood tests or brain scans that can diagnose bipolar disorder. Instead, the doctor will ask questions about your child’s mood and sleeping patterns. The doctor will also ask about your child’s energy and behavior…”

You can give young kids ADHD drugs like Ritalin or Adderall and watch, in many cases, all the symptoms of so-called bipolar come to life before your eyes. In the old days, people used to call this a speed crash.

At first, speed can give a person a sense of clean fresh energy and clarity. Then after taking it for a few days or a week or a few weeks or a month (user reactions vary widely), the person begins to come apart. He’s sitting in a corner, in a puddle of sadness, then he’s very high energy (“manic”) and yelling and throwing things and cursing at people.

He’s crashing.

This isn’t a sophisticated situation. This is basic brain disruption.

Here’s another drug sequence with the same outcome: ADHD diagnosed, Adderall prescribed; child goes into a big funk and this is diagnosed as depression; doctor prescribes Zoloft, which causes a few high-flying “manic episodes.” New diagnosis: bipolar.

Or a young toddler is fed formula that is largely synthetic, and chemicals cause a severe series of reactions, which are labeled “bipolar.”

Or a child is given a series of vaccine shots containing aluminum (a known neurotoxin), formaldehyde, and other injurious chemicals, and as a result develops severe symptoms labeled “bipolar.”

The drugs prescribed for bipolar are quite heavy and dangerous: Valproate, Lithium, Risperdal.

Adverse effects of Valproate include:
* acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;
* life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;
* brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium include:
* intercranial pressure leading to blindness;
* peripheral circulatory collapse;
* stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal include:
* serious impairment of cognitive function;
* fainting;
* restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).

In January, 2002, psychiatrist and author Peter Breggin told CBS News: “Psychiatry is out of control when it comes to drugging children…The drug [Risperdal] has an effect. The effect is basically a chemical lobotomy . . .”

And all this bipolar fakery started in 1995 when kids on psychiatric speed showed up at Mass General Hospital…

And here’s the key paragraph from the New York Times Magazine article, “The Bipolar Puzzle,” 9/12/08, about that decisive moment in time at Mass General: “…In an influential 1995 paper that began the paradigm shift toward bipolar disorder within child psychiatry, Janet Wozniak — the director of the pediatric bipolar-disorder program at Massachusetts General Hospital and co-author of ‘Is Your Child Bipolar?’ — working with the chief of pediatric psychopharmacology, Joseph Biederman, revealed that 16 percent of the children who came to the clinic met the D.S.M. criteria for mania [manic symptoms]. This was shocking news; it was widely believed until then that mania in children was extremely rare. Wozniak reported that the children’s mania most often took the form of an irritable mood rather than an elevated one, and that the mood was often chronic: the norm, rather than the exception. All but one of the manic children in the study also suffered from A.D.H.D.”

It almost seems as if the author dropped in that last sentence as a clue to the whole scam.

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.

AI and the future of medical treatment

by Jon Rappoport

July 17, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

—“Oh Doctor, what’s ailing me? Can I get a diagnosis? What’s that? AI [artificial intelligence] is handling it now? You mean I just go online and see the results of my tests and read the diagnosis and pick up my drugs outside my front door? Wow. Very nice.”

Really? Is it very nice?

As AI creeps and crawls into the realm of medical diagnosis and treatment, and as it spreads under the banner of “more precise care for the patient,” remember that AI embeds false data more firmly than any human doctor can. Once it’s in there, how do you get rid of it?

“I’m sorry, sir. There is no human to speak with. All our data are produced by algorithms…”

For example, suppose the flu you have isn’t the flu? Suppose it’s something else? AI would still diagnose you with flu, based on your profile of symptoms, and you could be prescribed a toxic antiviral drug you don’t need, and also put on a warning list of people whose flu shot isn’t up to date.

Dr. Peter Doshi, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals a monstrosity.

As Doshi states, every year hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

So they don’t have the flu.

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.”

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

BUT DO YOU THINK AI IS GOING TO FOLD THESE REVELATIONS INTO ITS DATA BANK ON FLU? DO YOU THINK THIS MAJOR INSIGHT—WHICH BLASTS THE WHOLE FLU PROPAGANDA SHIP OUT OF THE WATER—IS GOING TO ALTER THE AI PROGRAM ON FLU DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT?

Of course not.

And there will be many, many other areas where AI is wrong— but engraved in stone.

For instance, the official refusal to classify all vaccines containing aluminum as highly toxic and dangerous—AI will bolster that intentional refusal. At that point, who are you going to argue with? A machine? The cloud?

NextGov is reporting on a version of AI now undergoing testing: “Scientists test new chemical compounds on animals…But an artificial intelligence system published in the research journal Toxicological Sciences shows that it might be possible to automate some tests using the knowledge about chemical interactions we already have. The AI was trained to predict how toxic tens of thousands of unknown chemicals could be, based on previous animal tests, and the algorithm’s results were shown to be as accurate as live animal tests.”

Sound good? How likely is it that such an automated database will include scores of toxic medical drugs that kill Americans at the rate of 100,000 a year?

Yes, that’s right, 100,000 a year. The citation is: Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

Once AI is accepted as the Word on toxic chemicals, imagine the degree of difficulty in trying to add many medical drugs to the list.

“I’m sorry, sir. I don’t know anything about medicines. I just access the database on toxic chemicals and report what I find. Who is in charge of the AI here? Is that what you’re asking? I have no idea. Let me transfer you to a senior specialist in public communication. She’s quite busy at the moment. If you leave a message, you may receive a reply in the next few weeks. But I’m not sure she can help you. As I say, we take all our information from the database…”

Automation of data creates a new level of abstraction. Yes, it’s hard enough to argue with a human bureaucrat—but that’s nothing compared with trying to question an AI program.

And of course, in the medical arena, who is going to assemble that AI program and take charge of it? Who is going to decide what goes in the program and what is omitted?

Who is going to present that program to the public and characterize the AI as the fairest, most honest and objective system under the sun?

What will happen when the next 10 generations of schoolchildren are trained to believe in AI as the best and brightest source of truth on the planet?

When I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in 1988, I started to become aware of artificially constructed templates of medical information—templates that could become AI productions in the next 10 or 20 years.

I was roaming the stacks in the UCLA bio-med library, digging up crucial information on various medical tests. These little-known published studies were showing how unreliable the diagnostic tests could be. But, as I discovered, this information had no place in medical school curriculum. In all conventional medical circles, it was ignored. As if it didn’t exist.

I found the ignored data in archived volumes of medical journals on the library shelves.

What happens when those volumes are shipped into warehouses for storage, and no one accesses them anymore?

What happens when the bright and shiny AI medical databases rule the landscape?

Part of my work for the past 35 years has been keeping medical truth alive and in front of readers. There is no expiration date on truth.

When you feed AI enough data, and sets of basic assumptions, it can and will construct a full-blown program that dictates a range of actions that should be taken. But, for example, suppose you told a nascent AI chess program that knights move only three squares forward, rooks can only move diagonally, and kings can jump over other pieces. You’ll get a brilliant chess system that bears very little resemblance to the actual game of chess.

This is exactly what happens when many underlying medical assumptions—which are false or grossly incomplete—are entered into an AI diagnostic and treatment system.

And much usable and beneficial truth will fade into the background and be lost.

The Matrix Revealed

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

(Click here for my piece at my OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE blog entitled
“David vs. AI supercomputer Goliath”)

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.

Many ordinary meds cause depression; public trust in Pharma hits new low

Many ordinary meds cause depression; public trust in Pharma hits new low

by Jon Rappoport

June 14, 2018

—For years, I’ve been writing about the medical system’s self-feeding mechanism:

Give a patient a drug to treat his symptoms; the drug causes new symptoms, which are diagnosed as a new illness; and then new drugs are given, and those drugs cause still more symptoms, which in turn are diagnosed as a new condition…on and on it goes. Drugged patients suffer tragically and needlessly, and cash piles up in Big Pharma’s coffers.

At one time, this circle of devastation might have been called an accident. But now, all the experts know the truth. Therefore, this is rightly labeled a MARKETING STRATEGY, and, at the highest levels, a covert op to disable the population.

Here is a new revelation:

Suppose your doctor told you this: “I’m prescribing an antidepressant because the other drugs you’ve been taking have a side effect—they cause depression.”

You might say, “Wow, where is my compensation for suffering depression?”

The answer, of course, is: Nowhere.

Yahoo News (6/12) has the story: “One third of Americans are taking prescription and over-the-counter drugs, such as birth control pills, antacids and common heart medications, that may raise the risk of depression, researchers warned on Tuesday.”

“Since the drugs are so common, people may be unaware of their potential depressive effects, said the report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).”

“’Many may be surprised to learn that their medications, despite having nothing to do with mood or anxiety or any other condition normally associated with depression, can increase their risk of experiencing depressive symptoms, and may lead to a depression diagnosis,’ said lead author Dima Qato, assistant professor of pharmacy systems, outcomes and policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago.”

Here is the kicker: “The report was released one week after US health authorities said suicides have risen 30 percent in the past two decades, with about half of suicides among people who were not known to suffer from mental illness.”

“Anti-depressants are the only drug class that carries an explicit warning — called a black box warning — of suicide risk.”

“For other common medications — like blood pressure lowering pills, antacids known as proton pump inhibitors, painkillers and hormonal contraceptives — the warnings are harder to find or simply don’t exist in the packaging.”

And who knew this? “Researchers found that more than 200 commonly used prescription drugs have depression or suicidal symptoms listed as potential side effects.”

In the Yahoo article’s comments section, one person writes: “That explains why so many heart patients get diagnosed with clinical depression and PTSD. I went from 0 pills a day to over 20 a day after a heart attack. Several months later after becoming clinically depressed I was [p]ut on antidepressants.”

Quite possibly, the depression wasn’t simply the reaction to having a heart attack. The drugs used to treat the attack were at fault.

Hundreds of meds causing depression have produced a $$ bonanza for the psychiatric drug business: THOSE drugs OVER THERE cause depression; THESE drugs HERE treat it.

Of course, the SSRI antidepressants (e.g., Paxil, Zoloft) contain warnings about suicidal effects—because they, too, cause depression. And my readers know I’ve been presenting evidence for years about the ability of antidepressants to cause people to commit violence, including murder.

This is quite a “situation.” Hundreds of ordinary meds bring on depression. Doctors then prescribe antidepressants, which can deepen depression and push people into suicide and homicide.

Taking this further, the official solution to mass shootings is “earlier intervention with people at risk,” which means more psychiatric clinics, more diagnoses of mental disorders, and more drugging with compounds which induce violent actions.

Here is a new report indicating the public may be waking up to “the brutal pharma game”. From fiercepharma.com (June 13): [Public] Trust has hit a new low for pharma in Edelman’s annual Trust Barometer survey. The 13-point drop from 51% to 38% in the U.S. was the category’s biggest plummet in the five years the public relations and marketing firm has been tracking [public] sentiment…Pharma’s score of 38 puts it firmly in distrusted territory…”

None of this press coverage digs deeper into the tragedy. As I’ve been reporting for several years now, the landmark mainstream report on the effects of pharmaceuticals was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.

Written by Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered researcher at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, the report—“Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”—concluded that, annually, these drugs kill 106,000 Americans. Extrapolating that number out to a decade, the drugs kill a MILLION people.

In 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield. She adamantly stated that the US government had never consulted her about fixing the horror; nor had they launched any program to reverse the catastrophic trend.

When I label this overall operation chemical warfare against the population, I’m not exaggerating.

For obvious reasons, the mainstream press refuses to reveal the truth. It’s not only Big Pharma’s advertising revenues that are on the line, it’s the chaos that would be caused by cracking a foundational pillar of modern society.

Reality itself would undergo a vast disruption, as branches of the secular religion called modern medicine collapsed in full view of the public.

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.

Mass shootings and psychiatric drugs: the connection

by Jon Rappoport

June 12, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’ve been tracking the connection since 1999, when I wrote a long white paper, for the Truth Seeker Foundation, on school shootings and psychiatric drugs. The paper was titled: “Why Do They Do It? School shootings Across America.”

The drugs aren’t the only causative factor, but they produce what I call the Johnny Appleseed effect throughout society. Sprinkle enough of the drugs among enough people and you get otherwise unexplainable violence popping up—in schools, in workplaces. The psychiatric plague eats out the country from the inside.

Here are excerpts from my 1999 report—

The massacre at Columbine High School took place on April 20, 1999. Astonishingly, for eight days after the tragedy, during thousands of hours of prime-time television coverage, virtually no one mentioned the word “drugs.” Then the issue was opened. Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine, was on at least one drug.

The NY Times of April 29, 1999, and other papers reported that Harris was rejected from enlisting in the Marines for medical reasons. A friend of the family told the Times that Harris was being treated by a psychiatrist. And then several sources told the Washington Post that the drug prescribed as treatment was Luvox, manufactured by Solvay.

In two more days, the “drug-issue” was gone.

Luvox is of the same class as Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil. They are labeled SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). They attempt to alleviate depression by changing brain-levels of the natural substance serotonin. Luvox has a slightly different chemical configuration from Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft, and it was approved by the FDA for obsessive-compulsive disorder, although many doctors apparently prescribe it for depression.

Prozac is the wildly popular Eli Lilly antidepressant which has been linked to suicidal and homicidal actions. It is now given to young children. Again, its chemical composition is very close to Luvox, the drug that Harris took.

Dr. Peter Breggin, the eminent psychiatrist and author (Toxic Psychiatry, Talking Back to Prozac, Talking Back to Ritalin), told me, “With Luvox there is some evidence of a four-percent rate for mania in adolescents. Mania, for certain individuals, could be a component in grandiose plans to destroy large numbers of other people. Mania can go over the hill to psychosis.”

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo is a psychiatrist in private practice in Washington DC. He is the president of the Washington chapter of the American Society of Psychoanalytic Physicians. Tarantolo states that “all the SSRIs [including Prozac and Luvox] relieve the patient of feeling. He becomes less empathic, as in `I don’t care as much,’ which means `It’s easier for me to harm you.’ If a doctor treats someone who needs a great deal of strength just to think straight, and gives him one of these drugs, that could push him over the edge into violent behavior.”

In Arianna Huffington’s syndicated newspaper column of July 9, 1998, Dr. Breggin states, “I have no doubt that Prozac can cause or contribute to violence and suicide. I’ve seen many cases. In a recent clinical trial, 6 percent of the children became psychotic on Prozac. And manic psychosis can lead to violence.”

A study from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Dr. Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

Other studies:

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

July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”

September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.

The well-known Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics reveals a strange fact. It states that Ritalin [given for ADHD] is “structurally related to amphetamines … Its pharmacological properties are essentially the same as those of the amphetamines.” In other words, the only clear difference is legality. And the effects, in layman’s terms, are obvious. You take speed and, sooner or later, you start crashing. You become agitated, irritable, paranoid, delusional, aggressive.

In his book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin discusses the subject of drug combinations: “Combining antidepressants [e.g., Prozac, Luvox, Paxil] and psychostimulants [e.g., Ritalin] increases the risk of cardiovascular catastrophe, seizures, sedation, euphoria, and psychosis. Withdrawal from the combination can cause a severe reaction that includes confusion, emotional instability, agitation, and aggression.” Children are frequently medicated with this combination, and when we highlight such effects as aggression, psychosis, and emotional instability, it is obvious that the result is pointing toward the very real possibility of violence.

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

Scarnati listed over a hundred adverse affects of Ritalin and indexed published journal articles for each of these symptoms.

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

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

Other ADHD medications, which also have a chemical profile similar to amphetamines, would be expected to produce some of the same effects listed above.

The ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News publishes the following warning in bold letters: “Do Not Try to Abruptly Stop Taking Psychiatric Drugs. When trying to withdraw from many psychiatric drugs, patients can develop serious and even life-threatening emotional and physical reactions…Therefore, withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done under clinical supervision…”

—end of excerpts from my 1999 white paper on school shootings and psychiatric drugs—

There is a problem. It is chilling. Pharmaceutical companies, which manufacture drug after drug for “mental disorders,” are doing everything they can to cover up the drugs’ connection to violence.

They use their lawyers and PR people—and their influence over the press—to scrub the connection.

And now, one typical, disturbing, official reaction to every new mass shooting is: build more community mental health facilities. Obama was prominent in this regard, after Sandy Hook in 2012. The implication? More drug prescriptions for more people; thus, more violent consequences.

I’ll close with another excerpt from my 1999 report. It is the tragic account of Julie Marie Meade (one account of many you can find at ssristories.org (also here)):

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo has written about Julie Marie Meade. In a column for the ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News, “Children and Prozac: First Do No Harm,” Tarantolo describes how Julie Meade, in November of 1996, called 911, “begging the cops to come and shoot her. And if they didn’t do it quickly, she would do it to herself. There was also the threat that she would shoot them as well.”

The police came within a few minutes, “5 of them to be exact, pumping at least 10 bullets into her head and torso,” as she waved a gun around.

Tarantolo remarks that a friend of Julie said Julie “had plans to make the honor roll and go to college. He [the friend] had also observed her taking all those pills.” What pills? Tarantolo called the Baltimore medical examiner, and spoke with Dr. Martin Bullock, who was on a fellowship at that office. Bullock said, “She had been taking Prozac for four years.”

Tarantolo asked Bullock, “Did you know that Prozac has been implicated in impulsive de novo violence and suicidalness?” Bullock said he was not aware of this.

Tarantolo is careful to point out, “Violent and suicidal behavior have been observed both early (a few weeks) and late (many months) in treatment with Prozac.”

The November 23rd, 1996, Washington Post reported the Julie Meade death by police shooting. The paper mentioned nothing about Prozac.

Therefore, readers were left in the dark. What could explain this girl’s bizarre and horrendous behavior?

The answer was there in plain sight. But the Post refused to make it known.

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.

Gene therapy and the trans-human agenda

Cure disease or alter humans?

by Jon Rappoport

June 5, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.

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.

Guide to paying a small fine and making billions

Guide to paying a small fine and making billions

by Jon Rappoport

May 30, 2018

The key factor is: be a drug company.

In this case, Celgene. Their drugs are Thalomid and Revlimid. They are approved for multiple myeloma, one type of cancer.

Here’s the thing. Doctors can decide to prescribe drugs for uses which are not approved by the FDA, but the manufacturers can’t promote those “off-label” uses to doctors. That’s illegal.

A long-running suit against Celgene, launched by Beverly Brown, who used to be the company’s sales manager, contends that:

Celgene trained its sales team to promote off-label uses to doctors;

Celgene sales people intentionally lied about studies, claiming the studies showed the off-label uses were beneficial to patients;

And the company omitted vital warnings about the drugs’ uses from the drugs’ labels.

Back in 2014, the judge in the case, George King, slammed Celgene for trying to convince him to dismiss the case. King pointed out that the plaintiff, Beverly Brown, appeared to have direct knowledge of the scam, because company higher-ups laid out the details to her.

Finally, now, the lawsuit has been settled. Celgene will pay out $280 million.

But wait. Revlimid, one of the two Celgene drugs named in the suit, garnered a whopping $5 billion in sales, in 2015. FiercePharma, a website dedicated to industry news, predicts the drug will rake in $15 billion in 2022.

On top of all this, Celgene admits no wrongdoing in the lawsuit settlement.

Nice work if you can get it, and Celgene can.

There is an easy formula at work, if you’re a drug company.

Misrepresent the uses of a drug.

Promote it to the sky, to doctors, for purposes for which it wasn’t approved.

Therefore, make billions of dollars.

Get sued, go to court, force the case to drag on for years.

And finally settle up for chump change, admit nothing, promise nothing, and walk away, free as a bird.

That’s a plan.

That’s a workable plan, UP FRONT.

Before the drug is ever approved.

“Let’s see. We’ve got a drug for cancer. Hey, it’s highly toxic and it causes cancer in some people and, at best, it doesn’t really prolong survival in the patient for more than a few months of extreme suffering and pain—but we aren’t even talking about that. We’ve got a cancer drug, and we can get it approved for treating one type of cancer. Once that happens, we can promote it like hell to doctors for treating other cancers. That’s illegal, but who cares? Even if the federal government gets involved in the case, the most we can expect is a fine. Nobody will go to jail. So, BY SUCCESSFULLY PROMOTING THE DRUG FOR ILLEGAL USES, A VERY NECESSARY STEP, our profit picture will look great. Eventually, we’ll get sued. So what? We’ll pay a small fine, the drug will still be on the market, and life will be good. For us.”

Get it?

A drug company isn’t scrambling after the fact of getting sued, trying to figure out how to proceed. That would be fake news.

No, the company has the whole scenario figured out from the beginning.

“Dear Drug, when you were just a gleam in your parents’ eye, we knew your birth would be a wonderful event. And dear child, you’ve made us proud. With a push from us, you’ve exceeded all our expectations. You’ve grown up to be a winner. Here’s to you.”

By the way, if you want a good example of crony capitalism, as opposed to actual capitalism (in which buyer and seller voluntarily engage in commerce, the product does not cause harm, the people involved are honorable, the exchange of value for value isn’t regulated), you’ve just found one:

A medical drug’s manufacturer, and the federal government, and even the prescribing doctors, all know a drug is useless for off-label purposes, and also creates harm. But all the parties (cronies) feign ignorance, while protecting each other, and no law-enforcement agency charges any participant with a crime. All parties involved pretend, when the suit is filed and the settlement is reached, that justice has been done. One hand washes the other.

And, at the same time, if a researcher or doctor or layperson happens to come up with a non-toxic method of treating the disease for which the drug in question is the preferred option, and if that innovative natural method does no harm, and if responsible adults want to try the method…

The house comes down on the researcher’s head. The full force of “experts” and government enforcement agencies and mainstream doctors and the MSM press comes into play.

The “experts” and cronies, of course, trumpet concern for people’s health and lay claim to righteousness and ethics and science.

Sure. They’re messiahs, taking us into the medical promised-land.

Or, to put it slightly differently:

They’re scum of the Earth.

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.

Media won’t investigate medically caused death numbers

by Jon Rappoport

May 16, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Imagine a Congressional hearing held before media cameras, with reporters all over the US and Europe ready with shocking articles about one of the leading causes of death—

SENATOR: Sir, I have the numbers in front of me. How can you keep this secret from the public?

FDA COMMISSIONER: It’s not a secret, sir. Many experts know about it.

SENATOR: I’m looking through the trillion-dollar federal budget. I’m looking for the money allocated to fix this horrible situation. Where are those funds?

FDA COMMISSIONER: Nowhere.

I know major media won’t investigate medically-caused death numbers, because I’ve published reports for years, and I’ve contacted news people with the facts; and nothing happens.

So we begin with a few citations.

July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. 106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that’s 2.25 million deaths. You might want to read that last number again.

I interviewed Starfield in 2009. I asked her whether she was aware of any overall effort by the US government to eliminate this holocaust, and whether she had ever been contacted by any government agency to consult on such an effort. She answered a resounding no to both questions.

Here is another citation: “Anticoagulants cause the most serious adverse events, finds US analysis,” BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It [the Institute] calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”

The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans.

Here is another citation: The article is, “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and is the 2013 recipient of ASA’s [American Sociological Association’s] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.

Donald Light: “Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [6.6 million annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.” (ASA publication, “Footnotes,” November 2014)

The statistics I’m quoting reveal a problem on the level of a tsunami sweeping across the whole of America and Europe.

Why won’t major media report these facts?

The obvious reason: their big-spending pharmaceutical advertisers would drop them like hot potatoes.

But there are other reasons.

Every medical bureaucrat or medical shill or medical expert who jumps aboard the media train, to assure the public that drugs and vaccines are remarkably safe, is sitting on the time bomb I have described above.

This is a key, key fact. If this bomb were widely recognized, who would continue to believe these professional pundits? Who would accept anything they say? How could they possibly sustain their credibility?

“Well, the system I represent kills 2.25 million people per decade, and maims between 20 and 40 million more people per decade, but I want to assure you this vaccine presents no problems at all. It’s incredibly safe.”

Every single pronouncement, on any subject, issued via the medical cartel’s Ministry of Truth would fall on disbelieving ears, and only increase general outrage.

Mainstream reporters and editors and publishers are well aware that telling the truth and continuing to pound on it would undermine a basic institution of society.

The media are there to give credibility to society and its structures. That’s why they’re called “major” instead of “minor.”

When hard rains fall, the media are there with an umbrella to hold over organized society’s head. To walk away in the middle of a downpour would leave the status quo unprotected.

“Defending the Crown” is another way to put it. The King may make mistakes, he may commit heinous offenses, but he is the King, and therefore his position must remain secure.

Young journalists learn this point quickly. If in their zeal, they cross the threshold and attempt to expose a central myth, fairy tale, legend, they’re put back in their place. They absorb the message. Journalism has limits. Certain truths are silent truths.

Over the years, I’ve talked to reporters who are solidly addicted to obfuscations. Like any addict, they have an army of excuses to rationalize their behavior.

The medical experts are worse. Their pretense of idealism knows no limits, and is matched only by their claim to bullet-proof knowledge.

When you peel the veneer away, they are enablers, persons of interest, co-conspirators.

There is nothing quite like a high-minded, socially-positioned, card-carrying member of the King’s circle of protectors. The arrogance is titanic. Because what is being hidden is so explosive.

225,000 deaths a year at the hands of modern medicine. Two to four million maimings. 2.25 million deaths per decade. The Crown is responsible.

And yet it is the duty of the Crown to make his subjects feel safe and protected and even loved.

No wonder he needs such a large army of trained helpers in and around the press.

He has them.

But their monopoly is breaking down.

We’re at the beginning of a new breakout level of truth. It’s called independent media.

Stay tuned.

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.

Two huge vaccine scandals the press is ignoring

by Jon Rappoport

May 15, 2018

Some lies are so big, many people can’t accept the fact that they’re lies. Their minds are boggled. “No,” they say, “that couldn’t be.” But yes, that could be, and is.

Two giant vaccine scandals are in progress at the moment.

The mainstream press is mentioning them, here and there, but without any intent to raise alarms, dig in, investigate, and get down to the core of the problem.

So I’ll get to the core.

The first scandal revolves around the flu vaccine for the current year. The CDC and other “experts” have admitted the vaccine has a very low effectiveness rate.

Why is it a dud?

Because the vaccine is produced using chicken eggs, and in that medium, the flu virus—which is intentionally placed in the eggs—mutates. Therefore, it isn’t the same virus which is causing flu this year. Therefore, no protection against the flu.

FiercePharma reports: “Based on data from Australia, which already had its flu season, scientists warn that this season’s flu shot might be only 10% effective. And the reason for such a low level of protection might lie in the method by which the majority of flu vaccines are made: in eggs.”

Ten percent effectiveness. Now that’s ridiculous. And it’s assuming you accept the whole model of how vaccines work—that they actually do protect (safely) against disease, rather than, at best, repressing the visible symptoms of the disease.

Amidst their spotty coverage of this scandal, here is what the press is failing to mention: the problem with the flu vaccine isn’t just a 2017-2018 flaw.

It would be the same problem ever since chicken eggs have been used to manufacture the vaccine.

Are you ready?

Healthline.com: “The majority of flu vaccines are grown in chicken eggs, a method of vaccine development that’s been used for 70 years.”

Hello? Anyone home?

Seventy years. The same problem.

The same “low effectiveness” problem.

That’s a page-one story with a giant headline. That’s the lead item on the nightly news. That’s a pounding investigative series about the lunatic promotion of a massively ineffective—but universally promoted—vaccine going back decades and decades.

But it isn’t a giant headline. It isn’t an investigation. It’s a here-today-gone-tomorrow piece. That’s all.

The second scandal keeps unfolding in the Philippines, where drug giant Sanofi’s Dengvaxia, given to prevent Dengue Fever, is facing enormous pushback from government officials, who stopped the national vaccination campaign, after thousands of children already received the shot.

The issue? Safety.

FiercePharma: “The Philippines stopped vaccinations shortly after the company warned that Dengvaxia can cause more serious infections in those who previously hadn’t had exposure to the virus. The country also kicked off a probe and plans legal action, according to health secretary Francisco Duque.”

Did you get that? The company (Sanofi) itself warned that vaccine might not be safe.

FiercePharma: “…the [Philippine] Department of Health didn’t heed warnings from an advisory group of doctors and pharmacologists, who concluded early last year that the vaccine’s safety and efficacy were unproven.”

My, my.

But let’s dig even deeper. Sanofi saying is saying the vaccine might be dangerous for those who haven’t been exposed to the Dengue virus before getting the shot. What on Earth does that mean?

It means a child who had naturally come in contact with the virus would have developed his own antibodies to it. And later, those antibodies would protect him against the Dengue virus IN THE VACCINE. Otherwise, the virus in the vaccine could give him a case of Dengue or cause some other form of damage.

This is saying, “If a child is ALREADY immune to Dengue Fever, because his immune system has successfully dealt with the virus, then the vaccine won’t damage him.”

And THAT is saying, “If the child has naturally developed an immunity to Dengue, then the vaccine, WHICH HE DOESN’T NEED, won’t harm him.”

Of course, the press isn’t getting the picture. If any reporters are seeing the light, they’re keeping their mouths shut. The scandal is too big and too crazy.

Between the lines, a vaccine company is admitting their vaccine is only safe for children who don’t need it.

A tree just fell in the forest. Who heard it?

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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