Category Archives: Medical Fraud

Remember the pandemic that was going to wipe out humanity? We’re still here.

by Jon Rappoport

August 1, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Every few years, a new virus shows up that, experts tell us, can wipe out half the world in six months…and then it doesn’t happen.

I could give you several examples. In this piece, let’s harken back to SARS, the vague flu lookalike that suddenly showed up in 2003 and was going to decimate the Earth.

When SARS hit, the World Health Organization (WHO) put the world on notice not to fly into Toronto. The city lost billions of tourism dollars.

The fabled “coronavirus,” touted as the cause of SARS, was evil and covert and unique. So said ten WHO labs, which took over all official research on the “plague.”

But on May 1, 2003, Dr. Frank Plummer, head of the WHO lab in Winnipeg, issued a blockbuster to a SARS summit in Canada. He was now finding the coronavirus in ZERO percent of SARS cases.

Weeks before, Plummer had said eighty percent of patients showed the virus, then that had dropped to sixty, forty, thirty, and now it was ZERO.

You have to understand that even eighty percent is not sufficient to call the virus the cause of any disease condition.

But ZERO?

Yes, they all have the disease, the same disease, and we have the virus behind it all. The virus is present in ZERO percent of cases.

And the doctor saying this is a consummate insider, the chief honcho at Canada’s WHO lab. WHO being the agency, along with the CDC, that is in charge of all research on SARS.

Understand, given the fact that SARS is supposedly composed of a list of vague symptoms—cough, fever, fatigue, lung infection—the coronavirus is the only thing that is tying these cases together—-AND WHEN THAT VIRUS PROVED TO BE MEANINGLESS, all the cases were set adrift, so to speak, joining the ranks of regular old flu and lung infection.

And the SARS death rate was low, so low the whole thing turned out to be a dud. A phony dud.

Of course, no one at the CDC or WHO admitted this. These people are experts at “moving on.” And they’re adept at writing history to revise facts and cover their backsides.

But a whole parade of fake pandemics—and attendant dire warnings—does, over time, achieve one objective: it conditions people to accept the lie that vaccines are the best solution to illness.

And that’s no small feat. It’s especially important when you consider the fact that the CDC, which is tasked with overseeing vaccine safety and efficacy, buys and sells $4 billion worth of vaccines a year. This is BUSINESS we’re talking about, and in order to promote business, PR people cook up all sorts of schemes.

Pandemics, even if they don’t pan out, are clever propaganda.

Also, the horror story of GERMS that can cause plagues anywhere in the world at the drop of a hat—the ceaseless drumbeat of germs, germs, and more germs—obscures all sorts of environmental causes of illness and death. For example, toxic chemicals produced by major and favored corporations.

“It’s the virus” is the greatest cover story on planet Earth.

Don’t forget that one.

Oh—you want to know the official figures on SARS? 8000 cases worldwide, 774 deaths, between 2002 and 2003. No cases on the record since 2004. By any standard, that’s a DUD. But go ahead, read the official accounts and histories. See if you can find one clear admission that the whole thing was nonsense. Good luck.

Remember, it’s not the pandemic that’s important. It’s the warning about the pandemic. That’s what moves product off the shelves…

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.

Government-Pharma collusion in mass deaths by opioids

by Jon Rappoport

July 30, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

—The 2016 law, hamstringing the DEA, still has not been repealed—

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

2 MILLION OPIOID ADDICTS IN THE US.

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

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

Here is the open secret:

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

That law is the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2016, passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on 4/9/16.

And that is the federal government’s role in perpetuating and expanding the opioid crisis.

Honest agents inside the complacent DEA want to have the right to march into a pharmaceutical company headquarters and say, “We know you’re shipping millions of opioid pills to little pharmacies and clinics that, in turn, are selling the pills to street dealers. We’re going to freeze those shipments now, and we’re going to arrest key executives.”

But that 2016 law raises the bar so high, the whole law-enforcement effort is hamstrung, throttled, and loaded down with legal complications.

In essence, the US Congress gave drug companies a free pass.

And no one in the Congress is admitting it or talking about it.

The Washington Post, on October 15, 2017, talked about it. The article was headlined, “The Drug Industry’s Triumph Over the DEA”: “In April 2016, at the height of the deadliest drug epidemic in U.S. history, Congress effectively stripped the Drug Enforcement Administration of its most potent weapon against large drug companies suspected of spilling prescription [opioid] narcotics onto the nation’s streets.”

“A handful of members of Congress, allied with the nation’s major drug distributors, prevailed upon the DEA and the Justice Department to agree to a more industry-friendly law, undermining efforts to stanch the flow of pain pills, according to an investigation by The Washington Post and ‘60 Minutes’…”

“The law was the crowning achievement of a multifaceted campaign by the drug industry to weaken aggressive DEA enforcement efforts against drug distribution companies that were supplying corrupt doctors and pharmacists who peddled [opioid] narcotics to the black market. The industry worked behind the scenes with lobbyists and key members of Congress [to pass the 2016 law], pouring more than a million dollars into their election campaigns.”

“The new [2016] law makes it virtually impossible for the DEA to freeze suspicious narcotic shipments from the companies, according to internal agency and Justice Department documents and an independent assessment by the DEA’s chief administrative law judge in a soon-to-be-published law review article. That powerful tool [freezing opioid shipments] had allowed the agency to immediately prevent drugs from reaching the street.”

EVERYONE IS NOW AWARE OF THE LAW’S HORRENDOUS IMPACT. WHY DOESN’T THE CONGRESS REPEAL IT?

The fact that no one is stepping up to the plate with a fast repeal is proof that multiple parts of the federal government are, in fact, tacitly supporting the opioid crisis and its devastating impacts on human life.

Failure to act swiftly amounts to collusion in Death by Opioids.

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

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

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.