Category Archives: Medical Fraud

A different theory of cancer

A different theory of cancer

by Jon Rappoport

March 7, 2018

“The scrambling of chromosomes is so massive that no two cancer cells are identical. This means there is no typical cancer cell for vaccines or drugs to target and drug resistance is inevitable. All this without gene mutations.” (David Rasnick, PhD, former mainstream researcher, who has now become an outsider.)

A theory to explain the failure of the war on cancer? A theory that indicates in simple terms why mainstream treatments fail? A door that could open up on new alternative treatments?

There is a fascinating book-in-progress by chemist David Rasnick, PhD. It proposes a quite different view of cancer.

Here is an excerpt from David’s bio: “The past 21 years I have studied cancer from a completely new perspective. Prior to that, I worked in the pharmaceutical/biotech industries developing drugs against cancer, emphysema, arthritis, and parasites.”

“I…synthesized the first peptidyl-fluoromethanes. These molecules are…used around the world in the development of therapies for the tissue-destroying diseases of arthritis, cancer, and parasites, among others.”

David presents an explanation of cancer by tracing the cause to CHROMOSOME MALFUNCTION—which is a major departure from the current GENE-MUTATION hypothesis.

Merriam-Webster: “[A gene is] a unit of DNA that is usually located on a chromosome and that controls the development of one or more traits and is the basic unit by which genetic information is passed from parent to offspring.”

Vocabulary.com: “A chromosome is a strand of DNA that is encoded with genes. In most cells, humans have 22 pairs of these chromosomes plus the two sex chromosomes…”

David writes: “Cancer is a disease of the chromosomes! This simple understanding changes everything—from prevention to diagnosis to treatment. It explains spontaneous remission, inevitable drug resistance, and strongly supports alternatives to radiation and chemotherapy. It can help you and your family make better informed choices.”

David is raising funds for the purpose of completing his book. You can go to his Indiegogo site and watch David explain his cancer research, and if so moved, make a contribution.

I asked David to make a few comments about his new work—now that he has moved from the scientific mainstream to an “outsider” position. Here are his remarks:

“The biggest mark against [gene] mutations causing cancer is that every attempt to experimentally, or any other way, to prove it has failed. Second, basing diagnosis and treatment on the gene theory have failed to reduce the incidence of cancer and mortality. Third, theoretical and experimental proof that unbalanced chromosomes cause cancer continues to amass. So far, the chromosomal imbalance theory has successfully explained everything we know about cancer: how it starts and progresses over years to decades, its physical and behavioral characteristics, inevitable drug resistance, the impossibility of a vaccine against cancer…”

“Anything that becomes entrenched is difficult to replace. The trillion dollars spent on the gene centric war on cancer has created a mighty citadel. Huge egg in the face of government, drug companies, academics and opinion leaders to say whoops folks, sorry, we got it wrong.”

“Unbalanced chromosomes completely disrupt the species specific and tissue specific location of chromosomes. The chromosomes still orchestrate the production of proteins but in bizarre and uncoordinated ways. Again, without mutation of genes.”

“…there is an overall gain in chromosomes as…unbalanced cells divide over a period of years to decades. The amount of protein in a cell is proportional to the number of chromosomes, which means that cancer cells have considerably more protein than normal cells. The extra protein leads to the secretion of very dangerous digestive enzymes and other proteins responsible for invasion of adjacent tissues and metastasis.”

“The scrambling of chromosomes is so massive that no two cancer cells are identical. This means there is no typical cancer cell for vaccines or drugs to target and drug resistance is inevitable. All this without gene mutations.”

“The chromosomal imbalance theory changes everything about cancer. It offers young researches a very powerful and productive alternative to the hopelessly failed gene mutation theory.”

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.

Australian anti-vaxxers provide new model for the world

Australian anti-vaxxers provide new model for the world

by Jon Rappoport

March 4, 2018

Out of the ashes of government tyranny comes a solution.

In the Australian state of Queensland, childcare facilities can refuse to allow unvaccinated children to attend, so…

Parents there have formed their own community, which has already grown to 800 members. As ABC (Australia) reports:

“Sunshine Coast vaccine refuser and leader of the Natural Immunity Community, Allona Lahn, said her anti-vaccine network had grown to 800 members and was becoming stronger since the regulations were introduced.”

“’Out of sheer necessity we’ve created a community base to support families — we’ve had no choice other than to start our own social services’.”

“Ms Lahn said the network with like-minded families included their own childcare, schools and health services away from the mainstream.”

“’We organise group childcare arrangements and we’re now devising our own combined homeschooling system,’ she said.”

“’We use health practitioners within the anti-vaccine networks around Australia and ‘anti-vaccination-friendly’ doctors in the community’.”

“Ms Lahn said network members were turning away from mainstream health services because they faced intimidation and coercion.”

This is decentralization par excellence.

If like-minded parents in other countries take notice and launch their own communities, who knows how strong this movement could become?

Islands of resistance—but more than that. New answers, new strategies, new victories. And ongoing proof that parents can raise healthy children without vaccinations.

That proof is the dagger to the incessant lies about vaccines being absolutely necessary. Mainstream media promote those lies day and night—but the truth is, parents can and do raise unvaccinated children with strong immune systems, which is the natural defense against harm from disease.

The medical establishment has done NO proper, long-term studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children’s health outcomes. And the real reason is: they don’t want to face the results of such studies. They rightly fear the facts that would emerge.

I’m sure Allona Lahn, the leader of the Queensland network, doesn’t think of herself as a hero. She’s just doing what she knows is right, and she and her compatriot parents are, above all, protecting their children from the well-established toxic effects of vaccines. But she is a hero.

Every aware parent should salute her.

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.

Flashback: creating a genetically altered human

by Jon Rappoport

March 1, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Combing through my files, I came across a piece I’d written in 2011 about genetic alteration. But my piece referred to experiments done much earlier, in 2001.

Given what happened in 2001, one can only imagine how far scientists have now gone in tinkering with DNA—openly, and in secret.

From The Telegraph, Sep.27, 2001, “Boy’s DNA implanted in rabbit eggs,” written by Roger Highfield:

“Scientists in China have inserted a boy’s DNA into empty rabbit eggs and grown hybrid embryos, it is reported today. A team at the Sun Yat-Sen University of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, are trying to overcome a practical limitation…In some of the 100 or so successful transfers to a rabbit egg stripped of chromosomes, an embryo developed to the morula stage, [which is] the compact ball of cells that forms after about three days of development. For stem cells to be isolated, the embryos must be coaxed into developing further.”

Also in 2001, there was another, far more ambitious experiment:

BBC Online (May 4, 2001): “Scientists have confirmed that the first genetically altered humans have been born and are healthy.”

“Up to 30 such children have been born, 15 of them as a result of one experimental programme at a US laboratory [the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey]…”

“Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year-old children confirm that they contain a small quantity of additional genes not inherited from either parent.”

“The additional genes were taken from a healthy donor and used to overcome their mother’s infertility problems.”

“…The additional genes that the children carry have altered their ‘germline’, or their collection of genes that they will pass on to their offspring…[Note: This means the new abnormal configuration of genes will spread out into the general population, over time, with unknown effects.]

“Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers say that this ‘is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children.’”

The superhighway into a genetically designed future isn’t just a science-fiction fantasy. Stones on that highway have already been laid down.

This is how the op proceeds:

Out front, scientists say they are curing infertility and other medical problems by genetic alteration—and many scientists believe this is the only purpose of the work. But behind that, something else is happening:

Wholesale gene alteration to invent different and new types of humans.

This is the technocrats’ Holy Grail. A society in which different classes of humans are assigned to different levels of work and living.

Lee Silver, an eminent molecular biologist at Princeton, has written a book, Remaking Eden (1998), about the future of gene science in society. This is how he views the future just over the horizon:

“The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—[will] all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class…”

“Naturals [who aren’t genetically altered] work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.”

“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do.”

“Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of repro-genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. [W]hether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”

As shocking as Lee Silver’s assessment is, it’s mild when put up against the pronouncement of Gregory Stock, former director of the 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.”

That’s quite an “innovative” definition of scientific responsibility.

And note that Gregory Stock is also talking about new “life forms” that are combinations of biological and technological elements—bio-machines.

Give the current state of genetic science, and the inflated claims of competence, you can be sure that many thousands of hit-and-miss experiments are being carried out. It’s trial and error. One can only imagine some of the grotesque “errors.”

Behind all this is the assumption that human beings are deficient; they need alteration; as composed, they are woefully insufficient to take their place in the new world order.

Which is why I’m posting this piece—because we are seeing yet another vector in the attack on The Individual. As I’ve maintained for the past 35 years, there is nothing wrong with the individual, except his reluctance to recognize his own power and his own capacity to envision his best future and pursue it with commitment.

In full bloom, the individual is not only adequate, he is dynamic and majestic.

Understanding this is the “adjustment” we need to make.

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.

World famous psychiatrist says: more psychiatric drug treatment means more mass shootings will happen

World famous psychiatrist says: more psychiatric drug treatment means more mass shootings will happen

by Jon Rappoport

February 27, 2018

Listen to this man. You’d better listen.

His name is Peter Breggin. He is a world famous psychiatrist. He has been called the conscience of his profession.

Here is an excerpt from his bio:

“Peter R. Breggin MD is a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and former Consultant at NIMH [National Institute of Mental Health] who has been called ‘The Conscience of Psychiatry’ for his many decades of successful efforts to reform the mental health field. His work provides the foundation for modern criticism of psychiatric diagnoses and drugs, and leads the way in promoting more caring and effective therapies. His research and educational projects have brought about major changes in the FDA-approved Full Prescribing Information or labels for dozens of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs. He continues to education the public and professions about the tragic psychiatric drugging of America’s children.”

“Dr. Breggin has authored dozens of scientific articles and more than twenty books, including medical books and the bestsellers Toxic Psychiatry and Talking Back to Prozac. Two more recent books are Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime and Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and their Families.”

“Dr. Breggin has unprecedented and unique knowledge about how the pharmaceutical industry too often commits fraud in researching and marketing psychiatric drugs. He has testified many times in malpractice, product liability and criminal cases, often in relation to adverse drug effects…”

Here is an explosive excerpt from Dr. Breggin’s recent column at Mad In America: “Psychiatrist Says: More Psychiatry Means More Shootings”:

“In the early 1990s, a federal court appointed me to be the scientific expert for all of the combined product liability cases that were brought against Eli Lilly throughout the country concerning Prozac-induced violence, suicide and crime. Since then I have been involved in many cases in which judges and juries, and even prosecuting attorneys, have determined that psychiatric drugs have caused or substantially contributed to violence. For a lengthy list, see the Legal Section on my website [www.breggin.com].”

“In 2003/2004, I wrote a scientific review article about antidepressant-induced suicide, violence and mania which the FDA distributed to all its advisory committee members. This took place as the FDA Advisory Committee members prepared to review new warnings to be put in the Full Prescribing Information for all antidepressants.”

“In my peer-reviewed paper [about the effects of antidepressants], I wrote: ‘Mania with psychosis is the extreme end of a stimulant continuum that often begins with lesser degrees of insomnia, nervousness, anxiety, hyperactivity and irritability and then progresses toward more severe agitation, aggression, and varying degrees of mania.”

“In words very close to and sometimes identical to mine, the FDA one year later required the manufacturers of every antidepressant to put the following observations in the Warnings section of the Full Prescribing Information:”

“’All patients being treated with antidepressants for any indication should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, and unusual changes in behavior, especially during the initial few months of a course of drug therapy, or at times of dose changes, either increases or decreases. The following symptoms, anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania, have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric’.”

“These adverse drug effects—including agitation, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, akathisia, and impulsivity—are an obvious prescription for violence. Akathisia, which I also described in my article, is a psychomotor agitation that is strongly associated with violence.”

“The FDA Medication Guide for antidepressants warns clinicians, patients and families to be on the alert for the following:
• acting on dangerous impulses
• acting aggressive or violent
• feeling agitated, restless, angry or irritable
• other unusual changes in behavior or mood”

“This list (above) of antidepressant adverse effects from the Medication Guide should make clear that antidepressants can cause violence.”

“The FDA also acknowledges the risk of both psychosis and aggression from the stimulant drugs used to treat ADHD…”

“In the study of violence reports to the FDA, any predisposition toward violence in the patients themselves was largely ruled out because some of the most violence-inducing drugs were not psychiatric drugs, and were being given to a more general population. Some of the violence-inducing drugs were antibiotics, including Lariam (Mefloquine), which Sgt. Robert Bales was taking when he slaughtered 16 helpless, innocent villagers in Afghanistan.”

“[The authorities] do not foresee that the psychiatric strategy for treatment will sometimes lead to tragic outcomes like the school shootings. Nor do they realize that the overall evidence of harm from psychiatric drugs is infinitely greater than the evidence for good effects, as scientist Peter Gøtzsche has confirmed in Deadly Psychiatry and Organized Denial.”

“Calling for more spending on mental health and on psychiatry will make matters worse, probably causing many more shootings than it prevents.”

“Not only do psychiatric drugs add to the risk of violence, but psychiatric treatment lulls the various authorities and the family into believing that the patient is now ‘under control’ and ‘less of a risk.’ Even the patient may think the drugs are helping, and continue to take them right up to the moment of violence.”

“Even when some of their patients signal with all their might that they are dangerous and need to be stopped, mental health providers are likely to give drugs, adding fuel to the heat of violent impulses, while assuming that their violence-inducing drugs will reduce the risk of serious aggression.”

NOTE: DR. BREGGIN ISSUES THIS WARNING: “Most psychiatric drugs can cause withdrawal reactions, including life-threatening emotional and physical reactions. So it is not only dangerous to start psychiatric drugs, it can also be dangerous to stop them. Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done carefully under experienced clinical supervision. Methods for safely withdrawing from psychiatric drugs are discussed in Dr. Breggin’s book: Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families.”

My comments: The tragedy of many mass shootings—many more than are highlighted by the press—is mirrored by the tragedy of psychiatric drug treatment.

Overwhelmingly, psychiatrists bury their heads in the sand, as they continue to dose patients with compounds that cause horrendous effects, including violence.

The psychiatric solution to mass shootings—more diagnosis and more drugs—becomes the cause for increased shootings.

Many mainstream reporters are aware of this, but they are constrained from telling the whole truth. Their media outlets are relying on pharmaceutical advertising for their very existence.

Legal authorities make it very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain information about which psychiatric drugs shooters were taking before they went on their rampages. Case in point, Sandy Hook, 2012—the (purported) killer, Adam Lanza, had been under psychiatric treatment. But an assistant attorney general for the state of Connecticut stated that the list of Lanza’s meds would not be disclosed, because that “can cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications.” Better for patients to keep taking those drugs—and then some of them will violently go off on innocent persons.

In conversations with attorneys over the years, I’ve been told that judges, police officers, and prosecutors avoid the “psychiatric drug issue.” They don’t want to touch it. After all, friendly psychiatrists are part of the legal system. They often testify at trials. Further, “medical experts” will lash out and go on the attack against law enforcement if an attempt is made to link a violent crime to the effects of psychiatric drugs. (Dr. Breggin has managed to break through this code of silence. He is one of the only psychiatrists who has been able to testify in court about the true effects of psychiatric drugs.)

At the federal level, lobbyists for drug companies are crawling all over Washington DC. They exert an astonishing level of influence on law makers and bureaucrats. The issue of psychiatric drug-induced murder is obviously not on the list of permitted issues for open and extensive discussion.

Then there is the FDA. This is the agency tasked with approving every medical drug as safe and effective before it can be released for public use. The FDA will never admit its decisions have been fueling mass shootings across America. The Agency views the pharmaceutical industry as its partner. Placing warnings on informational drug inserts (as described above by Dr. Breggin) easily escapes the attention of psychiatric patients. Doctors who prescribe the drugs may or may not read those warnings. Even if they do read them, the drugs are THE solution to “mental disorders.” Very few doctors will seek other means of treatment.

The public is in the middle of a psychiatric plague. Learning the truth is the first step forward.

After that, we MUST preserve the right to refuse medication.

Freedom and life itself hang in the balance.

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.

Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House policy analyst

Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House policy analyst

by Jon Rappoport

February 26, 2018

There are a number of cases in which a virus is said to be the cause of a disease—but the evidence doesn’t stand up.

I first realized this in 1987. I was writing my book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century.

Robert Gallo, who claimed he had found the cause of AIDS, hadn’t done proper work. From everything I read, he claimed to have discovered HIV in a low percentage of AIDS patients he had studied.

He should have been able to isolate HIV in virtually every patient.

Then there was the fact that the most popular tests for HIV, the Elisa and Western Blot, were fatally flawed. They could register positive for a whole host of reasons that had nothing to do with HIV.

And no one had found sufficient quantities of HIV in humans to justify claiming it caused any kind of illness.

My own research into the so-called high-risk groups revealed that the “AIDS” immune suppression in those groups could be explained by factors other than a virus.

(Note: All my research at that time assumed HIV existed. Since then, several researchers, including the Perth Group, have made compelling arguments that the existence of HIV was never demonstrated.)

As I was winding up the final draft of AIDS INC., I spoke, off the record, with a well-known and well-respected mainstream virologist at a large US university. I expressed my conclusions about HIV.

He spoke, first, about the difficulties in making an absolute decision about a virus as the cause of a disease.

I brought the conversation back to HIV.

He paused. Then he repeated that he couldn’t go on the record. I asked him why.

He said HIV was a subject fraught with problems. Politics were involved.

He said he and his colleagues were taking a pass on getting into a dispute about the virus. They were aware that the science was shaky. They just didn’t want to go near it. They might enter into other arguments about other kinds of research, but as far as they were concerned, HIV was off-limits.

His obvious implication was: careers were on the line.

Attacking HIV as the cause of AIDS could result in blacklisting.

He stopped short of saying HIV wasn’t the cause of AIDS, but it was clear he had seen enough to know there were major holes in HIV science.

This was a man who had no interest in unconventional points of view. He was an orthodox researcher from A to Z. He wasn’t a rebel of any kind. And yet he readily admitted to me that the whole AIDS research establishment was proceeding on a lack of proof.

Exposing this fact would go far beyond the usual definition of a scandal. The result would be a volcanic eruption, if, say, a dozen respected virologists told the truth.

After we finished our conversation, I understood something about consensus reality. It contains elements about which people can argue in public—but then there are other elements which are completely out of bounds, which can never be refuted in a mainstream setting.

Why? Because if certain lies are exposed, they initiate a contagion of doubt and insight that spreads to the whole complex inter-structure of what people take to be reality.

Great curtains are torn away. Pillars are cracked, and fall. Images which are taken to be absolute and unchanging distort, dissolve, and blow away in the wind.

A week after AIDS INC. was shipped to bookstores, in 1988, my friend and colleague, hypnotherapist Jack True, told me a copy of the book was on its way to Russia in a diplomatic pouch.

I asked him how he knew. He shrugged and said he had a few connections.

Of course, I’ve never heard anything back about the Russian response to the book, but I find it interesting that, in America, my publisher and I never made any headway in connecting with government officials.

There was one exception. In 1987, I had a conversation with James Warner, a White House policy analyst. The interview was published in the LA Weekly.

Warner had serious doubts about the HIV theory of AIDS, and would arrange a White House conference on the issue. Pro and anti HIV scientists would be permitted to speak at length.

At the last minute, the conference was cancelled.

Here are a few brief excerpts from my conversation with Warner. As a White House analyst, his comments are explosive:

Warner: The government really hasn’t fulfilled its role in providing good information [on AIDS]. We just may not know enough. With AIDS, we’re dealing with a syndrome, not a disease. We may see a patient who has a genetic defect that’s causing his immune deficiency [instead of HIV being the causative agent]. I’m not satisfied we know all we think we do, by any means.

Rappoport: Robert Gallo, Max Essex, people like that, were the field commanders in the NIH [National Institutes of Health] war on cancer in the 70’s. They lost that war. So why are they in charge of AIDS research now? It seems odd that we don’t have other people running the show.

Warner: If ever I’ve been tempted to believe in socialism, science has disabused me of that. These guys [at NIH] assume that it’s their show. They just assume it.

Rappoport: Peter Duesberg, a distinguished molecular biologist at Berkeley, has said that HIV does not cause AIDS. Have you asked people at NIH what they think, specifically, of his arguments?

Warner: Yes. I’ve been told that Peter Duesberg’s refutation of HIV has been discounted by the scientific community. I was given no explanation as to why. I was very offended. No evidence was presented to me. Just that Duesberg had been ‘discounted.’ That’s absurd. It’s not a scientific response to dismiss Duesberg as a crank.

Rappoport: The definition of AIDS in Africa is now becoming synonymous with starvation. They’re saying the three major symptoms are chronic diarrhea, fever, and wasting-away. Weight-loss. It certainly makes a perfect smokescreen for the
aspect of hunger which is political [and intentionally maintained] – just call it AIDS.

Warner: I had not considered that. There is a program to make Africa self-sufficient by the year 2000. This could certainly hinder that activity. You know, I was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. I experienced weight-loss of eighty pounds. And when I came home, I was suffering from a form of dysentery that you could call opportunistic. A number of us were. We didn’t have AIDS.

—end of interview excerpt—

In this current political atmosphere, a White House analyst wouldn’t dare go on the record with comments like these.

Rigid consensus must be maintained, at any cost.

Truth is beside the point.

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

Mass shootings and psychiatric drugs: the connection

by Jon Rappoport

February 22, 2018

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.

Culture wars: a child’s “medical right” to change gender in the Brave New World

by Jon Rappoport

February 22, 2018

“Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth.” (Wikipedia)

“Technocracy is shaping a new world based on twisting morality into pseudoscientific ‘facts’ that demand compliance. It’s a hoax on a grand scale.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Government programs to teach the issue of gender in schools are gaining steam. “Fluid-gender” is the artificial construct used to promote these programs.

For years, I’ve been warning about the fabricated use of medical labels as a pretext for “protecting the rights of the child.”

The op goes this way:

Shift a decision about morality into a decision about the right to obtain medical treatment. For example, claim there is a disorder called Gender Dysphoria. Claim many children suffer from it.

State that gender reassignment is the treatment that cures the disorder.

State that every child has the “right” to choose the treatment—AND parents who oppose it are illegally restricting their children.

Breitbart reports on a current case: “Parents of a 17-year-old girl lost custody of their daughter for opposing her wish for transgender medical treatments.”

“Judge Sylvia Sieve Hendon of Hamilton County, Ohio has allowed the girl to be taken into the custody of her grandparents – who support her medical transition – allowing them to make decisions that will further along her physical transition to the opposite sex.”

“The parents reportedly continued to call their daughter by her given name, rather than a male name, and refused to consent to hormone treatments that were recommended by her medical team. The girl claimed she became suicidal as a result of her parents’ refusal to accept that she wanted to transition to a male.”

“’We think the grandparents are the ones who have an open mind and will … make this sort of decision best for the child’,” said attorney Paul Hunt, who represents the court-appointed guardian ad litem. ‘The parents have clearly indicated that they’re not open to it’.”

“According to the news story, the parents argued their daughter was not ‘even close to being able to make such a life-altering decision at this time’. A county prosecutor, however, claimed the parents were opposed to their daughter transitioning to become a male because of their Christian religious beliefs.”

A court decides the parents are not in charge.

The parents are denying their child the right to obtain a “medical treatment.”

Therefore, the State must intercede.

Here is another case that goes much further. The basis of the decision is so insane that most people are unwilling to think about it—the criminality is so egregious it paralyzes the mind. AND AT THE BOTTOM OF IT, THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT A PERSON WHO IS IN NO WAY INTELLECTUALLY OR MORALLY OR EMOTIONALLY OR SPIRITUALLY CAPABLE OF MAKING A CHOICE ABOUT PERMANENLTY MUTILATING HIMSELF/HERSELF IS, IN FACT, GRANTED SUCH A “CHOICE” BY SOCIETY.

Yahoo 7 News, Australia, reports (9/16): “A four-year-old who identifies as transgender has begun to transition before their first day at school, hoping to complete the full transformation by 2017.”

“While the child is the youngest on Australian record to change their gender, the New South Wales government has revealed ‘hundreds’ of other children are being referred to the state’s hospitals for gender dysphoria.”

“The four-year-old is reportedly being supported throughout the transition by the education department, and is part of the Safe Schools program.”

Yes, the Safe Schools program. Safe for whom?

Deputy Secretary of School Operations Gregory Prior made this announcement at a budget hearing, which presumably means the four-year-old child’s parents are receiving public funds for the sex change.

No mention of how the parents of the four-year old came to their “medical” decision. No mention of the “discussion” with the child that led to this decision.

The New South Wales government doesn’t just stand aside; it supports this madness.

A four-year old. He/she comes up with this idea (gender change) out of the blue? He/she expresses it to his parents?

He/she is supposed to understand the medical procedures and the consequences?

The doctors go along with this?

“We have a four-year old coming in today to begin a sex-change.”

“Good. The team will be ready.”

Not a flicker of doubt.

Here is the Wikipedia definition of gender dysphoria: “Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth.”

Assigned? This is supposed to be some sort of arbitrary labeling that is handed to an infant?

This whole social program has gained so much steam that many people are paralyzed—they refuse to express outrage. They refuse to point out the obvious. They knuckle under. The criminally delusional parents who go along with (and urge and initiate) sex change for their own children consider themselves enlightened. They’re in a trance, and they feel good about the trance.

“Yes, our four-year old is undergoing gender transition and we think it’s wonderful.”

What coaching did these parents engage in with their very young child to push along this insanity?

A boy put on his mother’s dress one day, and then the parents sat down with him and engaged in a deep conversation?

A four-year old is now the ruler of his/her own fate?

This is legalized genital mutilation and torture, undertaken as a “proper medical procedure.”

The doctors should have their licenses stripped, and they should be sent to prison. They should share their cells with the government officials who support this crime.

On some level, medical sex change for children is an outgrowth of the obsession about children being “special.” Ultra-special. The child’s wisdom extends to all sorts of insights he/she has about life.

A child does have a free and open attitude toward life, but this has nothing to do with making decisions that have enormous consequences for him/her. And the word “consequences” hardly begins to describe the surgical mutilation.

“What has become of our society?” The answer is clear. There are masters and slaves. The slaves are going along. The masters are psychopaths. But that leaves a lot of middle ground, where parents, educators, and bureaucrats are willingly cooperating in destruction. It’s not simply a lack of courage. It’s self-induced brainwashing.

“This is freedom. Freedom is a good thing. What could be more free and innovative than a child deciding to change his/her own sex at the age of four? We’re creating a better world.”

The parents’ eyes are bright. Their smiles are wide.

And if medical sexual mutilation of a child is gladly permitted, what isn’t permitted? What “voluntary” or mandated medical procedure would be ruled out as too grotesque?

For example, shouldn’t we support, in glowing terms, mass sterilization of women through vaccination campaigns that covertly create future miscarriages? After all, in the Third world, where such efforts have already been made (Kenya), overpopulation is a problem. We know it’s a problem because, decades ago, Henry Kissinger said so.

In Australia, where this four-year-old child is about to go through sex change, every doctor in the country should stand up and refuse. They should say, “Look, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, we see what your decision is, and we can’t even begin to describe how we feel. Don’t look to us for help in committing this horror on your child. If we hear of any doctor who goes along with your plan, we’ll publicize his name and, if necessary, physically remove him from the country. We’ll see to it he never practices medicine in Australia another day in his life.”

As for the parents of this four-year old, they’re lost. They’re lost to themselves and their child. They’re in a hell of their own making. And they’re fashioning a worse hell for their child.

And they don’t even know it.

They’re “progressive” and proud of it.

They’re leading their child to surgical genital destruction and, through drugs, the permanent derailment of his/her endocrine system.

It’s “scientific and medical,” so it must be a good thing.

The program of child gender change is also an attack against society at its most basic biological level. The goal is destruction.

Behind it are decades of preparation in the form of so-called moral relativity: every group and person has their own definition of right and wrong, and these views are all equal. No one has the right to challenge another’s moral position as inferior.

There must be placid acceptance.

Eventually, this leads to accepting that a four-year old is capable of understanding, and making choices about, his/her own sexuality. No challenge. No moral outrage.

This is on the order of accepting and facilitating euthanasia.

For centuries, societies and civilizations have struggled to define and embed moral truth in their cores. This has never been a pure process, but it has taken place, at great human cost.

We are now seeing a reversal of that struggle. Now, monsters can ensure that physical mutilation is placed on a pedestal. It is given special protection, as a right. The very, very young, who have no idea what this is all about, are coerced into agreeing to “procedures” that violate every shred of sanity and goodness and innocence and decency.

This is evil.

And its purveyors are in the public square, touting their own humanity.

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.

Incredible pandemic hoax from the Ministry of Truth

Incredible pandemic hoax from the Ministry of Truth

by Jon Rappoport

February 19, 2018

—Flashback to 2009—

I want to highlight two very brief excerpts from a British Medical Journal article (online, Sept. 3, 2009) by Peter Doshi. The title of the article is “Calibrated response to emerging infections.” (also here)

Here is the first quote: “WHO (World Health Organization), for example, for years defined pandemics as outbreaks causing ‘enormous numbers of deaths and illness,’ but in early May, removed this phrase from the definition.”

So WHO successfully maintained the emotional punch of a “pandemic” while cutting the heart out of its essential meaning. The fear is still there, but the logic is gone. Suddenly, a dreaded pandemic doesn’t have to have lots of deaths.

Quite a clever ruse. George Orwell vindicated once again.

By declaring Swine Flu a “global pandemic,” and at the same time redefining and diluting the understood meaning of the word “pandemic,” WHO manages to assume bureaucratic power over the actions of nations, even if the death rate is very small. WHO stays in charge. Debate about the actual severity of the health threat is derailed because, well, it’s already been declared a pandemic. And the level of public fear is maintained.

That is how propaganda works.

From this WHO ruse (and from statistics), we can infer that pandemic Swine Flu as a concept is being propped up by failing to disclose that the “disease” isn’t killing people left and right. Otherwise, why remove “enormous numbers of deaths” from the definition of “pandemic?”

Here is the second quote from Doshi’s article: “On 26 April, with 20 cases [of Swine Flu] and no deaths in the US, the Department of Health and Human Services declared a nationwide public health emergency.”

What we’re looking at here is institutional ambition. How does a government agency earn its keep? How does an agency like the Department of Health and Human Services go up on the Hill and extract big-time funding from Congress?

With 20, TWENTY, cases of so-called Swine Flu, and NO deaths, an effect less than the number of people killed in New York by toasters falling out of apartment windows, the Department of Health and Human Services declares a national emergency.

And the media comply. No questions are asked. Headlines trumpet the news. A new round of fear begins.

There is much more to the Swine Flu hoax, and I’ve reported on it in great detail, but this gives you an idea of how far the Ministry of Truth will reach to launch an utter fabrication.

And of course, the fabrication paved the way for insistence on taking an experimental dangerous vaccine. The business of vaccines is the business of government.

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.

Incredible vaccine lies from the Ministry of Truth

Incredible vaccine lies from the Ministry of Truth

by Jon Rappoport

February 18, 2018

For many years as a reporter covering medical stories, I have taken to task public health agencies, such as WHO and the CDC. I’m used to their lies.

In that regard, I came across a mind-boggling CDC quote dug up by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny (twitter), who has done terrific work researching vaccine dangers.

The quote comes from the 6th edition of Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, the so-called Pink Book, published by the CDC. It’s an attempt to squelch debate about the DTaP vaccine, which is given to prevent diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. Over the years, much has been written about the severe adverse effects of this combination vaccine—e.g., brain damage, seizures, very high fever, death.

The CDC quote (see also here) asserts that, generally, there is no definable disease “syndrome” caused by vaccines. It then makes several more astonishing claims.

“There is no distinct syndrome from vaccine administration, and therefore, many temporally associated adverse events probably represent background illness rather than illness caused by the vaccine…The DTaP may stimulate or precipitate inevitable symptoms of underlying CNS [Central Nervous System] disorder, such as seizures, infantile spasms, epilepsy or SIDS [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome]. By chance alone, some of these cases will seem to be temporally related to DPaT.”

Read the quote several times to absorb the full force of its message. It reminds me of the attempts to shunt aside deaths caused by AZT, the AIDS drug, which viciously attacks the immune system. In that case, the doctor or researcher will say, “The patient didn’t die from the effects of AZT. The destructive action of AIDS, by coincidence, simply speeded up after the drug was given.”

The CDC is claiming the DTaP vaccine stimulates a PRE-EXISTING CONDITION in a baby: The baby already had a life-threatening central nervous system illness. The illness was temporarily on hold. The vaccine brought it to light, and then the baby died.

Suddenly—with no evidence offered—vaccines have this magical ability to cause underlying illness to jump into action. The vaccine isn’t at fault. The baby was already on the road to brain damage or death.

I’ve seen some pretty wild excuses offered for vaccine-induced destruction, but this one takes the cake. Whoever cooked it up should receive some sort of medical prize for Bald-Faced Lying. Then he can be arrested for contributing to negligent homicide.

Generally speaking, the untested medical assumption is this: “We know vaccines cause no harm. Therefore, if a vaccine recipient becomes ill or dies, the cause must reside in the patient.” In the field of logic, this is called assuming what you are trying to prove.

I have written many times about the 100,000 people who die every year, in the US, as a result of correctly administered FDA-approved medicines. Perhaps the CDC or the National Institutes of Health could issue a statement blaming all these deaths on underlying, pre-existing illness that was stimulated by these drugs.

Surgical errors could be accounted for in this way, too. “Yes, we did remove the patient’s testicles while we were doing the appendectomy. But you see, we knew he had testicular cancer, so we needed to take care of that while we were in the area. What’s that? How did we know he had testicular cancer? Well, we would never remove his testicles by mistake. Therefore, we must have known we had a legitimate reason to take them off. Can’t you see that?”

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.

What’s behind the norovirus outbreak at the Olympics?

What’s behind the norovirus outbreak at the Olympics?

by Jon Rappoport

February 6, 2018

First, here’s the official story:

USA Today: “The organizing committee for the Pyeongchang Olympics has called in 900 military personnel after more than 1,200 security workers were pulled off duty because of concerns about the spread of the Norovirus, Christophe Dubi, IOC executive director of the Olympic Games said Tuesday.”

“Later Tuesday evening, the organizing committee said 32 cases of Norovirus had been confirmed and those people were quarantined after being treated. Those 32 cases involve 21 private security staff members from the Horeb Youth Center and 11 people from other locations, including three foreigners.”

“In a statement, POCOG said that starting Sunday workers reported headaches, stomach pain and diarrhea. The Gangwon Province Health and Environment Research Center found 41 workers with symptoms that might be related to the virus. The others have been pulled from duty to prevent possible spreading of the illness.”

“The workers are largely responsible for checking credentials and screening baggage entering the venues. The military personnel were brought in from about 40 minutes away.”

“…The organizing committee said ground water used in food and beverages at the Horeb Youth Centre — a housing facility — was suspected.”

Here’s the problem. Officials admit the illness appears to be coming from contaminated water, and you can’t reduce that situation to a single virus. Forget the sophisticated analysis. Bad water contains bad things. A number of them. If you didn’t clean up the water in the first place, you’re going to have trouble.

The norovirus, as an explanation, is a convenient cover story. It seems to explain the outbreak of illness—but it doesn’t.

The virus hunters at the CDC are trained to look for the single viral culprit. That’s what they always do. They’re medical, not environmental. They don’t want to find the true answer when it’s something in the environment, because medical solutions don’t work. You have to clean up the water.

Over the past 30 years of investigating medical ops, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen this pattern repeated. Ignore the environmental contamination; blame a single virus. It’s a sham.

Taken to an extreme, you would get something like this—gene researchers look forward to day when genetic modifications would protect humans from all sorts of environmental contamination.

Translation: Let corporations and governments pollute to their heart’s content; “altered” humans would be safe.

That may sound like science fiction. And it is. But researchers are working to make it fact.

They’ll fail.

Meanwhile, at the Olympics, there better be a fleet of huge trucks carrying clean water to the workers and the athletes, or the problems they’ve encountered so far are going to get worse, much worse.

Years ago, in an off-the-record conversation, a public health official readily admitted to me that contaminated water always contains a number of noxious substances that endanger human health. “If you’re saying it’s this virus or that virus, you’re lying,” he said. “You have to go back to the beginning and clean up the water.”

“Virus hunters don’t like that solution,” I said.

“Of course they don’t. It puts them out of business.”

The norovirus is just one more lame medical cover story.

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.