Genetically modified people: what could go wrong?

Feb21

Genes, genes, genes: hype, hype, hype

Notes on Brave New World, against which freedom is the prime option

Freedom to refuse—

by Jon Rappoport

February 21, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

(Update: Part-2 here, Part-3 here, )

I’ll get to genetically modified people; but first, the background on the grand gene hype and propaganda operation—

The war against cancer has painted a picture of hope: genetic solutions.

This, despite the fact that there are no successful genetic treatments, across the board, for any form of human cancer.

The focus on genes is a diversion from obvious causes of cancer in the environment: industrial chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, food additives, and even pharmaceuticals.

This futile human gene-fix has a direct parallel in food crops: modify plants so they can grow despite drenching them with toxic pesticides.

However, massive GMO crop failures, reduced nutritive value of such crops, and the rise of super-weeds are three reasons why the gene model fails.

So it is with human cancer: “let’s modify the genes of people and they will be impervious to the environmental assault of chemicals that cause cancer.”

In other words, the fantasy proposes that someday, humans will be able to live in a toxic soup created by mega-corporations, and even thrive, because they have been genetically altered.

There is no reason under the sun to believe this.

“Trust us. Even if environmental toxins trigger gene mutations that bring about cancer, we can just cancel out those mutations through better human engineering.”

Preposterous.

This is like saying you can cure diseases caused by germs even though people’s immune systems are severely and chronically compromised.

The entire cancer industry exists to protect the corporations that are manufacturing products that cause cancer.

I’ve made these points during radio interviews, and I make them here again, because major media news outlets are silent; they are part of the cancer industry and are beholden to the cancer-causing corporations that buy huge blocks of advertising.

In the so-called research community, scientists can spin their wheels and obtain grant monies to do experiments with genes and mice and ‘cell lines’ (*) forever and never emerge with results that will save lives. (*) (Note: by the way, did you know there is a huge, general scandal with ‘cell lines’? More on that here.)

These scientists and their corporate masters can herald minor tumor reductions. But nothing changes. The war on cancer is a war on people.

Assuming gene damage can cause cancer, the triggering event can occur as a result of coming into contact with environmental toxins. In other words, the toxic effects on genes will continue apace, no matter how much research is done on the composition and disposition of the genes themselves.

Much cancer research does, in fact, discover toxic causes—and it is in the interest of companies that spew those compounds out into the world to cover up their criminal guilt. What better way to achieve that than by asserting: “cancer is all in the genes.”

Look at the giant biotech companies like Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta. In one way or another, they are all involved in chemical AND genetic research and production.

So they are in a prime position to deflect the chemical destruction they are wreaking by pushing “the frontiers of gene research.”

“It’s all about the genes.”

Hype. Hype. Hype.

Dr. Samuel Epstein, who devoted a major part of his life to the research of environmental toxins, wrote:

“We are losing the war against cancer. The prohibition of new carcinogenic products, reduction of toxins in use, and right-to-know laws – these are among the legislative proposals which could reverse the cancer epidemic.”

But that would be bad for business. The solution? Promote endlessly the notion that genes and only genes are at the root of cancer.

The big picture? The big con? Imagine a world drowning in pollution of all kinds, and top (bought-off) scientists saying: “Don’t worry, when it comes to cancer we’ve got it covered. Tweak this gene, tweak that gene, and poof, cancer never has a chance. Or if you get cancer, we can go in there and re-position crucial genes and knock out the disease. See, you can live in a chemical soup and never feel adverse effects…”

Genes. High-level, high-flying, high-minded, high-tech answers for the problems we face.

What? The science isn’t solid? The propaganda is wall-to-wall? The shills are everywhere? Don’t worry, be happy. The best minds will come up with solutions. Just wait and see. The great discoveries are right around the corner.

And I have condos for sale on Jupiter.

Step right up.

You can see the same kind of gene-hustle when it comes to autism, which many researchers, based on no real evidence, claim is “surely a genetic disease.”

This assertion covers up the fact that happy and healthy children, soon after receiving a vaccination, experience devastating neurological damage, leading to a diagnosis of autism.

But don’t go there, don’t look there, don’t talk about vaccines. No, instead, listen to the ascendant experts, who say it was just a coincidence that a vaccine was given and a child’s life was destroyed. You see, what really happened was: an errant gene response kicked in at the same moment as the shot of vaccine. A grand coincidence. Nothing to do with the vaccine. Certainly not.

In actuality, the dominant paradigm of this world’s power structure is: float cover stories.

Sell big cover stories and keep selling them. Use them to conceal ongoing crimes.

“It’s the genes” is the latest and greatest cover.

Some of the biggest, best-educated liars on the planet deploy it every day.

Here is the next big thing: genes injected, functioning as vaccines. The hype is over the top. Of course, scientists admit that these injected genes will incorporate themselves in the body and alter its genetic makeup permanently.

If you like and trust that idea, I have condos in the core of the sun for sale. Bargain prices.

The reference is the New York Times, 3/9/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.”

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.” Alteration of the human genetic makeup. Not just a “visit.” “Permanent residence.”

The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.

Let’s take this further. Under the cover of preventing disease (note: all good covert ops float a laudatory goal to conceal their true intent), vaccines are ideal carriers for all sorts of genes that would be permanently incorporated into the human structure.

The enormous tonnage of propaganda about vaccines, and the resultant mandatory laws that enforce vaccination (without fear of liability), create a powerful channel along which re-engineering is eminently possible.

Synthetic genes injected into billions of humans would form a grand experiment to create an altered species.

This grand experiment could be compartmentalized. For example, secretly, genes 1-6 will be injected into Group A in geo-location I. Genes 7-12 will be injected into Group B in location II. And so on.

Vaccine recipients will be subjected to ongoing surveillance to gauge the results. On various pretexts, members of these groups will be brought into clinics for exams and tests, to discover markers that purportedly reveal their bodies’ responses to the genetic alterations.

Are these people stronger or weaker? Do they exhibit signs of illness? Do they report behavioral changes? Through surveillance and testing, all sorts of information can be compiled.

Of course, there is no informed consent. The human guinea pigs have no knowledge of what is being done to them.

And what would be the objectives of this lunatic research program? They would vary. On a simplified level, there would be two. Create weaker and more docile and more obedient and more dependent humans. On the other side, create stronger and healthier and more intelligent and more talented humans. Obviously, the results of the latter experiments would be applied to the “chosen few.” And clearly, some of this research will be carried on inside the military. Secrecy is easier to maintain, and the aim to produce “better soldiers” is a long-standing goal of the Pentagon and its research arm, DARPA.

A global vaccine experiment of the type I’m describing here has another bonus for the planners: those people who fall ill or die can be written off as having suffered from various diseases and disorders which “have nothing to do with vaccines.” This is already SOP (standard operating procedure) for the medical cartel.

The numbers of casualties, in this grand experiment, would be of no concern to the Brave New World shapers. As I’ve documented extensively, the US medical system is already killing 2.25 million people per decade (a conservative estimate), as a result of FDA-approved drugs and mistreatment in hospitals. Major media and government leaders, aware of this fact, have done nothing about it.

Here is a quote from Princeton molecular biologist, Lee Silver, the author of Remaking Eden. It gives you a window into how important geneticists are thinking about an engineered future:

“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 [unaltered humans] 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[grammed]-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.”

Here is another gem, from 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.”

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

Notice that these two well-known scientists are speaking about “ethics.” It’s important to realize that a significant number of such experts have their own extremely peculiar (to say the least) version of what is right and wrong.

With vaccines that permanently alter human genetic makeup on the horizon, and given the corporate and government-agency penchant for secrecy, we are already inhabiting the Brave New World. It’s not a distant prospect.

Every genetic innovation is aimed at bringing us closer to a stimulus-response world, and further away from freedom.

Which is why the defense of freedom becomes ever more vital.

That struggle comes down to who controls, yes, the philosophy and the science. Is each human merely and only a system waiting to be re-engineered, or is he something far, far more, inhabiting a physical form?

We already know what the vast majority of brain researchers and geneticists believe, as well as the governments and corporations and universities and foundations that make important decisions.

Of course, these days, the college faculty department considered to be the least important, the most useless, a mere appendage waiting for those with wisdom to put it out of its misery and kill it off…is the philosophy department.

That leaves us to take up the argument and the resistance.

Not Lee Silver at Princeton or Gregory Stock or Bill Gates or George Soros or David Rockefeller or the Pope or Stephen Hawking or Monsanto or Dow or PBS or FOX or socialists or Communists or liberals or conservatives or some wackadoodle at Harvard or MIT or UCLA.

Us.

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 29^th 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.

Boom: thousands of medical studies found to be useless

Feb14

Boom: thousands of medical studies found to be useless

Memo to “medical bloggers” living in mommy’s basement

by Jon Rappoport

February 14, 2017

I’m talking about little defenders of consensus science, bloggers who love and adore every official pronouncement that comes down the pipeline from medical journals and illustrious doctors.

Dear Bloggers: Thousands of published studies you cite and praise are wrong, useless, irrelevant, deceptive—and the medical journals know it, and they’re doing nothing useful about it.

The issue? Cell lines. These cells are crucial for lab research on the toxicity of medical drugs, and the production of proteins. Knowing exactly which cell lines are being studied is absolutely necessary.

And therein lies the gigantic problem.

Statnews.com has the bombshell story (“Thousands of studies used the wrong cells, and journals are doing nothing,” July 21, 2016):

“Recent estimates suggest that between 20 percent and 36 percent of cell lines scientists use are contaminated or misidentified — passing off as human tissue cells that in fact come from pigs, rats, or mice, or in which the desired human cell is tainted with unknown others. But despite knowing about the issue for at least 35 years, the vast majority of journals have yet to put any kind of disclaimer on the thousands of studies affected.”

“One cell line involved are the so-called HeLa cells. These cancerous cervical cells — named for Henrietta Lacks, from whom they were first cultured in the early 1950s — are ubiquitous in labs, proliferate wildly — and, it turns out, contaminate all manner of cells with which they come into contact. Two other lines in particular, HEp-2 and INT 407, are now known to have been contaminated with HeLa cells, meaning scientists who thought they were working on HEp-2 and INT 407 were in fact likely experimenting on HeLa cells.”

“Christopher Korch, a geneticist at the University of Colorado, has studied the issue. According to Korch, nearly 5,800 articles in 1,182 journals may have confused HeLa for HEp-2; another 1,336 articles in 271 journals may have mixed up HeLa with INT 407. Together, the 7,000-plus papers have been cited roughly 214,000 times, Science reported last year.”

“And that’s just two cell lines. All told, more than 400 cell lines either lack evidence of origin or have become cross-contaminated with human or other animal cells at some point in their laboratory lineage. Cell lines are often chosen for their ability to reproduce and be bred for long periods of time, so they’re hardy buggers that can move around a lab if they end up on a researcher’s gloves, for example. ‘It’s astonishingly easy for cell lines to become contaminated,’ wrote Amanda Capes-Davis, chair of the International Cell Line Authentication Committee, in a guest post for Retraction Watch. ‘When cells are first placed into culture, they usually pass through a period of time when there is little or no growth, before a cell line emerges. A single cell introduced from elsewhere during that time can outgrow the original culture without anyone being aware of the change in identity’.”

Getting the picture?

HUGE numbers of published studies are based on knowing which cells are being used and tested. And much of the time, the researchers don’t know. They pretend they do, but they don’t.

Their work is completely unreliable.

Everyone involved (for decades) looks the other way.

It’s the secret no one wants to talk about.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of medical studies are useless, and their conclusions are unfounded, and turn out to be random.

This is like saying, “Well, we built all those buildings in the city, but the concrete we used was probably cardboard. Let’s not talk about it. Let’s just wait and see what happens.”

Millions of patients who are taking drugs are guinea pigs. Researchers originally tested the toxicity of drugs on cells they assumed were relevant, but they were wrong. They said the drugs were safe, but they were working with cells that had no bearing on safety.

This is one reason why, on July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a highly respected public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, could conclude, in the Journal of the American Association, that FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans every year—which becomes a MILLION deaths per decade.

The original researchers on those drugs pretended they knew what they were doing.

Pretended.

Everything I’m describing and citing in this article?

The FDA knows about it.

The CDC knows about it.

The World Health Organization knows.

National health departments all over the world know.

Medical schools know.

Many doctors know.

Many, many researchers know.

Many hospital executives know.

All pharmaceutical executives know.

Many mainstream medical reporters know.

All medical journals know.

But they continue to promote life-destroying fake news.

Blog that.

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

How the mind treats “impossible things that couldn’t be happening”

Feb13

by Jon Rappoport

February 13, 2017

I recently published an article that highlighted the numbers of medically caused deaths in America.

When little fragmentary stories about this fact emerge in the mainstream press, they’re one-offs. There is no serious follow-up and no deep investigation. Therefore, the public isn’t aroused.

On May 3, 2016, the Washington Post ran an article detailing deaths from medical errors. This bomb dropped: doctors’ errors account for “about 9.5 percent of all deaths annually in the United States.”

Let that sink in.

Roughly one out of every 10 deaths in the US is caused by medical errors. (Under “errors,” you can include a wide range of toxic treatment.)

No major newspaper or news network pounds on this factoid day after day. It’s here and then it’s gone. It’s on the level of: “The last seven presidents have been assassinated. And now, here’s the weather.”

Something else is going on, too. I’ll lay it out for you.

Most of the general public, and many reporters, can’t even begin to absorb that medical-death statistic. It bounces off them.

They either reject it out of hand, misread it, or fail to transport it to the part of their mind where they think about things.

The statistic is virtually invisible to them.

“Let’s see, 10% of all deaths in America are caused by the medical system. REJECTED.”

I even had one person tell me ten percent “wasn’t very much.”

I’ve had people change the subject rapidly when I presented them with the statistic.

“Car accidents are terrible. My aunt was in a car crash and she…”

So it isn’t just major media. People are running their own fake news operation on themselves.

This has been called “cognitive dissonance” or some other fancy name.

It’s just the “bounce phenomenon.” A fact bounces off a person. It has no effect.

I’ve dealt with this for more than 30 years as a reporter. I’m in the business of presenting “bounce-able” facts. I’ve seen the full array of reactions, time and time again.

ONE OUT OF EVERY TEN DEATHS IN AMERICA IS CAUSED BY THE MEDICAL SYSTEM.

Bounce, bounce, bounce.

Here is another process that goes on in the mind. It starts this way: WELL, IF THAT WERE TRUE, THEN…

The person starts to think about the boggling fact. He starts to flesh out the implications. And he stops. Because the implications are too much. His mental processes and his basic orientation aren’t flexible enough to deal with them.

I’ve been interviewed and watched this happen. The interviewer begins to absorb what I’ve just told him, and he quickly backs away and redirects the conversation. Or tries to. I bring him back to the boggling fact. But it’s like trying to drive a faulty car. He just can’t make it. He stalls. His wheels spin, and then he gets out of the car and moves on to something else.

Here is a paraphrase of such an exchange. The interviewer was telling me about the purported effects of a disease he claimed was being caused by a virus. I happened to know the virus had never been isolated from a single human being, so I asked him:

“How many deaths would you say occur from the disease, every year in the US?”

He puffed up his chest a bit and said, “At least a thousand. It’s terrible.”

I said, “Well, did you know that the medical system is the third leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease and cancer?”

BOUNCE. NOTHING REGISTERED.

He said, “This virus I’m talking about can spread rapidly…”

Bounce.

Perhaps the most interesting conversation I’ve ever had illustrating the bounce phenomenon occurred at the home of an acquaintance who is a psychologist. I mentioned that every year in the US the medical system kills a minimum of 225,000 people, and then I got part-way into explaining how most people don’t even register the fact when they come across it.

He launched into a major lecture about cognitive dissonance, deploying a few pseudo-technical terms I’d never heard of. I let him go on for a few minutes and then I stopped him. I asked, “Can you remember what I said that started you down this path?”

He scratched his chin, thought about it, and said no.

In his case, the bounce brought on a case of outright amnesia.

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

Of course, I’ve mentioned medically caused death to doctors. Their comments go something like this: “That couldn’t be true.” “That was just one study.”

Then I say no, there are other confirming studies, and I cite them. At that point the big bounce happens, and they change the subject. Or they look at their watches. Or they walk away.

I’ve found reporters more honest—as long as I’m talking to them off the record, and preferably after a few drinks. One reporter said, “I know. But we can’t write about that. We’d get reamed out.”

I don’t care what journalism schools and editors claim the profession is all about. I know what it’s about. You overturn reality. That’s what you do.

In the process, you reveal there are people who are creating that reality for all of us.

And if that is true, and it is, then each individual is capable of inventing his own reality. A better one.

Along the way, certain facts are going to jump up out of the hopper that tear conventional thinking and perception to shreds.

TEN PERCENT OF ALL DEATHS IN AMERICA ARE CAUSED BY THE MEDICAL SYSTEM.

“Wow. That would make it the third leading cause of death. That means the more people who are in the system, the more deaths. The public has to know about this…”

No bounce.

Ah, now we’re on to something.

Jon Rappoport

Holocaust study: the medical cartel is destroying America

Feb10

Holocaust study: medical cartel is destroying America

Buckle up.

I’ve been telling you about this for years.

by Jon Rappoport

February 10, 2017

*** A message to “quack busters” who attack natural health behind a phony mask of “scientific skepticism”: put your own house in order—that’s where the real quacks and shameless killers are.

This story, nine months ago, surfaced and then dropped like a stone in a lake. Gone.

But I haven’t forgotten it. So here it is. Again:

The structures of medical propaganda are cracking.

The Washington Post (“Researchers: Medical errors now third leading cause of death in United States,” May 3, 2016) reports on a new Johns Hopkins study. I’ll give you the Post’s explosive quotes and then analyze them.

“…a new study by patient safety researchers provides some context…Their analysis, published in the BMJ on Tuesday [‘Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US,’ 03 May 2016], shows that ‘medical errors’ in hospitals and other health care facilities are incredibly common and may now be the third leading cause of death in the United States — claiming 251,000 lives every year, more than respiratory disease, accidents, stroke and Alzheimer’s.”

“Martin Makary, a professor of surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who led the research, said in an interview that the category includes everything from bad doctors to more systemic issues such as communication breakdowns when patients are handed off from one department to another.”

“’It boils down to people dying from the care that they receive rather than the disease for which they are seeking care,’” Makary said.

“His calculation of 251,000 deaths [per year] equates to nearly 700 deaths a day — about 9.5 percent of all deaths annually in the United States.”

“Moreover, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t require reporting of errors in the data it collects about deaths through billing codes, making it hard to see what’s going on at the national level.”

“Frederick van Pelt, a doctor who works for The Chartis Group, a health care consultancy, said another element of harm that is often overlooked is the number of severe patient injuries resulting from medical error.”

“’Some estimates would put this number at 40 times the death rate,’ van Pelt said.”

There you have it. Now let’s dig in.

First of all, this study, as you can see, is focusing on medical errors in hospitals and “other health care facilities.” Did the researchers do much work looking for fatal errors that occur in average doctors’ offices? If not, the death numbers mentioned in this study are on the low side.

The CDC, which regularly reports mortality figures, doesn’t receive data, nor does it require data, from doctors, on errors which lead to patients’ deaths. So the CDC is completely in the dark on the third leading cause of death in the US. This, of course, is the same agency that assures the public that vaccines are wonderfully safe and effective.

Consider the final quotes above. The estimate that “severe patient injuries from medical errors” are 40 times the death figure (251,000) would give us this: every year in the US, there are 10 million severe injuries as a result of medical errors.

For years, I’ve been hammering on another landmark study out of John Hopkins. It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Association: “Is US health really the best in the world?” The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert. Starfield separated deaths from errors/mistreatment in hospitals, and deaths from medical drugs:

Yearly deaths from mistreatment and errors in hospitals: 119,000.

Yearly deaths from correctly prescribed medical drugs: 106,000.

Total: 225,000 (verses the new 251,000 number)

The new study doesn’t specifically give a death-number for the medical-drug category.

So again, we can assume the new study is citing an overall death figure that is on the low side.

So let’s just round off the new 250,000-death figure and call it 300,000 deaths in America per year as a direct result of the medical system.

That works out to 3 MILLION deaths per decade.

And, if severe patient injuries is 40 times the death figure, then that equates to 120 MILLION severe patient injuries per decade.

This is the altruistic umbrella under which more Americans than ever will live and die, as a result of the glorious Obamacare insurance program.

This is the foundation on which doctors and medical bureaucrats stand, when they make statements to the press about the unqualified success of modern medicine—for example, in the area of vaccines.

“I’m the expert here. I represent a system that kills 3 million Americans per decade and severely injures 120 million Americans, and therefore you can believe me when I say that vaccines are remarkably safe and effective.”

Who are the clueless? Who are the liars? Who are the people killing and maiming the people?

Who are the lunatics?

The people who opt for natural health?

I don’t think so.

No.

The lunatics and their dupes and proxies are in plain view, every night, on your television screen.

There they are. Look at them.

Understand what is going on.

The full meaning of it.

Finally.

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

Jon Rappoport

The number-one mind-control program at US colleges

Feb7

If you’re a college student or have a child at college, read this

The unspoken secret in plain sight

by Jon Rappoport

February 7, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

Here is a staggering statistic (note: Thank you to reader “Namely Liberty” for surfacing this information from the WayBackMachine) from the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI): “More than 25 percent of college students have been diagnosed or treated by a professional for a mental health condition within the past year.”

Let that sink in. 25 percent.

Colleges are basically clinics. Psychiatric centers.

Colleges have been taken over. A soft coup has occurred, out of view.

You want to know where all this victim-oriented “I’m triggered” and “I need a safe space” comes from? You just found it.

It’s a short step from being diagnosed with a mental disorder to adopting the role of being super-sensitive to “triggers.” You could call it a self-fulfilling prophecy. “If I have a mental disorder, then I’m a victim, and then what people say and do around me is going disturb me…and I’ll prove it.”

The dangerous and destabilizing effects of psychiatric drugs confirm this attitude. The drugs DO, in fact, produce an exaggerated and distorted sensitivity to a person’s environment.

You want to know where a certain amount of violent aggressive behavior on campuses comes from? You just found it. The psychiatric drugs. In particular, antidepressants and speed-type medications for ADHD.

You want to know why so many college students can’t focus on their studies? You just found one reason. The brain effects of the drugs.

The usual variety of student problems are translated into pseudoscientific categories of “mental disorders”—and toxic drugging ensues.

A college student says to himself, “I’m having trouble with my courses. I don’t understand what my professors want. My reading level isn’t good enough. I don’t like the professors who have a political bias. I’m confused. I miss my friends back home. I feel like a stranger on campus. I’d like to date, but I don’t know where to start. There are groups on campus. Should I join one? Well, maybe I need help. I should go to the counseling center and talk to a psychologist. That’s what they’re there for. Maybe I have a problem I don’t know about…”

And so it begins.

The student is looking for an explanation of his problems. But this search will morph into: having a socially acceptable excuse for not doing well. Understand the distinction.

After a bit of counseling, the student is referred to a psychiatrist, who makes a diagnosis of depression, and prescribes a drug. Now the student says, “That’s a relief. Now I know why I have a problem. I have a mental disorder. I never knew that. I’m operating at a disadvantage. I’m a victim of a brain abnormality. Okay. That means I really shouldn’t be expected to succeed. Situations affect my mood. What people say affects my mood.”

And pretty soon, the whole idea of being triggered and needing a safe space makes sense to the student. He’s heading down a slippery slope, but he doesn’t grasp what’s actually going on. On top of that, the drug he’s taking is disrupting his thoughts and his brain activity. But of course, the psychiatrist tells him no, it’s not the drug, it’s the condition, the clinical depression, which is worsening and making it harder to think clearly. He needs a different drug. The student is now firmly in the system. He’s a patient. He’s expected to have trouble coping. And on and on it goes.

Buckle up. Here is the background. Here is what psychiatry is all about—

Wherever you see organized psychiatry operating, you see it trying to expand its domain and its dominance. The Hippocratic Oath to do no harm? Are you kidding?

The first question to ask is: do these mental disorders have any scientific basis? There are now roughly 300 of them. They multiply like fruit flies.

An open secret has been bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

In a PBS Frontline episode, Does ADHD Exist?, Dr. Russell Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, unintentionally spelled out the fraud.

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY: That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid… There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]

Oh, indeed, that does make them invalid. Utterly and completely. All 297 mental disorders. They’re all hoaxes. Because there are no defining tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.

You can sway and tap dance and bloviate all you like and you won’t escape the noose around your neck. We are looking at a science that isn’t a science. That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.

There’s more. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”

Well, sure. If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been obliquely referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.

If this is medical science, a duck is a rocket ship.

To repeat, Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definitions of Bipolar and ADHD were expanded to include more people.

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

* acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;
* life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;
* brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

* intercranial pressure leading to blindness;
* peripheral circulatory collapse;
* stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:

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

Dr. Frances self-admitted label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of Ritalin (and other similar compounds) as the treatment of choice.

So…what about Ritalin?

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

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse effects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, 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 amphetamine-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.

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991)

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on it week after week? They are in harness.

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

Let’s take a little trip back in time and review how one psychiatric drug, Prozac, escaped a bitter fate, by hook and by crook. It’s an instructive case.

Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a while. Stories on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off. But on February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.”

She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”

Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, “Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?”

In his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin mentions that the Donahue show (Feb. 28, 1991) “put together a group of individuals who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous after taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response confirmed the problem.”

A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes:

“Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

An instructive article, “Protecting Prozac,” by Michael Grinfeld, in the December 1998 California Lawyer, opens several doors. Grinfeld notes that “in the past year nearly a dozen cases involving Prozac have disappeared from the court record.” He was talking about law suits against the manufacturer, Eli Lilly, and he was saying that those cases had apparently been settled, without trial, in such a quiet and final way, with such strict confidentiality, that it is almost as if they never happened.

Grinfeld details a set of maneuvers involving attorney Paul Smith, who in the early 1990s became the lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the famous Fentress lawsuit against Eli Lilly.

The plaintiffs made the accusation that Prozac had induced a man to commit murder. This was the first action involving Prozac to reach a trial and jury, so it would establish a major precedent for a large number of other pending suits against the manufacturer.

The case: On September 14, 1989, Joseph Wesbecker, a former employee of Standard Gravure, in Louisville, Kentucky, walked into the workplace, with an AK-47 and a SIG Sauer pistol, killed eight people, wounded 12 others, and committed suicide. Family members of the victims subsequently sued Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, on the grounds that Wesbecker had been pushed over the edge into violence by the drug.

The trial: After what many people thought was a very weak attack on Lilly by plaintiffs’ lawyer Smith, the jury came back in five hours with an easy verdict favoring Lilly and Prozac.

Grinfeld writes, “Lilly’s defense attorneys predicted the verdict would be the death knell for [anti-]Prozac litigation.”

But that wasn’t the end of the Fentress case. “Rumors began to circulate that [the plaintiffs’ attorney] Smith had made several [prior] oral agreements with Lilly concerning the evidence that would be presented [in the Fentress case], the structure of a post-verdict settlement, and the potential resolution of Smith’s other [anti-Prozac] cases.”

In other words, the rumors declared: This plaintiff’s lawyer, Smith, made a deal with Lilly to present a weak attack, to omit evidence damaging to Prozac, so that the jury would find Lilly innocent of all charges. In return, the case would be settled secretly, with Lilly paying out big monies to Smith’s client. In this way, Lilly would avoid the exposure of a public settlement, and through the innocent verdict, would discourage other potential plaintiffs from suing it over Prozac.

The rumors congealed. The judge in the Fentress case, John Potter, asked lawyers on both sides if “money had changed hands.” He wanted to know if the fix was in. The lawyers said no money had been paid, “without acknowledging that an agreement was in place.”

Judge Potter didn’t stop there. In April 1995, Grinfeld notes, “In court papers, Potter wrote that he was surprised that the plaintiffs’ attorneys [Smith] hadn’t introduced evidence that Lilly had been charged criminally for failing to report deaths from another of its drugs to the Food and Drug Administration. Smith had fought hard [during the Fentress trial] to convince Potter to admit that evidence, and then unaccountably withheld it.”

In Judge Potter’s motion, he alleged that “Lilly [in the Fentress case] sought to buy not just the verdict, but the court’s judgment as well.”

In 1996, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued an opinion: “…there was a serious lack of candor with the trial court [during Fentress] and there may have been deception, bad faith conduct, abuse of the judicial process or perhaps even fraud.”

After the Supreme Court remanded the Fentress case back to the state attorney general’s office, the whole matter dribbled away, and then resurfaced in a different form, in another venue. At the time of the California Lawyer article, a new action against attorney Smith was unresolved. Eventually, Eli Lilly escaped punishment.

Based on the rigged Fentress case, Eli Lilly silenced many lawsuits based on Prozac inducing murder and suicide.

Quite a story.

And it all really starts with the institution of psychiatry inventing a whole branch of science that doesn’t exist, thereby defining 300 mental disorders that don’t exist.

Here are data about psychiatric drugs and violence from several studies:

February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) reports on “six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed `intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment.’ The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk. While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding `suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”

An earlier 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. Peter 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.’”

The well-known publication, California Lawyer, in a December 1998 article called “Protecting Prozac,” details some of the suspect maneuvers of Eli Lilly in its handling of suits against Prozac. California Lawyer also mentions other highly qualified critics of the drug: “David Healy, MD, an internationally renowned psychopharmacologist, has stated in sworn deposition that `contrary to Lilly’s view, there is a plausible cause-and-effect relationship between Prozac’ and suicidal-homicidal events. An epidemiological study published in 1995 by the British Medical Journal also links Prozac to increased suicide risk.”

When pressed, proponents of these SSRI antidepressant drugs (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) sometimes say, “Well, the benefits for the general population far outweigh the risk.” But the issue of benefits will not go away on that basis. A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

In wide use. This despite such contrary information and the negative, dangerous effects of these drugs.

There are other studies: “Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine 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.

Here’s a coda:

This one is big.

The so-called “chemical-imbalance theory of mental disorders” is dead. The notion that an underlying chemical imbalance in the brain causes mental disorders: dead.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”

Boom.

However…urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.

In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to protect his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:

“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”

Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.

And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…

…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…

…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct a chemical imbalance?

Here’s what’s happening. The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They’re taking heavy flack on many fronts.

The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage.

So the shrinks need to move into another model, another con, another fraud. And they’re looking for one.

For example, genes plus “psycho-social factors.” A mish-mash of more unproven science.

“New breakthrough research on the functioning of the brain is paying dividends and holds great promise…” Professional gibberish.

It’s all gibberish, all the way down.

Meanwhile, the business model still demands drugs for sale.

So even though the chemical-imbalance nonsense has been discredited, it will continue on as a dead man walking, a zombie.

Big Pharma isn’t going to back off. Trillions of dollars are at stake.
And in the wake of Colorado, Sandy Hook, the Naval Yard, and other mass shootings, the hype is expanding: “We must have new community mental-health centers all over America.”

More fake diagnosis of mental disorders, more devastating drugs.

You want to fight for a right? Fight for the right to refuse toxic medication. Fight for the right of every parent to refuse toxic medication for his/her child.

Here is a story Dr. Breggin tells in his classic book, Toxic Psychiatry. It says it all:

“Roberta was a college student, getting good grades, mostly A’s, when she first became depressed and sought psychiatric help at the recommendation of her university health service. She was eighteen at the time, bright and well motivated, and a very good candidate for psychotherapy. She was going through a sophomore-year identity crisis about dating men, succeeding in school, and planning a future. She could have thrived with a sensitive therapist who had an awareness of women’s issues.

“Instead of moral support and insight, her doctor gave her Haldol. Over the next four years, six different physicians watched her deteriorate neurologically without warning her or her family about tardive dyskinesia [motor brain damage] and without making the [tardive dyskinesia] diagnosis, even when she was overtly twitching in her arms and legs. Instead they switched her from one neuroleptic [anti-psychotic drug] to another, including Navane, Stelazine, and Thorazine. Eventually a rehabilitation therapist became concerned enough to send her to a general physician, who made the diagnosis [of medical drug damage]. By then she was permanently physically disabled, with a loss of 30 percent of her IQ.

“…my medical evaluation described her condition: Roberta is a grossly disfigured and severely disabled human being who can no longer control her body. She suffers from extreme writhing movements and spasms involving the face, head, neck, shoulders, limbs, extremities, torso, and back—nearly the entire body. She had difficulty standing, sitting, or lying down, and the difficulties worsen as she attempts to carry out voluntary actions. At one point she could not prevent her head from banging against nearby furniture. She could hold a cup to her lip only with great difficulty. Even her respiratory movements are seriously afflicted so that her speech comes out in grunts and gasps amid spasms of her respiratory muscles…Roberta may improve somewhat after several months off the neuroleptic drugs, but she will never again have anything remotely resembling a normal life.”

WARNING [from Dr. Breggin, published on his site, breggin.com]: “Most psychiatric drugs can cause withdrawal reactions, sometimes including life-threatening emotional and physical withdrawal problems. In short, it is not only dangerous to start taking 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.”

I’ll offer another illustration. This one is from The Daily Mail (Feb, 7, 2008). A young woman of 25, Eleanor Longden, tells her story to reporter Claire Campbell:

“Through a drugged haze I heard the doctor’s words as he gazed down at me, lying in bed on a locked psychiatric ward, far away from my family and friends, and feeling more lost, lonely and terrified than I had ever done in my life.”

“I felt ashamed, too, as though it was my fault that I’d been diagnosed as mentally ill.”

“Getting out of bed, I stumbled to the bathroom, walking awkwardly and, to my immense embarrassment, drooling from the mouth as a result of the side-effects of the medication I had been given. I felt dazed, my thoughts confused, unable even to remember exactly how long I had been in hospital.”

“I looked at myself in the mirror and got a shock. I was scarcely able to recognise the person I saw there from the shy, 17-year-old who had left home for the first time only a few weeks before, full of excitement about her first term at university.”

“I wondered: ‘Why am I here?’ I still didn’t really understand. It was true that those first few weeks at college had been stressful for me. Like many of my fellow freshers, I had felt homesick and uncertain of myself. At school I had been diligent and conscientious.”

“Arriving at college, I felt torn between continuing to work hard or re-inventing myself as a ‘cooler’, more popular, party girl. All around me I saw other students pretending to be someone they weren’t, and the pressure of sustaining this seemed enormous.”

“But I had managed slowly to make friends, and find my way around the campus, as well as start speaking up for myself in tutorials.”

“Then one morning, out of the blue, I heard a quiet voice in my head, commenting: ‘Now she’s going to the library.’

“After that I occasionally heard the voice again. It never said anything dramatic, and I didn’t find it threatening at all.”

“I remembered having listened to a radio programme which described this experience as one that sometimes occurred to lone yachtsmen, or prisoners in solitary confinement, and put it down to loneliness.”

“Sometimes the voice was also a useful indicator to me of how I was really feeling – such as the day it sounded angry following a tutorial in which another student had unfairly criticised me.”

“After I returned to class the next day and put my point of view across more forcefully, the voice in my head once more resumed its usual calm tone. This reassured me that far from being some sinister psychiatric symptom, the phenomenon was probably no more than my own externalised thoughts.”

“But then I made the fatal mistake of confiding in a friend. I will never forget the horror in her expression as she backed away, repeating: ‘You’re hearing what?’ when I mentioned the voice.”

“She looked really scared, and told me I needed to see the college doctor as soon as possible.”

“Her reaction frightened me. I made an appointment immediately.”

“The doctor’s face became very serious at the mention of the voice, and he insisted on referring me to what he called a hospital ‘specialist’, but who turned out to be a consultant psychiatrist.”

“What I wanted and needed was to talk to someone about my feelings of anxiety and low self-esteem since I had arrived at college. But the psychiatrist kept emphasising the significance of the voice – as though we were discussing a mathematical formula in which having this experience automatically meant I must be insane.”

“Even when I talked about my work for the student television station, I could tell from her face that she thought this was fantasy.”

“I felt I walked into that room as a normal, if slightly stressed and vulnerable young girl, but left it labelled with a diagnosis of a paranoid schizophrenic, my interest in broadcasting dismissed as ‘delusional’.”

“Even at that first meeting, the consultant was already discussing with me the possibility of in-patient treatment at a psychiatric hospital.”

“She also put me straight onto a course of Risperidone [aka Risperdal], a strong antipsychotic drug whose side-effects include weight gain, involuntary tremors and difficulty in walking.”

“From that moment on, I felt cut off, alienated not only from my university friends and teachers, but from my family and upbringing. Suddenly I was no longer a middle-class, educated young woman with a bright future ahead of me, but a potentially dangerous mental patient.”

“Feeling the stigma of this, I did not tell anyone that I had been referred for weekly sessions with a psychiatric nurse, as well as further monthly appointments to see the consultant.”

“During these meetings I tried again to talk about my search for identity since leaving home. But these very ordinary feelings of adolescent insecurity were immediately interpreted as symptoms of a diseased mind. Although I didn’t believe I was mad, I trusted – as most people would – the medical view of the psychiatrist over my own instincts.”

“At my second meeting with the consultant two months later, she suggested I admit myself to hospital ‘only for three days’ to undergo tests.”

“Not wanting to worry my parents, I confided in my personal tutor, who assured me that details of the nature of my illness would be kept private.”

“I was shocked when I arrived at the psychiatric hospital, which had once been a Victorian asylum. It was very old-fashioned, with bars on the windows, double-locked doors and, to my horror, mixed wards. I was by far the youngest female patient there and I felt very vulnerable.”

“I knew straightaway this was not somewhere I would get well. Four hours after I was admitted, I tried to leave, but was coaxed into remaining by a nurse on the ward who told me: ‘Everyone feels like this at first’.”

“Over the course of the next few days, I underwent a routine brain scan, which found no evidence of abnormality, but had no therapy of any kind. I was simply given medication and left alone.”

“At the end of four days, I felt I’d had more than enough of the hospital and asked to be discharged—only to find myself under the threat of being forcibly restrained if I tried to leave.”

“I was absolutely terrified, and contacted my parents at the end of that first week to let them know where I was and ask them to come to see me.”

“But by the time my mother arrived, the effects of the drugs had started to kick in, making me confused and sleepy. I felt unable to explain properly to her why I was there or what was wrong.”

“In the meantime, the one calm voice in my head had been joined by another more strident and critical voice. Over the course of the next few weeks, the number of voices, some now male as well as female, and far more frightening, gradually increased until finally there were 12.”

“Of these, by far the most dominant—and demonic—was the threatening tone of a man. At first, it was only his voice I heard. But one night during my second month in hospital, I awoke to a hallucination of him standing by my bed, hugely tall and swathed in black, a hook where his hand should have been—like a character from a horror film.”

“I thought this was the result of the drugs I had been taking and of my distress at being confined in hospital. But the consultant convinced me this was a further symptom of paranoid schizophrenia. I stared at my reflection in the mirror, wondering if it might be true that I was mad.”

“I felt as if I was trapped in a nightmare. Having needed nothing more than reassurance about my normal feelings of insecurity after having left home, I was now labelled as a schizophrenic, drugged and confined to a locked ward.”

“Yet inside I still felt sane. I knew I had to get out of hospital before I started to see myself as a mental patient. Each time a nurse asked me if I thought there was anything wrong with me, I had answered ‘No’. This was clearly not what they wanted to hear.”

“Now I decided to try answering ‘Yes’ and see what happened. As soon as I began acquiescing to treatment, taking all my medication and agreeing to do what I was told, I was finally allowed to return to college.”

“After three months in hospital, I went back to university—a very different and far more disturbed student than when I had left. As a result of the side-effects of my drug treatment, my weight had ballooned from 9st to 15st.”

“I also suffered from constant trembling and a stumbling walk.” [drug-effects]

“I still don’t know how the other students found out where I’d been, but they obviously had. Within a week of my return, my door in the halls of residence had been defaced with graffiti and I had been spat at on my way to a lecture.”

“Worst of all was the tutorial where, after I’d had an essay criticised by a tutor, another student leant across to me and whispered: ‘That’s finished you off, psycho!’”

“I ran back to my room in tears, staying there for the next few days and feeling I wanted to hide from the world.”

“In the meantime, the dominant demonic voice became even more horrific, telling me the only way I would ever get better was if I agreed to follow his instructions.”

“These included not only self-harming but also cutting off my hair. He threatened terrible punishments, such as burning my room down, if I refused.”

“Desperate for some peace, I started to obey his bizarre instructions. Word now got round the university that I was behaving oddly, talking to imaginary people and cutting my arms.”

“Walking through the student bar one night, a group of students mockingly suggested I stub a cigarette out on my forearm. When I did it, they cheered.”

“I felt defeated and demoralised, no longer caring whether I lived or died.”

“At my next appointment with the consultant, I said I thought my medication was making the voices worse, and asked if I could stop taking it. But she insisted I had to continue.”

“When I admitted that I felt suicidal as a result of the way I was being bullied at college, she sent me back to hospital for a further seven week[s].”

“For the next four months I struggled on at university, as well as having another two brief psychiatric admissions. By the time the summer vacation arrived, I knew I could not carry on battling both against the voices and the cruelty of the students.”

“I returned home to my parents, my self-confidence totally destroyed.”

“My parents were wonderful—really supportive—but confused, because there was no history of mental illness in my family.”

“Over the course of the next few months, I was referred to the local psychiatric services in Bradford. My first appointment was with a male psychiatrist called Pat Bracken, who I later found out had worked with men and women tortured and raped in Uganda, and with child soldiers in Sierra Leone and Liberia.”

“He asked me why I had come to see him and I replied obediently: ‘I am 18 and I am a paranoid schizophrenic’.”

“Later on in my treatment, Pat told me he thought my answer was the saddest statement he had ever heard from a young girl—but at the time all he said was: ‘Tell me what you think would help you’.”

“I asked him to reduce my medication. To my amazement, he agreed immediately.”

“We talked about the voices and he suggested I stop seeing them as a symptom of mental illness and start looking on them as a way of finding out about myself. This encouraged me to tell him about my first experience of the female voice.”

“Up until now everyone had treated me as if I was completely passive, but Pat showed me a way of helping myself to get better.”

“Over the course of the next seven months I saw Pat for regular weekly sessions, gradually reducing my medication until I stopped the drugs completely.”

“During this time, I discovered that if I engaged with the voices, they became less frequent. I also learnt to challenge the more threatening voice, refusing to do what it told me and telling myself it was no more than a symbol of my own externalised anger.”

“One by one the voices gradually disappeared, until I was only occasionally hearing one.”

“Three years on, I am healthy, happy and perfectly stable. Schizophrenia is a frightening and misleading label which stigmatises people. While the doctors insist I was schizophrenic, I don’t know if the label really applied to me.”

“I think, like many young people leaving home for the very first time, I was stressed and unhappy. Going to university, and the lack of support there, tipped me over the edge. All I ever did was hear voices.”

“Now I have learned how to deal with them.”

“I am now studying for a doctorate in clinical psychology, as well as working on a medical team that helps teenagers suffering from the sudden onset of psychosis.”

“I often wonder what would have happened to me if I hadn’t found a psychiatrist who understood how to treat me.”

“If I do hear a voice now, I am no longer frightened because I understand why it’s happening. My mother’s signal for knowing she’s stressed is an attack of migraine. Mine is the voices.”

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

—Children, adolescents, and adults have problems. Those problems arise from many different sources, and they come in all shapes and sizes. Severe nutritional deficits, toxic environmental chemicals, drugs, abuse at home, parents not present, poverty, bullying, hostile crime-ridden neighborhoods, peer pressure, grossly inadequate education, etc.

THE TRANSLATION OF THESE PROBLEMS INTO SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS IS SCIENTIFIC FAKERY AND FRAUD. AND THE EFFCTS OF THE DRUGS GIVEN TO TREAT THESE “CONDITIONS” ARE TOXIC AND DAMAGING.

THE MERE DIAGNOSIS OF A MENTAL DISORDER SETS THE STAGE FOR A PERSON TO VIEW HIMSELF AS A VICTIM. HE CAN OPT FOR BIZARRE ALTERNATIVES, SUCH AS “BEING TRIGGERED” AND “NEEDING SAFE SPACES.”

In a very real sense, the entire profession of psychiatry is a mind-control operation.

It has invaded college campuses. It has spread across all sectors of the country and the world.

It is eating societies and cultures from the inside.

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 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Mainstream medical journalism is an illusion

Feb2

The Illusion called medical journalism: the deep secret

by Jon Rappoport

February 2, 2017

—Some of the greatest illusions are sitting out in the open. They are bypassed for two reasons. People refuse to believe they are illusions, despite the abundant evidence; and the professionals dedicated to upholding the illusions continue their work as if nothing at all has been exposed.

Medical journalists in the mainstream rely completely on studies published in prestigious journals.

This is the rock. This is the science.

This is also the source of doctors’ authoritarian and arrogant advice to patients.

“Studies show…”

Well, that wraps it up. Nothing else to prove. The studies in the journals are the final word.

Medical reporters base their entire careers on these published reports.

But what if higher and more credible authorities rejected all these studies? What if they’ve scrutinized more studies than any reporter or doctor possibly could…and have come to a shocking and opposite conclusion?

This very thing has happened. And the conclusions have been published. But medical reporters ignore them and go their merry way, as if a vast pillar of modern medicine is still intact…when it isn’t, when it has been decimated.

Buckle up.

Let us begin with a statement made by Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, perhaps the most prestigious medical journal in the world—a journal that routinely vets and prints thousands of medical studies:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” — Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009

You might want to read that statement several times, to savor its full impact. Then proceed to this next one, penned by the editor of The Lancet, another elite and time-honored medical journal that publishes medical studies:

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…”

Still standing? Here are several more statements. They are devastating.

The NY Review of Books (May 12, 2011), Helen Epstein, “Flu Warning: Beware the Drug Companies”:

“Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false, in the sense that independent researchers couldn’t replicate them. The problem is particularly widespread in medical research, where peer-reviewed articles in medical journals can be crucial in influencing multimillion- and sometimes multibillion-dollar spending decisions. It would be surprising if conflicts of interest did not sometimes compromise editorial neutrality, and in the case of medical research, the sources of bias are obvious. Most medical journals receive half or more of their income from pharmaceutical company advertising and reprint orders, and dozens of others [journals] are owned by companies like Wolters Kluwer, a medical publisher that also provides marketing services to the pharmaceutical industry.”

Here’s another quote from the same article:

“The FDA also relies increasingly upon fees and other payments from the pharmaceutical companies whose products the agency is supposed to regulate. This could contribute to the growing number of scandals in which the dangers of widely prescribed drugs have been discovered too late. Last year, GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia was linked to thousands of heart attacks, and earlier in the decade, the company’s antidepressant Paxil was discovered to exacerbate the risk of suicide in young people. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx was also linked to thousands of heart disease deaths. In each case, the scientific literature gave little hint of these dangers. The companies have agreed to pay settlements in class action lawsuits amounting to far less than the profits the drugs earned on the market. These precedents could be creating incentives for reduced vigilance concerning the side effects of prescription drugs in general.”

Also from the NY Review of Books, here are two more quotes from Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine (“Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption”):

“Consider the clinical trials by which drugs are tested in human subjects. Before a new drug can enter the market, its manufacturer must sponsor clinical trials to show the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective, usually as compared with a placebo or dummy pill. The results of all the (there may be many) are submitted to the FDA, and if one or two trials are positive—that is, they show effectiveness without serious risk—the drug is usually approved, even if all the other trials are negative.”

Here is another Angell statement:

“In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored [drug] trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.”

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

If you have the patience to read and re-read these statements, you’ll see they are marking out a scandal of scandals—the entirety of medical literature is a pipeline for deep fraud.

Citing with confidence a study on a drug, for example, would carry no more weight than an article about a celebrity in a gossip rag.

But medical reporters must pretend their sources are correct. It’s their job. If they reject published studies, they have nothing left—except to expose the giant scandal I’m outlining in this article. Biting the hand that feeds them would put them out of work. They’d end up writing about picnics for some local paper—if they were lucky.

However, that’s not my problem or yours. It’s theirs. They chose their profession.

We can settle on the truth. We can even spread it.

Why not?

Jon Rappoport

Medical fake news is the Mt. Everest of fake news

Jan25

Medical fake news is the Mt. Everest of fake news

by Jon Rappoport

January 25, 2017

Deep medical fraud and the destruction of health: this was the subject that prompted me to exit the news business.

As I probed deeper into that swamp, I found editors running away from my story-pitches. They didn’t want to go there. It was too scary. Too threatening to the status of their newspapers and magazines.

Lesson learned in the late 1980s: if you want to go deep, go independent.

I never looked back.

Here are three examples of going deep:

ONE: Proponents claim a vaccine stimulates a person’s immune system to produce antibodies, which are immune-system scouts.

This is supposedly a rehearsal. The immune system gets a chance to respond to a “test run,” so that when the real disease hits, the immune-defense will be ready and will knock out the disease quickly.

Except there are many diagnostic tests for disease that look for antibodies, and if antibodies show up, the doctor tells the patient he has the disease.

It’s absurd.

Antibodies from a vaccine=immunity. Same antibodies produced by the body in response to a germ entering the body=illness.

On top of this insanity, antibodies are only one component of a very complex immune system. The production of antibodies doesn’t guarantee a person’s whole immune system is in good shape.

In 1987, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., I queried the FDA about the development of an HIV vaccine. Here is what I was told: if a vaccine was ever deployed, it would produce antibodies to HIV and the person would be given a letter to carry around with him in case he was ever tested for HIV.

The letter would say, this person is immune from HIV. The antibodies are an indication of immunity, not disease.

You see, the two standard diagnostic tests for HIV were the Elisa and the Western Blot. They both tested for antibodies. If a person tested positive, he was told he had AIDS.

But if the SAME antibodies were produced by the vaccine, he’d be designated immune from AIDS.

No, that couldn’t be.

Yes, it could be and was.

TWO: Obamacare is about control, so it’s an answer to the prayers of the medical cartel.

So what do we know about their mainstream medicine, the hospital-based drug-addled modern version?

On July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a landmark review by Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), “Is US health really the best in the world?” In it, Starfield revealed what many people inside the medical establishment already knew: every year, like clockwork, the medical system was killing huge numbers of people.

Each year in the US, as Dr. Starfield reported, there are:

12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

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

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000. (a conservative estimate)

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

In the wake of Starfield’s devastating report, other facts came to light: 2.1 million people in America, every year, are hospitalized as a result of reactions to FDA-approved medicines. Annually, 36 million serious adverse reactions to those drugs occur.

So, inclusive health coverage for many more Americans under the Obama Plan means these horrendous figures will rise.

This is the dirty secret.

Obama and his allies are promoting a medical system that is the third leading cause of death in America. It’s that stark and it’s that simple.

THREE: The gold standard test for disease diagnosis is called the PCR.

Example: ABC New York reports (in “Mount Sinai patient likely does not have Ebola, health official says”):“Testing for Ebola is done at the CDC. According to a CDC spokesperson testing for Ebola takes 1-2 days after they receive the samples. The primary testing is PCR. This is performed on blood that has been treated to kill and live virus [sic]. So far CDC has tested samples from around 6 people who had symptoms consistent with Ebola and a travel history to the affected region.”

But the PCR test is completely unreliable for a disease diagnosis. Why? Two reasons. First, technicians start with a tiny, tiny sample of genetic material from the patient. This sample is supposed to be part of a virus. It may or may not be. Mistakes can be made. Obviously, the techs want the sample to be viral in nature; otherwise, the diagnostic test will be complete bust.

But more importantly, the whole rationale for PCR is wrongheaded. Doctors and researchers only find a miniscule bit of hopefully relevant material in the patient to begin with. The PCR amplifies that bit many times so it can be observed. That’s the whole rationale behind the PCR.

But to consider the possibility that a virus is causing a disease in a patient, there must be huge numbers of that virus working actively in his body.

The PCR never establishes that.

Finding a tiny, tiny trace of viral material in a patient says absolutely nothing about whether he is ill, has been ill, or will become ill.

The PCR test is an irrelevant bust and a lie.

—Those are just three examples, out of many, where “going deep” gets you a strange stare and glare from medical editors at newspapers and magazines.

They run away. They disappear. They huff and puff and turn red in the face. They do whatever they can to let you know you’re no longer welcome in their presence.

It’s fun. I used to enjoy pitching stories like these to the guardians on the watchtower of truth. Their various reactions were priceless. I used to call it “watching the egg crack.”

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

And it’s instructive. You find out where the boundaries are. You learn, in your gut, how shallow and fear-ridden the mainstream news business is, behind its pompous front.

You discover what “going independent” really means. That’s very important. Because if you’re going to leave the fold, your commitment to what you’re writing has to become relentless.

Fortunately, I discovered “relentless” was right up my alley.

It makes a cloudy day turn sunny.

Since those days when I made my exit, I’ve watched many reporters I know stop being reporters. Some of them went into real estate. Some started selling cars. Some became teachers at prep schools. Some landed jobs with partisan think-tanks and foundations.

And some are still around, turning out fake news like pancakes at a diner. Their faces are gray. They’re standing over their griddles like robots.

In off-the-cuff conversations, I told them they were making a mistake. They didn’t want to listen. I told them how vastly bored they would become.

They said it wasn’t a problem.

But it is a problem. Especially when the truth is the first casualty.

It always is the first casualty, in the news biz.

Jon Rappoport

The big one: how environmental killing becomes a medical disease

Jan18

The giant pig farm disaster: a medical hoax and cover story

The full truth has never been told—until now.

by Jon Rappoport

January 18, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

“To handle all that [pig-farm feces] waste, farmers in North Carolina use a standard practice called the lagoon and spray field system. They flush feces and urine from barns into open-air pits called lagoons, which turn the color of Pepto-Bismol when pink-colored bacteria colonize the waste. To keep the lagoons from overflowing, farmers spray liquid manure on their fields nearby. The result, says Steve Wing, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is this: ‘The eastern part of North Carolina is covered with shit’.” —National Geographic, 10/30/14

The above quote describes corporate pig farming around the world.

In order to carry out this operation, giant companies like Smithfield have influenced legislators and government-agency officials. Environmental laws and regulations are ignored, or changed. Lawsuits are fought, hammer and tongs.

Here is what Robert F Kennedy Jr. told radio interviewer, Rachel Lewis Hilburn on 6/3/16:

“…a hog produces ten times the amount of fecal waste by weight as a human being, so if you have a facility that has ten thousand hogs in it, it’s producing as much sewage as a city of a hundred thousand people. Smithfield has one plant in Utah—they call it Circle Four Farms—that has a million hogs on it, so it’s producing the same amount of waste as New York City every day.”

Here is Kennedy’s kicker:

“There’s no difference between hog waste and human waste in terms of its danger to human health. They [Smithfield and other giant corporate pig operations] ought to have to have a sewage treatment plant that cleans it up. And yet, if they had to build that sewage treatment plan, it would drive the price of hogs up so that they could no longer function in the marketplace… they ought to have to build sewage treatment facilities but nobody’s making them do that because they have used political clout…”

All right, that’s a bit of background. Now I’m going to shift to the subject of Swine Flu, the phony epidemic of 2009.

Where did it start?

At a Smithfield pig-raising operation in Perote, Mexico; in a village called La Gloria. Smithfield raises 950,000 hogs a year there.

Press reports described outdoor “pig feces lagoons” on the property. When workers began to get sick, the area was sprayed with unknown chemicals. More workers fell ill and died.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of public health could testify that this combination of mind-boggling (non-) sanitation, plus strong germicides, plus other toxic chemicals routinely dumped in the feces lagoons, could and would cause human disease.

In fact, it doesn’t matter which particular germs are present in the mix.

People at the CDC had to be well aware of this. Yet, in 2009, their choice was to rush researchers to the Smithfield operation in La Gloria, Mexico, armed with the unfounded assumption that some novel virus, never before seen, was the culprit, and their job was to take blood samples and discover what the new germ was.

Why? Why assume, when workers who operate in that kind of environment get sick, there is some new disease at work? The symptoms of the workers were not unusual, given the circumstances.

Workers dying in that vat of filth and chemical soup should be expected.

But, up front, based on no evidence, the CDC on-site team was going for a new germ and a new disease, and that’s what they announced they had found. A gullible world, fed by press reports, bought in.

And that’s how the fake epidemic called Swine Flu was launched.

All the focus that could have centered on the highly toxic Smithfield pig operation in La Gloria was diverted.

Diverted to a virus.

H1N1 it was called. The Swine Flu virus.

Suddenly, it was a medical problem. Not an environmental disaster.

It was RE-INVENTED as a medical problem.

If you don’t yet get what I’m pointing out here, imagine this:

You’re living in an old sewage tunnel under a city. You’re surrounded by human excrement and biting insects and fetid waste water and foul air—and when you fall ill, you suddenly see virus-hunting researchers, not haz-mat rescue workers, approach you and take blood samples. Are they crazy?

No, they’re just doing what their bosses tell them to do. Because the CDC is fronting for, and protecting, major corporate agricultural criminals. Because your illness has to be shifted over to a “new disease and a new virus.”

On top of all this, the virus that these “researchers” do find, which, by the way, is in no way proven to cause disease, can be found all over the world. Why? Because it’s been around for a long, long time, and it has never caused any dire condition at all.

This is how the game works.

This is the medical hoax.

In the case of Swine Flu, it gets worse. It turns out that the virus is not so prevalent after all. That is why, in the early autumn of 2009, CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson discovered that the CDC, ignoring its mandate and charter, had secretly stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. You see, the overwhelming percentage of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, when sent to labs for testing, were coming back with no trace of the so-called Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus. CBS put Attkisson’s published report on the shelf and never followed up on it.

Again, the virus as the cause of illness, was the cover story. Intelligence agencies float cover stories on a regular basis. It’s no accident that CDC has a large unit of virus hunters called the Epidemic Intelligence Service.

Right off the top, I can tell you they create disinformation on a scale that must make the CIA jealous.

Graduates of this EIS program, as proudly stated by the CDC, have gone on to occupy key positions in the overall medical cartel: Surgeons General; CDC directors; medical school deans and professors; medical foundation executives; drug-company and insurance executives; state health officials; medical editors and reporters in major media outlets.

It’s a loyal insider’s club. They collaborate to float prime-cut, A-number-one cover stories of extraordinary dimensions. They invent medical reality out of thin air.

Here is a brief excerpt from the CDC’s website, “50 Years of the Epidemic Intelligence Service”:

“In 1951, EIS was established by CDC following the start of the Korean War as an early-warning system against biologic warfare and man-made epidemics. EIS officers selected for 2-year field assignments were primarily medical doctors and other health professionals…who focused on infectious disease outbreaks. EIS has expanded to include a range of public health professionals, such as postdoctoral scientists in statistics, epidemiology, microbiology, anthropology, sociology, and behavioral sciences. Since 1951, approximately 2500 EIS officers have responded to requests for epidemiologic assistance within the United States and throughout the world. Each year, EIS officers are involved in several hundred investigations of disease and injury problems, enabling CDC and its public health partners to make recommendations to improve the public’s health and safety.”

Several hundred investigations a year. An unparalleled opportunity to shape the truth into propaganda. Control of information about disease. Control out in the field, where EIS agents rush to the scene of “outbreaks,” all the way back through the hallowed halls of academia, into the press, into Big Pharma, into the government.

When I say control of information, I mean disinformation. That’s what the EIS is for. They’ve never met a virus they didn’t love, and if they couldn’t find one, they pretended they did.

They front for the medical cartel. And they provide cover for the crimes of mega-corporations. There’s a town where poverty-stricken people are dying, because horrendous pesticides are running into the water supply and soil? No, it’s a virus. There’s a hotel where the plumbing is broken and human waste is getting into all the bathrooms, and they want this hotel to be the epicenter of a new epidemic? No, it isn’t the plumbing, it’s a novel virus never seen before by man. There’s a section of a city where the industrial pollution is driving people over the edge into immune-system failure? No, it’s a virus.

And here’s the capper. Their propaganda is so good most of the EIS people believe it themselves. You don’t achieve that kind of robotic servitude without intense brainwashing. The first installment of the mind-control program is called medical school.

Psy-op and propaganda begin with the virus hunters of the EIS. They control and own the chokepoint of disease research. They blow up their scanty findings into ex-cathedra pronouncements.

And of course, this strengthens the vaccine establishment because, for every virus, there must be a vaccine: the shot in the arm, loaded with toxic chemicals and a variety of germs.

The EIS. The CDC’s band of brothers. The medical CIA.

“Show me vast pig-feces lagoons, and I’ll show you a virus you’ve never heard of before. I’ll protect corporate criminals from here to the moon…”

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

Jon Rappoport

CDC “Spider” Scientists attack the CDC, blow the lid off

Jan15

CDC “Spider” Scientists attack the CDC, blow the lid off

They write a letter to the CDC chief of staff

And I write a letter to them

by Jon Rappoport

January 15, 2017

(Update: for Part-2, click here)

There is a group of anonymous scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control—they call themselves the Spider Group—Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research. They have penned a letter to the CDC’s chief of staff, Carmen S. Villar:

Here is the explosive accusation they make:

“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”

“Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right.”

“We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”

I have written at length about another whistleblower at the CDC, William Thompson, a long-time researcher who, in August of 2014, confessed in writing to massive fraud (archive here). He admitted that, in a study on the safety of the MMR vaccine, he and his colleagues literally threw vital sheets of data into a garbage can. The study then gave a free pass to the vaccine, claiming it had no connection to autism—when in fact it did. Thompson is the subject of the film, Vaxxed (trailer).

Now with this letter, we see that other scientists at the CDC are blowing the lid off internal corruption at their Agency.

If, in fact, President-elect Trump gives the green light for an independent investigation of the CDC, as press outlets are now reporting, and if he appoints Robert Kennedy Jr. to head up that panel, as Kennedy claims, we are going to see a large number of hidden facts emerge from the secretive halls of the CDC.

Because this Spider Group is anonymous, I wanted to make sure their letter is real. I contacted reporter Carey Gillam (twitter), who has been covering the story. I received this reply: “I was able to authenticate the letter by contacting CDC’s public affairs office and asking them directly about it after I received it from internal CDC sources.”

You can read the full Spider Group’s letter here at US Right To Know. (More on the letter by Carey Gillam here.)

And now I write a letter to them, so they can deepen their investigation.

Dear Spider Group:

I commend you on making an important start. You’re on the right road. As a reporter who has covered the CDC for many years, I offer you three suggestions. This short list is by no means exhaustive. I’m just pointing to a few areas where your own research will yield very rich and fertile results.

ONE: SWINE FLU FRAUD.

Let me take you back to the late summer of 2009, and the Swine Flu epidemic, which was hyped to the sky by the CDC. The Agency was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine. Remember?

The problem was, the CDC was concealing a scandal.

At the time, star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, was working on a Swine Flu story. She discovered that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases of the illness—while, of course, continuing to warn Americans about its unchecked spread.

The CDC’s main job is counting cases and reporting the numbers.

What was the Agency up to?

Here is an excerpt from my 2014 interview with Sharyl Attkisson:

Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?

Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.

—end of interview excerpt—

It was routine for doctors all over America to send blood samples from patients they’d diagnosed with Swine Flu, or the “most likely” Swine Flu patients, to labs for testing. And overwhelmingly, those samples were coming back with the result: not Swine Flu, not any kind of flu.

That was the big secret. That’s what the CDC was hiding. That’s why they stopped reporting Swine Flu case numbers. That’s what Attkisson had discovered. That’s why she was shut down.

But it gets even worse.

Because about three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.

Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).

Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.

In the summer of 2009, the CDC secretly stops counting Swine Flu cases in America, because the overwhelming percentage of lab tests from likely Swine Flu patients shows no sign of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.

There is no Swine Flu epidemic.

Then, the CDC estimates there are 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US.

TWO: THE CDC BUYS MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF VACCINES AND, AT THE SAME TIME, HEADS UP RESEARCH ON THE SAFETY OF VACCINES. EXPLOSIVE STRUCTURAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

If you wanted to buy a product, and the main source of research on the product was the company selling it, would you automatically assume the product was safe and effective?

But you see, that’s the just the beginning of the problem. Suppose the company’s research was cited thousands of times in the press, as the authoritative standard of proof—and anyone who disputed that research was labeled a conspiracy theorist and a quack and a danger to the community and an anti-science lunatic.

Would you begin to suspect the company had some awesome media connections? Would you suspect some very powerful people were backing the company?

This is exactly the situation that exists at the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Read these two quotes:

“The government’s Vaccine for Children Program (a CDC organization) purchases vaccines for about 50 percent of children in the U.S.” (The Atlantic, February 10, 2015)

“The CDC currently spends over $4 billion purchasing vaccines [annually] from drug makers…” (Health Impact News, October 24, 2016)

However, the CDC is also the gold standard for research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It turns out an unending stream of studies on these subjects. And the results of those studies are dutifully reported in the mainstream press.

Do you think, under any circumstances, the CDC would publish data showing vaccines are ineffective and dangerous? They’d be cutting their own throats.

“Well, we spend $4 billion a year buying vaccines from drug companies, but guess what? These vaccines are often dangerous…”

Every time you read about a CDC study on vaccines, keep this obvious (and clearly illegal) conflict of interest in mind.

THREE: MASSIVE OVERESTIMATE OF FLU DEATHS IN THE US, IN ORDER TO PUSH THE FLU VACCINE.

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

Boom.

You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure.

However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

“Well, uh, we say that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”

The CDC must turn out a steady stream of outrageous lies about the need for vaccines. If they didn’t, they’d have no way to justify the billions of dollars they spend every year buying the vaccines from drug companies.

So, Spider Group, don’t stop now. Deepen your probe. Become true heroes for honest research, expose the deep roots of corruption in your Agency, and do the right thing for the American people you’re sworn to serve.

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 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

My interview with former CBS star reporter: fake news

Dec5

My interview with former CBS star reporter: fake news

by Jon Rappoport

December 5, 2016

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

CBS is now publishing the names of sites they claim are fake news. Well, what about CBS itself?

Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you’re aware that a film, Vaxxed, has been showing in theaters across America and overseas—and audiences are stunned by its revelations.

Vaxxed exposes a huge scandal at the CDC, where a long-time researcher, William Thompson, confessed (2014) that he and colleagues committed gross fraud in a study of the MMR vaccine.

Thompson admitted the evidence showed the vaccine led to a higher risk of autism in children—but that finding was intentionally buried, and the vaccine was given a free pass.

Of course, mainstream reporters have been mercilessly attacking Vaxxed, and a segment of the population finds it impossible to believe that the CDC would ever commit this kind of fraud.

So, as a mind-changer, let me take you back to the late summer of 2009, and the Swine Flu epidemic, which was hyped to the sky by the CDC. The Agency was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine. Remember?

The problem was, the CDC was concealing another scandal.

Understand that the CDC’s main job is counting cases and reporting the numbers.

What was the Agency up to?

Here is an excerpt from my 2014 interview with Sharyl Attkisson:

Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it [after it was published on the CBS News website] and, in the end, no [CBS television news] broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.

—end of interview excerpt—

I’ll add a few details. It was routine for doctors all over America to send blood samples from patients they’d diagnosed with Swine Flu, or the “most likely” Swine Flu patients, to labs for testing. And overwhelmingly, those samples were coming back with the result: not Swine Flu, not any kind of flu.

That was the big secret. That’s what the CDC was hiding. That’s why they stopped reporting Swine Flu case numbers. That’s what Attkisson had discovered. That’s why she was shut down.

But it gets even worse.

Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.

There is no Swine Flu epidemic.

Then, the CDC estimates there are 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US.

So…the premise that the CDC would never lie about important matters like, oh, a vaccine increasing the risk of autism…you can lay that one to rest.

The CDC will lie about anything it wants to. It will boldly go where no person interested in real science will go.

It will completely ignore its mandate to care about human health, and it will get away with it.

And CBS will conveniently forget how it aided and abetted the CDC, by censoring real news, and instead opted for egregious and titanic fake bullshit.

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 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Medical Fraud

Genetically modified people: what could go wrong?

Boom: thousands of medical studies found to be useless

How the mind treats “impossible things that couldn’t be happening”

Holocaust study: the medical cartel is destroying America

The number-one mind-control program at US colleges

Mainstream medical journalism is an illusion

Medical fake news is the Mt. Everest of fake news

The big one: how environmental killing becomes a medical disease

CDC “Spider” Scientists attack the CDC, blow the lid off

My interview with former CBS star reporter: fake news