Category Archives: Medical Fraud

Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House insider

Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House insider

And another conversation with a virologist

by Jon Rappoport

April 18, 2016

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

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

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

Robert Gallo, who claimed he had found the cause of AIDS, hadn’t done proper work. From everything I read, he had discovered HIV in 35 to 60 percent of AIDS patients he had studied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I brought the conversation back to HIV.

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

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

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

His obvious implication was: careers were on the line.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the last minute, the conference was cancelled.

the matrix revealed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—end of interview excerpt—

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

Rigid consensus must be maintained.

Jon Rappoport

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

Vaccine-autism connection: I stand with the mothers

Vaccine-autism connection: I stand with the mothers

by Jon Rappoport

April 4, 2016

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

Since the controversy surrounding vaccines causing autism has resurfaced with the release of the explosive film, Vaxxed (trailer), I want to make a few things clear.

First of all, statements from the CDC and “the entire scientific community,” refuting any causal connection, are all based on the sacred status of published studies.

So again, here is what the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine wrote, in 2009, about this holy of holies:

“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, “Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)

There is nothing holy or even believable about “the truth is in the published studies.”

Here is an excerpted statement from a mother. I put more stock in it than a hundred studies exonerating vaccines. The mothers know, and they are being pushed off to the side, in order to protect the vaccine manufacturers and the medical powers-that-be:

“…immediately after my son received his 18 month shots he spiked a high fever, was listless and began to scream. I called the nurse line informing them of his symptoms and my concern for a reaction to the jab, they said, ‘give him Tylenol.’…within 72 hours he began to lose words, eye contact, became sensitive to light, noise touch. He began to self limit, eating only milk and toast and I watched my baby disappear into a hell promoted and created by big pharma…

“The first doctor I raised concerns to told me, ‘oh he’s just two, give him whatever he wants and he’ll stop crying’…I spent the next five years researching everything I could find and I exhausted myself, determined to get my baby back…while he slept praying to God to not let him wake and feel the pain, to please let him come back…Some days he would want me to take him in the car in the dark garage and just hold him tight. He would get up every morning and stand at the top of the stairs and scream because his sensory systems were destroyed, so I would have to carry him down the stairs…[at night he would watch movie[s] over and over until Six am drinking milk, eating toast. Each time the movie ended he would scream until I put it [the movie] in again. Finally at sunrise he would sleep…This went on for years.

“Little by little I would start to see flickers and once in a while it almost looked as though he would smile. And one day I [came] down all dressed up to go to dinner and he said, ‘mommy you look pretty’. I began to weep, my heart was back. I didn’t realize ’til then that he had never said anything that indicated I was even a person. I think ’til he was about 4 he though[t] we were one as he could not separate without becoming panicked and hysterical. If I showered he would kick and scream and pound the door until I came back out…”

exit from the matrix

How many mothers have reports like this about their babies?

Many.

Many.

I have read them and heard them.

Believe the doctors if you want to. I believe the mothers.

These horrendous medical crimes happen every day.

Jon Rappoport

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

Does HIV exist? An explosive interview

by Jon Rappoport

April 4, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

The interview, conducted by excellent freelance journalist, Christine Johnson, delves into these questions:

How should researchers prove that a particular virus exists? How should they isolate it? What are the correct procedures?

These questions, and their answers, reside at the heart of most disease research—and yet, overwhelmingly, doctors never explore them or even consider them.

Johnson interviews Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…”

I strongly suggest you read the whole interview. Here I’m publishing and highlighting excerpts. Technical issues are discussed. Grasping them is not the easiest exercise you’ve ever done, but I believe the serious reader can comprehend the vital essentials.

CJ: Does HIV cause AIDS?

EPE: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

EPE: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.

…

CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?

EPE: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]

CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.

EPE: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.

CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?

EPE: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.

…

CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.

EPE: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.

The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.

That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.

CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?

EPE: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.

CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?

EPE: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.

CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.

EPE: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.

CJ: And what was that method?

EPE: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.

CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?

EPE: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.

CJ: But what about their pictures?

EPE: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…”

…

the matrix revealed

If you grasp the essentials of this discussion, you’ll see there is every reason to question the existence of HIV, because the methods for proving its existence were not followed.

Therefore, more questions emerge. How many other viruses have been named as causes of disease, when in fact those viruses have never been isolated or proved to exist?

Of course, conventional-consensus researchers and doctors will scoff at any attempt to raise these issues. For them, “the science is settled.” Meaning: they don’t want to think. They don’t want to stir the waters.

A few years ago, chemist David Rasnick sent a request to the CDC, asking for evidence demonstrating that the Ebola virus had ever been isolated from a human. The answers he received did not begin to approach a level of certainty.

After 30 years working as a reporter in the area of deep medical-research fraud, I’ve seen that false science occurs in levels.

The deeper you go, the stranger it gets. To put it another way: the deeper you go, the worse it gets.

Jon Rappoport

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

The vaccine in Vaxxed: so pure, angels sent it for your kiddies

The vaccine in Vaxxed: so pure, angels sent it for your kiddies

by Jon Rappoport

March 29, 2016

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

Whatever happens in a doctor’s office must be good, right?

Don’t worry, be happy, angels brought the MMR vaccine to Earth so doctors could shoot your kiddies with it.

The film, Vaxxed (trailer), which has been axed from the Tribeca Film Festival, is all about the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

Long-time CDC researcher, Bill Thompson, publicly admitted he and his colleagues committed gross fraud, to make the vaccine seem safe, to pretend it had no connection to autism, when it did. They lied. That’s what Vaxxed is about.

So pardon me, but I thought I’d offer some quotes about MMR. Just to keep you in the loop.

“In 1977, 34 new cases of measles were reported on the campus of UCLA, in a population that was supposedly 91% immune, according to careful serological testing. Another 20 cases of measles were reported in the Pecos, New Mexico, area within a period of a few months in 1981, and 75% of them had been fully immunized, some of them quite recently. A survey of sixth-graders in a well-immunized urban community revealed that about 15% of this age group are still susceptible to rubella, a figure essentially identical with that of the pre-vaccine era.” Richard Moskowitz, MD, The Case Against Immunizations, 1983, American Institute of Homeopathy.

At the excellent site, thinktwice.com, long-time vaccine investigator and author, Neil Z Miller, has assembled an impressive cache of information about the MMR vaccine. Here are a few highlights:

“The drug company that makes the MMR vaccine publishes an extensive list of warnings, contraindications, and adverse reactions associated with this triple shot. These may be found in the [MMR] vaccine package insert available from any doctor giving MMR, and in the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) at the library. The following afflictions affecting nearly every body system — blood, lymphatic, digestive, cardiovascular, immune, nervous, respiratory, and sensory — have been reported following receipt of the MMR shot: encephalitis, encephalopathy, neurological disorders, seizure disorders, convulsions, learning disabilities, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), demyelination of the nerve sheaths, Guillain-Barre’ syndrome (paralysis), muscle incoordination, deafness, panniculitis, vasculitis, optic neuritis (including partial or total blindness), retinitis, otitis media, bronchial spasms, fever, headache, joint pain, arthritis (acute and chronic), transverse myelitis, thrombocytopenia (blood clotting disorders and spontaneous bleeding), anaphylaxis (severe allergic reactions), lymphadenopathy, leukocytosis, pneumonitis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, erythema multiforme, urticaria, pancreatitis, parotitis, inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, meningitis, diabetes, autism, immune system disorders, and death.”

More from Neil Miller: “This section contains unsolicited adverse reaction reports associated with the MMR vaccine. They are typical of the daily emails received by the ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute:

[MMR114] My 12-month-old received his MMR shot on a Friday. The following Friday he had a 104 degree temperature and became violently ill. The doctor said it was a stomach virus. But on Monday morning he woke up with a rash all over. I took him to the doctor and was very upset to learn that this is very common.

[MMR128] Recently, my 13-month-old had his MMR. He now has constant high fevers and seizures, which he never had. He is a totally different boy. This is devastating.

[MMR176] My friend’s 15-month-old daughter received an MMR vaccine. Within eight days she was hospitalized with a 104 degree fever and a skin rash. My friend called to see what I could find out about Stevens-Johnson syndrome. They told her that her daughter may die as a result of this.

[MMR203] A dear friend lost her 15-month old daughter two weeks after her MMR. She was healthy and showed no signs of illness yet died suddenly in her sleep one afternoon. The post mortem revealed a viral infection and traces of pneumonia, but her mother and I find it very hard to believe that the vaccination wasn’t to blame.

[MMR216] Three days ago my friend’s 15-month-old daughter was hospitalized after experiencing a high fever and her first seizure. The hospital put the baby through a series of tests, including a CAT scan and CBC. My friend told me he thought it was a reaction to the MMR vaccine she recently received. However, the doctors were puzzled as to the cause and disallowed this explanation.

[MMR315] When my daughter was just over one year old, she received her MMR vaccination. Later that day she had a high fever, and I put her to bed. I was busy doing housework downstairs and got this “mother’s intuition” that something was wrong. I rushed upstairs to find her blue and not breathing. I called a nurse. My daughter seemed to be convulsing, so I was instructed to reach down her throat to open her air passage. She was rushed to the hospital and they immediately put her into a cool bath. She was in the hospital for almost a week. Had it not been for my gut feeling that something was wrong, my baby would not be with me today.

[MMR317] Our son developed seizures after his MMR vaccine at 14 months. Today, after two years of anti-epilepsy medications, he has totally regressed. We decided to stop all medications five weeks ago and his grand mal fits have stopped. We are now left with a child experiencing severe constipation and bowel problems.

[MMR321] One week after the MMR shot for my 16-month-old daughter, she had diarrhea. The next day she had three seizures. What steps should be taken once a reaction has occurred. I want to be sure it is documented and the government is made aware.

[MMR398] My daughter had a serious reaction to the MMR shot when she was 22 months. She developed brain damage after a fever of 106 degrees. She also has seizures which are unresponsive to medication, damage to the nerves of her eyes, and learning disabilities that she battles every day. We took her case to court and lost. The doctor who testified on their behalf stated that the government only called him in when they wanted a finding in their favor. What a setup! Of course they don’t have to live with the frustrations and expense of raising these vaccine-damaged children.

[MMR402] Three days after my daughter received her MMR vaccine, she started blinking her eyes and sniffling a lot. She’s been doing this for 2 1/2 months now. Is there a link between the MMR vaccine and facial tics?

[MMR436] My 12-year-old had a seizure within 10 minutes of his second MMR. His head rolled side to side and his arms jerked a couple of times. He was unaware of this, so he must have blanked out. Afterwards, he felt woozy, very tired, and had a headache at the bridge of his nose. Also, his arm that got the shot was numb. The feeling in it gradually returned over the course of an hour.

[MMR443] I have a 15-year-old daughter. I recently moved to the U.S. from the U.K. without her medical records. Upon arrival we were required to give her complete immunizations. I strongly objected, but felt pushed into re-immunization because of state laws to get her into school. After her second MMR she has been complaining of dizzy spells and continuous headaches. Is there a link between over-immunization of MMR and this sickness?

[MMR509] Today, shortly after I was inoculated with the MMR vaccine, I began feeling faint and short of breath. After ten minutes of holding my head between my knees in a dirty gas station bathroom, I decided I could drive the 20 miles home.

[MMR518] I had an MMR shot about three year ago and have suffered from many reactions to this vaccine since.

[MMR552] When I was a child I was given the MMR vaccine. Almost seven days to the hour I became ill: fever, sweats, throwing up even the slightest amount of fluid or food. This went on for a month or so. The doctors would not even consider that the shots caused the illness. Later, they wanted me to have the second MMR; my parents refused. The doctors went through the usual tantrums and said I wouldn’t be able to attend school. When my parents said ‘Fine, he won’t go,’ the doctors gave in. At about the age of 18, I had a blood screening and was told I didn’t have all of the MMR vaccine. Forgetting the episode as a child, I let them give me the shot. Seven days later I was sick again, but not as severe.

[MMR580] My college refused to admit me without an MMR vaccine. I had a terrible reaction and was rushed to the hospital with piercing screams, a high temperature and delirium. Now I have trouble focusing, and can be scattered and forgetful. I can’t stand change and don’t seem to have the energy and drive that I once had. My family thinks I developed obsessive-compulsive disorder. I am very bright, but nearly blew my scholarship after the shot.

[MMR588] I was told by the nursing school where I am enrolled, “No vaccine, no school.” Even though I had all the normal vaccines as a child, I was unable to show this. Five days after I received the MMR vaccine, I was so ill that I ended up in the emergency room. The doctor told me that the MMR did not cause my sickness, and my nursing school supervisor said it was a virus. Why does the medical establishment deny vaccine reactions? Why can’t they tell us this important information and let us make educated responsible decisions. The irony is that I got the vaccine and now I’m so sick that I can’t go to school.

the matrix revealed

—-But all the quotes I’m giving you in this article—they must be wrong. They must be. The authorities know what they’re doing. They always do. Of course. They would never feed us false information. Everything is good. How could it not be good?

Don’t worry, be happy.

Never listen to mothers of those children who end up with brain damage after getting a vaccine shot. All these mothers must be lying. Of course they are. They don’t actually care deeply about their own children. Right?

Sure. Keep dreaming. Keep dreaming. Keep dreaming.

Jon Rappoport

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

Bernie Sanders and the rise of the single-payer universe

by Jon Rappoport

March 26, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

“There are a whole lot of high-IQ lunatics running around detailing all the crimes of the State…and then saying the wonderful answer is the State, which suddenly becomes the messiah in radiant robes. These loons are the crown princes of cognitive dissonance. They’re the Mickey Mouse Club of political philosophy.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

When you boil it down, the formula is simple: take any rotting, stench-ridden institution of society that appears to promise good things for all, and make it free. Make it available to everyone with a pulse.

“We’ve got this wonderful aging army of giant octopuses, and we want to bring the whole population into their grasp. Won’t it be wonderful? We’ll call this army Mommy and Daddy. It’ll work. Promise.”

Take two of Bernie’s favorite monsters: medical care and college education. Turn them into single-payer operations.

The federal government pays, which means the tax payer pays, which means taking budget money from there and putting it here. Whatever.

But heaven forbid, let me look below the surface.

The US medical system kills 225,000 Americans every year. Every decade, the system kills 2.25 million people.

The basic citation on this is: Dr. Barbara Starfield, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Starfield offers a conservative estimate of the damage. 106,000 Americans killed every year by correctly prescribed, FDA-approved drugs. 119,000 killed by mistreatment and errors in hospitals.

In my 2009 interview with Dr. Starfield, a revered public-health expert at the John Hopkins School of Public Health, I asked her whether the federal government had undertaken an effort to correct this horrendous situation (capital crime), and whether the government had ever approached her to consult on such a mission. To both questions, she answered, resoundingly: No.

Inevitably, a single-payer medical system in America would bring far more people (everyone) under the umbrella—and the death toll would shoot up to the sky (see also this shocker).

This is a fact, not a speculation.

So what looks and sounds good on the surface—“free medical care for all”—turns out to be an all-embracing holocaust.

If you haven’t read any of my numerous articles on medical killings (for starters, see this and this), and therefore this comes as a great shock to you, take a minute to try to recover…and read on.

Free college education for all—another nice-sounding idea. If you want to subject your children to a federally controlled interlocking directorate of commissars who bypass unimportant items like reading, the ability to write coherently, any sort of grasp on history, this system will put a goony smile on your face.

Who cares about the Humanities, as long as students learn how to complain and protest the use of words (any words) that trigger their emotions and put them in a highly vulnerable state, and provoke their need for safe spaces where they can whine and complain and protest? These experiences will surely prepare them for life in the real world after their guaranteed graduation.

In college, they will learn that government (or some vague representation of it that doesn’t actually exist) will lead us all into a better future where individual achievement is a marker of fraud, deception, and unearned privilege.

Colleges will become mind-control propaganda factories for all children, not just some. Hail, Caesar.

Manuals and texts will appear that mandate how values and group-think must be inserted into gullible minds, and professors who object (see here and here) will find themselves selling plastic popcorn and ptomaine dogs at movie theaters. O joy.

How could federal control of higher education for every child in America possibly present a problem? How could Big Mommy and Daddy Octopuses harbor evil and grotesque designs?

How many times have we been promised that shocking illiteracy at the college level will be corrected? But don’t worry, be happy, because the solution to this problem will suddenly emerge when every child, no matter who, no matter what, can matriculate and win a degree. That, you see, was the missing key. Somehow.

Bernie knows the answers. He knows that when the federal government is granted more and more power to execute the Big Fix for America, a revolution of hearts and minds can’t be far behind.

It was, understand, the unfairness and the wretched exclusion of the system that produced all the failures…and when that is eliminated, the ignorant will become smart, the devious will become honest, the incompetent will become magisterial, the crooked will develop new morals.

When teachers become full-fledged agents of the State, on behalf of every child, an alchemical transformation will occur on all levels. Thank goodness.

Grandpa Bernie knows. He’s the one.

Make sure you understand that when Bernie says he’s a socialist, he doesn’t, ahem, really mean it. How could he? How could he want to place the means of production under the direct control of the State? How could he want the State to own the means of production? He’s, well, a sort-of socialist, right? He’s a Denmark socialist, which is kinder and gentler than a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist. He’s an FDR socialist or a Eugene Debs socialist. He doesn’t want massive redistribution of goods and services in America, dictated from above. He may want some redistribution, but no one would really notice it. They would only notice things getting better. And they would get better because America would essentially become a single-payer nation. Government pays, tax payers pay (more). Government invents new money whenever it needs to, just like now, except in much larger amounts. The kids love Bernie, so he must be great. More free stuff. Who doesn’t like more free stuff?

In his 487 years in the Senate, Bernie has been on hold. But now he’ll break out and bring the revolution we’ve all been seeking. The unwilling and unable and under-privileged will emerge—perhaps with government jobs, because we’ll need many more government employees. This is something to look forward to with great excitement. We don’t have enough zero-tolerance and incompetence and robotic control. That problem will be solved, at last.

exit from the matrix

But now the robots will have garlands around their necks and rainbows in their eyes. It’ll happen, because no one will be left out. We’ll all be together, and we’ll finally know it. Cosmic collective consciousness will stake its claim.

Sure it will.

Who can say what Bernie will do? The only way to find out is to elect him. Then we can unwrap the presents under the tree.

And 50 years from now, everyone in America will work for the government. That’s the beautiful pop-up.

We’ll all be in the same boat, so we can sail into the great dawn.

I’ve always suspected that government and the State were wondrous miracles…and now the vision is clarifying.

Put us all in charge, working for the Man. And we’re the Man. The logic is inescapable. It’s, what’s the word, equality.

From each according to his mass psychosis, to each according to his mass psychosis.

No one will notice, because we’ll all be crazy in the same way.

Jon Rappoport

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

Taking apart psychiatry: fraud-kings of the mind

Exploding the myth of “good science”

by Jon Rappoport

February 29, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Promoting diabolically false science, psychiatry creates a gateway for defining many separate states of consciousness that don’t exist at all. They’re cheap myths, fairy tales.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

USA Today, January 26, 2016: “Primary care doctors should screen all adults for depression, an expert panel recommended Tuesday.”

—Let’s screen everybody to find out if they have mental disorders. Let’s diagnose as many people as possible with mental disorders and give them toxic drugs—

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 a most 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. 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 Fentress], the structure of a postverdict 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 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’s a coda:

This one is big.

The so-called “chemical-imbalance theory of mental illness is 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.

Dead.

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 cover 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.

Psychiatry is a pseudo-pseudo science.

So the shrinks have 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 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 Aurora, 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 medication. Fight for the right of every parent to refuse medication for his/her child.

power outside the matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Zika: Who launched the fake-epidemic story in Brazil?

Zika: Who launched the fake-epidemic story in Brazil?

Explosive: The invention of an epidemic

by Jon Rappoport

February 7, 2016

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

This is an article that explains a great deal—but, with apologies, it involves a line of reasoning, in order to reach a conclusion. That means some readers (not my regular readers) may find it odd. Some readers with short attention spans may suddenly want to switch to a wrestling show or a shopping network. To them I say: give this a try; it does have a payoff; it has its own kind of shock and surprise; explosions do go off in the mind; it is like a ten-car pile-up on the interstate in the fog, late at night; and there is a very nasty plot.

Out of nowhere, a month ago, we were told there was an outbreak of microcephaly in Brazil: over 4,000 cases of babies born with small heads and brain impairment.

The Brazilian researchers then went in and took a closer look at that figure. They walked it back and said there were, at best, only 404 confirmed cases of microcephaly.

Going from 4,000 cases to 404 cases was a revelation. It means there is no reason to claim, so far, that there is an epidemic of microcephaly.

Then, another stunner. Of the 404 cases, only 17 “had a relationship with the Zika virus.” Therefore, obviously, there was no Zika-causing-microcephaly story, either.

Even in those 17 cases, the mere presence of the Zika virus was no evidence the virus was causing microcephaly in 17 babies. A virus has to be more than “present.” It has to be there in huge numbers in an individual human. And the Brazilian researchers haven’t provided any evidence that Zika was present in huge numbers in any of the 17 babies.

There is more. The whole effort of the researchers was to show, if possible, that Zika was present in all the 404 microcephaly cases. You see, they were doing preliminary work. They were looking for the cause of microcephaly. And when you’re on that kind of hunt, you’re trying to find some factor that is present in most or all cases. Otherwise, it’s not the cause.

The Zika hunting expedition failed miserably. The researchers actually showed that Zika wasn’t the cause.

Let me put it to you this way. 400 tourists staying a hotel fall ill with the same symptoms. Researchers try to find the cause. They propose, as a preliminary idea, that the tourists all ate apple sauce. So they interview the sick tourists, they examine the contents of their stomachs, they talk to kitchen workers—and they discover only 17 of the 400 tourists ate apple sauce. Conclusion? Apple sauce is not the cause of the illness. There is no reason to claim it’s the cause in the 17 people who ate it, either. Apple sauce, as an explanation, is a complete dud.

All right. So we have no evidence that there is a widespread epidemic of microcephaly. And for those cases that do exist, we have no evidence, so far, that Zika virus is the cause.

Given all this, a few new questions naturally arise. How did the notion that Zika virus might be the cause suddenly appear in the first place? And who started the story that there was an epidemic of microcephaly?

Let me take up that second question. Apparently, several doctors at two or three hospitals in Brazil noticed more babies with microcephaly than usual. Their report went to someone at the Brazilian health authority. And then a call went out all over the country asking for reports of cases of microcephaly. Those reports came in. They weren’t necessarily accurate. When the numbers were added up, they came to more than 4000.

Then, researchers began to sift through 3,670 of those reports to see what was actually happening—and so far, they see only 404 cases of microcephaly.

Now let’s look at the first question: who proposed the apple sauce? Who proposed the idea that Zika, a virus known about since 1947, a virus which had never been known to cause more than mild transient illness, a virus surely present in humans all over the planet, was now suddenly wreaking great devastation in babies—deformity, brain damage? Who made that very strange leap?

Here is a clue.

This is a quote from a World Health Organization press release, dated January 28, 2016: “WHO to convene an International Health Regulations Emergency Committee on Zika virus and observed increase in neurological disorders and neonatal malformations”:

“In May 2015, Brazil reported its first case of Zika virus disease. Since then, the disease has spread within Brazil and to 24 other countries in the region.”

This is clearly a deception. The first Zika case in Brazil, for a virus that’s been known about since 1947? In India, Zika has been known about (“Zika Fever”) for a long, long time. Discovering “the first” Zika case in Brazil has some special meaning? As I stated above, it’s well known that the virus causes only mild illness and goes away in a short time. So why would anyone care about a Zika case in Brazil? As for the WHO assertion that Zika has subsequently spread (like an epidemic) throughout Brazil and 24 other countries, this is absurd. It would be like saying, “We discovered a person driving a Volkswagen in Brazil. Since then, the occurrence of people driving Volkswagens had spread across Brazil and 24 other countries.” No, the drivers and the Volkswagens were already there.

Why would researchers at WHO make this fundamental error? Why would they make this preposterous claim?

Part of the reason leads back to a preoccupation with (actually, an obsession with) hunting for viruses. Hunting for them, finding them, and then, based on no solid evidence, claiming they cause various disease-conditions.

I’ll continue with a further quote from the January 28 WHO media release:

“Arrival of the virus in some countries of the Americas, notably Brazil, has been associated with a steep increase in the birth of babies with abnormally small heads… A causal relationship between Zika virus infection and birth defects and neurological syndromes has not been established, but is strongly suspected.”

Notice the use of the phrase, “associated with.” This is not true, as we’ve seen, because the Brazilian researchers have found the Zika virus (or indirect evidence of it) in only 17 of the 404 confirmed cases of microcephaly. There is no association. There is disassociation. Remember, in order to begin to say a particular virus is causing a disease, you must find it in almost all, or all, cases of that condition. What WHO is pointing to, re Zika, doesn’t even begin to approach this standard. And as you can see from the above quote, WHO admits they have established no causal connection between Zika and microcephaly.

Yet WHO has been spearheading the drive to blame Zika and, yes, invent the idea that there is a “spreading epidemic” of Zika. Much of what you’re reading and seeing in the mainstream press about this “epidemic” comes directly out of WHO press releases and director Margaret Chan’s remarks.

WHO is determined to fabricate a viral epidemic and its causal connection to microcephaly.

Here is the final quote I want to highlight from the January 28 WHO media release:

“WHO’s Regional Office for the Americas (PAHO) has been working closely with affected countries since May 2015. PAHO has mobilized staff and members of the Global Outbreak and Response Network (GOARN) to assist ministries of health in strengthening their abilities to detect the arrival and circulation of Zika virus through laboratory testing and rapid reporting. The aim has been to ensure accurate clinical diagnosis and treatment for patients, to track the spread of the virus and the mosquito that carries it, and to promote prevention, especially through mosquito control.”

Notice the date mentioned in the quote—May 2015. That’s when “the first case of Zika” was discovered in Brazil. WHO sent people to the scene immediately. They sent their virus hunters from GOARN, which is the WHO equivalent of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS). The virus hunters. Show them a situation; they will find a virus and make an warranted claim about it and push the story forward.

That’s what they’ve done, against all the counter-evidence. They’ve invented a epidemic that doesn’t exist, blaming it on a virus that has never caused serious illness, and they’ve connected that virus, with no evidence, to microcephaly.

It would be like saying, “There was a 20-car crash on the interstate last night, and three miles away, on a lonely road, a boy was walking with his dog. The boy is the prime suspect. He is ‘associated’ with the car crash. And then, on top of that absurdity, we discover that, on the interstate, we can only find two cars that have collided, not 20.”

But the biggest public-health agency in the world is sticking to its story about the 20-car crash and its “association” with the boy walking his dog.

This does not indicate a mere error. This indicates a fixation. “We must find a virus and claim it is the cause.” It also indicates an intention to fabricate.

All right. We’ve now reached the end of the first part of my argument. Let’s proceed and go to motive.

For that exposition, I rely on the very well-known consequences of WHO making its entirely unwarranted and bogus case: an epidemic can be announced. They (WHO) can claim there is an epidemic caused by a spreading virus.

Follow me here. This is crucial. Merely saying there are some microcephaly cases in Brazil, and they can come from many different causes—since any insult to the developing fetal brain can bring about microcephaly—a toxic drug, a toxic pesticide, the pregnant woman falls down a flight of stairs—merely saying there are some microcephaly cases in Brazil creates no appearance of a contagious epidemic spreading around the world.

For WHO, that’s a non-starter. It goes nowhere. But linking microcephaly to a virus and then “discovering” the virus has “broken out” of its “previous containment in Brazil” and is “traveling around the world” and is “causing microcephaly”—-now WHO is in business.

Constructing these several garish lies and hooking them together achieves multiple objectives. The people at WHO may be crazy, but they aren’t stupid. They understand how much hay they can make through their invention.

With the fairy tale about a galloping virus and its potential to create, in any pregnant woman, brain damage to her developing baby, they have a scary epidemic to run and manage and control. They have work, in the same way a movie director has work with a good script that can sell vs. one that won’t. Their allies can rush to develop a (completely unnecessary) vaccine. When the vaccine is ready (ready to make large profits), WHO can run that operation, too, by issuing all sorts of alerts about the need to get vaccinated. WHO can also issue “health directives” about “prevention” to every national government on Earth, thus cementing its superior role as a leading planetary command-post.

power outside the matrix

In past articles, I’ve examined destructive agendas coalescing around multiple factors: toxic vaccines; the promotion and induction of illness; “the virus” as a cover story invoked to protect, for example, mega-corporations that poison populations with pesticides; the in-utero-to-cradle-to-grave system of toxic medical care, and so on. In this article, I just want to show how the invention of an epidemic occurs, how it’s done. How it’s put together.

This is one aspect of the medical Matrix right in front of your eyes: the twisting and curling and distorting and forcing of disparate data into one coordinated scenario that, on analysis, completely falls apart.

Let me give it to you in one boiled-down imaginary quote:

“Okay, boys, this is what we have. Some cases of microcephaly in Brazil. Not many confirmed cases. So, first thing, we have to blow that number up. Get rolling on that. Next, we have this harmless dud of a virus, Zika, which we can find in all sorts of people anywhere in the world. It means nothing, of course, but we’re going to make it mean something. We’re going to claim it causes microcephaly. Wow. Even I’m blown away by the sheer audacity of that. Once we make this spurious connection, we can say women all over the planet are at risk. We can say the virus is spreading and we can confirm that through testing— because, as we know, it’s already there. It’s been there forever. Anywhere. Everywhere. And we say, you see, this virus that causes a horrible birth defect is spreading and popping up in a dozen, 20, 40, 70 countries. Now we’re in business. We potentially have the fight-or-flight mechanism of the whole planet under our control. That’s our goal. Let’s get to work and see how far we can take this Good Battles Evil fairy tale. Remember, we’re the Good. People need to be controlled. Otherwise, who knows what they might do? We do the controlling.”

Indeed.

Jon Rappoport

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

Official science: the grand illusion

Official science: the grand illusion

by Jon Rappoport

January 14, 2016

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

“Government science exists because it is a fine weapon to use, in order to force an agenda of control over the population. We aren’t talking about knowledge here. Knowledge is irrelevant. What counts is: ‘How can we fabricate something that looks like the truth?’ I keep pointing this out: we’re dealing with reality builders. In this case, they make their roads and fences out of data, and they massage and invent the data out of thin air to suit their purposes. After all, they also invent money out of thin air.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Introduction: Since 1987, one of my goals as a reporter has been to educate the public about false science.

Between then and now, I have found that, with remarkably few exceptions, mainstream reporters are studiously indifferent to false science.

They shy away from it. They pretend “it couldn’t be.” They refuse to consider facts. They and their editors parrot “the experts.”

Official science has a stranglehold on major media. It has the force of a State religion. When you stop and think about it, official science is, in a significant sense, a holy church. Therefore, it is no surprise that the church’s spokespeople would wield power over major information outlets.

These prelates invent, guard, and dispense “what is known.” That was precisely the role of the Roman Church in times past. And those professionals within the modern Church of Science are severely punished when they leave the fold and accuse their former masters of lies and crimes. They are blackballed, discredited, and stripped of their licenses. At the very least.

Totalitarian science lets you know you’re living in a totalitarian society.

The government, the press, the mega-corporations, the prestigious foundations, the academic institutions, the “humanitarian” organizations say:

“This is the disease. This is its name. This is what causes it. This is the drug that treats it. This is the vaccine that prevents it.”

“This is how accurate diagnosis is done. These are the tests. These are the possible results and what they mean.”

“Here are the genes. This is what they do. This is how they can be changed and substituted and manipulated. These are the outcomes.”

“These are the data and the statistics. They are correct. There can be no argument about them.”

“This is life. These are the components of life. All change and improvement result from our management of the components.”

“This is the path. It is governed by truth which our science reveals. Walk the path. We will inform you when you stray. We will report new improvements.”

“This is the end. You can go no farther. You must give up the ghost. We will remember you.”

We are now witnessing the acceleration of Official Science. Of course, that term is an internal contradiction. But the State shrugs and moves forward.

The notion that the State can put its seal on favored science, enforce it, and punish its competitors, is anathema to a free society.

For example: declaring that psychiatrists can appear in court as expert witnesses, when none of the so-called mental disorders listed in the psychiatric literature are diagnosed by laboratory tests.

For example: stating that vaccination is mandatory, in order to protect the vaccinated (who are supposed to be immune) from the unvaccinated. An absurdity on its face.

For example: announcing that the science of climate change is “settled,” when there are, in fact, huge numbers of researchers who disagree. —And then, drafting legislation and issuing executive orders based on the decidedly unsettled science.

For example: officially approving the release and sale of medical drugs (“safe and effective”) which go on to kill, at a conservative estimate, 100,000 Americans every year. And then refusing to investigate or punish the purveyors of these drug approvals (the FDA).

For example: permitting the widespread use of genetically modified food crops, based on no long-term studies of their impact on human health. And then, arbitrarily announcing that the herbicide, Roundup, for which many of these crops are specifically designed, is non-toxic.

For example: declaring and promoting the existence of various epidemics, when the viruses purportedly causing them are not proven to exist and/or not proven to cause human illness (Ebola, SARS, West Nile, Swine Flu, etc.)

A few of you reading this have been with me since 1988, when I published my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century. Among other conclusions, I pointed out that HIV had never been shown to cause human illness; the front-line drug given to AIDS patients, AZT, was overwhelmingly toxic; and what was being called AIDS was actually a diverse number immune-suppressing conditions.

Others of you have found my work more recently. I always return to the subject of false science, because it is the most powerful long-term instrument for repression, political control, and destruction of human life.

As I’ve stated on many occasions, medical science is ideal for mounting and launching covert ops aimed at populations—because it appears to be politically neutral, without any allegiance to State interests.

Unfortunately, medical science, on many fronts, has been hijacked and taken over. The profit motive is one objective, but beyond that, there is a more embracing goal:

Totalitarian control.

On the issue of vaccines, I’ve written much about their dangers and ineffectiveness. But also consider this: the push for mandatory vaccination goes a long way toward creating a herd effect—which is really a social construction.

In other words, parents are propagandized to think of themselves a kind of synthetic artificial “community.”

“Here we are. We are the fathers and mothers. We must all protect our children against the outliers, the rebels, the defectors, the crazy ones who refuse to vaccinate their own children. We are all in this together. They are the threat. The enemy. We are good. We know the truth. They are evil.”

This “community of the willing” are dedicated to what the government tells them. They are crusaders imbued with group-think. They run around promoting “safety and protection.” This group consciousness is entirely an artifact, propelled by “official science.”

The crusaders are, in effect, agents of the State.

They are created by the State.

Androids.

They live in an absurd Twilight Zone where fear of germs (the tiny invisible terrorists) demands coercive action against the individuals who see through the whole illusion.

This is what official science can achieve. This is how it can enlist obedient foot soldiers and spies who don’t have the faintest idea about how they’re being used.

This is a variant on Orwell’s 1984. The citizens are owned by the all-embracing State, but they aren’t even aware of it.

That’s quite a trick.

power outside the matrix

One of my favorite examples of double-think or reverse-think is the antibody test. It is given to diagnosis diseases. Antibodies are immune-system scouts sent out to identify germ-intruders, which can then be wiped out by other immune-system troops.

Prior to 1985, the prevailing view of a positive test was: the patient is doing well; his body detected the germ and dispensed with it. After 1985, the view was suddenly: this is bad news; the patient is sick or he is on the verge of getting sick; he has the germ in his body; it does harm.

Within the medical community, no one (with very few exceptions) raised hell over this massive switch. It was accepted. It was actually good for business. Now, many more people could be labeled “needs treatment,” whereas before, they would have been labeled “healthy.”

While I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in 1987-8, I wrote the FDA asking about a possible AIDS vaccine. I was told the following: every person given such a vaccine would, of course, produce antibodies against HIV. That is the whole purpose of a vaccine: to produce antibodies.

However, I was informed, patients receiving this vaccine would be given a letter to carry with them, in case they were ever tested for HIV and came up positive. The letter would explain that the antibodies causing the positive test were the result of the vaccine, not the result of “natural” action inside the patient’s body.

In other words, the very same antibodies were either protective against AIDS (good) or indicative of deadly disease (bad).

This was the contradictory and ridiculous and extraordinary pronouncement of official science.

It carries over into every disease for which an antibody test is administered. If a vaccine against disease X is given, it delivers immunity, because it produces antibodies. But if a diagnostic test for disease X reveals the presence of the same antibodies, this is taken a sign of illness.

Extrapolated to a more general level, the Word is: synthetic medical treatment is good; the action of the body to heal itself is incompetent.

This is a type of superstition that would astonish even the most “primitive” societies.

It no longer astonishes me. I see it everywhere in official science.

From the medical establishment’s point of view, being alive is a medical condition.

We are now living in a society where an incurable itch to meddle everywhere and at all times is the standard.

A new definition of Reality emerges: “that which needs to be monitored and surveilled.”

Jon Rappoport

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

Dear WaPo: I’ve got some ‘fringe’ for you right here

Dear WaPo: I’ve got some ‘fringe’ for you right here

Washington Post whines: ‘fringe’ news entering mainstream

by Jon Rappoport

December 14, 2015

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

It’s a terrible thing. Really. The pure and sanctified blood of mainstream news is now infected. Where is the protective vaccine? Quick, call the CDC.

Washington Post, December 11, Paul Farhi, “Thanks to Trump, fringe news enters the mainstream”:

“Trump finding common ground with [Alex] Jones is in keeping with Trump’s own rocky relationship with facts and credible information during the campaign. Many of Trump’s more controversial assertions since he declared for president have come from the murky swamp of right-wing, libertarian and flat-out paranoid sources that have proliferated and thrived as the Internet and social media have grown.”

Got it? The germs are multiplying.

Even the Washington Post, center of all that is good and right and true and holy about the news, is under siege. What can be done to protect WaPo from The Fringe? Is it time for Bob Woodward to write a new book? Do they need surgical masks? Hazmat suits? Should they flee underground and turn the whole operation into a level 4 virus lab with steel vaults and air seals?

Well, dear WaPo, I have a piece of fringe for you. I know you need more readers, and this is a killer. Literally. If you set your hounds loose on it for six months or so, you’ll drag out some of the most explosive material you’ve ever seen, and you’ll be able to print two editions a day. Readers’ll fight with each other to grab issues of the paper off the stands. Watergate? Bill and Monica? Sunday picnics compared with what I’m offering you. And it’s definitely fringe, because you and other mainstream outlets have never covered it with any emphasis. Ready?

The US medical system kills 225,000 people a year. That’s 225,000. Which means 2.25 million killings per decade.

Put that up against wars, so-called epidemics, terror attacks, car accidents, Trump, libertarians, Jones, paranoid right-wingers.

Source number 1:

July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Association, “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, respected and revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Starfield broke it down this way:

106,000 deaths per year from the effects of FDA approved medical drugs, and 119,000 deaths from mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Annual total? 225,000 medically caused deaths in the US.

Source number 2:

BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012;344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. “Anticoagulants cause the most serious adverse events, finds US analysis”

Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices:

“It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

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

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

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

But wait—source number 3:

A page on the FDA’s own website, which you can access by going to startpage.com and searching for “Why Learn about Adverse [Medical] Drug Events (ADRs)”.

The quote (caps are not mine, they’re the FDA’s):

“Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly/100,000 DEATHS yearly/ADRs 4th leading cause of death ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents and automobile deaths.”

Source number 4:

The following quotes come from the ASA [American Sociological Association] publication called Footnotes, in its November 2014 issue. The article is “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author of the article is Donald W Light.

Donald W Light is a professor of medical and economic sociology. He is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine.

“…appropriately prescribed prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death…About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the US and Europe.

“They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more [6.6 million per year] hospitalizations, as well as falls, road accidents, and about 80 million [per year] medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others.

“Deaths from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.”

Source number 5:

A 2009 email interview I did with the above-mentioned Dr. Barbara Starfield. Here are a few excerpts:

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

BS: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency)…

JR: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the effects of the US medical system?

BS: NO.

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

BS: Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

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

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

—end interview excerpt—

Dear Wa Po, consider these gifts. Your leads. You can take off from here. You can suck it up and incorporate a piece of fringe and make it go mainstream, and in the process, if you handle it well, set your reporters loose to drag out every doctor and medical bureaucrat who knows the truth but has been hiding it, you’ll have the biggest story in your history. By far.

106,000 annual deaths in the US from FDA approved medicines. 225,000 annual deaths from the overall practice of mainstream medicine in the US. That’s 2.25 million deaths per decade. 2.25 MILLION.

power outside the matrix

Wait. What’s that, WaPo? You don’t want to cover this story with breaking updates every two days for a year? You don’t want to expose the US medical system? You don’t want to show how bringing more Americans under the umbrella of Obamacare automatically ups the number of deaths? You don’t want to bring in more readers than you’ve ever had? You don’t want to blast this story in front-page headlines? You don’t want to take something from the fringe? You don’t want to?

Well, in that case, I guess we’d know where you stand.

It isn’t the fringe that bothers you, it’s the truth.

I don’t blame you. With an operation like yours, you need protection from the truth on so many levels. You do need masks and air filters and steel vaults and seals. And you need drug-ad money. You need continued access to lying official sources, who would drop you in a second if you dove in and worked this fringe story. I get it. I really do.

You have no courage. You have no guts. You’re sick and dying on the vine.

That happens to institutions. They think they’re forever, but when they abandon whatever ideals they’re supposed to have, they disintegrate.

Some funerals are quick affairs. A half-hour and they’re done. Others, like yours, are marathons. They drone on for years, decades.

I’m not attending yours. Never liked zombie events.

But just in case somebody at your paper still has genuine curiosity and balls, I can be contacted.

I’m here, on the fringe.

Jon Rappoport

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

The psychiatric matrix creates the politically correct victim

The psychiatric matrix creates the politically correct victim

by Jon Rappoport

December 4, 2015

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

“Individual [Harvard law] students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.” (Jeannie Suk, The New Yorker, 12/15/14)

“When you have medical services at colleges all over the country making psychiatric diagnoses and dispensing drugs, day in and day out, what do you suppose is going to happen to those students? They’re going to wear their mental-disorder labels like badges, and they’re going to think of themselves as vulnerable, and they’re going to look for new ways to prove how vulnerable they are. They’re going to say that hearing certain words can cause them to go into a tailspin…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

The current official list of mental disorders hovers at 300. That’s 300—separately defined, treatable, and covered by insurance plans.

On a cultural level, this means the population is being tuned to the idea that they are vulnerable and at high risk. The right trigger at the right moment, a slight change in brain-chemical balance, and there it is: a disorder, with a title, a professional diagnosis, and the need for treatment.

This cultural programming—no surprise—has been a major factor in influencing people to believe they are victims. The obsessive focus on politically correct words that could offend and traumatize is, in reality, an extension of the psychiatric matrix.

A cascade of propaganda has been unleashed around the notion that people are helpless; they can’t rise above “triggering”; they must be attended to and given special consideration, even if their needs interfere with the interests of those who aren’t affected by “insensitive language.”

Hordes of little worker ants are busy digging out new words and expressions that could conceivably disturb the equilibrium of cherished victims. Soon, no doubt, we will learn that “a,” “an,” and “the” carry little violent packages of emotional electricity.

So let’s take a brief tour of the root: psychiatry, in all its glory.

In 2012, the Psychiatric Times reported that the latest edition of the bible of mental disorders, the DSM-V, would make grief a mental disorder.

Specifically, a parent who deeply mourns the loss of a child for more than two weeks would rate a diagnosis of clinical depression (and of course, drugging with one of the toxic SSRI antidepressants.)

This absurdity was even too much for some psychiatrists, and they rebelled. But the “experts” who were assembling the DSM-V didn’t care.

Well, of course not; there is a lot of money to be made by prescribing more drugs, in this case, to grieving parents.

The Psychiatric Times‘ editorial attacking this lunatic classification of grief-as-disease was written by none other than Dr. Allen Frances.

My readers will remember my article about the good doctor. He is the man who was in charge of assembling the previous DSM-IV. His team expanded the definitions of ADHD and Bipolar, so that many more people would be dosed with toxic and destructive drugs like Valproate, Lithium, and Ritalin.

Yet Dr. Frances, in a December 2010 Wired interview (“Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness”), stated:

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

He actually said it.

What lies below this psychiatric lunacy is an entire industrial complex. It’s dedicated to brainwashing the public into accepting the notion of discrete and real mental disorders.

Yes, people have problems, they become frustrated and confused, they suffer, but the act of carving up behavior and thought into diseases is a way of a) expanding business and b) extending the overall matrix.

More and more, as a result of relentless PR, the public believes there are a whole host of mental disorders that not only intrude on their lives but require pharmaceutical treatment.

The public believes they are victimized by these diseases and can alleviate them only through drugs.

The public believes it is “humane” to accept the existence of these diseases, and we must all join together to “remove the stigma of diagnosis.”

The public believes they are at the mercy of arbitrary shifts of brain chemistry that bring on these diseases.

The public believes, therefore, that life itself is limited by the potential onset of “psychiatric illness.”

The public believes we’re all, to one degree or another, disabled.

The public believes what they’re told to believe. Therefore, the fictitious existence of discrete mental disorders becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Matrix op called psychiatry provides a focal point, around which are woven many strands of propaganda. The overall objective? A future world that resembles, to a remarkable degree, a Universal Hospital, in which the population, granted “free” care, lives through dozens of diagnoses of diseases and disorders, with (toxic) treatments—from cradle to grave. The eternal patient.

Psychiatry seeks to gain control and domination over the entire area of human behavior, through classification by labels and bogus claims of diagnosis.

Here is the kicker: There are no definitive chemical or biological tests for any so-called mental disorder.

This fact is stunning to people. They automatically assume psychiatry is a science. It isn’t. It’s a shell game.

I refer now to the PBS FRONTLINE presentation, “Does ADHD Exist?” A quite revealing exchange occurs between the interviewer and Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center.

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.

Yes, that does make them invalid. All of them.

Of course, if you want to make science into guesswork and empty promises and speculation and tea-leaf reading, have at it. Privately, and preferably on a desert island.

Go to a library and pick up the DSM-V. Search through it for one defining laboratory test for any mental disorder. See for yourself. There isn’t any such test.

Yet, on this unscientific basis, psychiatry and its allies have managed to transform society. They’ve staged an extraordinarily successful revolution over the past 50 years.

And now, on several branches of that tree, we are seeing the poisonous fruition of a cultural correctness that seeks to encircle freedom.

It will lose. It has already begun to lose. This political-correctness extension of psychiatric gibberish is sowing the seeds of its own destruction because it has gone too far. It has taken its “lessons” too seriously and made a circus, a parade of buffoonery out of its mission.

People with eyes to see will also notice that carving up real human suffering into 300 fictitious mental disorders is far more preposterous.

Language is an important tool of political control, particularly in the form of labels. Five decades of assigning labels to people’s brains and minds have an effect. Feedback loops are created. People invent “information” that confirms the label that is given to them.

Now we are talking about real triggers. The names of mental disorders are a form of hypnosis, in which the patient supplies most of the trance. He defines himself as he is “supposed to.”

Combatting the psychiatric dumb-show will be a lot harder than sweeping away the political-correctness language police. Psychiatry has the official imprimatur of governments, courts, school systems, university departments, and even the military.

Big Pharma sits behind it all, financing the institution of psychiatry and selling the drugs.

power outside the matrix

However, the individual can liberate himself from the whole nexus through insight. He can discover the truth about this pseudoscience. In separating himself from it, he gains separation from one of the most formidable networks that spans a society increasingly built on mind control.

Coda: In the last five years, psychiatric care has become one of the go-to fairy tales, whenever a mass shooting (not linked to terrorism) takes place. “If only the disturbed man had been spotted earlier and treated…” Indeed, Obama, who knows as much about “mental-health” as a deer knows about piloting a space ship, issued an order, after Sandy Hook, to create psychiatric community clinics all across America. This solution will actually increase the murder rate, because it just so happens that the most popular class of antidepressants (e,g., Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft) can and does push patients over the edge into violence, including suicide and homicide. Psychiatry is a Johnny-apple-seed operation for otherwise inexplicable and random killings.

Jon Rappoport

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