The MERS virus: been down this road before?

by Jon Rappoport

May 3, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

We are told the first MERS virus case has now arrived in the US. The CDC and the World Health Organization have a new potential pandemic to hype.

As I’ve documented in past articles, we’ve been down this road before. Swine Flu, West Nile, Bird Flu, SARS. All duds. All hyped to the sky…and then the case numbers are miniscule.

You could take all the deaths from these “epidemics” and put them in one small footnote of the assessment that, every year, between 300,000 and 500,000 people around the world die from ordinary regular seasonal flu.

Yes, seasonal flu, about which there is no hype.

But even, you see, with regular seasonal flu, there are gigantic lies.

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which spelled out a massive delusion, and created tremors throughout the halls of the CDC.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report:

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

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

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


power outside the matrix


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

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

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

This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure. However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

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

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

Press outlets are now reporting that the MERS virus has caused 401 cases of illness in the whole world, and 93 deaths. On this basis, the pandemic hype is beginning. Again.

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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Aftershocks from my interview with Sharyl Attkisson

by Jon Rappoport

April 26, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

The ripples don’t stop. Attkisson was on to something huge at CBS, when she covered the CDC’s lies re the Swine Flu “pandemic.”

When an epidemic is promoted by governments and public health organizations, it’s an absolute disaster for them if their work is exposed as a fraud.

Much of the public believes in the medical cartel, as devotees do when they belong to a Church.

The scale of the CDC’s lies re Swine Flu, when exposed, would be on the order of a bishop saying, “You know that holy document we’ve been telling you about? It’s a fake. It never existed. We made it up.”

So here, once again, is the key question and answer from my interview with Sharyl Attkisson:

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

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

Do you get it? Attkisson is saying that, while at CBS, she had made Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests, and came up with evidence that the CDC had been lying about Swine Flu from the early days. They knew that almost all the purported cases had no kind of flu at all.

But they buried that knowledge. They continued to frighten the public and insist on the use of an experimental flu vaccine.

Attkisson goes on to say that her story was vetted, checked, and ready to go, for broadcast, on the news…and then it was killed. CBS wouldn’t air it.

So she wrote it for the CBS website, where it was published in October of 2009—with much less fanfare and exposure.

Her website piece explained that a) the CDC stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America in July of 2009, at the so-called height of the epidemic, and b) all 50 states were sending their counts of Swine Flu cases to the CDC, prior to the stop-order—that’s, in fact, how the CDC gathered its data on Swine Flu. The individual states handed over the data.

Attkisson: “…we asked all 50 states for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 [Swine Flu] prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July. The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico.” (CBS News, Oct. 21, 2009, “Swine Flu cases overestimated?”)

That was the core of the scandal. The CDC, all along, had been getting these reports from the states showing that the vast numbers of presumed Swine Flu cases had no Swine Flu—but the CDC didn’t make that fact public. Eventually, they stopped counting cases, in order to hide the truth.

Attkisson had wanted the content of her print article for CBS to air on its national news telecast, where it would gain much more exposure—and ignite a firestorm.

That never happened. She was shut down.

Do you want the staggering capper on this foul tale? Roughly three weeks after Attkisson’s Swine Flu revelations appeared in print, the CDC, obviously in great distress over the exposure, decided to double down. The best lie to tell would be a huge lie.

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

22 million cases of Swine Flu in America. Roughly 1 out every 15 Americans came down with Swine Flu. What??

The CDC, which had stopped counting cases, because there were so few, because the vast majority of samples from suspected patients came back negative, with no sign of any kind of flu, suddenly says: 22 million American cases.

Can you imagine what would have happened had Attkisson’s story been trumpeted on the CBS Evening News? The CDC would have come back and said: new discovery: all Americans have Swine Flu from birth. This year of 2009, it was activated by comets passing the sun. And solar flares. And Martians coming here on vacation to watch the NFL Pro Bowl.


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.

GMO plants, GMO people, and cancer

GMO plants, GMO people, and cancer

by Jon Rappoport

April 22, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

There is an extraordinary parallel between what biotech corporations are doing with food plants, and what cancer researchers are trying to do with humans.

The comparison is not only instructive, it reveals what the future holds.

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

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

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

This futile gene-fix has a parallel in food crops: modify the genes of plants so they can grow despite drenching them with toxic pesticides. However, massive GMO crop failures and reduced nutritive value of such crops are two reasons why the gene model fails.

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

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

There is no reason under the sun to believe this.

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

Preposterous.

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

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

I made these points during a Coast to Coast AM radio interview last week, and I make them here again, because major media news outlets are silent; they are part of the cancer industry and are beholden to the cancer-causing corporations that buy huge blocks of commercials.

In the so-called cancer research community, scientists can spin their wheels and obtain grant monies to do experiments with genes and mice and cell lines forever and never emerge with results that save lives.

These scientists and their corporate masters can herald minor tumor reductions.

But nothing changes. The war on cancer is a war on people.

Think about it: “Look, we can alter the gene structure of food plants. Then we can hit those plants with huge amounts of toxic chemicals (pesticides and herbicides) and the plants will still grow. So let’s do this with humans. Alter their gene structure so all the cancer-causing chemicals in the environment won’t have any effect. It’s brilliant.”

No. It’s insane.

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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

GMO plants, GMO people

GMO plants, GMO people, and cancer

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

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

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

This futile gene-fix has a parallel in food crops: genetically modify plants so they can grow despite drenching them with toxic pesticides. However, massive GMO crop failures and reduced nutritive value of such crops are two reasons why the gene model fails.

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

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

There is no reason under the sun to believe this.

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

Preposterous.

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


power outside the matrix


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

I made these points during a Coast to Coast AM radio interview last Sunday, and I make them here again, because major media news outlets are silent; they are part of the cancer industry and are beholden to the cancer-causing corporations that buy huge blocks of commercials.

In the so-called research community, scientists can spin their wheels and obtain grant monies to do experiments with genes and mice and cell lines forever and never emerge with results that will save lives.

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

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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Shocker: comparing deaths from medical drugs, vitamins, all US wars

Shocker: Comparing deaths from medical drugs, vitamins, all US wars

by Jon Rappoport

March 29, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

People want to believe medical science gives us, at any given moment, the best of all possible worlds.

And of course, the best of all possible worlds must have its enemies: the quacks who sell unproven snake oil.

So let’s look at some facts.

As I’ve been documenting for years, the medical cartel has been engaged in massive criminal fraud, presenting their drugs as safe and effective across the board—when, in fact, these drugs have been killing and maiming huge numbers of people, like clockwork.

I’ve cited the review, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”, by Dr. Barbara Starfied (Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000), in which Starfield reveals the American medical system kills 225,000 people per year—106,000 as a direct result of pharmaceutical drugs.

I’ve now found another study, published in the same Journal, two years earlier: April 15, 1998; “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.” It, too, is mind-boggling.

The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate:

Every year, in the US, between 76,000 and 137,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs.

Beyond that, every year 2.2 million hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs.

The authors write: “…Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and and administered.”

So this study had nothing to do with doctor errors, nurse errors, or improper combining of drugs. And it only counted people killed who were admitted to hospitals. It didn’t begin to tally all the people taking pharmaceuticals who died as consequence of the drugs, without being admitted to hospitals.

I found the link to this study at the Dr. Rath Health Foundation, in the middle of a very interesting article by Dr. Aleksandra Niedzwiecki: “Commentary on the Safety of Vitamins.”

Here are two key quotes from her article:

“In 2010, not one single person [in the US] died as a result of taking vitamins (Bronstein, et al, (2011) Clinical Toxical, 49 (10), 910-941).”

“In 2004, the deaths of 3 people [in the US] were attributed to the intake of vitamins. Of these, 2 persons were said to have died as a result of megadoses of vitamins D and E, and one person as a result of an overdose of iron and fluoride. Data from: ‘Toxic Exposure Surveillance System 2004, Annual Report, Am. Assoc. of Poison Control Centers.’”


The Matrix Revealed


Summing up:

No deaths from vitamins (2010), and three deaths (2004) from vitamins/iron/fluoride.

106,000 deaths every year from pharmaceutical drugs (Starfield).

Between 76,000 and 137,000 deaths from pharmaceutical drugs every year in hospitalized patients (Lazerou).

The FDA and its “quack-buster” allies go after vitamins, demean “unproven remedies,” and generally take every possible opportunity to warn people about “alternatives,” on the basis that they aren’t scientifically supported.

Meanwhile, the very drugs these mobsters are promoting, and certifying as safe and effective, are killing and maiming people at a staggering rate.

The masses are treated to non-stop PR on the glories of the US medical system.

In the Wikipedia entry, “US military casualties of war,” the grand total of all military deaths in the history of this country, starting with the Revolutionary War, is 1,312,612.

In any given 10 years of modern medical treatment? 2,250,000 deaths (Starfield).

Consider how much suppression is necessary to keep the latter number under wraps.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

The Starfield lightning bolt: medical killers

The Starfield lightning bolt: medical killers

by Jon Rappoport

March 20, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

From time to time, I reprint my interview with Dr. Barbara Starfield. Each time I try to write a new introduction.

On July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published Starfield’s review, “Is US health really the best in the world?”

In it, Starfield, who was a respected public health expert working at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, stated that:

The US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.

106,000 deaths per year from FDA-approved medical drugs.

119,000 deaths per year from error-ridden treatment in hospitals.

I’m aware that independent research puts those death figures much higher, but I focus on Dr. Starfield’s work because no mainstream reporter or government official could challenge her credentials or the credentials of the journal that published her findings.

And yes, there were stories in the press at the time, in 2000. But the coverage wasn’t aggressive, and it faded out quickly.

And none of the mainstream coverage did the obvious extrapolations. For example, we are talking about 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade. And over a MILLION deaths from medicines the FDA has approved as safe and effective.

Based on my long knowledge of mainstream reporters, I would make these estimates. 70% of them weren’t even aware of the significance of Starfield’s findings. That is, they were oblivious. The human toll didn’t register in their minds.

25% were aware Dr. Starfield had discovered shocking facts, but they didn’t believe the story had “legs.” They assumed it wouldn’t make a big splash.

5% saw how huge the story could become, if it were assigned as an ongoing investigation, like Watergate. But they knew their editors wouldn’t permit that, because among other reasons, their newspapers and television outlets were heavily dependent on pharmaceutical advertising dollars.

So the story died.

Several reporters I contacted came back with this reply: the US government must not be aware of the Starfield report. As if that matters.

But, in fact, the US government is aware. You can search for an FDA page titled, “Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs)?” As of an hour ago, the page is available.

It states: “Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly.” And “100,000 DEATHS yearly.” (The capital letters are the FDA’s, not mine.)

The FDA, of course, is the single federal agency responsible for certifying all medical drugs both safe and effective before they are released for public use. They readily admit the human death and maiming devastation…but take no responsibility for it.


The Matrix Revealed


On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here are excerpts from that interview.

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

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?

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).

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

NO.

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?

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 [of its new drugs]—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.)

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

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?

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

What was your personal reaction when you reached the conclusion that the US medical system was the third leading cause of death in the US?

I had previously done studies on international comparisons and knew that there were serious deficits in the US health care system, most notably in lack of universal coverage and a very poor primary care infrastructure. So I wasn’t surprised.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Welcome to the medical Matrix: the flu isn’t the flu

by Jon Rappoport

March 18, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

There are many propaganda operations surrounding the flu. Here I just want to boil down a few boggling facts.

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

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

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

So they don’t have the flu.

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

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Actually, most flu cases are “bacteria cases,” “fungal cases,” or “pollution cases,” or “tainted food” cases, or “eating GMO cases,” or “weak immune system” cases, or something else. But they aren’t the flu.

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

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

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

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

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.

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

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report:

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

Boom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Matrix Revealed

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


In 2009, Sharyl Attkisson (CBS News) discovered that the CDC had stopped counting the number of Swine Flu cases in America.

The CDC had stopped counting, because their tests on diagnosed flu patients showed so many who didn’t have the flu virus, who didn’t have the flu at all.

Atkisson’s reporting was explosive. It was threatening to expose the whole flu psyop. What would happen if it became common knowledge that most people diagnosed with the flu don’t have the flu? What would happened to the campaigns to get people to take flu vaccines?

What would happen if it became common knowledge that absurdly few people die from the flu?

Attkisson was muzzled. And the CDC doubled down and suddenly claimed there were undoubtedly TENS OF MILLIONS cases of Swine Flu in the US. This, after only several thousand cases had been reported.

This is on the order of saying a a dry creek-bed in the woods is actually the Mississippi River.

There’s much, much more to say about the flu. But this gives you a few basics that underlie the false reality painted for the public.

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.

“Reality star” doesn’t vaccinate her kids: the world ends

“Reality star” doesn’t vaccinate her kids: the world ends

by Jon Rappoport

March 17, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Need to up your blood pressure? Watch talking TV heads wax eloquent on medical subjects.

Someone somewhere says she isn’t vaccinating her kids? Boom. The talking heads go to work.

Oh my God! That’s terrible! This mother obviously doesn’t care about her children and the safety of other children!”

The thing is, the talking TV heads know as much about vaccines as a dead duck on Jupiter knows. Nothing. They seem to occupy a position of authority owing to the fact that they’re on television. And that’s it.

As for the venal doctors the talking heads bring on to back them up, there is a different bottom line: these doctors won’t engage in a real protracted public debate about vaccines. They’ll just pontificate like aristocrat-nobles talking down to their serfs.

It’s all a charade.

So now we have the case of “reality star,” Kristin Cavallari, who told the host of the FOX show, The Independents, that she and her husband, Chicago Bears quarterback, Jay Cutler, don’t vaccinate their kids.

Uproar. Then the Chicago Tribune goes out and grabs an expert to comment on this threat to the future of the human race and the solar system.

Any association between vaccines and autism has long been disproven,” said Dr. Kenneth Alexander, chief of the section of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Chicago. “Her [Cavallari’s] words are dangerous, will result in the under-immunization of children, and an increase in morbidity and mortality due to vaccine preventable diseases.”


Studies proved there was no link between vaccines and autism? Nonsense.

First of all, autism doesn’t have a definitive physical diagnostic test. The diagnosis is done using a menus of behaviors, period.

Second, you work a shell game with studies. I’ll give you the simplest version of the con. You assume, based on no proof, that autism is a distinct condition with one and only one cause. Then you demonstrate that some children who have never had vaccines, or never had mercury with their vaccines, have been diagnosed with autism.

Therefore, you conclude, vaccines (or vaccines containing mercury) couldn’t be the cause of autism.


The Matrix Revealed


But if you take a much more correct and honest position, you acknowledge you’re not just talking about “autism,” you’re talking about a whole host of various neurological effects of vaccines on young brains and nervous systems. You don’t need labels for that.

Then you list the toxic ingredients in vaccines. Ingredients that could and do certainly cause very negative neurological problems, when injected directly into the body:

Mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum, Polysorbate 80, yeast extract/MSG, to name a few. And don’t forget incidental germs that aren’t supposed to be in the vaccines, but arrive there through contamination.

It’s easy to show the reality when you set aside the deceptive disease labels.

As for Dr. Alexander’s other claim, that under-immunization increases illness and death, we’ll save that subject for the 20-hour public debate on the Net. He’ll bring his experts and I’ll bring mine.

Contact me at your earliest convenience, Doc. I’m ready to go.

What’s that? You’re too busy to stoop down and engage in honest argument? What a shock.

As a sidelight, I was also hoping to engage you on the murderous effects of pharmaceuticals in America. 106,000 deaths per year, from FDA-approved medicines. (See Dr. Barbara Starfield, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”). That’s over a million deaths per decade, Doc.

So let me know when you’re not too busy. It’ll be interesting.

I’ll probably end up dragging the whole stench-ridden corrupt corpse of modern medicine into the light, for public viewing. But that’s just me. You can do whatever you want to.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

How doctors make fake diagnoses for diseases

How doctors make fake diagnoses for diseases

by Jon Rappoport

March 17, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

I never grow tired of explaining this issue, because people write to me with the assumption that they understand disease diagnosis. And they don’t. They’re not off by a little bit. They’re off by a mile.

Two of the most prevalent tests for diagnosing diseases are antibody tests and what’s called the PCR.

Prior to 1984, it was well understood by most doctors that the presence of antibodies specific to a given germ meant: the patient’s body had contacted and successfully thrown off the germ.

Antibodies are scouts for the immune system. They “go hunting” for germ invaders and ID them, so other troops can knock them out. That’s the conventional view.

Therefore, if a test shows that antibodies are present, it’s taken to mean: victory. The body IDed and rejected the germ in question.

That view was turned upside down in the mid-1980s. All of a sudden, the presence of antibodies meant: the patient was ill or would get ill.

Actually, the presence of antibodies simply indicates that the body’s immune system contacted the germ in question. That’s all it means.

To say that a positive antibody test means a patient has a certain disease is fatuous, wrong, and absurd. Yet, that is what doctors do every day.


The PCR diagnostic test takes tiny genetic fragments of what are assumed (but not always proven) to be germs and enlarges them, amplifies them, so they can be observed.

That very fact tells you why the test is useless for diagnosing disease. Even by conventional medical standards, you need lots and lots and lots of a given germ in the body to even begin to assume the germ is causing the patient any harm.

And the PCR test is based on the idea that there is so little of the germ available that you need to enlarge it fantastically, just to be able to see it.


The Matrix Revealed


There is a medical term that refers to the quantity of a given germ in the body: titer. It is usually ignored in today’s medical “science.” But it is vital.

Saying a germ is present in the body is irrelevant to disease, unless you can show there are lots and lots of that germ doing harm.

When researchers say, “We found germ X in the patient,” people tend to assume that means the germ is causing disease, but this isn’t necessarily so.

When researchers are trying to discover whether there is a new disease they haven’t seen before, they must isolate the previously unknown germ as the first step. This isn’t done indirectly by antibody or PCR test.

For example, in my last article about hepatitis C, I mentioned Nick Regush, the late ABC News medical reporter, and his discovery that the so-called virus reputed to cause hepatitis C had never been properly isolated.

Not properly isolated=never really discovered.

Doctors and researchers, in a stunning display of incompetence and/or dishonesty, are misdiagnosing patients every hour of every day. They are using tests that don’t work. They are misinterpreting the meaning of the tests they run. They are lying.

And the general public blithely accepts these false diagnoses.

To put the cherry on the cake, on top of everything I’ve written here, it is really the individual’s immune system that determines whether a germ causes disease. It’s not the germ all by itself. The medical establishment has it backwards.

There may be exceptions to this rule, as in the case of certain bioengineered germs. But for the wide range of typical diseases which are said to plague humankind, it’s all about immune systems, and whether they are strong or weak.

And that is not a medical issue. It’s an issue involving nutrition, environmental toxins, poverty, sanitation, overcrowding.

No conventional doctor deploys tests to assess these vital factors, and he doesn’t have drugs to treat them.

False diagnosis of disease is huge problem and a huge hoax.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Disease hoax, disease game

Disease hoax, disease game

by Jon Rappoport

March 17, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

At Gilead Sciences, they’re popping champagne corks. They’ve got a blockbuster drug, a once in a lifetime winner, Sovaldi. As FiercePharma reports:

With a revolutionary approach to hepatitis C and a price tag of $84,000 per 12-week treatment course, analysts expected big sales from Gilead’s Sovaldi. Some even forecast it would reach $9 billion or more by 2017, at which level it would surpass Pfizer’s Lipitor to take the crown for biggest-selling drug of all time. But none expected the exponential growth the drug is posting right now…”

A drug for hepatitis C. What a drug, what a price. $84,000 for 12 weeks of treatment.

So…what is hepatitis C?

Back in the day, there was one US mainstream reporter who wrote unflinchingly about medical matters. The late Nick Regush, at ABC News. He had serious questions about hepatitis C. In his weekly column, he wrote:

Consider this a challenge in progress. This scientific adventure raises the question of whether the hepatitis C virus, blamed for a major silent epidemic of liver disease and even cancer, actually exists. That’s right. You read this correctly: I am raising a question that may disturb scientists and hepatitis C patients alike. But I’m raising it anyway because it is vital to do so in the interests of public health. I’m issuing a challenge to the scientific community to present me with the published, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that such a virus actually exists— namely that it has been properly isolated, according to accepted, fundamental principles of virology.”

If the medical community decides a particular disease exists, then they are also saying there is a particular germ that causes it.

Regush was challenging the medical community to offer proof that the hepatitis C virus exists.

Regush pulled no punches: “Thus far, I should tell you, I’m underwhelmed by the evidence for the existence of such a virus… I’ve decided to offer those who believe the science supporting the virus is adequate the opportunity to educate me on the subject…You can do this by providing me with key references for proof that hepatitis C virus is real and not some meaningless biotech concoction posing as a real virus. I plan to ignore any speculative theories, pole-vaults in reaching conclusions and the usual harangues from the medical and scientific community about the stupidity and irresponsibility of journalists.”

Regush provides background: “In 1987, a scientific research team went on the hunt for a virus to explain liver disease linked to what was then called non-A non-B hepatitis. The team, including scientists from the CDC, Chiron Corp. and others, claimed to have detected HCV [hepatitis C virus].”

Then Regush applies the real daggers:

“But to this day, no one has ever been able to isolate such a virus in an intact form, nor has anyone been able to grow it in a culture. And no one has been able to fish out such a virus, purify it (meaning separate it from a cell), inject it into an animal and cause hepatitis. No one has ever been able to document, according to basic long-held standards of virology, that such a proposed virus is infectious. No one.

From the beginning, the researchers presumed too much in making their claim. They began by injecting blood from hepatitis patients into chimps. In half of the animals, they noted signs of infection in the form of a biological marker of hepatitis called alanine aminotransferase. The injected blood, however, did not cause hepatitis [disease]. That should have been a big red flag. The marker they detected may have had nothing to do with a virus. In any case, the scientists began fishing in liver tissue to find one.

What they found, with the use of high-tech amplification tools, was essentially a small piece of genetic information (encoded in ribonucleic acid, or RNA). On the basis of tests to reconstruct pieces of what they believed was a virus, they presumed that this bit of RNA was foreign and viral — even though they had no basic evidence that their ‘catch’ behaved like a virus. [And they could take pictures of this unidentified material with an electron microscope and publish them, calling them ‘the hepatitis C virus.’]

But never mind. Just clone the pieces of genetic information; work out the genetic sequences; using indirect methods, generate proteins presumably coming from a virus’s genetic code; create an antibody test against this genetic information; test many patients who turn out to be positive against this genetic information — and lo and behold, you have an epidemic.”


The Matrix Revealed


Regush challenged researchers to come forward and debate him, publicly, on the question of whether the hepatitis C virus actually exists. To my knowledge, no one did.

Instead, Regush received a flood of letters from hepatitis C patients and groups. Many of these letters attacked him, and he even received death threats.

But, no problem. Hepatitis C and its virus exist merely because the medical cartel says they do, and they just keep driving their steamroller over doubts and questions.

And Sovaldi, the latest and greatest drug for treating hepatitis C, is a $$ blockbuster for the ages.

Invent a disease for which there is no convincing proof, label it with a name, develop a drug to treat it, and make billions.

Yes, there are millions of people with liver problems. But that in itself is no proof that the hepatitis C virus exists.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com