James Holmes’ lawyers enter insanity plea; here come the insane psychiatrists

by Jon Rappoport

June 7, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

“What do you do for a living?”

“I slap fictitious disease labels on people and poison their brains.”

“Sounds good. We want you to examine a defendant and determine whether he was morally competent on a specific night a year ago.”

“Piece of cake.”

That’s what we’re dealing with now in the Batman murder case.

The psychiatrists have taken over.

James Holmes’ lawyers have entered an insanity plea in the Aurora- theater massacre case, and the judge, Carlos Samour, has just accepted it.

From Lawyers.com: “When the insanity defense is raised, it’s an admission that the defendant performed all of the acts alleged by the prosecution. For this reason, if the jury rejects the insanity defense, the defendant will almost certainly be convicted.”

In other words, Holmes’ lawyers have said Holmes committed the murders, but he was insane at the time. He didn’t know right from wrong, he was driven to murder by an irresistible impulse caused by a mental disorder.

So now Holmes will be sent to a Colorado hospital for at least several months, where psychiatrists will make up their minds about whether he is/was insane on the night of July 20, 2012, at the Aurora theater.

Eventually, unless Holmes changes his plea to a simple “guilty,” a trial will take place. In the trial, the jury will decide whether he was sane or insane when he committed murder. The psychiatrists who examined Holmes will, of course, factor into that decision.

At minimum, the jury’s verdict will put Holmes in prison or a psych ward for the rest of his life. If the jury decides Holmes was sane last July, the likely sentence will be death.

In other articles, I have discussed whether Holmes was in the theater last July, whether he killed anyone, whether he was set up as the patsy. Here, I’ll look at what happens now. Because the legal consequences of the insanity plea are as crazy as a bunch of cockroaches when the lights suddenly go on late at night in a garbage dump.

At a Colorado hospital, psychiatrists will check Holmes out from every angle, to determine whether, last July, he could distinguish right from wrong when he supposedly entered the Aurora theater and killed people.

The doctors will give him drugs. These drugs are highly toxic. They can and do cause brain damage. Their effects can be so horrendous the patient will admit to anything, just to stop further dosing.

Holmes must cooperate with the psychiatrists as they adjudicate his state of mind last July 20^th. If he doesn’t, it increases the likelihood that he’ll be sentenced to death—as opposed to life in prison. Why? Because at his sentencing hearing, his lawyers will be barred from calling “psychiatric experts” to testify on his behalf.

Where did this preposterous rule come from?

“Cooperate now with the shrinks or die later.”

If Holmes is now insane (whatever that means), then the psychiatrists will be working with a crazy man to find out whether he was sane or crazy when he supposedly committed murder a year ago.

“We know and accept, Mr. Holmes, that you’re crazy now, but we want you to try to remember whether you knew the difference between right and wrong when you committed multiple murders last July.”

What could possibly go wrong?

So do the psychiatrists start out by trying to make Holmes sane (whatever that means) now, and then quiz him about the events at the Aurora theater last summer?

If so, how do they make him sane? With anti-psychotic drugs that have been documented to cause motor brain damage? These brain-hammer drugs also can reduce a person to a state of utter incoherence.

On the other hand, if Holmes is “sane” now, then when psychiatrists ask him whether he could distinguish right from wrong when he killed people in the Aurora theater, he will certainly say no. He’ll say he was crazy then. Who wouldn’t? In other words, Holmes’ statements will be meaningless as evidence.

Enter the “narcoanalytic review,” which was authorized by the court several months ago. Under this plan, Holmes can be given “truth drugs,” to allow him to recall accurately his actions and state of mind on the evening of July 20, at the theater.

There is only one problem with that. There are no reliable truth drugs. They don’t exist. Many drugs have been tried. They all fail to perform consistently.

Apparently, the court overlooked this small glitch.

And then there is the serious matter of forced self-incrimination, which is against the law. If the drugs do happen to open a window of accurate memory for Holmes, and he reports that he was a killer who knew right from wrong last July, he is sealing his fate. The jury will almost certainly give him a death sentence. But his admission will only have occurred because he was involuntarily drugged.

Holmes’ lawyers have already warned him that, if he comes back to court in several months, claiming he is now sane, claiming he is guilty, claiming he did the killings and knew right from wrong, he’s sunk. He’ll probably be executed.

So why should Holmes take that route? The simple answer is: a deal. The prosecution might agree to recommend life in prison instead of death, if Holmes says: “I’m sane now. I did the murders. I confess. I know the difference between right and wrong. I change my plea to guilty.”

The court most assuredly wants a nice clean boy-scout confession of guilt. The court doesn’t want an unseemly trial with a dozen shrinks from both sides arguing about Holmes’ state of mind and which mental disorders he suffers from.

The shrinks don’t want that, either. It would expose the fact that they aren’t doing science of any kind. They’re playing with words and making it up as they go along. They can’t agree among themselves about which lies make more sense.

The craziness surrounding what happens to Holmes from now forward can be laid at the feet of psychiatry. Specifically, the right of psychiatrists to decide whether a defendant is sane or insane.

These terms aren’t just relative. They aren’t merely fictions. They’re deployed to open the door to forced dosing with toxic and destructive drugs. The assumption that these drugs allow the emergence of truth about prior events and crimes is insupportable.

On top of that, you can drug a person and thereby get him to admit anything, because he doesn’t want more of the drugs.

A rational layperson sitting in front of a criminal defendant could find out everything the court needs to know, if psychiatrists and other coercive law-enforcement types were kept out of the picture.

You ask the defendant, “Are you willing to answer my questions?” If he won’t reply or seems unable to, or can only offer gross non-sequiturs, everything stops there. The defendant is left alone in his cell, where nothing is done to him. No treatment, no drugs.

He stays there until he can and will answer questions.

Meanwhile, the prosecution, the defense, and an empaneled citizen grand jury (free of the influence of lawyers), would endeavor to investigate the crime and discover the truth. That burden would principally fall to the grand jury.

On the other hand, if the defendant is willing to answers questions posed by a rational non-partisan person, a brief interview takes place. The defendant states he is guilty or innocent. A trial is then scheduled.

If the defendant states he committed the crime but didn’t know what he was doing at the time, there is no trial. There is a sentencing hearing. The defendant’s position about his state of mind becomes part of the testimony at the hearing. The defendant testifies, submits himself to cross-examination. The jury decides whether the defendant knew what he was doing when he committed the crime.

If the defendant refuses to testify and invokes his Fifth Amendment right to avoid incriminating himself, the jury takes that into consideration in doling out the sentence.

Is this system perfect and air-tight? By no means. But it’s far better than what happens when psychiatrists get into the act.

Psychiatrists employ destructive drugs, intimidation, covert threats, and their decisions on sanity versus insanity are utter garbage, because they’re based on opinion filtered through a maze of pseudoscience unsupported by diagnostic tests.

The psychiatrists who will now examine Holmes are supremely unqualified to determine whether Holmes knew or knows right from wrong. They have no special skills. They are all about diagnosing people with fictional mental disorders and drugging them to the gills with toxic chemicals.

In a world where even a shred of reason exists, these charlatans wouldn’t be allowed within a hundred miles of a defendant.

But alas, this is not the world we live in.

Every time I write an article refuting the scientific basis of psychiatry (and I have written several), some apologist tries to argue that psychiatry employs a “different kind” of science.

That argument carries zero weight. For every one of the 300 officially certified mental disorders, there are NO diagnostic tests. No blood test, no saliva test, no urine test, no genetic test, no brain scan.

To verify this, all you need to do is open the tome, published by the American Psychiatric Association, called the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Look for the definitive tests. They aren’t there. They aren’t anywhere.

There’s a reason for that. They don’t exist.

These state-licensed con artists and poisoners are committing RICO crimes every day of their professional lives.

To say they can tell us anything useful about James Holmes is like saying Al Capone can do surgery on a car-crash victim and stop the internal bleeding.

The lying liars who lie about psychiatry

May7

by Jon Rappoport

May 7, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

These days, we are witnessing an acceleration in the use of psychiatry to target Americans, to label them as dangerous, to take away guns they own, to blame gun violence in the US on mentally ill people. (see also this story by Dan Roberts).

It’s a winning strategy, because most Americans don’t have a clue about the way psychiatry actually works or its pose of being a science.

The public hears techno-speak and nods and surrenders.

If psychiatrists are experts on the human mind, mice can navigate the Arctic in canoes. But psychiatrists are educated to be able to talk a good game.

And politicians are more than happy to mouth vagaries, and consign the problems of society to “mental-health professionals.”

It turns out that the phrase “mental health” was invented by psyops specialists, who needed to create an analogy to physical well-being.

The needed to, because the mind was (and is) a mystery to psychiatrists.

An open secret has been slowly 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.

But we have a mind-boggling twist. 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 2 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 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.

Finally, at the end of the Wired interview, Frances flew off into a bizarre fantasy:

“Diagnosis [as spelled out in the DSM-IV] is part of the magic…you know those medieval maps? In the places where they didn’t know what was going on, they wrote ‘Dragons live here’…we have a dragon’s world here. But you wouldn’t want to be without the map.”

Translation: Patients need hope for the healing of their troubles; so even if we psychiatrists are shooting blanks and pretending to know one kind of mental disorder from another, even if we’re inventing these mental-disorder definitions based on no biological or chemical diagnostic tests—it’s a good thing, because patients will then believe and have hope; they’ll believe it because psychiatrists place a name on their problems…

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with science.

If I were an editor at one of the big national newspapers, and one of my reporters walked in and told me, “The most powerful psychiatrist in America just said the DSM is sheer b.s. but it’s still important,” I think I’d make room on the front page.

If the reporter then added, “This shrink was in charge of creating the DSM-IV,” I’d clear more room above the fold.

If the reporter went on to explain that the whole profession of psychiatry would collapse overnight if the DSM was discredited, I’d call for a special section of the paper to be printed.

I’d tell the reporter to get ready to pound on this story day after day for months. I’d tell him to track down all the implications of Dr. Frances’ statements.

I’d open a bottle of champagne to toast the soon-to-be-soaring sales of my newspaper.

And then, of course, the next day I’d be fired.

Because there are powerful multi-billion-dollar interests at stake, and those people don’t like their deepest secrets exposed in the press.

And as I walked out of my job, I’d see a bevy of blank-eyed pharmaceutical executives marching into the office of the paper’s publisher, ready to read the riot act to him.

Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM-IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definition of Bipolar was 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’ label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of toxic 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 affects 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.

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

A recent survey revealed that a high percentage of children diagnosed with bipolar had first received a diagnosis of ADHD. This is informative, because Ritalin and other speed-type drugs are given to kids who are slapped with the ADHD label. Speed, sooner or later, produces a crash. This is easy to call “clinical depression.”

Then comes Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. These drugs can produce temporary highs, followed by more crashes. The psychiatrist notices the up and down pattern—and then produces a new diagnosis of Bipolar (manic-depression) and other drugs, including Valproate and Lithium.

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.

And Dr. Frances is somehow let off the hook. He’s admitted in print that the whole basis of his profession is throwing darts at labels on a wall, and implies the “effort” is rather heroic—when, in fact, the effort leads to more and more poisonous drugs being dispensed to adults and children, to say nothing of the effect of being diagnosed with “a mental disorder.”

I’m not talking about “the mental-disease stigma,” the removal of which is one of Hillary Clinton’s missions in life. No, I’m talking about MOVING A HUMAN INTO THE SYSTEM, the medical apparatus, where the essence of the game is trapping that person to harvest his money, his time, his energy, and of course his health—as one new diagnosis follows on another, and one new toxic treatment after another is undertaken, from cradle to grave.

The result is a severely debilitated human being (if he survives), whose major claim to fame is his list of diseases and disorders.

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

Here is a smoking-gun statement made by another prominent psychiatrist, on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”

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 (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): 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]

Without intending to, Dr. Barkley blows the whistle on his own profession.

So let’s take Dr. Barkley to school. Medical science, and disease-research in particular, rests on the notion that you can make a diagnosis backed up by lab tests. If you can’t produce lab tests, you’re spinning fantasies.

These fantasies might be hopeful, they might be “educated guesses,” they might be launched from traditional centers of learning, they might be backed up by billions of dollars of grant money…but they’re still fantasies.

If I said the moon was made of green cheese, even if I were a Harvard professor, sooner or later someone would ask me to produce a sample of moon rock to be tested for “cheese qualities.” I might begin to feel nervous, I might want to tap dance around the issue, but I would have to submit the rock to a lab.

Dr. Barkley employs a version of logical analysis in his statement to the PBS Frontline interviewer. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. But if a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have science at all, and that would mean our whole profession rests on nothing—and that is absurd, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”

That logic is no logic at all. Barkley is proving the case against himself. He just doesn’t want to admit it.

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

Close to 50 years ago, psychiatry was dying out as a profession. Fewer and fewer people wanted to see a psychiatrist for help, for talk therapy. All sorts of new therapies were popping up. The competition was leaving medical psychiatry in the dust.

As Dr. Peter Breggin describes it in his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, a deal was struck. Drug companies would bankroll psychiatry and rescue it. These companies would pour money into professional conferences, journals, research. In return, they wanted “science” that would promote mental disease as a biological fact, a gateway into the drugs. Everyone would win—except the patient.

So the studies were rolled out, and the list of mental disorders expanded. The FDA was in on the deal as well, as evidenced by their drug “safety” approvals, in the face of the obvious damage these drugs were doing.

So this is how we arrived at where we are. This was the plan, and it worked.

Under the cover story, it was all fraud all the time. Without much of a stretch, you could say psychiatry has been the most widespread profiling operation in the history of the human race. Its goal has been to bring humans everywhere into its system. It hardly matters which label a person is painted with, as long as it adds up to a diagnosis and a prescription of drugs.

And now, in the wake of the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings, it matters even less who or how many people are labeled with mental disorders. The more the better, as far as government is concerned.

Just as in the old USSR, psychiatry becomes an instrument of oppression, a way to discredit any person the State wants to silence and destroy.

“…in the disputes between the East and West concerning the Russian opponents of the Soviet regime… [m]any dissidents went to lunatic asylums and were treated as mentally sick. Western doctors and the press accused Soviet doctors of being blind instruments of the regime and of having broken the solemn oath of their calling. The Russian doctors thought the West had gone mad in reproaching their behavior. For them, anyone who opposed such an efficient police power must be mentally disturbed. In their view, only those who had what Seneca called Libido morienti (the death wish) would dare to provoke the State. The Russian doctors were convinced that they were undertaking a humanitarian mission by placing the opponents of the regime in asylums and thereby reducing their aggression–the only hope for their survival. To reduce the outstanding to mediocrity was always a medical and human duty in a state where mediocrity had the better chance of survival.” — “Man: The Fallen Ape” by Branko Bokun

Jon Rappoport

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

The medical cartel: too big to fail, too evil to expose

May5

by Jon Rappoport

May 5, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

There are several reasons why the medical cartel is too big to fail: the enormous amount of money at stake; its aim to control populations.

In this article, I want to examine a related reason.

Suppose it was discovered that thousands of bridges around the US were in imminent danger of collapsing? Not because maintenance and repair were lacking, not because the materials used to build them were cheap and shoddy. But because the original designs were inadequate and broke basic rules of engineering.

Suppose five or six major manufacturers built their automobiles so the vast majority of power derived from the engines was transferred to one wheel?

Suppose the US Dept. of Agriculture recommended that all farmers spray their crops with heavy chlorine instead of water?

In other words, the science itself is fraudulent.

This revelation, above all, is what the medical cartel tries to guard against. Their profession has shoved in all its chips on the propaganda proposition that it does impeccable science.

Science sells. The appearance of it sells. It’s the foundation stone of many industries.

Were that stone to crack and shatter, all bets would be off. A titanic fraud would come to light. The kind of fraud that would both freeze people’s minds and blow them away.

Science is the most powerful rationalization in the modern world. Consensus reality would fail and disperse without it.

As I’ve covered before, the most conservative mainstream estimate of medically caused death in America is 225,000 people per year. Every credential behind that figure is immaculate.

The author of the paper that presented the statistics was the late Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert who worked for many years at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

Her review, “Is US health the best in the world?”, was published on July 26^th, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Starfield’s breakdown was as follows: the medical system kills 119,000 people a year in the US as a result of maltreatment in hospitals. The other 106,000 people are killed by FDA-approved medicines.

The FDA must approve every drug as safe and effective before it is released for public use.

It’s the medicines I want to focus on in this article. 106,000 deaths a year translates to an astonishing 1,060,000 deaths per decade.

How are these drugs approved?

Clinical trials are conducted. Reports of those trials are written. The reports, the studies, are published in peer-reviewed medical journals. The studies ARE the science.

If a million people per decade are being killed by the drugs, then a huge number of published studies proclaiming the drugs are safe are sheer fraud. There is no other way to put it.

This statement from Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, echoes the fact:

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

(Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009)

The medical cartel rests on cataclysmic fraud, scientific fraud.

Imagine what would happen if just one major media outlet decided to take on this story and push it for all it’s worth. Not merely an article or two—an ongoing campaign of relentless exposure.

The silence from that quarter speaks volumes about the controlled press and what it stands for.

Over the years, I’ve written much about the the FDA. I thought I’d assemble a small fraction of it in one place, to reveal what this federal agency is really all about and why it should be dismantled, amid a blizzard of prosecutions and convictions for negligent homicide and, yes, murder.

The discovery of a page, on the FDA’s own website, proves the FDA is fully aware that:

(http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/DrugInteractionsLabeling/ucm114848.htm)

the drugs it certifies as safe have been killing Americans, at the rate of 100,000 per year.

The FDA website page is available under the heading, “Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions.” You can search for it using the Startpage.com search engine.

The FDA takes no blame, no responsibility for its own actions, and yet it admits the death statistics are accurate.

Understand this very clearly. No medical drug in America can be released for public use until and unless the FDA states it is safe. The FDA is the agency that makes every such decision on every drug. The buck stops there.

Yes, the FDA has a “special relationship” with the pharmaceutical industry. Yes, the FDA utilizes doctors on their drug-approval panels that have ties to the pharmaceutical industry. But, in the end, it is the FDA official seal that opens the gate and permits a drug to be prescribed by doctors and sold in the US.

In all my research on this medical-drug holocaust, I have never found a case in which any FDA employee was censured, fired, or criminally prosecuted for the killing effects of these drugs.

That is a track record Organized Crime would be proud of, and the comparison is not frivolous.

On this FDA website page, the FDA also readily admits that medical drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in America, ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile fatalities.

The FDA website page also states there are 2 million serious adverse reactions (ADRs) from the ingestion of medical drugs, annually, in the US. That would be 20 million ADRs per decade.

When the FDA says “serious,” they aren’t talking about headaches or slight dizziness or temporary nausea. “Serious” means stroke, heart attack, neurological damage; destruction of that magnitude.

Examining these figures for death and debilitation, can you find any comparable documented crime in the American landscape? This is the kind of story that would make Watergate look like a Sunday-school picnic.

If a paper like the New York Times let loose their hounds to relentlessly explore the horror, I assure you that, in time, doctors and medical bureaucrats and even drug-company employees would come out of the woodwork with confessions, and the resultant explosions and outcries would shake the medical/pharmaceutical foundations of America and the planet.

It would shake and destroy the SCIENCE.

But these major media outlets are an intrinsic part of the Matrix that protects and sustains the crimes and the criminals. It isn’t just drug-advertising profits that keep the leading newspapers and television networks silent. It’s collusion to protect “a revered institution”—the medical system.

Also at stake is Obamacare. The connection is vivid and unmistakable. Millions more Americans, previously uninsured, will be drawn into the system and subjected to the very drugs are killing and maiming people at such a horrific rate.

Where has the US Department of Justice been all these years? Is there any way, under the sun, that a million deaths per decade can be excused? Is there any way the FDA and the drug companies can float safely in the upper atmosphere of privilege, while the concept of justice retains any meaning? Where are criminal prosecutions?

Meanwhile, the FDA pursues an agenda of attacking nutritional supplements, and the latest federal regulations classify these supplements as “potentially dangerous”—despite the fact that supplements have a record of safety that is astonishing.

It is time for the public to realize that 100,000 people dying every year in the US, because they take medical drugs, is the equivalent of 33 airliner crashes into the Twin Towers, every year, year after year.

If you were a medical reporter for a major media outlet in the US, and you knew the above fact, wouldn’t you make it a priority to say something, write something, do something?

I’m talking about people like Sanjay Gupta (CNN, CBS), Gina Kolata (NY Times), Tim Johnson (ABC News), and Thomas Maugh II (LA Times).

And with that, let’s get to another smoking gun. The citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer.

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 final 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.

Since the Department of Homeland Security is working its way into every nook and corner of American life, hyper-extending its mandate to protect all of us from everything, maybe DHS should stop tracking every move we make and simply raid and arrest all employees of the FDA as terrorists. The details could be sorted out later.

How many smoking guns do we need before a sitting president shuts down the FDA buildings, fumigates them, and builds a monument to dead Americans the FDA has driven into their graves?

Do we need 100,000 smoking guns? Do we need relatives of the people who’ve all died, in the span of, say, merely a year, from the poisonous effects of FDA-approved medical drugs, to bring their corpses and coffins to the doors of FDA headquarters?

And let me ask another question. If instead of drugs like warfarin, dabigatran, levofloxacin, carboplatin, and lisinopril (the five leading killers in the FDA database), the 100,000 deaths per year were led by gingko, ginseng, vitamin D, niacin, and raw milk, what do you think would happen?

I’ll tell you what would happen. SEALS, Delta Force, DHS-HSI SRT, SWAT teams, snipers, predator drones, tanks, and infantry would be attacking every health-food store in America. The resulting fatalities would be written off as necessary collateral damage in the fight to keep America safe and healthy.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUDGdK29SIE&w=560&h=315]

BTW, who are the video editing specialists that DHS hired to ‘sex up’ this video?

But you see, the routine deaths of 100,000 Americans a year, after the FDA has certified the drugs are SAFE, isn’t a “recognized political issue.”

Such is the power of the medical cartel. All those phony stories in the press, reported dutifully by so-called medical reporters? The stories about maybe-could-be-possible-miracle breakthroughs just over the horizon of state-of-the-art research? Those stories are there to obscure the very, very hard facts of medically-caused death on the ground.

The buck stops at the FDA.

Imagine this. You go to an FBI web page and read the following: “Killings committed by FBI agents are the third leading cause of death in America every year.”

Yet somehow, the FDA gets away with its crimes, its homicides. There are no alarm bells, no arrests, no hearings, no public statements, no press reactions, no shakeups at the Agency.

The power of the medical cartel is gigantic.

When I was running for a Congressional seat from the 29th District of California, in 1994, and during my participation in the Health Freedom movement of that period, I insisted we had to take the attack to the FDA. We had to make their crimes public.

I was told by the people who were leading the charge for Health Freedom that priority had to be given to passing a law that would protect us all from attacks on nutritional supplements. Then, when we had that law, we could think about going after the FDA.

Well, we got the law, which only gave us temporary protection, and afterward there was no “going after the FDA.” It was suddenly a dead issue.

I remember the people who said, “Don’t attack the FDA.” I remember their attitudes, their faces, their words. They were not my friends, and they weren’t your friends. Some of them were yuppies selling “let’s be nice” New Age sentiment. A few were most likely plants who had infiltrated the Health Freedom movement to water it down.

Various liars sell their lies through various strategies.

I assure you, there are doctors out there who know the statistics on medically caused death in the US. They know about the drugs that kill. They know what’s going on. They know the FDA is accountable. They remain silent. They feel no pressure to make a public statement. They’re living under the umbrella of protection provided by the government and the press and the medical system.

These doctors are silent witnesses to ongoing mass murder. Just as the FDA is a silent witness to its own mass-murdering practices. And of course, the doctors write the prescriptions for the drugs.

Obama, Bush, Clinton; none of these men have indicated the slightest awareness of the “problem.” Did they know? Do they know? Just as I predicted, correctly, that the FDA knows, I say these men do know. They prefer to remain silent as well. They don’t want to touch this genocidal crime. They don’t have the character or the courage.

Presidents and deans of medical schools know. Teachers at these schools know. Pharmaceutical executives know. Medical researchers know. The CDC knows. The World Health Organization knows. Editors and reporters at major press outlets know. The DEA knows. The US Dept. of Justice knows.

As far as the public is concerned, a matrix of hypnotic effect and cognitive dissonance is the obstacle. People find it extremely difficult to believe that a federal agency, in broad daylight, year after year, countenances and sustains the unnecessary deaths of 100,000 people.

People find it extremely difficult to believe that, were such a story true, they would not have heard about it already.

People want to believe that a crime of this boggling magnitude would already have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

People want to believe the secular religion known as Medicine is devoted to healing in all its forms.

People want to believe that, since doctors can put accident victims back together in one piece and can set broken bones and temporarily reduce inflammation, the practice of medicine must be uniformly successful across the board.

People want to believe in SCIENCE.

In a stunning 2012 interview with Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Cavanagh, exposed the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies.

Cavanagh: “…widespread [FDA] racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation.”

“I was threatened with prison.”

“One [FDA] manager threatened my children…I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators.”

Cavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the Agency who insisted the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.

But honest appraisal wasn’t part of the FDA culture, and Cavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.

What was his covert task at the FDA? “Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs.” In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.

Cavanagh’s recalls a meeting where a drug-company representative flat-out stated that his company had paid the FDA for a new-drug approval. Paid for it. As in bribe.

He remarks that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the effects of nerve gas, “actually increased the lethality” of certain nerve agents.

Cavanagh recalls being given records of safety data on a drug—and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.

As I mentioned above, the original study-review on medically caused death in America was written by Dr. Barbara Starfield and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Three years ago, shortly before her death, I interviewed Dr. Starfield. I asked her whether any government agency had ever contacted her about her findings, in the nine years since publication

“No,” she said.

I asked her whether she was aware of any federal agency undertaking action to remedy the horrific killing effects of the US medical system.

“No,” she said.

Try this image: you are a gatekeeper. Your job, on the first day of every year, is to unlock the gate and leave it open, so people can pass through. But you know that, when you open the gate, 100,000 people who pass through will die in the following year. Yet, every January 1, you keep opening the gate.

That’s what the FDA is. That particular gatekeeper.

But of course, the people at the FDA are just like us. They wouldn’t do THAT, they wouldn’t do THAT, they wouldn’t do that…

But they did. They do. They continue to do it.

Jon Rappoport

The hoax at the bottom of Autism and Alzheimer’s

Mar23

The hoax at the bottom of Autism and Alzheimer’s

by Jon Rappoport

March 22, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

For the medical cartel, Autism and Alzheimer’s are big, big business. Profits are soaring.

These two conditions are promoted as specific diseases. That’s where all the trouble starts.

If you read the Alzheimer’s and Autism definitions, which are the criteria for diagnosis contained in the psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), you find there are no physical tests of any kind.

No blood tests, no saliva tests, no urine tests, no genetic tests, no brain scans.

Instead, what you see are lists and menus of behaviors.

What does this mean?

First of all, it means researchers haven’t found the cause of these conditions. If they had, they would state it.

So how do you say you’ve located a specific disease if you don’t know the cause? Answer: you can’t.

Take four people who are 70 years old and are experiencing severe memory loss. You’re a researcher. You don’t know why these people have this problem. You can guess, you can talk about maybe-this or maybe-that, but you don’t know.

Therefore, you can’t say the cause of the memory loss in each case is the same. It might well be different for each person.

Should you make up a label like Alzheimer’s and slap it on all four people? Of course not. A single label means a single cause. Otherwise, why use the label?

But you don’t know the cause. No matter how many behavioral characteristics of memory loss you name, you don’t know the cause.

Therefore, you have no business applying a single label to those four people. That’s not science. It might be marketing for drugs, it might be a lot of things, it might be about obtaining grant monies, but it isn’t science.

Take four young children who have suddenly withdrawn from the world. Same principle applies. If you slap them with the Autism label, you’re lying. You don’t know the cause of that withdrawal in any of the children.

Now, if you were the parent of one of these children, and you noticed that soon after the child was stuck with multiple vaccines, he developed a fever and then he withdrew from the world, you would, indeed, know something vital.

But if you’re an unbiased researcher a thousand miles away from these four children, all you know, at the outset, is that they all withdrew.

In two cases, the cause might have been vaccination. In another case, it might have been severe and chronic malnutrition or a reaction to heavy metals in food. In another case, the child might have developed a brain lesion. There are a number of possibilities.

Why then slap all four children with the label Autism?

Just because they exhibit the same general characteristic? That’s patently ridiculous.

Let’s take this a step farther. Suppose you had a group of 500 children, all of whom withdrew and folded up after receiving a load of vaccine. You know these vaccines contain toxins. You know the toxins were injected. You know the toxins can cause neurological damage.

Well, what are you waiting for? These are cases of VACCINE DAMAGE. It’s not Autism caused by vaccine damage. It’s not Autism or Cd3syt or Vcti45 or any other arbitrary label. It’s not a disease or a disorder. It’s poisoning. Do you say a person who develops a severe and chronic problem after eating fish loaded with poison has a disease? Is it the fish-eating disease?

Of course, we know that exonerating vaccines keeps a giant industry from destruction. And we know that putting a disease label on people opens the door to enormous profits. Drug-company profits. “Well, we’re researching several promising medicines for Autism…”

You don’t hear, “We’re investigating remedies for vaccine poisoning and exposure to industrial pollutants.”

Alzheimer’s researchers are very fond of talking about “biomarkers” and “imaging.” They keep testing blood and the spinal fluid. But they don’t know enough to include the results of those tests in the official definition of Alzheimer’s.

And think about this: suppose one biomarker finally emerges as a common denominator in a study examining 5000 people who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s? Who is to say the cause of that biomarker is the same in all 5000 people? This is not a trivial point. It’s crucial.

If, for example, chemicals can cause genetic changes, and then cancer researchers hail “new genetic findings in investigating the cause of cancer,” at what level are they plugging into the true situation? If they keep ignoring the chemicals, how far are they going to get?

Researchers and the press keep promoting a fairy tale: “If we diagnose people who show the same behavioral factors with a single disease label, and if we keep examining these people for common biomarkers, we’ll find the cause of the disease.”

Well, look at the DSM. It contains 297 official disorders, all labeled. Many of these so-called disorders have been investigated for decades. And yet, not one disorder lists a specific across-the-board diagnostic test that can define it.

Taking all this to a conclusion, we have this: there is no reason to suppose that Alzheimer’s or Autism exists.

Damage exists. And there are cogent reasons to infer that, in different individuals, the causes are different.

Therefore, what we need are very capable and independent-minded health practitioners who can investigate one patient at a time and find out what really caused his/her problem.

That is why, when somebody tells me he’s found the cause of Alzheimer’s or Autism, and the cure, I know he’s on the wrong track. He failed to notice that these conditions don’t exist. Damage exists.

In the alternative field, I’ve read journal articles that begin: “New discovery may revolutionize the treatment of Alzheimer’s…”

The author of the article was bamboozled. He accepted the idea that Alzheimer’s was a single disease. His opening sentence should have read: “New discovery may revolutionize the treatment of that thing that doesn’t exist…”

Then he and everybody else would see the error.

Damage exists. Memory loss exists. Withdrawing from the world exists. Suffering exists. Pain exists. Finding what caused it in a single patient, one at a time, is a step toward healing.

And healing is what it’s supposed to be all about.

The correct metaphor here is the detective. Suppose he says, “Well, we have a murder, and we know that murder is caused by bullets. So we’ll find the bullets and that will constitute the solution to the case.”

The detective investigates each case on its own facts and merits. He brings a wealth of experience to his work. He knows patterns in murders. He knows what sometimes turns out to be the answer. He applies what he knows. He uses clues. He uses logic. He tries one avenue, and if it doesn’t pan out, he embarks on another avenue. He keeps looking. He provisionally uses generalities, but he also avoids them. This is called intelligence. It’s called discernment. It’s called caring about finding the truth.

If genuine healing were the objective, practitioners would approach so-called Alzheimer’s and Autism patients very differently.

The fact that most medical doctors don’t is, at the very least, criminal negligence.

Back in the 1990’s, I interviewed the mother of a boy who had been diagnosed with Autism. He wasn’t a case of vaccine damage, because he’d never been vaccinated.

His health practitioner, during an extensive conversation with the mother, did discover a forgotten head injury at the age of three. The boy was now 16.

The practitioner tried a course of hyperbaric oxygen treatments, based on the hypothesis that some brain cells were in an “idling state,” and had never awakened after the injury. The treatments helped somewhat. The boy became a bit more communicative.

The practitioner then shifted the boy’s diet several times, and in the process found out he was having a severe and chronic reaction to milk and other dairy products. So they were eliminated from the diet. After a month, the boy came a bit more out of his shell. His awkward physical movements lessened.

Supplementation with minerals produced further results. The boy’s speech cleared up gradually. He mumbled less. His spoke more forcefully.

At this point, for the first time, the boy was willing to undertake a light exercise program. After a month or so, it produced dividends. His muscle tone improved, and he enjoyed short runs. He’d return from these runs with fierce enthusiasm. He was happy that his coordination was increasing.

Several new supplement protocols were tried. One of them included a meal-replacement drink that he liked. He came further out of his shell. His mother began home schooling him. His writing was no longer a dense scribble. He could focus on his work.

The boy went through another series of hyperbaric oxygen treatments. This time the results were more visible. His face, which tended to be mask-like, relaxed. He became more animated.

The supplement regime was enhanced with a ginseng adaptogen and a different type of magnesium. The boy received several adjustments from a chiropractor, who had been trained in the original techniques of the art.

A month later, the boy’s communication with his parents and his neighbors reached a new level. He had recovered a significant part of his life.

I asked the practitioner whether he would apply that entire course of treatment across the board for all children diagnosed with Autism.

“Absolutely not,” he said. “I don’t do ‘across-the-board’ anything.”

When I told a doctor what happened to this boy, he said, “It wasn’t Autism to begin with. He was misdiagnosed. It was a head injury.”

“No,” I said. “Nothing is Autism.”

He stared at me and then he smiled. “I know where you’re going with this,” he said.

“So?”

“Yeah,” he said. “They don’t have a cause for Autism.”

“So they have no right to say it’s a disease with a single cause.”

He scratched his head and walked away.

There is yet another reason the medical cartel wants to maintain this fiction about Autism and Alzheimer’s. It’s about controlling the research, of course. Keeping a lid on the fact that chemicals and inserted genes in the food supply; water contaminated with chemicals, including fluorides; heavy-metal particles sprayed in the skies; radiation; vaccines; medical drugs; industrial pollution and dumping; and other factors have been producing the symptoms of what is being called Autism and Alzheimer’s.

Covering all that up is a major priority. One dirty hand washes another.

Sources: “Dementia of the Alzheimer’s Type Symptoms and Diagnosis,” psychtreatment.com; “DSM-IV Criteria Pervasive Developmental Disorders,” firstsigns.org.

Jon Rappoport

James Holmes, and how the CIA hid their MKULTRA mind-control program

Mar20

by Jon Rappoport

March 20, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Back in the early 1990s, I interviewed John Marks, author of Search for the Manchurian Candidate. This was the book that exposed the existence of the infamous CIA MKULTRA program.

I bring up this interview now, because James Holmes may well be on the receiving end of MKULTRA, as his lawyers try to navigate an insanity plea in the Aurora massacre case.

Holmes will be given “truth drugs” to “refresh his memory” about his state of mind at the time of the killings. If that sounds absurd, it is. I wrote a piece the other day detailing how such drugs are often given to produce extreme terror in patients. In other words, the drugs don’t elicit the truth. They’re used as threats to force the patient/suspect to confess to whatever his torturers want him to confess to.

John Marks related the following facts to me. He had filed many Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests to the CIA for documents relating to their mind-control program. He got nothing back.

Finally, as if to play a joke on him, someone at the CIA sent Marks 10 boxes of financial and accounting records. The attitude was, “Here, see what you can do with this.”

I’ve seen some of those records. They’re very boring reading.

But Marks went through them, and lo and behold, he found he could piece together MKULTRA projects, based on the funding data.

Eventually, he assembled enough information to begin naming names. He conducted interviews. The shape of MKULTRA swam into view. And so he wrote his book, Search for the Manchurian Candidate.

He told me that three important books had been written about MKULTRA, and they all stemmed from those 10 boxes of CIA financial records. There was his own book; Operation Mind Control by Walter Bowart; and The Mind Manipulators by Alan Scheflin and Edward Opton.

Marks continued to press the CIA for more MKULTRA information. He explained to me what then happened. A CIA official told him the following: in 1962, after ten years of mind-control experiments, the whole program had been shifted over to another internal CIA department, the Office of Research and Development (ORD).

The ORD had a hundred boxes of information on their MKULTRA work, and there was no way under the sun, Marks was told, that he was ever going to get his hands on any of that. It was over. It didn’t matter how many FOIA requests Marks filed. He was done. The door was shut. Goodbye.

The CIA went darker than it ever had before. No leaks of any kind would be permitted.

In case there is any doubt about it, the idea of relying on the CIA to admit what it has done in the mind-control area, what it is doing, and what it will do should be put to bed by John Mark’s statements. The CIA always has been, and will continue to be, a rogue agency beyond the reach of the law.

Since it is the agency with the most experience using “truth drugs,” when James Holmes is put on ice at a Colorado mental hospital, to go through what the judge has permitted—a “narcoanalytic review” to test Holmes’ state of mind—it’s probable that CIA people will be on hand to advise.

The Colorado in-house psychiatrists know nothing about the use of truth drugs. They especially don’t know how to employ those drugs to produce just enough terror in the patient to get him to admit to Anything.

To give you an idea of how far the CIA, the US military, and its allied academics will go in MKULTRA “research,” here is what I wrote in 1995 about several human experiments. My information was based on the three key books I mentioned above, as well as Martin Lee’s classic, Acid Dreams:

“Dr. Robert Heath of Tulane University, as early as 1955, working for the Army, gave patients LSD while he had electrodes implanted deep inside their brains.”

“In the mid-1950’s, Paul Hoch, M.D., a man who would become Commissioner of Mental Hygiene for the State of New York, then a laborer in the field for the CIA, gave a ‘pseudoneurotic schizophrenic’ patient mescaline. The patient had a not-unfamiliar heaven-and-hell journey on the compound. But Hoch followed this up with a transorbital leucotomy [aka lobotomy]… Hoch also gave a patient LSD, and a local anesthetic, and then proceeded to remove pieces of cerebral cortex, asking at various moments whether the patient’s perceptions were changing.”

People need to understand how the history of mind control and psychiatry are interwoven, and how the madmen and murderers within these “professions” are content to use torture “in the name of science.”

From a current naturalnews article by Dr. Peter Breggin (“Never again! The real history of psychiatry”) we get insight into one aspect of that history:

“[Before World War 2, in America], organized psychiatry had been sterilizing tens of thousands of Americans. For a time in California, you couldn’t be discharged from a state hospital unless you were sterilized. In Virginia the retarded were targeted. American advocates of sterilization went to Berlin to help the Nazis plan their sterilization program. These Americans reassured the Germans that they would meet no opposition from America in sterilizing their mentally and physically ‘unfit’ citizens.

“While the murder of mental patients was going full swing in Germany, knowledgeable American psychiatrists and neurologists didn’t want to be left out. In 1942, the American Psychiatric Association held a debate about whether to sterilize or to murder low IQ ‘retarded’ children when they reached the age of five. Those were the only two alternatives in the debate: sterilization or death.

“After the debate, the official journal of the American Psychiatric Association published an editorial in which it chose sides in favor of murder (‘Euthanasia’ in the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1942, volume 99, pp. 141-143). It said psychiatrists would have to muster their psychological skills to keep parents from feeling guilty about agreeing to have their children killed.”

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

Jon Rappoport

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

The CIA, James Holmes, MKULTRA, and truth-serum torture

Mar18

By Jon Rappoport

March 18, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

In 2002, author Martin Lee wrote an article for Common Dreams: “Truth Serum and Torture.”

It could have been written yesterday, because now a Colorado judge has stated that, if James Holmes pleads not guilty by reason of insanity to the Aurora murders, state psychiatrists can subject him to drugs that will “help him remember his state of mind” at the time of the shootings. The drugging will reveal whether he really was insane that night last summer at the Aurora theater.

Well, when it comes to so-called truth drugs like sodium pentothal, sodium amatyl, scopolamine, mescaline, LSD, and hypnotic benzodiazepines, where are the pros with real experience?

At run-of-the-mill psychiatric wards? No. Those hacks in the Colorado state hospital system have rarely if ever tried out the drugs for the purpose of getting at the truth.

But the CIA has up-to-date interrogators around, and thousands of pages of MKULTRA (mind control) literature, that constitute the best experience in this dark art.

Therefore, it’s highly probable the CIA or their independent contractors will be sitting in on James Holmes’ drug-induced sessions, supervising them, giving advice. It’s the Ghostbusters motto: “Who ya gonna call?”

Martin Lee points out that, even before the CIA was created, its forerunner, the OSS, tried out a cannabis extract as a truth serum. This was back in the 1940s. Lee goes on to trace US intelligence-agency and military “leadership” in truth-drug testing.

In 1947, the US Navy Project Chatter, borrowing from Nazi studies, moved on to experiments with mescaline as a truth drug.

Shortly after its inception, in the late 1940s, the CIA used drugging with sedatives, plus hypnosis, to extract secrets from agents. This method, and barbiturates alternated with amphetamines, were soon rolled up into the infamous and overarching MKULTRA mind-control program, with its hundreds of sub-projects. MKULTRA was all about developing chemical means of eliciting truth from prisoners, along with creating unconscious assassins.

In the 1950s, the CIA employed LSD in Operation Artichoke. People don’t know or forget that, while LSD failed to qualify as a reliable truth serum, its use in very high doses produced extreme terror in people being interrogated. It was this effect, as straight-out torture, the CIA capitalized on. The idea was simple. Demand the truth and threaten with extreme-dose LSD as the alternative.

We shouldn’t discount the possibility that James Holmes, once he enters an insanity plea, and is sent away to a secure hospital for psychiatric eval, will be given drugs that produce the kind of mad panic that will convince him to say, in court, exactly what his handlers want him to say.

Back in 2002, Martin Lee wrote that William Webster, former head of the CIA and FBI, was recommending the use of truth drugs on terrorism suspects under US detention. This statement spurred a significant amount of media coverage at the time.

But in the ensuing years, very few people have bothered to ask the key question: Why should we assume that waterboarding and isolation tanks and sleep deprivation are the only torture methods the CIA/military are employing on these prisoners? What about the drugs?

In particular—because no drug has ever been found to reliably elicit the truth—what about the use of drugs to produce panic and wild terror, as a way to force people to tell what they know, or confess to what they’re told to.

It’s obvious, given the history, that US interrogators have, in fact, been using these drugs on detained terrorism suspects.

Lee ends his prescient article with a chilling quote from former CIA chief of counterterrorism, Vince Cannistraro, that reflects directly the James Holmes situation in 2013:

“Once you’ve used [truth drugs] for national security cases, then it becomes a standard. Sodium pentathol is not that effective, and so you have to use something stronger, It’s a short skip and a hop to LSD, or something worse.”

These drugs are certainly being used in national security cases. Therefore, as Cannistraro predicts, they are now entering the mainstream as the standard. The astonishing statement from the court judge in the James Holmes case, ordering his truth-drug interrogation, couldn’t be a clearer signal:

full-speed ahead in chemically inducing a suspect to give up his right not to incriminate himself;

forget the fact that such truth-drug interrogations are notoriously unreliable;

forget the damage suspects can incur from the effects of the drugs;

and most of all, forget the fact that, although truth drugs don’t work reliably, they can be used to create such terror that the suspect will do or say anything to escape more dosing.

Many people have observed that James Holmes already looks like a man who has been heavily drugged, while in custody.

Whatever Holmes knows about what happened last summer at the Aurora theater; whatever he doesn’t know; whatever role he played or didn’t play; whether he was in the theater doing the shooting or was the patsy set up by professionals to take the fall for the murders…

All of this can be twisted, on strong enough drugs, to cause him to say anything his handlers want him to say in court.

The psychiatrists who are working on Holmes will need advice on methods. They’ll go to, or be approached by, the people who have the track record, the history, the experience: the CIA.

And once that move is made, it will be very much like saying the Holmes case has national-security implications.

In so far as the Aurora murders have been used to try to snuff out the 2^nd Amendment, the case is definitely the gun-grabbers’ version of national security. They want no mistakes in Holmes’ performance.

They want him to enter a plea of non-guilty by reason of insanity. Then they want him, after his stay in a mental hospital for “testing and observation,” to come back to court, and state that is now aware he killed and wounded many people. Then the State will dispose of him one way or another and he will never again see the light of day.

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

Naïve people place false barriers between the practice of psychiatry, institutional confinement, coerced admissions of guilt, torture, brain-twisting drugs, and the CIA’s MKULTRA. They swim together in the same stream far more often than Americans want to admit, or want to know about.

This horrendous stream flows through the James Holmes case.

Other than using drugs to force him to follow orders, what possible value can this “narcoanalytic review” have in a court of law? Think about it. If Holmes enters an insanity plea, thus triggering the ensuing truth-drug interrogation, he’ll already be stating he is crazy. So the drugs will be administered to a crazy man, on the premise that can he recall correctly, or reveal correctly, his state of mind at the time he committed murders.

Is there any defense lawyer in the country who couldn’t cast doubt on the reliability of such evidence?

No, the Holmes case is now being used to put straight-out drug-torture of defendants, in order to gain confessions, into the mainstream of American legal practice.

There is one more long-shot factor here. It’s nearly unthinkable, but it should be mentioned. Many people have found evidence that the Aurora murders were staged. Without recounting the details, suppose there is one more piece of stagework left: the truth drugs used on Holmes are shown to have created brain damage.

If Holmes’ lawyers claim that the prosecution irreparably destroyed their client, they can move for a mistrial.

Can you imagine the uproar, chaos, and destabilization that would result from a declaration of a mistrial, a no-verdict in the case, and Holmes walking out of prison? Or his remand to a psychiatric facility as a permanently damaged person—but without a guilty verdict?

Jon Rappoport

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

School now offering counseling to kids upset by strawberry-tart gun!

Mar8

School now offering counseling to kids upset by strawberry-tart gun!

by Jon Rappoport

March 8, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

It’s called doubling down. First, a teacher at the Park Elementary School in Baltimore flips out, because 7-year-old Josh Welch bites his strawberry tart, trying to make it look like a mountain—but it ends up looking (sort of) like a gun.

The teacher reports Josh, who is then suspended for two days.

Now, an assistant principal at the school has sent a letter to parents offering counseling to kids who may have been upset by the incident. I kid you not.

“…If your children express that they are troubled by today’s incident…our school counselor is available to meet with any students who have the need to do so…”

What happens when a little kid shows up in the counselor’s office and says he’s angry at the lunatic teacher who upbraided Josh Welch?

Does the school suspend that little kid, too?? Does the counselor try to convince the kid he was really upset because he saw a danish bitten into a few right angles?

“You see, Jimmy, this is classic case of displacement. You think you’re bothered by the teacher. But really, it was that tart. Do you get it? Your agitation may be sign of ADHD. I’m going to refer you to a psychiatrist. He can give you medicine. It’ll make you feel better.”

Park Elementary school isn’t retreating from their suspension of Josh Welch. They’re doubling down. And what are the parents of the students doing ? Nothing. They’re knuckling under. They’re shrugging it all off. Why? Let’s see. Oh yes. They’re rank cowards.

And do you think their kids realize that? Are you kidding? Of course they do. The kids are registering how easily their mothers and fathers are copping out. The kids see there’s a robot-setup at work. The school does something that makes no sense at all. A kid is being punished for no reason at all. And the parents are taking it. The parents are mush.

It’s all a joke, yes. The strawberry tart. The gun shape. But beyond that, the two-day suspension of Josh Welch wasn’t a joke. And nobody cares.

This is the real lesson the school is imparting. “See, we can do anything we want to. We can do the most ridiculous thing in the world. And nobody will lift a finger to stop us.”

Now the kids think, “What else can we be suspended for? Suppose we don’t like those tarts and don’t eat them? Can they kick us out for that? If a shoe lace is untied? Can one of the prison guards report us to the principal?”

Good work, parents. You’re teaching your children invaluable lessons. You’re showing them all sorts of things. A few of you are even asking your kids, “Were you upset by the strawberry tart gun? If you were, you can go to the school counselor and tell her how you feel.”

And that look your kid is then giving you? That stare? Do you know what it means? It means he’s lost faith in you. He knows. He knows you have no courage. He knows you have no balls. He knows you’re useless when it comes time to stand up and be counted. He knows you preach one thing but do another. He knows you don’t really care.

At that point, he can do one of two things. He can grow up to be just like you, which you understand, at some level, is a terrible choice. Or he can go the other way and opt for the courage of his convictions, in which case you’ve lost him. He’ll never be as close to you as he was.

You can’t like either choice, if you have the guts to think about it. But you don’t have the guts, do you? You made your own choices a long time ago. You surrendered.

“Oh, well,” you say, “this is foolish. It was just a stupid little episode with a pastry. Ha-ha. Everybody knows it’s silly.” Yes, they do. But it’s moments like this that change things.

Kids aren’t as stupid as you are. They look around, they size up what’s happening, and they come to conclusions. They make and break their own futures based on what they conclude.

You parents could come together and march into the school and into the office of the school board and say, “Enough.” You could threaten to pull your kids out Park Elementary and put a serious crimp in the school’s state and federal funding.

Better yet, you could yank your kids out of Park and start your own school. Or you could home school.

But that would be inconvenient, wouldn’t it? You’re so busy these days, and the school baby-sits for five hours a day.

And it was just a pastry.

Why get riled up?

This, too, shall pass.

Yes, everything always passes. But in the wake of those moments, subterranean decisions are made.

No, its not like a war with bombs falling. No, it’s not mass starvation. But where you live, it’s real. It happened. And you skated. You closed your eyes and thought about something else.

You’re good at that. Most of your kids will become good at it, too. And that’s what you want for them, isn’t it? The ability to skate and slide and glide past what we used to call Character.

Character is old-fashioned. It doesn’t exist anymore. It’s an ideal that doesn’t fit into today’s world, because we have no more individuals. We only have groups and communities, and in that atmosphere other traits are valued.

The traits you’ve cultivated. You’ve been imparting the substance of your lesson plans to your kids ever since they could crawl. And now, when the school provides you with the opportunity to break out and wake up and turn it all around, you do the predictable thing. You step away.

Do you want to know where all this leads? You don’t, but I’ll tell you anyway. The population of this country will melt down into one great glob of goo. This collective will look to whatever is defined as leadership, and the collective will follow along without hesitation.

Chances are good your child will be a molecule of that Unity.

So congratulations. You’ve made your statement. You’ve succeeded with all your adjustments to reality.

The tart that wasn’t a gun and didn’t look anything like a gun was a gun. Ignorance is strength. 2 plus 2 equals five. Bad is good.

You’re a teacher.

You’re hired. You’re in.

When you think about it, the school is doing exactly what you want it to, isn’t it?

Secretly, you approve.

I’m not talking about tarts or guns now. I’m talking about that Something you gave in to many years ago. You may not be able to name it, but you know what it is. You worship it every day of your life. You may go to church on Sunday, but this Something is what you really bow down to.

It’s really very mild. It’s pleasing, in a way. It puts you in the driver’s seat, as long as you agree to allow the car to drive itself. It’s more automatic than any gun ever invented. It pings your nervous system and your brain. You receive the signal and you do what’s expected of you. And therefore you fit in. You have your place. And really, it doesn’t matter what particular action or what particular silence is expected of you. It only matters that you go along.

The school issues its edict, and you must follow. The more absurd the edict, the more significant the test. That’s the point. How can the system be checked unless it gives absurd commands?

You understand that crucial point and you concur.

It’s not enough to ring a bell and see a dog drool because he expects to be fed. That’s just step one. Anyone can accomplish that. You need to ring the bell and have the dog drool because he’s been taught the moon is made of cheese or a tart is a gun. Then you really have something.

And this is what you want. You want to feel the security that comes from knowing the system is tight and fully operative from top to bottom. It can make ANY command and people will respond as expected.

Then your worship of obedience is vindicated. You know everyone else is on the same page. There are no leaks. You were right all along.

This is the only way to live life.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. 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

Two words that don’t go together: “medical” and “journalism”

Mar6

Two words that don’t go together: “medical” and “journalism”

by Jon Rappoport

March 6, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Yesterday, I was scanning through medicalnewstoday.com, catching up on the wacky and highly dangerous world of medicine.

What caught my attention were the story headlines themselves. In the news biz, everything depends on those headlines and what they mean, imply, suggest. They’re magnets.

So take a trip with me through one day of the magnetic field.

First, let’s get a few OOPS headlines out of the way:

“Common Cancer Vaccine Ingredient Diverts T-cells From Tumors”

“Shelf Life of Blood Nearer 3 Than 6 Weeks”

“One-Third of Doctors Miss Electronic Test Results”

These headlines should be rewritten and blasted across the front pages of newspapers and jammed into the top spots on the evening television news. But no. They aren’t. They might disturb the sleeping masses.

GIGANTIC CANCER VACCINE SCREW-UP

ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO GET A BLOOD TRANSFUSION?

DOCTORS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL…AGAIN

The common cancer vaccine ingredient referred to in the first headline is mineral oil. It’s used in experimental cancer vaccines being tested on animals. Seems the T-cells in the body, stimulated by the vaccine, fail to attack the cancer tumors. Instead, they attack the injection site. Where the vaccine was jabbed. Oops.

The T-cells are attacking the mineral oil!

You mean, all these studies of cancer vaccines, for all these years, were goofing on a monumental stupidity? The immune systems of all these mice were turning around and attacking the hole where the vaccine went in? Yes, the T-cells, in fact, were attracted to the mineral oil. Wonderful. And for a bonus, the result was infection. Good work. Splendid work.

In case mineral oil is ever found to be lethal, we can make the body attack it.

The next headline refers to the fact that, finally, researchers have figured out something important about blood used for transfusions: better not use blood stored for six weeks—it’s not any good. Oops.

Hospitals have been using six-week-old blood forever. But that blood doesn’t transfer enough oxygen to the patient. No. Doctors shouldn’t be transfusing blood older than three weeks.

In fact, a Johns Hopkins newsletter drops this little nugget. “One previous, large study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has already shown that cardiac surgery patients who received blood stored longer than three weeks were almost twice as likely to die as patients who got blood that had been stored for just 10 days.”

Oops, oops, oops.

“Remember Frank? Hell of a guy. Always on the go. He went to the hospital for surgery and they gave him old blood. He died. Tragic. But hey, the doctors tried. They thought that, like wine, blood is best when it’s aged.”

The third headline has to do with the problem we all face in sorting through the ton of emails we get every day. In the wacky wonderful world of medicine, many test results on patients are now transmitted to doctors via email. How modern. One little problem, though. The doctors miss them. They don’t read the emails. Oops.

“Mr. Jones, your test results have been delayed. Don’t know why. So I’ll just wing it. Let’s see. I’ll put a blindfold on and reach into this cabinet full of different medicines and grab a bottle. Here, take this twice a day. And don’t call me. If you convulse, try 911.”

Now we come to a type of headline I love. The maybe-could be headline. Actually, it’s a lying headline, but it’s couched cleverly—if you have no more than three brain cells to work with:

“Obesity Gene Linked to Skin Cancer”

First of all, this assumes researchers have really found a gene that causes obesity. That’s sheer baloney. Generally, baloney causes obesity. Second, the word “linked” means, “Might be relevant, we don’t know, we’ll see, or maybe we’ll just drop the whole idea…but we did get some grant money for the research.”

“Investigators Identify Genetic Risk Factors for Age-Related Macular Degeneration”

Translated, this means: “There might be two or three or possibly six or 40 genes related to macular degeneration, we don’t know, but we can build a little model that quantifies what we call risk, which is a probability, but this makes no difference, because we don’t have a genetic treatment for macular degeneration; in fact we don’t have ANY genetic treatment which works across the board for ANY medical condition. But we did get grant money for this study.”

“Two genes linked to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s Disease)”

Ditto. “Linked” means maybe, could be, we don’t know, and we have no genetic treatment for Lou Gehrig’s Disease and we don’t know whether we ever will. It also means: this disease may not be a disease at all; it could be head injury or exposure to a chemical, but we call it a disease because disease-names equal money.

Next, we have the DUH headlines.

“Sleeping Pills Raise Hip Fracture Risk in Nursing Home Residents”

Really? You mean people who live in a daze because they’re loaded with sleeping pills day after day actually fall down and break something? Astounding. And you discovered this by doing a full-bore study? Good for you. Here’s a suggestion for your next grant application: “Bright lights suddenly turned on, accompanied by sirens, cause people who are sleeping to wake up.”

“Inappropriate Use of Opoids, FDA Extremely Concerned”

Again, astounding to learn—people are using too many opoids. And the FDA concern is felt coast to coast. We appreciate that. While you’re at it, you (FDA) might express some concern about the fact that you’re certifying drugs as safe and effective that are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 Americans every year. And that’s a very conservative estimate.

There’s one more DUH headline. It took me an hour to figure out what it means:

“Optimism and Feelings of Vulnerability Skewed Following Tornado, Should Be Reflected in Emergency Preparedness”

As far as I can tell, they’re talking about people who feel optimistic after a tornado hit their town. Meaning: these residents say they don’t expect another one in the future. Wow. Researchers state this optimism is inappropriate, and therefore emergency responders should prepare for it…or something. Again, study completed, grant money deposited in bank account.

“Are you going to be home tonight for dinner, Daddy?”

“No, Jimmy, I’m going to be working. I have to drive to Small Town USA and nag the local residents, who were hit by a tornado last year, by asking them whether they feel optimistic about a lack of tornadoes in the foreseeable future. This is vital information I’m gathering. I can’t remember why at the moment, but it is putting food on our table. So clean your plate at dinner tonight.”

Then we have a feel-good headline. Maybe.

“Good Quality Hospital Care Indicated by Facebook ‘Likes’”

Well, isn’t that special. Forget hospital records. Forget the fact that hospitals kill 119,000 Americans every year (by conservative mainstream estimates). Who cares? Our hospital got 489 Facebook Likes from patients. Good work, guys. Here, let me read one Like to you:

“Although I was given a heart bypass for my broken ankle, the recovery period was highlighted by balloons which the staff brought into my room and the candy bars they placed on my night table. Was that a nurse who walked into my room at three in the morning, or was it a hooker paid for by the assistant director, who seemed very concerned about my well-being and had me sign some kind of waiver while I was drugged to the gills with morphine?”

Finally, we have this headline:

“Children with ADHD Require Long-Term Treatment Well Into Adulthood”

Let’s see. ADHD is a fake disorder for which no diagnostic test exists. The drugs used to treat it are cheap speed, which can cause very dangerous effects, like hallucinations, aggressive behavior, and deep sadness. But no problem. Keep drugging kids all the way into adulthood. Ruin their lives. It’s good for business.

Well, there you are. That’s just a partial list of one day’s medical headlines.

Kudos to the headline writers and the conscientious journalists who got their stories right and really let us know what’s what. We’re now much wiser, and we feel confident that medical science is marching forward into a future where, for example, tiny nanobots can be injected into our blood streams. These bots, armed and programmed with such useful and true medical information, will automatically make changes inside our bodies and correct any problems they discover.

We’ll feel better and be better. We’ll take a moment every day to bow down to the guardians of our health.

Give us more medicine! Give us more care! Heal us! We trust you! We love you!

Here are a few basic headline-rewrites that better reflect medical journalism in today’s world. I’m 100% sure that if the NY Times ran them across the top of the front page, day after day, the readership would explode and the Times would rescue itself from impending financial ruin.

HA-HA-HA; WHEN DOCTORS SAY ‘GENETIC LINKS FOUND’ THEY MEAN ‘WE HAVE NO IDEA BUT WE’RE BANKING $$$’

ADHD A FICTIONAL FANTASY, BUT THE DRUGS SELL LIKE CRAZY AND SCREW KIDS INTO PRETZEL SHAPES

VACCINE ATTACKS HOLE IN THE BODY WHERE THE NEEDLE WAS STUCK

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE STONED ON PAIN KILLERS ARE TURNING INTO ZOMBIES, HIP-REPLACEMENT BUSINESS SOARS

THOUSANDS OF DOCTORS DON’T READ YOUR MEDICAL TESTS, WING IT FOR FUN AND PROFIT

WANT A DEFICIT OF OXYGEN? GO TO A HOSPITAL AND GET SOME OLD BLOOD

FACEBOOK-LIKES CURE CANCER, ALTHOUGH DEATH MAY BE A SIDE EFFECT

I’m available for freelance headline work.

Jon Rappoport

225,000 US patients die in doctors’ hands: silence of the lambs

Mar3

225,000 American patients die in doctors’ hands: silence of the lambs

by Jon Rappoport

March 3, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

In my previous article, I examined the silence of the lambs (media) concerning the collusion between Monsanto and the FDA.

In the case of medical care in America, that purposeful silence reigns supreme as well.

By the most conservative estimate, researched and published by mainstream medical sources, the US medical system kills 225,000 people each year.

That’s 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.

You’d think such a mind-boggling fact would rate a relentless series of page-one stories in the press, along with top-story status on the network evening news.

But no. It’s wall-to-wall silence.

Why? We can list the usual reasons, the medical/pharmaceutical advertising dollars spent on television and in newspapers being the most obvious reason.

We have the reality that, of those 225,000 annual deaths, 106,000 occur as a direct effect of pharmaceutical drugs. The FDA is the single government agency tasked with certifying all medicines as safe and effective before they’re released for public use. Any exposure of the medical death statistics would automatically indict the FDA. Major media won’t take on the FDA at that level.

One of the many truths which would come to light in the event that the press did attack the FDA full-on? The FDA spends an inordinate amount of time, energy, and money going after the nutritional supplement industry, which causes virtually no deaths in any year or decade.

The public would of course discover that, by certifying medical drugs as safe and effective, drugs that kill, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the FDA is colluding with, and serving, Big Pharma.

You can’t possibly approve so many drugs that wreak so much human destruction through mere incompetence. Apologists for the FDA might like to think so, but they are terribly, terribly wrong. They are whistling in the dark, trusting “science” as our guide.

Since I’ve been reporting these medically-caused death figures—I started 12 years ago—people have told me, “This is impossible. If it were true, the media would be reporting it.”

That argument is upside down. The statistics are real and true. In fact, they are very low estimates. Therefore, the press is colluding to keep them well under the radar.

The mainstream press is built to be able to maintain silence on issues such as this. It’s part of their job. Although many reporters and editors are simply ignorant and clueless, at the highest levels of media we are looking at sheer manipulation. We are looking at the crime of accessory to murder.

I don’t say murder in any non-literal way. It’s murder because, when you know the facts, when you know what a huge government institution (FDA) is doing to the population, and when that institution itself is well aware of its lethal impact on the public and does nothing about it, year after year, decade after decade, it’s FDA murder and it’s media’s accessory to murder.

It’s not merely negligent homicide. There is no negligence here, any more than there would be if you took a loaded gun out into the street and started firing randomly at crowds of people.

Underneath it all, the press maintains silence because they are not permitted to hammer a huge fracture in what is called “the public trust.”

And what is the public trust? It’s the false illusion that basically things are all right. That’s the simplest way to say it. Things are all right.

They’re especially all right when it comes to the medical profession. Doctors are modern priests in white coats.

But the priests are the ones who are prescribing the drugs that are killing people. If the extent of their crimes were made known, trust would evaporate in seconds. And not just trust in the medical profession. Trust, or the lack of it, is contagious. It spreads to other areas quickly.

“Well, if they’re lying abut this, and killing people, then who else is lying and killing?”

“We know that people die in wars. But the doctors are supposed to be saving lives. They’re not supposed to be giving people drugs that kill them at the rate of 106,000 a year, every year.”

The press and the people who own media companies are aware they are guardians of the public trust. However, that has nothing to do with telling the truth. The press is guarding the illusion of truth. That’s how they interpret their mandate.

Nowhere is this perversion more clear than in the medical arena.

As I do every so often, I’m presenting my interview with the late Dr. Barbara Starfield, who for many years was a revered public health authority at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. She was the researcher who exposed the truth about medically caused death in America.

Her review, “Is US Health really the best in the world?”, was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.

It presented three key facts. Every year, the US medical system kills 225,000 people. 106,000 die from the direct effects of FDA-approved medical drugs. 119,000 die from the effects of treatment in hospitals.

Soon after her review was published, it gained some media attention. Not headline attention, but the press carried the story. Then, like a report of a car crash or a storm, Starfield’s revelation disappeared, vanished without a trace.

In other articles, I’ve made it clear that Starfield’s journal paper is confirmed by other sources. In fact, on a page of the FDA’s own web site, it is admitted that 100,000 people die every year in America from the effects of pharmaceutical drugs. However, as in the case of every psychotic criminal, the FDA takes no responsibility.

Here are excerpts from my interview with Dr. Barbara Starfield:

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.

In THE MATRIX REVEALED, the 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

The first bonus is the complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

The second bonus is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades. For more information on how increasing your command of Logic can help you navigate your convictions more clearly, see the FREE article I wrote entitled “Matrix programming 101: destroy logic”.

INTERVIEWER COMMENTS:

This interview with Dr. Starfield reveals that, even when an author has unassailable credentials within the medical-research establishment, the findings can result in no changes made to the system.

Many persons and organizations within the medical system contribute to the annual death totals of patients, and media silence and public ignorance are certainly major factors, but the FDA is the assigned gatekeeper, when it comes to the safety of medical drugs.

The buck stops there. If those drugs the FDA is certifying as safe are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the Agency must be held accountable. The American people must understand that.

As for the other 119,000 people killed every year as a result of hospital treatment, this horror has to be laid at the doors of those institutions. Further, to the degree that hospitals are regulated and financed by state and federal governments, the relevant health agencies assume culpability.

It is astounding, as well, that the US Department of Justice has failed to weigh in on Starfield’s findings. If 225,000 medically caused deaths per year is not a crime by the Dept. of Justice’s standards, then what is?

To my knowledge, not one person in America has been fired from a job or even censured as result of these medically caused deaths.

Dr. Starfield’s findings have been available for 12 years. She has changed the perception of the medical landscape forever. In a half-sane nation, she would be accorded a degree of recognition that would, by comparison, make the considerable list of her awards pale. And significant and swift action would have been taken to punish the perpetrators of these crimes and reform the system from its foundations.

The pharmaceutical giants stand back and carve up the populace into “promising markets.” They seek new disease labels and new profits from more and more toxic drugs. They do whatever they can—legally or illegally—to influence doctors in their prescribing habits. Many studies which show the drugs are dangerous are buried. FDA panels are filled with doctors who have drug-company ties. Legislators are incessantly lobbied and supported with Pharma campaign monies.

Nutrition, the cornerstone of good health, is ignored or devalued by most physicians. Meanwhile, the FDA continues to attack nutritional supplements, even though the overall safety record of these nutrients is excellent, whereas, once again, the medical drugs the FDA certifies as safe are killing 106,000 Americans per year.

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the whole literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjyspoyCg2o&w=470&h=264]

Jon Rappoport

Monsanto and the FDA: 2 crime families working a trillion-dollar hustle

Mar1

by Jon Rappoport

March 1, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Perhaps you remember the ill-fated Just-Label-It campaign. A number of activist groups petitioned the FDA for a federal regulation that would make labeling GMO food mandatory.

The petition amassed over a million signatures. But the FDA decided only 394 of these were legitimate, because all the others were electronically submitted in one document.

Infuriating? Of course. But that was nothing. Let’s get down to the core of the crime.

Imagine this. A killer is put on trial, and the jury, in a surprise verdict, finds him not guilty. Afterwards, reporters interview this killer. He says, “The jury freed me. It’s up to them. They decide. That’s what justice is all about.”

Then the press moves along to members of the jury, who say: Well, we had to take the defendant’s word. He said he was innocent, so that’s what we ruled.

That’s an exact description of the FDA and Monsanto partnership.

When you cut through the verbiage that surrounded the introduction of GMO food into America, you arrive at two key statements. One from Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing, licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.

Quoted in the New York Times Magazine (October 25, 1998, “Playing God in the Garden”), Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, famously stated: “Monsanto shouldn’t have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

From the Federal Register, Volume 57, No.104, “Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” here is what the FDA had to say on this matter: “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”

The direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements is no accident. It’s not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or a miscommunication. It’s a clear signal that the fix was in.

Passing the buck back and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which Pandora’s box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food supply.

In order for this titanic scam to work, the media had to cooperate. Reporters had to be a) idiots and b) sell-outs.

With few exceptions, reporters and their editors let the story rest there, as a “he said-he said” issue. No sane principled journalist would have cut bait at that point, but who said mainstream reporters are sane or principled?

Underneath the Monsanto-FDA buck-passing act, there was a conscious deal to give a free pass to GMO crops. This had nothing to do with science or health or “feeding the world.” It was about profits. It was also about establishing a new monopoly on food.

Not only would big agribusiness dominate the planet’s food supply, it would strengthen its stranglehold through patents on novel types of seeds which were technologically engineered.

It’s very much like saying, “A cob of corn is not a plant, it’s a machine, and we own the rights to every one of those yellow machines.”

How was Monsanto able to gather so much clout?

There was one reason and one reason only. Putting the world’s food supply into fewer hands was, and is, a major item on the Globalist agenda. If it weren’t, the FDA-Monsanto scam would have been exposed in a matter of weeks or months.

Major newspapers and television networks would have attacked the obvious con job like packs of wild dogs and torn it to pieces.

But once the scam had been given a free pass, the primary corporate-government tactic was to accomplish a fait accompli, a series of events that was irreversible.

In this case, it was about gene drift. From the beginning, it was well known that GMO plants release genes that blow in the wind and spread from plant to plant, crop to crop, and field to field. There is no stopping it.

Along with convincing enough farmers to lock themselves into GMO-seed contracts, Monsanto bought up food-seed companies in order to engineer the seeds…and the gene-drift factor was the ace in the hole.

Sell enough GMO seeds, plant enough GMO crops, and you flood the world’s food crops with Monsanto genes.

Back in the 1990s, the prince of darkness, Michael Taylor, who has moved through the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto several times, and is now the czar of food safety at the FDA—Taylor said, with great conviction, that the GMO revolution was unstoppable; within a decade or two, an overwhelming percentage of food grown on planet Earth would be GMO.

Taylor and others knew. They knew about gene drift, and they also knew that ownership of the world’s food, by a few companies, was a prime focus for Globalist kings who intended to feed the population through Central Planning and Distribution.

“We feed these people; we hold back food from those people; we send food there; we don’t send food here.”

Control food and water, and you hold the world in your hand.

Here is evidence that, even in earlier days, Monsanto knew about and pushed for the Globalist agenda. Quoted by J. Flint, in his 1998 “Agricultural Giants Moving Towards Genetic Monopolism,” Robert Fraley, head of Monsanto’s agri-division, stated: “What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of [Monsanto-purchased] seed companies. It’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain.”

And as for the power of the propaganda in that time period, I can think of no better statement than the one made on January 25^th,2001, by the outgoing US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Glickman said:

“What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of these issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.”

Glickman reveals several things in these remarks: he was spineless; people at the Dept. of Agriculture were madly buying into the Monsanto cover story about feeding the world; and there had to be a significant degree of infiltration at his Agency.

The last point is key. This wasn’t left to chance. You don’t get a vocal majority of Dept. of Agriculture personnel spouting the Monsanto propaganda merely because the fairy tale about feeding the world sounds so good. No, there are people working on the inside to promote the “social cause” and make pariahs out of dissenters.

You need special background and training to pull that off. It isn’t an automatic walk in the park. This is professional psyop and intelligence work.

I’ve done some investigation of various groups on both the left and the right, and I’ve seen some pros in action. They’re good. They know how to leverage ideas and slogans and ideals. They know how to defame opponents and find just the right words to sink them. They know how to turn high-flying but vague words about “humanity” into moral imperatives.

This isn’t rinky-dink stuff. To tune up bureaucrats and scientists, you have to have a background in manipulation. You have to know what you’re doing. You have to be able to build and sustain support, without giving your game away.

Truth be told, governments are full of these pros, who will take any number of causes and turn them into what falsely sounds like good science, good government, good morality, all the while knowing that, on the far shore, sits the real prize: control.

These psyop specialists are hired to help make overarching and planet-wide agendas come true, as populations are brought under sophisticated and pathological elites who care, for example, about feeding the world as much as a collector cares about paralyzing and pinning butterflies on a panel in a glass case.

Here is David Rockefeller, writing in his 2003 Memoirs:

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

The Globalists play for keeps.

Owning the food of the world is part of their strike-force action plan, and Monsanto is the technocratic arm of that plan.

Meanwhile, the controlled press treats the whole sordid Monsanto story with its time-honored policy of “he said-he said.” This policy dictates that stories merely present both sides of a conflict without drawing conclusions.

It applies across the board—except when it doesn’t. For example, for reasons too complex to go into here, the Washington Post decided to suspend its policy in the Watergate case. Woodward and Bernstein were assigned to investigate what was going on behind White House denials and obfuscations.

The same thing could be done with Monsanto, and it would be far easier. The lies and crimes and cover-ups are everywhere. You could wear sunglasses and find them in the dark.

The NY Times and the Washington Post could sell millions more papers on the back of the Monsanto story alone. It would be a bonanza for them. But no. They don’t care. They’d rather keep declining and losing readers. They’d rather die.

Normally, a business doesn’t commit suicide, especially when it sees exactly how to resuscitate itself. But here we are dealing with an agenda which can’t be disturbed. Globalism, and its agri-techno partner, Monsanto, are creating a planetary future. Major media are part and parcel of that op. They are selling it.

Even as their bottom lines erode, these newspapers and television networks have to stay on their present course. By pretending they’re reporting the real news, they’re giving the impression that Monsanto and the FDA are home free.

Again, we aren’t talking about sloppy reporting or accidental omissions of fact or boggling incompetence or ignorance about science. We are talking about conscious intent to deceive.

Yes, now and then the controlled media will release a troubling piece about Monsanto. But placement and frequency are everything. How often do these stories run? Do they run as the lead or do we find them on page 7? Are reporters assigned to keep pounding on a basic story and reveal more and more crimes? Does the basic story gather steam over the course of weeks and months?

These are the decisions that make or break a story. In the case of Monsanto and the FDA, the decisions were made a long time ago.

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

Part of every new reporter’s training, if he has any ideals at all, is marching into his editor’s office with his hair on fire demanding to be given an assignment to expose a crime. The editor, knowing the true agenda of his newspaper or television network, tells the reporter:

“We’ve already covered that.”

“It’s old news.”

“People aren’t interested in it.”

“It’s too complicated.”

“The evidence you’re showing me is thin.”

“You’ll never get to the bottom of it.”

“The people involved won’t talk to you.”

And if none of those lies work, the editor might say, “If you keep pushing this, it would be bad for your career. You’ll lose access for other stories. You’ll be thought of as weird…”

This is how the game works at ground level. But make no mistake about it, the hidden agenda is about protecting an elite’s op from exposure.

If NBC, for example, gave its golden boy, Brian Williams, the green light, he would become an expert on Monsanto in three days. He’d become a tiger. He’d affect a whole set of morally outraged poses and send Monsanto down into Hell.

Don’t misunderstand. Brian hasn’t been waiting to move in for the kill. He’s a neutral entity. Wind him up and point to a target and he’ll go there.

But no one will point him at Monsanto or the FDA.

All the major reporters at news outlets and all the elite television anchors are really psyop specialists. It’s just that most of them don’t know it.

One outraged major reporter who woke up and got out of the business put it to me this way: When he was in the game, he looked at the news as a big public restroom. His one guiding principle was: Don’t piss on your shoes. Stand closer to the urinal. Pissing on your shoes was covering a story that was considered out of bounds. If you pissed on your shoes and walked into the boss’s office, he’d look at you and see the telltale sign. He’d say, “Hey, you pissed on your shoes. That’s disgusting. Get out of here. You’re fired.”

Jon Rappoport

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

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Medical Fraud

James Holmes’ lawyers enter insanity plea; here come the insane psychiatrists

The lying liars who lie about psychiatry

The medical cartel: too big to fail, too evil to expose

The hoax at the bottom of Autism and Alzheimer’s

James Holmes, and how the CIA hid their MKULTRA mind-control program

The CIA, James Holmes, MKULTRA, and truth-serum torture

School now offering counseling to kids upset by strawberry-tart gun!

Two words that don’t go together: “medical” and “journalism”

225,000 US patients die in doctors’ hands: silence of the lambs

Monsanto and the FDA: 2 crime families working a trillion-dollar hustle