Category Archives: Medical Fraud

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

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

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

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

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.

The Matrix Revealed

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

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

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

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 25th, 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.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Explosive report: 98% of newborn babies are genetically screened

by Jon Rappoport

February 27, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Newborn Screening in America,” a report from the Council for Responsible Genetics, states: “Before they are even a week old, ninety-eight percent of the 4.3 million babies born annually in the United States have a small sample of blood taken from their heels.”

The report continues: “These newborn bloodspots (NBS) are then screened for a variety of inherited conditions and may later be stored in state-operated databases…parents are often unaware of these screening programs and their consent options.”

This shocking national program, flying under the radar, is of course explained as a humane medical undertaking. But there is no across-the-board genetic treatment for any disease or illness. All the “maybe-possibly-in-the-future-cure” nonsense does nothing to justify this rank incursion on newborns and their unsuspecting families.

The report goes on: “With respect to [bloodspot] sample storage and use, there is also little transparency regarding storage procedures or the use of the samples after they have been screened…many states do not have clearly articulated policies about consent for the storage and use of samples or may not effectively communicate these policies to parents.”

Then there is the question of who now has, or will have in the future, access to all these millions of blood samples and the results of the genetic screening.

Reliable and trustworthy assurances of citizen-privacy from the government have gone the way of the dinosaur and other extinct species.

Let’s see…DNA samples of nearly every newborn baby in America: surveillance and tracking, anyone? We have here the makings of a universal DNA database for “crime prevention.”

Controversial legislation introduced to obtain a DNA sample from every adult? It’s already being done covertly in hospitals, at birth.

What about technocrats obsessed with re-engineering humans? What about other researchers who want to run comparative DNA studies in thousands of different ways, for any purpose under the sun—who for example are intensely interested in making (or inventing) genetic distinctions between various socioeconomic sectors of society? This newborn database is irresistible.

You can be sure social, medical, and genetic engineers are looking at all this raw data like wild animals look at prey on the plains.

The idea of correlating genetic factors with “failure in life” is the Holy Grail for eugenicists. They will find a way to gain access to the data, because they want to build “a better world” and eliminate the “inferior” people.

Right now, we have rapid abortionists who earnestly believe and advocate the destruction of life after birth as a viable option. They even call it abortion. So a doctor could tell a parent, “The genetic profile of your baby is very problematic. You should consider terminating life…”

Again, all this illegal and immoral collection of genetic data from babies is justified as a “humane medical endeavor.” So ask your doctor, “Where is the ironclad proof that you have any genetic treatment for any disease that works across the board?” Don’t accept blue-sky predictions and promises.

Get real.

Because the State is getting real. They want control. And taking blood samples from babies is a giant step on the road to a genetic dictatorship.

The Matrix Revealed

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

To read Jon’s articles on Substack, click here.

Jon Rappoport

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

The secret at the bottom of psychiatry’s rabbit hole

The secret at the bottom of psychiatry’s rabbit hole

by Jon Rappoport

February 24, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Nightmares, out-of-control aggressive behavior, extreme sadness and passivity, confusion, hallucinations, mania, brain damage, suicide, homicide—these are just a few central effects of psychiatric drugs.

Read the staggering statistics reported by Robert Whitaker, the author of Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill: “The number of adults, ages 18 to 65, on the federal disability rolls due to mental illness jumped from 1.25 million in 1987 to four million in 2007. Roughly one in every 45 working-age adults is now on government disability due to mental illness.

“This epidemic has now struck our nation’s children, too. The number of children who receive a federal payment because of a severe mental illness rose from 16,200 in 1987 to 561,569 in 2007, a 35-fold increase.”

My exploration started in 1999, as I covered the Columbine school shooting.

I was already familiar with the pioneering work of Dr. Peter Breggin and his classic book, Toxic Psychiatry. I knew the drugs were toxic and that some of them could push people into violence.

It emerged that one of the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris, had been on Luvox, a violence-inducing drug, an SSRI antidepressant.

This, of course, was very troubling, because children and adults all over America were taking these antidepressants. And in Dr. Breggin’s book, I saw a summary of a review-study on Ritalin, done in 1986 by Joseph Scarnati. Ritalin, far from being a “soft” drug, was essentially speed, and it carried with it significant dangers.

It could cause hallucinations, aggressive behavior, and even psychotic breaks. Several million children in America were taking Ritalin.

What I came to call a “Johnny Appleseed specter” loomed over America. If psychiatrists dispensed enough of these drugs, seeding the population, we would be in for random shootings and killings and suicides on into the indefinite future. And psychiatrists were, in fact, handing out these drugs like candy. No one at the FDA or any enforcement government agency was ringing alarm bells.

In the wake of Columbine, I wrote a white paper, “Why Did they Do It: School Shootings Across America,” for The Truth Seeker. It gained wide online attention. The report mentioned other instances where children, on psychiatric drugs, had committed murder and suicide.

In the ensuing years, I became much more aware of the influence of drug companies in this Johnny Appleseed operation. They had, in fact, struck a deal to rescue the sinking profession of psychiatry. The arrangement was simple and potent: Big Pharma would bankroll psychiatric conferences and education, prop up flagging journals with advertising money, and generally promote the repute of psychiatry, in return for a certain kind of research:

The research would “prove” that all mental disorders were the result of chemical imbalances in the brain, and no amount of talk therapy would resolve these issues. Instead, it would take drugs, which of course would be developed and sold by Pharma.

In order for this scheme to work, the FDA, which certifies all medicines as safe and effective before releasing them for public consumption, would have to play along. That was no problem. The FDA basically serves the pharmaceutical industry.

Roughly five years after Columbine, I (and other investigators) began to see how widespread the research fraud really was. Peter Breggin was already aware of it and had published extensively on the subject.

For example, clinical trials of psychiatric drugs were being done over very brief periods of time; in some cases, the trials were as short as six weeks. This was the case with Xanax. A brief testing period would hide many of the adverse effects of the drugs.

But then I also saw how clinical trials that were failures, that revealed how badly the drugs were performing, could be hidden altogether, as if they’d never happened. The results of these trials weren’t published at all. A pharmaceutical company, running a number of studies on a drug, could cherry pick a few studies that looked good and shelve the others.

In 2009, searching the literature and interviewing several psychiatrists off the record, I came to understand that the whole idea of “chemical imbalances in the brain” was a fraud. No one had ever established a normal chemical level of balance. In other words, there was no scientific standard that, by comparison, could show what an “imbalance” was. It was a myth, and it was widely accepted, even by the public.

I began talking to parents. The full force of what was happening, on the ground, was driven home to me. Lives were being derailed and destroyed at an early age. Children were being warped by these drugs. A diagnosis of one psychiatric condition, followed by a drug prescription, often resulted in another diagnosis, and more drugs. The effects were devastating.

The time of childhood, of innocence, was being destroyed. It was all in the service of carving up behavior into categories of mental disorders and then selling drugs behind those diagnoses.

Children’s brains were being twisted.

There was a growing trend to diagnose children at six, at four, or even earlier, with mental conditions—and give them drugs. Papers and books were being written to justify this. The publications were called “breakthroughs.” A whole industry of “bipolar children” was created out of thin air, and the scientific fraud was accepted as holy writ.

This was not just fraud. It was evil. It was remorseless evil, perpetrated by elite academics and researchers. These were people who should have been put in prison for the rest of their lives. But nothing was happening to them. They were praised instead, and celebrated.

Where was the national conscience? Where were the people in the Department of Justice, who should have been serving warrants and making arrests and building court cases?

What I saw was obvious, and it had been in front of my face for more than a decade. The federal government was supporting and certifying psychiatry/psychology as the single science of mental health. This wasn’t just a wink and a nod; it was rock solid.

Where in the Constitution was there any basis for that? Nowhere. The very idea, when you isolated it and held it in your hand and looked at it, was preposterous. The federal government has no conceivable right to enable psychiatry in any way.

Yet, it was happening. It was happening to such a degree that nothing was being done to punish the whole profession for destroying countless lives with toxic drugs. Indeed, this was government-approved behavior.

It still boggles my mind to think about that. Yes, one can offer many excuses and rationalizations, but at the end of it all, that’s what we’re left with: the government is certifying the destruction of millions of lives.

Read Toxic Psychiatry, and Dr. Breggin’s later book, Medication Madness. Read Robert Whitaker’s Mad in America and Anatomy of an Epidemic. That will get you started. You’ll find lucid evidence of the many destructive effects the drugs produce, all the way from mania to motor brain damage.

I thought I had reached the end of the road. What more was there to discover? What more did anyone need to know? No matter which way you sliced it, psychiatric destruction was a government-certified program.

But then, several years ago, I realized I didn’t know how many mental disorders existed. I knew, of course, there was a bible of the psychiatric profession. It is called the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. So far, there have been four editions. A fifth is due out in the spring of 2013.

The editions of the DSM are put together by committees of psychiatrists. The DSM, published by the American Psychiatric Association, lists and defines every officially-certified mental disorder. It is used by psychiatrists to bill insurance companies.

So I quickly found out there are 297 mental disorders. This is absurd on the face of it. Reading the descriptions of these disorders, one sees they are menus of behaviors.

I assumed some of these disorders were based on nothing but speculation. They were inventions. Concoctions.

But after a few conversations with psychiatric sources, I saw I had been underestimating the extent of the fraud.

In fact, all 297 mental disorders are arrangements and clusters of behaviors. The DSM committees hold meetings and argue and hash out the composition of the clusters and the accompanying mental-disorder labels.

Then I found an article: Wired Magazine, December 27, 2010, “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness,” by Gary Greenberg. It was an interview with a psychiatrist, Dr. Allen Frances.

Frances wasn’t just any psychiatrist. He was a star of stars. He had been in charge of assembling the fourth edition of the bible, the DSM.

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…”

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

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

This was on the order of the Pope asserting there was no real reason to believe in God.

After a pause, Dr. Frances remarked, “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 DSM-IV had expanded 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, like Valproate and Lithium.

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 [with the DSM]. But you wouldn’t want to be without the map.”

Frances was basically admitting that the nice neat definitions of mental disorders were a delusion. But to justify it, he called the whole enterprise an exercise in partial map-making.

The Wired interview was explosive, to say the least. The most influential psychiatrist in America was confessing that you couldn’t clearly define mental disorders.

But no, that wasn’t all. There were a few more steps to the bottom of the rabbit hole. They were taken by Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center.

In an episode of the PBS Frontline series, titled “Does ADHD Exist,” the Frontline interviewer stated: “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.”

Dr. Barkley replied: “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.”

First of all, Dr. Barkley’s comments are not unique. I have heard his points echoed by many psychiatrists. It’s time to take this assertion apart, because it is truly staggering.

The “illiteracy about science” belongs to Dr. Barkley. The scientific method requires that when a researcher draws a conclusion, he provides the evidence for it. The burden of proof is on him.

If a committee of psychiatrists says disorder X exists, it must demonstrate that.

Barkely confirms that no mental disorder has a lab test to back up a diagnosis. It doesn’t matter what disorder you pick. Schizophrenia, ADHD, Bipolar, clinical depression. None of them can be tested for.

No blood test, no urine test, no saliva test, no brain scan, no genetic assay.

That is a titanic fact.

And being a fact, it destroys the whole DSM and everything it stands for. It destroys the validity of every one of the 297 official mental disorders.

Science requires that the claim for the existence of a mental disorder must be backed up by hard evidence. Since there is no evidence, and since the burden of proof is on the psychiatric profession, the inevitable inference is clear:

Retract every one of the 297 mental disorders. Erase their names. It’s over. There is no proof any of these disorders exist. They only have the status of fictions. Psychiatry doesn’t have some special dispensation to do “a different brand of science.”

When this was finally made clear to me, I knew I had reached the bottom of the rabbit hole. There were other paths to follow, concerning the issue of conscious intent to do harm to millions of people, but as far the science was concerned, that was It.

Of course, those who are confused by this bottom-line revelation will say that many people are suffering from mental illness. They will say it is obvious.

No, what is obvious is that many people have problems. Many people suffer. Many people are desperate. Many people experience emotional and physical pain. The actual causes for all this can’t be neatly categorized and labeled. To make a meaningful diagnosis or assessment involves much deeper investigation—and also an appreciation of what is front of one’s own eyes.

When it comes to human suffering and emotional distress, we could be talking about causes ranging from severe malnutrition to brain lesions; from environmental poisoning to a history of toxic medical drug and vaccine-use; from extreme poverty and hopelessness to false arrest; from oxygen deprivation at birth to physical abuse and imminent danger in the immediate household, or in the community; from massive food sensitivities and other allergies to blood-sugar problems; from guilt at having committed crimes to being on the receiving end of political oppression. The list goes on.

This is a partial collection of real causes—instead of the false, non-existent mental disorders, which are excuses to drug people.

The whole profession of psychiatry is an outright fraud and an ongoing crime of the highest order.

At the same time, as long as psychiatrists sit in offices and the drugs are available, and no one is prosecuted and sent to jail for dispensing these “medicines,” adults have the freedom to choose to take the drugs or not. And if some of them say they have benefited, that’s also their decision.

But without knowledge and authentic informed consent beforehand, the landscape is rife with danger.

When it comes uninformed or uncaring parents dealing away their children’s lives to psychiatrists, that is an ever-expanding tragic nightmare.

Each day that the profession of psychiatry continues to practice its sophisticated brand of poisonous fakery, and each day that the federal government of the United States continues to back it up and support it and fund it and give it primacy and monopoly, there is an ongoing RICO crime in progress. A crime of gangsters and thugs organized as a mob.

It is as if the Mafia declared its shootings and beatings to be scientifically based. It is exactly like that.

The Matrix Revealed

Here are several quotes, out of hundreds I could offer, on the subject of the adverse and chilling effects of psychiatry:

Dr. Peter Breggin, the eminent psychiatrist and author (Toxic Psychiatry, Talking Back to Prozac, Talking Back to Ritalin): “With Luvox [an antidepressant] there is some evidence of a four-percent rate for mania in adolescents. Mania, for certain individuals, could be a component in grandiose plans to destroy large numbers of other people. Mania can go over the hill to psychosis.”

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo is a psychiatrist in private practice in Washington DC. He is the past-president of the Washington chapter of the American Society of Psychoanalytic Physicians. Tarantolo states that “all the SSRIs [including Prozac and Luvox] relieve the patient of feeling. He becomes less empathic, as in `I don’t care as much,’ which means `It’s easier for me to harm you.’ If a doctor treats someone who needs a great deal of strength just to think straight, and gives him one of these drugs, that could push him over the edge into violent behavior.”

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

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

A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

“Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al, reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The well-known Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics states that Ritalin is “structurally related to amphetamines … Its pharmacological properties are essentially the same as those of the amphetamines.”

In Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin discusses the subject of drug combinations: “Combining antidepressants [e.g., Prozac, Luvox] and psychostimulants [e.g., Ritalin] increases the risk of cardiovascular catastrophe, seizures, sedation, euphoria, and psychosis. Withdrawal from the combination can cause a severe reaction that includes confusion, emotional instability, agitation, and aggression.”

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 over a hundred adverse affects of Ritalin and indexed published journal articles for each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects then, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

• Paranoid delusions

• Paranoid psychosis

• Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis

• Activation of psychotic symptoms

• Toxic psychosis

• Visual hallucinations

• Auditory hallucinations

• Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences

• Effects pathological thought processes

• Extreme withdrawal

• Terrified affect

• Started screaming

• Aggressiveness

• Insomnia

• Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphatamine-like effects

• psychic dependence

• High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug

• Decreased REM sleep

• When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia

• Convulsions

• Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

In commenting on Dr. Lawrence Diller’s book, Running on Ritalin, Dr. William Carey, Director of Behavioral Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, has written, “Dr. Diller has correctly described … the disturbing trend of blaming children’s social, behavioral, and academic performance problems entirely on an unproven brain deficit [ADHD]…”

The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard): “Stimulants [such as Ritalin] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity, conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment.”

In his book, Talking Back to Ritalin, Peter Breggin expands on the drug’s effects: “Stimulants such as Ritalin and amphetamine … have grossly harmful impacts on the brain-reducing overall blood flow, disturbing glucose metabolism, and possibly causing permanent shrinkage or atrophy of the brain.”

Dr. David Healy, professor of psychiatry and former Secretary of British Association for Psychopharmacology, author of Let Then Eat Prozac and Mania: “I approached ACLU about the fact that there are people in prison who are likely there because their drugs caused them to become violent but didn’t even get an acknowledgment from ACLU that I had written.

“In the same way the Boston Women’s Collaborative don’t want to hear that antidepressants could cause birth defects or mental handicap in children. They only want pregnant women to have access to antidepressants and are part of a movement that has pushed the use of antidepressants in pregnancy up to record levels.”

Dr. David Healy: “In the case of prescription [antidepressant] drugs, what defence does a doctor have to fall back on? The risk of violence on these drugs has been known for 50 years. It’s known that even giving these drugs to healthy volunteers can cause them to become violent. The data has been out there in warnings in many countries for 10 years. It may be disputed but there is no doctor who can say that they simply couldn’t have been aware of this issue. If there are, they are simply not professional.”

Dr. David Healy: “About 4000 families in the US have children born with major birth defects each year because of antidepressants taken in pregnancy. Up to 20,000 women per year have a miscarriage because of these drugs and a large number have voluntary terminations linked to antidepressants.”

Robert Whitaker, author of Mad in America and Anatomy of an Epidemic: “…the prescribing of psychiatric medications to children and adolescents took off during this period (1987 to 2007), and as this medical practice took hold, the number of youth in America receiving a government disability check because of a mental illness leapt from 16,200 in 1987 to 561,569 in 2007…”

Robert Whitaker: “[See] Coryell, W. American Journal of Psychiatry 152 (1995):1124-9.NIMH-funded investigators tracked the outcomes of medicated and unmedicated depressed people over a period of six years; those who were ‘treated’ for the illness were three times more likely than the untreated group to suffer a ‘cessation’ of their ‘principal social role’ and nearly seven times more likely to become ‘incapacitated.’ The NIMH researchers wrote: ‘The untreated individuals described here had milder and shorter-lived illness (than those who were treated), and, despite the absence of treatment, did not show significant changes in socieoeconomic status in the long term.’”

Dr. Thomas Szasz, psychiatrist and author of The Myth of Mental Illness: “Psychiatrists look for twisted molecules and defective genes as the causes of schizophrenia, because schizophrenia is the name of a disease. If Christianity or Communism were called diseases, would they then look for the chemical and genetic ’causes’ of these ‘conditions’?”

Jon Rappoport

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

Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic

Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2013

NoMoreFakeNews.com

I’ve written articles attacking the theory and practice of vaccination from a variety of angles. But the whole issue also needs to be approached from the perspective of logic.

Unfortunately, generations of people have been shut out of learning logic in school. They don’t know what it is. Therefore, vaccine advocates have been able to peddle their basic theory without much challenge.

It’s time to put an end to that free ride.

First of all, I need to point out a massive contradiction. When a person receives a vaccine, it’s said that his body produces antibodies against a particular germ and this is a good thing. Vaccination thus prepares the body for the day when that germ will really make its attack, at which point the immune system (including antibodies) will mount a successful defense.

However, let’s look at another venue: for many diseases, when a person is given a blood test to see if he is infected, quite often the standard for infection is “presence of antibodies.”

This makes no sense at all. If vaccination produces those antibodies, it is heralded as protection. But if a diagnostic blood test reveals those same antibodies, it’s a signal of infection and disease.

Vaccine-produced antibodies=health. Antibodies naturally produced by the body=illness.

Logically speaking, you resolve a contradiction by dropping one of the two sides and admitting it is false. Or you go deeper and reject some prior premise that led to the contradiction in the first place.

So let’s go deeper. What does vaccination supposedly do to “prepare” the body against the future invasion of a particular germ? It stimulates the production of antibodies against that germ.

Antibodies are immune-system scouts that move through the body, identify germs, and paint them for destruction by other immune-system troops.

However, since the entire immune system is involved in wreaking that destruction, why is bulking up one department of the immune system—antibodies—sufficient to guarantee future protection?

On what basis can we infer that bulking up antibodies, through vaccination, is enough?

There is no basis. It’s a naked assumption. It’s not a fact. Logic makes a clear distinction between assumptions and facts. Confusing the two leads to all sorts of problems, and it certainly does in the case of vaccination.

Furthermore, why does the body need a vaccine in order to be prepared for the later invasion of germs? The whole structure/function of the immune system is naturally geared to launch its multifaceted counter-attack against germs whenever trouble arises. The antibodies swing into action when a potentially harmful germ makes its appearance, at age five, eight, 10, 15.

It’s said that vaccination is a rehearsal for the real thing. But no need for rehearsal has been established.

And why are we supposed to believe that such a rehearsal works? The usual answer is: the body remembers the original vaccination and how it produced antibodies, and so it’s better prepared to do it again when the need is real. But there is no basis for this extraordinary notion of “remembering.”

It’s another assumption sold as fact.

The terms “prepared for the real thing,” “rehearsal,” and “remember” aren’t defined. They’re vague. One of the first lessons of logic is: define your terms.

A baby, only a few days old, receives a Hepatitis B vaccine. This means the actual Hep-B germ, or some fraction of it, is in the vaccine.

The objective? To stimulate the production of antibodies against Hep-B. Assuming the baby can accomplish this feat, the antibodies circulate and paint those Hep-B germs for destruction now.

From that moment on, the body is ready to execute the same mission, if and when Hep-B germs float in the door.

But when they float in the door, why wouldn’t the body produce antibodies on its own, exactly as it did after the vaccination was given? Why did it need the vaccination to teach it how to do what it naturally does?

And why should we infer the baby body is undergoing an effective rehearsal when vaccinated, and will somehow remember that lesson years later?

The logic of this is tattered and without merit.

To these arguments of mine, some vaccine advocates would say, “Well, it doesn’t matter because vaccines work. They do prevent disease.”

Ah, but that is a different argument, and it should be assessed separately. There are two major ways of doing that. One, by evaluating claims that in all places and times, mass vaccination has drastically lowered or eliminated those diseases it was designed to prevent. And two, by a controlled study of two groups of volunteers, in which one group is vaccinated and the other isn’t, to gauge the outcome.

Let’s look at the first method of assessment. Those who claim that vaccines have been magnificently effective in wiping out disease have several major hurdles to overcome. They have to prove, for each disease in question, that when a vaccine for that disease was first introduced, the prevalence of the disease was on the rise or was at a high steady rate in the population.

Why? Because, as many critics have stated, some or all of these diseases were already in sharp decline when the vaccines were introduced for the first time.

For example: “The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” — Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977

In other words, for reasons having nothing to do with vaccination, the diseases were on the way out. Nutrition had improved, sanitation was better, etc.

So let’s see the proof, for every disease which vaccines are supposed to prevent, that those diseases were significantly raging in the population when the vaccines were first introduced.

Then let’s also see proof that, after the introduction of vaccines, the diseases in question weren’t merely given new labels (or redefined) to hide the fact that they weren’t really going away. There is testimony, for example, that in America, the definition of paralytic polio was changed after the introduction of the Salk vaccine, and by the new more restricted definition, far fewer cases of polio could be diagnosed—thus making it seem the vaccine was effective.

There are also questions about the success of the famous smallpox vaccine campaign in Africa and Latin America. When all was said and done, were new cases of smallpox then diagnosed as meningitis? Was destruction wreaked by the vaccine then called AIDS?

Researchers, including Robert Gallo, have warned that the smallpox vaccine, when given to people whose immune systems are already grossly weakened, can destroy what’s left of the immune system—and immune-defense destruction is the hallmark of the definition of AIDS.

The second major way of assessing the success of mass vaccination is through a proper controlled study.

For any vaccine, this is how it would be done. Assemble two large groups of people. Total, at least eight thousand. Make sure these two groups are very well matched. That means: similar in age; very similar in medical history and medical drug history; similar exposure levels to environmental chemicals; very close nutritional levels, status, and dietary habits.

The first group gets the vaccine. The second group doesn’t. They are tracked, with very few dropouts, for a period of at least eight years. The INDEPENDENT researchers note how many from each group get the disease the vaccine is supposed to prevent. They note what other diseases or health challenges the volunteers encounter.

Such a study, using these proper standards, has never been done for any vaccine.

If that fact seems rather illogical, you’re right. It is.

Finally, vaccine advocates need to prove that substances in vaccines like mercury, formaldehyde, and aluminum, although classified as toxic when studied alone, are somehow exonerated when shot directly into the body through a needle. The (absurd) logic of this needs to be explained fully.

This is not a matter of claiming that “a particular disease,” like autism, isn’t caused by a particular chemical, like mercury. That’s a logical ruse all on its own. We are talking about harm caused by toxins under any name or no name. When a person ingests cyanide, do we say he has a disease? Of course not.

The Matrix Revealed

Children in school, their parents, and teachers have never been exposed to logic, so it’s easy to sell them vaccines as valid. But selling is not the same thing as science.

And “being a scientist” is not the same thing as knowing what science and logic actually are. The same fact can be applied to news anchors, public health officials, and politicians. They can say “the evidence for vaccinating is overwhelming,” but so can a parrot in a cage, with enough training.

Of course, these so-called experts won’t come out and engage in a serious debate about the theory and practice of vaccination. They refuse to.

Millions of people around the world would eagerly watch a true extended debate on the subject. Such debate used to be a standard practice when logic was studied, when it was understood to be vital for deciding the truth or falsity of a position.

Now, it’s all about PR and propaganda, the modern version of logic for the dumbed-down crowd.

Jon Rappoport

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

Newsflash to psychiatry: a human being is not a thing

Newsflash to psychiatry: a human being is not a thing

by Jon Rappoport

January 31, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The ability to separate components of a machine, to increase the efficiency and power of each component, to link up all the elements in smoother ways; this is one of the hallmarks of the technological society.

And when the current machine is superseded by a new one, the process of improving efficiency starts all over again.

But a human being is not a machine, because consciousness is not a machine.

The rise of what has been called industrial psychology, or scientific management, tries to overcome that “flaw.” This is described well in Scott Noble’s film, Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century (posted at YouTube).

For example, the modern factory assembly line, in which workers did multiple tasks and functioned as skilled artisans, was overthrown in favor of a system in which each worker performed the same severely restricted, specialized task over and over again. A machine making machines.

And not just in America. In Russia, in the early stages of the revolution, worker-owned companies were on the rise. But that development was too conscious, too participatory. Lenin imposed his top-down version of human machines making machines, all in the service of constructing a super-state.

In the same way, the rise of psychology and psychiatry reflect the impulse to treat the mind as a machine. The expanding concoction of so-called mental disorders are arbitrary attempts at categorizing human thought, desire, and behavior as diseases.

Have you ever tried to solve an arbitrarily cooked-up problem for millions of people? Of course not. Who in his right mind would? Yet this is exactly what the “mental sciences” have accepted as their mission.

Consciousness is not public business. Its dimensions and capabilities are there for every person to explore on his own terms. This is called freedom.

Psychiatry has sought to redefine consciousness solely in terms of brain function. This materialist obsession is also an attempt to gain control of the mind.

In the wake of Sandy Hook, we are seeing the escalation of a social and political bargain: the sacrifice of freedom in return for more invasive “mental health,” which would purportedly reduce the number of mass murders.

Of course, this is a false promise. There is no psychiatric prospect for reducing killings (especially since some of their medicines induce extreme violence.) There is only more diagnosis of mental disorders, followed by drugging with toxic and dangerous chemicals.

This is all based on an unspoken bias against freedom and consciousness, in favor of “evening out” the emotional range and experience of humans. Psychiatrist Peter Breggin rightly characterizes this as drug-induced emotional flatness and anesthesia.

Worse yet, this layer of flatness can disintegrate, leaving the patient in a synthetically created, out-of-control emotional state.

But psychiatry’s political allies, all too happy to delegate violent-crime prevention to mental-health professionals, are viewing society as a numbers game. For them, averaging out human emotions into an acceptable and harmless range is a preferred overall solution. It’s a system of control.

Therefore, this really isn’t about violent-crime prevention at all. It’s about rendering humans into a state where they react like predictable Things under chemical restraint.

No doubt we’ll soon see a new generation of devices for stimulating brain centers, aimed at inducing pleasure and satisfaction. And the covert agenda will be to render consciousness a servant to the status quo.

The people who own governments and countries look upon this model as a reasonable method for producing “the normal human” who accepts things as they are.

Let’s face it, wherever human beings feel the possibility of liberation, they begin to devise their own communities and workplaces. They innovate. Forms and structures are created so that each person can benefit from the whole.

But top-down, this is viewed as a dangerous development. Leaders, in the camp of monopolists, do everything they can to squelch such movements. Which means they reduce the human being and consciousness to a cipher within a system, thus defeating their nemesis: decentralization.

It has been so since the beginning of time. Somewhere in a cave, prehistoric men and women, striving to survive in a hostile environment, began to think about new social relationships in their extended families—and a few leaders, watching this unwelcome development, decided they had to invent the first false flags (creation of non-existent enemies), in order to declare DEFCON 1 and centralize their control over the group.

From its earliest experiments, forged by Palov, Wundt, and other like-minded researchers, psychology has sought to prove that the conditioned-reflex (machine) model of human behavior was a true reflection of life on planet Earth.

They were given entrance into the club of controllers for precisely that reason: humans as machines was a perfect pseudoscience to build on.

Once you strip away the sophisticated complexities of modern psychiatry, you see the same proposition: the human brain, through chemical intervention, can be modified to produce “better behavior.”

Progressing from the sheer madness of researchers like Jose Delgado and Ewen Cameron, who believed no human had an inherent right to his own personality, but should be altered to fit the social needs of the State, psychiatry, hand-in-hand with Pharma, has developed kinder, gentler language to describe its mission:

Healing disease; ending suffering; bringing greater happiness.

This decades-long propaganda blitz has benefited psychiatry enormously. Smoothly fitting into programs of its government backers, promoted as the “official word” by major media, the profession has gained a primacy exceeding its most optimistic projections.

In America and many other countries, there now exists Official Mental Science. That most people don’t even notice this fact speaks to the overwhelming success of psychiatry.

Think about that. In what kind of political State do you need an official science of the mind? There is only one explanation for it. The State is a dictatorship.

In a free society, government would never dream of taking sides with one explanation of the human mind. It wouldn’t dare enable that explanation through its law-enforcement officers, court system, and publicly funded psych wards and research grants.

In the US, we have the federal NIMH, the National Institute of Mental Health, a sub-branch of the National Institutes of Health. It operates on an annual budget of $1.5 billion. Wikipedia names NIMH “the largest research organization in the world specializing in mental illness.”

In this obvious puff piece written for NIMH, Wikipedia goes on to state: “For the institution to continue fulfilling this vital public health mission it must further innovative thinking…in the evolving science of brain, behavior, and experience. In this way, breakthroughs in science can become breakthroughs for all people with mental illnesses…NIMH is particularly known for studies of genetics, neuroscience, and clinical trials of psychiatric medication.”

Official mental science. Backed and enforced by the US government.

The Matrix Revealed

In previous articles, I’ve demonstrated that, for all 297 officially certified mental disorders, there are NO physical tests to confirm a diagnosis. None. And on that non-basis, millions of doses of toxic and dangerous drugs are prescribed to Americans every year.

So much for science. But for control? Ah, that’s quite a different story. The power to invade and interfere with people’s lives is on the upswing.

Government simply says, “We care about you,” and for most people, this is apparently enough to satisfy them that psychiatry is a good thing, an objective thing, a thing worthy of being official and enforced and funded.

In 1906, Ivan Pavlov, the celebrated innovator in what is now called “classical conditioning,” wrote: “Mankind will possess incalculable advantages and extraordinary control over human behavior, when the scientific investigator will be able to subject his fellow men to the same external analysis he would employ for any natural object…”

Nearly half a century later, one of the most celebrated psychologists of the 20th century, BF Skinner, offered this pithy assessment of humans: “The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do.”

Skinner’s answer to that question was no; instead, humans were driven entirely by a set of their past behaviors that were reinforced positively by others.

In both Pavlov’s and Skinner’s universe, free will was out of the question. It was only a matter of deciding how to condition people.

Modern psychiatry, 40 years ago, formed an overt alliance with pharmaceutical companies, to sell chemically-imposed conditioning as treatment for disease. At least the early behaviorists wore their agenda on their sleeves. These days, it’s all subterfuge and deception.

When all is said and done, brain researchers of the 21st century steadfastly believe that human thought, feeling, desire, and consciousness can be reduced to predetermined signals and chemicals and electronics taking place inside the skull. Therefore, for them, creating changes in those signals is entirely legitimate and ethical: they are merely making over the Unfree Human Thing into a Better Unfree Thing.

Jon Rappoport

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

How psychology undermined Western civilization

How psychology undermined Western civilization

by Jon Rappoport

January 30, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

After the Sandy Hook murders, psychology and psychiatry have taken another leap forward in expanding their influence throughout society. “More mental-health services” is the catch-all phrase our leaders use in “solving” these massacres—along with gun control.

But just as grabbing guns won’t reduce the bulk of gun violence in America, the vague mental-health dictum won’t work, either.

This article focuses on psychology, which is a branch of false knowledge different from the false knowledge of psychiatry.

A psychiatrist is a medical doctor who has received special training in diagnosing and prescribing drugs for “mental disorders,” none of which disorders can be confirmed to exist by any test.

A psychologist doesn’t need to be a medical doctor. With an advanced degree and a license, he can do therapy with patients and try to resolve “mental and emotional issues,” for which no diagnostic tests exist.

From the beginning of the history of psychology, it was really a simple trick. Establish a loose category called “mental problem,” pour money and research into solving it, and enroll patients.

This approach has become so pervasive that most people can’t conceive of an alternative. A person is acting strange, he has a problem, and a mental-health practitioner can help him solve it. What else do we need to know?

Well, for starters, we need to know why the category of “mental problem” is necessary. Why should we assume it means anything?

Instead, for example: what about people making an inventory of their own deeply held convictions, followed by a self-assessment, to see how well or badly they’re living up to those convictions?

Why did that approach go out the window?

Because it’s based on some sense of responsibility, which is now verboten in a society where “intervening” and “fulfilling needs” are paramount.

If a person can’t or won’t discover what his most deeply held convictions are, what hope does he have? What problems can he solve that are going to make any great difference?

“Let’s see. I’m living a life I don’t want, and that life is throwing problems at me. If I solve the problems, I’ll be okay, right?”

Are you kidding?

Academic psychology, if you read its history, its textbooks, its methods, has nothing of value or substance to say about a person’s most profound personal convictions. That’s not on the radar. It never was. What you get is sophisticated babble about mental conditions and unresolved issues.

The existence of these issues and conditions is PROMOTED by psychology. Psychology is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you assume these conditions actually exist and if you believe they are real, then you can chew on them for ten or 15 years and come up with explanations, answers, and solutions.

Yes, that’s right. The human being is a very adaptable creature. If you can insert a primary assumption into his mind, where he accepts it as authentic, he’ll begin to cogitate and calculate around it.

Because the assumption was never his to begin with. He bought it. He went for it. He took the bait.

Now if you consider that millions and millions of people are working on this fake reality, having accepted that they suffer from mental problems, what do you get?

You get a society that, more and more, is paralyzed into inaction. You get passivity. You get an overall depletion of energy and power. You get a victim-club mentality.

Freud picked the “Oedipal Complex” out of a hat. The incest fantasy. He made this the foundation of his breakthrough. He sold it. He sold it as the underlying trauma and taboo that was always and forever twisting the minds of every male on Earth. He decided that this fantasy had to be exorcised with years of specialized therapy.

It was a new version of old guilt. Forget about the Garden of Eden and eating forbidden fruit from the tree. The incest wish was the real source of human guilt.

Psychology, from Freud forward, quickly became a prison term from which the inhabitant could be released when the therapist determined basic problems had been defeated.

Freud’s opponents and detractors argued for their own version of the correct prison (the basic mental problem). But the whole underlying notion of “a person captured” needed to come under scrutiny, and of course that never happened, as long as psychologists and psychiatrists ruled the roost.

Psychology became a major force that undermined freedom, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution in America. It asserted or implied that no rights or responsibilities meant anything as long as people were chained to their own problems and issues. This was an argument from Inherent Limitation. It was persuasive.

From the perspective of psychology, only rubes and Neanderthals would claim freedom was a core fact of existence. The more educated classes would realize they had to swim through an undersea jungle of their own mental and emotional restraints, guided by a steady professional hand, before they could finally emerge and come to experience the meaning of freedom.

So of course that journey became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There was one catch. Most people, after years of therapy, felt no dramatic difference. This disappointment translated into a deep cynicism about life. It meant more passivity.

Psychology has not only promoted the existence of mental problems, it has stated that these conditions are rock-bottom facts: there is no way to overcome them, short of talk therapy or psychiatric drugs. Psychology argues that it is useless to try to “ignore mental conditions.” That won’t work. It can’t work.

And if the patient agrees, he can go on to manufacture problems without end.

Whereas, the truth is, every so-called mental or emotional condition is a signal. It alerts a person that he is heading the ship away from its destination. He’s experiencing a crisis that has everything to do with the question: WHAT IS MY COURSE IN LIFE?

Finding an answer to that question makes all the difference.

I know somebody is going to write me about how nutrition can solve mental problems. Somebody is going to write and tell me how vaccines, medical drugs, chemtrails, GMOs, dyes and colors in food, etc., create mental problems.

I’ve written about these factors for years. Understand, however, that, in these cases, what the person is really suffering from is a severe nutritional deficit, or from the toxic overload of the vaccines, drugs, GMOs. To say it’s a mental problem is to misname what is really going on. In the same way, saying a person has an irresistible itch when what he really has is poison ivy is a diversion from the main event.

Psychology says: “Here is the mind. It contains conditions and issues. We can resolve them.”

That’s false. That’s the illusion. The mind doesn’t CONTAIN CONDITIONS or issues.

The conditions-hoax is perfectly paralleled by the disorder-hoax of psychiatry. These are, at the very best, metaphors. At their worst, they’re intentional ruses.

Here are ACTUAL rock-bottom conditions: freedom, independence, deep and profound desire, the power and energy to fulfill those desires, a sense of what is right and wrong, the wish to see others succeed brilliantly, community, expressing self, creative power, action in the world.

These are the elements of a philosophy, not psychology. These are elements of life abundant.

These are loci of decision for every conscious person.

And, as it turns out, psychology came late to the party. For millennia, humans have been engaging in philosophy and the exploration of spiritual dimensions.

The assumption of “gross limitation caused by internal problems” is a very recent concoction.

The assumption is simply the result of propaganda bought and sold.

The Matrix Revealed

When we delete such nonsense, we can discover the kind of personal truth that rings the bell clearly, if we are up to the task.

The rise of psychology was in part fueled by the notion that science could resolve human problems. But humans aren’t machines; they aren’t closed systems; they aren’t planets moving in fixed orbits. The analogy doesn’t work. It fails miserably.

Exploring instead, for example, what the ancient alchemists were really up to, and the original teachers of Tibet who employed the techniques of itinerant adepts from India, gives us a startling perspective on the UNLIMITED human being.

These teachers weren’t, in any meaningful sense, psychologists. They were philosophers of action. They were adventurers and explorers. They didn’t sit in offices dealing with the latest symptoms of people suffering from the malaise of a brainwashed society.

They knew there was a Matrix; they knew it was a heavy blanket of illusion; they knew it both corralled the individual and the community; and they knew it could be dispelled. It was their mission to make that happen, and they didn’t stint.

Theirs was a heraldic enterprise. It surpassed, by light years, stirring sand in a childish playpen of therapy.

That heraldic thread of adventure never dies. It can be stifled at times, but it remains alive under the surface.

Liberating the creative force in a person is the key. Not through some external and removed and remote process. The process involves everything you’ve got.

It goes down to the center of the Earth and out to the stars, and beyond. When so engaged, the mind cooperates and collaborates with the adventurer. It moves through so-called mental problems like a rocket burning up old paper.

One summer in the 1980s, when I was just starting out as a reporter, I scored a few front-page stories for LA Weekly, because other writers were out of town. I managed to squeeze in one of the weirder features the Weekly had published up to that time: off-the-record interviews with therapists detailing their private fantasies—all of which turned out to be intensely anti-social.

I later learned the “therapy community in town” didn’t appreciate my approach.

Similarly, I expect some psychologists will rankle at this one. But the point is, all these fantasies, of both patient and therapist are outcomes of the creative force in action—nothing less or more—and they should be seen that way.

Instead of assigning fantasy A to mental condition A and fantasy B to condition B, why not just throw all the insanity overboard and acknowledge, finally, that what underlies fantasia is the beginning and end of the answer to what’s bothering people and troubling them and driving them into despair and deep boredom:

Imagination and the creative force are tigers waiting to be let out of their cages so they can invent astonishing Futures.

This would be a truly modern psychology and a thoroughly contemporary reflection of what we all know.

From our deepest wellsprings, we:

INVENT;

IMAGINE;

CREATE;

IMPROVISE;

BUILD;

WORK TO MAKE WHAT WE IMAGINE INTO FACT IN THE WORLD.

Exploring the meaning and action of THIS is a worthy undertaking, and it would happily supersede what has absurdly been called psychology.

Jon Rappoport

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

The psychiatric wolves attack more innocent children

The psychiatric wolves attack more innocent children

by Jon Rappoport

January 28, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

To understand even a little bit about real psychiatry, versus the false picture, you have to know that someone running around the streets naked and screaming has nothing to do with a mental disorder.

If you can’t grasp that, you’ll always have a lingering sense that psychiatry is on the right track. It isn’t, and never was. Not from its earliest days, and not now, when it has the full backing and force of the federal government behind it.

Psychiatry is the kind of all-out fraud few people grasp.

In a moment of weakness and exhaustion, Allen Frances, the most famous and honored psychiatrist in America at the time (2000), understood part of it. He told Gary Greenberg of Wired Magazine, “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.”

This was an admission that the bible of the profession, the DSM, the latest edition of which Frances himself had led in compiling, could not draw separations between the 297 official mental disorders listed in it. It was, in other words, a pretense. The whole bible.

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

Here it is.

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

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

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

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

But you see, we’re still left with the naked man who’s running around the street screaming. What is he? Doesn’t he have a mental disorder?

He does not, because the term “mental disorder” isn’t just a colloquial phrase, it’s a technical designation, and it underpins everything that psychiatry is. And there is no basis for its diagnosis. None.

There are many reasons the man may be running naked in the street. If he has a blood clot or lesion on his brain, if he has been poisoned, if he folded up and left this world as a child after he received a vaccine, if he has been pushed over the edge by Paxil or Zoloft, if he has been brutalized and is terrified, if he has been given electric shocks by a psychiatrist, if he is on Vicodin, if he has snorted cocaine laced with some horrible filler, if he has been driven mad through starvation, if he has been harassed by people who are threatening his life, he could be running naked in the street.

That is a matter for honest and complete discovery. It isn’t an occasion to slap on the label, “mental disorder.”

Now that President Obama has decided the expansion of mental health services must be effected to protect us all from people with guns, we are looking up the immediate road at government programs in schools, among other disastrous innovations.

Children are concocted as a prime target for early diagnosis of non-existent mental disorders, because in the past, a number of these children, diagnosed and drugged by psychiatrists, went on to kill people as a result of the drugs’ actions on their brains. That’s called irony. It’s also called a crime, in the very real sense that psychiatrists contributed mightily to the killings.

So now, every child in school who twitches the wrong way or picks up a bubble-gum toy shaped like a pistol, or points his finger at a friend and says Bang, or looks sad and lonely for ten minutes at the back of the class on a rainy Tuesday, or draws pictures when he should be adding numbers in his notebook, or wears odd clothes, or gets angry for any reason at all, or objects to taking a vaccine, or wears a jacket with a small American flag sewn to the shoulder, or doesn’t play well with others, or makes a positive statement in class about the Bill of Rights, or reminds a teacher of a little criminal in a movie, or has a bottle opener in his pocket, or dreams in class about designing a rocket that will take people to Mars…can be referred to a counselor, who in turn will refer him to a psychiatrist, who will make some sort of off-the-shelf diagnosis, which will travel with the child for the rest of his life, making the child believe he has a brain problem, and the psychiatrist will prescribe that child drugs like Ritalin, Adderall, Zoloft, Paxil, or Prozac, drugs that scramble neurotransmitter systems and can very certainly cause that child to go violent.

That is the reality.

When Obama announced his intention, in the wake of Sandy Hook, to go nuclear with expanded mental-health services across the country, the president of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Dilip Jeste, praised the program.

“I am strongly encouraged by the President’s recommendations because they include a focus on improving mental health,” Jeste said to a Psychiatric News reporter.

The Psychiatric News article continues: “A new initiative outlined by Obama would provide training for school personnel and help ensure that young people who need help are referred to treatment…[and this new program would] train 5,000 additional mental health professionals to serve students and young adults.”

[vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/58014801 w=500&h=275]

APA President Dilip Jeste, MD January 2013 Address from American Psychiatric Association on Vimeo.

What we are looking at here is wolves circling prey.

If you don’t think so, consider these hidden facts about Ritalin, which is normally considered to be a much lighter drug than any of the SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil) or the drugs given for so-called Bipolar Disorder (Valproate, Lithium).

Ritalin, manufactured by Novartis, is the close cousin to speed which is given to perhaps four million American schoolchildren for a condition called Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder).

ADD and ADHD, for which no organic causes have ever been found, are touted as disease-conditions that afflict the young, causing hyperactivity, unmanageability, and learning problems. Of course, when you name a disorder or a syndrome and yet can find no single provable organic cause for it, you have nothing more than a loose collection of behaviors with an arbitrary title.

Correction: you also have a pharmaceutical bonanza.

The Matrix Revealed

Dr. Peter Breggin, referring to an official directory of psychiatric disorders, the DSM-III-R, writes that withdrawal from amphetamine-type drugs, including Ritalin, can cause “depression, anxiety, and irritability as well as sleep problems, fatigue, and agitation.” Breggin then remarks, “The individual may become suicidal in response to the depression.”

The well-known Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics reveals a strange fact. It states that Ritalin is “structurally related to amphetamines … Its pharmacological properties are essentially the same as those of the amphetamines.” In other words, the only clear difference is legality. And the effects, in layman’s terms, are obvious. You take speed and after awhile, sooner or later, you start crashing. You become agitated, irritable, paranoid, delusional, aggressive.

A firm and objective medical review needs to be done in all of the school shootings, to determine how many of the shooters were on, or had at one time been on, Ritalin.

In his landmark classic, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin discusses the subject of drug combinations: “Combining antidepressants [e.g., Prozac, Luvox] and psychostimulants [e.g., Ritalin] increases the risk of cardiovascular catastrophe, seizures, sedation, euphoria, and psychosis. Withdrawal from the combination can cause a severe reaction that includes confusion, emotional instability, agitation, and aggression.”

Children are frequently medicated with this combination, and when we highlight such effects as aggression, psychosis, and emotional instability, it is obvious that the result is pointing toward the very real possibility of violence.

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

Scarnati listed over a hundred adverse affects of Ritalin and indexed published journal articles for each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects then, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

• Paranoid delusions
• Paranoid psychosis
• Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
• Activation of psychotic symptoms
• Toxic psychosis
• Visual hallucinations
• Auditory hallucinations
• Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
• Effects pathological thought processes
• Extreme withdrawal
• Terrified affect
• Started screaming
• Aggressiveness
• Insomnia
• Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphatamine-like effects
• psychic dependence
• High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
• Decreased REM sleep
• When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
• Convulsions
• Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

If psychiatrists are the wolves—and they are—and children are the sheep, then what do you call the parents who permit their children to be captured by these marauders?

Am I saying that “mental health,” as defined by organized psychiatry, and backed by the federal and state governments, is a vast criminal enterprise, rather than a science?

Yes, absolutely. I’m saying that because that’s what it is.

Jon Rappoport

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

Breaking: New York creates psychiatric police state

by Jon Rappoport

January 16, 2013

NoMoreFakeNews.com

It’s a done deal.

Governor Cuomo, along with Democrat and Republican legislators, is ramming through a bill to restrict gun ownership, re-classify weapons in order to ban them—and, in a far-reaching move, create psychiatrists as cops who must report patients to law-enforcement, in order to keep the patients from owning a weapon.

Psychiatrists must report patients “who could potentially harm themselves or others.” If such a patient owns a gun, it will be confiscated.

This means a comprehensive data base, accessible by law-enforcement personnel and anyone else involved in doing background checks. These “problematic” patients will be kept from buying a new weapon, too. Otherwise, the law would have no teeth.

As usual, the devil is in the details. Psychiatrists will err on the side of caution and report many patients. No shrink wants to blink into television cameras after one of his patients has just shot his father.

Patients who want to own weapons will lie to psychiatrists about their thoughts and feelings, never admitting they’re considering suicide or murder.

After such a murder, a psychiatrist will say: “He never said anything about killing anybody. Here, look at my notes. There’s nothing there.”

For this and other reasons, such as the existence of the data base, doctor-patient confidentiality will go out the window.

Therefore, the practice of psychiatry, which already minimizes talk therapy and merely dispenses drugs, will move even further in that direction. Tight-lipped patients, who don’t want to go on a police list, will seek an office visit with the sole motive of obtaining a drug.

Since all the emphasis is now on “mentally ill patients who are prone to violence,” the possibility of indicting the drugs in violence will recede over the horizon.

SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) and other brain drugs do, in fact, cause people to go crazy and commit violent crimes, including murder. This is an open secret in the psychiatric profession, and the public is becoming more aware of it every day.

But it will be swept under the carpet.

Under the new law, a psychiatrist can’t be prosecuted for failing to report a patient who later commits murder, as long as the psychiatrist “acted in good faith.” The meaning of that phrase is broad enough to automatically cast blanket exoneration on most shrinks, which closes off the chance a psychiatrist will be pilloried for prescribing a drug he knows can induce violence in the patient.

This New York law will be copied and passed by other states, and in the end, we will see a national data base of psychiatric patients.

The official attitude will be: anyone who sees a psychiatrist is a potential killer.

This will give rise to protests on behalf of “a new underclass”: psychiatric patients. Advocates will arise to take up their cause. Court cases will abound. The whole business will devolve into a complete mess.

But out of it will come a hands-on partnership between cops and shrinks, who’ll march should to shoulder into their version of a psychiatric police state.

Seventy-two hour mandatory holds in psych wards for “observation” will expand. During this period of incarceration, shrinks will dose inmates hard with drugs, in order to make them more docile, because no psych ward wants to be accused of releasing a patient who then goes on to kill people.

Drugs to subdue the mind in that way are very powerful. They are called anti-psychotics, or major tranquilizers. As has been shown, they induce tremors, which are signals of motor brain damage.

We can expect to see hundreds of thousands more people, perhaps millions, who are damaged, permanently, by these drugs.

The motto will become: destroy the patient, before he can destroy others.

the matrix revealed

As the crown on all this, people who have ever professed political ideas outside the mainstream, and so end up in a database of “potential threats to the State,” can be kept from owning a weapon, merely by finding a way to get them into a psychiatrist’s office, on any pretext. Once there, the psychiatrist can report them as prone to harming themselves or others, and that will function as a bar to possessing a gun.

New York has just created a door that swings in both directions. A huge number of people who are seeing psychiatrists can be kept from gun ownership. And people who can see with their eyes what this country has turned into can be turned, on cooked-up technicalities, into psychiatric patients. Once in the system, they, too, can be denied all 2nd Amendment rights.

It will undoubtedly be called “The 2nd Amendment Exclusion.”

Coming to your neighborhood.

Jon Rappoport

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