Category Archives: Medical Fraud

The government’s demonic strategy against parents of autistic children

The government’s demonic strategy against parents of autistic children

by Jon Rappoport

September 13, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Let me start with this controversial statement: The worst thing parents can do is obtain a diagnosis of autism for their vaccine-damaged child.

The primary fact to keep in mind is: the government must deny any link between vaccines and autism, because to admit the connection would force it to pay out gigantic sums of money to parents, under its Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

VICP was created in 1988, through an agreement between the US government and pharmaceutical companies, to funnel all law suits for damage away from those companies, and into a bureaucratic maze of government madness, where the parents’ chances of compensation are minimal, where the deck is most assuredly stacked against them.

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

Once parents enter the maze, hoping to gain funds to care for their children, they are immediately confronted with a list of disorders and diseases. This list essentially tells them:

“If your vaccine-damaged child has been diagnosed with any of the following medical conditions, you may be able to win financial support. If not, you’re out of luck.”

Autism isn’t on the list.

Here is the list:

Vaccine Injury Table

(See also the “About the Omnibus Autism Proceeding,” here).

Can things be any clearer than that? A diagnosis of autism is a trap.

One: a young child receives a vaccine.

Two: he suddenly withdraws from life.

Three: a doctor makes a diagnosis of autism.

Four: the parents want to sue the company that makes the vaccine, but they can’t; they must apply to the VICP for funds to care for their child for the rest of his life.

Five: as soon as they enter the VICP system, they learn that the label “autism” is the very thing that will keep them from the funds they desperately need.

That is the long and short of it.

Forget about the fact that the parents never wanted to involve themselves with a federal government program. They wanted to sue the vaccine maker. They wanted a court award. But they were barred from suing.

At this point, you might say, “But if their child really does have autism and it was obviously caused by a vaccine, then they should be able to find justice somehow.”

You don’t understand how deep this deception goes. You don’t understand how criminally insane it is.

Because, you see, the label of “autism,” the very label that keeps parents from getting help for their children, is an arbitrary word that means nothing.

A deviously designed word that means nothing is keeping parents in a lifelong state of desperation, as they go bankrupt trying to care for their vaccine-damaged child.

We begin here: all 297 official mental disorders, listed in the (DSM) publication of the American Psychiatric Association, are defined and approved by committees of psychiatrists. Whether it is schizophrenia or autism or ADHD or clinical depression or bipolar disease, the definitions consist wholly of described behaviors. That’s all.

Psychiatrists will tell you these symptomatic behaviors are signs of underlying chemical imbalances or genetic aberrations, but they have no tests to back up this assertion. Therefore, all they are left with are the behaviors, their own menu-like clusters of those behaviors, and the “mental disorder” label they place on each cluster.

If they had more, if they had blood tests or brain scans or genetic assays, they would publish those tests and claim they are definitive for diagnoses of mental disorders. But they don’t.

Here is an exchange between a respected psychiatrist and a PBS interviewer, which occurred during a Frontline report titled, “Does ADHD Exist?”

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

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

Yes, it actually DOES make all those disorders invalid, unless “science” suddenly means “the opinions of psychiatrists sitting in a room, collecting together various human behaviors, and labeling them.”

Here is a link to the official psychiatric definition of autism disorder. It’s worth reading:

https://www.firstsigns.org/screening/DSM4.htm

Notice that all the criteria for an autism diagnosis are behavioral. There is no mention of laboratory tests or test results. There is no mention of chemical imbalance or genetic factors.

Despite public-relations statements issued by doctors and researchers, they have no laboratory findings to establish or confirm an autism diagnosis.

But, people say, this makes no sense, because children do, in fact, withdraw from the world, stop speaking, throw sudden tantrums. Common sense dictates that these behaviors stem from serious neurological problems.

What could cause the behaviors listed in the official definition of autism disorder?

Vaccine injury; a toxic medical drug; a head injury; ingestion of a poison; an environmental chemical; a severe nutritional deficit; oxygen deprivation at birth; perhaps the emotional devastation accompanying the death of a parent…

There are many possible causes of the behaviors arbitrarily called autism.

However, then, why bother to say “autism?” Why not just say vaccine injury or head injury? Why not try to find the crucial event that brought on a specific child’s sudden and unique withdrawal from the world?

The answer should be clear. By establishing a label like autism, medical drugs can be sold. Studies can be funded. An industry can be created.

Something more can be done, too. The government can reject vaccine injury as a defining event in a child’s life, and reject the need to pay out compensation for it.

The government can say, “Since we know that some children who are diagnosed with autism have not received vaccines, or have not received vaccines containing a neurological poison (mercury), we do not compensate parents whose children are vaccine-injured on the basis that they have autism.”

Poof. It all goes away. Did you catch the sleight-of-hand trick?

Let me expose it. A child is given a vaccine. The child goes into a massive withdrawal from life and communication. A doctor, assessing the child’s behaviors, connects them with the official menu of behaviors labeled “autism.” The doctor then says, “This child has autism.”

Then the parents try to obtain government compensation through the VICP, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

The parents, who now have alarmingly high expenses for ongoing care of their vaccine-damaged child, go to the VICP and say, “Our child has been diagnosed with autism, and we want to collect funds for the vaccine-injury he sustained.”

The government replies, “This is impossible. You see, we know that autism isn’t caused by vaccine injury. We know it because many children who are diagnosed with autism have never been injured by vaccines. Some autistic children have never had vaccines.”

Do you see what is going on here? The parents stepped into a fatal trap. They said “autism” and the government said “vaccine injury does not cause autism.”

You might think the parents could back up and regroup. They could say, “We don’t care what you call it, we just know our child was severely damaged by a vaccine, and we need funds.”

But it’s not as easy as that. The government has no category called “vaccine damage.” The government demands some disease or disorder that is diagnosed and officially attributed to a vaccine injury. As I established earlier, the government has a specific list of diseases or disorders that it will allow—to even begin thinking about financial compensation.

The Matrix Revealed

But, you say, this is an evil word game. Of course it’s a word game. The whole notion of “autism” based on no definitive tests was a word game to begin with.

What is called autism (merely a label) is not one condition caused by one factor. It is a loose collection of behaviors that can be caused by various traumas.

Parents say, “My child’s life was stolen away from him. He must have autism.”

A label provides some measure of relief for the parents. It doesn’t prove that the label actually means something. In fact, the label can be a diversion from knowledge that would actually help the child. Suppose, for example, after receiving the DPT vaccine, the child went into a screaming fit and then withdrew from the world. Calling that autism tends to put the parents and the child in the medical system, where there is no definitive effective treatment. Outside that system, there might be some hope with, say, hyperbaric oxygen treatments, or other strategies.

If all this creates a sense of outrage in you, you are not alone.

If a hundred thousand parents of children who have been devastated by vaccines traveled to the headquarters of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, at the Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland, and if they stayed there and Occupied the area, and if they had a unified position that cut through the word game and the purposeful official delusion, perhaps this criminal insanity would end.

A doctor’s diagnosis of autism most assuredly does not end the insanity. It adds to it.

power outside the matrix

I once had a conversation with a parent whose child was vaccine-injured and then diagnosed with autism. She spent years trying to obtain compensation from the VICP and failed. Here is a paraphrase of how our conversation went:

“I found out my child wasn’t the point of the VICP proceeding at all. The government’s attorney was doing everything possible to deny us compensation. I felt I was up against a monster.”

“They denied you benefits because your son had been diagnosed with autism?”

“Yes. They said there was no established connection between the vaccine-damage and autism, so they rejected my claim.”

“So you see that the label ‘autism’ was the very thing they used to reject your claim.”

“I know it now. I didn’t know it then.”

“You also know there is no reason to use the ‘autism’ label. It’s an arbitrary word.”

“It’s a word that is ruining us.”

“Do you realize that, if your doctor had diagnosed your son with a different catch-all label, you would have stood a better chance of gaining compensation?”

“What label?”

“Encephalopathy, for example.”

“So you’re telling me it was all a game, and if I could have gotten the doctor to understand that, he might have written a different diagnosis in my son’s chart, and my chances [of compensation] might have improved.”

“That’s right. A different word.”

In a just world, a parent whose child is damaged by a vaccine would be permitted to sue the vaccine maker. In a less just world, the parent would be able to enter the VICP system and claim a right to compensation based on the simple stand-alone fact that her child was damaged by a vaccine.

In the world we live in, that parent has to prove her child was diagnosed with a condition that the government admits could be caused by a vaccine.

And if the doctor wrote down the word “autism,” the chances of compensation are suddenly very, very remote. They’re zero, unless the parent was able to obtain an accompanying word like “encephalopathy.”

Finally, people will insist that researchers are getting closer to discovering the true and basic cause of autism. This is just more arbitrary verbiage. The “symptoms” listed as definitive for autism are just a collection of behaviors. I could put together a list, and so could you:

“Fatigue, eye flutters, sadness, lack of desire to participate in school, loss of appetite, halting communication…” I could give these behaviors a name, “Remoteness Syndrome,” and call it a disorder, and then I could raise a few billion dollars to search for the underlying cause…but there would be no underlying single cause, because the list was a non-starter. It was just an arbitrary collection of behaviors.

“Autism” is nothing more than a catch-all phrase that indicates a variety of possible unconnected neurological insults. Each patient should be examined by a health practitioner who can really find the cause in that case. Then, perhaps, a treatment plan can be devised for that child.

Meanwhile, the government and its VICP program embroils parents and works them over and tortures them for years, and dumps most of them out on the street with no compensation.

Jon Rappoport

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

THE REAL REASON REASON THE STANFORD ORGANIC FOOD STUDY WAS A FRAUD

 

THE REAL REASON THE STANFORD ORGANIC FOOD STUDY WAS A FRAUD

by Jon Rappoport

September 12, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

No matched groups. That’s the short answer. It’s a basic principle in scientific studies.

 

Whether it’s vegetables or humans, you create two matched groups that are as close to each other as possible in all relevant ways, and then you expose them to different protocols and record what happens.

 

For example, Washington State University did the right thing with strawberries. John Reganold and his colleagues took the same strain of berry and planted it in two plots of earth right next to each other. One patch was conventionally grown (with chemicals) and the other was raised organically.

 

Same soil, same weather, same strain of berry. The result? The organic strawberries had higher nutritional content.

 

In the recent infamous Stanford study that is raising a ruckus, the conclusion was: conventional and organic food are nutritionally equal. But no planting of food was done. No study was done at all, in fact. It was a review of prior published studies, and there is no indication that those prior studies handled crops the correct way, as the Washington State strawberry researchers did.

 

Therefore, it’s not science. It’s perhaps cogitation, contemplation, comparison, but it’s not science.

 

Sorry. Try again. Try again to raise doubts about organic food, try to label people who want organic food as cultists, try to make a sociological point, try to save the world with GMOs. Whatever. You failed this time. You may have served Big Biotech, but again, that has nothing to do with science.

 

How about the recent “golden rice” study in China? There is quite an uproar about that one, too. It appears two dozen children were taken into the protocol and fed GMO rice without informed consent. One Chinese health official has been suspended while an investigation is done.

 

The point of the study was to show that this engineered form of rice could save millions of lives in poverty-strickened lands, where people have an acute Vitamin A deficiency.

 

The golden rice, injected with viral genes and daffodil genes, produces beta-carotene, and the body makes that into Vitamin A.

 

Well, there are a few unannounced problems here as well. First, if the rice is polished, the sector of the grain where the beta-carotene is stored is wiped away. But the bigger issue is the human diet itself, the requirements for basic survival.

 

To put it simply, no one absorbs and uses Vitamin A or any other vitamin productively when they are eating nothing but rice, when they are deprived of a minimal diet, when they are chronically living in a near-starvation zone.

 

So to claim that golden rice can save millions of lives is sheer folly and criminal fraud.

 

Now, if instead of planting miles of golden rice (to eventually benefit Big Biotech’s bottom line), you planted ordinary green vegetables, you might achieve uptake of some Vitamin A. But that’s too easy and too real. It’s not exotic. It’s not “sophisticated.” It’s not technocratic.

 

Actually, if the golden rice “solution” is implemented in a big way all over the impoverished and starving Third World, it could rightly be called depopulation. Because that’s what it will be.

 

People need to eat varied food to survive. That’s not hard to understand. They need calories and protein. They need a number of vitamins and minerals in their food. They need clean water. They need land on which to grow this food—rather than being crowded into cities while big agribusiness corporations, who have stolen their farms, plant coffee and other cash crops for export out of the country.

 

This is not high-tech knowledge, either. Half of what big agribusiness does is spout pseudo-scientific propaganda to overwhelm basic common sense and obscure their crimes of theft and murder.

 

Murder? Yes. What would you call it, when the Monsantos of this world push a land-grab solution (that doesn’t work) on populations, when the people need to use the same land to grow a variety of food, in order to survive?

 

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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

Bombshell: 18 people died of the flu, not 36,000

Bombshell: 18 people died of the flu, not 36,000

by Jon Rappoport

September 8, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Time and time again, as an investigative reporter, I’ve had the job of informing readers that their most basic assumptions are wrong.

In the medical arena, this is compounded by public acceptance of lies that seem to be absolute science. However, the “science” turns out to be manufactured delusion. The subject of this article is another such case. It flies in the face of massive propaganda that medical authorities have launched to literally brainwash the population.

The flu season is approaching, and of course we will see the Centers for Disease Control urge all parents to act like good little robots and have the whole family jabbed with flu shots.

The usual warnings and predictions will be trumpeted by the CDC and their compliant media.

The one persistent fact that will be shoved across is: every year in the US, 36,000 people die of the flu. We’ve all read and heard that figure, over and over.

It’s a “necessary” statistic for the CDC. They need to promote it. They need to convince the population that seasonal flu is dangerous.

The American people don’t understand that it’s a lie, a grossly manufactured delusion that bears no resemblance to reality.

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

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report:

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

You see, the CDC had created one category that combined flu and pneumonia deaths. Why did they do this? Because they assumed that the pneumonia deaths were complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes. But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 were traced directly to a flu virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of the flu in 2001.

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

This is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure. However, Doshi is only reporting numbers of flu deaths estimated by the CDC in those years. As he showed from the year 2001, the CDC actually finds the flu virus in a tiny proportion of people who are estimated to have died from the flu.

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

But the overwhelming percentage of Americans buy the hype because it’s been repeated so often. To them, the idea that only 18 people were positively identified as flu deaths in a year is impossible.

Doshi goes on to mention a 2004 flu vaccine summit held by the CDC and American Medical Association. One of the important speakers at this conference, Glenn Nowak, lectured about generating interest and demand for the flu vaccine.

Nowak said this demand occurs when medical experts and public health authorities “state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes)—and urge influenza vaccination…[there should be] continued reports that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people, helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.”

Repeating the mantra that 36,000 people die every year from the flu is, of course, the key strategy for creating demand for the vaccine.

It’s an entirely false sales pitch. It always has been.

Naturally, many people will rally to the side of the CDC. They will tell you how difficult it can be to actually discover and isolate a flu virus from an ill human being and, therefore, label his death as a flu statistic.

The CDC annual budget hovers around the $10 billion level. With its resources, it can certainly do what’s necessary to determine whether people are dying from the flu or some other cause.

The CDC has been lying through its teeth to the American people about flu deaths. The exposure of that lie has been choked off by the press.

The CDC’s main job is accurately reporting statistics on illness and death. If it can’t perform that function, its duty is to admit it. The reality, however, is that the agency is fatally compromised. It is allied with the pharmaceutical industry, as part of the huge overarching medical cartel. Its reliability is, therefore, zero.

Virtually everything you’ve been told about flu deaths by the US government is unsupported by facts.

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.

How many of these vaccine facts do you know?

How many of these vaccine facts do you know?

by Jon Rappoport

September 6, 2012

NoMoreFakeNews.com

In 1988, I was researching my first book, AIDS INC. (*) Interested in the subject of vaccines, I delved into published accounts of vaccination gone wrong.

(*) A copy of AIDS INC. is included in my collection Power Outside The Matrix.

The following series of quotes from authors only begins to cover the territory of vaccine damage, deception, and failure. It is nevertheless the start of a history which has been hidden from the public by corporate media, whose ties to pharmaceutical interests are infamous.

In 1988, I knew nothing about mercury in vaccines, or about the numerous chemicals and contaminating germs in vaccines that cause human illness and damage. I was merely looking for evidence that past vaccination campaigns had backfired.

What I found was shocking.

Here are the statements I uncovered:

“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 a recent British outbreak of whooping cough, for example, even fully immunized children contracted the disease in fairly large numbers; and the rates of serious complications and death were reduced only slightly. In another recent outbreak of pertussis, 46 of the 85 fully immunized children studied eventually contracted the disease.” (Richard Moskowitz, MD, The Case Against Immunizations, 1983, American Institute of Homeopathy)

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

“Of all reported whooping cough cases between 1979 and 1984 in children over 7 months of age – that is, old enough to have received the primary course of the DPT shots (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) – 41% occurred in children who had received three or more shots and 22% in children who had one or two immunizations.

“Among children under 7 months of age who had whooping cough, 34% had been immunized between one and three times…

“… Based on the only U.S. findings on adverse DPT reactions, an FDA-financed study at the University of California, Los Angeles, one out of every 350 children will have a convulsion; one in 180 children will experience high-pitched screaming; and one in 66 will have a fever of 105 degrees or more.” [Note: All these symptoms can indicate serious neurological damage.] (Jennifer Hyman, Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, New York, special supplement on DPT, dated April, 1987)

“A study undertaken in 1979 at the University of California, Los Angeles, under the sponsorship of the Food and Drug Administration, and which has been confirmed by other studies, indicates that in the U.S.A. approximately 1,000 infants die annually as a direct result of DPT vaccinations, and these are classified as SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) deaths. These represent about 10 to 15% of the total number of SIDS deaths occurring annually in the U.S.A. (between 8,000 and 10,000 depending on which statistics are used).” (Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, CW Daniel Company Limited, Saffron Walden, Essex, England, 1987.)

“Assistant Secretary of Health Edward Brandt, Jr., MD, testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, rounded… figures off to 9,000 cases of convulsions, 9,000 cases of collapse, and 17,000 cases of high-pitched screaming for a total of 35,000 acute neurological reactions occurring within forty-eight hours of a DPT shot among America’s children every year.” (DPT: A Shot in the Dark, by Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fischer, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich)

“While 70-80% of British children were immunized against pertussis in 1970-71, the rate is now 39%. The committee predicts that the next pertussis epidemic will probably turn out to be more severe than the one in 1974/75. However, they do not explain why, in 1970/71, there were more than 33,000 cases of pertussis with 41 fatal cases among the very well immunized British child population; whereas in 1974/75, with a declining rate of vaccination, a pertussis epidemic caused only 25,000 cases with 25 fatalities.” (Wolfgang Ehrengut, Lancet, Feb. 18, 1978, p. 370)

“… Barker and Pichichero, in a prospective study of 1232 children in Denver, Colorado, found after DTP that only 7% of those vaccinated were free from untoward reactions, which included pyrexia (53%), acute behavioral changes (82%), prolonged screaming (13%), and listlessness, anorexia and vomiting. 71% of those receiving second injections of DTP experienced two or more of the reactions monitored.” (Lancet, May 28, 1983, p. 1217)

“Publications by the World Health Organization show that diphtheria is steadily declining in most European countries, including those in which there has been no immunization. The decline began long before vaccination was developed. There is certainly no guarantee that vaccination will protect a child against the disease; in fact, over 30,000 cases of diphtheria have been recorded in the United Kingdom in fully immunized children.” (Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 58)

“Pertussis (whooping cough) immunization is controversial, as the side effects have received a great deal of publicity. The counter claim is that the effectiveness and protection offered by the procedure far outweigh the possible ill effects… annual deaths, per million children, from this disease over the period from 1900 to the mid-nineteen seventies, shows that from a high point of just under 900 deaths per million children (under age 15) in 1905, the decline has been consistent and dramatic. There had been a lowering of mortality rates of approximately 80% by the time immunization was introduced on a mass scale, in the mid-nineteen fifties. The decline has continued, albeit at a slower rate, ever since. No credit can be given to vaccination for the major part of the decline since it was not in use.” (Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 63)

“… the swine-flu vaccination program was one of its (CDC’s) greatest blunders. It all began in 1976 when CDC scientists saw that a virus involved in a flu attack outbreak at Fort Dix, N.J., was similar to the swine-flu virus that killed 500,000 Americans in 1918. Health officials immediately launched a 100-million dollar program to immunize every American. But the expected epidemic never materialized, and the vaccine led to partial paralysis in 532 people. There were 32 deaths.” (U.S. News and World Report, Joseph Carey, October 14, 1985, p. 70, “How Medical Sleuths Track Killer Diseases”)

“Despite (cases) in which (smallpox) vaccination plainly failed to protect the population, and despite the rampant side-effects of the methods, the proponents of vaccination continued their attempts to justify the methods by claims that the disease had declined in Europe as a whole during the period of its compulsory use. If the decline could be correlated with the use of the vaccination, then all else could be set aside, and the advantage between its current low incidence could be shown to outweigh the periodic failures of the method, and to favour the continued use of vaccination. However, the credit for the decline in the incidence of smallpox could not be given to vaccination. The fact is that its incidence declined in all parts of Europe, whether or not vaccination was employed.” (Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, pp. 6-7)

“Smallpox, like typhus, has been dying out (in England) since 1780. Vaccination in this country has largely fallen into disuse since people began to realize how its value was discredited by the great smallpox epidemic of 1871-2 (which occurred after extensive vaccination).” (W. Scott Webb, A Century of Vaccination, Swan Sonnenschein, 1898)

“In this incident (Kyoto, Japan, 1948) – the most serious of its kind – a toxic (vaccine) batch of alum-precipitated toxoid (APT) was responsible for illness in over 600 infants and for no fewer than 68 deaths.

“On 20 and 22 October, 1948, a large number of babies and children in the city of Kyoto received their first injection of APT. On the 4th and 5th of November, 15,561 babies and children aged some months to 13 years received their second dose. One to two days later, 606 of those who had been injected fell ill. Of these, 9 died of acute diphtheritic paralysis in seven to fourteen days, and 59 of late paralysis mainly in four to seven weeks.” (Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization, Athone Press, University of London, 1967)

“Accidents may, however, follow the use of this so-called killed (rabies) vaccine owing to inadequate processing. A very serious occurrence of this sort occurred at Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, in 1960. No fewer than 18 out of 66 persons vaccinated with Fermi’s carbolized (rabies) vaccine suffered from encephalomyelitis and every one of the eighteen died.” (Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization)

“At a press conference in Washington on 24 July, 1942, the Secretary of War reported that 28,585 cases of jaundice had been observed in the (American) Army between 1 January and 4 July after yellow fever vaccination, and of these 62 proved fatal.” (Wilson, Hazards of Immunization)

“The world’s biggest trial (conducted in south India) to assess the value of BCG tuberculosis vaccine has made the startling revelation that the vaccine ‘does not give any protection against bacillary forms of tuberculosis.’ The study said to be ‘most exhaustive and meticulous,’ was launched in 1968 by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) with assistance from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia.

“The incidence of new cases among the BCG vaccinated group was slightly (but statistically insignificantly) higher than in the control group, a finding that led to the conclusion that BCG’s protective effect ‘was zero.'” (New Scientist, November 15, 1979, as quoted by Hans Ruesch in Naked Empress, Civis Publishers, Switzerland, 1982)

“Between 10 December 1929 and 30 April 1930, 251 of 412 infants born in Lubeck received three doses of BCG vaccine by the mouth during the first ten days of life. Of these 251, 72 died of tuberculosis, most of them in two to five months and all but one before the end of the first year. In addition, 135 suffered from clinical tuberculosis but eventually recovered; and 44 became tuberculin-positive but remained well. None of the 161 unvaccinated infants born at the time was affected in this way and none of these died of tuberculosis within the following three years.” (Hazards of Immunization, Wilson)

“We conducted a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial to test the efficacy of the 14-valent pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide vaccine in 2295 high-risk patients… Seventy-one episodes of proved or probable pneumococcal pneumonia or bronchitis occurred among 63 of the patients (27 placebo recipients and 36 vaccine recipients)… We were unable to demonstrate any efficacy of the pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia or bronchitis in this population.” (New England Journal of Medicine, November 20, 1986, p. 1318, Michael Simberkoff et al.

“But already before Salk developed his vaccine, polio had been constantly regressing; the 39 cases out of every 100,000 inhabitants registered in 1942 had gradually diminished from year to year until they were reduced to only 15 cases in 1952… according to M. Beddow Baylay, the English surgeon and medical historian.” (Slaughter of the Innocent, Hans Reusch, Civitas Publish ers, Switzerland, and Swain, New York, 1983)

“Many published stories and reports have stated, implied and otherwise led professional people and the public to believe that the sharp reduction of cases (and of deaths) from poliomyelitis in 1955 as compared to 1954 is attributable to the Salk vaccine… That it is a misconception follows from these considerations. The number of children inoculated has been too small to account for the decrease. The sharp decrease was apparent before the inoculations began or could take effect and was of the same order as the decrease following the immediate post-inoculation period.” (Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, vol. 20, no. 1, 1987)

“So far it is hardly possible to gain insight into the extent of the immunization catastrophe of 1955 in the United States. It may be considered certain that the officially ascertained 200 cases (of polio) which were caused directly or indirectly by the (polio) vaccination constitute minimum figures… It can hardly be estimated how many of the 1359 (polio) cases among vaccinated persons must be regarded as failures of the vaccine and how many of them were infected by the vaccine. A careful study of the epidemiologic course of polio in the United States yields indications of grave significance. In numerous states of the U.S.A., typical early epidemics developed with the immunizations in the spring of 1955… The vaccination incidents of the year 1955 cannot be exclusively traced back to the failure of one manufacturing firm.” (Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, 1980, vol. 19, no. 4, “Story of the Salk Vaccine,” Part 2)

“Suffice it to say that most of the large (polio) epidemics that have occurred in this country since the introduction of the Salk vaccine have followed the wide-scale use of the vaccine and have been characterized by an uncommon early seasonal onset. To name a few, there is the Massachusetts epidemic of 1955; the Chicago epidemic of 1956; and the Des Moines epidemic of 1959.” (Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, 1980 vol. 19, no. 4)

“The live (Sabin) poliovirus vaccine has been the predominant cause of domestically arising cases of paralytic poliomyelitis in the United States since 1972. To avoid the occurrence of such cases, it would be necessary to discontinue the routine use of live poliovirus vaccine.” (Jonas Salk, Science, March 4, 1977, p. 845)

“By the (U.S.) government’s own admission, there has been a 41% failure rate in persons who were previously vaccinated against the (measles) virus.” [In other words, these persons were vaccinated and then contracted measles.] (Dr. Anthony Morris, John Chriss, BG Young, “Occurrence of Measles in Previously Vaccinated Individuals,” 1979; presented at a meeting of the American Society for Microbiology at Fort Detrick, Maryland, April 27, 1979)

“Prior to the time doctors began giving rubella (German Measles) vaccinations, an estimated 85% of adults were naturally immune to the disease (for life). Because of immunization, the vast majority of women never acquire natural immunity (or lifetime protection).” (Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, Let’s Live, December 1983, as quoted by Carolyn Reuben in the LA WEEKLY, June 28, 1985)

“Administration of KMV (killed measles vaccine) apparently set in motion an aberrant immunologic response that not only failed to protect children against natural measles, but resulted in heightened susceptibility.” (JAMA Aug. 22, 1980, vol. 244, p. 804, Vincent Fulginiti and Ray Helfer. The authors indicate that such falsely protected children can come down with “an often severe, atypical form of measles. Atypical measles is characterized by fever, headache… and a diverse rash (which)… may consist of a mixture of macules, papules, vesicles, and pustules… “)

power outside the matrix

The above quotes reflect only a mere fraction of an available literature which shows the public has been kept in the dark about vaccination. It is certain that undisclosed, unlooked for illness occurs as a result of vaccines, or as a result of infection after protective immunity should have been conferred but wasn’t.

A certain amount of this sort of illness is immunosuppressive in the widest sense, and some in a narrower sense (depression of T-cell numbers, etc.). When looking for causes of unusual illness and immune suppression, vaccines are one of those areas which remain partially hidden from investigation. That is a mistake. It is not adequate to say, “Vaccines are simple; they stimulate the immune system and confer immunity against specific germ agents.” That is the glossy presentation.

What vaccines often do is something else. They engage some aspect of the body’s immune-response, but to what effect over the long term? Why, for example, do children who have measles vaccine develop a susceptibility to another more severe, atypical measles? Is that virulent form of the disease the result of reactivation of the virus in the vaccine?

Official reports on adverse vaccine reactions are often at odds with unofficial estimates because of the method of analysis used. If vaccine-reaction is defined as a small set of possible effects experienced within 72 hours of an inoculation, then figures will be smaller. But doctors like G.T. Stewart, of the University of Glasgow, have found through meticulous investigation, including visits to hospitals and interviews with parents of vaccinated children, that reactions as severe as brain-damage (e.g., from the DPT vaccine) can be overlooked, go unreported, and can be assumed mistakenly to have come from other causes.

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.

MORE EVIDENCE PSYCHIATRY IS A FAKE SCIENCE

More evidence psychiatry is a fake science

by Jon Rappoport

September 4, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Evidence isn’t something you make up out of thin air. You dig it up. If you’re fortunate, you find crucial evidence in statements of the very people who are pretending to tell the truth. That’s the jackpot.

I’ve written several articles debunking the “science” behind psychiatry. As you might guess, this is not a popular approach with the gatekeepers of our culture.

The gatekeepers want psychiatry to be thought of as a science, and since it isn’t, they exercise their only option: they lie. And then they lie again. It’s the time-honored strategy of all propaganda. Keep repeating the falsehood until people believe it and accept it.

Evidence doesn’t work that way. You don’t need to keep repeating it in order to make it real. If you’re digging in the sand to uncover clues to a lost city, you don’t need to re-dig that area of sand hiding the temple and the road and the statues. You do it once and that’s enough. You say, “See? Here’s the city.”

But culturally speaking, you do need to keep flashing photos of the lost city, because people have been trained to think there was no civilization way back when. You have to separate people from the false thinking and indoctrination.

So now I’m flashing evidence I’ve uncovered before. It’s a statement made by a prominent psychiatrist on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”

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

Dr. Barkley blows the whistle on his own profession, and then he turns around and makes it even better by claiming the incontrovertible evidence isn’t evidence at all. He claims we’re all illiterate when it comes to fathoming what science is all about.

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

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

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

In the case of psychiatry, the DSM, which is the bible of the American Psychiatric Association, currently lists 297 official mental disorders. They are named, labeled, and described. Dr. Barkley admits there is no lab test for any of those 297 disorders.

Yes, there is a lot of chatter about “chemical imbalances in the brain,” but there is no test.

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

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

If psychiatry were nothing more than an intellectual game in a vacuum, it wouldn’t matter. But each diagnosis is followed by powerful and dangerous drugs, and people take those drugs.

In a business sense (and psychiatry is a business), the DSM is really a book that tells psychiatrists what they can bill insurance companies for. That’s the essence of the book. There are 297 ways a psychiatrist can get paid. No insurance company is going to step up to the plate and declare psychiatry a rank fraud. Insurance companies don’t operate that way. They are in partnership with psychiatry. Insurance companies employ actuaries to figure out how claims can be paid and still leave nice profit margins. That’s the game.

Think of all the studies that have been done to show that street drugs harm people. Has that stopped traffickers from selling heroin and cocaine? Well, the analogy has merit. Do you expect psychiatrists and insurance companies to hold a press conference and admit their whole operation is a top-to-bottom fraud with devastating health consequences?

At the root of this ongoing RICO crime is the issue of personal freedom. Do people have the absolute right to refuse psychiatric medication? If, for example, in the United States, Obamacare is not repealed, there are going to be many, many more diagnoses of mental disorders. Eventually, accepting these diagnoses, and the drug prescriptions that follow, is going to be made a condition of membership in the national insurance plan. That’s why drug companies and insurance companies are on board. They are looking forward to more business.

I have made this offer before, and I’m making it again. Let’s have an extensive web debate about the science of psychiatry. Let’s air the whole thing out, with people from both sides at the podium. I’m not talking about sound bites. I want a thorough exposition. Let’s see who makes more sense.

Here is what I believe would be exposed. People would finally understand that committees of psychiatrists, in their deliberations, take menus of human behavior, and then they group behaviors into clusters. For each cluster, they determine there is a disorder. They sit in a room and argue all this out, and come up with labels and symptoms—and in this thoroughly unscientific fashion, they recycle human suffering and emotional pain and confusion and problems into neat categories. They provide no tests. They simply make the rules, and they expect obedience, because they are the self-appointed authorities.

This is a staggering fact. It may be hard to acknowledge the depth and breadth of the fraud, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t fraud. It only means people have been indoctrinated to salute “the experts.”

It also means other explanations are going to be needed for what we say are “crazy behaviors.” But that need doesn’t imply that the experts are right. It simply indicates we have been following an unproven path and we need to shift gears.

It’s always easier to give in to the experts. But Easier is not a scientific standard that should win our approval. Easier is what we opt for when we prefer a manufactured rigged consensus.

Independent thinking is a whole different animal. It applies and it challenges us across the board of our entire civilization. Should we believe what we are told without reflection? Should we buy the most popular items for sale? Or should we explore what lies beyond the comfort zone?

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

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

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

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

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

Fake science comes in many forms. Psychiatry is one of the most egregious forms ever invented.

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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

AMERICA’S LEADING PSYCHIATRIST CONVICTS HIMSELF OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

AMERICA’S LEADING PSYCHIATRIST CONVICTS HIMSELF OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

by Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

SEPTEMBER 2, 2012.  The medical cartel, one of a handful of evolving super-cartels that strive for more power every day, is rife with so much fraud it’s astounding.  In the psychiatric arena, for example, an open secret has been bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

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

And along with that:

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

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

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

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

But we have a mind-boggling twist.  Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public.  He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues.  And for 2 years, almost no one noticed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BANG.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep in mind that Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definition of Bipolar was expanded to include more people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what about Ritalin?

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

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

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

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

A recent survey revealed that a high percentage of children diagnosed with bipolar had first received a diagnosis of ADHD.  This is informative, because Ritalin and other speed-type drugs are given to kids who are slapped with the ADHD label.  Speed, sooner or later, produces a crash.  This is easy to call “clinical depression.”  Then comes Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft.  These drugs can produce temporary highs, followed by more crashes.  The psychiatrist notices the up and down pattern—and then comes the diagnosis of Bipolar (manic-depression) and other drugs, including Valproate and Lithium.

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

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

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

And Dr. Frances is somehow let off the hook.  He’s admitted in print that the whole basis of his profession is throwing darts at labels on a wall, and implies the “effort” is rather heroic—when, in fact, the effort leads to more and more poisonous drugs being dispensed to adults and children, to say nothing of the effect of being diagnosed with “a mental disorder.”  I’m not talking about “the mental-disease stigma,” the removal of which is one of Hillary Clinton’s missions in life. No, I’m talking about MOVING A HUMAN INTO THE SYSTEM, the medical apparatus, where the essence of the game is trapping that person to harvest his money, his time, his energy, and of course his health—as one new diagnosis follows on another, and one new toxic treatment after another is undertaken, from cradle to grave.  The result is a severely debilitated human being (if he survives), whose major claim to fame is his list of diseases and disorders, which he learns to wear like badges of honor.

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

OBAMA AND ROMNEY ADORE THE THIRD LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN AMERICA

OBAMA AND ROMNEY ADORE THE THIRD LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN AMERICA

By Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have done everything they can to bring more people into the US medical system.  Radically changing that system has never occurred to these two clueless politicians.

Like much of America, they accept the cliches and slogans about American medicine.  “It’s the best in the world.”  “People are being denied treatment.”  “We must take care of our citizens.”

How about this accurate slogan: “Let’s force more Americans to die in the care of doctors.”

The American healthcare system, like clockwork, causes a mind-boggling number of deaths every year.

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when one of its most respected public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America. Starfield was associated with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

The Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, came to the following conclusions:

Every year in the US there are:

12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

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

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000.

THAT’S 2.25 MILLION PEOPLE KILLED PER DECADE.

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

The Starfield study is the most explosive revelation about modern healthcare in America ever published in the mainstream.  The credentials of its author and the journal in which it appeared are, within the highest medical circles, impeccable.

Yet, on the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, although media reporting was extensive, it soon dwindled.  No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation.  Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this mind-boggling situation preferred to ignore it.

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

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

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

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

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

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to [remedy] the 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 a 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…The US public does not seem to recognize that inappropriate care is dangerous—more does not mean better…Some drugs are downright dangerous; they may be prescribed according to regulations but they are dangerous.

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.

Some comments from the interviewer:

Both presidential candidates ignore the truth about the US medical system.  They argue about whose plan is better for bringing more people into this killing machine.  And the major media play along.

There are reports, outside the mainstream, which conclude that far more than 225,000 people in the US die every year as a result of medical treatment.  For example, see the work of Carolyn Dean, Trueman Tuck, Gary Null, Martin Feldman, Debora Rasio, Dorothy Smith.

http://www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf

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.

Yes, 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.

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 superb; 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.

We are talking about crimes on the scale of holocaust and genocide.  Yet, we can hold a presidential election in which neither candidate even mentions the truth.  They sail on into the nominating conventions; they argue about issues on which they basically agree; they play the left-right paradigm like a harp; they practice the art of sounding sincere; they drag us further into a collectivist future in which murderous medical care will be required for all, from cradle to grave.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihm8NwzIZtg&w=480&h=270]

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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

Dirty tricks alert: Bill Gates will smear and slime anti-vaccine advocates

Dirty tricks alert: Bill Gates will smear and slime anti-vaccine advocates

by Jon Rappoport

August 28, 2012

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Here is the direct quote from Bill Gates’ grant-award machine:

July 18, 2012… An anti-vaccine surveillance and alert system: Seth Kalichman [twitter, blog] of the http://www.uconn.edu/ in the USA will establish an Internet-based global monitoring and rapid alert system for finding, analysing, and counteracting communication campaigns containing misinformation regarding vaccines to support global immunization efforts. …(via technet21.org)… TechNet21 is generously supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, under the oversight of WHO and UNICEF. The information in this forum is provided by users, as a service…

Source:

http://www.technet21.org/index.php/issue-166/gates-foundation-awards-17-million-to-inspire-supply-chain-innovation.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:STCtOoU0cwQJ:www.technet21.org/index.php/forum/technet21/general-discussion/2972-gates-foundation-awards-1.7-million-to-inspire-supply-chain-innovation.html+gate+supply+chain+innovation&hl=en&gl=us&prmh

http://jonrappoportmedia.blogspot.com/2012/08/gates-foundation-awards-17-million-to.html

This means the attack is on.  Gates intends to do a surveillance operation across the Internet and locate anti-vaccine advocates.  His minions will then undertake a counter-insurgency campaign to neutralize them.

How does such an operation work?  I’ll tell you how it works: “This writer has no medical credentials.”  “This writer is spreading dangerous information that will harm children.”  “This filmmaker tells lies about the most important medical technology the world has ever seen.”  “The evidence for vaccination is overwhelming, and this writer is operating out of the Dark Ages.”

And that’s just the nice stuff.

“This writer was once an MD, but it’s been said he gave up his practice after several patients made complaints to the medical board.  Now he spends all his time attacking vaccines.  He’s a criminal menace.”

“Don’t read anything by this writer.  He’s obviously mentally ill.  He wants you to stop vaccinating your children, so they can catch life-threatening diseases.”

And it will go downhill and get nastier from there.

This is Nixon’s dirty-tricks war all over again.  But instead of having a few million dollars in a slush fund, Gates has billions at his disposal.

He’s going to use surrogates to do his work for him, so it will be difficult, in many cases, to know where the attacks are coming from.  That’s how cowards operate.  They slink around behind the scenes and let other people do the heavy lifting.

The last thing they want is an honest and open debate about the issue itself.  That would expose them.  The truth would expose them.

Gates is obviously out to create an atmosphere and set a tone for legislation that would make vaccination mandatory everywhere, with no exemptions allowed.  That’s what he’s shooting for.  That’s his wet dream, the one that goes hand in glove with depopulation, his mountaintop desire.

http://www.infowars.com/in-vaccines-we-trust-vaccine-inventor-paul-offit-seeks-end-to-religious-and-philosophical-vaccine-exemptions/

The press, as always, will be on his side.  They were on his side by giving short shrift to the explosive story out of India, where 47,000 cases of paralysis were caused by his polio vaccine.

http://www.naturalnews.com/035627_polio_vaccines_paralysis_India.html

He intends to create his very own Surveillance State, in which the targets are all Internet reporters and groups that have dug up the real facts about vaccines.  The facts the medical cartel wants to hide in their vaults: vaccine deaths, paralysis, maiming, brain damage, autism, immune dysfunction…

He wants to create a chilling effect, for those who are thinking about covering the vaccine issue honestly.

Well, here’s a newsflash.  Those facts are already out there, on thousands and thousands of sites.  The horse left the barn years ago.

He’s late to the party, but he’s going to throw a lot of money at the problem.  Essentially, he’s opting for suppression of accurate journalism.  Like so many before him, once he wrangled his fortune in the free market (?), he turned around and realized he didn’t want a semblance of freedom anymore.  He only wanted control.

Those of us who have been writing and speaking about vaccines for years would love to go up against Gates’ medical doctors in an open debate.  Nothing would please us more.  But Bill doesn’t want that.  People like him are terrified of openness.  So be it.

He can take the low road.  He’ll only induce more opposition.  That’s the way his style of attack works.  People who were asleep will wake up, once they realize he’s just another puffy Marmaduke who, when he doesn’t like the game, decides to take his bat and ball and go home.

And he will go home.

His money against our freedom is a game in which many of us like the odds.

Go ahead, Bill.  Deal your first greasy card from the bottom of the deck.  We’ve got eyeballs on you, too.

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.

HOW THEY CAN BRAINWASH YOU IN A PSYCH WARD

 

HOW THEY CAN BRAINWASH YOU IN A PSYCH WARD

by Jon Rappoport

August 27, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

In the wake of the Batman murders, there is much speculation about what psychiatric drugs James Holmes may have been taking. People are realizing, as never before, the power of these drugs to cause homicidal behavior and damage the brain.

 

In the case of the Marine, Brandon Raub, the “Facebook thought criminal” who was recently held against his will in a lockup and threatened with the drugs, we see how easy it is for the government to kidnap a citizen and subject him to Soviet-style incarceration.

 

Washington’s Blog, linked through infowars, has presented a compelling round-up of the reality of forced psychiatric care in America. It is clear that the federal government, on the vaguest of pretexts, can override state laws and put people in psych wards.

 

http://www.infowars.com/are-people-being-thrown-into-psychiatric-wards-for-their-political-views/

 

In the early 1990s, while researching the extension of the CIA MKULTRA (mind control) program, I had occasion to interview people who had been placed in mental institutions. This article is derived from their testimony, from numerous articles about the horrendous medical torture at two California prisons, Atascadero and Vacaville, and from Jessica Mitford’s landmark 1974 book, Kind and Usual Punishment.

 

The October 9, 1970, issue of Medical World News contained an article, “Scaring the Devil Out,” which revealed the use of a drug called succinylcholine at the Atascadero hospital for the criminally insane, and at the Vacaville Medical Facility. Succinylcholine (and a later drug, prolixin) were administered in a dosage “sufficient to induce general paralysis and respiratory arrest lasting up to two minutes.”

 

In a state of complete terror, the inmates would be lectured to by doctors, who told them they had to change their unacceptable behavior.

 

There is no essential difference between early basic CIA MKULTRA methods and the worst practices of psychiatrists in mental lockups. They both involve: isolation, duress, force, torture, and drugging.

 

There is no mystery about how and why these inhuman methods work. The patient is experiencing intense physical and emotional pain, and his response is often submission and compliance.

 

The patient wants to find out what is expected of him, and he agrees to it. A confession of a crime? Silence about what he knows? An expression of regret for what he has done or what he is accused of doing? A concocted story? He goes along.

 

This is why, for defendants like James Holmes, who is accused of mass murder and whose attorneys want to enter an insanity plea, the period of incarceration, during which he is “examined” to judge whether he is mentally competent, can be a very dangerous time.

 

As with the Arizona shooter, Jarod Loughner, the covert objective of this imprisonment can be the extraction of a guilty plea, which will eventually be entered in court.

 

The psychiatric drugs, particularly the so-called anti-psychotics, are used to put the patient in a state of semi-trance. Not only is he more suggestible and malleable, his brain is undergoing an assault, one effect of which is motor-damage. This is labeled tardive dyskinsia, to cover over the stark reality that the drugs are scrambling brain circuitry, often permanently.

 

Ordinary tranquilizers and sedatives can assist in this Nazi-like program.

 

Sometimes, friendly overtures from “good-guy guards” are used to make patients bond with their handlers, who then enlist patients’ cooperation in telling the right story and sticking to it.

 

Isolation from friends, family, and even lawyers makes the situation worse. The patient has to navigate his own way through a maze, deciding what to agree to and what to resist.

 

Early CIA MKULTRA experiments in the 1950s were not very sophisticated. Hypnosis, drugs, induced disorientation, force, threats, and suggestions were employed to forge “new personalities” for the victims. However, often the true result was simply victim compliance, offered with the hope of escape from the “treatments.”

 

It is the same in psych lockups. Barraged with crippling drugs, cut off from outside communication, the patient cooperates to avoid pain and fear.

 

One patient who had been held in a California psych ward told me: “I never lost track of the truth, but I could see they wanted me to agree with their diagnosis. They said I was a schizophrenic, and although I knew that wasn’t true, I went along after a while. I invented symptoms for the doctors. I played the part. I think they knew what I was doing, but they didn’t care. They just wanted to make sure their diagnosis would stick, so that when I was let out, my parents would be satisfied that I was crazy. That was the whole issue. My parents wanted to get off the hook. They wanted to believe they had never done anything wrong. They wanted to tell their friends I had a disease, schizophrenia, that’s all. I was ‘taking medication’ for it. I was ‘recovering.’”

 

Another patient from a mental lockup in the Midwest said: “They threatened me with electroshock treatments. I had heard how bad that could be. They just shoot electricity into your brain. It causes a seizure. They told me they could never be held responsible for it, because it was legitimate treatment. They said I could either be a very depressed patient who needed the shocks, or I could be a willing witness in a criminal case. I chose the second thing…”

 

He went on to say that, a year or so later, he realized “how much of a daze I had been in from the drugs,” particularly Haldol, a so-called anti-psychotic. “It was like slowly coming out of a blizzard, back into reality.”

 

These incarcerated people are not only placed in lock-up because their parents want to escape criticism, or the police want them to cooperate, or prosecutors want them to plead guilty to a crime. There are political prisoners as well. Law-enforcement agents are trained to believe these people, who speak out against the government, are inevitably holding dark secrets about terror plots.

 

Such a man, who was held for 72 hours after a court order, told me he was given “something like LSD or mescaline. They must have thought it was a truth drug, and I would spill my plans…I didn’t have any plans. I was just upset with the IRS. So I went on a weird trip from the drug. They interrogated me while I was high. I made up stuff. I don’t remember most of it. They were disgusted with what I was saying. I guess it didn’t make much sense. When they let me go, one guy told me they could get me back and give me a much higher dose of the drug, and then I’d be lucky to find my way home…”

 

None of the above touches on some of the worst horrors experienced by long-term mental inmates. Forced sex, frequent high-dose drugs that slam people into a barely coherent state, talk-therapy that degenerates into long hours of interrogation. Such a patient told me that, for a month or so, he actually believed he was “getting the best care in the world.” The interrogation was all about what he would reveal or not reveal about his treatment, if he was released from incarceration. Apparently, in his case, he was considered an experimental subject in a test of unapproved drugs.

 

Then there are the chronic casualties. After their confinement, they don’t have the competence to talk about what happened to them. They are too damaged to speak. In one such case, I was told by the patient’s parents, who were trying to pursue a lawsuit against the hospital, that as far they could tell, their son had received nothing but drugs. He hadn’t been overtly tortured. The drugs alone, which are prescribed by many psychiatrists in out-patient settings every day, had wrought so much destruction that the young man couldn’t finish his sentences or think in a straightforward fashion. He alternated between periods of silence and tantrums.

 

I did find one man who, refusing to talk about what had happened to him during his months in a psych ward, claimed he was a “secret agent for the other side.” This new assertion was contradicted by every available fact. Yet he believed it. He was never prosecuted as a spy. It is possible that he was worked on as part of an MKULTRA experiment, just to see whether this absurd belief could be successfully planted in his mind.

 

We are presented with psychiatry as the epitome of advanced brain science, practiced for the good of humanity. This is a lie. It is a lie in the psychiatrist’s office, and in the mental institution.

 

As I’ve written before, there isn’t a single laboratory test to confirm the diagnosis of any of the 297 officially designated mental disorders. Yet, the drugs given after the diagnoses all carry the high risk of terrible effects on the body and brain. From Adderall and Ritalin to Paxil and Zoloft, from Valproate and Lithium to Haldol and Risperdal, the prescribing doctors are playing with fire.

 

The FDA, who approves these drugs as safe and effective, sits on a mountain of lies and crimes against humanity.

 

We must, at a bare minimum, maintain the inviolable freedom to refuse medication. It is a basic right, and we must protect it.

 

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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

THE MEDICAL CARTEL IS KING IN A GLOBALIST WORLD

 

THE MEDICAL CARTEL IS KING IN A GLOBALIST WORLD

by Jon Rappoport

August 16, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

In 1976, the great critic of 20th-century society, Ivan Illich, wrote: “Modern medicine is a negation of health. It isn’t organized to serve human health, but only itself, an institution. It makes more people sick than it heals.”

 

The medical cartel is the answer to the question: what do you with the population of Earth once they are living under a globalist oligarchy?

 

It’s all about managing lives, from womb to grave, and no institution serves that management better than Medicine.

 

First of all, you have a system that dispenses toxic drugs in an endless stream, killing in the US alone, by conservative estimate, 100,000 people per year. On top of that, medical drugs cause anywhere from two to four millions severe adverse effects annually.

 

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2009/12/09/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-barbara-starfield-medically-caused-death-in-america/

 

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/06/12/another-smoking-gun-the-fda-versus-the-people/

 

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/05/17/hidden-in-plain-view-fda-murder/

 

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/06/29/how-medical-criminals-are-faking-medical-science-every-day/

 

Beyond this straight-out destruction, there is the turmoil, suffering, grieving, and confusion that extends in ripples, from each one of the deaths and injuries, to families, friends, and co-workers. The overall effect? Demoralization and the inability to see and think past the emotional pain—which is exactly what you want if you are running a planet.

 

The medical cartel (drug companies, public health agencies, medical schools, doctors) will eventually assure cradle-to-grave treatment of every person. This means 30 or 40 diagnoses of illnesses and mental disorders during a lifetime, and treatment with toxic drugs. This also means medical issues are at the forefront of every person’s mind as he/she wends through life, believing that Disease is the most important aspect of living.

 

People become proud, yes, proud of their diagnoses and treatment. They wear the diagnoses like badges of honor, and every social communication is an occasion for displaying badges and discussing treatments and comparing notes.

 

“You know, at first my doctor thought it was ADHD, but then he did one of those new brain scans, and realized it was Bipolar with a trace of genetically inherited Oppositional Defiance Disorder. Once he had the ODD under control with a major tranquilizer, he could go after the Bipolar. But then I developed tremors. So he implanted a chip…”

 

It’s not only a sick society, it’s a society about sickness.

 

Medical care is free, if by free one means: paid for by extraordinary levels of taxation.

 

The basic collectivist slogan, “We’re all in this together,” achieves its most fervent support from the axiom that Disease is our primary opportunity to help each other by accepting awesome tax burdens.

 

Of course, huge segments of the world population won’t be able to participate in modern, up-to-date, cutting-edge “care.” For them, there are several solutions. The first is vaccines seeded with chemicals and genes that reduce fertility and potency. As birth rates gradually decline, cover stories are invented to explain the phenomenon: stress; rising employment rates; the social effects of urbanization; the dissolution of the nuclear family.

 

The second solution is epidemics that purportedly kill off large numbers of people. These epidemics are routine frauds, based on concocted science. In the poverty-stricken Third World, announced epidemics are nothing more than cover stories; people aren’t dying because of germs; they’re dying because their water is contaminated, because of overcrowding, lack of basic sanitation, generation-to-generation starvation. They’re dying because their fertile growing lands have been stolen. While medical experts crow about attacking the germ of the moment with (toxic) drugs and vaccines, these real causes of death can be ignored and even enhanced.

 

Meanwhile, in industrialized technological sectors of the planet, psychiatry ascends to new heights of control over the educated classes. Although no so-called mental disorder has ever been diagnosed by a real laboratory test, the experts who dominate the field continue to invent new disorders at the drop of a hat.

 

Patients believe they have brain conditions that must be treated with (highly toxic) drugs. The patients also believe their own aspirations are limited by their disorders, and so they acquiesce to a psychiatric model that circumscribes their lives.

 

At the top-end of society, new medical inventions are applied to the wealthy. Genetic enhancement is the most touted of these. Despite the fact that, as yet, there are no genetic treatments for any disease that work across the board, experiments will be done to extend life, to seed the unborn with special talents, to cure a wide variety of illnesses.

 

There will be efforts to substitute technological components for biological nature. Limbs, organs, whole body systems.

 

The workability of high-tech pieces is not really the issue. The aim is to involve the rich in the entire grand experiment, thereby swallowing them up in a medical paradigm of existence.

 

At any level of medical cartel operations, a person will be enrolled in the system while in utero, and a path will be laid out that extends all the way to the grave. Once he is on record with a medical ID package, he will be tracked and treated and tweaked without let-up.

 

Finally, the inevitable proposal and program will come into view. Why risk natural birth, which is already considered a medical event, in the womb of a woman? Why not create birth in a laboratory?

 

And if, at any point in life, a person experiences doubts and regrets about his membership in the universal medical control apparatus, he can obtain a prescription for any number of drugs that target “pleasure centers,” and then check out of his worries and anxieties.

 

Huxley’s Brave New World will move in like a wave on a beach.

 

At every way-stop to that day, sophistication, elegance, assurance, and concern will be the watchwords of the practicing doctor, the secular priest in this drama of human dismantling.

 

And yet, for those who remember, who know what the Individual is, who know what freedom is, who know what imagination and creative power are, the rigging and distorting and flattening and collectivizing will look like nothing more than a horrible cartoon.

 

And these people who remember will lead a revolution like no revolution ever seen before.

 

Or we can defect from, and withdraw our consent to, this mad matrix now.

 

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.

www.nomorefakenews.com