Category Archives: Medical Fraud

FDA LUNATICS AND CRIMINALS

 

FDA LUNATICS AND CRIMINALS

 

AUGUST 5, 2011. In a 2010 action filed against the FDA, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund sought to protect the freedoms and rights of family farms—particularly when it came to the right to ship raw milk across state lines.

 

The FDA responded to that filing in a most revealing way. In an astonishing way. Its position allows you to see into its bureaucratic/fascist soul, if an agency can be said to have a soul.

 

Read these words (from FDA) carefully, because they amount to a manifesto and a prediction about what is to come, if the people of this country don’t push back in overwhelming numbers:

 

“Plaintiffs assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families,’ is simply unavailing because plaintiffs do not have any fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.”

 

And then the FDA made this assertion:

 

“There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract.”

 

After you pick yourself up off the floor, think about why the FDA made the latter statement.

 

Small farms and consumers have been forming clubs in America, just like the club, Rawesome Foods, that was raided two days ago. These private groups are created to engage in contracts, agreements among themselves, about what foods they will buy and sell.

 

In the case of raw milk, in order to avoid interference by the government, the club members agree to take responsibility for their own health, and the consequences, if any, of drinking raw unpasteurized milk.

 

They are, in effect, saying, “We make the choice. The choice doesn’t involve the government, one way or another. This is a private contract.”

 

But the FDA steps in and issues their edict: you don’t have a fundamental right to a contract. You especially don’t have a right to a contract that contravenes one of our regulations. You are under US. We decide, not you.

 

Those are the battles lines. They have been drawn in stark terms. The federal government isn’t going to change. It needs to be able to obliterate any private agreement in order to expand its control. It needs to be able to say, YOU ARE NOT A GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE, YOU ARE A PEOPLE BY THE GOVERNMENT.

 

In these FDA comments, which deserve to be communicated far and wide so people can understand what is being done to them, the federal government has let its share-and-care mask drop, and has shown its face.

 

Look at it.

 

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

When the Blood Boils: Vaccines and Autism

by Jon Rappoport

July 2, 2011

(To join our email list, click here.)

Lies passed around like conjured pieces of gold. Medical liars speaking their messages with straight faces, from their pulpits of influence.

We’ve watched them work. We’ve experienced the inner sensation of blood boiling; outrage.

Who are these people? Where did they come from? How did they attain their positions of power? Are they a different species?

And like you, I have watched the passive faces of audiences as they take in these lies, as they know something is wrong, as they refuse to act.

If you control the meaning of words like “evidence,” “cause,” “relationship between,” you own the playing field. You can manipulate outcomes and conclusions, and you can define science itself.

Your power derives from ownership of those simple words.

Suppose a healthy baby with all his faculties intact receives a barrage of vaccines at 15 months. Then, three days later, his temperature soars to 105, he has seizures, he screams, and then he goes silent. He withdraws from the world, from his parents. In the ensuing months, he doesn’t speak. He doesn’t laugh. He shows no interest in life around him. He doesn’t recover from this. He doesn’t regain his former health.

In what sense can it be said that the vaccines caused his condition? That may seem like an absurd question to be asking, but scientists claim it is important. So do judges and government officials. So do drug companies who make and sell vaccines.

They claim it’s very important, because they want to maintain control over the concept of “cause.” It’s their protection in the racket they are running.

Can we track the path, step by step, of these vaccine ingredients as they are injected into a baby and make their way through his system? Can we observe every reaction they produce, in sequence, all the way into and through the recesses of the nervous system and the brain?

Of course not.

By such an impossible standard, everyone falls short.

If perverse officials and scientists suddenly invoke that standard, can anyone fulfill it? No.

But make sure you understand that scientists and bureaucrats judge their own work by far looser principles.

They assert, for example, with psychotic arrogance that the underlying cause of autism is in the genes, although their research has only given them the foggiest of reasons for even beginning to crawl out on that limb—where they crow and lie and ask for more research money.

They say ADHD is created by certain brain abnormalities, even though their scans produce on-again off-again evidence—which, finally, is no evidence at all.

In fact, for every one of the 297 so-called mental disorders that are named and defined and described in the official bible of psychiatric literature, there is not one, not one lucid diagnostic test to back up, biologically, their disease labels and descriptions and definitions.

It’s a game. “We may hold you to an impossible standard. We hold ourselves to no standard at all.”

So you should be aware that, if you choose to enter this game, for whatever reasons, you are playing against a monumentally stacked deck.

The powers-that-be will do everything they can to subvert, deny, and destroy THE STORY OF ONE PARENT ABOUT ONE CHILD.

Why? Because the story is too convincing. It’s too obvious. It’s too real. It’s too DEVASTATING. It’s too dangerous.

“My child was healthy. He was vaccinated. Then he collapsed. He never recovered.”

With that, you are setting dynamite on the rails of the medical princes.

And you are also waking up other parents whose stories are essentially the same. You are igniting a fire in their heads.

Can you imagine what would happen if you said, “Look, my child was hit by a cluster of vaccines delivered when he was fifteen months old, and he was never the same after that, and THAT is what I’m seeking compensation for, and that is ALL I’m seeking compensation for. I don’t care what you call it, what name you give to it.”

And the government said, “Well, all right.”

The ensuing flood would drown them. And would drown the vaccine manufacturers, too.

You must be stopped.

And the way they will stop you is by manipulating the word “cause.” That’s all. That’s their entire policy and program. They execute it on an arcane and pseudo-technical level, employing models and constructs and numbers in their private little universe, while they polish their credentials.

They don’t want YOUR STORY to stand naked in front of the public.

Of course it is obvious that, when health turns to tragedy, the vaccines were at fault, just as when a blow to the head causes memory loss. Of course everyone concerned knows the truth.

But they say: science is not done this way. We must have “evidence of causation.” They occasionally throw a few crumbs to parents whose child was brain-damaged by a vaccine. But in the main, they conjure up a version of pseudo-science and use it to obfuscate the otherwise unpardonable reality of what the vaccine has done.

And how does this conjured and manufactured science work?

It starts with the owned and operated definition of a disease or disorder. In the case of autism, the old behavioral criteria are dragged out. Here they are. I’m sorry for loading the full display on you, but I want you to see it in print:

The following is from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM IV

(I) A total of six (or more) items from (A), (B), and (C), with at least two from (A), and one each from (B) and (C)

(A) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
2. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
3. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
4. lack of social or emotional reciprocity ( note: in the description, it gives the following as examples: not actively participating in simple social play or games, preferring solitary activities, or involving others in activities only as tools or “mechanical” aids )

(B) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:

1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language
4. lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level

(C) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
2. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
3. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
4. persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

(II) Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:

(A) social interaction
(B) language as used in social communication
(C) symbolic or imaginative play

(III) The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett’s Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder

And now you have the full and complete definition of autism from the official manual. There is no other definition. There are no physical tests or blood tests or brain scans. There is only this menu of behaviors.

And there are many so-called related disorders, and each one has its similar complex behavioral definition. These depictions overlap. But no matter. As far as the psychiatrists and pediatricians and medical bureaucrats are concerned, autism is defined. Engraved on tablets.

Does, in the judgment of a doctor, your child fit the definition or doesn’t he? The word is given from on high. The decision is rendered. And we are then one step removed from the reality of the simple and brutal destroying effects of the vaccines. This is good for them. They are now in familiar territory. Protected land.

Now they can say, “Your child, who at fifteen months collapsed, has autism.”

This is the bridge to the next giant step. Which is:

“We have determined that vaccines are not the cause of autism.”

“We know this.”

“We have proved this.”

Therefore, you’re trapped. Your child has been painted with the label “autism”–and perhaps you were actually hoping for that, because you knew something was terribly wrong, and the designation confirms you were correct. But as far as making a link to the vaccines, you’re suddenly at their mercy.

If they decide to compensate you through the federal vaccine compensation system, they will say, “Well, your child actually is suffering from encephalopathy and has autism-like symptoms.” But far more frequently, they will fall back on their pronouncement that vaccines and autism are unconnected, and you will get nothing.

How did these medical experts and their bureaucratic partners determine that vaccines are not the cause of autism?

They examined studies. And the studies “found no link.” In particular, there is the key Verstraeten study, published in two phases. Three HMOs’ records of babies were considered by Verstraeten and his colleagues.

I’m going to quote from the study and then comment:

“Results. In phase I at HMO A, cumulative exposure at 3 months resulted in a significant positive association with tics (relative risk [RR]: 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05–3.38). At HMO B, increased risks of language delay were found for cumulative exposure at 3 months (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.01–1.27) and 7 months (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01–1.13). In phase II at HMO C, no significant associations were found. In no analyses were significant increased risks found for autism or attention-deficit disorder.”

“Conclusions. No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Conflicting results were found at different HMOs for certain outcomes. For resolving the conflicting findings, studies with uniform neurodevelopmental assessments of children with a range of cumulative thimerosal exposures are needed.”

First of all, notice how far away we are from that basic fact that vaccines were delivered to your child and your child collapsed and never recovered. We are miles from that. We’re now discussing correlations between vaccines containing mercury (thimerosal) and various indicators and labels: tics, language delay, autism, attention-deficit disorder, neurodevelopmental outcomes.

We now have a complex situation. First of all, in order to conclude that mercury-containing vaccines are correlated with autism or attention-deficit disorder, the researchers would have to have observed, in these children’s medical records, reports detailing all the behavioral criteria THE RESEARCHERS ASSUME add up to a positive diagnosis of these two INVENTED disorders—neither of which even exists on the basis of actual biological or chemical tests of any kind.

So essentially, if we make the translation from psychiatric-speak to basic English, we have this: “There is no convincing correlation between mercury-containing vaccines and those disorders we invented by slicing and dicing human behavior into compartments and giving them disease-labels.”

This is staggering when you think about it.

Continuing: In the first HMO records, Verstraeten and his colleages found a significant correlation between the vaccines and tics. As in facial tics. Why is that important? Because tics can be a sign of motor brain damage. They have a name for that: tardive dyskinesia. But it means brain damage.

However, if you look at the concocted definitions of the concocted disorders called autism and ADD, you’ll find no mention of tics or tardive dyskinesia. Therefore, an increased risk of tics doesn’t bring the researchers any closer to connecting vaccines and autism—simply because autism wasn’t defined that way. It wasn’t invented that way.

Perusing the records at the second HMO, Verstraeten found an increased risk of language delay. The babies didn’t start speaking when normally expected to. This is one of the listed criteria for a diagnosis of autism, but of course it is not enough, by the concocted rules of the game, to rate a placing of the invented label, autism, on any of those children.

At the third HMO, which was investigated as a separate phase 2 of the study, researchers found no significant associations—meaning no tics, no language delay…nothing that would rate a diagnosis of autism or suggest the presence of any of the invented symptoms of autism.

All in all, Verstraeten and his colleagues found no reason to conclude that mercury-containing vaccines were correlated with autism or other signals of neurological problems.

He played off one HMO against another: “In this one, we found X. But in the other one, we didn’t. We found Y instead. And in the third one, we found neither X nor Y.” Why didn’t he simply use all three HMOs as one reservoir? Possibly because he was trying to guard against the possibility of biased records at one HMO. Who knows?

And why didn’t he conclude, “All in all, we discovered some evidence of harm from the vaccines.”

Again, notice how far we are from the actual event of vaccines causing brain damage in a child.

The study decides that there is no increased risk, from vaccines, for autism or ADD. And that’s that. “Further research” is needed.

A child harmed by vaccines could have a tiny brain lesion or severe immune deficiency or a rewired connection somewhere deep in the recesses of the brain—undetected—but none of this matches up to the invented criteria for a diagnosis of autism.

But millions of people actually believe that autism is a distinct entity which was “discovered,” like a pre-set embedded pattern of errant pathways in the brain. And when those people are told, by experts, that vaccines don’t cause it, the PR value is enormous. For doctors who give the vaccines, for drug companies, for public-health agencies.

This is all a ruse. It’s a fabrication, and the studies that follow from it serve to mask the facts of vaccine damage.

They invent define the disorder, they have no definitive diagnostic tests for it, they conclude that vaccines don’t cause it. It’s one fantasy after another.

It’s as if you drew a map of a gold mine that doesn’t exist, and then you passed a law forbidding people from searching for it.

There are various degrees and events of tragic and lasting impact-damage that are laid upon children. The causes are multiple. One significant cause is vaccines. There is no such thing as autism. It is a construct ultimately designed to get certain people off the hook. And to make profit. And to engender money for research.

They will never find a cure for autism, because it doesn’t exist, except as a menu of behaviors wrapped inside their fantasy. Of course, if they were in the world, the world you live in, they would acknowledge that vaccines do cause brain and neurological damage, and they would compensate for that. They would act in a straightforward and honest fashion.

I spoke to one psychiatrist off the record, who said, “A genetic cause for autism? Are you serious? Autism is an artifact to begin with. So how do you find a gene that causes a fairy tale?”

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

BIGGEST BULLSHITTER IN AMERICA?

Biggest bullshitter in America? Who is Dr. Allen Frances?

by Jon Rappoport

June 30, 2011

www.nomorefakenews.com

Hey, the man may be a saint. Who knows? He might be so far beyond my ability to comprehend him I can’t hope to grasp the meaning of his work. He might deserve a Nobel Prize and the thanks of a grateful nation and a statue in the Smithsonian. But…

Is it possible this doctor is the biggest bullshitter in America? I’m just asking, because I’ve been thinking about running a contest. Also because I’ve been reading the interesting statements he made to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

How that article failed to make it out into the mainstream and grab big headlines is beyond me. Well, not really, given its incendiary implications. Editors and reporters at major media outlets have an uncommon nose for avoiding the sort of trouble Greenberg’s piece would have created, were it to be unleashed on the population—and although they like to call themselves journalists, that’s a myth even they don’t really believe anymore. They’re mutts on short leashes.

Dr. Allen Frances (twitter) 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 in the known universe. 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.

But 12 years later, long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, 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.”

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.”

That’s much more serious than the president telling the American people, “We sent our combat planes to Libya, but I meant to say Liberia.”

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.”

Obliquely, 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 went off on a quite intriguing foray, praising what amounts to a mass-population placebo effect which would justify the existence of the entire psychiatric profession.

“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.”

Here is the import of Dr. Frances’ words: People need to hope for the healing of their troubles; so even if we’re 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—since the tests don’t exist and we’re just juggling lists of behaviors—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 I were an editor at one of the big national newspapers, and one my reporters walked in and told me, “The most powerful psychiatrist in America just said the DSM is bullshit 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 without the DSM, 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 the 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 who in his right mind would challenge them?

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.

But oh well; would I have a candidate for biggest bullshitter in America? Just asking.

And as I chewed my cud and wandered the avenues of the big city, I’d look at all the people and something would seep in: the difference between the delusion called reality, which all these people accept, and the actual state of affairs: the giant con game, the giant shell game that allows the drugs to be sold, the drugs that—each and every one—deliver what the shrinks politely call “adverse effects.”

Look them up sometime, if you have a strong stomach.

Here is a sampling:

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).

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 this up and down pattern—and then comes the diagnosis of bipolar (manic-depression) and new 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 is one of the major tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin)

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.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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

VACCINE DECEPTION

 

VACCINE DECEPTIONS

 

JUNE 2, 2011. In my radio show yesterday, I interviewed Becky Estepp for the second time. Becky is the project manager for EBCALA (Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy).

 

Here is what emerged.

 

Recently, California passed a law mandating the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine for all 7th-12th grade students entering school this fall. This piece of legislation was a response to new cases of whooping cough in California.

 

The state government is now carrying on a PR campaign to get parents to follow through and have their children jabbed with the pertussis shot. However, this vaccine is given in triple form—pertussis, tetanus, and diphtheria. Therefore, the mandate in effect covers all 3 vaccines.

 

Except, despite what the state government of California states, it isn’t a mandate, because all three types of exemptions—medical, religious, and philosophical—are still available. Parents can make use of these. Becky explained how she did exactly that for her child.

 

Obviously, state health officials know these exemptions exist, and yet they are talking as if the exemptions don’t apply. That’s called deception.

 

Since the new law was passed (and what kind of law is it, really, if the exemptions still hold), the results of an investigation into the recent cases of whooping cough have been published. It turns out that 75% of these cases occurred in people WHO HAD BEEN VACCINATED AGAINST PERTUSSIS.

 

This is a stunner.

 

There are several possible interpretations. If one accepts the premise that vaccines are safe and effective, then one could infer that the pertussis vaccine is not effective in protecting people against the disease. If one doesn’t make that assumption of safety and efficacy, one could consider the possibility that the pertussis vaccine caused the illness in some or all of those people who developed whooping cough.

 

Meanwhile, the PR campaign to get parents to have their kids jabbed with the triple diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis shot goes on.

 

Some time ago, I wrote a piece outlining the conditions for a real study that would test any vaccine for efficacy. Length of study, size of groups of volunteers, how to match the groups in terms of nutritional status, past medical history, and so on.

 

I then asserted that NO SUCH STUDY HAS EVER BEEN DONE FOR ANY VACCINE. And I asked for proof such a study had been done. Since then, I’ve received no evidence. Nothing.

 

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

 

 

 

CRADLE TO GRAVE, BABY

CRADLE TO GRAVE, BABY

QUICK HITTER

MAY 21, 2011. Much talk these days about phony victims seeking freebies and making up stories to qualify for them. It’s all tied in, of course, to political correctness, whose ultimate goal is inventing so many oppressed people that anyone who laughs must be offending somebody—and will be fined and fired from work for it.

But all this pales by comparison with the agenda of the medical cartel.

Now we’re talking about real heavyweights.

Don’t have a disease or disorder? They’ll invent three or four for you. And cash in on the drugs you use.

The ultimate goal is cradle to grave “care” for everyone. Official “patient” status from the womb to the cemetery—and if they could figure out a way to diagnose and treat you after death, they’d have MDs walking on clouds with butterfly nets.

Permanent patient status isn’t just a device emanating from the cartel. People, millions and millions and millions of them, want it. Want it badly.

For the perks, but also as proud talking points that last a lifetime.

“So what do you have?”

“Well, ADHD, depression, Restless Leg Syndrome, and Social Anxiety Disorder. I mean, that’s pretty standard stuff. But my doctor recently ran a battery of tests and discovered I’ve got a rare endocrine disease. My thyroid is talking to my ass, and it interferes with sleep.”

“Really.”

“Yeah. They say one in ten million people develops it after forty. It can be fatal if it isn’t treated. Early diagnosis is crucial.”

“That’s exciting. Is there a vaccine for it?”

“They’re working on one. So far, they’ve only tested it in mice. But the mice eat each other. It’s a genetic vaccine. It replaces a DNA sequence in the so-called junk area. I’m on the list when they start doing clinical trials in humans.”

“That’s very brave of you.”

“Well, I feel I need to give back. You know? For all the care I’ve had. My cousin, who had a preventive double mastectomy when she was four, donated a kidney to me last spring. The California State Public Health Commission awarded her a medal at a ceremony in Beverly Hills. What’s that badge you’re wearing?”

“Oh. That? Partial brain transplant patient. There are six of us, so far, in the US.”

“Wow. Fantastic.”

“Right now, it’s experimental, but hopefully next year by waiting for levers on the buttons taking less carrots in the garden…”

“Hey, you okay?”

“Sure. I wink in and out once or twice a day. It’s nothing. I have a permanent port in my spine. On Thursdays, I sit in my doctor’s office for six hours and they pump in neurotransmitters…”

“Maybe you’d like to have dinner with us this weekend. My wife and I—she’s just recovering from her fourth bypass—usually have a few friends over for barbecue. I’m sure they’d like to hear about your transplant.”

Proud. Strong. Medical.

It’s a social system. A substitute for living.

Bringing everyone on the planet under this umbrella would achieve a level of control dictators can only dream about.

If the drugs don’t kill you, surely the soppy goo of the public relations flacks pushing this share-and-care ideal will drown you.

And the thing is, you’ll be tempted to side with the latest account of some heroic medical procedure that “saved a child’s life.”

“Doctors today at the Mayo on Rye Clinic performed a 19-hour operation to attach nine-year-old Jimmy Jones’ eyes to the back of his head, when it was discovered his case of sunstroke had escalated into life-threatening Dry Neuron Syndrome.

“The really difficult part of the surgery involved re-routing the optic nerve through Jimmy’s cerebellum,” said Dr. Michael Boodnogger, chief surgeon at the Thomas Edison Memorial Children’s Hospital.

“To avoid several more hours under anesthesia, the patient’s eyelids were left in place, on his face. But grafts quickly taken from the boy’s knees, last week, were sculpted into ‘hard awnings’ and fixed above the eyes at the back of the head. A small motorized prosthetic, to automatically raise and lower the awnings, is inserted in Jimmy’s spine.

“We’re just happy our son isn’t blind and escaped cognitive impairment,” said his father, a kindergarten teacher in the Indianapolis school system. “Now he can pursue his dream of becoming an air traffic controller.”

I’m waiting for elite shrinks to come up with a mental disorder called Freedom Disease (FD). Which of course centers around “the discredited belief that an individual has choice.” It’s a schizoid paranoid hallucination brought on by a genetic mutation, and the treatment is, again, heroic. Doctors blast thousands of random DNA sequences into the body through a sophisticated “shotgun.”

Side effects include “the formation of a weevily hardtack odiferous coating encapsulating both thighs, withering genital paralysis, gradual evaporation of the legs, cruciferous vegetable roots hanging from the ears, the excretion of cow’s milk from skin pores, and with the diminution of IQ to insectoid levels, relentlessly attempting to obtain PhDs right up to the time of death from old age.”

But not to worry, it’s all covered by insurance.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Visit the site, sign up for email list and receive free articles, and order a copy of my e-book, THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL LIFE, in pdf or Kindle format.

Faking Medical Reality

Faking Medical Reality

by Jon Rappoport

May 9, 2011

NoMoreFakeNews.com

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

“The secret of acting is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” —George Burns

What do doctors rely on? What do medical schools rely on? What do medical journals rely on? What do mainstream medical reporters rely on? What do drug companies rely on? What does the FDA rely on?

They all rely on the sanctity of published clinical trials of drugs. These trials determine whether the drugs are safe and effective. The drugs are tested on human volunteers. The results are tabulated. The trial is described in a paper that is printed by a medical journal.

This is science. This is rationality. This is the rock. Without these studies, the whole field of medical research would fall apart in utter chaos.

Upon this rock, and hence through media, the public becomes aware of the latest breakthrough, the newest medicine. Through doctors in their offices, the public finds out what drugs they should take—and their doctors know because their doctors have read the published reports in the medical journals, the reports that describe the clinical trials. Or if the doctors haven’t actually read the reports, they’ve been told about them.

It all goes back to this rock.

And when mainstream advocates attack so-called alternative or natural health, they tend to mention that their own profession is based on real science, on studies, on clinical trials.

One doctor told me, “The clinical trials are what keep us from going back to the Stone Age.”

So now let me quote a recent article in the NY Review of Books (May 12, 2011) by Helen Epstein, “Flu Warning: Beware the Drug Companies”:

“Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false, in the sense that independent researchers couldn’t replicate them. The problem is particularly widespread in medical research, where peer-reviewed articles in medical journals can be crucial in influencing multimillion- and sometimes multibillion-dollar spending decisions. It would be surprising if conflicts of interest did not sometimes compromise editorial neutrality, and in the case of medical research, the sources of bias are obvious. Most medical journals receive half or more of their income from pharmaceutical company advertising and reprint orders, and dozens of others [journals] are owned by companies like Wolters Kluwer, a medical publisher that also provides marketing services to the pharmaceutical industry.”

Here’s another quote from the same article:

“The FDA also relies increasingly upon fees and other payments from the pharmaceutical companies whose products the agency is supposed to regulate. This could contribute to the growing number of scandals in which the dangers of widely prescribed drugs have been discovered too late. Last year, GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia was linked to thousands of heart attacks, and earlier in the decade, the company’s antidepressant Paxil was discovered to exacerbate the risk of suicide in young people. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx was also linked to thousands of heart disease deaths. In each case, the scientific literature gave little hint of these dangers. The companies have agreed to pay settlements in class action lawsuits amounting to far less than the profits the drugs earned on the market. These precedents could be creating incentives for reduced vigilance concerning the side effects of prescription drugs in general.”

Also from the NY Review of Books, here are two quotes from Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, perhaps the most prestigious medical journal in the world. (“Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption”)

Consider the clinical trials by which drugs are tested in human subjects. Before a new drug can enter the market, its manufacturer must sponsor clinical trials to show the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective, usually as compared with a placebo or dummy pill. The results of all the (there may be many) are submitted to the FDA, and if one or two trials are positive—that is, they show effectiveness without serious risk—the drug is usually approved, even if all the other trials are negative.”

Here is another Angell statement:

“In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.”

It turns out that the source of the informational pipeline that feeds the entire perception of pharmaceutical medicine is a rank fraud.

It would be on the order of an intelligence agency discovering that the majority of its operatives were actually working for the other side.

And then continuing on with business as usual.

Sometimes the body is dead even though it keeps on walking. It can smile and nod and perform basic functions—a zombie—but it is doing so only because certain implacable criminals back it up and give it a machine-like force.

“We have the clinical trials of studies on drugs and they are published in top-rank journals. We are the epitome of science.”

Yes, false science. Riddled from top to bottom with lies.

Perhaps this will help the next time a friend, pretending he actually knows anything, tells you pharmaceutical medicine is a resounding success.

If you need more, cite Dr. Barbara Starfield’s famous study, “Is US health really the best in the world?” Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000. Starfield concludes that 225,000 people are killed by the medical system in the US every year—106,000 by FDA-approved medicines. That latter figure would work out to over a MILLION deaths per decade.

A final note: The august editors of medical journals have a game they can play. Suppose a drug company has just finished writing up the results of a clinical drug trial and has submitted the piece to a journal for publication. The editor knows the company probably carried out a dozen other such trials on the same drug…and they didn’t look good. The drug caused wild fluctuations in blood pressure and blood sugar. There were heart attacks. Strokes. But this ONE study, the one submitted for publication, looks very positive. The editor knows if he prints it and forgets about “ethics,” the drug company will order re-prints of the piece from him and distribute them to doctors all over the world, and to who knows who else? Reporters, professors, government officials. The drug company will order and pay for so many re-prints, the medical journal can make $700,000 from publishing THAT ONE ARTICLE. Let’s see. In one hand, the editor sees: I won’t publish it=no money. In the other hand, he sees: I’ll publish it=$700,000. What to do?

the matrix revealed

If I could write and post an article and make $700,000 on it, I’d do one of those suckers every day.

STUDY CONFIRMS: RESEARCH TEAM REMOVES HEAD FROM PATIENT AND ATTACHES IT TO WRIST; CREATES THINKING MAN’S TENNIS CHAMP.

STUDY CONFIRMS: NEW ANTIDEPRESSANT RAISES IQ BY 50 POINTS IN 5 MINUTES. ACCIDENTAL OVERDOSE RESULTS IN MIDDLE-EAST PEACE TREATY.

STUDY CONFIRMS: ANTI-ARTHRITIS MEDICATION SPRAYED IN ATMOSPHERE ENDS GLOBAL WARMING FEARS. POLAR BEARS REJOICE.

Jon Rappoport

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

Creating a genetic monster

by Jon Rappoport

March 31, 2011

(To join our email list, click here.)

(July 2013 update: For TruthStreamMedia.com’s article entitled “DARPA to Genetically Engineer Humans by Adding a 47th Chromosome“, click here. For a pdf copy of the DARPA solicitation entitled “Advanced Tools for Mammalian Genome Engineering“, click here. See also Manipulating evolution from now on. How deep does this story go?.)

In the Jan./Feb. 2004 issue of Mother Jones, Mark Dowie recounts how Dr. Stuart Newman decided to test the willingness of the US Patent Office…

Newman applied for a patent to create a chimera, a monster.

The application was turned down. Newman pushed his claim to see how far he could go, and the Patent Office remained firm. Newman wanted to raise awareness of what some genetics scientists were willing to do—and how wrong it would be to allow it.

Dowie writes: “Newman’s patent application is for an intriguing biotechnological contrivance called a chimera [ki-mir-a]. According to Greek mythology, a chimera was a part-lion, part-goat, part-serpent creature that terrorized Lycia until it was slain by the hero Bellerophon. If biotech continues to run amok, warns Newman, such inventions of legend and allegory could actually be invented.

“A biological chimera is a way to hybridize two or more species that won’t cross sexually. The exact results are largely unpredictable except for the certainty that the chimera will contain cells of each species proportionate to the numbers placed in the embryo. A creature made from an equal number of cells from two species could look like one species but contain the genes, organs, and intelligence of the other.

“Newman [sought] to patent ‘chimeric embryos and animals containing human cells’…taken to its most extreme but not necessarily impossible end, the technology could be used to manufacture soldiers with armadillolike shielding, quasi-human astronauts engineered for long-range space travel, and altered primates with enough cognitive ability to ride a bus, follow basic instructions, pick crops in 119 degrees, or descend into a mine shaft without worrying their silly little heads about inalienable human rights and the resulting laws and customs that demand safe working conditions.”

Well, three years earlier, as reported in The Telegraph (Sep.27, 2001, “Boy’s DNA implanted in rabbit eggs,” written by Roger Highfield), scientists had begun to walk down that road:

“Scientists in China have inserted a boy’s DNA into empty rabbit eggs and grown hybrid embryos, it is reported today. A team at the Sun Yat-Sen University of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, are trying to overcome a practical limitation…Today’s issue of Nature reports [about]…Dr Chen Xigu at Sun Yat-Sen…In some of the 100 or so successful transfers to a rabbit egg stripped of chromosomes, an embryo developed to the morula stage, the compact ball of cells that forms after about three days of development. For stem cells to be isolated, the embryos must be coaxed into developing further. In Britain, the Government plans to ban the creation of hybrids.”

Also in 2001, there was another ambitious experiment:

BBC Online (May 4, 2001): “Scientists have confirmed that the first genetically altered humans have been born and are healthy.

“Up to 30 such children have been born, 15 of them as a result of one experimental programme at a US laboratory…

“Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year-old children confirm that they contain a small quantity of additional genes not inherited from either parent.

“The additional genes were taken from a healthy donor and used to overcome their mother’s infertility problems.

“…The additional genes that the children carry have altered their ‘germline’, or their collection of genes that they will pass on to their offspring…[Note: This means the new abnormal configuration of genes will spread out into the general population, over time, with unknown effects.]

“Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers say that this ‘is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children.’”

The superhighway into a genetically designed future isn’t just a science-fiction fantasy. Stones on that highway have already been laid down.

The Matrix Revealed

Jon Rappoport

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

NULLIFYING OBAMACARE

 

TEXAS NULLIFICATION OF OBAMACARE

DECEMBER 19, 2010. The 10th Amendment Center is a group that is campaigning to nullify illegal federal laws. It’s also resuscitating the right of states to exercise their basic power in this regard.

Here is a brief excerpt from a piece at their site, “The Lone Star State’s Opportunity,” by Michael Maharrey:

On Nov. 16, Texas Representative Leo Berman (R-Tyler) filed a bill in the Texas House of Representatives that would nullify federal health care legislation in the the Lone Star State. HB-297 asserts:

The federal Act [ObamaCare] is not authorized by the United States Constitution and violates the Constitution’s true meaning and intent as expressed by the founders of this country and the ratifiers of the Constitution.

The federal Act:
(1) is invalid in this state;
(2) is not recognized by this state;
(3) is specifically rejected by this state; and
(4) is null and void and of no effect in this state.

The bill takes things a step further, making it a crime for any official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of any corporation to enforce any part of the health care act in Texas, and imposes fines up to $5,000 and/or five years in prison for anyone convicted of doing so.

-end quote

The point of this Texas bill, which faces a struggle to get out of committee, is that the federal government has exceeded its constitutional authority by passing ObamaCare. That power is not given to the federal government by the Constitution—and is therefore reserved for the individual states and the people.

Understand this: the US Constitution was originally ratified by state legislatures, and therefore, a pact was made, in which the states delegated some powers to the newly created federal government.

The Constitution didn’t spring out of thin air. It wasn’t written by members of the federal government. In the truest sense, there was no federal government at the time.

And the Constitution wasn’t some all-embracing gift given by the states, after which they disappeared back into the shadows, leaving the new central government to pass any laws it wanted to.

There was a pact: “We will give you certain powers, and we the states will retain all other powers.”

Implicit in this arrangement was a vital proviso: any individual state could nullify a federal law or regulation, if that state decided the fundamental pact had been violated by the federal law.

It’s really quite simple. Suppose you and your neighbors create a watch group, and you elect John Jones to run this group, in order to protect the neighborhood from criminals. You grant Jones certain specific powers. But then Jones decides to import 100 free-roaming rattlesnakes as protection, and he claims he can do this because you ceded your power to him. What do you do? You probably fire him. At the very least you nullify his plan for the snakes. And you can do this, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CONTRACT WITH JONES.

You don’t disappear because you granted Jones a few powers. A contract implies two parties. They both live on, after the contract is signed. Otherwise, there is no contract.

This point, vis-a-vis the states and the federal government, has been lost. It was lost a long time ago.

To restore it requires actions by the states, because no branch or agency of the federal government is going to cut back federal power. It won’t happen. To imagine it could happen at the level of the Supreme Court, for example, is a bet you’d be ill-advised to make.

In his article, Maharrey quotes James Madison, from Federalist 46:

“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

So if you had any doubt that the strategy of nullification was real, from the beginning of the Republic, this should clear things up.

Delegating someone to “run things” for you is a myth. Think about it. There is always a contract, and the contract spells out what you are allowing the other party to do. How could it be otherwise, unless you were interested in appointing a king? When one party in the contract violates it by overstepping his mandate, you can legally rein him in. You’d be a fool not to.

There is a point, however, where things get tricky. Suppose the other party is showering you with gifts, with money? Suppose he is attaching conditions to these gifts? In order to take them, you have to fall in line with a whole host of regulations. If you cave in, you’re in a tough spot. You’re selling out. And if you try to nullify some law he just passed, he tells you the money will stop flowing. You then take a step back and realize the gifts were always coming out of your own pocket, because you were paying taxes to the Man. Wow. What a set-up. How did you become so deluded? How did you fall for this shell game? What you gave him he gave back to you. (Well, part of what you gave him.) He used the money you gave him to buy the snakes he set loose in the neighborhood, and he kept some of the money, too. And now he says he wants to give you money so you can install better sprinkler systems on your lawns, but he’ll hold that back from you—he’ll hold back your own money unless you allow him to set loose the snakes.

When people in Texas try to nullify ObamaCare, they need to think about that. I’m sure they are. They’re paying taxes to the federal government so it can put in place the whole ObamaCare program. Somewhere along the line, this issue is going to come up. What do you think the Founders would say about it? Taxation to pay for enforcing and administering a law that is unconstitutional to begin with? Are you kidding?

Well, one step at a time.

If enough illegal federal laws are nullified by enough states, the emperor is going to look naked, because he is. He’s taxing people to pay for a whole host of laws that are unconstitutional. He keeps saying he needs more money, and it’s obvious this is a lie. What he really needs is less power. What he really needs is honest adherence to the Constitution. He gave all that up a long time ago.

Every state in the Union runs, to a considerable degree, on federal money. Which means taxes and money invented out of thin air by the central government. If you think the money crunch in state capitols is serious now, what do you think would happen if states started telling the federal government they don’t want that funding from Washington?

I’ll tell you exactly what would happen. State governments would have to reassess their whole modus operandi. They would be forced to realize they’ve been operating on a bloated dream of credit, endless credit, and they would also have to realize that a great number of government contracts they award to the private sector are paid for by funny money.

And the private sector would have to wake up, too. Wake up to something called the free market.

This is how far off the track we’ve wandered.

This is how deeply the Constitution has been shredded.

It’s not that we’re opening a can of worms here or raising the lid on Pandora’s box. The can and the box were opened decades ago. We’re trying to remember how it was supposed to be before the box and the can were blasted apart.

The whole national economy has essentially been bought off and bribed by federal money and state-government money, and the real operating social contract is: take the money and forget about the Constitution. That’s the deal we’re making now. Let’s not pretend it’s different. Walk into any big-company office and look around and find out where they’re working this government-money angle, and you’ll see the reluctance to opt out of the arrangement. The teat is warm. The teat is good. The teat is essential.

But again, one step at a time.

The states have to expose the naked emperor. Step one.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon is the author of LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, a unique course for home schools and adults. To inquire: qjrconsulting@gmail.com

 

Placebo, antibody, and the destiny of failure

by Jon Rappoport

November 24, 2010

(To join our email list, click here.)

Since my last several articles on medical rules of the game have evoked interest, I’ll take a few more steps.

As I mentioned, there is a fallacy buried in diagnostic tests that employ antibodies as the standard of measure. 

The presence of antibodies specific to a particular germ doesn’t automatically signify illness, and yet that is the interpretation being made these days.

This would be an interesting challenge:

A lab is given blood samples from a number of patients.  Each sample, it is found, indicates antibodies to germ X.  The lab must state whether these people are displaying symptoms of illness X.

By the rules, the answer would be yes in every case. Yet, the answer would be wrong in a majority of cases—perhaps in all cases.

Why?  Because naturally produced antibodies normally mean the person’s immune system has warded off the germ.

At this point, the lab might say, “Well, yes, but chances are these people will get sick.  It just hasn’t happened yet.  Or they have the disease without symptoms.”

These are not scientific statements.  One would have to follow the test cases for a while to see whether they get sick.  I would bet against it. In any event, a diagnosis of illness based on a positive antibody test is not about the future.  It’s about the present.  Public health agencies routinely count case numbers on the basis of antibody tests.  And the idea of a disease without symptoms is just a feint.  It’s a contradiction in terms.          

On to placebo.  In any serious controlled trial of a medical drug, there are two groups.  One group gets the drug; the other gets a sugar pill.  The reason for this practice has been obscured in modern times.  Actually, it is done because a certain percentage of people (around 20%) will get better no matter what you give them.  Therefore, the drug has to perform significantly better than the placebo.

However, we need to return to the medical origin of the placebo.  This is it: a country doctor, faced with a patient who was a hypochondriac, would hand him a sugar pill.  The patient would take it and then feel better.

But…you see, the patient believed he was getting effective medicine.  That’s what caused him to recover.

In a controlled trial, this is not the case.  The patient knows, beforehand, that he will get EITHER the medicine or a placebo.  This setting doesn’t provoke the same belief.  It’s different.  It’s weaker.

Therefore, one can expect that the “cure rate” in the placebo group will be lower than the normal 20%.  And, as a result, the actual drug will only need to meet a lower standard of success, relative to the results obtained by the placebo.

Bottom line?  A medical drug can test out with fewer positive outcomes to be deemed effective.  Unless someone decides that the placebo group performed in an unexpected manner—but who cares about that when the goal is to establish that the drug is a winner?

Jon Rappoport

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

PART 2, THE SECRET POLITICAL ISSUE

A CALL FROM THE WILDERNESS

THE SECRET POLITICAL ISSUE, PART 2

NOVEMBER 10, 2010.  Millions of advocates of health freedom see that no major political candidate, with one or two exceptions, voices their concerns or stands up for their right to improve their health by any and all self-chosen methods. 

To understand the landscape in which this deafening silence continues, we need to realize that the one industry which could and should make a difference—the nutritional supplement sector—is dominated by ostriches.

Once a powerful voice for health freedom, the industry has stepped back into the shadows.  It nurtures the illusion that it is safe from government intervention.  It even supposes it has sufficient allies within the government to stave off attacks by the FDA.

Since 1993, I have been calling for the creation of a powerful “PR wing” funded by nutritional companies.  This group would dedicate itself to obtaining ongoing media coverage, showing that nutrition scores many victories in preserving and expanding health, that nutrition is a brilliant success.

At first glance, this may not seem very important.  But, in fact, it is THE vital way to turn public, media, and political opinion to the side of nutrition.

The FDA and other government bodies see no reason to curtail their attacks on nutritional supplements if the media aren’t even covering the issue.

Every PR campaign works toward a tipping point, where the very idea of opposing its goals is politically suicidal.

If you don’t understand that, you know nothing about PR. 

And what is a campaign?  Is it a one-time promotion?  Is it a vaguely flailing effort to marshal support?  Is it a token outreach?  For amateurs, perhaps.  For dreamers.

But the reality is far different.  A campaign is a well-funded, sustained, and highly organized operation, aimed at gradually creating a shift in widespread perception.

In this case, the campaign TELLS THE TRUTH.  That is its weapon.  That is its intrinsic strength.

NUTRITION WORKS.

Media outlets, editors, reporters are always looking for interesting stories.  The brutal fact of life is, they need copy to fill space and time.  They must have it.

What about a boy in Arkansas who was ill for three years, unable to learn or play with his friends, who was brought back from the brink by supplements?

Is that a story?

You bet it is.

What about a husband who had to quit his job and go on the dole, because he no longer had the strength to put in eight hours in a factory?  And then he regained his strength with nutrients.  Is that a story?  It sure is.

Does a fledgling PR campaign start from the top of the media chain?  Does a story suddenly appear on the front page of The New York Times?  In a fantasy world, perhaps.

No, you build up your book of clippings. You gradually move up the ladder.

You establish a foothold.  You lay a firm foundation.

You find experts who will give you favorable and truthful quotes. 

You shove in your chips for the long haul, and you don’t back out because you wish paradise would come tomorrow.

On the other side of this PR campaign, you tell the truth about your target, your opponent, your nemesis, your threat.  The FDA.

You build up an accurate dossier documenting the widespread damage this agency had done over the years.  And it’s there, believe me.  For the past 20 years, I’ve been finding it and reporting it.

FDA-certified drugs have been killing American citizens at the rate of 100,000 a year.  That’s a good place to start. (Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000; “Is US health really the best in the world?”)

You put your opponent, your threat back on its heels.  You force it to play defense.  Instead of trying to limit people’s access to supplements, the agency is busy warding off truthful, pointed attacks.

You obtain the right, correct, and honest coverage of the FDA in the press.  On an ongoing basis.

This is the double-pronged PR campaign.  There is much more to say about it, but you get the idea.

You want politicians to aggressively support health freedom?  You have to show them they would have public opinion on their side.  And how do you do that?  You obtain TRUTHFUL media coverage.

Coverage isn’t accomplished by waving a magical wand.  It’s done through PR. 

Over the years, since I ran, in 1994, for a Congressional seat in Los Angeles on the issue of health freedom, I’ve seen the most haphazard, amateurish, wasteful, silly, and delusional PR launched out there, in the stratosphere, on behalf of health freedom.  Drunken men with no tools would have a better chance of building a mansion than this kind of demented PR would have in congealing public opinion. 

This must change.  The nutritional industry must come into the 20th, and then the 21st century. 

In case you hadn’t noticed, the basic ideal of individual freedom is under assault from many quarters.  Health freedom will not escape this net.

Something EFFECTIVE needs to be done. 

Go to Emord and Associates and read my long interview with brilliant constitutional attorney, Jonathan Emord.  He spells out what the FDA is doing and planning to do to nutritional supplements in this country. 

Jonathan explains the situation in detail.

Naysayers out there will give you a litany of reasons why the media will never cover health freedom or the massive success of nutritional supplements.  “Media ad space is dominated by drug companies.”  “Media are controlled by the government.”  “Medical power is too great.”

I’ve heard all the excuses.  Mostly, they are offered by people who refuse to believe any good change can happen in any sphere.  But the fundamental flaw in their arguments lies in a complete misunderstanding about the way PR works. 

Here is the secret.  Most PR DOES work.  If the people behind it are smart, if they have money, if they put in the time and the effort, if they aren’t scared away by a few failures, they will come out on top. 

Every PR campaign knocks its head on the ceiling many times.  “We can’t break through!”  “They won’t listen to us!”

You complain, and then you roll up your sleeves and keep going.  Because the goal is worth it.  Because you truly want the desired end result.  And because PR works.

When I began writing as a reporter almost 30 years ago, I knew nothing about the business.  I quickly learned that media need copy.  That was the basic reality.  Media need stories.  They will respond. 

PR works the same way.  You dig in for the long haul, and you gain success.

Of course, the other advantage of an excellent PR campaign is, no one person has to stick his neck out and take the heat.  Instead a whole industry is involved.  “You want a battle?  Then come after all of us.”

Then can you imagine how the millions of people who buy those supplements would appear in full view, ready to stake their claim for freedom?

In the early 1990s, this is exactly what happened.  A few nutritional executives bankrolled a massive outreach program, enlisting American citizens, who wrote millions of letters to Congress demanding a new law protecting supplements. 

Congressional sponsors were lined up.  They felt confident because the outcry from citizens was huge.  The law was passed.  It didn’t offer us the guarantees we really needed, but it was better than nothing.

Now we need more.  Better laws, and also a PR campaign that doesn’t fold up its tent just because the Congress moved in a somewhat positive direction. 

This time, we may need all those citizens to write to supplement companies demanding their action.  I have sketched out that action in this article. 

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com