Category Archives: Science Fraud

Where is the virus? Fear is the only virus.

by Jon Rappoport

August 24, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Conventional researchers “discover new viruses” in their hidden labs, without independent observers watching and filming every step and move, so virology has become a mystical farce.

They SAY they’ve found a new coronavirus that is infecting and killing people, justifying the fear and the lockdowns and economic and human devastation. But they may as well be saying they’ve found a pink and purple ghost in a closet, and we should huddle in the dark until it goes away.

Longtime friend, colleague, and relentless independent investigator, Harry Blazer wrote this in a blistering email to his list:

“…science has even co-opted and bastardized the term ‘isolated’ to mean putting a sample [from a patient] in a cell culture, adding various agents to create a reaction including antibiotics and various caustic chemicals to see if the cells die – REALLY!!! How could you possibly know what caused what to happen when you are adding all kinds of shit to cause something to happen? It is like adding adjuvants (poisons) to a vaccine in order to produce an antibody response to prove that the vaccine works. REALLY!…”

Yes, in that mystical lab ritual, researchers are putting together a cell culture, which includes what they claim is the new virus; and then to “prove” this supposed virus is harmful and kills those cells, they add caustic substances that do, indeed, cause harm to cells.

This reminds me of animal experiments back in the 1970s, at the US National Institutes of Health, where the obsessed (and failed) goal was proving viruses could cause cancer. To “prepare” the animals for injections of the purported viruses, all sorts of toxic chemicals were jammed into the animals—in an effort to weaken them to the point at which the viruses would hopefully “create uncontrolled cell growth,” the hallmark of cancer.

There’s a simple name for this sort of lunatic research: stacking the deck.

What Harry Blazer is referring to in his statement is just one piece of the arcane lab protocol designed to “find a new virus and prove it is harmful.” We need EVERY piece of the process brought out into the light for all to see and understand and analyze.

A hundred years of Rockefeller-medicine propaganda has entrained gullible populations to “fear the germ,” forget the inherent strength and resilience of their own immune systems, and forget what health is.

As I keep mentioning, if germs were the basic problem, we would all be dead a thousand times over, because the gigantic number of microbes in our bodies and the environment is incalculable.

In several key articles, I’ve described how a proper large-scale study should be done, utilizing electron microscopy, in order to demonstrate the likelihood that a new virus is present and causes illness. Such studies are never done. The reason is clear. The naked results would torpedo absurd hypotheses about supposed viral epidemics.

Expert propagandists know, and have stated, that the best lie to tell is a huge lie. Sell that one, and you’re in. For example, once the population has internalized religious faith in The Germ, reversing that belief seems preposterous.

“You mean they’ve been lying to us about THAT? No, that couldn’t be…”

Yes, it could be, and it is.

“You mean, they’re a selling a STORY about a virus?”

Bingo. We have a winner.

Back in the 1980s, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., I decided to check up on efforts to infect animals with (purported) HIV and produce AIDS. These animal experiments involved chimps kept in sealed facilities across the US.

Keep in mind, the chimps were no longer living in their native environments. They were no longer among their traditional communities. They were existing in cages, kept there for long periods. Years. In other words, every possible psychological assault on them was being deployed—in order to impair their immune systems.

I spoke with the scientist who was in charge of tracking every one of those lab chimps. I asked him whether the injections had caused any “AIDS effects.”

No, he said. Not in any of the animals.

Robert Gallo, the “co-discoverer of HIV,” was reported to have said: “Let me take a crack at those damn chimps! I’ll infect them!”

Who knows what horrors he would have unleashed on the animals, to make it appear their immune systems were failing from “the virus.”

Eventually, researchers did announce they had been able to “infect” some chimps. This is like saying, “We dropped bombs on the enemy and they continued to fight, so we dropped much, much bigger bombs, and then they gave in…”

Welcome to the science of virology.

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.

COVID: Going to the root of the poisonous tree

by Jon Rappoport

August 20, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Before I jump in, I want to point to a film that hacks away the leaves, the branches, the trunk and the roots of the poisonous tree of vaccination all at once: VAXXED II, directed by Brian Burrowes. I urge you to watch it. “Urge” is too light a word. What is coming down the pipeline at us, in terms of attempts at vaccine mandates…this film will only strengthen your resolve, even if you’re quite sure you don’t need strengthening. The film contains many interviews with parents of vaccine-devastated children, and the children are there, too. The children who have died are there as well. Nobody has ever made a film like this.

We DO need to drill down to the roots of the poisonous tree.

Some people make this calculation: “I don’t want my view of COVID to appear too radical. That would drive the audience away. So I’ll cut myself off at a certain point and try to give the audience pieces of the puzzle they can digest…”

For example, they would assert: “I’m not against vaccines. I just want to make them safer.”

They would say: “We have to agree there is a new virus spreading around the world. If we don’t, people will reject everything we say. So let’s focus on whether the virus is as dangerous as health officials claim it is.”

They would say: “We have to accept official case numbers as a starting point, even if untold numbers of people are being diagnosed with COVID by a casual glance at their symptoms, and even if the tests are inaccurate…”

Bit by bit, and piece by piece, people would be accepting the official COVID story, until there is very little to argue about.

Let’s take the issue of safer vaccines. How are they going to be made safer? Manufacturers are going to throw in the towel and just eliminate the toxic adjuvants? They’ll eliminate the injected germs which are the very basis of the exercise? They’ll make vaccines in outer space, where, hopefully, contamination with random viruses would be avoided? The synthetic genes they insert in the body will magically refrain from creating many horrendous ripple-effects?

Deeper still, why do immune systems need a “rehearsal for the real thing”—which is the foundational hypothesis underlying vaccination. Nature isn’t sufficient? We must fight off every conceivable germ with a shot in the arm?

Why not try to improve the strength of immune systems through non-medical means? Nutrition, for instance, was the key reason for the historical decline of traditional diseases. Along with improved sanitation.

“No, let’s not go there. Too many people will reject us if we reject vaccines.”

I beg to differ. We are in a long-term war against the medical cartel. It’s not going away. Think ten thousand years into the future. That’s a reasonable estimate of the length of the battle.

“Look, I know there are serious questions about the original discovery of the COVID virus. Maybe the researchers didn’t use the proper procedures. But let’s not awaken that sleeping giant. Too many people won’t be able to fathom what we’re talking about. It’s too far out. Then they’ll reject everything else we’re saying.”

Yes? And? So? Sooner or later we’re going to have to bring up the subject. Because this isn’t the only time “discovery” was faked. And it won’t be the last. So let’s jump in now. Don’t stint. Don’t hold back. Go to the root.

I think of my good friend and colleague, Robert Scott Bell. Go to his site, robertscottbell.com. Listen to his radio show. He’s been on the front lines of health for more than 20 years. Every day. He dives deep. He never lets people forget that the terrain vs. the germ is still one of the most important debates in human history. Are germs the basic problem, or is the overall condition of the body and its ability to remain vibrant and resilient the paramount factor?

That argument has been largely forgotten, even in the natural health community. Why? Because over time, too many people have said, “Oh, we can’t bring THAT up. It’s too radical for the masses.”

So now those “natural people” are wearing masks and fear the virus.

—Thus proving you can accept every “natural” slogan coming down the pipeline and still buy counterfeit science.

The issue isn’t the content of slogans. It’s the acceptance of any gross shortcuts that seek to avoid the need to do something called THINKING.

“Oh. But we must have slogans. People are too dim to figure out matters on their own.”

Good luck with that notion. Do you really believe you can win a long-term war, AT THE ROOT, by engaging in a contest of slogans? That’s like saying the failure to teach basic literacy in schools stems from older computers. We need better computers in classrooms. Idiot’s delight, brought to you by Bill Gates.

A ten-thousand-year war. Don’t shrink away from it.

Here’s an historical example of root vs. compromise. It’s called pellagra.

Among the symptoms: Large scaly sores. Huge areas of red inflamed skin. Diarrhea. Weakness. Loss of appetite. Abdominal pain.

In the early 20th century, several million people in the American South suffered from it. Public health officials asserted the cause was a germ.

The question was, which germ? A prestigious government commission was appointed to find the answer.

At the time, there were people who suspected a germ wasn’t the cause, but they kept their mouths shut, in part because they thought they couldn’t sell the idea. It was too radical. Better to argue about whether quarantines would work. Better to argue about whether case clusters were a fertile area for research. Better to argue about whether the germ might be carried in corn, across farms. Better to argue about unique weather conditions in the South, where the disease was concentrated. Argue about anything other than the existence of a germ as the causative agent.

Flash forward THIRTY YEARS. After fighting their own war, a few researchers correctly convinced the medical world that pellagra was the result of a niacin deficiency.

There was no germ. It didn’t exist. It was a pompous assumption, championed by arrogant scientists, who wanted to own the territory of disease research.

What if the few dissenting investigators, who endured three decades of utter rejection by the establishment, had decided, “Well, we can’t claim there’s no germ involved at all. That would be too much. We can’t go that far. We can’t go to the root. Let’s debate about the weather, the case clusters, the corn fields—issues where we can make a stand, where we can have an effect…”

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.

COVID: Did they actually discover a new coronavirus? The question won’t go away.

by Jon Rappoport

August 17, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Recently, I’ve offered important evidence AGAINST the claim that researchers have discovered SARS-CoV-2, the new COVID-19 pandemic virus.

No large-scale electron microscope study has been done with, say, 1000 pandemic patients lined up; with tissue samples taken from all of them; with those samples carefully handled; with relevant material photographed under an electron microscope; with the particles in the photos examined to see if all of them are of the same unique virus, and have never been seen before.

Of course, researchers would argue against such a study, because they never perform it. They don’t want to. They’re afraid the results would make it clear they’re involved in enormous fraud.

“Well, we thought we had a new virus, but it turns out the particles in the photos are of all sorts of material. Different viruses, genetic fragments, cellular debris, exosomes, and so on. Back to the drawing board…”

If there existed a truly honest editor at a prestigious medical journal, this is what he would write, in an effort to get at the TRUTH. You know, the supposed goal of science—

“I must confess, after reflection and conversation, we here at the Journal don’t know how researchers discover a new virus. They make pronouncements, but what are they actually DOING in their labs?”

“You see, the steps they take, the procedures they engage in, are never captured on film, step by step. No truly independent observers are there as witnesses. It’s as if the lab is a holy of holies, and only loyal initiates are allowed in. This is an intolerable situation.”

“This mystery must be penetrated. For example, official researchers say they are working out the genetic sequence of a new virus, but what does that mean? What sample are they are starting out with and using? Do they already have a truly purified specimen of the new virus? If so, where did they get it, and how? They grew it in a culture of cells? Really? And they purified it from that culture? We refuse to accept these unexamined claims at face value.”

“Therefore, we’re opening our pages to an ongoing discussion and debate on the questions, HOW ARE RESEARCHERS ACTUALLY DISCOVERING A NEW VIRUS? HOW SHOULD THEY? We will accept submissions from many quarters. Not just the usual experts. We aim to break up the chokehold and monopoly of opinion on this vital subject.”

In the realm of so-called science, there is a veritable army of self-styled experts in charge, who say, “Of course we know what we’re doing when we discover a new virus.” And that, they think, is enough.

It isn’t.

It especially isn’t, when the issue is a claim of a global viral pandemic; and repressive containment measures are being imposed, which are destroying countless jobs and businesses and lives. All because of a story about a new virus.

We’ve heard the phrase, “the science is settled.” But settled for whom? Time and again, it turns out the purveyors of pseudoscience have a political or commercial agenda that is driving their assertions. They posture, they scoff at critics. They refuse to step forward and engage in honest and prolonged debate. They censor counter-arguments.

In the past 35 years, during the purported epidemics called AIDS, West Nile, SARS, bird flu, Mad Cow, Swine Flu, Zika, once official researchers announced they had found the cause, there has never been a truly PROPER large-scale study launched to confirm or deny those hypotheses about causation.

Over the past six months, a few readers have contacted me with references to COVID studies that show an electron microscope photo here, a photo there, along with the researchers’ statements that the new coronavirus has, in fact, been isolated and proven to exist. That’s not proof. That’s not what I’m talking about AT ALL.

If a drug company announced that six people, who had taken a new drug, showed major improvement in their illness-condition, would that constitute proof of anything? Would that be sufficient evidence for licensing the drug, as safe and effective, for widespread public use?

When I say LARGE-SCALE STUDY, that’s exactly what I mean. And one such study isn’t enough. Other studies must be done as well, to verify or disprove the finding of the first set of researchers. All the researchers must be free of conflicts of interest.

This is called the scientific method.

Let me break it down a little further, since nobody in the conventional scientific community will. Let’s say you do the large-scale electron microscope study I outlined above. And you find that, in 80 of the 1000 photos, you do see many, many particles of the same unique coronavirus, and you’ve never seen that virus before.

What conclusions would you draw? You would say, “Well, first of all, we don’t have PROOF of anything resembling a pandemic. Looks like a dud. Maybe…could be…eight percent of the 1000 people who have this list of GENERAL FLU-LIKE SYMPTOMS might be suffering from a new viral condition. MAYBE. If we’ve already made projections of how many people will contract this new disease, we’ll need to provisionally cut down those numbers by 92 percent. Hmm, no, that doesn’t sound at all like a global pandemic. Now we need to look at the 920 people who also have these flu-like symptoms, but show no signs of having a new virus, and compare them with the 80 people and see what we can discover. Let’s dig into this. Is it possible the 80 people have a new virus, but it isn’t actually causing any illness? How many of the 80 are already suffering from serious health conditions that have nothing to do with this purported virus? How many have been treated for years with toxic drugs? How many have lung conditions stemming from heavily polluted air? We need to make a list of possible reasons these 80 people are sick and look at those causes. Let’s go back and examine the electron microscope photos again. Are we actually seeing many particles of the same new virus from all 80 of the patients…? Do we have any CDC or WHO researchers on board? They always find a new virus…”

An approach like that would start to make some sense. More large studies would definitely be needed.

Of course, there wouldn’t be any MONEY in this. There wouldn’t be an opportunity for massive top-down CONTROL in this. You couldn’t wreck a global economy on this basis and try to usher in a new political system for planet Earth. You couldn’t convince seven billion people to take a destructive vaccine.

But you would be putting your feet on a road that resembles something called science.

And yet, in an era which is said to be characterized by science, you would be, guess what? An extreme outlier.

Odd.

That seems to be a contradiction.

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.

Tony Fauci and the Swine Flu disaster; betrayal of trust

by Jon Rappoport

August 14, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

I take you back to the summer of 2009, when the CDC and the World Health Organization were hyping the “deadly H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic.”

They were, of course, also urging people to take the new Swine Flu vaccine. On that subject, here is an excerpt from Robert Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense (3/27/20):

“For example, [Dr. Anthony] Fauci once shilled for the fast-tracked H1N1 influenza (‘swine flu’) vaccine on YouTube, reassuring viewers in 2009 that serious adverse events were ‘very, very, very rare.’ Shortly thereafter, the vaccine went on to wreak havoc in multiple countries, increasing miscarriage risks in pregnant women in the U.S., provoking a spike in adolescent narcolepsy in Scandinavia and causing febrile convulsions in one in every 110 vaccinated children in Australia—prompting the latter to suspend its influenza vaccination program in under-fives.”

Thank you. Dr. Fauci. Explain to us why you haven’t been downgraded to pumping gas in Death Valley or sent to prison?

However, that is only half the Swine Flu story. The other half—which involves an astounding hoax—was surely something Fauci was aware of at the time.

Fauci was, in fact, recommending a highly dangerous vaccine for protection against AN EPIDEMIC THAT DIDN’T EXIST AT ALL.

His friends and professional colleagues at the CDC were creating the hoax.

Let me run it down for you.

In the summer of 2009, the CDC was claiming there were thousands of Swine Flu cases in the US. But behind these statistics lay an unnerving secret. A major crime, considering the CDC’s mandate to report the truth to the American people:

Secretly, the CDC had stopped counting cases of Swine Flu.

What? Why?

CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, discovered the CDC secret; and she found out why.

The routine lab testing of tissue samples from the most likely Swine Flu patients was coming back, in the overwhelming percentage of cases, with: NO SIGN OF SWINE FLU OR ANY OTHER KIND OF FLU.

Attkisson wrote an article about this scandal, and it was published on the CBS News website. However, the next, bigger step—putting out the story on CBS television news—was waylaid. No deal. And CBS shut down any future investigation on the subject. Attkisson’s article died on the vine. No other major news outlet in the world picked up her article and ran with it deeper into the rabbit hole.

Here is what Attkisson told me when I interviewed her:

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

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

—end of interview excerpt—

So…fake pandemic, CDC crimes, and a damaging vaccine.

But that wasn’t end of it. The CDC wanted to commit another crime. About three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.

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

Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.

Fast forward to 2020. Who in his right mind, armed with a little history, would believe anything the CDC is saying about COVID-19? The discovery of a new coronavirus. the case numbers, the accuracy of the diagnostic tests, the need for lockdowns and economic devastation, the safety and importance of a vaccine, the fear porn? Who would believe any of it?

And who would believe anything coming out of the mouth of Dr. Anthony Fauci, who hyped a highly destructive Swine Flu vaccine for an epidemic that didn’t exist at all?

Only a fool.

SOURCES:

childrenshealthdefense.org/news/dr-fauci-and-covid-19-priorities-therapeutics-now-or-vaccines-later/

cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t091009.htm

cbsnews.com/news/swine-flu-cases-overestimated/

webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20091112/over-22-million-in-us-had-h1n1-swine-flu#1

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.

Does HIV exist? An explosive interview

by Jon Rappoport

August 11, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Before we get to Christine Johnson’s interview, a bit of background.

My first book, AIDS INC., was published in 1988. The research I engaged in then formed a foundation for my recent work in exposing the vast fraud called COVID-19.

In 1987-88, my main question eventually became: does HIV cause AIDS? For months, I had blithely assumed the obvious answer was yes. This created havoc in my investigation, because I was facing contradictions I couldn’t solve.

For example, in parts of Africa, people who were chronically ill and dying obviously needed no push from a new virus. All their “AIDS” conditions and symptoms could be explained by their environment: contaminated water supplies; sewage pumped directly into the drinking water; protein-calorie malnutrition; hunger, starvation; medical treatment with immunosuppressive vaccines and drugs; toxic pesticides; fertile farm land stolen by corporations and governments; wars; extreme poverty. The virus cover story actually obscured all these ongoing crimes.

Finally, in the summer of 1987, I found several researchers who were rejecting the notion that HIV caused AIDS. Their reports were persuasive.

I’m shortcutting a great deal of my 1987-8 investigation here, but once HIV was out of the picture for me, many pieces fell into place. I discovered that, in EVERY group supposedly at “high-risk” for AIDS, their conditions and symptoms could be entirely explained by factors that had nothing to do with a new virus.

AIDS was not one condition. It was an umbrella label, used to re-package a number of immunosuppressive conditions and create the illusion of a new and unique and single “pandemic.”

Several years after the publication of AIDS INC., I became aware of a quite different emerging debate going on under the surface of research: DOES HIV EXIST?

Was the purported virus ever truly discovered?

And THAT question led to: what is the correct procedure for discovering a new virus?

The following 1997 interview, conducted by brilliant freelance journalist, Christine Johnson, delves into these questions:

How should researchers prove that a particular virus exists? How should they isolate it? What are the correct steps?

These questions, and their answers, reside at the heart of most disease research—and yet, overwhelmingly, doctors never explore them or even consider them.

Johnson interviews Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…”

Here I’m publishing and highlighting excerpts from the interview. Technical issues are discussed. Grasping them is not the easiest exercise you’ve ever done, but I believe the serious reader can comprehend the vital essentials.

CJ: Does HIV cause AIDS?

EP: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.

… CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?

EP: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]

CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.

EP: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.

CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?

EP: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.

… CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.

EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.

The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.

That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.

CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?

EP: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.

CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?

EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.

CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.

EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.

CJ: And what was that method?

EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.

CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?

EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.

CJ: But what about their pictures?

EP: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…”

—end of interview excerpt—

If you grasp the essentials of this discussion, you’ll see there is every reason to doubt the existence of HIV, because the methods for proving its existence were not followed.

And so…as I’ve reported these past few months, there is every reason to doubt and reject the existence of the COVID virus, since correct large-scale electron microscope studies have never been done.

I kept the Christine Johnson interview, and other similar information, in mind when, for example, I explored the dud epidemics called SARS and 2009 Swine Flu.

How many viruses have been named as causes of disease, when in fact those viruses have never been isolated or proved to exist?

Of course, conventional-consensus researchers and doctors will scoff at any attempt to raise these issues. For them, “the science is settled.” Meaning: they don’t want to think. They don’t want to stir the waters.

A few years ago, chemist David Rasnick sent a request to the CDC, asking for evidence demonstrating that the Ebola virus had ever been isolated from a human. The answers he received did not begin to approach a level of certainty.

After 30 years working as a reporter in the area of deep medical-research fraud, I’ve seen that false science occurs in levels.

The deeper you go, the stranger it gets. To put it another way: the deeper you go, the worse it gets.

SOURCES:

immunity.org.uk/articles/christine-johnson/

virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjinterviewep.htm

blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/08/10/covid-is-the-virus-real/

blog.nomorefakenews.com/2014/11/03/bombshell-scientist-finds-no-reliable-evidence-ebola-virus-ever-isolated-from-a-human-being/

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.

CDC Director Robert Redfield: the letter that should have destroyed his career

by Jon Rappoport

August 5, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Long before Robert Redfield ascended to the CDC directorship, and also assumed a key post on the White House COVID Task Force, he was a US Army researcher working on an AIDS vaccine.

He ran into a great deal of trouble. His career was almost derailed. The Army finally saved him, through what some investigators assert was a complete whitewash.

On June 7th, 1994, two doctors from Public Citizen, Peter Lu and the relentless consumer advocate, Sidney Wolfe, wrote a long letter to Congressman Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment. If Waxman had followed up with decisive action, Redfield might have been finished for good in the field of public health. Here are excerpts from the devastating letter:

“We are writing to request that your Subcommittee hold a hearing, as soon as possible, to investigate charges of grave impropriety committed by U.S. Department of Defense’ AIDS researchers. We have obtained Internal memoranda, not previously made public, from the Department of Defense that allege a systematic pattern of data manipulation, inappropriate statistical analyses and misleading data presentation by Army researchers in an apparent attempt to promote the usefulness of the GP160 AIDS vaccine…The Phase I and Phase II studies in which this alleged misconduct occurred were conducted by researchers at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR), led by Lt. Col. Robert Redfield, M.D., Chief of the Department of Retroviral Research, and misleading results from these trials were reported in…the New England Journal of Medicine in June 1991, the Journal AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses in June 1992 and the annual International AIDS Conference in Amsterdam in July 1992. In addition, overstated conclusions have been presented on two occasions at hearings before your Subcommittee.

“Meeting on October 23, 1992 to discuss the allegations by two Air Force research physicians (see below) of scientific misconduct by Dr. Redfield, a subcommittee of the Institutional Review Committee at the Wilford Hall U.S. Air Force Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas reached the following conclusion:

“The committee agreed the information presented by Dr. Redfield seriously threatens his credibility as a researcher and has the potential to negatively impact AIDS research funding for military institutions as a whole. His allegedly unethical behavior creates false hope and could result in premature deployment of the vaccine…

“That meeting was called to review an October 21, 1992 memorandum…from Maj. Craig W. Hendrix, M.D., Director of the HIV Program in the Air Force, and Col. R. Neal Boswell, MD., Associate Chief of the Division of Medicine in the Air Force, to Col. Donald Burke, M.D., Director of the Division of Retrovirology at WRAIR and Dr. Redfield’s immediate supervisor. The memorandum decried ‘The problem of misleading or, possibly, deceptive presentations by Dr. Redfleld, which overstate the GP160 [vaccine] Phase I data…’ and recommended that the following action be taken:

“(1) publicly correct the record in a medium suitable for widespread dissemination to our civilian scientific colleagues;

“(2) censure Dr. Redfield for potential scientific misconduct which should at least include temporarily suspending his involvement on the current immunotherapy protocols; and

“(3) initiate an investigation by a fully independent outside Investigative body…to evaluate the facts of the case and recommend appropriate actions.

“Senior Department of Defense scientists have known of this misconduct since at least October 1992, and Dr. Redfield has acknowledged that his analyses were faulty on at least three occasions to internal Department of Defense audiences (the earliest admission was on August 28, 1992)…”

This is a VERY damning letter. Vaccine fraud.

But Redfield not only avoided professional devastation, he rose through the political hierarchy, eventually becoming CDC director. At the CDC—let’s be frank—lying about vaccines in order to promote and sell them is job number one.

Redfield now also serves on the White House COVID Task Force, an organization dedicated to gaining rapid approval for a pandemic vaccine, come hell or high water.

Charges of extreme scientific fraud on an issue of vaccines THEN; the man occupies two high posts where pushing vaccines is paramount NOW.

But don’t worry, all you pod people wearing masks and waiting for the messianic COVID vaccine. All is well. Sure it is. The vaccine won’t harm or kill you or your children. Resume your pacified slumber.

SOURCE:

https://khn.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/03/940607plswtowaxman.pdf

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.

To US Attorney General: hydroxychloroquine clinical trials intentionally murdering people?

It’s all about the DOSAGE

by Jon Rappoport

June 22, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Mr Barr: You must look into this one. Yesterday. Set your hounds loose.

Summary: Several clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been administering huge doses of the drug to COVID patients—doses that can easily be lethal.

Obviously, if the inexpensive HCQ is said to fail, and is called dangerous, then it is sidelined, in favor of far more expensive (and profitable) drugs. And the promised vaccine has a clear field as the only “reasonable strategy against the pandemic.” Meaning: sky-high profits for the manufacturers. Get it?

The 6/20/2020 article exposing the crimes is posted at the Alliance for Human Research Protection (ahrp.org): “COVID-19 Has Turned Public Health Into a Lethal, Patient-Killing Experimental Endeavor,” by Vera Sharav. Two detailed sections of the article are written by Meryl Nass, MD, who did the investigation to uncover the sordid and astonishing details:

“Dr. Meryl Nass has uncovered a hornet’s nest of government sponsored Hydroxychloroquine experiments that were designed to kill severely ill, Covid-19 hospitalized patients. On June 14th Dr. Nass first identified two Covid-19 experiments in which massive, high toxic doses – four times higher than safe of hydroxychloroquine were being given to severely ill hospitalized patients in intensive care units.”

* “Solidarity [experiment] was being conducted by the World Health Organization, on 3500 Covid-19 patients at 400 hospitals, across 35 countries. The trial was suspended following the fraudulent Surgisphere report in The Lancet that claimed 35% higher death rates in patients receiving Hydroxychloroquine [for the background on that fraudulent report, click here]. But when The Lancet retracted the report, the WHO resumed the Solidarity trial. More than 100 countries expressed interest in participating in the trial.”

* “Recovery experiment used very similar doses. It was sponsored by the Wellcome Trust (GlaxoSmithKline) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK government. The experiment was conducted at Oxford University, on 1,542 patients of these 396 patients (25.7%) who were in the high dose Hydroxychloroquine arm, died.”

“Update: After Dr. Nass’ discovery was publicly disseminated, the WHO suspended the trial on Wednesday June 17th.”

“On Friday, June 19th, Dr. Nass uncovered a third, “Even Worse” hydroxychloroquine experiment. REMAP targets patients who are on a ventilator, or in shock – i.e., near death. Such patients are hardly capable of giving consent. Rather than attempting to save their lives, they are being used given multiple high doses of hydroxychloroquine and other drugs whose combination is contraindicated.”

“Of note: All the online protocols have been stamped ‘Not for IRB (Institutional Review Board) submission’.” [emphasis in original]

“This is an ongoing medical atrocity being perpetrated by medical doctors at 200 sites in 14 countries: include: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom, and the United States of America.”

“Since all medicines are potential poison at high doses, why one wonders, are influential academic physicians and international public health institutions designing and conducting experiments that expose extremely vulnerable patients to poisonous levels of the drug Hydroxychloroquine?”

The article goes on to spell out, in great detail, how these clinical trials of HCQ have been conducted.

So, Mr. Barr, you should be working with law enforcement in all countries where these horrific studies are being run. The medical perpetrators, and their knowing assistants, need to be arrested and put on trial. No time to waste here. Get busy. You can be sure records have already been hidden, changed, and shredded. Denials of crimes will be couched in technical medical language—“you civilians couldn’t possibly understand what we’re doing.” This unconscionable strategy is SOP in such cases.

Exit From the Matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Epidemic: Shocked that tests for the virus are worthless? You shouldn’t be.

by Jon Rappoport

May 27, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’ve written and published many words explaining why the diagnostic tests for the coronavirus are unreliable, inherently worthless, wrong-headed, and deceptive. (For starters, click here.)

This is not the first time “testing madness” has been launched. Far from it.

In fact, there is a whole branch of medicine which diagnoses patients based on NO TESTS AT ALL.

I’m talking about millions of patients. And untold billions in profits. Stretching out more than a century.

In my continuing series of articles about the China epidemic, I raise the question of medical experts’ track record of deceit. Why? Because, how can you trust what they say about the so-called epidemic, if they have an unparalleled history of lying and obfuscation?

Why, for example, should you take, at face value, their claim that they’ve found a single virus which is causing a major outbreak of disease? Professional liars should not be accorded such a level of respect.

In their wretched track record, we come to the whole subject of medical psychiatry. This is where real and deep human suffering—from many different causes—is professionally re-channeled into arbitrary categories of so-called “mental disorders,” requiring treatment with devastating drugs. The fraud is wall to wall.

Before we take this journey, a warning: Suddenly withdrawing from psychiatric drugs can be very dangerous, even life-threatening. Withdrawal should be done gradually, supervised by a caring professional who knows what he’s doing. See Breggin.com.

—Let’s screen everybody to find out if they have mental disorders. Let’s diagnose as many people as possible with mental disorders—

The first question to ask is: do these mental disorders have any scientific basis? There are now roughly 300 of them. They multiply like fruit flies.

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.

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

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE INVENTED, CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by committees 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.

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

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

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

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

We are looking at a science that isn’t a science. That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.

There’s more. 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 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 obliquely 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.

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

To repeat, Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definitions of Bipolar and ADHD were expanded to include more people.

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

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

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

* intercranial pressure leading to blindness
* peripheral circulatory collapse
* stupor and coma

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

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

Dr. Frances label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of Ritalin (and other similar amphetamine-like 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 effects 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.

Let’s go deeper. 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.

Here’s a coda:

This one is big.

The so-called “chemical-imbalance” theory of mental illness is dead.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”

Boom.

Dead.

However…urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.

In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to protect his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:

“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”

Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.

And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…

…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…

…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct a chemical imbalance?

The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake.

There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders.

All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide.

Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a time. Stories on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off. But on February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.” She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”

Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, “Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?”

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

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

An earlier study, from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that, in five examined cases, people on Prozac developed what is called akathisia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Breggin comments that akathisia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathisia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathisia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

The well-known publication, California Lawyer, in a December 1998 article called “Protecting Prozac,” mentions other highly qualified critics of the drug: “David Healy, MD, an internationally renowned psychopharmacologist, has stated in sworn deposition that `contrary to Lilly’s view, there is a plausible cause-and-effect relationship between Prozac’ and suicidal-homicidal events. An epidemiological study published in 1995 by the British Medical Journal also links Prozac to increased suicide risk.”

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

In wide use. This despite such contrary information and the negative, dangerous effects of these drugs.

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

July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”

September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.

[What is true about Prozac is true about Paxil or Zoloft or any of the other SSRI antidepressants. And be warned: suddenly withdrawing from any psychiatric drug can be extremely dangerous to the patient.]

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

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

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

What do the medical experts who make pronouncements about epidemics and psychiatry have in common?

They went to medical school. They served internships and residencies. They were trained to believe they were the only authorities in their fields.

They permit no basic criticism of their work—for example, they would never consider the charge that the virus supposedly responsible for an epidemic has never been adequately tested for, or isolated, in patients. In the same way, they would never seriously consider the implications of the fact that there are no defining laboratory tests for any so-called mental disorder.

They believe they are kings of knowledge, and no one else has the truth.

They must protect their turf.

They rely on government protection and collusion and endorsement to sustain their basic lies.

They are “born from the same egg.”

“We are MEDICAL. Therefore, we are right.”

As I’ve been demonstrating in this, and other articles, they’re WRONG.

Destructively wrong.

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.

Who pushes the Idea of an epidemic; what are their crimes?

by Jon Rappoport

May 21, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

“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 (“Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)

With my coverage of the so-called pandemic, we are seeing many new readers showing up and paying attention. So I want to expose a few facts about the modern medical system—facts I’ve presented many times over the past 10 years.

I do this because of a little thing called REPUTATION. If the track record of major medical officials were really understood, people would ignore their current pronouncements with barely a glance. Pronouncements like: THE VIRUS IS SPREADING; THIS IS A MAJOR EPIDEMIC; WE’RE TESTING A NEW PROTECTIVE VACCINE AND EVERYONE MUST TAKE IT.

I also expose facts because MEDICALLY CAUSED DEATH is routinely swept under the carpet by the mainstream press. Actually, as a result of media silence, the subject of medical harm is where the subject of grossly poisoned food was in the 19th and early 20th centuries. At that time, giant food processors had created their own Wild West, where they could sell lethal poison (eat, fall down dead) hidden in products. The press helped expose these crimes and transfix the public, which led to partial reforms. Now, in the medical arena, the press is a partner in capital crimes.

Major medical officials have been sitting on a time bomb. The range of medical maiming and killing is astonishing.

Imagine a Congressional hearing held before media cameras, with reporters all over the world ready with shocking facts about one of the leading causes of death—

SENATOR: Sir, I have the mainstream medical death numbers in front of me. How can you keep this secret from the public?

FDA COMMISSIONER: It’s not a secret, sir. Many experts know about it.

SENATOR: I’m looking through the trillion-dollar federal budget. I’m looking for the money allocated to fix this horrible situation. Where are those funds?

FDA COMMISSIONER: Nowhere. Don’t blame us.

SENATOR: Why not?

FDA COMMISSIONER: Because we can never be dismantled. We’re eternal. God created the FDA. God created the CDC.

I know major media won’t investigate medically-caused death numbers, because I’ve published reports for years, and I’ve contacted news people with the facts; and nothing happens.

So we begin with a few citations.

July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. 106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that’s 2.25 million deaths. You might want to read that last number again.

I interviewed Starfield in 2009. I asked her whether she was aware of any overall effort by the US government to eliminate this holocaust, and whether she had ever been contacted by any government agency to consult on such an effort. She answered a resounding NO to both questions. She also said her estimate of medically caused deaths in America was on the conservative side.

Here is another citation: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It [the Institute] calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”

The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans. Every public health agency knows the truth.

Here is another citation: The article is, “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and was the 2013 recipient of ASA’s [American Sociological Association’s] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.

Donald Light: “Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [6.6 million annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.” (ASA publication, “Footnotes,” November 2014)

—Another study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on April 15, 1998: “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.” It, too, is mind-boggling.

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

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

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

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

So this study had nothing to do with doctor errors, nurse errors, or improper combining of drugs. And it only counted people killed who were admitted to hospitals. It didn’t begin to tally all the people taking pharmaceuticals who died as consequence of the drugs, without being admitted to hospitals. (Note: none of the studies and reviews I’m citing in this article include damage and death as a result of vaccines.)

The statistics I’m quoting reveal a human problem on the level of a tsunami sweeping across the whole of America and Europe.

Why won’t major media outlets report these facts and pound on their significance?

The obvious reason: their big-spending pharmaceutical advertisers would drop them like hot potatoes.

But there are other reasons.

Every medical bureaucrat or medical shill or medical expert who jumps aboard the media train, to assure the public that drugs and vaccines are remarkably safe, is sitting on the time bomb I have described above.

If this bomb were widely recognized, who would continue to believe these professional pundits? Who would accept anything they say? How could they possibly sustain their credibility?

“Well, the system I represent kills 2.25 million people per decade, and maims between 20 and 40 million more people per decade, but I want to assure you this vaccine presents no problems at all. It’s incredibly safe.”

Every single pronouncement, on any subject, issued via the medical cartel’s Ministry of Truth (major media), would fall on disbelieving ears, and only increase general outrage.

Mainstream reporters and editors and publishers are well aware that telling the truth would undermine a basic institution of society.

The media are there to give credibility to society and its structures. That’s why they’re called “major” instead of “minor.”

When hard rains fall, the media are there with an umbrella to hold over organized society’s head. To walk away in the middle of a downpour would leave the status quo unprotected.

“Defending the Crown” is another way to put it. The King may make mistakes, he may commit heinous offenses, but he is the King, and therefore his position must remain secure.

Young journalists learn this point quickly. If in their zeal, they cross the threshold and attempt to expose a central myth, fairy tale, legend, they’re put back in their place. They absorb the message. Journalism has limits. Certain truths are silent truths.

Over the years, I’ve talked to reporters who are solidly addicted to obfuscations. Like any addict, they have an army of excuses to rationalize their behavior.

The medical experts are worse. Their pretense of idealism knows no limits, and is matched only by their fatuous claim to bullet-proof knowledge.

When you peel the veneer away, they are enablers, persons of interest, co-conspirators.

There is nothing quite like a high-minded, socially-positioned, card-carrying member of the King’s circle of protectors. The arrogance is titanic. Because what is being hidden is so explosive.

It is the duty of the Crown to make his subjects feel safe and protected and even loved.

No wonder he needs such a large army of trained helpers in and around the press.

He has them.

But their monopoly is breaking down.

We’re in a new breakout level of truth. It’s called independent media.

So…on the subject of epidemics, when public health officials, and their government enablers, and the compliant press, and doctors tell us that a new virus is sweeping the world, a vaccine will stop it, and we must take that vaccine…why should anyone fall in line and accept their words?

Professional liars, professional criminals may pretend they are spouting science, but they are merely relying on the ignorance of the public.

It may interest you to know that the US system of reporting severe adverse effects of vaccines is broken. There are no reliable numbers.

Barbara Loe Fisher, of the private National Vaccine Information Center, has put together a reasonable estimate:

“But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, ‘Introducing MEDWatch,’ JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]”

“There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.”

“Even so, each year about 12,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS]; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. [See RT Chen, B. Hibbs, ‘Vaccine safety,’ Pediatric Annals, July 1998: 445-458]”

“However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events [per year]. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.”

Medical illiteracy in the population—the public health experts and the pharmaceutical titans feast on it. It allows them to get away with mass murder every day.

For those who think murder is too strong a word, I’ll close with this: it’s simple—when you’re in a profession that keeps killing and maiming people at a tragic and astonishing rate, and you know it and do nothing about it, you’re guilty. Period. No amount of evasion or excuse changes the fact.

THESE are the people telling you to believe their story about a pandemic. THESE are the people claiming the village has to be blasted in order to save it.

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.

COVID: David Crowe’s brilliant new paper takes apart antibody testing

by Jon Rappoport

May 15, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Assuming that a new virus called COVID-19 was actually discovered—we are being told that antibody tests are a vital tool for determining who is immune and who is not.

These tests are heralded as essential and necessary, despite some downplayed doubt among “experts” about how reliable they are.

Canadian author and long-time independent researcher, David Crowe, has written a new paper, “Antibody Testing for COVID-19.” (May 13, 2020).

(For David Crowe’s paper that challenges the discovery of the COVID-19 virus, click here.)

I can safely say it is the most detailed analysis of the tests anyone will ever read.

It approaches the subject from a number of angles, and includes a breakdown of the test-kit manufacturers and the comparative results of their efforts to bring a useful test to the public.

Here are several devastating excerpts from Crowe’s very deep dive:

“The only jurisdiction with a formal structure for approval of antibody tests is the United States but, until very recently, it was a complete joke, as the test manufacturers did not need to provide validation data. Now it is only a partial joke, as validation data must be provided, but the FDA can only do a paper analysis. Imagine if auto-manufacturers had to build cars to certain EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) fuel efficiency standards, but rather than sending a car to the EPA for testing, they could do the testing at their facilities, and just send the results in afterwards…”

“Antibody tests are often subject to cross-reactions with other conditions. This could be because the [other irrelevant] medical condition produces similar antibodies, or because something related to that [other] condition reacts with other test components. The choice of [cross-reacting] conditions to check for is completely under the control of the manufacturer and even when no cross reactions were found for a condition, the number of samples tested was so small that the possibility of a fairly high rate of false positive cross reactions still exists.”

“Positive antibody tests have only been found in a minority of people in the general population even where the virus is believed to have been circulating for months. These fractions are generally taken as truth, but one would expect a highly infectious virus to have spread much more widely…The one experiment that could show whether antibody tests are actually meaningful would be a time series of a large number of people who are currently negative on all tests. This experiment would be time consuming, inefficient (as many people would never become positive on any tests), intrusive (frequent nasal swabs and blood tests) and obviously very expensive. Those are practical considerations, but in the absence of such an experiment we are almost totally in the dark about COVID-19 antibody testing. Given the billions being spent on COVID and the trillions being lost by the economy, it surely is not impossible to do some worthwhile science.”

David Crowe’s paper demands widespread notice and very careful study. He has provided a great service.

Superficial reliance on antibody tests has no connection to real science. Yet, the so-called experts are using these tests to make momentous decisions about the present and future of humans on Earth.

The official experts have literally taken over governments in a grand coup. They must be rejected on every level.

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.