A Vital Paper: David Crowe challenges the discovery of the COVID-19 virus

by Jon Rappoport

April 24, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Canadian author and independent researcher, David Crowe (*), has spent several decades analyzing and torpedoing SPECIFICS of conventional medical research. At the deepest level.

[(*) David Crowe passed away July 12, 2020]

I’m talking about, for example, the mainstream claims of discovering new viruses.

Crowe doesn’t lay on vague brushstrokes. He goes to the core of fabrications and exposes them, chapter and verse.

His new paper, which he continues to update and expand, is: “Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory” (via Wayback Machine).

[For David Crowe’s paper that challenges the accuracy of COVID-19 antibody testing, click here.]

Here I quote from the section of his paper where he takes up the question of discovery—have researchers actually found a new virus which they assert is the cause of a new pandemic, COVID-19?

At the end of this article, I list the published papers Crowe refers to by number, as he takes apart the very basis of the COVID illusion.

David Crowe: “Scientists are detecting novel RNA in multiple patients with pneumonia-like conditions, and are assuming that the detection of RNA (which is believed to be wrapped in proteins to form an RNA virus, as coronaviruses are believed to be) is equivalent to isolation of the virus. It is not, and one of the groups of scientists was honest enough to admit this”:

“’we did not perform tests for detecting infectious virus in blood’” [2]

“But, despite this admission, earlier in the paper they repeatedly referred to the 41 cases (out of 59 similar cases) that tested positive for this RNA as, ‘41 patients…confirmed to be infected with 2019-nCoV’.”

“Another paper quietly admitted that”:

“’our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates’” [1]

“Koch’s postulates, first stated by the great German bacteriologist Robert Koch in the late 1800s, can simply be stated as”:

“* Purify the pathogen (e.g. virus) from many cases with a particular illness.
* Expose susceptible animals (obviously not humans) to the pathogen.
* Verify that the same illness is produced.
* Some add that you should also re-purify the pathogen, just to be sure that it really is creating the illness.”

“Famous virologist Thomas Rivers stated in a 1936 speech, ‘It is obvious that Koch’s postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases’. That was a long time ago, but the same problem still continues. None of the papers referenced in this article have even attempted to purify the virus. And the word ‘isolation’ has been so debased by virologists it means nothing (e.g. adding impure materials to a cell culture and seeing cell death is ‘isolation’).”

“Reference [1] did publish electron [microscope] micrographs, but it can clearly be seen in the lesser magnified photo, that the particles believed to be coronavirus are not purified as the quantity of material that is cellular is much greater. The paper notes that the photos are from ‘human airway epithelial cells’. Also consider that the photo included in the article will certainly be the ‘best’ photo, i.e. the one with the greatest number of particles. Lab technicians may be encouraged to spend hours to look around to find the most photogenic image, the one that most looks like pure virus.”

“There is no way to tell that the RNA being used in the new coronavirus PCR test is found in those particles seen under the electron micrograph. There is no connection between the test, and the particles, and no proof that the particles are viral.”

“A similar situation was revealed in March 1997 concerning HIV, when two papers published in the same issue of the journal ‘Virology’ revealed that the vast majority of what had previously been called ‘pure HIV’ was impurities that were clearly not HIV, and the mixture also included microvesicles that look very similar to HIV under an electron microscope, but are of cellular origin.” [5][6]

References:

1. Zhu N et al. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 14.
* https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017

2. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet.2020 Jan 24.
* https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

3. Chan J F-W et al. A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: a study of a family cluster. Lancet. 2020 Jan 24.
* https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30154-9/fulltext

4. Rivers TM. Viruses and Koch’s Postulates. J Bacteriol. 1937 Jan; 33(1): 1-12.
* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC545348/

5. Gluschankof P et al. Cell membrane vesicles are a major contaminant of gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1 preparations. Virology. 1997 Mar 31; 230(1): 125- 133.
* http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/papers/277-Microvesicles-Gluschankof.pdf

6. Bess JW et al. Microvesicles Are a Source of Contaminating Cellular Proteins Found in Purified HIV-1 Preparations. Virology. 1997 Mar 31; 230(1): 134- 44.
* http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/papers/278

—end of Crowe article excerpt—

In a half-sane world, David Crowe’s analysis would provoke an open honest discussion and debate among all sorts of scientists and researchers, and the repressed truth would tumble out and be confirmed.

Of course, we do not live in that world.

Instead, we have mistake-prone researchers and outright liars welcomed into the hallowed pages of medical journals. They are enabled by editors who look the other way.

The consequences, of course, aren’t merely academic.

A planet can be placed on lockdown.

Do I really need to say this at this late date—without the discovery of an actual disease-causing virus, the whole “pandemic” falls apart. The whole “spreading virus” assertion falls apart.

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

Jon Rappoport

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

How are viruses discovered and identified in the first place?

Feb18

The earthshaking Etienne De Harven interview by Celia Farber

by Jon Rappoport

February 18, 2020

(To join my email list, click here.)

The question I’ve been asking since 1987—

If the experts are going to claim a particular virus causes a particular disease—how do they know that virus exists in the first place?

For example, the supposedly new coronavirus in China. For example, Ebola. For example, HIV. For example, the coronavirus supposedly causing SARS (2003). How do researchers know these viruses exist?

“Well, of course they know. They must.”

That is not a satisfactory answer—even though most people would offer it.

The question can become very interesting, when you stop and consider researchers working away in biowar labs fiddling with viruses. How do they know they’re tweaking viruses that actually exist?

On a more mundane frontier, when scientists tell us they’re rushing to develop a vaccine against a virus that is harming the population, how do they know that virus exists to begin with?

I came to this question when I was researching HIV in 1987. I began to think about it seriously in 1990. During all these years, I’ve reached out to independent researchers, and I’ve tried to stitch together their answers. I can’t say it’s been a smooth trip.

But I have found some answers; and I have certainly found some fake mainstream assertions, which glitter like baubles on plastic branches of 99-cent store Xmas trees.

Here are a few clues. You need to take a tissue sample from a live human being. You need to filter that sample correctly so you arrive at a much smaller sample you believe might contain a virus. You need to put a drop of that sample under an electron microscope and observe what looks like a virus.

How much virus? How many identical particles of virus? Opinions differ on this. It could be one definite virus, one particle. It could be many, many identical particles.

Sidebar: If you’re trying to prove this virus is actually causing DISEASE in a person, you have to go further. You have to show the very same virus is active and replicating at a very high rate in the person’s body, and his immune system isn’t defeating it. Beyond noticing the patient is sick, how do you test for all THAT? I’m still looking for a definitive technical answer—if there is one.

All right, let’s get back to the electron microscope. Let’s say you’ve observed many identical particles of what looks like a virus in the electron microscope photograph, called an EM. You can then say, “Found it.” But you need to be sure. You need to figure out that this virus isn’t just something that ordinarily lives in the human body like a couch potato and does nothing—a passive endogenous virus. No. You want to show this virus comes from the outside as an invader—an exogenous virus. And how do you perfectly make that differentiation every time? Another question that might have no precise formula as an answer.

Big question: CAN WE BE SURE ALL VIRUSES THAT ARE SAID TO EXIST AND SAID TO CAUSE EPIDEMICS ARE ACTUALLY FOUND AND OBSERVED AND IDENTIFIED ON ELECTRON MICROSCOPE PHOTOGRAPHS? CAN WE AT LEAST SAY THAT?

No.

In which case, the researchers have been, at least some of the time, up the creek without a paddle. They’ve jumped the gun. They’ve bolted out of the starting gate too soon. They’ve laid their money down on a horse that may not even be in the race. They’ve written a check no one can cash. They’re talking about lockdowns and quarantines without having proved their favorite virus of the moment exists. Sure, people on the back end will make big money from these unwarranted presumptions, but money is not science. It might control science, but it ISN’T science.

All right. I’ve now set the stage for an excerpt from an interview, a profound interview with a late mainstream master who, in the face of fake science, suddenly was characterized as a rebel, Etienne De Harven. The interview was conducted several years ago by the brilliant reporter, Celia Farber. You can find the whole interview here. I strongly suggest you read it sixteen times. Yes, it gets technical. You’ll also notice names of elite scientists you haven’t run across. Learn the meaning of the words you’ve never seen before. Dig in. This isn’t television-type brush-off conversation. This isn’t a YouTube throwaway.

I have another reason for exposing readers to this interview—it’s what a conversation about serious scientific issues looks like…this is what trying to bridge the gap between researchers, honest reporters, and the public looks like. There should be hundreds and thousands of such print-interviews taking place, laid before readers. They can handle it. Dumbing down people is partly an illusion: they can wake up. They WILL wake up if they’re sufficiently interested.

Etienne De Harven’s background: president of the Electron Microscopy Society of America; researcher, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Cornell professor of cell biology; professor of pathology, University of Toronto; recognized pioneer in the field of electron microscopy.

The interview focuses on HIV; whether it was ever found and isolated. The implications and questions spread out to any and all viruses.

DE HARVEN: Unacceptably frustrated by the total lack of success in all attempts to demonstrate virus particles in human cancer by EM, the “impresarios” of the cancer/virus “dream” (Gallo, Fauci, and others) totally engaged in the molecular approach.

Consequently, they invented molecular markers to compensate for the missing viral particles…This would have been acceptable if the specificity of these new molecular markers would have been clearly established. Unfortunately, this was not the case. The most misleading molecular marker was probably the first one, i.e. the enzyme [called] reverse transcriptase (RT). Following Temin and Baltimore 1970 papers in “Science”, the RT enzymatic activity has been, most abusively, used as a specific retroviral marker. Both Temin and Baltimore demonstrated RT activity in samples of supposedly “purified” retrovirus.

Embarrassingly, they both omitted to verify the “purity” of their samples by EM. Some of their samples were simply purchased from a commercial company… True, the label on the vials read “pure retrovirus”… However, it was known that these commercial “pure retrovirus” were heavily contaminated by cellular debris!

And since it is also known that all cells contain RT (see Varmus), cellular debris are most likely carrying similar RT enzymes.

Temin and Baltimore did not, therefore, prove that RT is a specific molecular marker for retroviruses. It would have been so simple to check, by EM, the degree of “purity” of the samples they used. This would have, most probably, shown important cell debris contamination, and would have obliged Temin and Baltimore to be much more cautious in the interpretation of their results. In 1975, the members of the Nobel Committee, most regrettably, failed to scrutinize this “purity” problem…

In 1983, at Pasteur Institute in Paris, reliance on the RT marker was a key element in the claimed “isolation” of a new retrovirus [HIV]. Still, Montagnier himself recognized “We did not purify”… He dangerously omitted to consider the misleading interference of cell debris, just as Temin and Baltimore did in 1970.

But a paper on the discovery of a new retrovirus looks much better if it contains at least… one EM picture! So, members of Montagnier’s team spent hours at the TEM [transmission electron microscope], looking at their mixed cell cultures, and they found the virus!

See Fig. 2 in their “historic” 1983 “Science” paper! It is, by the way, a good quality EM picture. It shows unquestionable retroviral particles, budding at the surface of a cell. But the legend of this Fig. 2 states that this cell is a cord blood lymphocyte. Indeed, cord blood lymphocytes were admixed to these complex cell cultures (why?)

Montagnier and his co-workers should have known that human embryonic tissues, and the placenta in particular, are very rich in endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), and that cord blood lymphocytes should therefore be expected to carry the same endogenous retroviruses (under the TEM, endogenous and exogenous viruses, looking identical, cannot be distinguished.)

The budding of these particles has perhaps been stimulated by some of the growth factors also present in these cell cultures. An essential control would have been to repeat the experiment using lymphocytes from the peripheral blood instead of from cord blood. This control is unfortunately missing.

In short, I would frankly state that the Pasteur 1983 paper (whose 30th anniversary has just been celebrated in a “grand messe” of official HIV retro-virology!) contributed very little in AIDS research because its conclusion (i.e. “the isolation of a new retrovirus”) is based on 1) the use of a non specific RT molecular marker, and 2) is falsely supported by EM pictures of, most probably, endogenous human retroviruses.

More details and appropriate references on this analysis can be found in my 2010 paper published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons [— “Human Endogenous Retroviruses and AIDS Research: Confusion, Consensus, or Science?”] (jpands.org/vol15no3/deharven.pdf).

CELIA FARBER: When antibody and VL [viral load] tests became widespread as diagnostic tools for “HIV infection” over the ensuing decades, what happened with EM inside of HIV science and literature? It is my understanding that nobody has ever found HIV in human blood, on EM. Is this an accurate way to say it?

DE HARVEN: In my views, Western Blot [antibody] tests lost all credibility after the publication of Eleni Papadopulos’s et al. (1993) paper, and antibody tests (“Elisa”) [lost credibility] after Christine Johnson’s report (1996). The notion of a “Viral load” (VL), however, brought a new parameter in AIDS diagnosis (Ho,1996). It called attention to the actual number of HIV particles supposedly present in the blood plasma of AIDS patients, PCR technologies [tests] being presumed to offer a way to quantify that number.

If such a viremia (i.e. presence of virus particles in the blood) is indeed present in AIDS patients, it reminisces the retroviral viremia well known in leukemic mice. In such case, retroviral particles should be readily demonstrable, by TEM, of appropriately prepared patient plasma samples. Unfortunately, it has never been possible to demonstrate by TEM one single retroviral particle in the blood plasma of any AIDS patient, even if one selects patients presenting with a so-called “high viral load.”

I was apparently the first researcher to make that statement, during the opening session of President T. Mbeki’s major AIDS conference, in Pretoria, SA, in May 2000. My statement to that effect has never been refuted.

CELIA FARBER: How come?

DE HARVEN: That question must be answered because “something” is measured by PCR technologies in the blood of many AIDS patients. Actually, what is being measured is definitely not the number of retroviral particles (phantom-like, i.e. EM invisible!). In fact, what is being PCR identified, amplified, and supposedly quantified is the number of genomic nucleotide sequences that are extremely similar to sequences known to be part of the retroviral genome. Most regrettably, these sequences were misinterpreted as an indication as a certain number of … HIV particles! This did a lot to consolidate the quasi-religious dogma of HIV as the cause of AIDS, a dogma that has been sharply criticized, a few years ago, by David Rasnick who wrote, authoritatively, about “The AIDS Blunder”…

This interpretation would have been acceptable only if retroviral particles would have been readily demonstrated, by EM, in the blood plasma of these patients; but, since this is not the case, another explanation for the presence of these nucleotide sequences has to be founded.

I presented at the RA conference in Oakland, CA, in 2009, and further developed in my 2010 JAPS paper such a much needed explanation for the presence of these retroviral-like nucleotide sequences. My explanation is based on the well known, variable amounts of circulating DNA in the blood of severely ill patients, and on the fact that we all carry [irrelevant] retroviral-like sequences in our DNA, as endogenous, defective retroviruses, i.e. HERVs (HERVs, for “Human endogenous retroviruses”) (See “Virus in all of us”, R. Lower at al., 1996 PNAS paper).

No surprise, therefore, that these nucleotide sequences are recognized by PCR [tests] in the blood of many AIDS patients, who are indeed severely ill. As already demonstrated in 2008 in Robin Weiss laboratory, HERVs can interfere as confounding factors in the search for novel retrovirus in chronic human diseases…

CELIA FARBER: …Paint a picture for us. The story of the [HIV] virus, the “new deadly virus,” what happens first: What steps did they [—] Montagnier, on one hand, Gallo on the other [—] take to “find” the new entity? Then once they ‘found’ it, what shape was it in? It was not an entity, a thing, with a body, right? It was not coherent. Can we say that? So it lived where? It was seen only through the technologies developed to find it, Elisa, WB [both are antibody tests]? Later PCR/VL [tests]? But what happened back THEN when they tried to see it on EM? Why didn’t everybody look for it on EM? Too expensive?

DE HARVEN: No, EM is not cheap but not that expensive! And its cost has certainly nothing to do with the fact that it has barely been used for the past 30 years in AIDS research! It has not been used because “They” knew it was not going to show anything of retroviral significance in samples coming directly from AIDS patients. And since AIDS had become big business, the stocks of involved giant pharmaceutical companies could not be jeopardized! It had to be saved at all cost, even at the cost of trusting non specific molecular markers… Fear is good business, and viruses generate fear most efficiently… So, the HIV flag has to be maximally agitated. In worldwide medias, with thousands of computer-generated, colorful caricatures of an idealistic retrovirus… By contrast, the medias have been dominated by the most rigorous censorship when it comes to inform the public about views of rethinking dissidents. This total censorship put a safety lock on any information that could jeopardize the colossal, entirely HIV derived profits of the major pharmaceutical companies.

But I am glad we have Internet!

Daring to say that HIV does not exist amounts to some sort of a capitalistic crime…

Yes, the HIV dogma is probably the darkest page in the history of modern medicine.

CELIA FARBER: Etienne, if you could sum up: Does HIV exist? If so, where and how and as what?

If you could examine 1,000 HIV positive people’s blood under EM, what would you expect to find? If you don’t find HIV on EM in human blood, can any argument be made that the virus is “hiding” and so forth, or that the drugs suppressed the virus to undetectable levels? This is what the defenders of the orthodoxy seem to be saying about the results seen in the Nushawn Williams case.

DE HARVEN: This is the main question! Questioning the very existence of HIV is not something that should be debated only between specialized retro-virologists. It is an essential question that concerns all of us.

CELIA FARBER: Why?

DE HARVEN: Simply because 100% of AIDS research funding is based on the dogmatically postulated existence of HIV. If HIV does not exist, it would follow that AIDS research is the most appalling case of total misappropriation of public research funds! And it would also follow that the monumental amounts of money, so far exclusively devoted to HIV research, would be much better used in other directions. Could you imagine what world we would live in, today, if the total amount of money wasted over the past 30 years on HIV research had been, instead, used for feeding starving Africans, for clean water supply equipment, for public hygiene infrastructures, and for public health education? This would happen only if HIV research is totally stopped! And for this, the scientific and public health organizations have to face the fact that, indeed, HIV does not exist!

…we all have to, courageously, face the fact that the very existence of an exogenous HIV has never been scientifically verified.

—end of interview excerpt—

Again, you can read the whole interview here.

De Harven unmasks HIV research. How many other unproven viruses have likewise been prematurely massaged into existence and prominence? How many times have researchers pulled “special markers” like rabbits out of hats—spuriously claiming these markers establish the existence of otherwise never-observed viruses?

And therefore, when these researchers state they have published the genetic sequences of these viruses—what are they really sequencing? Harmless and passive endogenous viruses that wouldn’t hurt a fly and prefer to lie around in the body for the whole course of a lifetime watching television?

And when someone steps forward, and claims a new and never-before-seen virus is actually a manmade weapon, and he knows this from studying its genetic sequence—is he right, or is he looking at the sequence of an irrelevant microbe that has been rudely coaxed from its long languishing snooze in the warmth of the human body?

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

Jon Rappoport

Genetic baloney in thick slices

Feb7

“Fun and profit puffed up for fun and profit”

by Jon Rappoport

February 7, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Gene research companies tend to come and go. They start out banging and popping like fireworks in the sky, and then they fade out—perhaps having sold themselves to another, hopefully larger, outfit…

Once upon a time, it seemed easy. Start with a disease, find the gene responsible for the disease, and correct the problem.

Then, researchers wondered, was disease the result of one gene or a group of genes acting together?

Either way, the proof would be in devising cures for diseases using gene therapy. “Not yet, but soon…”

And regardless, the major need was: money. Lots and lots of money for research.

This need required good PR people. “We have to pump up the idea that we’re on the edge of tremendous breakthroughs. We’re always on that edge and, most certainly, the investors will see results and profits.”

This hype also needed to obscure the fact that there wasn’t (and isn’t), as yet, ANY gene therapy for ANY disease that cured it across the board. As time passed, lack of cure could be a problem. In fact, it could mean curing disease was far more complicated than pinning responsible genes. After all, what about environment? Toxicity? Malnutrition? Poverty? In order to raise money, those factors would have to be pushed back out of view.

Instead, the PR people would need to flood the news with positive glow around the subject of gene research. Also known as exaggeration.

You can spot the key terms in these articles. POSSIBLE, SHOULD, COULD, EXPECTED TO, SEEMS, ON THE HORIZON, MAY BE, COULD LEAD TO, EVENTUALLY, and of course, the ever-popular BREAKTHROUGH.

I dug back in my files and found a piece I wrote in 2011. As you’ll see, the “breakthroughs” touted then haven’t panned out so far. You don’t read about them in the press these days. The PR pros have moved on to other exaggerations.

The first 2011 article I cited was from Reuters, headlined: SCIENTISTS FIND “MASTER SWITCH” GENE FOR OBESITY. Here are a few choice tidbits. Note the key terms I just mentioned.

“…and say it should help the search for treatments…”

“…the regulating gene could be [a] target for drugs to treat…”

“…seems to act as a master switch…”

“We are working hard…to understand these processes and how we can use this information to improve treatment…”

Beautiful.

Next, a 2011 blockbuster piece in the Financial Times. The headline read: SCIENTISTS FIND GENETIC LINK TO DEPRESSION.

Standard trumpet blaring.

Here are the text nuggets. Again, note key terms.

“The discovery…is expected to lead to a better biological understanding of the condition and eventually to more effective antidepressants…”

“…as possibly for the first time we have found a genetic locus for depression.”

“…is likely to pin down the gene responsible…”

“…which may be the basis for designing more effective antidepressants, though [oops!] the pharmaceutical development process takes so long that new drugs could not be available in less than 10 years.”

Of course, people like to deal in certainties, so they help the PR puff masters by ignoring all the MAYBES and SEEMS as they read articles about science.

Anybody out there want to partner with me in launching a new company? This is a major winner. It covers a very broad area. Actually, there is no human endeavor it doesn’t cover. The name of the company? MAYBE COULD BE INC.

“We’re always on the edge and the frontier. We’re always breaking through. We’re always raising money. We’re always pumping our stock. We’re always ready to sell the company to an inattentive sucker with deep pockets.”

Let’s look at another type of gene research organization. This one happens to be the largest single medical research outfit in the world. It’s part of the US government: the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Their PR is different. They’re hedging their bets and covering their bases in every possible way. They’re saying YES, NO, AND MAYBE all at once. Of course, they can get away with it, because they run on taxpayer money. Their annual budget is a formidable $30 billion. Grit your teeth and read through their text that explains “genetic diseases”:

“A genetic disorder is a disease caused in whole or in part by a change in the DNA sequence away from the normal sequence. Genetic disorders can be caused by a mutation in one gene (monogenic disorder), by mutations in multiple genes (multifactorial inheritance disorder), by a combination of gene mutations and environmental factors, or by damage to chromosomes (changes in the number or structure of entire chromosomes, the structures that carry genes).”

“As we unlock the secrets of the human genome (the complete set of human genes), we are learning that nearly all diseases have a genetic component. Some diseases are caused by mutations that are inherited from the parents and are present in an individual at birth, like sickle cell disease. Other diseases are caused by acquired mutations in a gene or group of genes that occur during a person’s life. Such mutations are not inherited from a parent, but occur either randomly or due to some environmental exposure (such as cigarette smoke). These include many cancers, as well as some forms of neurofibromatosis.”

That is what I’d call a DON’T BLAME US statement. Don’t blame us if a disease we thought was genetic turns out to be something else. Don’t blame us if it’s 65.34 percent environmental, 4.52 percent genetic, and 30.14 percent who knows what. Don’t blame us if toxicity triggers genetic malfunctions and, in the absence of the toxicity, there would be zero cases of the disease. We’re ready to jump in any direction. We may not know much, but we’re sitting on a pile of cash. Don’t blame us if we don’t have any solid genetic cures for anything. We’re working hard. That’s all you can ask us to do.

If there is one disease the public tends to believe can be cured by gene therapy, it is sickle cell anemia. The PR pros have done a good job there. However, sicklecellanemianews.com states: “Gene therapy is an experimental technique that aims to treat genetic diseases by altering a disease-causing gene or introducing a healthy copy of a mutated gene to the body.”

Experimental. Aims to. Not an established cure. The confusion arises because, as with a number of diseases, the researchers and the PR flacks claim they’ve definitely traced the illness to a gene or two. They’ve struck gold. But, as you read further, you discover they’re just not ready to cure the patient. Clinical trials are underway. More work in the lab is necessary. The pudding is there, but the proof of it isn’t. They claim to know the cause; they just don’t know how to deploy it.

In science, that’s known as a hypothesis. Or more simply, a speculation. You say you’ve found an answer, but you can’t apply it. This means: your answer is not established. No matter how sure you sound, it’s in limbo.

“There is no doubt. We went down into the mine and we found extraordinary amounts of gold. It’s there. We’re a hundred percent positive. We just don’t know how to get it out. What’s that? You want to see the gold. No, I’m sorry. The public isn’t allowed down there. Only the professionals can enter. But don’t worry. We’re very close to a breakthrough. The gold will emerge soon. Trust us.”

Trust you? Sure. How much do you need to finish the job? Fifty million? Five hundred million? Let me call my broker and sell some stock. I’ll write you a check. Just put a plaque with my name on the wall of your headquarters. Let me know how I’ll profit on this venture. I’m in. I’ve always wanted to invest in MAYBE COULD BE INC.

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

Jon Rappoport

When the Blood Boils: Vaccines and Autism

Jan21

by Jon Rappoport

January 21, 2020

(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?”

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

Jon Rappoport

Interview with a Retired Vaccine Researcher

Dec18

“[These days,] If I had a child, the last thing I would allow is [my child to be vaccinated].”

by Jon Rappoport

December 18, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher who worked for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government’s National Institutes of Health.

Mark retired in the 1990s. He says he was “disgusted with what he discovered about vaccines.”

As you know, since the beginning of NoMoreFakeNews, I continue to launch attacks against non-scientific and dangerous assertions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Mark was one of my early sources.

At the time this interview was originally published — in January 2002, Mark was a little reluctant to speak out, even under the cover of anonymity. But, with the push to make vaccines mandatory and with penalties like quarantine lurking in the wings (even back then), he decided to break his silence.

Like many of my sources, he developed a conscience about his former work. Mark was well aware of the scope of the medical cartel and its goals of depopulation, mind control, and general debilitation of populations.

(Q) Jon Rappoport

(A) Retired Vaccine Researcher (given the pseudonym of “Dr. Mark Randall”)

Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.

A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won’t say which ones.

Q: Why not?

A: I want to preserve my privacy.

Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?

A: I believe I could lose my pension.

Q: On what grounds?

A: The grounds don’t matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.

Q: Harassed by whom?

A: The FBI.

Q: Really?

A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.

Q: So much for free speech.

A: I was “part of the inner circle.” If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.

Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?

A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall “brilliance” of modern medicine.

Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?

A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It’s one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.

A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.

Q: Why?

A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.

Q: And then?

A: I did my own investigation.

Q: What conclusions did you come to?

A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.

Q: What conditions?

A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don’t contract the diseases as easily.

Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?

A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies.

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?

A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I’m concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.

Q: Why?

A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.

Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?

A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases — say, meningitis — that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.

Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.

A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.

Q: Which is?

A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.

Q: So you’re saying that we have been treated to a false history.

A: Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.

Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.

A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.

Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.

A: Well yes, that happened. But that’s not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I’m talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors — that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don’t know are in those kidneys.

Q: Okay, but let’s ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?

A: All right. I’ll give you some of what I came across, and I’ll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here’s a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called “brain-eating” amoeba.

Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I’ve found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.

Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don’t belong in the vaccines.

A: That’s right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don’t really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It’s a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don’t know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time — which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn’t be there, but you don’t know exactly what you’ve got. I have found what I believed was a very small “fragment” of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called “foreign protein,” which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.

Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.

A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.

Q: How were your findings received?

A: Basically, it was, don’t worry, this can’t be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animals’ tissue, and that’s where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I’m not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines.

Q: This information is pretty staggering.

A: Yes. And I’m just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don’t find because we don’t think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea. We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.

Q: And beyond the purity issue?

A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn’t work that way. A vaccine is supposed to “create” antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related “killer cells.”

Q: The immune system is?

A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It’s all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.

Q: So the level of general health is important.

A: More than important. Vital.

Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?

A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you’ve concealed the root cause of the problem.

Q: And that happens?

A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it’s circular reasoning. It’s a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the disease.

Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?

A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.

Q: What was the turning point for you?

A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.

Q: Did you investigate?

A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way.

Q: What do you mean?

A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.

Q: Why doesn’t it make sense?

A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn’t that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn’t that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?

Q: And that is what you found?

A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time.Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation.

Q: Has it been enough?

A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.

Q: Which is?

A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, “This vaccine is safe.” But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.

Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.

A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It’s discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations.

Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?

A: Yes I did.

Q: What happened?

A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labeled with “guilt by association.” All in all, though, I behaved myself.I made sure I didn’t create problems for myself.

Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?

A: First of all, there is no “if.” They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn’t. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you’ve said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it’s true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network.

Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation?

A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realizing the whole truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.

Q: This network you speak of.

A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue.

Q: And in the industrialized nations?

A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefare germs are going to win out. This is an important time.

Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one good avenue.

A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine-and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles — is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from “unknown causes,” and that’s why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and the so-called studies that back it up.

Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.

A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blair’s wife is involved with alternative health. There is the possibility that their child has not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to invasive questioning of his “personal and family life.” In any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to all the families who have come forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR.

Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.

A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national security.

Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel.

A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation. It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.

A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.

Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?

A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don’t need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers — a few — might start leaking information.

Q: A good idea.

A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.

Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?

A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period.

Q: Then we have the fall flu season.

A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.

Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?

A: Yes. But after this interview, I’ll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well.

Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?

A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there.

Q: The things that are not there.

A: Yes.

Q: To avoid any confusion, I’d like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.

A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn’t get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what’s called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.

Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?

A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I’m saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don’t get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe.In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings.They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.

Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he didn’t get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine?

A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time.

Q: How long did you work with vaccines?

A: A long time. Longer than ten years.

Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?

A: No, I can’t. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I’m not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.

Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.

A: The operative word is “appear.” What about all the children who can’t focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both.

Q: So we come to the level playing field.

A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.

Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don’t get shots.

A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person’s responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win.

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

Jon Rappoport

Monsanto: science and fraud are the same thing

Nov25

Especially when the media agree

by Jon Rappoport

November 25, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Lately I’ve been posting articles on fraudulent science. Here, I’m reaching back several years for a piece I wrote about Monsanto, before the company was swallowed up by Bayer, and while TV news anchor Brian Williams was still the golden boy at NBC.

The underlying theme: most people automatically buy official pronouncements about science as true science. It never occurs to them that a political agenda is the real punch line.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No real science. No convincing evidence of safety. Passing the buck back and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which Pandora’s Box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food supply.

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

Reporters and their editors let the story die. No sane principled journalist would have cut bait, but who said mainstream reporters are sane or principled?

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

Not only would big agribusiness dominate the planet’s food supply as never before, it would strengthen its stranglehold through patents on novel types of seeds which were engineered.

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

How was Monsanto able to gather so much clout?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taylor and others knew. They knew about gene drift, and they also knew that ownership of the world’s food, by a few companies, was a prime focus for Globalist kings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For an overarching view of the main Globalist operation, here is David Rockefeller, writing in his 2003 Memoirs:

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

The Globalists play for keeps.

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

Meanwhile, the controlled press treats the whole sordid Monsanto/FDA story—“GMO crops are approved as safe and effective”—with its time-honored policy of “he said-he said.” This policy dictates that stories merely present both sides of a conflict without drawing conclusions. “Some people claim GMO crops are a danger, others say they’re perfectly safe. Period. Bye bye. What’s next?”

Monsanto’s lies and crimes and cover-ups are everywhere. You could wear sunglasses and find them in the dark.

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

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

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

Yes, now and then the controlled media will release a troubling piece about Monsanto. But placement and frequency are everything. How often do these stories run? Do they run as the lead or do we find them on page 3? Are reporters assigned to keep pounding on a basic story and reveal more and more felonies? Does the basic story gather steam over the course of weeks and months?

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

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

“We’ve already covered that.”

“It’s old news.”

“People aren’t interested in it.”

“It’s too complicated.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t misunderstand. Brian hasn’t been waiting to move in for the kill. But wind him up and point to a target and he’ll go there.

However, no one at NBC in the executive offices will point him at Monsanto or the FDA.

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

One outraged major reporter who woke up and got out of the business put it to me this way: “When I was in the game, I looked at the news as a big public restroom. My one guiding principle was: don’t piss on your shoes. That meant: don’t cover a story that’s considered out of bounds. If I talked to the boss about one of those stories, he’d look me up and down and say, ‘Hey, you pissed on your shoes. Get out of here.’”

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

Jon Rappoport

Fake science in the Oklahoma Bombing

Nov22

How official “science” is deployed to advance a political agenda

by Jon Rappoport

November 22, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

The public wants to buy every official scientific claim the mainstream press pounds into their brains—whether the issue is vaccine safety, global warming, the “overwhelming success” of medical drugs, the Big Bang theory of the universe’s origin…

For most people, the notion that a political agenda underlies such scientific pronouncements is unthinkable.

So as an example, a very specific example of fake science, let’s look back at the attack on Oklahoma City.

On April 19, 1995, one-third of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City blew up, killing 169 people and wounding 680 others.

Three men were arrested and convicted: Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier. McVeigh was put to death on June 11, 2001, Nichols is currently serving multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole, and Fortier was sentenced to 12 years (he served that term and was released).

The official narrative of the bombing stated: A Ryder truck parked at the curb outside the Murrah Building contained barrels of ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil (ANFO bombs), and their coordinated explosion occurred shortly after 9AM on the morning of April 19th.

In addition to the deaths and the woundings, the explosion impacted 324 buildings and 86 cars in the area.

(In my 1995, book, “The Oklahoma City Bombing, the Suppressed Truth,” I laid to rest the claim that ANFO bombs could have caused that much damage; and more importantly, I showed that an explosion coming out of a Ryder truck at the curb could not have caused the particular profile of damage sustained by the Murrah Building.)

The vaunted FBI lab decided that, indeed, all the damage and death HAD been caused by ANFO bombs in the Ryder truck.

But wait.

Buckle up.

Two years after the bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

And with those revelations, the case, the investigation, the court trials, and press probes should have taken a whole new direction. But they didn’t.

The fake science was allowed to stand.

Therefore, other paths of investigation were abandoned. If bombs did, in fact, explode in the Ryder truck, but didn’t cause the major damage, then those bombs were a cover for other explosions of separate origin—for example, charges wired inside the columns of the Murrah Building, triggered at the exact moment the Ryder Truck explosion occurred.

Now we would be talking about a very sophisticated operation, far beyond the technical skills of McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier.

Who knows where an honest in-depth investigation would have led? The whole idea of anti-government militia terrorism in the OKC attack—symbolized by McVeigh—was used by President Bill Clinton to bring the frightened public “back to the federal government” as their ultimate protector and savior.

Instead, the public might have been treated to a true story about a false flag operation, in which case President Clinton’s massaged message would never have been delivered.

But the fake crooked science pushed by the FBI lab was permitted to stand—despite exposure as fraud—and the story of militia terrorists trying to bring down the federal government was allowed to stand as well.

The year 1995 was rife with anti-government sentiment in America. This wasn’t merely a bunch of militias talking about insurrection. This was widespread dissatisfaction, on the part of many Americans, who were seeing federal power expand beyond any semblance of constitutionality.

As an object lesson, the Oklahoma Bombing was: “You see what happens when crazy people are allowed to own guns and oppose the government? Stop listening to anti-government rhetoric. It’s horribly dangerous. We, the government, are here to protect you. Come home to us. Have faith in us. We’ll punish the offenders. We’ll make America safe again. Let’s all come together and oppose these maniacs who want to destroy our way of life…”

The lesson worked.

Many scared Americans signed on to Clinton’s agenda.

And fake FBI science was used to bolster that agenda.

Even when exposed as fake by mainstream press outlets—however briefly, with no determined follow-up—the federal brainwashing held. The myth was stronger than reality.

If the federal government can egregiously lie about an event as huge as the Oklahoma Bombing, using fake science as a cover—what wouldn’t they lie about?

That’s a question which answers itself.

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

Jon Rappoport

Psychiatry in charge of gun control: utter disaster

Sep5

by Jon Rappoport

September 5, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

During the reign of Barack Obama, mass shootings prompted a White House declaration that community mental health centers would be created across America, in order to spot and treat persons before they committed violent acts. Now, under Trump, we are seeing a similar reaction, with a twist.

The Daily Caller, Aug 22, 2019: “Trump Admin Is Considering Using Amazon Echo And Apple Watch To Determine If Citizens Should Own A Gun”

“The Trump administration is considering a proposal that would use Google, Amazon and Apple to collect data on users who exhibit characteristics of mental illness that could lead to violent behavior, The Washington Post reported Thursday.”

“The proposal is part of an initiative to create a Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA), which would be located inside the Health and Human Services Department, the report notes, citing sources inside the administration. The new agency would have a separate budget and the president would be responsible for appointing its director.”

“HARPA would develop ‘breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence,’ according to a copy of the proposal. ‘A multi-modality solution, along with real-time data analytics, is needed to achieve such an accurate diagnosis’.”

“The document lists several technologies that could be employed to help collect information, including Apple Watches, Amazon Echo and Google Home. Geoffrey Ling, the lead scientific adviser on HARPA, told reporters Thursday the plan would require enormous amounts of data and ‘scientific rigor.’”

Translation: Use all available resources to spy on Americans; and by deploying psychiatric definitions of mental disorders, somehow intercede before potentially violent individuals can legally obtain a weapon. Whether or not you favor gun control, creating this new federal agency would be on the order of injecting poisons in people to prevent poisoning.

Why? Because some of the most popular psychiatric drugs, given for “mental disorders,” cause people to go over the edge and commit violent acts, including murder. Once diagnosed, an uninformed person is at the mercy of psychiatrists who refuse to admit what their drugs are creating.

NOTE: Withdrawing from the drugs without expert supervision can result in effects which are even worse than those resulting from taking the drugs.

Here is an excerpt from my 1999 white paper, “Why Do They Do It? School shootings Across America.”:

The massacre at Columbine High School took place on April 20, 1999. Astonishingly, for eight days after the tragedy, during thousands of hours of prime-time television coverage, virtually no one mentioned the word “drugs.” Then the issue was opened. Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine, was on at least one drug.

The NY Times of April 29, 1999, and other papers reported that Harris was rejected from enlisting in the Marines for medical reasons. A friend of the family told the Times that Harris was being treated by a psychiatrist. And then several sources told the Washington Post that the drug prescribed as treatment was Luvox, manufactured by Solvay.

In two more days, the “drug-issue” was gone.

Luvox is of the same class as Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil. They are labeled SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). They attempt to alleviate depression by changing brain-levels of the natural substance serotonin. Luvox has a slightly different chemical configuration from Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft, and it was approved by the FDA for obsessive-compulsive disorder, although many doctors apparently prescribe it for depression.

Prozac is the wildly popular Eli Lilly antidepressant which has been linked to suicidal and homicidal actions. It is now given to young children. Again, its chemical composition is very close to Luvox, the drug that Harris took.

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

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

In Arianna Huffington’s syndicated newspaper column of July 9, 1998, Dr. Breggin states, “I have no doubt that Prozac can cause or contribute to violence and suicide. I’ve seen many cases. In a recent clinical trial, 6 percent of the children became psychotic on Prozac. And manic psychosis can lead to violence.”

A 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 akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Dr. Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia 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, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

Other studies:

“Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine [Prozac] 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.

The well-known Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics reveals a strange fact. It states that Ritalin [given for ADHD] 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 his book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin discusses the subject of drug combinations: “Combining antidepressants [e.g., Prozac, Luvox, Paxil] and psychostimulants [e.g., Ritalin] increases the risk of cardiovascular catastrophe, seizures, sedation, euphoria, and psychosis. Withdrawal from the combination can cause a severe reaction that includes confusion, emotional instability, agitation, and aggression.” Children are frequently medicated with this combination, and when we highlight such effects as aggression, psychosis, and emotional instability, it is obvious that the result is pointing toward the very real possibility of violence.

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

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

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

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

Other ADHD medications, which also have a chemical profile similar to amphetamines, would be expected to produce some of the same effects listed above.

The ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News publishes the following warning in bold letters: “Do Not Try to Abruptly Stop Taking Psychiatric Drugs. When trying to withdraw from many psychiatric drugs, patients can develop serious and even life-threatening emotional and physical reactions…Therefore, withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done under clinical supervision…”

—end of excerpts from my 1999 white paper on school shootings and psychiatric drugs—

There is a problem. It is chilling. Pharmaceutical companies, which manufacture drug after drug for “mental disorders,” are doing everything they can to cover up the drugs’ connection to violence.

They use their lawyers and PR people—and their influence over the press—to scrub the connection.

And now, one typical, disturbing, official reaction to every new mass shooting is: build more community mental health facilities. Obama was prominent in this regard, after Sandy Hook in 2012. The implication? More drug prescriptions for more people; thus, more violent consequences.

I’ll close with another excerpt from my 1999 report. It is the tragic account of Julie Marie Meade (one account of many you can find at ssristories.org (also here)):

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo has written about Julie Marie Meade. In a column for the ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News, “Children and Prozac: First Do No Harm,” Tarantolo describes how Julie Meade, in November of 1996, called 911, “begging the cops to come and shoot her. And if they didn’t do it quickly, she would do it to herself. There was also the threat that she would shoot them as well.”

The police came within a few minutes, “5 of them to be exact, pumping at least 10 bullets into her head and torso,” as she waved a gun around.

Tarantolo remarks that a friend of Julie said Julie “had plans to make the honor roll and go to college. He [the friend] had also observed her taking all those pills.” What pills? Tarantolo called the Baltimore medical examiner, and spoke with Dr. Martin Bullock, who was on a fellowship at that office. Bullock said, “She had been taking Prozac for four years.”

Tarantolo asked Bullock, “Did you know that Prozac has been implicated in impulsive de novo violence and suicidalness?” Bullock said he was not aware of this.

Tarantolo is careful to point out, “Violent and suicidal behavior have been observed both early (a few weeks) and late (many months) in treatment with Prozac.”

The November 23rd, 1996, Washington Post reported the Julie Meade death by police shooting. The paper mentioned nothing about Prozac.

Therefore, readers were left in the dark. What could explain this girl’s bizarre and horrendous behavior?

The answer was there in plain sight. But the Post refused to make it known.

Mainstream psychiatrists would certainly be in charge of any new Trump program to “predict violent individuals” before they obtain a gun or commit heinous acts. The program wouldn’t just fail. It would increase violence.

Two questions always pop up when I write a critique of psychiatry. The first one is: psychiatric researchers are doing a massive amount of work studying brain function. They do have tests.

Yes, experimental tests. But NONE of those tests are contained in the DSM, the psychiatric bible, as the basis of the definition of ANY mental disorder. If the tests were conclusive, they would be heralded in the DSM. They aren’t.

The second question is: if all these mental disorders are fiction, why are so many people saddled with problems? Why are some people off the rails? Why are they crazy?

The list of potential answers is very long. A real practitioner would focus on one patient at a time and try to discover what has affected him to such a marked degree. For example:

Severe nutritional deficiency. Toxic dyes and colors in processed food. Ingestion of pesticides and herbicides. Profound sensitivities to certain foods. The ingestion of toxic pharmaceuticals. Life-altering damage as a result of vaccines. Exposure to environmental chemicals. Heavy physical and emotional abuse in the home or at school. Battlefield stress and trauma (also present in certain neighborhoods). Prior head injury. Chronic infection. Alcohol and street drugs. Debilitating poverty.

Other items could be added.

Psychiatry is: fake, fraud, pseudoscience from top to bottom. It’s complete fiction dressed up as fact.

But the obsessed devotees of science back away from this. They close their eyes. If a “branch of knowledge” as extensive as psychiatry is nothing more than an organized delusion, what other aspect of science might likewise be parading as truth, when it is actually mere paper blowing in the wind?

And yet, the Trump administration, following the same general game plan as the Obama administration, is seriously considering the creation of a whole new federal agency that will somehow use “psychiatric knowledge” (an oxymoron), as a guide, to carry out new forms of surveillance on the whole population and intercede, when individuals with “mental disorders” try to buy a gun in order to commit a violent crime.

Not only will this strategy utterly fail, it will, through the prescription of violence-inducing drugs, make the tragedies expand and multiply.

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

Jon Rappoport

Monsanto keeps riding a path of corruption

Aug12

by Jon Rappoport

August 12, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Here’s a ripe fantasy for you. Imagine this—

You’re the head of a multi-billion-dollar global corporation.

You know your most famous, best-selling product is toxic and can cause cancer. It’s an herbicide used around the world— not only in public locations, but even by people spraying their own lawns.

Your company has recently lost law suits, with gigantic payout penalties, because you covered up what you knew: the herbicide is carcinogenic.

A fearless reporter has written articles, and now a book, exposing your company. What to do about her?

Among other actions, talk to Google. Maybe they can help. They’re like you. They’re experts in cover-ups.

Wait. This isn’t a fantasy. It’s real. A real newspaper, The Guardian, has the details. Here are quotes from their new blistering investigation:

“Monsanto operated a ‘fusion center’ to monitor and discredit journalists and activists, and targeted a reporter who wrote a critical book on the company, documents reveal.”

“The records reviewed by the Guardian show Monsanto adopted a multi-pronged strategy to target Carey Gillam (twitter), a Reuters journalist who investigated the company’s weedkiller and its links to cancer. Monsanto, now owned by the German pharmaceutical corporation Bayer, also monitored a not-for-profit food research organization through its ‘intelligence fusion center’, a term that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies use for operations focused on surveillance and terrorism.”

“Monsanto paid Google to promote search results for ‘Monsanto Glyphosate Carey Gillam’ that criticized her work.”

“The internal [company] communications add fuel to the ongoing claims in court that Monsanto has ‘bullied’ critics and scientists and worked to conceal the dangers of glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide [Roundup]. In the last year, two US juries have ruled that Monsanto was liable for plaintiffs’ non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a blood cancer, and ordered the corporation to pay significant sums to cancer patients…”

“’I’ve always known that Monsanto didn’t like my work … and worked to pressure editors and silence me,’ Gillam…said in an interview. ‘But I never imagined a multi-billion dollar company would actually spend so much time and energy and personnel on me. It’s astonishing.’”

“Monsanto had a ‘Carey Gillam Book’ spreadsheet, with more than 20 actions dedicated to opposing her book before its publication, including working to ‘Engage Pro-Science Third Parties’ in criticisms, and partnering with ‘SEO experts’ (search engine optimization), to spread its attacks. The company’s marketing strategy involved labeling Gillam and other critics as ‘anti-glyphosate activists and pro-organic capitalist organizations’.”

“Gillam, who worked at the international news agency Reuters for 17 years, told the Guardian that a flurry of negative reviews appeared on Amazon just after the official publication of Whitewash [her book about Monsanto], many seeming to repeat nearly identical talking points.”

“’This is my first book. It’s just been released. It’s got glowing reviews from professional book reviewers,’ she said. But on Amazon, ‘They were saying horrible things about me … It was very upsetting but I knew it was fake and it was engineered by the industry. But I don’t know that other people knew that’.”

Boom.

We’re talking about reality-construction here. Or should I say, reconstruction. Companies that can manipulate the ranking of search results online, and customer reviews, and professional reviews, and science, paint over the truth with lies, and the public believes what it is permitted to see.

That’s a pretty good description of tons of what is called Fake News.

“Well, we don’t like what this reporter is doing because it exposes us as naked and culpable and criminal, so let’s hide and defame the reporter’s work. Let’s move a cloud over it. In time, the reporter’s work will fade out, and we’ll still be here. We’ll keep pounding out the notion that we’re doing good, we’re devoted to public service, we’re providing a marvelous product, we’re cutting-edge researchers, and so on. Our product causes cancer? That’s ridiculous. We would never sell such a product. We’re fine people…”

The one big thing this company has going for it? A major segment of the public doesn’t want to believe something so visible and huge (the company) is committing evil acts left and right, out in the open. A company isn’t like a deranged individual with a gun who walks into a store and shoots people. No. A company is an organized and competent and polite entity that BELONGS. It’s part and parcel of the COMMUNITY. The idea that the company could be guilty of destroying and maiming life on a continuing basis…that would be tantamount to saying it is an organized-crime operation—which is absurd.

Yes. It’s absurd. Until it’s shown to be true.

And then, on top of it all, suppose the government, which has the resources and the laws and the agencies to bring this company to justice doesn’t lift a finger, but in fact supports the company with its own official brand of fake news?

Why, that’s a…a conspiracy.

Yes. The dreaded word.

Another absurdity. Until it’s shown to be true by the simple act of opening one’s eyes and looking.

Shall we take this a step further? Why not? In for a penny, in for a pound. We’re entering a new phase in the battle to expose high-level, society-wide, institutional crimes. In part, owing to a recent FBI “finding” that conspiracy theories can fuel individuals to commit “terrorist acts,” there will be increased propaganda aimed at persons who unearth actual conspiracies. They will be accused of fomenting violence. In order to “protect the community” (where have we heard that before?), there must be a limiter and a monitor on information. The public must be guarded against false news. Righteous censorship must prevail. For the greater good, the 1st Amendment must undergo a reformation.

To understand this, think “money laundering.” Criminal organizations, like drug cartels, have so much cash on hand they have to find ways to hide it. So they funnel it into friendly banks and legitimate businesses and shell corporations. Likewise, with the advent and expansion of the Web, there is so much information exposing high-level crimes, it must be hidden—but certainly not by its authors. Agencies of government and secret corporate units and social media giants must conceal this information by obscuring it and defaming it and dead-ending it and blacking it out and blaming it for inspiring heinous crimes. That’s the laundering operation, and it extends to every true conspiracy.

A final note for now—here’s a wrinkle on the laundering campaign. In the defunct subject called Logic, it’s called the Straw Man fallacy. You build up a patently ridiculous icon to represent a wide field of information, you knock down that icon, and then you claim it invalidates the whole field. For example, some pathetic paid agent publishes a piece claiming JFK never died in 1963, he’s living under the name, Jack Kenn, in Brooklyn, on Oswald Street. A paid blogger jumps on this “conspiracy theory,” and in the process declares that all conspiracy theorists are lunatics. The one becomes the many.

It’s a version of “we’re all normal people living normal lives and here are disruptors who want to take us off course into a storm and make us believe that official truth is different from actual truth.”

I have news. Millions and millions and millions of people are way past that moronic construction, and they aren’t turning back.

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

Jon Rappoport

AI and genetic cures of disease: where’s the evidence?

Apr24

by Jon Rappoport

April 24, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Isn’t it wonderful? Disease is genetic, and we can alter gene function. We’re winning…”

Much trumpeting of genetic cures is on the propaganda agenda these days—but where is the evidence?

In order to rank as a cure, manipulation of DNA would have to heal a well-defined disease across the board, in a vast majority of cases. No such victories are occurring at present.

But in order to raise huge money for continuing research, you don’t say, “Well, we hope the minor triumphs so far will expand in the future, so please write us a check for five hundred million dollars.” Instead, you tell lies, you exaggerate, you avoid stark facts.

Reliable DNA cures are, right now, far beyond the reach of modern research. This means claiming the basic CAUSE of a given disease is gene-based is highly questionable, because the proof is in the pudding. If you can’t produce a real cure across the board, utilizing the purported DNA-cause, you can’t really claim you know the cause. Get it? “Well, we know what’s causing Disease X, it’s a particular gene, which we’ve isolated, but, ahem, we can’t cure Disease X.” No. That doesn’t fly.

Then we have the so-called AI component. It goes this way; “In order to achieve genetic cures, we need to do an enormous amount of DNA sorting, which would take humans years and years. But with computers, we can accomplish the work in manageable time. This in itself is a miracle of modern science…” Yes, it might be, if, again, cures were really available, but they’re not. Therefore, the invocation of AI is piece of misdirection.

All the propaganda focusing on genes rests on the pop-science notion, first floated decades ago, that the functioning of the human body is directed by genetic information, which contains complex commands. This, too, is an unproven assertion—particularly the related idea that every disease is created by a single gene. That assumption hasn’t panned out. In this regard, the holy grail would consist of the ability to cure a grave disease which is obviously clustering in a given population because of environmental toxins. “You see, it doesn’t matter how much pollution our corporations cause. We can go in and change genetic programming, so humans are invulnerable to the poisons.”

That is yet one more unproven assertion. It should be classified as a fairy tale until further notice.

I’m not saying absolutely NOTHING useful has been learned from doing genetic research. I’m saying what has been learned has been massaged, exaggerated, and lied about, to a vast degree.

I’ve described, above, the basic lies. We’re talking about pop culture notions and comic book characterizations being put in place, replacing sober truth.

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

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Science Fraud

A Vital Paper: David Crowe challenges the discovery of the COVID-19 virus

How are viruses discovered and identified in the first place?

Genetic baloney in thick slices

When the Blood Boils: Vaccines and Autism

Interview with a Retired Vaccine Researcher

Monsanto: science and fraud are the same thing

Fake science in the Oklahoma Bombing

Psychiatry in charge of gun control: utter disaster

Monsanto keeps riding a path of corruption

AI and genetic cures of disease: where’s the evidence?