Mental disorders do not exist

by Jon Rappoport

October 30, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

To say that a person should have a right to consider himself mentally ill and to take a drug is one thing. This is an argument from the principle of individual freedom.

To say that such a person knows what he is doing by some objective standard is quite another thing.

Objectively speaking, mental illnesses and disorders do not exist.

Officially, all mental disorders are said to be chemical imbalances in the brain. Not just any imbalances, but specific ones. But, this assertion is unproven. There is no evidence for it.

For example, for any of the 297 so-called mental disorders listed in the official publication of the American Psychiatric Association, there are no defining physical tests. No blood tests, no urine tests, no saliva tests, no laboratory tests of any kind.

This is a fact.

Since it is a fact, it is odd that all psychiatrists are medical doctors. What are they doing that is medical?

Well, they are prescribing drugs. Yes. But I could prescribe drugs if I had a license to do so and a prescription pad.

The profession of psychiatry asserts that these drugs erase or alleviate “the brain chemical imbalances” that form the basis for all mental disorders. Yet the brain-imbalance hypothesis is unproven. It may “make sense” to some people, but that doesn’t constitute evidence.

People, of course, are free to believe the brain-chemical-imbalance hypothesis is true. Belief doesn’t make it true.

People are also free to believe the hypothesis that strange behavior emanates from the Devil or a Karmic curse.

A person says, “I was diagnosed with clinical depression and I took Prozac, and ever since then I’ve felt much happier.”

Yes. Fine. I have no interest in challenging that statement. I merely point out that there are people who have felt depressed and took a crystal they claimed was sacred, rubbed it on their heads, and felt better from then on.

There are people who have joined a church and prayed and felt better.

Why is the Prozac experience more compelling than crystals or prayer?

I’m not talking about what a person says makes him feel better. I’m talking about what psychiatrists claim is science. And when you scratch the surface of that, you come up with: no compelling evidence.

Yet, in courts and in doctors’ offices and at academic conferences and in the pages of professional journals and in political gulags, the science of discrete and separate and definable mental disorders is treated as settled, confirmed, verified, certain. That is a baldfaced lie.

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

Psychiatrists will tell you these symptomatic behaviors are signs of underlying chemical imbalances or genetic aberrations, but again, they have no tests to back up this assertion. Therefore, all they left with are the behaviors and their own menu-like collections of those behaviors.

Yes, people suffer in life, and they experience confusion and doubt. They have problems. They have trouble with relationships. They feel sad. They feel all sorts of things. They feel pain. They don’t know how to move ahead with plans. They sometimes feel their lives are at an impasse. Yes.

This is far different from claiming they have a specific and detectable chemical imbalance which can be tested for.

“Well,” many psychiatrists say, “the hypothesis of chemical balance is confirmed if the drugs work, because the drugs are, in fact, based on the idea that chemical imbalances underlie mental disorders.”

Let’s examine that approach. Take, for example, Ritalin.

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

Not a ringing endorsement.

How about, say, the antidepressants prescribed to children?

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

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

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html

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

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

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

Let’s briefly examine that. What could cause the behaviors listed in the official definition of autism disorder:

* a vaccine injury;
* a head injury in an accident;
* an ingestion of a neurological poison;
* an environmental chemical;
* a severe nutritional deficit;
* perhaps the emotional devastation accompanying the death of a parent…

However, in that case, why bother to call it “autism?” Why not just say vaccine injury or head injury? The answer should be clear: By establishing a label like autism, medical drugs can be sold. Studies can be funded. An industry can be created.

In fact, when it comes to the US government’s vaccine injury compensation program for parents whose children have suffered vaccine injury, the government can engage in a con game. The government can say, “In order to establish a cause for autism, we must find a single underlying factor that applies to all cases of autism. Since we know that some children who are diagnosed with autism have not received vaccines, or have not received vaccines containing a neurological poison (mercury), we do not compensate parents whose children are vaccine-injured on the basis that they have autism.”

But, of course, what is called autism (merely a label) is not one condition caused by one factor. It is a loose collection of behaviors that are caused by various traumas.

The official mental disorder called autism disorder does not exist.

People find such statements very unsettling. They argue, “My child’s life was stolen away from him. He must have autism.”

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

What is stated here about autism applies to all 297 official mental disorders. They are labels. There is no reason to suppose that, for each label, there is a single cause. There is no reason to suppose that the labels name actual conditions. Research that attempts to find a single cause for a label stands no better chance of succeeding than research designed to prove a man on the moon is selling land leases to citizens of Fiji.

Again, people have every right to believe they have been helped by a psychiatric diagnosis and a prescribed drug. But they also have the right to reject that paradigm and seek knowledge and help elsewhere. The whole thrust of official psychiatry and its allies is to monopolize their self-appointed territory and use all necessary means to eliminate the competition. This approach has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with profit and fascist control.

“But my cousin was depressed. He took Zoloft and felt much better.”

Read this article again. It neither denigrates your cousin nor makes your cousin’s experience the basis of actual far-reaching science. This article is about science.

(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.

Outrageous chemical-dosing experiment to force friendship toward migrants: not science fiction

Oct23

by Jon Rappoport

October 23, 2018

I really hope you understand this.

It is not a fantasy. It isn’t science fiction. It isn’t satire.

It is Brave New World, but not the Huxley novel. It’s happening now.

It’s a published study that appears on the website of the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

The title of the study is, “Oxytocin-enforced norm compliance reduces xenophobic outgroup rejection.” (Reference: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Aug 29;114(35):9314-9319.)

Xenophobia is defined as: “fear or hatred of foreigners, people from different cultures, or strangers.” (Dictionary.com)

Oxytocin, the chemical used in this study, is described by Medical News Today: “Widely referred to as the love hormone, oxytocin has also been dubbed the hug hormone, cuddle chemical, moral molecule, and the bliss hormone due to its effects on behavior, including its role in love and in female reproductive biological functions in reproduction.”

“Oxytocin is a hormone that is made in the brain, in the hypothalamus. It is transported to, and secreted by, the pituitary gland, which is located at the base of the brain.”

The published study details a successful attempt at chemical mind control. The goal is making people more “happy and friendly” about mass migration, by changing their hormonal response toward migrants.

Nothing in the study cites inherent migration problems, such as increased violent crime, back-breaking financial pressure on government budgets, and the eroding of local cultures. It’s all about shifting feeling and reaction toward waves of immigrants.

Here are extensive quotes from the new study:

“Here we report the results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment showing that enhanced activity of the oxytocin system paired with charitable social cues [programming] can help counter the effects of xenophobia by fostering altruism toward refugees. These findings suggest that the combination of oxytocin and peer-derived altruistic norms [social cues] reduces outgroup rejection [toward migrants] even in the most selfish and xenophobic individuals, and thereby would be expected to increase the ease by which people adapt to rapidly changing social ecosystems [mass immigration].”

“…we tested the propensity of 183 Caucasian participants to make donations to people in need, half of whom were refugees (outgroup) and half of whom were natives (ingroup). Participants scoring low on xenophobic attitudes [showing they already accept mass immigration] exhibited an altruistic preference for the outgroup, which further increased after nasal delivery of the neuropeptide oxytocin. In contrast, participants with higher levels of xenophobia generally failed to exhibit enhanced altruism toward the outgroup. This tendency was only countered by pairing oxytocin with peer-derived altruistic norms [social-programming cues], resulting in a 74% increase in refugee-directed donations. Collectively, these findings reveal the underlying sociobiological conditions associated with outgroup-directed altruism by showing that charitable social cues co-occurring with enhanced activity of the oxytocin system reduce the effects of xenophobia by facilitating prosocial behavior toward refugees.”

The truly disturbing and mind-boggling aspect of this study is: many people would accept it as a reasonable way to “solve” the migrant crisis.

Forget about the actual effects of immigration. They’re irrelevant. Instead, focus on re-shaping people’s minds, through chemical intervention combined with social programming.

The authors of the mind-control study are basically saying, “If you have a problem with mass immigration, the problem has nothing to do with facts. It only has to do with your hormone system. Basically, you have a deficit of oxytocin.”

I have written many articles about the effects of philosophic materialism, including its conclusion that humans are merely biological machines and, therefore, can be manipulated at will by “those in charge.”

Free will? A delusion. Individual choice? Unacceptable. Humans are inherently programmed in every respect, and badly programmed at that. The central flaws must be fixed. Humans must be reconfigured so they automatically respond to stimuli in new ways. ‘More humane ways.’

Lost in this study, as well, are the effects of dosing with oxytocin on a person’s overall hormone system. You don’t suddenly ramp up one hormone without changing levels of others—testosterone, for example. But who cares, when the social and political goal must be attained? If men become more passive in the process, why not?

Perhaps that notion will be the formation of the next study. “Let’s cut testosterone and see what happens. How much of it do we need to reduce before men just lie around and play with toys and dolls?”

Interestingly enough, the authors of the study never considered dosing male immigrants of military age with the oxytocin “love hormone.” Heaven forbid. That would be “interfering in their culture.”

That’s called a clue.

In Brave New World, Huxley included every kind of programming he could imagine: genetically controlled, synthetic, motherless, incubator pregnancy and birth, during which extensive mind control was applied; consequent separation of classes of humans, relative to their assigned work and social relations; elimination of the traditional family; erasure of all hostile impulses; societal norms constructed to encourage physical pleasure as the highest ideal; and a “miracle drug,” Soma, ready at hand to dispel the depression and doubt that might somehow creep through and survive the massive programming. The “inevitable outcome?” EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY.

In one stage or another, all these strategies are now being pushed forward toward a Technocratic future.

With Utopian justice for all.

Again, the proposition on which this lunacy is based is: freedom does not exist. It was always an illusion. Humans have never been anything more than programmed bio-machines. Therefore, ANY level and degree of re-programming is justified.

Objections to this crusade are merely part of the illusion that freedom is real.

However, freedom IS real. How individuals view it and what they do with it is an entirely different matter. If they see it as nothing more than choosing between a vacation in Disney World and Las Vegas, choosing between reruns of CSI and Matlock, then Brave New World will seem like a minor change.

Conceiving, realizing, and experiencing freedom as a vast space and a vast platform for individual action—creative action, meaningful action—THAT is a prerequisite for the survival of life as we know it.

The life we hold dear.

Who defines “meaningful action?”

You do.

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

Jon Rappoport

A universal flu vaccine: the mad science solution

Oct15

by Jon Rappoport

October 15, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has launched efforts to create a vaccine that would protect people from most flu strains, all at once, with a single shot.

Over the years, I’ve written many articles refuting claims that vaccines are safe and effective, but we’ll put all that aside for the moment and follow the bouncing ball.

Massachusetts Senator and big spender, Ed Markey, has introduced a bill that would shovel no less than a billion dollars toward the universal flu-vaccine project. You like something, it sounds good, you know nothing about the details, throw money at it.

Here is a paragraph from an NIAID press release that mentions one of several research approaches:

“NIAID Vaccine Research Center scientists have initiated Phase 1/2 studies of a universal flu vaccine strategy that includes an investigational DNA-based vaccine (called a DNA ‘prime’)…”

This is quite troubling, if you know what the phrase “DNA vaccine” means. It refers to what the experts are touting as the next generation of immunizations.

Instead of injecting a piece of a virus into a person, in order to stimulate the immune system, synthesized genes would be shot into the body. This isn’t traditional vaccination anymore. It’s “protective gene therapy”.

In any such method, where genes are edited, deleted, added, no matter what the pros say, there are always “unintended consequences,” to use their polite phrase. The ripple effects scramble the genetic structure in numerous unknown ways.

Here is the inconvenient truth about DNA vaccines—

They will permanently alter your DNA

The reference is the New York Times, 3/9/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research—the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was three years ago.]

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.”

Alteration of the human genetic makeup.

Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence. And once a person’s DNA is changed, he will live with that change—and all the ripple effects in his genetic makeup—for the rest of his life.

The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.

This is genetic roulette with a loaded gun. Anyone and everyone on Earth injected with a DNA vaccine will undergo permanent and unknown genetic changes…

And the further implications are clear. Vaccines can be used as a cover for the injections of any and all genes, whose actual purpose is re-engineering humans in far-reaching ways.

If you’re going to alter humans, for example, to make many of them more docile and weak, and some of them stronger, in order to restructure society, you want everyone under the umbrella. No exceptions. No exemptions.

The emergence of this Frankenstein technology is paralleled by a shrill push to mandate vaccines, across the board, for both children and adults. The pressure and propaganda are planet-wide.

The freedom and the right to refuse vaccines has always been vital. It is more vital than ever now.

It means the right to preserve your inherent DNA.

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

Jon Rappoport

The big one: how environmental killing becomes a medical disease

Aug2

The giant pig farm disaster: a medical hoax and cover story

The full truth has never been told—until now.

by Jon Rappoport

August 2, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“To handle all that [pig-farm feces] waste, farmers in North Carolina use a standard practice called the lagoon and spray field system. They flush feces and urine from barns into open-air pits called lagoons, which turn the color of Pepto-Bismol when pink-colored bacteria colonize the waste. To keep the lagoons from overflowing, farmers spray liquid manure on their fields nearby. The result, says Steve Wing, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is this: ‘The eastern part of North Carolina is covered with shit’.” —National Geographic, 10/30/14

The above quote describes corporate pig farming around the world.

In order to carry out this operation, giant companies like Smithfield have influenced legislators and government-agency officials. Environmental laws and regulations are ignored, or changed. Lawsuits are fought, hammer and tongs.

Here is what Robert F Kennedy Jr. told radio interviewer, Rachel Lewis Hilburn on 6/3/16:

“…a hog produces ten times the amount of fecal waste by weight as a human being, so if you have a facility that has ten thousand hogs in it, it’s producing as much sewage as a city of a hundred thousand people. Smithfield has one plant in Utah—they call it Circle Four Farms—that has a million hogs on it, so it’s producing the same amount of waste as New York City every day.”

Here is Kennedy’s kicker:

“There’s no difference between hog waste and human waste in terms of its danger to human health. They [Smithfield and other giant corporate pig operations] ought to have to have a sewage treatment plant that cleans it up. And yet, if they had to build that sewage treatment plan, it would drive the price of hogs up so that they could no longer function in the marketplace… they ought to have to build sewage treatment facilities but nobody’s making them do that because they have used political clout…”

All right, that’s a bit of background. Now I’m going to shift to the subject of Swine Flu, the phony epidemic of 2009.

Where did it start?

At a Smithfield pig-raising operation in Perote, Mexico; in a village called La Gloria. Smithfield raises 950,000 hogs a year there.

Press reports described outdoor “pig feces lagoons” on the property. When workers began to get sick, the area was sprayed with unknown chemicals. More workers fell ill and died.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of public health could testify that this combination of mind-boggling (non-) sanitation, plus strong germicides, plus other toxic chemicals routinely dumped in the feces lagoons, could and would cause human disease.

In fact, it doesn’t matter which particular germs are present in the mix.

People at the CDC had to be well aware of this. Yet, in 2009, their choice was to rush researchers to the Smithfield operation in La Gloria, Mexico, armed with the unfounded assumption that some novel virus, never before seen, was the culprit, and their job was to take blood samples and discover what the new germ was.

Why? Why assume, when workers who operate in that kind of environment get sick, there is some new disease at work? The symptoms of the workers were not unusual, given the circumstances.

Workers dying in that vat of filth and chemical soup should be expected.

But, up front, based on no evidence, the CDC on-site team was going for a new germ and a new disease, and that’s what they announced they had found. A gullible world, fed by press reports, bought in.

And that’s how the fake epidemic called Swine Flu was launched.

All the focus that could have centered on the highly toxic Smithfield pig operation in La Gloria was diverted.

Diverted to a virus.

H1N1 it was called. The Swine Flu virus.

Suddenly, it was a medical problem. Not an environmental disaster.

It was RE-INVENTED as a medical problem.

If you don’t yet get what I’m pointing out here, imagine this:

You’re living in an old sewage tunnel under a city. You’re surrounded by human excrement and biting insects and fetid waste water and foul air—and when you fall ill, you suddenly see virus-hunting researchers, not haz-mat rescue workers, approach you and take blood samples. Are they crazy?

No, they’re just doing what their bosses tell them to do. Because the CDC is fronting for, and protecting, major corporate agricultural criminals. Because your illness has to be shifted over to a “new disease and a new virus.”

On top of all this, the virus that these “researchers” do find, which, by the way, is in no way proven to cause disease, can be found all over the world. Why? Because it’s been around for a long, long time, and it has never caused any dire condition at all.

This is how the game works.

This is the medical hoax.

In the case of Swine Flu, it gets worse. It turns out that the virus is not so prevalent after all. That is why, in the early autumn of 2009, CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson discovered that the CDC, ignoring its mandate and charter, had secretly stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. You see, the overwhelming percentage of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, when sent to labs for testing, were coming back with no trace of the so-called Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus. CBS put Attkisson’s published report on the shelf and never followed up on it.

Again, the virus as the cause of illness, was the cover story. Intelligence agencies float cover stories on a regular basis. It’s no accident that CDC has a large unit of virus hunters called the Epidemic Intelligence Service.

Right off the top, I can tell you they create disinformation on a scale that must make the CIA jealous.

Graduates of this EIS program, as proudly stated by the CDC, have gone on to occupy key positions in the overall medical cartel: Surgeons General; CDC directors; medical school deans and professors; medical foundation executives; drug-company and insurance executives; state health officials; medical editors and reporters in major media outlets.

It’s a loyal insider’s club. They collaborate to float prime-cut, A-number-one cover stories of extraordinary dimensions. They invent medical reality out of thin air.

Here is a brief excerpt from the CDC’s website, “50 Years of the Epidemic Intelligence Service”:

“In 1951, EIS was established by CDC following the start of the Korean War as an early-warning system against biologic warfare and man-made epidemics. EIS officers selected for 2-year field assignments were primarily medical doctors and other health professionals…who focused on infectious disease outbreaks. EIS has expanded to include a range of public health professionals, such as postdoctoral scientists in statistics, epidemiology, microbiology, anthropology, sociology, and behavioral sciences. Since 1951, approximately 2500 EIS officers have responded to requests for epidemiologic assistance within the United States and throughout the world. Each year, EIS officers are involved in several hundred investigations of disease and injury problems, enabling CDC and its public health partners to make recommendations to improve the public’s health and safety.”

Several hundred investigations a year. An unparalleled opportunity to shape the truth into propaganda. Control of information about disease. Control out in the field, where EIS agents rush to the scene of “outbreaks,” all the way back through the hallowed halls of academia, into the press, into Big Pharma, into the government.

When I say control of information, I mean disinformation. That’s what the EIS is for. They’ve never met a virus they didn’t love, and if they couldn’t find one, they pretended they did.

They front for the medical cartel. And they provide cover for the crimes of mega-corporations. There’s a town where poverty-stricken people are dying, because horrendous pesticides are running into the water supply and soil? No, it’s a virus. There’s a hotel where the plumbing is broken and human waste is getting into all the bathrooms, and they want this hotel to be the epicenter of a new epidemic? No, it isn’t the plumbing, it’s a novel virus never seen before by man. There’s a section of a city where the industrial pollution is driving people over the edge into immune-system failure? No, it’s a virus.

And here’s the capper. Their propaganda is so good most of the EIS people believe it themselves. You don’t achieve that kind of robotic servitude without intense brainwashing. The first installment of the mind-control program is called medical school.

Psy-op and propaganda begin with the virus hunters of the EIS. They control and own the chokepoint of disease research. They blow up their scanty findings into ex-cathedra pronouncements.

And of course, this strengthens the vaccine establishment because, for every virus, there must be a vaccine: the shot in the arm, loaded with toxic chemicals and a variety of germs.

The EIS. The CDC’s band of brothers. The medical CIA.

“Show me vast pig-feces lagoons, and I’ll show you a virus you’ve never heard of before. I’ll protect corporate criminals from here to the moon…”

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

Jon Rappoport

Remember the pandemic that was going to wipe out humanity? We’re still here.

Aug1

by Jon Rappoport

August 1, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Every few years, a new virus shows up that, experts tell us, can wipe out half the world in six months…and then it doesn’t happen.

I could give you several examples. In this piece, let’s harken back to SARS, the vague flu lookalike that suddenly showed up in 2003 and was going to decimate the Earth.

When SARS hit, the World Health Organization (WHO) put the world on notice not to fly into Toronto. The city lost billions of tourism dollars.

The fabled “coronavirus,” touted as the cause of SARS, was evil and covert and unique. So said ten WHO labs, which took over all official research on the “plague.”

But on May 1, 2003, Dr. Frank Plummer, head of the WHO lab in Winnipeg, issued a blockbuster to a SARS summit in Canada. He was now finding the coronavirus in ZERO percent of SARS cases.

Weeks before, Plummer had said eighty percent of patients showed the virus, then that had dropped to sixty, forty, thirty, and now it was ZERO.

You have to understand that even eighty percent is not sufficient to call the virus the cause of any disease condition.

But ZERO?

Yes, they all have the disease, the same disease, and we have the virus behind it all. The virus is present in ZERO percent of cases.

And the doctor saying this is a consummate insider, the chief honcho at Canada’s WHO lab. WHO being the agency, along with the CDC, that is in charge of all research on SARS.

Understand, given the fact that SARS is supposedly composed of a list of vague symptoms—cough, fever, fatigue, lung infection—the coronavirus is the only thing that is tying these cases together—-AND WHEN THAT VIRUS PROVED TO BE MEANINGLESS, all the cases were set adrift, so to speak, joining the ranks of regular old flu and lung infection.

And the SARS death rate was low, so low the whole thing turned out to be a dud. A phony dud.

Of course, no one at the CDC or WHO admitted this. These people are experts at “moving on.” And they’re adept at writing history to revise facts and cover their backsides.

But a whole parade of fake pandemics—and attendant dire warnings—does, over time, achieve one objective: it conditions people to accept the lie that vaccines are the best solution to illness.

And that’s no small feat. It’s especially important when you consider the fact that the CDC, which is tasked with overseeing vaccine safety and efficacy, buys and sells $4 billion worth of vaccines a year. This is BUSINESS we’re talking about, and in order to promote business, PR people cook up all sorts of schemes.

Pandemics, even if they don’t pan out, are clever propaganda.

Also, the horror story of GERMS that can cause plagues anywhere in the world at the drop of a hat—the ceaseless drumbeat of germs, germs, and more germs—obscures all sorts of environmental causes of illness and death. For example, toxic chemicals produced by major and favored corporations.

“It’s the virus” is the greatest cover story on planet Earth.

Don’t forget that one.

Oh—you want to know the official figures on SARS? 8000 cases worldwide, 774 deaths, between 2002 and 2003. No cases on the record since 2004. By any standard, that’s a DUD. But go ahead, read the official accounts and histories. See if you can find one clear admission that the whole thing was nonsense. Good luck.

Remember, it’s not the pandemic that’s important. It’s the warning about the pandemic. That’s what moves product off the shelves…

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

Jon Rappoport

Gene therapy and the trans-human agenda

Jun5

Cure disease or alter humans?

by Jon Rappoport

June 5, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.

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

Jon Rappoport

Breaking: It isn’t the genes; the genes don’t rule

May10

by Jon Rappoport

May 10, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

In the grab-bag field of research involving human genes, some biologists have speculated that the 20,000 components of the genome are not enough to explain human function and behavior.

They have gone to another level—there must be additional programming that directs the genes to carry out multiple tasks.

This is all about cause and effect. In this case, the effect is everything a human does or thinks or feels. The cause would be whatever controls genetic activity.

When rare critics point out that explaining human life is different from explaining, say, a consecutive series of billiard balls striking each other on a table, researchers shrug it off.

One biologist I interviewed several years ago told me, “This is the way science works. We start with a simple model of causation, and then, over time, we adjust that model so it can account for a wider range of effects.”

I said, “But suppose you eventually run up against the idea that an individual has free will? He can unilaterally decide to take an action, without any prior genetic determination.”

“That’s impossible,” he said.

“What makes you so sure?”

For that, he had no answer.

Genetic theory is just the latest in a long line of ideas proposed to lock the human being into a structure. The will of the gods, the divine right of kings, demons, Oedipus Complex, brain chemistry, etc.

Every era and age has its preferred hypothesis about causation—which tries to shrink down what a human can accomplish.

And each of these explanations for human behavior is aimed at submerging the individual into an overall context that is far more important than he is.

Now, in the first flush of widespread computer use, many people have concluded that “the human species” is basically a design group. We build machines that think and solve and collate and organize. Soon, those machines will design other devices. And so on and so forth.

If you follow this line of reasoning far enough, you will come to the place where human beings are pictured as machines whose final function is to re-design THEMSELVES…to become better automatic machines.

Then the absurdity is complete.

For centuries, philosophers and pundits and propagandists have debated the question of free will, which is like debating whether there is a sky and clouds. Free will and choice are obvious.

But when people tie themselves up in the issue of cause and effect, and when they exaggerate its importance beyond any rational boundary, and when they are looking for a way to remain entirely passive, they “discover” there is no freedom. They say that every thought and action has a cause, and that cause is beyond human control.

Then they rest. Then they decide that all power stands outside themselves.

Then they act like robots.

Then they play that role.

They never stop to think that playing the robot-role implies they can be phased out—because, face it, non-human machines make much better robots than humans do.

If you want a full robot, you don’t pick a human.

On the other end of the spectrum, a free human making free choices and knowing he is making those choices—well, that explodes the whole lock-and-key myth of cause and effect.

That is a refutation. Some might even call it a revelation.

I’ve written a number of articles about The True Rebel. The Rebel stands outside the dominant myths. He rejects ideas and thoughts that claim he is less and less powerful. He refuses to knuckle under when the “robot makers” come calling. He sees the system that wants to absorb him. He sees how freedom is being managed and buried. I’m not talking about “crazy and irresponsible rebels.” Quite the opposite. The True Rebel is the sane one.

The question is, what is he going to do with his sanity?

Answering that question has been an ongoing action of mine for the past 35 years. My three Matrix collections form a major, major answer. My articles take apart various components of limiting myths and knock them over. I’m on the side of the true rebel. I want him to succeed. I want him to bloom in all his glory.

Every highly technological civilization eventually founders on the rocks of its own ideas. Particularly those ideas which eat into freedom and substitute determinism. Naturally, it is science which leads the way into the blind alley of brick walls and the vapid desert of passivity. Science is hijacked to explain why humans are pawns.

Scientists are enlisted to act like buffoons. They are essentially saying, “I’m here to freely explain to you that there is no freedom.”

Cue the laughter. Thunderous laughter.

Many, many years ago, in my youth, a dour psychiatrist told me he was “driven” to accept the human brain as the bottom-line cause of all action and perception, because, otherwise, he wouldn’t be a psychiatrist. Somehow, I wasn’t impressed by his approach. I asked him how he felt about his “position.”

“Rather depressed,” he said.

I then asked him if he was taking medication to treat his condition.

He said no. He would press on with his work, which was: upholding the scientific establishment.

Rather grim.

The emperor really doesn’t have any clothes.

I told him that, for me, freedom was electric.

He nodded sadly.

The robot psychiatrist…

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

Jon Rappoport

Huge drug (pharma) money changes hands in high-level financial deals—why?

Apr19

Huge drug (pharma) money changes hands in high-level financial deals—why?

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2018

These are notes on money-musical-chairs among drug companies. Big-time money.

Clues as to why there is such a tidal wave of cash:

One: Consolidation, of course. Fewer giant companies, who have greater control over the market, are too big to fail, and have more lobbying power with governments.

Two: The companies are making deals left and right to temporarily give stockholders and prospective investors the impression that “something good” is happening, while concealing the fact that numerous new drugs in the testing pipeline are failing to produce beneficial results, and are unsafe. Sleight of hand.

Three: The companies are making very favorable loan deals with banks, enabling them to buy out other drug firms. Before the loan repayments are completed, the companies will have sold themselves (and the debt) to bigger fish.

Four: A drug company knows its development of a new drug is fraudulent, and is riddled with illegal practices, such as lack of informed consent in recruiting volunteers for clinical trials. So it sells the research unit for that drug to another company, making it their problem.

Here are $$ details. Follow the astonishing money trails.

From: https://www.fiercepharma.com/m-a/sanofi-advent-international-nearing-eu2b-deal-for-european-generics-business-report:

“Other bidders may have dropped out of an auction for Sanofi’s European generics unit, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t found a buyer. The drugmaker is nearing an agreement and could announce a sale in the next several days, Bloomberg reports.

“Sanofi’s board could meet as soon as Monday to vote on a deal worth about €2 billion ($2.48 billion), according to the news service’s sources. Of course, the sources note that the deal isn’t final and that it could ultimately fail to materialize.

“The news follows previous decisions by private equity firm Nordic Capital and Indian drugmaker Torrent Pharma to bow out of negotiations, worried that the unit is too pricey, according to press reports. PE firm Carlyle Group and Brazil’s EMS remained in deal talks through final bidding, according to Bloomberg.

“And that’s not the only deal Sanofi has had in the works. The company has been toiling to reshape itself for several years, and as part of that effort on Monday sold 12 “noncore” pharma brands to Cooper-Vemedia for €158 million, a spokesperson confirmed.

“The drugmaker talked about selling the business in 2015, but CEO Olivier Brandicourt made other M&A moves after coming on board instead. In 2016, Brandicourt offloaded Sanofi’s animal health unit Merial in an asset swap with Boehringer Ingelheim, getting BI’s consumer health business in return.

“The drugmaker hasn’t only slimmed down, though. Sanofi purchased nanobody biotech Ablynx for $4.8 billion and hemophilia-focused Bioverativ for $11.6 billion in sizable deals early this year. Afterward, Brandicourt said the acquisitions “dramatically reshape our portfolio in specialty care” and boost the company’s R&D presence.”

Here is more: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/takeda-still-eyeing-a-buy-shire-casts-off-oncology-for-2-4b:

“With suitor Takeda circling Shire, the Dublin-based target has pulled off a deal of its own.

“On Monday, Shire announced it had agreed to hand its oncology business to France’s Servier for $2.4 billion, a move it said would sharpen its focus on rare diseases. And more streamlining deals are likely on the way.

“While the oncology business has delivered high growth and profitability, we have concluded that it is not core to Shire’s longer-term strategy,” CEO Flemming Ornskov said in a statement, adding that “we will continue to evaluate our portfolio for opportunities to unlock further value … with selective disposals of nonstrategic assets.”

“Meanwhile, Servier will land an “immediate presence” in the U.S. with products such as Oncaspar, which Shire nabbed in its Baxalta buyout. Baxter had bought the med to diversify its pharmaceutical portfolio before spinning it off into Baxalta, which Shire later picked up after a monthslong pursuit.

“The oncology move makes things interesting for Japanese drugmaker Takeda, which late last month made its buyout interest in Shire public.

“The deal should … boost Shire’s negotiating position on asking price in the current offer period with Takeda, in our view,” Jefferies analyst Peter Welford wrote in a note to clients.”

And more: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/mylan-s-advanced-talks-for-merck-kgaa-s-4b-plus-otc-unit-report:

“Pfizer may have run into snags trying to sell its consumer health business, but Merck KGaA may be in advanced discussions with a player over its own for-sale unit. And that player is Mylan, according to reports.

“The two companies are negotiating a price between $4.3 billion and $4.9 billion, Reuters says, although there’s no certainty they’ll lock down a deal. The German drugmaker has also reportedly chit-chatted with private equity groups about a sale, according to the news service.

“Mylan, for its part, denies the report. “Although it’s Mylan’s policy to not comment on rumors or speculation, given the egregious inaccuracy of reports issued this morning, the company is compelled to confirm that the Reuters article is untrue,” the company said in a statement.

“It’s not the first time Mylan has gone after a deal in the consumer biz. It spent the better part of 2015 in hostile pursuit of store-brand specialist Perrigo, whose shareholders ultimately rejected Mylan’s offer. And in the wake of that offer, it snapped up Sweden’s Meda.

“It’s also not the first time Mylan and Merck KGaA have talked transaction, Reuters noted. Back in 2007, Mylan took Merck’s generics unit off its hands in a $6.7 billion deal that also sent severe allergy blockbuster EpiPen over to the copycat.

“Meanwhile, Pfizer, which boasts a larger OTC business than Merck’s, has been watching its own sale options dwindle as retail kings such as Amazon threaten OTC drugmakers’ sales. Late last month, both Reckitt and GlaxoSmithKline withdrew from the bidding process, though rumor has it there’s a small chance the New York drugmaker could still unload the asset to Procter & Gamble.”

And now, here is a list of top pharma mergers and acquisitions in the past several years:

10. Abbott-Alere, $5.8bn, 2016
“At the start of February American pharmaceutical giant Abbot agreed to buy Alere Inc. for $5.8bn or $56 a share to become the lead holder in the market for medical tests and diagnostics. Alere which has annual sales of about $2.5bn makes tests for infections such as malaria, HIV, dengue fever and tuberculosis. Abbott stated that at the end of 2015 its diagnostic sales were $4.6bn, a figure which would now exceed the $7bn-a-year mark. Abbott currently has more than 73,000 employees and revenues in 2015 reached $20.405bn.”

9. Mylan-Meda, $7.2bn, 2016
“February, 2016 saw Mylan agree a takeover of Swedish drug maker Meda for $7.2bn. The new company is expected to have 2015 sales of $11.8bn, and the deal also boosts Mylan’s range of branded and generic medications and gives it an additional leg-up in the area of over-the-counter medications that will now achieve sales of around $1bn a year. Mylan had been in pursuit of Meda for a while before the deal closed, having two offers rejected in 2014 that were valued at $6.7bn. Mylan is a global generic and specialty pharmaceutical company registered in the Netherlands with headquarters in the UK. It currently provides more than 30,000 pharmaceutical jobs.”

8. Celgene-Receptos, $7.2bn, 2015
“In August, 2015, American biotechnology company Celgene acquired Receptos for $7.2bn and its phase III autoimmune treatment for ulcerative colitis and multiple sclerosis. If all goes to plan the drug could end up bringing in peak sales as high as $6bn. Celgene was founded in 1986 and currently has more than 4,100 employees. In 2015 the company achieved a 21% year-on-year growth in product sales reaching $9.2bn.”

7. Endo International-Par Pharmaceutical, $8.1bn, 2015
“Endo International, headquartered in Ireland and the USA, is a global specialty pharmaceutical company employing more than 6,200 people. In September last year, it completed its buyout of Par Pharmaceutical in a deal worth $8.1bn. The acquisition firmly establishes Endo as one of the world’s fastest growing and notable generics businesses and will help the company to position itself for strong growth in the years to come.”

6.Alexion Pharmaceuticals-Synageva BioPharma, $8.4bn, 2015
“In June, 2015 Connecticut-based Alexion Pharmaceuticals successfully completed its acquisition of Synageva BioPharma for $8.4bn. The acquisition strengthened Alexion’s global leadership in devastating and rare diseases, and created one of the strongest rare disease portfolios in the biotech industry. Alexion was founded in 1992 and employs more than 3,000 people serving 50 countries worldwide.”

5. Valeant-Salix Pharmaceuticals, $15.8bn, 2015
“March, 2015, saw Canadian-based Valeant acquire Salix Pharmaceuticals for $15.8bn, adding to its portfolio of gastroenterology drugs. The $158-per-share deal came after reports that Valeant had been competing with Shire for a takeover of Salix. In addition to the $15.8bn price tag, Valeant would absorb $5bn in debt and the merger would provide $500m a year in cost-saving opportunities and cut the tax paid on Salix revenues which stood at 35%. Valeant currently employs around 17,000 individuals and achieved revenues of $10.5bn in 2015.”

4. Pfizer-Hospira, $17bn, 2015
“US-based pharmaceutical giant Pfizer agreed to buy Hospira in a $17bn takeover that would expand its portfolio of drugs and add Hospira’s portfolio of sterile injectable treatments and biosimilar drugs to Pfizer’s broad offerings. At the time Hospira had 11 biosimilar molecules in its pipeline, with the market value for biosimilars and sterile injectables set to reach around $90bn by 2020. The deal was expected to provide around $800m a year in cost-savings by 2018. Pfizer achieved revenues of $49bn last year and currently provides more than 78,000 pharmaceutical jobs.”

3. AbbVie-Pharmacyclics, $21bn, 2015
“In May, 2015, AbbVie closed a deal to buy California-based Pharmacyclics for $21bn. The massive deal would boost AbbVie’s cancer portfolio substantially. AbbVie currently relies heavily on its ageing $10bn-a-year auto inflammatory drug Humira, and 2 years earlier split from its partner Abbott in the hopes of finding large merger deals to fill its sparse drugs pipeline. One of the driving factors for the merger was Pharmacyclics blood cancer drug, Imbruvica, which is expected to achieve worldwide sales of $5.8bn by 2020. AbbVie achieved revenues of $22bn in 2015 and currently employs more than 28,000 people.”

2.Shire-Baxalta, $32bn, 2016
“In January 2016 Shire finally closed a deal to acquire Baxalta for $32bn after 6 months of negotiations. Shire stated that the new firm would be able to achieve double-digit sales growth to over $20bn by 2020, with about two-thirds of this revenue coming from immunology, neuroscience, haematology, lysosomal storage disorders, gastrointestinal diseases and heredity angioedema. Both companies are predicting around $500m in annual cost-savings within the first 3 years, with the combined tax rate down 7% to 16%.”

1.Teva-Allergan Generics, $40.5bn, 2015
“July, 2015, saw Israeli firm Teva buy Allergan’s generics unit for a massive $40.5bn in cash and stock. The deal meant that Allergan received $33.75bn in cash and Teva shares valued at $6.75bn, giving it a 10% stake in Teva. Investors had been pressuring Teva to make a major deal as generics erosion meant that the firm could face severe losses from its $4.2bn a year multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone. Teva hopes that the deal with Allergan generics will establish a foundation for long-term sustainable growth and assist in building a strong portfolio of products in both generics and specialty areas. Teva achieved revenues of around $20bn in 2014, and currently employs more than 40,000 individuals.”

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

Jon Rappoport

Gene therapy and the trans-human agenda

Apr17

Cure disease or alter humans?

by Jon Rappoport

April 17, 2018