Category Archives: Science Fraud

New CRISPR gene-editing: the extreme dangers

by Jon Rappoport

March 27, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Technologynetworks.com (6/26/17): “CRISPR gene editing is taking biomedical research by storm. Providing the ultimate toolbox for genetic manipulation, many new applications for this technology are now being investigated and established. CRISPR systems are already delivering superior genetic models for fundamental disease research, drug screening and therapy development, rapid diagnostics, in vivo editing and correction of heritable conditions and now the first human CRISPR clinical trials.”

All hail.

It’s called CRISPR, a much faster, more precise, and cheaper technique for editing genes. Researchers are in love with it. You can find hundreds of articles and studies fawning over the innovation.

At phys.org, however, we have this, ahem, warning note (5/29/17): “…a new study published in Nature Methods has found that the gene-editing technology can introduce hundreds of unintended mutations into the genome.”

Oops.

“In the new study, the researchers sequenced the entire genome of mice that had undergone CRISPR gene editing in the team’s previous study and looked for all mutations, including those that only altered a single nucleotide.”

“The researchers determined that CRISPR had successfully corrected a gene that causes blindness, but Kellie Schaefer, a PhD student in the lab of Vinit Mahajan, MD, PhD, associate professor of ophthalmology at Stanford University, and co-author of the study, found that the genomes of two independent gene therapy recipients [mice] HAD SUSTAINED MORE THAN 1500 SINGLE-NUCLEOTIDE MUTATIONS AND MORE THAN 100 LARGER [GENE] DELETIONS AND INSERTIONS. None of these DNA mutations were predicted by computer algorithms that are widely used by researchers to look for off-target effects.” (Emphasis is mine.)

“’Researchers who aren’t using whole genome sequencing to find off-target effects may be missing potentially important mutations,’ Dr. Tsang says. ‘Even a single nucleotide change can have a huge impact’.”

Genetic roulette is alive and well.

Spin the wheel, see what numbers come up. Good effects, bad effects, who knows? Step right up and take your chances.

Of course, researchers who admit these tremendous problems remain optimistic. They look forward to “refining the method.” That’s a cover for: “we really don’t know what we’re doing right now.”

Unfortunately, much science operates in this fashion. Launch a new technology, and turn a blind eye to the consequences. For example, place mercury, a devastating neurotoxin, in vaccines. What harm could result—aside from the destruction of children’s brains.

Here is more gushing PR, otherwise known as throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks:

“There are weekly press releases and updates on new advances [in CRISPR] and discoveries made possible with this technology; the first evidence is now emerging that CRISPR-Cas9 could provide cures for major diseases including cancers and devastating human viruses such as HIV-1.” (technologynetworks.com, “CRISPR: Emerging applications for genome editing technology”)

The train has left the station.

And just in case you think only the most careful and competent leading lights of the genetic research community would be permitted to get within a mile of CRISPR, here is more from technologynetworks.com:

“CRISPR-Cas9 systems, tools and basic methodology are very accessible as ready to go toolkits that anyone with lab space and an idea can pick up and start working with…In response to a growing need, companies such as Desktop Genetics have developed open access software to accelerate CRISPR experimentation and analysis.”

That’s good to know. “Anyone with lab space and an idea” can jump on board and have at it.

Do your own cross breeding of the pregnant phrases, “What could possibly go wrong,” and “Nothing to see here, move along,” and you’ve summarized the situation.

“They say they cured my anemia, but now I turn green and purple and I keep falling down.”

If all this isn’t enough to make you see the dangers of CRISPR, consider this statement about engineering human immune cells (T-cells) in a “safer” way. From statnews.com (June 23, 2016):

“The experiment would alter the immune system’s T cells only after they’re removed from a patient. That gives scientists the chance to screen the CRISPR’d cells to make sure only the three intended genes, all involved in making T cells find and destroy tumor cells, are altered. But after those T cells are infused back into a patient to fight melanoma, sarcoma, or myeloma, the CRISPR system can keep editing DNA, and tracking such edits becomes like following a polar bear in a snowstorm.”

Not very comforting. Once set in motion, even under the most protected and limited conditions, CRISPR can keep on working, scrambling genes in unknown ways.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Shocking victory for proponents of alternative medicine

Shocking victory for proponents of alternative medicine

by Jon Rappoport

March 8, 2018

Breaking: In Australia, an effort to label all alternative (traditional, complementary) medicine products as “based on pseudoscience” has failed.

Traditional remedies (much older than mainstream medicines) are defended as appropriate, and can include health claims.

The Crazz Files, a major defender of health freedom in Australia, reports: “In a major win, the Federal Government has ignored the Australian Greens and anti-complementary medicine activists like Doctor Ken Harvey…and passed a reform package that protects traditional medicine.”

“The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill, which passed Parliament on February 15, supports positive claims for complementary medicines based on traditional evidence, and abolishes the current complaints system.”

“Greens voters were shocked to learn Greens Leader and General Practitioner, Senator Dr Richard Di Natale was aligned with skeptics, whose platform is: ‘There is no alternative to [modern] Medicine’.”

“One of his [Dr. Di Natale’s] ‘concerns’ was that people were being ‘misled’ by traditional claims about the effectiveness of complementary medicine. He, and the skeptics, wanted labels on complementary and traditional medicines to state: ’this traditional indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and there is no scientific evidence that this product is effective’.”

“The Minister for Rural Health, Senator Bridget McKenzie, told Di Natale: ‘I think it is offensive and disrespectful to those who practice traditional medicine’.”

“’For some, particularly those using Chinese medicine, the history of practising in that traditional medicine paradigm goes back thousands of years. It’s been extensively refined, practised and documented and in many cases incorporated into mainstream medicine. So, a statement required by the Australian Government that the indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and that there is no scientific evidence will be seen as arrogant and insensitive to those practising and using traditional Chinese medicines,’ Senator McKenzie said.”

Boom.

All right. Now I want to treat readers to a brief analysis of “modern medicine,” the so-called scientific system that is the “only valid system.” It is the system employed in Australia, America, and virtually all countries in the world.

People who watch the news or read mainstream news have the impression that “scientific” medical research is remarkably valid and always progressing.

Doctors and medical bureaucrats line up to confirm and ceaselessly push this view.

But they are concealing a dark truth.

Let’s go to the record. Here are two editors of two of the most prestigious and respected medical journals in the world. During their long careers, they have read and scrutinized more studies than any doctor, researcher, bureaucrat, or so-called medical blogger. And this is what they have written:

ONE: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)

TWO: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)

There are many ominous implications in these two statements. I will point out one.

Incompetent, error-filled, and fraudulent studies of medical drugs—for example, published reports on clinical trials of those drugs—would lead one to expect chaos in the field of medical treatment. And by chaos, I mean: the drugs cause widespread death and severe injury.

Again, if a person obtains his news from mainstream sources, he will say, “But I see no evidence of such a vast scandal.”

That is a conspiracy of silence. Because this widespread death and grievous harm HAS been reported. Where? In open-source medical literature.

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

The Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), came to the following conclusion, among others:

Every year in the US, correctly prescribed, FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 people. Thus, every decade, these drugs kill more than a MILLION people.

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

All in all, those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this ongoing tragedy preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here is an excerpt from that interview.

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

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

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

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

Q: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

A: NO.

Q: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

Q: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

A: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

—end of interview excerpt—

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the medical literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO ESTEEMED MEDICAL EDITORS I QUOTED ABOVE—MARCIA ANGELL AND RICHARD HORTON—ARE SAYING.

If you know a doctor who enjoys sitting up on his high horse dispensing the final word on modern medicine, you might give him the quotes from Dr. Angell and Dr. Horton, instruct him to read them, and suggest he get in touch with Angell and Horton, in order to discover what has happened to his profession.

As in: DISASTER.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

A different theory of cancer

A different theory of cancer

by Jon Rappoport

March 7, 2018

“The scrambling of chromosomes is so massive that no two cancer cells are identical. This means there is no typical cancer cell for vaccines or drugs to target and drug resistance is inevitable. All this without gene mutations.” (David Rasnick, PhD, former mainstream researcher, who has now become an outsider.)

A theory to explain the failure of the war on cancer? A theory that indicates in simple terms why mainstream treatments fail? A door that could open up on new alternative treatments?

There is a fascinating book-in-progress by chemist David Rasnick, PhD. It proposes a quite different view of cancer.

Here is an excerpt from David’s bio: “The past 21 years I have studied cancer from a completely new perspective. Prior to that, I worked in the pharmaceutical/biotech industries developing drugs against cancer, emphysema, arthritis, and parasites.”

“I…synthesized the first peptidyl-fluoromethanes. These molecules are…used around the world in the development of therapies for the tissue-destroying diseases of arthritis, cancer, and parasites, among others.”

David presents an explanation of cancer by tracing the cause to CHROMOSOME MALFUNCTION—which is a major departure from the current GENE-MUTATION hypothesis.

Merriam-Webster: “[A gene is] a unit of DNA that is usually located on a chromosome and that controls the development of one or more traits and is the basic unit by which genetic information is passed from parent to offspring.”

Vocabulary.com: “A chromosome is a strand of DNA that is encoded with genes. In most cells, humans have 22 pairs of these chromosomes plus the two sex chromosomes…”

David writes: “Cancer is a disease of the chromosomes! This simple understanding changes everything—from prevention to diagnosis to treatment. It explains spontaneous remission, inevitable drug resistance, and strongly supports alternatives to radiation and chemotherapy. It can help you and your family make better informed choices.”

David is raising funds for the purpose of completing his book. You can go to his Indiegogo site and watch David explain his cancer research, and if so moved, make a contribution.

I asked David to make a few comments about his new work—now that he has moved from the scientific mainstream to an “outsider” position. Here are his remarks:

“The biggest mark against [gene] mutations causing cancer is that every attempt to experimentally, or any other way, to prove it has failed. Second, basing diagnosis and treatment on the gene theory have failed to reduce the incidence of cancer and mortality. Third, theoretical and experimental proof that unbalanced chromosomes cause cancer continues to amass. So far, the chromosomal imbalance theory has successfully explained everything we know about cancer: how it starts and progresses over years to decades, its physical and behavioral characteristics, inevitable drug resistance, the impossibility of a vaccine against cancer…”

“Anything that becomes entrenched is difficult to replace. The trillion dollars spent on the gene centric war on cancer has created a mighty citadel. Huge egg in the face of government, drug companies, academics and opinion leaders to say whoops folks, sorry, we got it wrong.”

“Unbalanced chromosomes completely disrupt the species specific and tissue specific location of chromosomes. The chromosomes still orchestrate the production of proteins but in bizarre and uncoordinated ways. Again, without mutation of genes.”

“…there is an overall gain in chromosomes as…unbalanced cells divide over a period of years to decades. The amount of protein in a cell is proportional to the number of chromosomes, which means that cancer cells have considerably more protein than normal cells. The extra protein leads to the secretion of very dangerous digestive enzymes and other proteins responsible for invasion of adjacent tissues and metastasis.”

“The scrambling of chromosomes is so massive that no two cancer cells are identical. This means there is no typical cancer cell for vaccines or drugs to target and drug resistance is inevitable. All this without gene mutations.”

“The chromosomal imbalance theory changes everything about cancer. It offers young researches a very powerful and productive alternative to the hopelessly failed gene mutation theory.”

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Flashback: creating a genetically altered human

by Jon Rappoport

March 1, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Combing through my files, I came across a piece I’d written in 2011 about genetic alteration. But my piece referred to experiments done much earlier, in 2001.

Given what happened in 2001, one can only imagine how far scientists have now gone in tinkering with DNA—openly, and in secret.

From The Telegraph, Sep.27, 2001, “Boy’s DNA implanted in rabbit eggs,” written by Roger Highfield:

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

Also in 2001, there was another, far more ambitious experiment:

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

“Up to 30 such children have been born, 15 of them as a result of one experimental programme at a US laboratory [the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey]…”

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

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

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

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

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

This is how the op proceeds:

Out front, scientists say they are curing infertility and other medical problems by genetic alteration—and many scientists believe this is the only purpose of the work. But behind that, something else is happening:

Wholesale gene alteration to invent different and new types of humans.

This is the technocrats’ Holy Grail. A society in which different classes of humans are assigned to different levels of work and living.

Lee Silver, an eminent molecular biologist at Princeton, has written a book, Remaking Eden (1998), about the future of gene science in society. This is how he views the future just over the horizon:

“The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—[will] all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class…”

“Naturals [who aren’t genetically altered] work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.”

“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do.”

“Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of repro-genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. [W]hether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”

As shocking as Lee Silver’s assessment is, it’s mild when put up against the pronouncement of Gregory Stock, former director of the 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.”

That’s quite an “innovative” definition of scientific responsibility.

And note that Gregory Stock is also talking about new “life forms” that are combinations of biological and technological elements—bio-machines.

Give the current state of genetic science, and the inflated claims of competence, you can be sure that many thousands of hit-and-miss experiments are being carried out. It’s trial and error. One can only imagine some of the grotesque “errors.”

Behind all this is the assumption that human beings are deficient; they need alteration; as composed, they are woefully insufficient to take their place in the new world order.

Which is why I’m posting this piece—because we are seeing yet another vector in the attack on The Individual. As I’ve maintained for the past 35 years, there is nothing wrong with the individual, except his reluctance to recognize his own power and his own capacity to envision his best future and pursue it with commitment.

In full bloom, the individual is not only adequate, he is dynamic and majestic.

Understanding this is the “adjustment” we need to make.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House policy analyst

Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House policy analyst

by Jon Rappoport

February 26, 2018

There are a number of cases in which a virus is said to be the cause of a disease—but the evidence doesn’t stand up.

I first realized this in 1987. I was writing my book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century.

Robert Gallo, who claimed he had found the cause of AIDS, hadn’t done proper work. From everything I read, he claimed to have discovered HIV in a low percentage of AIDS patients he had studied.

He should have been able to isolate HIV in virtually every patient.

Then there was the fact that the most popular tests for HIV, the Elisa and Western Blot, were fatally flawed. They could register positive for a whole host of reasons that had nothing to do with HIV.

And no one had found sufficient quantities of HIV in humans to justify claiming it caused any kind of illness.

My own research into the so-called high-risk groups revealed that the “AIDS” immune suppression in those groups could be explained by factors other than a virus.

(Note: All my research at that time assumed HIV existed. Since then, several researchers, including the Perth Group, have made compelling arguments that the existence of HIV was never demonstrated.)

As I was winding up the final draft of AIDS INC., I spoke, off the record, with a well-known and well-respected mainstream virologist at a large US university. I expressed my conclusions about HIV.

He spoke, first, about the difficulties in making an absolute decision about a virus as the cause of a disease.

I brought the conversation back to HIV.

He paused. Then he repeated that he couldn’t go on the record. I asked him why.

He said HIV was a subject fraught with problems. Politics were involved.

He said he and his colleagues were taking a pass on getting into a dispute about the virus. They were aware that the science was shaky. They just didn’t want to go near it. They might enter into other arguments about other kinds of research, but as far as they were concerned, HIV was off-limits.

His obvious implication was: careers were on the line.

Attacking HIV as the cause of AIDS could result in blacklisting.

He stopped short of saying HIV wasn’t the cause of AIDS, but it was clear he had seen enough to know there were major holes in HIV science.

This was a man who had no interest in unconventional points of view. He was an orthodox researcher from A to Z. He wasn’t a rebel of any kind. And yet he readily admitted to me that the whole AIDS research establishment was proceeding on a lack of proof.

Exposing this fact would go far beyond the usual definition of a scandal. The result would be a volcanic eruption, if, say, a dozen respected virologists told the truth.

After we finished our conversation, I understood something about consensus reality. It contains elements about which people can argue in public—but then there are other elements which are completely out of bounds, which can never be refuted in a mainstream setting.

Why? Because if certain lies are exposed, they initiate a contagion of doubt and insight that spreads to the whole complex inter-structure of what people take to be reality.

Great curtains are torn away. Pillars are cracked, and fall. Images which are taken to be absolute and unchanging distort, dissolve, and blow away in the wind.

A week after AIDS INC. was shipped to bookstores, in 1988, my friend and colleague, hypnotherapist Jack True, told me a copy of the book was on its way to Russia in a diplomatic pouch.

I asked him how he knew. He shrugged and said he had a few connections.

Of course, I’ve never heard anything back about the Russian response to the book, but I find it interesting that, in America, my publisher and I never made any headway in connecting with government officials.

There was one exception. In 1987, I had a conversation with James Warner, a White House policy analyst. The interview was published in the LA Weekly.

Warner had serious doubts about the HIV theory of AIDS, and would arrange a White House conference on the issue. Pro and anti HIV scientists would be permitted to speak at length.

At the last minute, the conference was cancelled.

Here are a few brief excerpts from my conversation with Warner. As a White House analyst, his comments are explosive:

Warner: The government really hasn’t fulfilled its role in providing good information [on AIDS]. We just may not know enough. With AIDS, we’re dealing with a syndrome, not a disease. We may see a patient who has a genetic defect that’s causing his immune deficiency [instead of HIV being the causative agent]. I’m not satisfied we know all we think we do, by any means.

Rappoport: Robert Gallo, Max Essex, people like that, were the field commanders in the NIH [National Institutes of Health] war on cancer in the 70’s. They lost that war. So why are they in charge of AIDS research now? It seems odd that we don’t have other people running the show.

Warner: If ever I’ve been tempted to believe in socialism, science has disabused me of that. These guys [at NIH] assume that it’s their show. They just assume it.

Rappoport: Peter Duesberg, a distinguished molecular biologist at Berkeley, has said that HIV does not cause AIDS. Have you asked people at NIH what they think, specifically, of his arguments?

Warner: Yes. I’ve been told that Peter Duesberg’s refutation of HIV has been discounted by the scientific community. I was given no explanation as to why. I was very offended. No evidence was presented to me. Just that Duesberg had been ‘discounted.’ That’s absurd. It’s not a scientific response to dismiss Duesberg as a crank.

Rappoport: The definition of AIDS in Africa is now becoming synonymous with starvation. They’re saying the three major symptoms are chronic diarrhea, fever, and wasting-away. Weight-loss. It certainly makes a perfect smokescreen for the
aspect of hunger which is political [and intentionally maintained] – just call it AIDS.

Warner: I had not considered that. There is a program to make Africa self-sufficient by the year 2000. This could certainly hinder that activity. You know, I was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. I experienced weight-loss of eighty pounds. And when I came home, I was suffering from a form of dysentery that you could call opportunistic. A number of us were. We didn’t have AIDS.

—end of interview excerpt—

In this current political atmosphere, a White House analyst wouldn’t dare go on the record with comments like these.

Rigid consensus must be maintained, at any cost.

Truth is beside the point.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

How to stage a fake bioterror attack

by Jon Rappoport

January 31, 2018

“Imagine this. A big-time doctor from the US Biological Warfare Group waddles into a meeting room, where a collection of Army, CIA, NSA, and DHS representatives sit quietly in their chairs. He says: ‘So I understand you boys want to put on a little domestic bioterror show, to keep the natives from becoming too restless. Well, the first thing you need to know is, germs don’t obey orders. Forget all that sci-fi nonsense. Germs work and they don’t work. It’s a crapshoot. You could have a big fat dud on your hands. I can tell you how to make it work, though, if you give up on your fancy high-tech wet dreams…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

There are future scenarios which, with enough exposure before they’re staged, can be stopped—or at least analyzed correctly when they occur.

A calculated bioterror event is one of those.

The primary fact is: no matter what kind of germ you’re talking about or where it came from, releasing it intentionally does not guarantee predictable results. Far from it.

For instance, people whose immune systems operate at different levels of strength are going to react differently.

The perpetrators may find that less than 2% of people exposed get sick or die.

But there is another strategy that should be understood:

The use of a germ as a cover story for a chemical.

In other words, there is no germ attack. It’s called a germ attack, but that’s a lie. The perps bring in researchers to the affected area, who go on to claim they have isolated a germ that is the cause of death and illness. It’s a sham. What really happened was:

The spread of a toxic chemical that can’t be detected, unless you’re looking for it.

The chemical has severe, deadly, and predictable effects for a week or two. Then it disperses and loses potency and the “epidemic” is done.

In some town, a fairly isolated community, the word goes out that people are suddenly falling ill and dying. The CDC and the Army are called in to cordon off the area and quarantine all citizens. A peremptory announcement is made, early on, that this is a biowar attack.

Major media are allowed outside the periphery. Network news anchors set up on-location and do their wall to wall broadcasts “from the scene.”

The entire nation, the entire world, is riveted on the event, 24/7.

People inside the cordon fall ill and die. Reports emerge from the town:

The networks state that “heroic doctors are taking samples of blood and the blood is being analyzed to find the germ that is causing the epidemic.” The DOD confirms over and over that this is, indeed, a biowar attack.

Human interest stories pile up. This family lost three members, that family lost everybody. Tragedy and horror produce the desired empathic response from “the world community.”

It’s a soap opera, except real people are dying.

The medical cartel promotes fear of the germ.

All controlling entities obtain their piece of the terrorist pie.

Finally, the doctors announce they have isolated the germ causing death in the small town, and researchers are rushing to develop a vaccine (which they produce in record time).

Everyone everywhere must be vaccinated, now. No choice. Do it or be quarantined or jailed.

In this declared martial law situation, the doctors are the heroes. The doctors and the Army. And the government, and even the media.

Then, after a few weeks, when the potency of the secret chemical has dispersed, it’s over.

When you think about it, this scenario is a rough approximation of what happens every day, all over the world, in doctor’s offices. The doctors are prescribing chemicals (drugs) whose effects are far more dangerous than germs that may (or may not) be causing patients to be ill.

In other words, a chem-war attack is being leveled at people all over the world all the time.

See Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, “Is US health really the best in the world?” 106,000 people in America are killed every year by FDA-approved medical drugs. That’s over a million people per decade.

In the wake of a staged “biowar” terror attack, new laws are enacted. The State clamps down harder on basic freedoms. The right to travel is curtailed. Criticizing the authorities is viewed as highly illegal. Freedom of assembly is limited.

“Citizens must cooperate. We’re all in this together.”

A new federal law mandating the CDC schedule of vaccines for every child and adult—no exceptions permitted—is rushed through the Congress and signed by the President.

It’s all based on a lie…in the same way that the disease theory of the medical cartel is based on a lie: the strength of an individual’s immune system is the basic determinant of health or illness, not germs considered in a vacuum.

There are people who are determined to inflate the dangers of germs. They trumpet every “new” germ as the end of humankind on the planet. They especially sound the alarm when researchers claim a germ may have mutated or jumped from animals to humans.

“This is it! We’re done for!”

However, if you check into actual confirmed cases of death from recent so-called epidemics, such as West Nile, SARS, bird flu, Swine Flu, and Ebola, the numbers of deaths are incredibly low.

If political criminals, behind the scenes, wanted to stage a confined “biowar” event, they would choose a chemical, not a germ, and they would leverage such an event to curtail freedom.

Understand: researchers behind sealed doors in labs can claim, with unassailable ease, that they’ve found a germ that causes an outbreak. Almost no one challenges such an assertion.

This was the case, for example, with the vaunted SARS epidemic (a dud), in 2003, when 10 World Health Organization (WHO) labs, walled off from view, in communication with each other via closed circuit, announced they’d isolated a coronavirus as the culprit.

Later, in Canada, a WHO microbiologist, Frank Plummer, wandered off the reservation and told reporters he was puzzled by the fact that fewer and fewer SARS patients “had the coronavirus.” This was tantamount to confessing that the whole research effort had been a failure and a sham—but after a day or so of coverage, the press fell silent.

SARS was a nonsensical farce. Diagnosed patients had ordinary seasonal flu or a collection of familiar symptoms that could result from many different causes.

But the propaganda effort was a stunning success. Populations were frightened. The need for vaccines, in the public mind, was exacerbated.

Several years ago, I spoke with a biologist about the fake bioterror scenario I’ve sketched out above. His comment was: “Do you think any mainstream scientist would dare go into that cordoned-off town and actually check the area for a highly toxic chemical? He’d be blackballed, exiled, and discredited in a minute. The authorities would call him crazy. And that’s if he were lucky.”

Such is “science,” these days. A researcher can discover anything he wants to, if it’s approved. Otherwise, the door is closed.

After 30 years of covering and reporting on deep science fraud, I can tell you that most scientists know, without instructions from above, the dimensions of their “permitted territory.” They can sniff out career danger from a mile away.

GMOs? Roundup? Other toxic pesticides? Climate change? Vaccines? Medical drugs? Diagnostic medical tests? Actual environmental pollution? Mercury? Chemicals in food? Radiation? Nuclear power plants? Fracking? Fluorides? On these and a whole host of other issues, government is centrally involved as a ruling force. And there are armies of compliant scientists ready and willing to carry out preferred government (and corporate) dictates. These scientists already know the answers before the questions are even asked.

Meanwhile, propaganda rivers flow, extolling the glories of science.

It’s a dream situation, for the terminally corrupt.

A huge number of scientists, who don’t actually participate in research fraud, stand back and watch it happen and say nothing. They see the handwriting on the wall in very large letters.

In 1988, while writing my first book, AIDS INC., I interviewed a highly respected virologist at a US university. I mentioned that several molecular biologists were challenging the HIV-causation hypothesis of AIDS. He told me that he and a number of his colleagues were aware that “a serious problem” existed concerning evidence for the hypothesis, but they were all going to “let this one go.” It was too political, he said.

Yes, well, an enormous amount of science turns out to be political.

Keeping one’s head down and letting things go by may not be part of a PhD curriculum, but soon after school is out, researchers enter a different kind of training.

A main theme then pops up: do you want a career, or do you want to live in the middle of nowhere, in exile?

As it so happens, building a broad scientific consensus resting on sand is a straightforward job. It takes time and money, but the work requires no brilliance.

You just flash signs at scientists. The signs say: money; job security; status; advancement; promotion; grants; prestige; reputation; pension; exposure; censure; discrediting; exile; isolation; death.

They get the idea right away.

They would get the idea when a fake bio-attack (that was actually a chemical) occurred. Stay quiet, agree with the authorities.

“Sure, I knew it was a chemical, but I have house payments to make, and my kids are applying to expensive universities…”

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Exposing psychiatry as a fraud from top to bottom

by Jon Rappoport

January 18, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Promoting diabolically false science, psychiatry creates a gateway for defining many separate states of consciousness that don’t exist at all. They’re cheap myths, fairy tales.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Note: This is an expanded version of my recent piece about psychiatry. It contains far more evidence that psychiatry is a highly dangerous fraud.

Regardless of what you think of Donald Trump, the deployment of psychiatrists to diagnose a person they oppose on political grounds is a tactic—not science.

In some cases, psychiatrists give favored individuals a soft landing—“Well, he’s suffering from bipolar and he needs help straightening out his life”—while in other cases these shrinks use their diagnoses to discredit and diminish public figures—“his judgment is impaired, pay no attention to what he’s saying, he needs treatment (toxic drugs).”

It’s the old USSR strategy, with a few cultural twists to fit the American landscape.

It’s time to lay out the facts about psychiatry, to show how bankrupt this “science” really is.

Wherever you see organized psychiatry operating, you see it trying to expand its domain and its dominance. The Hippocratic Oath to do no harm? Are you kidding?

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

An open secret has been bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

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

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

And along with that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can sway and tap dance and bloviate all you like and you won’t escape the noose. We are looking at a science that isn’t a science. That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.

There’s more. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for years, almost no one noticed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BANG.

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

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

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

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

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

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:
acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;
life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;
brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:
intercranial pressure leading to blindness;
peripheral circulatory collapse;
stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar”) include:
serious impairment of cognitive function;
fainting;
restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).

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

So…what about Ritalin?

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

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

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

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

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

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

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

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

Let’s take a little trip back in time and review how one psychiatric drug, Prozac, escaped a bitter fate, by hook and by crook. It’s an instructive case.

Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a while. Stories on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off. But on February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.”

She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”

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

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

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.”

An instructive article, “Protecting Prozac,” by Michael Grinfeld, in the December 1998 California Lawyer, opens several doors. Grinfeld notes that “in the past year nearly a dozen cases involving Prozac have disappeared from the court record.” He was talking about law suits against the manufacturer, Eli Lilly, and he was saying that those cases had apparently been settled, without trial, in such a quiet and final way, with such strict confidentiality, that it is almost as if they never happened.

Grinfeld details a set of maneuvers involving attorney Paul Smith, who in the early 1990s became the lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the famous Fentress lawsuit against Eli Lilly.

The plaintiffs made the accusation that Prozac had induced a man to commit murder. This was the first action involving Prozac to reach a trial and jury, so it would establish a major precedent for a large number of other pending suits against the manufacturer.

The case: On September 14, 1989, Joseph Wesbecker, a former employee of Standard Gravure, in Louisville, Kentucky, walked into the workplace, with an AK-47 and a SIG Sauer pistol, killed eight people, wounded 12 others, and committed suicide. Family members of the victims subsequently sued Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, on the grounds that Wesbecker had been pushed over the edge into violence by the drug.

The trial: After what many people thought was a very weak attack on Lilly by plaintiffs’ lawyer Smith, the jury came back in five hours with an easy verdict favoring Lilly and Prozac.

Grinfeld writes, “Lilly’s defense attorneys predicted the verdict would be the death knell for [anti-]Prozac litigation.”

But that wasn’t the end of the Fentress case. “Rumors began to circulate that [the plaintiffs’ attorney] Smith had made several [prior] oral agreements with Lilly concerning the evidence that would be presented [in Fentress], the structure of a postverdict settlement, and the potential resolution of Smith’s other [anti-Prozac] cases.”

In other words, the rumors declared: This plaintiff’s lawyer, Smith, made a deal with Lilly. He, Smith, would present a weak attack, omitting evidence damaging to Prozac, so that the jury would find Lilly innocent of all charges. In return, the case would be settled secretly, with Lilly paying out big monies to Smith’s client. In this way, Lilly would avoid the exposure of a public settlement, and through the innocent verdict, would discourage other potential plaintiffs from suing it over Prozac.

The rumors congealed. The judge in the Fentress case, John Potter, asked lawyers on both sides if “money had changed hands.” He wanted to know if the fix was in. The lawyers said no money had been paid, “without acknowledging that an agreement was in place.”

Judge Potter didn’t stop there. In April 1995, Grinfeld notes, “In court papers, Potter wrote that he was surprised that the plaintiffs’ attorneys [Smith] hadn’t introduced evidence that Lilly had been charged criminally for failing to report deaths from another of its drugs to the Food and Drug Administration. Smith had fought hard [during the Fentress trial] to convince Judge Potter to admit that evidence, and then unaccountably withheld it.”

In Potter’s motion, he alleged that “Lilly [in the Fentress case] sought to buy not just the verdict, but the court’s judgment as well.”

In 1996, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued an opinion: “… there was a serious lack of candor with the trial court [during Fentress] and there may have been deception, bad faith conduct, abuse of the judicial process or perhaps even fraud.”

After the Supreme Court remanded the Fentress case back to the state attorney general’s office, the whole matter dribbled away, and then resurfaced in a different form, in another venue. At the time of the California Lawyer article, a new action against Smith was unresolved. Eventually, Eli Lilly escaped punishment.

Based on the rigged Fentress case, Eli Lilly silenced many lawsuits based on Prozac inducing murder and suicide.

Quite a story.

And it all really starts with the institution of psychiatry inventing a whole branch of science that doesn’t exist, thereby defining 300 mental disorders that don’t exist.

Here’s a coda:

This one is big.

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

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

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

Boom.

Dead.

However…urban legend? No. For decades, the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “We’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain; every mental disorder stems from such a chemical imbalance.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s what’s happening. The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They’re taking heavy flack on many fronts.

The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage.

Psychiatry is a pseudoscience.

So the shrinks have to move into another model, another con, another fraud. And they’re looking for one.

For example, mental disorders are the result of genes plus “psycho-social factors.” A mish-mash of more unproven science.

“New breakthrough research on the functioning of the brain is paying dividends and holds great promise…” Professional propaganda.

It’s all gibberish, all the way down.

Meanwhile, the business model demands drugs for sale.

So even though the chemical-imbalance nonsense has been discredited, it will continue on as a dead man walking, a zombie.

Big Pharma isn’t going to back off. Trillions of dollars are at stake.

And in the wake of Aurora, Colorado, Sandy Hook, the Naval Yard, and other mass shootings, the hype is expanding: “We must have new community mental-health centers all over America.”

More fake diagnosis of mental disorders, more devastating drugs.

You want to fight for a right?

Fight for the right of every adult to refuse medication. Fight for the right of every parent to refuse medication for his/her child.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

A whole branch of science turns out to be fake

by Jon Rappoport

November 29, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

Devotees of science often assume that what is called science is real and true. It must be. Otherwise, their faith is broken. Their superficial understanding is shattered. Their “superior view” of the world is torpedoed.

Such people choose unofficial “anti-science” targets to attack. They never think of inspecting their own house for enormous fraud.

For example: psychiatry.

An open secret has been slowly bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

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

And along with that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BANG.

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

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

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

Here is a smoking-gun statement made by another prominent mental-health expert, on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”

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

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

Without intending to, Dr. Barkley blows an ear-shattering whistle on his own profession.

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

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

Dr. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. If a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have science at all, and that would mean our whole profession rests on nothing—and that is unthinkable, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”

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

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

300 so-called mental disorders caused by…what? No lab evidence. No defining diagnostic tests. No blood tests, saliva tests, brain scans, genetic assays. No nothing.

But psychiatrists continue to assert they are the masters of causation. They know what’s behind “mental disorders.” They’re in charge.

What about the generalized “chemical imbalance” hypothesis stating that all mental disorders stem from such imbalances in the brain?

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

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

Boom.

Dead.

The point is, for decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed.

The chemical imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage.

So the shrinks have to move into another model of “mental illness,” another con, another fraud. And they’re looking for one.

For example, genes plus “psycho-social factors” cause mental disorders. A mish-mash of more unproven science.

“New breakthrough research on the functioning of the brain is paying dividends and holds great promise…” Professional PR and gibberish.

Meanwhile, the business model demands drugs for sale.

So even though the chemical-imbalance nonsense has been discredited, it will continue on as a dead man walking, a zombie.

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 tend to 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?

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

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

Why you shouldn’t believe anything the FBI says about the Vegas shooting

Why you shouldn’t believe anything the FBI says about Vegas shooting

by Jon Rappoport

October 9, 2017

No matter how the Vegas shooting investigation looks, the FBI is playing a large role. The forensics, in particular, would be checked by FBI techs and labs.

Vital lab analysis of weapons and ammunition and bullet-angles and cartridges and residue. Weapons Paddock had or didn’t have. Ammunition he had or didn’t have. Modifications he made or didn’t make to those weapons. How many different kinds of bullets were found in victims? What weapons did those bullets come from?

And depending on that evidence—were there multiple shooters, for example?

Should you believe the FBI’s analyses?

Are you kidding? The scurrilous reputation of the FBI in its handling of forensics is astonishing. Read on. Note: I’m saving the best for last:

In 2014-15, stories appeared in the press about the phenomenal corruption of the FBI evidence lab. But since then, there has been very little follow-up. I find no compelling evidence that the federal government has fixed the problem.

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…[an FBI source states] ’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload.’”

Washington Post, April 18, 2015: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

“Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.”

“The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.”

Giant long-term scandal and corruption. The story is covered. Then it disappears.

Now here’s the capper:

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.

So now…there is no reason to believe anything the FBI says about Paddock, his weapons, his ammo, his modifications, the degree of his participation (or non-participation) in the shooting, the trajectories of bullets, the types of bullets found in victims, the nature of the expended shell casings, and other VITAL forensic details in the case.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

MD: I’ve seen cases of vaccine injury for 40 years

MD: I’ve seen cases of vaccine injury for forty years

Australian doctor exposes vaccine damage, stands up to government/media attacks

Here is what he wrote

by Jon Rappoport

September 4, 2017

In Australia, the noose is tightening around parents’ and children’s necks.

There is already a policy in place that denies certain government benefits to families who don’t vaccinate their kids. Now, there is legislation that would deny unvaccinated children enrollment in daycare and kindergarten.

But a grassroots rebellion is underway.

Australian MD John Piesse has stepped out of the shadows and reported his findings and research on vaccine damage. The government is investigating him. They may strip his license. The press is attacking him mercilessly.

He isn’t backing down.

His stance is certainly heroic, but remember that every doctor takes an oath to do no harm to his patients. Without question, there are many other doctors who know the truth, first-hand, about what vaccines really do. But they stay silent.

Some of these doctors don’t vaccinate their own children…but they continue to inject toxic chemicals and viruses into their young patients. That is a crime and betrayal of the first order.

Here, in full, is a letter Dr. Piesse recently wrote to The Age. Read it. Study it. Understand it. This isn’t the unhinged raving of a madman, as the press would have you believe.

This is basic truth that every parent should have and own:

“I have been encountering cases of vaccine injury for over 40 years. In June it was a happy, healthy nearly 5-year-old whose parents were required to put her on a catch-up schedule, in order to get her into kindergarten. She won’t be going to kinder. She’s in a wheel-chair, brain-damaged. Her life ruined. Then came a friend’s father who died after a flu vaccine, and last week a 4 year old boy, made autistic by a catch-up schedule.”

“In 1988, the US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created. It has paid out over US$3.5 billion to the vaccine-injured. The NVICP was set up to protect vaccine manufacturers from ruinous costs of litigation by vaccine-damaged people. It was deemed preferable to have ‘unavoidably unsafe’ vaccines than no vaccines. Unfortunately the protection provided to vaccine manufacturers also reduced incentives to develop safer vaccines in USA.”

“Vaccines contain health-damaging ingredients, not the least aluminium – a known neurotoxin implicated along with mercury, in brain damage as in autism, developmental delay, ADHD, and learning difficulties. Aluminium is also a powerful promoter of auto-immune diseases. Vaccines can claim to be mercury-free if their mercury content is below a still-toxic threshold. Most influenza vaccines contain mercury – also a neurotoxin. In addition, polysorbate 80 in vaccines increases the permeability of the blood brain barrier and potentiates the risks of these neurotoxins. The known presence of carcinogenic viruses in the MMR vaccine, has been covered-up. Vaccines also contain formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.”

“Proof of vaccine safety requires rigorously conducted clinical studies comparing vaccinated versus truly unvaccinated children for health outcomes. Are there any such studies that confirm that vaccinated children are not worse-off than those unvaccinated? No. There are none. Hence, child vaccines are unproven for safety – an inconvenient truth for a profession that prides itself on being scientific.”

“One analysis indicated that national infant mortality rates were proportional to the number of vaccine doses (Miller NZ 2011), contradictory to the claim that ‘vaccination saves lives’.”

“From mid-2015, parents who wished not to vaccinate their children, started to converge on my practice seeking assistance with gaining exemption from the penalties directed at non-vaccinators by the No Jab No Pay and No Jab No Play Legislation.”

“Analysis up to the end of 2016 of parent’s reasons for not vaccinating, indicated that 64% of 166 parents knew of vaccine-damaged individuals in their own family. The study of ‘Adversomics’ confirms polymorphic and genomic susceptibility factors common to vaccine–damaged individuals and their families. (Poland GA 2015). 40% of unvaccinated children had pre-existing health problems that parents considered would make them more at risk of harm from vaccines. 60% of unvaccinated children were very healthy, but only 6% of the vaccinated children. There were no cases of autism in 212 unvaccinated children, but 8 autism cases in the 50 vaccinated children (16%), and 36% with ASD [autism spectrum disorder], compared to 1.4% in the unvaccinated.”

“As yet there are no large-scale vaccinated versus truly unvaccinated studies of the sort needed prove that vaccines do or do not cause autism.”

“So where does the widespread belief that vaccines do not cause autism derive? In a nutshell: from an over-whelming quantity of ‘manufactured science’ of low quality, scientific fraud, and ignoring evidence supporting causality. Few doctors and politicians are aware of the pivotal scientific fraud committed in the US Centers for Disease Control. A study of the MMR vaccine in black American babies showed a 2.5 fold higher level of autism in babies given the MMR vaccine at 12 months of age compared to 3 years. The CDC refused to publish these findings but manipulated the data to disguise the undeniable association found. The fraudulent data was then published (DeStefano F 2004 ) and promoted as the final statement on the question. Thereafter the official line was that vaccination did not cause autism. 5000 vaccine-damaged children had their applications in the Vaccine Court for compensation quashed after this deception. But [CDC] whistle-blower William Thompson released the true unabridged data which was published briefly until pressure from the CDC forced its retraction (Hooker B 2014)”

“A recent study of home-school students showed a 6.6 fold increase in neurodevelopmental disorders in the vaccinated group over the unvaccinated. Autism spectrum disorders were 4.7 times more prevalent in the vaccinated children (Mawson AR 2017).”

“So long as doctors and governments continue to be hood-winked into believing that vaccines do not cause autism, no action will be taken to stop the alarming surge in the autism epidemic. A tragedy that need not happen if we demand good science and safe vaccines.”

Who is next?

Who is the next doctor to step into the light and tell the truth, regardless of the consequences?

“Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them…”

In this case, “Arms” means the truth. Because if it spreads far enough, from many doctors, there will be an end to the high mounds of intentional lies that compose official science, which is fake science—designed to put children under the gun, under the needle.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

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