Category Archives: Science Fraud

Invisible microparticles in food can deliver vaccines, drugs

Invisible microparticles in food can deliver vaccines, drugs

I compare a patent application with what at least one company can deliver to the unknowing public now

by Jon Rappoport

June 12, 2016

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

Thanks to researcher Mary Baker for showing me an explosive patent application and its implications.

Before getting to the details, the overview is this: a technology exists to embed tiny invisible particles in food products, and these particles can deliver nutrients and drugs and vaccines. Apparently, the technology has existed for at least 10 years. Yet, as Baker states, when have you seen a food label that mentions such particles?

Are we to assume the technology hasn’t yet been applied? Is it operating at a stealth level? I’ll try to answer these questions in a minute. But first:

US Patent application ‘US20080044481 A1’. “Microparticles for oral delivery.” May 27, 2005. The inventor and assignee is listed as Mordechai Harel, who was associated with Advanced BioNutrition Corporation of Columbia, Maryland. Here are a group of quotes from the patent application. The statements leave no doubt about the wide, wide application of the technology.

“The particles described herein can be used to deliver bioactive agents (e.g., nutrients, drugs, vaccines, antibodies, and the like), bacteria (e.g., probiotic bacteria), smaller particles, or substantially any other material to the animal.”

“The particles described herein can be prepared and used as free-flowing dry powders, slurries, suspensions, and the like, and are useful for delivering to an animal a drug, a pesticide, a nutrient, a vaccine, a smaller particle, or substantially any other composition that can be contained in the particles. The particles are thus suitable for use in human food products, animal feeds (e.g., pet foods and farmed animal diets), therapeutic compositions (e.g., drugs), prophylactic compositions (e.g., vaccines, antibiotics, and probiotic bacterial preparations), and pest control products among other products.”

“A ‘particle’ is a discrete piece of a (homogeneous or heterogeneous) material having a maximum dimension not greater than 5000 micrometers.”

“Furthermore, when the microparticles are to be used as components of a food product, it can be desirable that the microparticles are not visible.”

“The particles described herein can be used to deliver substantially any chemical species, combination of chemicals, cell, or other piece of matter that can be incorporated into the particle to a component of an animal. All such items are referred to herein as ‘bioactive’ compositions, regardless of what the utility of the composition is. Bioactive compositions include, for example, pharmaceutical compositions or compounds, nutraceutical compositions or compounds, nutritional components, probiotic bacteria, bacteriophages, viruses, flavorants, fragrances, detergents or other surface-active compositions.”

“Examples of these [deliverable micro] agents include antibiotics, analgesics, vaccines, anti-inflammatory agents, antidepressants, anti-viral agents, anti-tumor agents, enzyme inhibitors, formulations containing zidovudine, proteins or peptides (such as vaccines, antibodies, antimicrobial peptides), enzymes, (e.g., amylases, proteases, lipases, pectinases, cellulases, hemicellulases, pentosanases, xylanases, and phytases), liposomes, aromatic nitro and nitroso compounds and their metabolites, HIV protease inhibitors, viruses, and steroids, hormones or other growth stimulating agents, pesticides, herbicides, germicides, biocides, algicides, rodenticides, fungicides, insecticides, antioxidants, plant and animal growth promoters, plant and animal growth inhibitors, preservatives, nutraceuticals, disinfectants, sterilization agents, catalysts, chemical reactants, fermentation agents, foods, animal feeds, food or animal feed supplements, nutrients, flavors, colors, dyes, cosmetics, drugs, vitamins, sex sterilants, fertility inhibitors, fertility promoters, air purifiers, microorganism attenuators, nucleic acids (e.g., RNA, DNA, PNA, vectors, plasmids, ribozymes, aptamers, dendrimers, and the like), antioxidants, phytochemicals, hormones, vitamins (such as vitamins A, B1, B2, B6, B12; C, D, E, and K, pantothenate, and folic acid), pro-vitamins, carotenoids, minerals (such as calcium, selenium, magnesium salts, available iron, and iron salts), microorganisms (such as bacteria, such as probiotics, lactobacilli, fungi, and yeast), prebiotics, trace elements, essential and/or highly unsaturated fatty acids (such as omega-3 fatty acids, and mid-chain triglycerides), nutritional supplements, enzymes (such as amylases, proteases, lipases, pectinases, cellulases, hemicellulases, pentosanases, xylanases, and phytases), pigments, amino acids, agriculturally useful compositions to either prevent infestation (such as herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, mixtures thereof) or to promote growth (such as hormones, fertilizers, or other growth stimulating agents), flavorants, and fragrances.”

I’d say that’s a wide range of application, wouldn’t you?

Did you notice, among the blizzard of compounds deliverable through invisible microparticles, the drug called zidovudine? That’s AZT, a chemo medicine used to treat AIDS patients. To say AZT is toxic would be a vast understatement. It destroys the ability of cells to replicate. And back in 2005, it was mentioned as a drug that can be delivered in food.

So is this technology being applied? Do we, in fact, have these microparticles and their bioactive components in our food?

Let’s go back to the 2005 patent application. As I mentioned, the inventor, Mordechai Harel, was associated with a company, Advanced BioNutrition Corporation. On the company’s website, we find a link to a scientific paper co-authored by Roger Drewes, who became the company’s chief science officer in 2010 (“A novel targeted delivery technology for protecting sensitive bioactive compounds…”). This is an interesting paper. Here is some of the language in the paper. Does any of it remind you of quotes from the 2005 patent application? The paper mentions a novel and proprietary “delivery technology,” MicroMax, which “protect[s] sensitive bioactive compounds through food manufacturing processes.” Also mentioned: a “formulation containing natural polymers surrounding the probiotic bacteria or other biologically active materials…” The probiotic bacteria “remain quiescent while retaining their activity for a long period of time under challenging…gastric conditions…[MicroMax was tested using] bacteria, essential oils, vitamins, enzymes, pigments, and even vaccines in a variety of food and feed products…and the microparticles were sieved to deliver the desired particle range…” [emphasis added]

This might help. Here is the abstract from the 2005 patent application: “The invention provides microbeads containing oil-associated biologically active compounds and methods for their manufacture and use. The microbeads consist of a soluble complex of non-digestible polymer and emulsifier with oil-associated biologically active compounds embedded in a matrix of digestible polymer. The disclosed microbead complex protects the biologically active compounds, such as vitamins, fish oil and carotenoids, from oxidation, taste and odor degradation. The disclosed microbeads also provide protection from the stomach digestive distraction [e.g., gastric activity] and allows for the delivery of the biologically active compounds in the intestine.” [emphasis added]

power outside the matrix

I think we’re looking at the same technology in the 2005 patent application and in Advanced BioNutrition Corp’s MicroMax methods—or two technologies that closely resemble each other—in which case, yes, invisible microparticles in food are much more than a proposed system. This is a working system, available now. It can deliver a stunning array of chemicals and bioactive substances to people in their food. (Note: I have no idea what Advanced BioNutrition Corp is or isn’t delivering to its customers—but I think the company should make these facts known.)

Who knows what other companies have, and are using, this technology?

Are we looking at zero informed consent to be treated, in food, with medicines and vaccines? Zero knowledge on the part of the public? Zero accountability? Nothing on the food labels?

If this is happening to the population now, the word “stealth” only begins to describe it.

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.

Physics, free will, and the ‘Spiritual CIA’

Physics, free will, and the ‘Spiritual CIA’

by Jon Rappoport

May 26, 2016

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

Conventional physicists will tell you that none of the micro-components of the universe (atoms, electrons, photons, quarks, wavicles) exhibits freedom.

The particles don’t reveal anything that could be called freedom.

Physicists will also tell you that everything in the universe, including human bodies and brains, is made up of these very same particles and nothing else.

They will tell you that mind is simply and only the brain.

Therefore, nowhere in body, brain, or mind is there any quality that makes freedom possible.

Freedom=the power of an individual to choose A rather B; to decide to do something or not do it; to invent a possibility and then follow it with action.

According to conventional physics, there is no freedom. It’s not possible. It’s a fantasy.

Contrary to every impulse, awareness, or thought you might have about your freedom, you’re wrong. You’re absolutely deluded. That’s the consensus of the conventional physicists.

Aside from the majestic absurdity of their position, you should also know that, in the partnership between government and science, there is no limit on what programming will be tried on citizens—because, since key persons in that elite partnership hold that freedom is an illusion, it doesn’t matter what they do to us.

It’s just replacing one deterministic program with another.

That’s their view, and I hope you understand it.

If you pushed them into a corner, they would assert that the entire history of the struggle to attain freedom for the individual, against top-down tyrannies, was a meaningless enterprise—because, according to their “findings,” freedom never existed at any time, anywhere. It could never exist. Life is only unconscious particles moving through space and time.

But we, who know how ridiculous that story is, need to admit something: since is freedom is quite real, it exists outside the fabric of the universe. Freedom is not energy, it is not space, it is not time. It is non-material.

And this is a bolt of lightning. It is, when viewed properly, an inspiration of the first order.

It opens up limitless territory, far greater than what we conceive the universe occupies.

And if individual freedom is that huge and that profound, then what does that say about individual power?

The most profound covert ops are aimed at rejecting these factors, at making us believe we are dues-paying card-carrying members of Automatic Predetermined Life.

That’s the materialistic op. That’s the “Spiritual CIA.”

Exit From the Matrix

That’s the issue which will decide our near-future. How we do stand? Where do we stand?

How much freedom and, therefore, power will we admit we have?

What fake shrunken stories will we sell ourselves, in order to slip back into the materialistic cocoon?

The philosophy and “science” of materialism is about far more than the intellectual discussion of what humans are and aren’t. It’s about you. It’s about what you’re capable of, once you offload the imposed limits of this technologically focused civilization—this “normal” civilization that rejects the “paranormal.”

Getting the picture?

I know some of you are.

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.

Manufacturing consent in science: the diabolical twist

Manufacturing consent in science: the diabolical twist

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2016

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

In the famous 1988 Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman book, Manufacturing Consent, the authors explore how media distort the news and employ propaganda, in order to bring about consent/consensus in the population.

This is nothing less than the creation of reality.

I want to extend that concept here, particularly as it applies to science.

From so many directions, official science is shaping our future—that’s why it’s vital to understand the manipulations involved.

It’s one thing to say media collaborate to sell a false picture of reality, a picture which is then bought by the masses. It’s quite another thing to say media collaborate to pretend there is already a consensus of the best professional minds on a given scientific subject—when there isn’t.

I’ll start with a theoretical example. Let’s say three researchers at a university examine data based on US moon missions, and they conclude that a small set of new conclusions are true. I’ll call this set X.

The researchers publish an article in a journal, and a healthy debate ensues in professional circles. Is X correct? Are there flaws in the research?

However, a powerful public agency decides that X is dangerous. X could lead to inquiries about contractors, investigations into cost overruns, missing money, and, worst of all, flawed engineering of space-capsules.

Therefore, this powerful agency goes on an all-out propaganda campaign, tapping its press sources, culminating in a new study that concludes X is entirely false.

The press basically trumpets: “Experts agree X is false. X was the result of shoddy research. The original researchers made numerous amateur mistakes.”

Notice that, in this case, the press isn’t simply distorting the news. It’s announcing that a superior consensus already exists among the best scientific minds.

It’s lying about a consensus that doesn’t exist among scientists who, up until that moment, were having a healthy debate.

The press is presenting the false consensus as if it were real and widespread, when it isn’t.

And at this point, all relevant scientists get the message: keep quiet, don’t debate for another moment; otherwise grant monies will vanish, demotions will occur, peers will lay on heavy criticism, excommunication from The Club will follow.

So these scientists do keep quiet—and then a consensus among them comes into being overnight, by implied threat and coercion.

This is basically what happened in the arena of energy-production via cold fusion. Wikipedia adequately summarizes the surface of the situation: “The most famous cold fusion claims were made by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989. After a brief period of interest by the wider scientific community, their reports were called into question by nuclear physicists.”

Not just called into question; defamed, derided, mocked, slammed over the head with a sledgehammer.

A superior consensus was invented, despite the fact that many scientists were intensely interested in the Pons/Fleishmann findings. They tried, in vain, to point out that the failed efforts to reproduce those findings resulted because researchers were altering Pons and Fleishman’s methods.

No dice. Cold fusion was labeled a giant error and even a fraud. The official door was closed.

In my research leading up to the publication of my first book, AIDS INC., in 1988, I reviewed the period of the early 1980s, when many researchers were coming at the question of the cause of AIDS from different angles. But then, suddenly, in the spring of 1984, the US government officially announced, at a televised press conference, that a virus called HTLV-III (HIV) was the cause.

The science was shoddy, to put it mildly. It was bad science and no science. But no matter. Overnight, all the monies that had gone into discovering what caused AIDS were diverted into the question: How does HIV cause AIDS? Any scientist who failed to see the handwriting on the wall was shoved out into the cold.

The press closed ranks. The consensus (though it was manufactured in the blink of an eye) was trumpeted around the world.

The big news headline wasn’t just false and distorted. It was false-and-distorted about a consensus that, until a few seconds ago, didn’t exist—and only existed now because researchers went silent and accepted dogma and folded up.

For years (and even now), the basic news about climate change/global warming is: there is a consensus. The science is settled. The scientists agree that the science is settled. The scientists agree that the scientists who agree are correct. This, despite the fact that you can still find impressive lists of scientists who don’t agree at all. But they are shut out of the news.

The same construction of consensus applies to the safety of vaccines.

The same construction of consensus applies to the “overwhelming success of the practice of modern medicine.”

Predatory corporations who spray poisonous pesticides all over the world and cause birth defects need special protection and cover? Invent, overnight, and broadcast, a consensus that a basically harmless virus is the cause of those tragic defects.

I can assure you there are many scientists who don’t, for a second, believe the Zika virus is the agent of destruction. But they are keeping their mouths shut now and rolling with the tide.

However, that tide is turning. In many arenas of science, journalists and researchers with no allegiance to official bodies have emerged.

A different species of handwriting is being inscribed on the wall.

What can the mainstream press do about it?

They can only deploy the crass tactics I’ve mentioned here.

A massive and stunning re-education is taking place among the population. No school is running it. No agency is sponsoring it. It’s happening from the ground up.

It turns out that living as a cipher and a unit in the sticky web of fabricated consensus isn’t nearly as attractive as it once was.

More and more, major media are using the consensus strategy to invent the news—and people are rejecting it.

Without realizing it, the press is committing professional suicide. An article that was once headlined, “Three dead horses found in a field,” has become, “Scientists agree that the three dead horses were a coincidence.” And people are laughing the press out of court.

power outside the matrix

The ongoing scandal surrounding the film, Vaxxed (trailer), is a good example. The press assures the population that pointing out a connection between a vaccine and autism is absurd, because scientific experts agree there is no such connection.

But the film features a long-time researcher at the Centers for Disease Control, who confesses that he and colleagues falsified a 2004 study in order to exonerate one such vaccine.

The film’s subject is false consensus.

And the press can do no better than repeat, over and over: the consensus is real and valid.

The CDC researcher, William Thompson, is essentially shouting, “I was part of the consensus. Don’t you get it? I was a card-carrying member of the club that invents fake consensus. And now I’m telling you that. Don’t fall for this notion that the best minds agree. The best minds conspire to concoct agreement out of thin air.”

The media are collapsing into their own swamp.

Jon Rappoport

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

Does HIV exist? An explosive interview

by Jon Rappoport

April 4, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

The interview, conducted by excellent freelance journalist, Christine Johnson, delves into these questions:

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

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

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

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

CJ: Does HIV cause AIDS?

EPE: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

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

…

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

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

CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?

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

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

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

CJ: And what was that method?

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

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

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

CJ: But what about their pictures?

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

…

the matrix revealed

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

Therefore, more questions emerge. How many other viruses have been named as causes of disease, when in fact those viruses have never been isolated or proved to exist?

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

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

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

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

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.

Official science: the grand illusion for all robots

Official science: the grand illusion for all robots

by Jon Rappoport

November 2, 2015

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

“Government science exists because it is a fine weapon to use, in order to force an agenda of control over the population. We aren’t talking about knowledge here. Knowledge is irrelevant. What counts is: ‘How can we fabricate something that looks like the truth?’ I keep pointing this out: we’re dealing with reality builders. In this case, they make their roads and fences out of data, and they massage and invent the data out of thin air to suit their purposes. After all, they also invent money out of thin air.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Introduction: Since 1987, one of my goals as a reporter has been to educate the public about false science.

Between then and now, I have found that, with remarkably few exceptions, mainstream reporters are studiously indifferent to false science.

They shy away from it. They pretend “it couldn’t be.” They refuse to consider facts. They and their editors parrot “the experts.”

Official science has a stranglehold on major media. It has the force of a State religion. When you stop and think about it, official science is, in a significant sense, a holy church. Therefore, it is no surprise that the church’s spokespeople would wield power over major information outlets.

These prelates invent, guard, and dispense “what is known.” That was precisely the role of the Roman Church in times past. And those professionals within the modern Church of Science are severely punished when they leave the fold and accuse their former masters of lies and crimes. They are blackballed, discredited, and stripped of their licenses. At the very least.

Totalitarian science lets you know you’re living in a totalitarian society.

The government, the press, the mega-corporations, the prestigious foundations, the academic institutions, the “humanitarian” organizations say:

“This is the disease. This is its name. This is what causes it. This is the drug that treats it. This is the vaccine that prevents it.”

“This is how accurate diagnosis is done. These are the tests. These are the possible results and what they mean.”

“Here are the genes. This is what they do. This is how they can be changed and substituted and manipulated. These are the outcomes.”

“These are the data and the statistics. They are correct. There can be no argument about them.”

“This is life. These are the components of life. All change and improvement result from our management of the components.”

“This is the path. It is governed by truth which our science reveals. Walk the path. We will inform you when you stray. We will report new improvements.”

“This is the end. You can go no farther. You must give up the ghost. We will remember you.”

We are now witnessing the acceleration of Official Science. Of course, that term is an internal contradiction. But the State shrugs and moves forward.

The notion that the State can put its seal on favored science, enforce it, and punish its competitors, is anathema to a free society.

For example: declaring that psychiatrists can appear in court as expert witnesses, when none of the so-called mental disorders listed in the psychiatric literature are diagnosed by laboratory tests.

For example: stating that vaccination is mandatory, in order to protect the vaccinated (who are supposed to be immune) from the unvaccinated. An absurdity on its face.

For example: announcing that the science of climate change is “settled,” when there are, in fact, huge numbers of researchers who disagree. —And then, drafting legislation and issuing executive orders based on the decidedly unsettled science.

For example: officially approving the release and sale of medical drugs (“safe and effective”) which go on to kill, at a conservative estimate, 100,000 Americans every year. And then refusing to investigate or punish the purveyors of these drug approvals (the FDA).

For example: permitting the widespread use of genetically modified food crops, based on no long-term studies of their impact on human health. And then, arbitrarily announcing that the herbicide, Roundup, for which many of these crops are specifically designed, is non-toxic.

For example: declaring and promoting the existence of various epidemics, when the viruses purportedly causing them are not proven to exist and/or not proven to cause human illness (Ebola, SARS, West Nile, Swine Flu, etc.)

A few of you reading this have been with me since 1988, when I published my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century. Among other conclusions, I pointed out that HIV had never been shown to cause human illness; the front-line drug given to AIDS patients, AZT, was overwhelmingly toxic; and what was being called AIDS was actually a diverse number immune-suppressing conditions.

Others of you have found my work more recently. I always return to the subject of false science, because it is the most powerful long-term instrument for repression, political control, and destruction of human life.

As I’ve stated on many occasions, medical science is ideal for mounting and launching covert ops aimed at populations—because it appears to be politically neutral, without any allegiance to State interests.

Unfortunately, medical science, on many fronts, has been hijacked and taken over. The profit motive is one objective, but beyond that, there is a more embracing goal:

Totalitarian control.

The Matrix Revealed

On the issue of vaccines, I’ve written much about their dangers and ineffectiveness. But also consider this: the push for mandatory vaccination goes a long way toward creating a herd effect—which is really a social construction.

In other words, parents are propagandized to think of themselves a kind of synthetic artificial “community.”

“Here we are. We are the fathers and mothers. We must all protect our children against the outliers, the rebels, the defectors, the crazy ones who refuse to vaccinate their own children. We are all in this together. They are the threat. The enemy. We are good. We know the truth. They are evil.”

This “community of the willing” are dedicated to what the government tells them. They are crusaders imbued with group-think. They run around promoting “safety and protection.” This group consciousness is entirely an artifact, propelled by “official science.”

The crusaders are, in effect, agents of the State.

They are created by the State.

Androids.

They live in an absurd Twilight Zone where fear of germs (the tiny invisible terrorists) demands coercive action against the individuals who see through the whole illusion.

This is what official science can achieve. This is how it can enlist obedient foot soldiers and spies who don’t have the faintest idea about how they’re being used.

This is a variant on Orwell’s 1984. The citizens are owned by the all-embracing State, but they aren’t even aware of it.

That’s quite a trick.

Jon Rappoport

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

Who owns your genes? Are they a cure?

Who owns your genes? Are they a cure?

by Jon Rappoport

October 25, 2015

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

“No large institution of society can survive without deploying hundreds or even thousands of cover stories.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

In an October verdict, rendered by the Australian High Court, the purported breast-cancer gene, BRCA1, cannot be patented by any company.

The Court distinguished between an invention, which can be patented, and a discovery of something that is already there, such as a gene in the human body.

The Court’s verdict, hailed as “a victory for the people,” obscures a deeper question: how do genes help cure disease?

Researchers, drug companies, and academic shills will, of course, claim genes are the cutting edge of all future disease therapy; but you or I could claim that toenail clippings are the key to understanding how the universe was built.

In other words, a claim means nothing, unless it is backed up by evidence. There is presently no across-the-board genetic treatment that has been shown to be a cure for any disease.

Quite typical for the biotech sector. They make claims all the time, and promises, and great heraldic statements—in order to keep their money machine turning.

Just examine Monsanto’s claims about higher crop yields with GMOs, and the safety of its number-one pesticide, Roundup, which has now been exposed as a carcinogen.

The biotech industry is all about “fake it ‘til you make it.”

You certainly own your own genes, but that fact doesn’t ensure spectacular cures for what might ail you.

Then there is this: assuming gene damage can cause cancer, suppose the triggering event occurs as a result of coming into contact with environmental toxins? In other words, the toxic effects on genes will continue apace, no matter how much research is done on the composition and disposition of the genes themselves.

Much cancer research does, in fact, discover toxic causes—and it is in the interest of companies that spew those compounds out into the world to cover up their criminal guilt. What better way to achieve that than by asserting: “cancer is all in the genes.”

Look at the giant biotech companies like Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta. In one way or another, they are all involved in chemical and genetic research and production.

So they are in a prime position to deflect the chemical destruction they are wreaking by pushing “the frontiers of gene research.”

“It’s all about the genes.”

Hype. Hype. Hype.

Dr. Samuel Epstein, who devoted a major part of his life to the research of environmental toxins, wrote:

“We are losing the war against cancer. The prohibition of new carcinogenic products, reduction of toxins in use, and right-to-know laws – these are among the legislative proposals which could reverse the cancer epidemic.”

But that would be bad for business. The solution? Promote endlessly the notion that genes and only genes are at the root of cancer.

The big picture? The big con? Imagine a world drowning in pollution of all kinds, and top (bought-off) scientists saying: “Don’t worry, when it comes to cancer we’ve got it covered. Tweak this gene, tweak that gene, and poof, cancer never has a chance. Or if you get cancer, we can go in there and re-position crucial genes and knock out the disease. See, you can live in a chemical soup and never feel adverse effects…”

Genes. High-level, high-flying, high-minded, high-tech answers for the problems we face.

What? The science isn’t solid? The propaganda is wall-to-wall? The shills are everywhere? Don’t worry, be happy. The best minds will come up with solutions. Just wait and see. The great discoveries are right around the corner.

And I have condos for sale on Jupiter.

Step right up.

You can see the same kind of genetic hustle when it comes to autism, which many researchers, based on no real evidence, claim is “surely a genetic disease.”

This assertion covers up the fact that happy and healthy children, soon after receiving a vaccination, experience devastating neurological damage, leading to a diagnosis of autism.

But don’t go there, don’t look there, don’t talk about vaccines. No, instead, listen to the ascendant experts, who say it was just a coincidence that a vaccine was given and a child’s life was destroyed. You see, what really happened was: an errant gene response kicked in at the same moment. Nothing to do with the vaccine. Certainly not.

the matrix revealed

In actuality, the dominant paradigm of this world’s power structure is: float cover stories.

Sell big cover stories and keep selling them. Use them to conceal ongoing crimes.

“It’s the genes” is the latest and greatest cover.

Some of the biggest, best-educated liars on the planet deploy it every day.

Here is the next big thing: genes injected, functioning as vaccines. The hype is over the top. Of course, scientists admit that these injected genes will incorporate themselves in the body and alter its genetic makeup permanently.

If you like and trust that idea, I have condos in the core of the sun for sale. Bargain prices.

Jon Rappoport

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

To science bloggers living with mommy

by Jon Rappoport

August 25, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

These conventional science bloggers are really something. They’ve never met a published study extolling mainstream science they haven’t loved. I don’t know, maybe the studies somehow remind them of mommy and her warm basement where they still live at age 40 and do their important work.

A study praising a new drug? A study claiming a vaccine was “well tolerated?” A study claiming GMOs are perfectly safe? A study reporting the dire effects of manmade warming? They kiss it and try to make it better.

So here are a few statements they can chew on like week-old delivery pizza.

Warning: what follows could forever alter your view of published science.

We begin with quotes from two editors of prestigious science journals. These people have read, pawed over, analyzed, and dissected more science studies than 1000 bloggers taken together ever will.

One: Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”:

“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…”

Two: Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, in the NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”:

“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.”

Three: John PA Ioannidis, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece, and Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Department of Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, in PLoS Medicine, August 30, 2005, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”:

“There is increasing concern that most current published research findings [in all scientific fields] are false… a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller…when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias…There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.”

Four: Back to Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet. In the same editorial quoted above, Horton makes reference to a recent symposium he attended at the Wellcome Trust in London. The subject of the meeting was the reliability of published biomedical research. His following quote carries additional force because he and other attendees were told to obey Chatham House rules—meaning no one would reveal who made any given comment during the conference.

Horton: “‘A lot of what is published is incorrect.’ I’m not allowed to say who made this remark [at the conference] because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in ‘purdah’—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations [biomedical science]”.

Conventional science bloggers, take notice. You’re working in a field where studies supporting the general consensus are tainted and stained.

Starting sentences with “the FDA approves” or “the CDC confirms” or “a study published in The New England Journal established” isn’t a ticket to the truth. Far from it.

You’re wading in a stench-ridden swamp, and you don’t know it; or you do know it and you don’t care, because you want to be part of the club; or someone is paying you to make absurd assertions. One way or another, you’re doomed if you follow the party line.

This is a much different landscape than you think it is. It’s a wholesale fabrication of what looks, sounds, smells, tastes, and feels like truth. But it isn’t. It’s a lying cartoon. It has vicious consequences.

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.

Bombshell: CDC destroyed vaccine documents, Congressman reveals

Bombshell: CDC destroyed vaccine documents, Congressman reveals; CDC whistleblower case is back

by Jon Rappoport

July 31, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“…the [CDC] co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the [MMR vaccine] study. The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can.” (William Thompson, CDC researcher)

On July 29, US Congressman Bill Posey made his last stand on the floor of the House. Granted five minutes to speak, he laid bare the lying of the CDC in a now-famous 2004 study that exonerated the MMR vaccine and claimed it had no connection to autism.

“No connection to autism” was the lie.

Congressman Posey read a statement from long-time CDC researcher William Thompson, one of the authors of the 2004 Pediatrics study designed to determine, once and for all, whether the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine could cause autism.

Thompson saw and participated in violating the protocol of the study. He was there. He helped his co-authors destroy documents that would have shown an MMR-autism link.

You can see a rush transcript of Congressman Posey’s remarks here (on the ageofautism.com website), which includes his reading of a statement from whistleblower Thompson.

Posey pleads with his colleagues for a Congressional investigation.

Of note: two of the CDC researchers on the infamous 2004 study, who according to Thompson, destroyed vital documents, are Coleen Boyle and Frank DeStefano. They are both high-ranking executives at the CDC in the area of vaccine safety.

This calls into question every single CDC study, under their tenure, that claims vaccines are safe.

CDC whistleblower Thompson’s statement, which Posey read on the House floor, includes this bombshell:

“However, because I [Thompson] assumed it [destroying the documents] was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hard copies of all documents in my office and I retained all associated computer files. I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.”

Thompson has the smoking-gun documents. So does Congressman Posey. I believe others do as well.

So: publish them. Publish them now.

There are lawsuits to be filed. Eleven years have passed since the CDC committed its crime of concealing the MMR vaccine-autism connection. How many parents, never informed of the truth, have permitted their children to receive this vaccine? How many children have been struck down by the vaccine?

The lawsuits should be filed against the CDC and the individual authors of the 2004 study. Lawyers must depose every CDC employee who had knowledge of the crime.

And what about the fact that the MMR vaccine is one of the shots that has been mandated, by law, in California, in other states, and in Australia? Mandating neurological destruction of children is a crime that must be investigated and punished. If these states (and other countries) insist on keeping the MMR on their schedules, they are guilty parties.

Here, for background, are earlier articles I wrote about whistleblower Thompson, starting when the story broke in the summer of 2014.

power outside the matrix

Understand what we are dealing with here, in terms of public exposure: the author of a peer-reviewed and published study; the author who has worked for many years at the CDC; the author who participated in destruction of vital documents; the author has come forward and admitted his crime and the crime of his colleagues. This kind of confession never happens.

But it did happen.

And this story and what it means must not die, no matter how major media outlets try to spin it or ignore it.

Parents who are, in ignorance, allowing their children to receive the MMR vaccine, must be informed. They must know what is going on. They must know the danger to their children.

Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, Germany, France, India, China, South Africa…wherever the MMR vaccine is given…parents must be made aware they’re gambling with their children’s lives.

Government officials anywhere in the world who make this continuing crime possible are liable.

So are manufacturers of the MMR.

Get busy. Expose the truth.

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.

Science, logic, consensus, and propaganda: a cartoon of reality

Science, logic, consensus, and propaganda: a cartoon of reality

by Jon Rappoport

July 14, 2015

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

“At some point during the modern age of public relations, it occurred to governments and corporations that they could fabricate any sort of knowledge. For example, they could pretend to follow the scientific method, pretend to take all the right steps in proper sequence, and then attach the seals and certifications of approval, without ever doing actual science. It was quite an insight—much like the early discovery that a series of drawings could be filmed to create a moving cartoon. Much like the discovery that many people preferred cartoons over real actors…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

People tend to equate science with logic. But a great deal of science isn’t logic. It’s simpler:

A researcher develops a hypothesis, an idea about what he thinks is going to happen if he runs an experiment. So he runs the experiment.

He observes whether his prediction came true.

If it doesn’t, he goes back to the drawing board, or he tosses the hypothesis out with the coffee grinds, eggshells, and orange rinds.

If his prediction does come true, he publishes. He lays out exactly what he did and how the experiment turned out.

Then other independent researchers must repeat that experiment in exactly the same way, in order to find out whether they obtain the same outcome. If they do, the hypothesis gains credence. It becomes a theory. It graduates into a higher realm of certainty. This would constitute true consensus.

Consensus is not a gaggle of scientists or politicians or bureaucrats appearing on television and claiming there is a consensus.

It certainly isn’t paid propagandists pretending there is a consensus.

A naked and preemptory statement like “the evidence is settled” or “there is overwhelming agreement among professionals” is meaningless. It’s a cartoon, an imitation of the real thing.

Then we have something like this: a drug company conducts seven human clinical trials of a new medication, to test its efficacy; three of those studies show virtually no positive results, so they’re buried, never to see the light of day; two studies are marred by a high drop-out rate among volunteers, because the drug has toxic effects, and those studies are hidden as well; the two remaining studies show a marginally positive effect, compared with the outcome from a similar but older drug, and those studies are published. As a result, the FDA approves the drug for human use.

And this is called science. And after the drug is approved, doctors begin giving it to patients and form an opinion that the drug is “good.” And eventually this opinion is labeled “widespread consensus.”

Here is another form of false cartoonish science. A newspaper publishes an article about a potential breakthrough in treating a disease with gene therapy. Reading closely, you find out the article is based on one study done by three researchers at a university. The therapy is still years away from being tested. And no other researchers have replicated the one study to see if they obtain the same results.

In fact, if you follow science journals, you’ll discover that many published studies are never followed up; no one bothers to try to replicate them.

Take the case of SARS, the epidemic that never was, in 2003. When the World Health Organization (WHO) decided there was an outbreak of a new disease, a closed circle of 10 WHO labs collaborated to find the virus that was causing SARS. This, on the basis of zero evidence that SARS was a new disease or that it was the result of a virus. The labs announced the discovery of a so-called coronavirus. Subsequently, no other independent researchers replicated this finding with convincing evidence. And at the height of the “outbreak,” a WHO researcher in Canada (Frank Plummer) would confess to reporters that he was puzzled by the extremely rare appearance of the coronavirus in SARS patients—which was tantamount to an admission that he had no idea what singular factor or multiple factors were making patients ill.

In the fall of 2009, CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, discovered that the virus supposedly causing Swine Flu was rarely found in the most likely Swine Flu patients in America. In other words, Swine Flu wasn’t Swine Flu. CBS firmly put a lid on the story.

Again, the discovery of a virus causing a disease had never been verified by independent scientists outside the favored ring of government and university researchers. The consensus was invented.

In the area of vaccine research, the CDC has readily admitted that it doesn’t test new vaccines (for safety and efficacy) by doing large, controlled, double-blind studies. Therefore, forget about the lack of replication. There is nothing to replicate.

And if you want to look at so-called climate science, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a hypothesis at all, because there are no specific predictions about future climate that can be tested. There are alarmist warnings, but they don’t count, unless Al Gore jetting around the world expelling fumes is suddenly a scientist.

In the arena of global warming, there are computer models built on algorithms, and these models purport to show past trends in warming, from which extrapolations can be made—but again, no specific predictions which can be verified or rejected. And contrary to press and government pronouncements about the “settled science” and the “overwhelming evidence,” the actual history of temperature on Earth, based on readings, is fraught with difficulties and controversy. Therefore, the computer models were erected on a foundation of sand.

Again, the “consensus” is manufactured, like a Disney cartoon.

As for GMO crops, Monsanto and the other biotech giants skipped directly to conclusions from research that was never done. It claimed: the insertion of genes into plants was a precise and repeatable technology; increased crop yields would result; the food would be nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO; toxic pesticide use would diminish; no significant gene drift from field to field would occur; weeds wouldn’t flourish; no human health problems would ensue.

All these conclusions were fabricated. They were claims Monsanto wanted to make; so they made them, and hired scientists to confirm them.

Public relations skills that would ordinarily shape the public image of a political candidate or show business celebrity were imported into the arena of science.

It worked. With government regulatory agencies on board, with a great deal of money to pass around, the PR took off like a rocket.

power outside the matrix

The day has not yet dawned in which a college or university will teach an authentic course called False Science. It would be counter-productive, to say the least, since governments and corporations pour research-grant monies into those institutions and expect a certain brand of compliant science.

Here is the real consensus: researchers go along to get along. Like mainstream reporters, they know what they can say and what they can’t say. They see their boundaries. They understand the “logic” of compromise. They’re aware their job status can take a sudden turn for the worse, if they cross into forbidden territory.

So they become players in the ground game of building illusions. They sell out their careers and their principles. They teach egregious lies to their students and assistants.

However, as a consequence, edifices of false reality become, at the same time, larger and more precarious. Precarious, because there are many more points in the structure where the injection of truth can cause a fatal effect.

When my publisher was ready to go to press with my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century, in 1988, he asked me for a quick summary he could print on the back cover. I gave him: “Virus is not the cause; definition of AIDS is worthless; treatment is poison.” He went with it. It subsequently caused a bit of a stir. Those statements were and are true.

In the years since the publication of the book, independent science reporters have come up to me and told me they’d developed a few good ideas from reading my attack on official science.

They mainly saw that it was possible to make a sustained case against widespread consensus, chapter by chapter, point by point, citation by citation. They’d never seriously considered doing that. But they realized “the bigger they are, the harder they fall.”

That’s the ticket. I’m certainly not saying these vicious cartoon-structures dissolve overnight; but people who are awake, who possess logical tools, who are hungry for hidden facts can liberate themselves from the science that is no science.

And the number of those people is growing.

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.

Canada: scientists’ right to free speech shut down

Canada: scientists’ right to free speech shut down

Canada catching up to USA re suppression of science

by Jon Rappoport

May 21, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

(To sign up for the FREE NoMoreFakeNews newsletter, click here.)

“’Government science’ has become an oxymoron. A better label would be Manufactured Reality. Does a mega-corporation need the seal of approval for its toxic crimes? There is a government agency on tap to provide it. Need fake science? You’ve got it. Need to pay a fine instead of going to prison? No problem. Whole worlds will be invented to cover up a few devastating facts.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Free speech for government scientists in Canada? The ability to issue warnings about public health and safety to the press and public?

Not anymore.

No. The scientists work for federal agencies, and only the designated spokespeople for those agencies can make public statements.

I’ll have some comments about my own experiences in this area, but first…

Here are shocking quotes about a Canadian survey of federal scientists — “Most Federal Scientists Feel They Can’t Speak Out, Even If Public Health and Safety at Risk, Says New Survey.”

The survey was carried out by a group called PIPSC, which states:

“A major survey of federal government scientists commissioned by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) has found that 90% feel they are not allowed to speak freely to the media about the work they do and that, faced with a departmental decision that could harm public health, safety or the environment, nearly as many (86%) would face censure or retaliation for doing so [for speaking out].”

“The survey, the findings of which are included in a new report titled The Big Chill, is the first extensive effort to gauge the scale and impact of ‘muzzling’ and political interference among federal scientists since the Harper government introduced communications policies requiring them to seek approval before being interviewed by journalists.”

“In particular, the survey also found that nearly one-quarter (24%) of respondents [federal scientists] had been directly asked to exclude or alter information for non-scientific reasons and that over one-third (37%) had been prevented in the past five years from responding to questions from the public and media.”

“According to the survey, nearly half (48%) are aware of actual cases in which their department or agency suppressed [scientific] information, leading to incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading impressions by the public, industry and/or other government officials.”

What sorts of issues are off-limits for Canadian federal scientists? It’s not hard to figure that out: pesticide toxicity; pollution dangers; dangerous medical drugs. You know, areas where the profits of big industry would be threatened.

This destruction of free speech cuts close to home for me, because once upon a time I had considerable access to government (and university) scientists in the US.

In 1987-8, I was writing my first book, “AIDS Inc.: Scandal of the Century.” My first order of business was fleshing out the official scenario about AIDS; what caused the syndrome, and what was being done to treat it.

I had press accounts, of course, but I wanted explanations from the horse’s mouth.

Later on, after I was convinced the official scenario was built on egregious scientific fraud, I wanted to have conversations with the scientists who were either party to the fraud or were irrationally going along with it.

During a six-month period, I was able to speak with several researchers at the US National Institutes of Health, the center of AIDS research.

It was easy. I contacted a press person by phone, said I was writing a book about AIDS, and I was transferred to the office of the researcher I was looking for. The scientist and I spoke, sometimes at length.

Keep in mind that I had no press credential. I was writing the book for a very small start-up publisher. Up to that time, I had worked as a freelance reporter (for five years), writing pieces for papers and magazines in the US and Europe.

During this six-month period, I was also able to speak with an employee at the FDA, who turned around and sent me a crucial piece of information proving the vast unreliability of HIV blood tests.

I spoke with a key researcher at Harvard, who explained that the green-monkey hypothesis of HIV transmission, touted in the press, was overblown.

I spoke a number of times to a press person at the CDC. Depending on my question, he would either pass me along to a CDC researcher or dig up the answer himself and call me back. It became obvious to him, after a time, that I was in the process of debunking the whole notion that HIV caused AIDS. Yet, he continued to talk to me and get answers to my queries.

I had a number of fruitful conversations with Dr. Harvey Bialy, the scientific editor at the journal, Nature/Biotechnology. Harvey didn’t accept the HIV causation model of AIDS, and we clarified many points.

Even when fear was in the air, I was able to obtain statements off the record from scientists. For example, a highly respected virologist at UCLA told me that “many of us know the HIV-causation model of AIDS is riddled with holes, but we’re going to let this one pass. It’s dangerous to speak out…”

I was not alone in my ability to gain access to government/university scientists and editors of journals. Chuck Ortleb, who was publishing a small NY paper, New York Native, spoke with Robert Gallo and directly challenged Gallo on his purported discovery that HIV caused AIDS.

John Lauritsen, an independent reporter, managed to attend several professional AIDS conferences, where he confirmed that the government’s approval of toxic AZT to treat AIDS was based on a fraudulent clinical trial.

How things have changed.

These days, if you’re lucky enough to get through to a knowledgeable press person at a federal agency, you’re fed pap, or stonewalled, or referred to some online source of official information.

No federal scientist would risk his career speaking out of school to a freelance reporter who has a dissenting point of view.

It’s the big chill, the shutdown, the close-out. No comment. We have nothing to say. Look for an official release from our department on this issue. Consult our guidelines. We’ll try to get back to you.

To say official science has become politicized is a vast understatement. Science is politics, when it needs to be, and it needs to be much of the time.

The crimes that chemical/pharmaceutical/genetic-engineering/agriculture corporations defend, in their operations, in their methods, are often defended in the findings of government science.

It’s an embrace of mob brothers.

This is one reason why court cases against such corporations are shunned by many lawyers. The fix is in on the science, and that in itself creates a non-starter.

The government witnesses (researchers) can say, “Corporation X is doing no harm. Our studies show that actions ABCD and products EFGH are safe and pose no risk.”

Behind it all: “Well, Mr. CEO, on your behalf we’ve proved the moon is composed of green cheese, there are mosquitoes on Mars, and Roundup makes a delicious salad dressing. Anything else you need? We, the government, are here to serve you and strengthen our national economy.”

power outside the matrix

If this makes you wonder about the trustworthiness of government science agencies, when it comes to issues such as vaccine safety or GMO-food safety, it should.

Take the case of whistleblower William Thompson. A long-time vaccine researcher at the CDC, Thompson admitted, last August, in a written statement published at his attorney Rick Morgan’s website, that he and his co-authors violated the protocol on an MMR vaccine/autism study in 2004, cooked the data, and thereby concluded the vaccine had no link to autism.

Since that time, Thompson, who still works for the CDC, has refused to talk to the press. Speculation arose that there might be a Congressional hearing where he would testify.

But nothing has happened.

Why the need for a hearing? Why hasn’t the DOJ/FBI simply corralled Thompson and interviewed him extensively? He claims to have evidence of a serious federal crime.

The answer is obvious. CDC science is based on the predetermined premise that vaccines are safe and effective. In other words, it’s not science.

There are vaccine manufacturers to protect. The CDC itself purchases billions of dollars of vaccines.

When storm clouds gather, federal agencies circle the wagons, hunker down, and wait out the threat.

Whistleblower Thompson spoke out of turn. He has been superseded by his agency bosses, who claim there is no problem.

In general, the ladder of power climbs from researcher, to researcher’s government agency, to the corporations that agency is safeguarding.

The dream team.

If you like nightmares.

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.