Category Archives: Science Fraud

The hypnotic power of germ propaganda

The hypnotic power of germ propaganda

by Jon Rappoport

September 9, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

When perverse elites are building a false matrix for the masses, it’s always wise to find the elites’ most basic assumption and question it.

Time and time again, over the years, we hear about new germs and old germs and “mystery germs” that are afflicting people, suddenly, in various parts of the world.

And this news is met with nearly universal faith. Yes, there must be a germ. It must be what’s making people ill. When researchers speak about the germ, they are correct and truthful.

Really? Why?

Who said so?

I took my first serious germ-foray, when I was writing my book, AIDS Inc., in 1987. To my shock, I discovered that, even by the conventional rules of disease-causation, there was no reason to infer that something called HIV was causing something called AIDS.

Going a step further, I investigated every so-called high-risk group and found non-germ causes that accounted for all the symptoms of what was being called AIDS.

Without HIV as the lynchpin welding all these risk-groups together, “AIDS” was immune-system failure resulting from a variety of causes. Not one cause.

For example: T-cells are significant troops in the immune-system army. The biggest reason for T-cell depletion on the planet? Malnutrition.

The last time I looked, malnutrition is not a germ.

AIDS Inc. is replete with illustrations of germ-touting that turn out to be irrelevant.

But people are fascinated by germ-stories. They love them, they fear them, they add their own wrinkles, they behave as if they’re in a theater watching a horror movie.

When the dreaded SARS epidemic made global headlines in 2003, the germ was the “coronavirus.” Of course, SARS turned out to be a dud. As a horror movie, it didn’t deliver. Too few people died.

Frank Plummer, a Canadian microbiologist working for the World Health Organization, achieved a few moments of honesty when he told reporters that, strangely enough, he was seeing fewer people with SARS who “had the coronavirus.” Eventually, Plummer said, almost none of the people being diagnosed with SARS had the coronavirus.

Which is exactly like saying, “They’re all suffering from disease X, except none of them have what causes disease X.”

A contradiction. Garble. Gibberish.

Six years later, in 2009, there was the fabled Swine Flu H1N1 pandemic, another dud.

Sharyl Attkisson, writing for CBS, and Peter Doshi, writing at BMJ Online, exposed the Swine Flu fraud: most people across the US who were “likely Swine Flu cases” didn’t have the H1N1 virus. That’s what lab tests revealed.

Obviously, for both SARS and Swine Flu, doctors were making eyeball diagnoses based on “typical flu symptoms.”

The public wrongly believes that, when doctors and medical bureaucrats say there is an outbreak of a virus, accurate tests are being done on every patient to confirm the presence of the virus.

Because tests aren’t being done (or because the tests aren’t accurate and relevant), it’s the easiest thing in the world to take numbers of sick people who display very general similar symptoms—and claim all these people have the same disease caused by the same germ.

In the fall of 2009, during the “Swine Flu crisis,” Sharyl Attkisson was shut down at CBS. Her investigation was drilling too deep. She revealed that the CDC had stopped counting the number of Swine Flu cases in America.

Scandal. The sole federal agency tasked with keeping an accurate and updated count had ceased doing its job.

Why? The answer was obvious. As Attkisson reported, the overwhelming number of lab tests on Americans who were suspected of having Swine Flu were coming back negative.

The tests showed no sign of the H1N1 virus, the supposed cause of Swine Flu.

It was even worse than that. Those tests couldn’t find evidence of any type of flu virus.

Back up and think about that.

One of the consequences: even for people who believed in flu vaccines, there was a huge and embarrassing problem.

How could these vaccines make a difference if what was being called the flu wasn’t flu at all?

power outside the matrix

To which many people would respond: “I don’t understand. If people are sick, the cause has to be a germ.”

No.

There are many reasons for illness.

Don’t automatically buy into the “germ-language horror movie.”

The movie is designed to prey on people’s fears, while also stimulating a fascination for The Virus, the “tiny, invisible, diabolical force at work.”

Achieving both objectives is how the directors of that horror movie earn their living.

It’s how they make people into believers who flock to The Church of the Virus.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

The biochemical dream of utopia

The biochemical dream of utopia

by Jon Rappoport

September 4, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

HG Well’s 1933 classic novel, The Shape of Things to Come, portrays a world exhausted by war and economic collapse—and the great turning to a Global State as the only possible solution, after all other solutions have historically failed. The new ruling authority is based on Science. All religions are crushed. Education is designed to teach every child how to become a genius/global citizen.

Science/technology: the final all-encompassing answer.

A significant aspect of Matrix propaganda revolves around myths about how human life can be transformed. Transformed through advances in biology and chemistry.

Populations are being trained to expect these momentous changes.

A major selling point: no effort is required. Just ingest this tablet. Accept this new gene. All will be done for you by experts.

The technocratic wing of Globalism has clout. It promises management of the planet through science, and who can argue with science? Central Planning will ensure proper benefits for all.

My late friend and colleague, hypnotherapist Jack True, once told me in an interview: “On a subconscious dream level—the idea is to insert a vision in the population about scientific improvements. We’re being taught to accept what amounts to a new religion. It’s a fetish. We’re buying an elaborate fetish about the future.”

What would you, for example, think if you saw the same person every day getting off a train, and every day he was wearing a different color paint on his face? And what if he was wearing a hundred large trinkets around his waist? And he was fingering these trinkets in deep contemplation? And what if he carried a large book with him and stopped strangers and read passages to them? What if he bowed deeply every time he saw a bus and fell to his knees when a woman in a hat passed him on the street?

A strange ritual.

In the same way, a space alien who knew nothing about medical practice would eventually notice the drugs, drugs, drugs people are taking and wonder what they were for. He would wonder whether swallowing them was part of an ongoing religious ceremony. He would see how dedicated people are to their medicines.

“I take this drug at six every morning. Then after breakfast, I take these two pills. Before lunch, I take three other pills. The green and the red and the white.”

“I love the small white capsules. They look so pristine, so pure, so elegant. Because they’re small, they must be very powerful.”

The doctor, the priest, prescribes them. He dispenses them. When he writes the prescription at his desk, the patient feels, for a moment, an elevated sense of importance.

The patient has attained a special privilege. He is no longer common. A thread has been created that connects him to a higher reality. The “science” that lies behind every pill is sophisticated. Who can grasp it? Just bask in the sensation and accept the secret knowledge.

When it comes to psychiatric drugs, the public is being instructed to believe that the pills, which flow from arbitrary diagnoses of unproven mental disorders, can make them whole again. The age-old dream achieved.

Vaccines? Through that ritual, the invisible demon viruses are kept at bay.

And now we are on the cusp of another medical fetish:

Genes.

Amateurs and professionals alike speculate and intone on their importance—despite the fact that no across-the-board successful gene treatment for any condition has ever been developed.

Academics and so-called bio-ethicists are arguing about how the future should utilize genetics. Should we have a society in which a privileged class can buy designer genes for their children and make them smarter, more talented, more powerful, while the lower class, which lives apart in separate dingy enclaves, stews in its own primitive juices?

Or should our leaders open the door to better genes for all?

The unproven concocted dream: everything is regulated by DNA; all aspects of human behavior are determined by this coding; free will is a cruel superstition; society could evolve into a utopia with the correct distribution of genetic traits; disease would be a thing of the past.

The selling of these medical-drug and gene stories is really, underneath it all, a way of convincing the world that science is our best option for the future. Understand that.

And of course, science must be controlled, like blessings from Rome, by those few who understand it and have the intelligence and compassion to plan the How and the Where of that dispensation.

With something as precious as science, we need the best and the brightest to determine the method by which we can all benefit.

After all, the car and the plane and the light bulb and the refrigerator were magnificent technological advances. Therefore, all medical drugs and genes are, too.

The drugs? A hundred thousand Americans killed every year by government-certified medicines. (JAMA, July 26, 2000, Starfield)

But the technocrats can’t admit spectacular failure. It would be like the Vatican confessing that all Eucharist wafers doled out to believers over the past 100 years were made by a company owned by Beelzebub.

The spinning of the dream about transmuting the human, through official chemistry and biology, must continue. It must not be stopped. It must engender expectation. It must gather adherents. It must continue to entrance us.

And naturally, unofficial science must be curtailed, because it suggests decentralization of power—and the WHOLE POINT of spinning the scientific legends is that they imply control of the future and the planet from a single high perch.

False science is Globalism’s most important product.

You see, selling the so-called kindness of elite planetary control is not enough. The idea that a small group of men can avoid all wars by securing the reins of the Earth is not enough. The notion that our natural resources must be distributed from a central point, for the sake of sustainability, is not enough. These propaganda points don’t convince enough people.

But the legend that Official Science is the wonder key to a better life has legs. It has power. It has subconscious influence of a high order. It can eventually convince the global populace that a Technocratic Council should rule over them.

Therefore, that legend about Science must be shored up and extended and protected. It must tell whatever lies are necessary to push the agenda forward.

“Genes are the Holy Grail.” The truth? It’s beside the point. Sell the myth. Pretend the evidence is there.

And brain drugs? Spread the message: they will cure our ills. They will untie the stubborn knots of discontent.

The defense-mechanism of the technocratic elite is: if you oppose our rational approach, you’re a cave man, a throwback, a Luddite, a superstitious fool grinding on with your phobias.

Meanwhile, it is this very elite that is peddling myth and fairy tale and illusion and dream, and capitalizing on fetish.

power outside the matrix

We’ve all learned that divide and conquer is the controllers’ strategy; that funding wars on both sides is their method; that bankrupting nations is their technique; that owning the means of inventing money is their sinister operation; that dominating channels of information is their major form of mind control; that brainwashed education is their cherished institution; that building the corporate-government embrace is their song. But these all bow before the altar of Scientific Myth, wherein we are persuaded to give up our own visions and our creative power to a Future that can only be run by Those Who Understand Technology.

Retired propaganda master Ellis Medavoy once told me, “Elites tell stories. They dress up those stories in expensive clothes. They’ll call ANYTHING science. Once science as an overall dream-solution is embedded in the subconscious, what else would you expect them to do? They’ll say this is science and that is science, because they’ve already sold the basic concept.”

I asked him whether the sales pitch not only covered “the good side of things” and the promised future utopia, but also the dark side.

“Are you kidding?” he said. “Every religion sells both sides. For example, once the general concept of “the feared virus” is imprinted in the subconscious, the technologists and bureaucrats of medicine come along and say, ‘Look at this virus. Look at that virus. We just found a new virus. Another virus has jumped species into humans. It’s horrible. Now, citizens, here are your marching orders. This is what you must do…’”

Ancient story, dressed up in new clothes.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

How effective is electromagnetic thought control?

How effective is electromagnetic thought control?

by Jon Rappoport

May 27, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

The number of methods of mind control has proliferated as funding for research has expanded.

Here, I want to consider what could be called thought substitution, one ongoing facet of this research.

My conclusions on this subject come from accounts of modern mind control research, which utilize forms of signal-broadcasting aimed at the brain.

More importantly, I’m drawing on my observation of the differences among people, when it comes to their awareness of their own thoughts and emotions.

First of all, we need to make the distinction between passive and active people. Passive people are either sedentary or going through the motions in life. They are easily controllable, and it doesn’t take sophisticated electronic measures to do the job.

Television, a few tranquilizing drugs, peer pressure to conform, and the game is over.

Such people will also mistake the invasion of outside thoughts for their own. It doesn’t really matter where the impulses come from or who delivers them.

By active people, I mean those who are passionately pursuing conscious objectives. They know why they’re doing what they do. They have energy. They’re inventing their own futures. They’re aware of repressive forces in the world.

They’re also quite familiar with their own feelings and thoughts.

Yes, mad scientists can affect these people via electronic harassment, no doubt about it—just as you can affect someone by kicking him in the ribs. But this is no monumental scientific achievement.

The early CIA MKULTRA programs were all about harassment and torture and disorientation, utilizing high-dose drugs, isolation, threats, hypnotism, and the provoking of fear.

The combination of these elements, according to witness (victim) statements, could result in programmed personae. Multiple personalities. But it should be understood that the primary driver in this operation was fear/pain—the very same combination that made the Catholic Inquisition successful.

Active people, as I define them here…could they be fooled into believing that electronic signals aimed at their brains are really their own thoughts?

This is an important question. And I must say, too many casual observers are eager to jump on the bandwagon and assert that, yes, this is eminently probable.

But I point out, mind control is not just about planting suggestions, it’s also very much about slipping them past a person’s overwhelming history of knowing how his own thoughts feel.

That’s the kicker. That’s the limiter.

The eager beavers who want to believe, full bore, in the efficacy of thought substitution, would rather not consider this limiter. But they should.

Active people would instantly become aware that an idea masquerading as their own is a charlatan. And they would reject it.

Researchers are attempting to use a person’s own brainwaves—capturing them and then outfitting them with thought-impulses and broadcasting them back to the brain. This is an effort to carry off a grand deception.

However, thought isn’t, for some people, a gross and crude activity. It has many subtleties and nuances.

And in its original and primary form, thought is not a material phenomenon at all.

It doesn’t start from the brain. The brain carries it forward, but the brain is an intermediary device.

Thought begins in a space that has no physical characteristics at all. Thought at its core isn’t physical.

What I’m discussing here isn’t mystical. Mystical is actually presuming that the brain is the seat of all consciousness.

So…what form of mind control can work against the non-physical? And now we’re back in the realm of early MKULTRA. Pain, fear, harassment.

The Matrix Revealed

That works on the brain, on a leg, on an arm, on a foot. It works on a non-material soul who inhabits and wears a physical form. It isn’t sophisticated at all, any more than spraying pepper on a crowd or blasting an acoustic weapon at protestors is sophisticated.

Yes, a thumb-screw is mind control. So is the rack and the threat of execution. So is fear of excommunication for a believer. So is a bullet in the shoulder. So is a disruptive burst of electronics from a transmitter.

They can grossly control a person because he exists, here and now, in a physical body. We already know about such physical effects. Humans have known about them since the dawn of time.

But to slip through, to achieve the smooth and seamless substitution of somebody else’s thought for your own, is an entirely different matter.

If you’re aware.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

GMO plants, GMO people, and cancer

GMO plants, GMO people, and cancer

by Jon Rappoport

April 22, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

There is an extraordinary parallel between what biotech corporations are doing with food plants, and what cancer researchers are trying to do with humans.

The comparison is not only instructive, it reveals what the future holds.

The war against cancer has painted a picture of hope: genetic solutions, genetic modifications.

This, despite the fact that there are no successful genetic treatments for any form of human cancer.

The focus on genes is a diversion from obvious causes of cancer in the environment: industrial chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, food additives, and even pharmaceuticals.

This futile gene-fix has a parallel in food crops: modify the genes of plants so they can grow despite drenching them with toxic pesticides. However, massive GMO crop failures and reduced nutritive value of such crops are two reasons why the gene model fails.

So it is with human cancer: “let’s modify the genes of people and they will be impervious to the environmental assault of chemicals that cause cancer.”

In other words, the cancer-fantasy proposes that someday, humans will be able to live in a toxic soup created by mega-corporations, because they have been genetically altered.

There is no reason under the sun to believe this.

“Even if environmental toxins trigger gene mutations that bring about cancer, we can just cancel out those mutations through better human engineering.”

Preposterous.

This is like saying you can cure diseases caused by germs even though people’s immune systems are severely and chronically compromised.

The entire cancer industry exists to protect the corporations that are manufacturing products that cause cancer.

I made these points during a Coast to Coast AM radio interview last week, and I make them here again, because major media news outlets are silent; they are part of the cancer industry and are beholden to the cancer-causing corporations that buy huge blocks of commercials.

In the so-called cancer research community, scientists can spin their wheels and obtain grant monies to do experiments with genes and mice and cell lines forever and never emerge with results that save lives.

These scientists and their corporate masters can herald minor tumor reductions.

But nothing changes. The war on cancer is a war on people.

Think about it: “Look, we can alter the gene structure of food plants. Then we can hit those plants with huge amounts of toxic chemicals (pesticides and herbicides) and the plants will still grow. So let’s do this with humans. Alter their gene structure so all the cancer-causing chemicals in the environment won’t have any effect. It’s brilliant.”

No. It’s insane.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

GMO plants, GMO people

GMO plants, GMO people, and cancer

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

The war against cancer has painted a picture of hope: genetic solutions.

This, despite the fact that there are no successful genetic treatments for any form of human cancer.

The focus on genes is a diversion from obvious causes of cancer in the environment: industrial chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, food additives, and even pharmaceuticals.

This futile gene-fix has a parallel in food crops: genetically modify plants so they can grow despite drenching them with toxic pesticides. However, massive GMO crop failures and reduced nutritive value of such crops are two reasons why the gene model fails.

So it is with human cancer: let’s modify the genes of people and they will be impervious to the environmental assault of chemicals that cause cancer.

In other words, the fantasy proposes that some day, humans will be able to live in a toxic soup created by mega-corporations, and even thrive, because they have been genetically altered.

There is no reason under the sun to believe this.

“Even if environmental toxins trigger gene mutations that bring about cancer, we can just cancel out those mutations through better human engineering.”

Preposterous.

This is like saying you can cure diseases caused by germs even though people’s immune systems are severely and chronically compromised.

power outside the matrix

The entire cancer industry exists to protect the corporations that are manufacturing products that cause cancer.

I made these points during a Coast to Coast AM radio interview last Sunday, and I make them here again, because major media news outlets are silent; they are part of the cancer industry and are beholden to the cancer-causing corporations that buy huge blocks of commercials.

In the so-called research community, scientists can spin their wheels and obtain grant monies to do experiments with genes and mice and cell lines forever and never emerge with results that will save lives.

These scientists and their corporate masters can herald minor tumor reductions.
But nothing changes. The war on cancer is a war on people.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Freedom is obsolete, go with genes

by Jon Rappoport

February 18, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

Let’s start here:

“A study on rats published in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology showed that sound waves could be used to [reversibly] reduce sperm counts to levels that cause infertility in humans…The concept…is now being pursued by researchers at the University of North Carolina who won a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.” — (BBC News/Health, Jan.29, 2012, reported at naturalnews.com).

After Darwin cast his view of evolution upon the waters, a notion that humans were “naturally selected” bio-machines gained increasing consensus.

If Science could understand how a human was built, it could not only cure illness, it could change the inherent pattern of the body and brain. Evolution was merely a history of changes in the bio-machine.

Eventually, this position was taken to the full extreme. The Eugenics movement sprang up in America and Germany, where it was used for a program of pure destruction.

In other words, evolution could be managed through depopulation. Some live, some die, some are genetically enhanced, some are not.

Through movies, through the press, through heavily promoted speculation— “we are on the verge of enormous breakthroughs in genetics”—the population is being primed for a pseudo-philosophy of selection.

On the one hand we are fed “highly positive” assurances that designer genetics will enable the creation of smarter, more talented, stronger, healthier people of the future. On the other hand, we are told that the exigencies of “public health care” make it necessary to differentiate between “viable and non-viable” patients.

These two threads are woven together, and in the confusion people are giving in, more and more, to the idea of a New Eugenics.

At bottom is the un-debated question: IS A HUMAN A BIO-MACHINE AND NOTHING MORE?

Most academic philosophers will tell you the question itself is meaningless. That’s their way of skirting the issue of free will.

And any political document based on liberty and freedom can be trampled on with impunity.

“There are only brains and those brains operate purely by genetic determinism.”

And that opens the door to various versions of Eugenics. Because who can object to experiments on machines?

Lee Silver, an enthusiastic molecular biologist at Princeton, has written a book, Remaking Eden, about the future of gene science in society. This is how he sees things playing out up the line:

“The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—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 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.”

Go into a university department of genetics/molecular biology, or a department of philosophy, and try to find a real discussion and debate about whether humans have free will, whether the human being is only a bio-machine. Good luck.

Individual freedom has been cut out of the equation.

But no one at the university level deems this a significant or disturbing fact. Teachers are far more interested in “group values” and “consensus” and the deconstruction of all ideas into an analysis of who benefits from having the ideas.

The rearranging of genes in humans has, for some time, been discussed openly in academic journals. The cat is out of the bag. Geneticists, biologists, social scientists, bio-ethicists are all weighing in.

And this is quite understandable, because not only do scientists tend to have a sense of their own superior entitlement and intelligence, they believe they’re tinkering with (biological) machines. They might not phrase it that way, but that’s what it comes down to.

David King, writing at Human Genetics Alert, states:

“The main debate around human genetics currently centres on the ethics of genetic testing, and possibilities for genetic discrimination and selective eugenics. But while ethicists and the media constantly re-hash these issues, a small group of scientists and publicists are working towards an even more frightening prospect: the intentional genetic engineering of human beings. Just as Ian Wilmut presented us with the first clone of an adult mammal, Dolly, as a fait accompli, so these scientists aim to set in place the tools of a new techno-eugenics, before the public has ever had a chance to decide whether this is the direction we want to go in. The publicists, meanwhile are trying to convince us that these developments are inevitable.”

That’s the key idea. “There’s nothing we can do now. The march of progress is underway.”

King continues:

“One major step towards reproductive genetic engineering is the proposal by US gene therapy pioneer, French Anderson, to begin doing gene therapy on foetuses, to treat certain genetic diseases. Although not directly targeted at reproductive cells, Anderson’s proposed technique poses a relatively high risk that genes will be ‘inadvertently’ altered in the reproductive cells of the foetus, as well as in the blood cells which he wants to fix. Thus, if he is allowed to go ahead, the descendants of the foetus will be genetically engineered in every cell of their body.”

But the gene enthusiasts don’t care about what happens up the line to the descendants. It’s all part of the grand experiment. Spin the wheel, take a chance. If “we” don’t like the outcome, spin the wheel again and see what happens. Eventually, we’ll get it right.

One of the most enthusiastic proponents of human genetic engineering, Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine, has written:

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

The Matrix Revealed

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

And why should individual free will be an obstacle; that’s just a superstitious fantasy; freedom was never real; there was always and only The Experiment; natural selection, intentional selection—what’s the difference?

Scientific/medical/technological elitists are sitting at the table with many chips to play. They’re betting that, in the long run, they will win, because they are touting hypnotically entrancing “imperatives.”

And if by chance, they discover a reliable way to utilize gene insertion to produce sterility and infertility, they will see a path to quiet depopulation. And then who will control the technology? Wide-eyed futurists who teach at universities, or calculating operatives who work for the hardest-line Globalists?

The current generation of scientists and academics who want to move full speed ahead on engineering evolution aren’t the old crusty scowling researchers from days gone by. They’re enthused, they’re daring, they look and dress like ex-hippies who’ve moved to the suburbs. They’re happy sociopaths spreading cheer. And they talk like software designers operating on the bright cutting edge.

What could go wrong?

And to cement in the argument for engineering humans, there is the ever-popular fairness argument. Professor Julian Savalescu, of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics:

“Nature allots all sorts of abilities and talents in a random way. It’s not fair, and I don’t see why we should let people’s lives be determined by the throw of a dice.”

Unless throwing a pair of scientific dice results in multiplying catastrophes, or the use of workable genetic technology (if it really is workable) raises an unending roar and riot from millions, even billions of people who claim they’re being denied their right to be Equal.

When individual freedom is no longer discussed in great depth by people who should know better, when it is left to wither on the vine, many programs and structures are built to take its place.

These programs, like the genetic engineering of humans, are meant to erase the consciousness that freedom is important or even exists.

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.

297 scientists, experts sign statement: GMOs not proven safe

297 scientists, experts sign statement: GMOs not proven safe

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

The statement was drawn up by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility. It was released on October 21, 2013.

Since then, 297 scientists and experts have signed it.

Thus exploding the myth that “the science is settled.”

Exploding the claim that a consensus about GMOs has been reached.

You can read the statement and the signatories at ensser.org.

http://www.ensser.org/media/0713/

Here are two excerpts from the statement:

“As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is ‘over’.”

“We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.”

Exit From the Matrix

The number of scientists on either side of a question does not, alone, imply a final answer. But it does indicate whether the question is closed or still open. It does indicate that those who claim the question is closed are wrong.

Completely wrong.

Monsanto PR and government PR and media PR are so many tongues wagging in the wind.

In previous articles, I’ve highlighted dangers and lies re GMOs. Here I’m simply reporting that a consensus about GMO safety is a delusion.

In other words, anybody can say “everybody knows…” And if those people have access to, or control, major media, they can make a persuasive case.

But the persuasion is nothing more than one voice drowning out other voices.

Other voices who, for example, make this declaration:

(Signatory, Dr. Margarida Silva, biologist and professor at the Portugese Catholic University)—“…research has been mostly financed by the very companies that depend on positive outcomes for their business, and we now know that where money flows, influence grows. The few independent academics left must work double shift to address the vast array of unanswered questions and red flags that keep piling up.”

Or this voice: Signatory, Dr. Raul Montenegro, biologist, University of Cordoba, Argentina—“As things stand, the governments of these countries [Argentina, Brazil] deny that there is a [GMO] problem even in the face of numerous reports from the people who are affected and the doctors who must treat them.”

So far, there are 297 such voices.

Will CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX report this story in full and overturn the false consensus? Will they make room for the 297 voices?

Of course not. Their job is to invent consensus by consulting “reliable sources.” Meaning: liars who also want to invent false consensus.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Truth about the Seralini rat-tumor-GMO study explodes

Truth about the Seralini rat-tumor-GMO study explodes

by Jon Rappoport

January 19, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Remember a researcher named Gilles-Eric Seralini, his 2012 GMO study, and the controversy that swirled around it?

He fed rats GMOs, in the form of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn, and they developed tumors. Some died. The study was published in the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology (wikipedia). Pictures of the rats were published.

A wave of biotech-industry criticism ensued. Pressure built. “Experts” said the study was grossly unscientific, its methods were unprofessional, and Seralini was biased against GMOs from the get-go. Monsanto didn’t like Seralini at all.

The journal which published the Seralini study caved in and retracted it.

Why? Not because Seralini did anything unethical, not because he plagiarized material, not because he was dishonest in any way, but because:

He used rats which (supposedly) had an inherent tendency to develop tumors (the Sprague-Dawley strain), and because he used too few rats (10). That’s it. Those were Seralini’s errors.

Well, guess what? Eight years prior to Seralini, Monsanto also did a rat-tumor-GMO study and published it in the very same journal. Monsanto’s study showed there were no tumor problems in the rats. But here’s the explosive kicker. Monsanto used the same strain of rats that Seralini did and same number of rats (10). And nobody complained about it.

Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumer’s Union, explains in an interview with Steve Curwood at loe.org (click here for the full article):

“Well, basically what Dr. Séralini did was he did the same feeding study that Monsanto did and published in the same journal eight years prior, and in that study, they [Monsanto] used the same number of rats, and the same strain of rats, and came to a conclusion there was no [tumor] problem. So all of a sudden, eight years later, when somebody [Seralini] does that same experiment, only runs it for two years rather than just 90 days, and their data suggests there are problems, [then] all of a sudden the number of rats is too small? Well, if it’s too small to show that there’s a [tumor] problem, wouldn’t it be too small to show there’s no problem? They already said there should be a larger study, and it turns out the European Commission is spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it for two years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity. So they’re actually going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini’s work was important, because you wouldn’t follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if it was a completely worthless study.”

Boom.

I can just hear Monsanto felons gibbering: “Well, we the biotech industry people published our study. We used 10 rats and we used the Sprague-Dawley strain. And that was fine. It was especially fine because our study showed GMOs were safe. But then this guy Seralini comes along and does the same study with the same kind of rat and same number of rats, and he discovers tumors. That’s not fine. That’s very bad. He…he…used the wrong rats…yeah…and he didn’t use enough rats. He’s a faker. Well, I mean, we used the same kind of rat and same number of rats, but when we did the experiment, we were Good, and Seralini was Bad. Do you see?”

Yes, the mists are clearing and things are coming into focus.

Any comments, Monsanto? I’d be happy to pass them along to Michael Hansen.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Social sciences and the destruction of individuality

Social sciences and the destruction of individuality

by Jon Rappoport

January 9, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

You may or not be interested in the sexual practices of Trobriand Islanders. You may or not be interested in what some tribe in the Amazon jungle is doing on a slow Thursday.

But what sociologists and anthropologists have written about such subjects is as much science as you sitting in a park and writing notes on what people are doing in the playground.

One of the founders of sociology, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), coined the phrase “collective consciousness.” Durkheim insisted there were “inherent” qualities that existed in society apart from individuals. Exposing his own absurd theory, he went so far as to claim suicide was one of those qualities, as if the “phenomenon” were present beyond any individual choice to end life.

He wrote: “Man is the more vulnerable to self-destruction the more he is detached from any collectivity, that is to say, the more he lives as an egoist.”

In other words, according to Durkheim, the individual who rejects the norms of society must be wrapped up in himself in some morally repugnant way. There are no other alternatives.

In his book, The Division of Labour in Society (1893) (wikipedia), Burkheim spun moral conscience in the following fashion: “…Make yourself usefully fulfill a determinate function.” He cited this as a kind of command issued by collective consciousness. This is the presentation of the individual human as machine-cog.

From the mud of sociology’s beginnings, the long sordid history of the academic discipline brings us to something like this. Peter Callero, of the department of sociology, Western Oregon University, has written a book titled: The Myth of Individualism: How Social Forces Shape Our Lives (2013, 2nd Ed):

“Most people today believe that an individual is a person with an independent and distinct identification. This, however, is a myth.”

When Callero writes “identification,” he isn’t talking about ID cards and Social Security numbers. He’s talking about an absence of any uniqueness from person to person. He’s asserting there is no significant distinction between any two people. There aren’t two individuals to begin with. They’re a group.

This downgrading of the individual human spirit is far from accidental. It’s launched as a sustained propaganda campaign, the purpose of which is top-down control.

“The cold truth is that the individualist creed of everybody for himself and the devil take the hindmost is principally responsible for the distress in which Western civilization finds itself — with investment racketeering at one end and labor racketeering at the other. Whatever merits the creed may have had in the days of primitive agriculture and industry, it is not applicable in an age of technology, science, and rationalized economy. Once useful, it has become a danger to society.” (Charles Beard, 1931)

Beard, a celebrated historian, appears to see no difference between individual racketeering and the individual freely choosing and living his own life. For him, society must rely on organization, and the individual takes the leftovers.

“British empiricist philosophy is individualist. And it is of course clear that if the only criterion of true and false which a man accepts is that man’s, then he has no base for social agreement. The question of how man ought to behave is a social question, which always involves several people; and if he accepts no evidence and no judgment except his own, he has no tools with which to frame an answer.” (Jacob Bronowski, Science and Human Values, 1956).

Bronowski is quite sure that hearing other people’s evidence and then keeping one’s own counsel is wrong. One has to accept that evidence on its face? This is sheer idiocy. Individuals are capable of deciding, on their own, what social agreements to enter into.

Even more to the point, Beard and Bronowski were both high-achieving individuals—who then turned around and celebrated the kind of society that would try to flatten and level the individual to an average.

The Matrix Revealed

The world has many such experts. They rise high enough and then they preach collectivism. They become social meddlers. They believe they have the tools to plan what kind of world we should live in—since they are not part of that world anymore.

Freed from the obligations with which they want to bind us, they can pontificate and scheme and fantasize about social, economic, and political constructs in which The Group is all.

This is elitism par excellence.

I’ll stick with Orwell:

“It cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of.” (George Orwell, 1944)

The people who take it upon themselves to impose a planned society on everyone else don’t have much to say about freedom. Why would they? It’s a wild card, and it belongs to the individual, whom they consider merely an obstacle to the so-called progress of the group.

The very basis of sociology and anthropology, with which college students’ heads are filled, is: know the group. These pseudo-disciplines have thrived because elites with real power are doing everything they can to eradicate the concept of the individual.

Why would anyone perpetuate the myth that these two academic subjects are “social sciences?” There is nothing scientific about them. Their practitioners may devise computer models and debate the merits of one generality about cultures vs. another. But otherwise, we’re looking at nothing more than a gateway into planning a world management system.

In which the individual plays no part.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Magic trick: promoting diseases that don’t exist

Magic trick: promoting diseases that don’t exist

by Jon Rappoport

October 10, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The disease/treatment/profit machine requires more and more diseases, even if they aren’t real.

Here is an unspoken but largely accepted medical notion of what a disease is:

A group of physical symptoms shared by many people, which has a single cause.

For example, take the flu. Wikipedia lists the common symptoms: chills, fever, muscle pains, headache, coughing. For each type of flu, there is single virus announced as the cause. E.g., Swine Flu; H1N1 virus.

Drug companies develop medicines and vaccines to kill the virus or prevent it from gaining a foothold in the body. They sell the drugs and vaccines. Profits soar. Nice and neat.

Of course, many doctors don’t bother to test patients to see if they have a disease like seasonal flu. It’s too time consuming to take a blood sample and send it to a lab and wait for the results.

So the doctor makes an eyeball diagnosis based on symptoms and the season of the year.

As I explained in my previous article, “What happens when only 16% of flu patients have the flu?”, a cursory investigation of this practice can lead to embarrassing results.

Every year, many blood samples from patients are, in fact, sent to labs, and only a small fraction of these “flu cases” turn out to reveal any flu virus at all.

But this fact is blithely ignored.

You have hundreds of thousands of people in the US who display the general “flu symptoms,” but it turns out most of them don’t have the flu. They have a variety of other problems.

But admitting this is bad for business. How can drug companies justify making flu drugs and vaccines when most “flu cases” don’t have the flu?

The solution? Fake it. Pretend all people diagnosed with the flu actually have it.

Bottom line? Just because you have a group of people who have the same general symptoms…that doesn’t mean they have the same disease…and it doesn’t mean the same germ is causing their symptoms.

Consider Autism. If you were to go to startpage.com and search for “Diagnostic Criteria for 299.00 Autistic Disorder,” you would come to autreat.com where you would read through a whole menu of behaviors. These behaviors are, in fact, the definition of Autism. They are the entire definition.

There is NO cause listed. There is no single cause. No germ or fungus or mold or errant gene or neurological defect.

So in this instance, the medical cartel pretends they already somehow know Autism (the collection of behaviors) is a single disease, and “they will eventually find the single cause.”

But again, just because you have a great many children who have the same GENERAL symptoms (behaviors)…that doesn’t mean they have the same disease…that doesn’t mean the cause of disease is the same across the board.

Nowhere in the definition of Autism will you find a single cause or any sort of bottom-line physical explanation. You will only find lists of behaviors.

So…how do they know Autism (or each sub-category in the so-called spectrum) is a single disease?

THEY DON’T KNOW.

YES, the children are suffering. YES, they have serious problems. Yes, they are not like other children. YES. But is Autism a single disease? Is it even a spectrum of different types of “developmental disorder,” as advertised? No persuasive evidence exists to affirm that.

The Matrix Revealed

I chose Autism for a special reason: the vaccine connection.

I’ll try to boil it down. The medical bosses assert that vaccines COULD NOT be the cause of Autism. On what basis do they say this?

Follow closely. The reasoning goes like this… ‘There are diagnosed cases of Autism where the child did not receive any vaccines. Or the child didn’t receive any vaccine containing the neurotoxin mercury.’

‘And since vaccines are demonstrably not the cause IN EVERY CASE OF AUTISM, vaccines are not the cause at all.’

You might want to read that last sentence again.

Single cause of a single disease means: the cause is the same in every case of the disease.

This is how the medical bureaucrats refute vaccines as the cause of Autism. This is their “proof.”

“Okay. We know (pretend) Autism is a single disease. So it has to have one cause across the board, in every case. Let’s see. Can we find any diagnosed cases where the child didn’t receive vaccines with mercury in them? Yes. We can. All right, end of story. Vaccines couldn’t cause Autism.”

But is Autism (or any sub-type of Autism) a single disease? Is there any convincing proof? Is there a single cause in all cases?

No. If there were, you would find it in the official definition of Autism, and it isn’t there.

At this point, people repeat familiar medical-propaganda slogans: “We’re on the cusp of a breakthrough in finding a genetic cause.” “We’re closer than ever.” “It could turn out to be a virus.” “It might relate to early childhood infections.” “Its roots are neurological, and these days we understand that system at a deeper level than ever before.” “We’re seeing similar patterns in brain scans.”

All supposition. All speculation.

No reason under the sun to accept the idea that what is called Autism is one thing with one cause.

In many cases of what is called Autism, we are looking at vaccine damage, pure and simple. Then CALL IT VACCINE DAMAGE, NOT AUTISM.

In other cases, the cause would be chemical poisoning from a variety of non-vaccine sources. SO CALL IT CHEMICAL POISONING, NOT AUTISM.

In other cases, a severe oxygen deficit. CALL IT OXYGEN DEFICIT.

In other cases, major nutrient deficiencies. CALL IT NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCY.

In other cases, all four of these. CALL IT ALL FOUR OF THESE.

Call “it” what it is found to be, in that given child.

Look into the life and body of each unique child.

Stop using the generalized label, Autism.

Ah, but if that happened, doctors would be forced to do things they aren’t trained to do. And drug companies, the last time I looked, don’t have a safe and effective drug to reverse vaccine damage.

These companies wouldn’t be able to make billions on a drug aimed at some single mythical cause for “Autism.”

If Autism isn’t one disease with one cause, there is no single way to treat all children diagnosed with Autism.

The diagnosis itself is a misnomer and a deception. The label is a deception. A lie.

“Then what’s wrong with my child?” a parent says. “If it isn’t Autism, what is it?”

The answer could only come with a truly honest and competent and skillful examination of the child. That unique child.

Holding out for one grand solution to a problem that isn’t one general problem is doomed.

Many children are waiting for a successful universal treatment that will never come.

There are reports that, in some of cases of “Autism,” hyperbaric oxygen has shown good results.

But what about cases where the real problem is severe nutritional deficit?

It comes down to this: do parents want a solution to what their unique child is really suffering from? If so, then someone has to discover what that is. And then that practitioner has to come up with an answer that truly helps.

Calling all children who have similar generalized symptoms “Autistic” doesn’t help.

But it does provide an avenue of profit for drug companies. Their paid researchers can announce “breakthroughs” and “partial answers” and come in behind that with new drugs.

And then they can even say, “We’ve found the cause,” when they haven’t. They can market a whole raft of drugs that “alleviate the cause.” And make billions of $$, while children still suffer.

Exit From the Matrix

Here’s a real-life illustration. The parents of a young boy are at their wit’s end because he has withdrawn from the world. He can’t communicate. His physical coordination is lacking. He has other problems.

The doctor says: Autism.

But another doctor, someone who practices medicine but also has human instincts and a genuine desire to go the distance and help that boy, investigates.

And he finds several crucial things. The boy, who has never had vaccines, has severe nutritional deficiencies. On top of that, he’s extremely sensitive and reactive to certain artificial colors and dyes in processed foods. He has bowel problems, debilitating gastrointestinal infections. He almost strangled on the umbilical chord at birth.

Suppose the the doctor can prepare a comprehensive non-drug program to correct these problems. And after a time, the boy begins to emerge from his isolation. Into the world.

Did he have Autism?

This is like asking whether the victim of an automobile accident had Broken Bone Syndrome.

There is a simplicity at the bottom of all this. When the doctor says, “Your son has VCR$#S or some other label, the parent can say, “Do you have a treatment that will correct the situation?”

If the answer right now is no, there is no reason to buy the label and walk down the tortuous path the label implies.

If later on, the doctor says yes, we definitely do have a cure, then the parent can look at it through a high-power magnifying glass of intelligence and justified skepticism, to find the fine print, and understand what the doctor is really talking about.

Is he telling the truth? Is he lying? Does the supposed cure have such dire adverse effects the child is merely trading one set of crises for another? Are the new crises just masking the old ones?

Here is the rule: if someone claims that a cluster of symptoms adds up to a disease label for many people with that cluster, but the doctor has in his hands no cause for the cluster, there is no reason to assume the label means anything.

Yet still, the parent says, “All right, but the doctor said my son is Autistic. What am I supposed to do?”

Yes, and the doctor probably also says Autism is a neurological disorder and much research is underway, and the prospects are looking better…

But does the doctor have the cause of Autism? Does he have a treatment that really works? Is the parent in better shape by assuming her boy has “Autism,” whatever that is supposed to mean? Is the boy helped in any way by this?

Or is the mother of that child simply assuaged and relieved, because the doctor has put a label on her child who, up to now, was a troubling mystery?

I know people are going to write me with alt. solutions for Autism. They are going to assume there is such a thing (across the board) as Autism and it has a single cause, and there is a brilliant treatment for all of it.

To them I would suggest reading this article again and thinking about what it actually means.

People are also going to say, “But Autism researchers are making progress. They may not have the single cause yet, but they’re getting closer.”

Really? They SAY they’re getting closer. That’s different. What do you expect them to assert? They’re getting farther away?

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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 www.nomorefakenews.com