Category Archives: Science Fraud

Brand new GMO food can rewire your body: more evil coming

Brand new GMO food can rewire your body: more evil coming

by Jon Rappoport

March 26, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

It’s already bad. Very bad. For the past 25 years, the biotech Dr. Frankensteins have been inserting DNA into food crops.

The widespread dangers of this technique have been exposed. People all over the world, including many scientists and farmers, are up in arms about it.

Countries have banned GMO crops or insisted on labeling.

Now, though, the game is changing, and it’ll make things even more unpredictable. The threat is ominous and drastic, to say the least.

GM Watch reports the latest GMO innovation: designed food plants that make new double-stranded (ds) RNA. What does the RNA do? It can silence a gene. It can activate a gene that was silent.

If you imagine the gene structure as a board covered with light bulbs, in the course of living some genes light up (activation) and some genes go dark (silent) at different times. This new designed RNA can change that process. No one knows how.

No one knows because no safety studies have been done. If you have genes lighting up and going dark in unpredictable ways, the functions of a plant or a body can change randomly.

Genes that were doing their jobs could stop doing their jobs. Other genes that were dormant could spring into action and perform tasks that weren’t meant to be performed.

Think of this latest biotech “innovation” as a drunk playing pinball. Lights on the board go on and off, and TILT is always a distinct possibility.

As GM Watch reports, an Australian company, CSIRO, has designed wheat and barley seeds that put genes to sleep, “to change the type of starch made by the plant.”

Also on the way: next-generation biopesticide food crops that repel insect predators. In this case, the designer RNA can be injected or even sprayed. When a gene is silenced in the insect, it dies.

GM Watch states there is published evidence that the designer RNA can move from the plants into the bodies of people who eat the plants, outlasting cooking and digestion, and winding up in the bloodstream.

The RNA has changed gene-expression (activation/silencing) in mice.

Several food-safety inspectors in several countries have been interviewed. They simply rubber-stamp the new RNA technology, assuming it’s safe. No problem.

Pinball, roulette, use any metaphor you want to; this is playing with the fate of the human race. Walk around with designer-RNA in your body, and who knows what effects will follow.

The Matrix Revealed

Exit From the Matrix

There are still people, at this late date, who believe that all science is good science. They blithely accept the latest thing, and refuse to acknowledge that scientists can be crazy, stupid, or malevolent. They also fail to make the connection between junk science and the greed for profit at any human cost.

Biotech giants like Monsanto view their genetic operation from an entirely different level. Every new DNA or RNA tweak to a plant—no matter how insane—allows them to file a patent, to own that new artificially designed piece of Nature. This is their approach, and it’s obvious they intend to control the planet’s food supply.

It’s a mafia program writ large across the whole world: “buy from us or else; pay us our cut.”

Meanwhile, the damage they inflict is of no concern to them, as the spinning of the genetic roulette wheel opens up the human race to vast mutations.

The new Monsanto Protection Act, as it’s called, is a cynical piece of legislation that underlines this lack of concern; it torpedoes the ability of the court system to stop new gene-designed crops from popping up everywhere.

Source: GM Watch, 3/22/13, “New paper on dsRNA risks—briefing for non-specialists.”

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14717:new-paper-on-dsrna-risks-briefing-for-non-specialists

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

The fatal flaw in the human-machine interface

The fatal flaw in the human-machine interface

by Jon Rappoport

March 21, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

There is a great deal of research going on in the area of artificial intelligence (AI) merging with the brain.

Exuberant cheerleaders like Roy Kurzweil are quite confident that we are approaching a moment when a computer will exhibit all the power of the human brain.

The definition of “power” in this context is fuzzy. But Kurzweil and others are sure we’re about to uncover the “algorithm” that underlies all brain activity.

They couldn’t be more wrong. Neuroscience has barely scratched the surface of understanding how the brain operates. Cracking the code is not on the horizon.

This fact reflects a much deeper problem. PR is not science. Predictions about what is imminent are not the same thing as verified research results.

PR is not information.

In exactly the same way, were a human-computer interface with awesome capability endowed with access to a hundred galaxies of stored data, it would run up against the problem of vast chronic misinformation in those cosmic warehouses.

This is not something that can be deleted with a program or a committee tasked with making corrective changes.

For example, and this is just one area, medical science is so rife with fraud, at so many levels, as I’ve demonstrated over and over again for the past 10 years, that it would take humans decades to expose a significant part of it. And AI wouldn’t even know where or how to begin looking, because…who would set the parameters of such an investigation?

There is an inherent self-limiting function in AI. It uses, accesses, collates, and calculates with, false information. Not just here and there or now and then, but on a continuous basis.

Think about all the entrenched institutions and monopolies in our society. Each one of them proliferates false information like a Niagara.

No machine can correct that. Indeed, AI machines are victims to it. They in turn emanate more falsities based on the information they are utilizing. I’m sure someone can make a little model of the exponential expansion of this disaster.

Each and every false datum generates a wider and wider stream of lies, and the streams, becoming rivers, overlap and produce exceptionally large numbers of contaminated eddies, polls, and rapids.

When personal computers entered the marketplace, people began a clamor about the Age of Information.

There were cultural reasons for this enthusiasm. They could all summed up by the fact that we are living in a technological society, and technology walks hand in glove with information.

But as the messianic postulations and predictions reached new heights, and the drive began to marry machine and human brain, the gaping holes and rips in the utopian fabric of dreams loomed up for any intelligent person to observe.

When a corporation or government expands to a certain size, it dedicates itself to survival, not of its principles, not of its original mission, but of Itself as an entity. Therefore, it spins lies.

As Dr. Peter Breggin and I discussed on his radio show yesterday, when it comes to the newly announced federal brain-mapping project (B.A.M.), the scientists will very rapidly begin drowning in their own ignorance about the very organ they are investigating.

But that won’t do. This billion-dollar project is supposed to produce results, and the project must survive. Therefore, the researchers will cook up models to demonstrate their progress. These models will make assertions which are patently false.

Pharmaceutical companies will develop new drugs based on the false assertions about the brain, knowing full well they are operating in swamp of deception, and caring not one whit about it.

It is the same with the vaunted AI-human brain interface. It will gobble up and deploy untold numbers of lies already told by other institutions to defend and protect their own survival.

The complexity, on various levels, of false information will make the heralded AI-brain collaboration resemble an intelligence agency:

It lies about other lies, and then it lies about that.

The mathematics are packed with functions that automatically spiral out realities even Lewis Carroll’s Mad Hatter would find frivolous and repellent.

The field of information theory is about handling quantity of data and making that data readable. It’s not about the quality of the data.

AI can work successfully in engineering projects, but when the human interface is added, we are no longer merely talking about engineering. The whole purpose of the interface is supposed to be about somehow making humans better.

How can that happen when the hugely expanded access to data runs into billions or trillions of bits of false information?

The Matrix Revealed

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

I’ve been making notes for my second, more advanced logic course. The purpose of the course is to provide better ways of handling the flood of information we deal with every day. The first challenge is going beyond the rules and principles of classical logic, in order to analyze the quality of the data we are digesting and using.

There is no pat system for doing that. Certainly, accepting data based on the notion that “recognized authorities” are reliable would be a disaster. But that is exactly where the human-AI interface is heading, like a team of horses being driven toward the edge of a cliff.

The human-AI engineers are already fatally compromised. In journalistic terms, they are the mainstream reporters obeying the parameters laid down by their editors and corporate owners. They write their stories inside a bubble of illusory context. They go back, again and again, to the same sources, and those sources are permanently biased against popping the bubble and journeying out to where the truth exists.

Actually, an AI machine could write most of the articles that appear on the front page of the NY Times every day. It would save time and cut expenses. But the result would be the same: absurdly limited context, false information, deception, fatuous presumption of authority.

If, instead, you want to look for a program that would discount such a presumption and would reject institutional secrecy, a program that would undertake a relentless investigation of the quality of data, there is a potential candidate.

It’s called a human being. And it’s not a program.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

Monsanto and the FDA: 2 crime families working a trillion-dollar hustle

by Jon Rappoport

March 1, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Perhaps you remember the ill-fated Just-Label-It campaign. A number of activist groups petitioned the FDA for a federal regulation that would make labeling GMO food mandatory.

The petition amassed over a million signatures. But the FDA decided only 394 of these were legitimate, because all the others were electronically submitted in one document.

Infuriating? Of course. But that was nothing. Let’s get down to the core of the crime.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passing the buck back and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which Pandora’s box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food supply.

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

With few exceptions, reporters and their editors let the story rest there, as a “he said-he said” issue. No sane principled journalist would have cut bait at that point, but who said mainstream reporters are sane or principled?

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

Not only would big agribusiness dominate the planet’s food supply, it would strengthen its stranglehold through patents on novel types of seeds which were technologically engineered.

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

How was Monsanto able to gather so much clout?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taylor and others knew. They knew about gene drift, and they also knew that ownership of the world’s food, by a few companies, was a prime focus for Globalist kings who intended to feed the population through Central Planning and Distribution.

“We feed these people; we hold back food from those people; we send food there; we don’t send food here.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve done some investigation of various groups on both the left and the right, and I’ve seen some pros in action. They’re good. They know how to leverage ideas and slogans and ideals. They know how to defame opponents and find just the right words to sink them. They know how to turn high-flying but vague words about “humanity” into moral imperatives.

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

Truth be told, governments are full of these pros, who will take any number of causes and turn them into what falsely sounds like good science, good government, good morality, all the while knowing that, on the far shore, sits the real prize: control.

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

Here is David Rockefeller, writing in his 2003 Memoirs:

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

The Globalists play for keeps.

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

Meanwhile, the controlled press treats the whole sordid Monsanto story with its time-honored policy of “he said-he said.” This policy dictates that stories merely present both sides of a conflict without drawing conclusions.

It applies across the board—except when it doesn’t. For example, for reasons too complex to go into here, the Washington Post decided to suspend its policy in the Watergate case. Woodward and Bernstein were assigned to investigate what was going on behind White House denials and obfuscations.

The same thing could be done with Monsanto, and it would be far easier. The lies and crimes and cover-ups are everywhere. You could wear sunglasses and find them in the dark.

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

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

Even as their bottom lines erode, these newspapers and television networks have to stay on their present course. By pretending they’re reporting the real news, they’re giving the impression that Monsanto and the FDA are home free.

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

Yes, now and then the controlled media will release a troubling piece about Monsanto. But placement and frequency are everything. How often do these stories run? Do they run as the lead or do we find them on page 7? Are reporters assigned to keep pounding on a basic story and reveal more and more crimes? Does the basic story gather steam over the course of weeks and months?

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

The Matrix Revealed

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

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

“We’ve already covered that.”

“It’s old news.”

“People aren’t interested in it.”

“It’s too complicated.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t misunderstand. Brian hasn’t been waiting to move in for the kill. He’s a neutral entity. Wind him up and point to a target and he’ll go there.

But no one will point him at Monsanto or the FDA.

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

One outraged major reporter who woke up and got out of the business put it to me this way: When he was in the game, he looked at the news as a big public restroom. His one guiding principle was: Don’t piss on your shoes. Stand closer to the urinal. Pissing on your shoes was covering a story that was considered out of bounds. If you pissed on your shoes and walked into the boss’s office, he’d look at you and see the telltale sign. He’d say, “Hey, you pissed on your shoes. That’s disgusting. Get out of here. You’re fired.”

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 OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

US farmers flood fields with dangerous poison to fight Monsanto superweeds

US farmers flood fields with dangerous poison to fight Monsanto superweeds

by Jon Rappoport

February 25, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

You’re a farmer. Season after season, you watch your fields being taken over by Monsanto superweeds, which are resistant to the herbicide Roundup.

What are you going to do? You’re locked in. You’re buying your GMO seeds from Monsanto, and the food crops that grow from those seeds are supposed to be resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup, so that’s what you spray on your crops.

But the weeds aren’t resistant. They spread and they grow taller. They’re taking over.

So you, along with many, many other US farmers, go to a strategy called “burndown,” which is just as bad as it sounds. You use something a lot stronger than Roundup to kill those weeds: Paraquat, for example, which has been banned in 32 countries.

You drench your fields with it in the fall. You kill anything growing. And you drench the fields again in the spring, before you plant. Then, just as you’re going to plant, you hit the fields a third time with the poison.

This is in addition to all the sprayings with Roundup, which is toxic, too.

Then you harvest the crops and you sell them. And consumers eat the food along with all the poison.

Tom Philpot, writing in Mother Jones (Feb.6), reports the alarming stats on the superweed takeover of US farmland. As of 2012, almost 50% of US farms had superweeds. In 2011, it was 34%. In Georgia, it’s now 92%.

The total acreage of US farmland with resistant superweeds jumped by 51% in 2012. In 2011, it was a 25% increase. That upward- percentage escalation is called a nightmare.

Well, so farmers are poisoning the hell out of their food and their fields. But with Monsanto’s super-duper GMO technology, the crop yields are still much bigger than they would be without the GMO seeds, right?

The Institute for Responsible Technology cites and quotes three reports on that score.

An International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development study, signed on to by 58 governments and 400 scientists, states that GMO crop production is “highly variable,” and in some cases it has “declined.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report, “Failure to Yield,” emphatically stated: “Commercial GE [genetically engineered] crops have made no inroads so far into raising the intrinsic or potential yields of any crop.”

A US Dept. of Agriculture report: “GE crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential. In fact, yield may even decrease…”

Let’s summarize. Using Monsanto GMO technology to grow food crops results in massive poisoning of the farm land and the food. And increased crops yields are a fiction.

Nothing to see here, move along. Don’t worry, be happy. Stand back, technology at work. Progress is our most important product. Better living through chemistry. Ignorance is strength.

What would a president and his administration do to make sure the truth is overrun and squashed?

In addition to silencing the media, they would appoint a host of GMO insiders to key government posts, and they would bring to market as many new GMO crops as possible, to construct a fait accompli.

So let’s go to the scorecard and review the actions of Obama in his first term.

The new president filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had preciously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

The Matrix Revealed

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s detail the extraordinary parade of GMO crops that have skated through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

A GMO papaya strain.

And perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

That’s how you control and squash the truth.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

This is your brain on neuroscience

This is your brain on neuroscience

by Jon Rappoport

February 20, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The Obama administration has just announced a far-reaching 10-year program to map the human brain down to the last neuron of activity.

So let’s begin with this:

“The mind is not a material object at all. The mind is not the brain.”

If you made that statement to a modern neuroscientist, the odds are overwhelming he would look at you as if you were visiting from the Stone Age.

“The brain emits the electrical consequences of what the mind originally produced.” Same response from the neuroscientist: you’re crazy.

Backing up still further, you could say that mind is a series of spaces the person himself creates, in order to think, in much the same way a canvas is a space on which the painter imagines and creates.

From at least the time of the classic Bhagavad Gita (written perhaps 2000 years ago), and in ancient Egyptian texts, writers and philosophers have been describing the soul, the spirit, the psyche in various terms.

In the Gita, as Krishna engages Arjuna in their famous debate about war and duty, Krishna moves back and forth between depicting the individual as distinctly and separately and powerfully immortal—and then as part of a greater spiritual Whole.

In either case, the individual is not physical, but inhabits a physical form, and after the body passes away, the individual survives and usually returns for another incarnation.

The soul or spirit or mind are not explainable in physical terms. This is the basic view expressed over and over by philosophies and religions from the dawn of time on this planet.

In the 20th century, that view was subjected to the bulldozer of science.

The chief implication of scientism is: freedom is an illusion.

If you assert that all of life’s processes are ultimately reducible to tiny particles in motion, you are saying this is true of the brain and the mind as well. And that means everything we believe and experience about our own freedom and choice is nothing more than an absurd dream.

And how is that delusional dream produced? It is somehow fired up by these tiny cause-and-effect particles that swim through the universe. The particles are not free. Therefore, neither is the brain, which is made up of such particles.

It gets worse. The tiny particles that compose rocks and concrete and plastic and stars and galaxies have nothing in them that could be called alive.

No research discovers anything in the electron or quark or wavicle that can be identified as Life.

These are the same particles that constitute our brains and our DNA.

The rarely expressed neuro-scientific conclusion? We are all robots made out of flesh with no freedom and no “extra quality” called life.

People profoundly fail to understand this conclusion of neuroscientists and others who tinker with the brain, who now intend to map the brain and its activity down to the last neuron. These scientists don’t care what changes they make in the brain, to render it more “normal and healthy.”

There is, as far as conventional science is concerned, nothing inviolable about the brain.

I’m not talking science fiction. This is the way most neuroscientists, if forced to admit it, see us.

And they are the ones steering the ship of research. They are the ones who will guide the newly announced government Manhattan Project of the brain for the next 10 years. It’s called Brain Activity Map (BAM).

Under the banner of “improved mental health,” BAM looks benign. But it isn’t. It looks like the way to stop the next James Holmes or Adam Lanza, but it isn’t.

It is a far-reaching State program to create The Neurological Society. This is the goal. It now has a major jolt of funding and the blessing/mandate of the federal government.

Think about this. We have a problem posed by the Constitution versus the underlying premises of modern brain science.

On the one hand, we have the founding document which guarantees freedoms. On the other hand, we have the assumptions of science, which cannot affirm the existence of those freedoms.

Well, I can tell you with certainty that the government has just taken a giant step toward Brave New World, and again, this isn’t science fiction. It’s real. BAM is unconstitutional, of course. The notion of the central government using monies to fund a program that will map the brain is so far outside the powers granted to it, it’s absurd.

But why should federal neurological scientists care? They don’t really believe the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution exist or could exist or might exist. As far as they’re concerned, freedom is a dead issue. It was just a story we told ourselves to feel stronger, better, happier.

Now they have drugs for that. They can change the brain. They will develop new drugs and new electromagnetic strategies for brain alteration. They will develop the ability to remotely observe the brain in much, much greater detail. And from this will spring the means to tweak and change what they observe, on the level of neuronal activity.

Their basis for making those changes will remain obscure, hidden in a welter of technical language. But we know what their fundamental premises will be.

They will involve control of behavior. Parameters will be drawn. Any person whose brain registers activity beyond those boundaries will be judged as a danger, a threat. The threat will be curtailed by limiting and diverting neuronal/synaptic processes.

Thus, good citizens of the State will be created and monitored.

But if soul and spirit and psyche and freedom do exist (and they do), they will be beyond control, since they are non-material.

Thus, efforts at control will have to be more radical and destructive, in order to induce deeper levels of physical stress and glue the consciousness of the individual human being to these artificially created brain states.

And that’s where the gloves come off and the mask comes off. Then we see the real controllers. Far from being sophisticated and subtle and humane guides into our future, they are just the old tyrants in new costumes.

Their major trump card is this. They have, through sheer propaganda, hypnotized a significant percentage of the population into believing that science and research are always good things.

The mere mention of the word “science” is connected with “help.” A better day is coming. More knowledge is always beneficial. People’s needs will be met.

Nowhere is this propaganda more successful than in the arena of medical science.

That is why most people will shrug off the federal brain mapping project as a promising development. “Sure, sounds good.”

Does it? Does a future, up the road, in which all brains are monitored for “problematic activity” sound like a humanitarian system?

Does it suit your personal view of life, soul, spirit, freedom?

Consider this quote from neurologist VS Ramachandran. Read it carefully:

“How can a three-pound mass of jelly that you can hold in your palm imagine angels, contemplate the meaning of infinity, and even question its own place in the cosmos? Especially awe inspiring is the fact that any single brain, including yours, is made up of atoms that were forged in the hearts of countless, far-flung stars billions of years ago. These particles drifted for eons and light-years until gravity and change brought them together here, now. These atoms now form a conglomerate- your brain- that can not only ponder the very stars that gave it birth but can also think about its own ability to think and wonder about its own ability to wonder. With the arrival of humans, it has been said, the universe has suddenly become conscious of itself. This, truly, is the greatest mystery of all.”

No, the greater mystery is how a scientist can believe the brain alone is really capable of all these things—the brain that is nothing but atoms in motion.

Here’s another statement from a well-known neuroscientist, David Eagleman:

“Imagine for a moment that we are nothing but the product of billions of years of molecules coming together and ratcheting up through natural selection, that we are composed only of highways of fluids and chemicals sliding along roadways within billions of dancing cells, that trillions of synaptic conversations hum in parallel, that this vast egglike fabric of micron-thin circuitry runs algorithms undreamt of in modern science, and that these neural programs give rise to our decision making, loves, desires, fears, and aspirations. To me, that understanding would be a numinous [spiritual] experience, better than anything ever proposed in anyone’s holy text.”

It might be a numinous experience if it were true. But it isn’t. The brain, composed of tiny particles, isn’t producing our decision- making or our greatest thoughts. It can’t. There is nothing about atoms that allows for those grand realities.

For the numinous experience, we need spirit, psyche, mind, soul.

And these two neuroscientists I’ve just quoted? They’re the good guys. They’re the people within that community who even try (wrongheadedly) to make something poetic out of the brain.

The Matrix Revealed

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

The overwhelming majority of their colleagues are mechanics, obsessed with tinkering and tweaking and derailing and re-channeling brain activity.

Into their hands, the federal government has just dropped the task of mapping everything that goes on inside our skulls—as a prelude to changing it.

These scientists are, despite their education, Luddites of consciousness. Instead of studying the great works of human history, the art and literature and invention, and trying to grasp our greater non-material faculties, neuroscientists jump to the naked assumption that it all proceeds from the brain.

They believe it must be so. They then dedicate themselves to mapping and charting.

Who is the real threat, the real danger?

They are.

If any monitoring should be done, it should be of them.

Coda: To take this even further, were we to acknowledge our own non-material aspects, beyond the physical, it would imply that we have capabilities that exceed the so-called normal range.

We would realize that, beneath the surface of our social relationships, beneath this culture, we are concealing powers that not only make us free and independent, but open out into creative vistas where we invent formidable and awesome realities.

This is still largely unexplored territory, and it makes what the neuroscientists are doing look like child’s play in a demented sandbox.

For us to understand what we are actually capable of is the controllers’ worst nightmare.

In a subterranean psychic landscape, this is the crossroads where a prime struggle has been taking place for at least 20,000 years of human civilization.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

The hideous BAM in Obama: map your brain for your own good

The hideous BAM in Obama: map your brain for your own good

by Jon Rappoport

February 18, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

First they map your brain. And by you, I mean everybody.

President Obama has just greenlighted a 10-year Manhattan Project for the human brain. I warned it was coming years ago.

The new billion-dollar enterprise is called BAM, the Brain Activity Map project. The fact that DARPA is one of the agencies involved tells you a great deal. DARPA is the cutting-edge military outfit in charge of new technologies for the Armed Forces. They want to create The Enhanced Soldier and all that that implies. Think “android.”

Behind the front of claims that BAM will create new therapies for mental disorders (for which no defining diagnostic tests even exist), the plan is to forward artificial intelligence (AI), which means creating a computer that works at least as well as the one inside your skull.

This is the technocrats’ wet dream: “We can now power up an artificial brain of such power and intelligence that it can make all crucial decisions for the human race from Central Planning.”

In the wake of Sandy Hook, other implications are also clear. BAM will be used to devise a Minority Report society, in which purported markers of future violence will be utilized to forcibly treat (with toxic drugs), contain, and prevent “predicted criminals” from carrying out fantasies percolating in their subconscious. Would those fantasies, if left alone, ever rise to the level of action? Irrelevant. Cast a wide net, in the name of Prevention.

Welcome to “expanded mental-health services.” You’re on a list? Oops. You must be treated. Here is your mandatory appointment slip. Yes, the drugs are highly toxic. Yes, they can and do cause you to commit horrendous acts of violence. But we don’t talk about that.

Of course, what I’m sketching out here is not happening by next week. But BAM is a giant step on the road toward this future. It’s far from trivial. The stated goal is the mapping of all neuronal activity in humans. This is science fiction coming alive now.

The American Psychiatric Association and Big Pharma are drooling with anticipation. This is precisely what they’ve been aiming for. Vastly expanded treatment options. More diagnoses. More drugs. More control.

BAM has been on the drawing boards for years. But after Aurora and Sandy Hook, the timing is right. The sub-text of BAM is: “People, we will protect you. We will gain access to the brain and re-channel it away from violence. You will be safe.”

BAM is the step before reconfiguring the brain, which is the long-term and underlying goal. These neuroscientists have no interest in the concept of freedom. They left that in the dust decades ago.

For them, the brain is merely a machine that needs a great deal of tweaking, because people are naturally mis-programmed, and corrections must be built into a new and better system.

Of course, “new and better” will pivot on non-scientific value judgments, masked behind masses of techno-speak. And you will have no input into the choice of values. You’re the experimental device; the neuroscientists are the operators.

Everyone who is anyone is on board for this one. The National Institutes of Health, private foundations, universities, drug companies. They’ll all wrangle a piece of the pie.

The White House is touting BAM as job-creation as well. Of course they are. Huxley left that out of Brave New World. “This is a wonderful way to bring up employment numbers. If we take the engineering of humans far enough, everybody can work.”

If you’re wondering what the hell the federal government is doing mapping the human brain, you’re back in the Stone Age. You’re probably interested in, what did they used to call it, oh yes, the Constitution.

Excessive interest in that moldy document probably has a correlation with certain brain activity, which can be mapped and charted. And then you’re on a list: “The subject shows typical neuronal dysfunction in sub-sector 254-A. This is the James Madison Disorder. Recommend immediate detention and treatment.”

“A new study from the BAM-plus group at Harvard has found a significant relationship between home schooling and an excess velocity in synaptic transmission. Such velocity surpasses recommended limits.”

Yes, it’s a joke. Right now. But we’re not just on the slippery slope. We’ve gone down the hill a few new miles, as of today.

Back when professionally praised scientific lunatics like Dr. Ewen Cameron and Yale’s Jose Delgado declared that the human being had no right to his own intrinsic personality, people thought such a notion was absurd. But now, the language is far more clever and densely obscure.

It’s quite possible, move by move, to propagandize inhuman research, with government press releases, right into the era of the “brain-adapted” population.

Just as the public has bought into the idea that all mental disorders spring from “chemical imbalances,” despite the fact that no normal level of balance has ever been established, so it will be easy to convince the population that the abnormal brain activity of 100 billion neurons can be measured, categorized, specified, and treated.

It’s science. It must be true. Science marches on. Science is the hand-servant of humanity. Greatest good for the greatest number.

The worshipers at the altar of big government who believe its function is that of a giving god will go along, gladly.

For those of that faith, BAM sounds right, and therefore it must be right. No thinking required.

What about the rest of us? A succinct “don’t touch my brain, mother****er” is a good start. It has a nice ring to it. I’m sure it correlates with quite healthy levels of neuronal activity.

The Matrix Revealed

Here’s a prediction. You can take it to the bank. On that day when BAM completes its vaunted mission, our esteemed leaders will manage to exempt themselves from brain scans that might reveal their own dark visions and objectives.

It might even be called The Obama Exception.

If you’re sitting in a pew on the Left and you don’t like that one, try The Bush Exception. Under his brilliant reign, we had the Teen Screen program, a maniacal project to test all children for mental disorders at a young age. It failed, and went out of business.

But BAM has a lot more juice. It aims to go the distance. It has the imprimatur of “hard science.” That’s the venue in which they cook up the biggest lies. The ones with real money behind them. And real Auschwitz experimenters.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

Can you trust a new brain with an IQ of 7000?

Can you trust the new brain with an IQ of 7000?

by Jon Rappoport

February 16, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

I’ve been forcing myself to read gushing statements about the march of artificial intelligence (AI) and how, in the near future, we will have “the source code of the brain,” and computers will be able to do whatever the brain can do, except much, much faster.

I’ve been reading about the day when we humans will somehow merge with the machines.

I think the technocrats who promote these notions were raised on comic books, and they haven’t really moved on from that phase.

What ever happened to the old phrase, “garbage in equals garbage out?” Was it too telling and real?

Take the idea that some day, tiny nanobots will patrol the body making adjustments and normalizing errant functions. Forget for the moment all the damage these little scouts could cause. Just focus on the quality of the information by which they would make moment-to-moment decisions.

Currently, by the most conservative mainstream estimate, the medical system in America kills 225,000 people a year. (See B. Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”).

Of these deaths, 106,000 per year are directly caused by FDA-approved medical drugs. Each one of these drugs was studied, and the results of the studies were published in mainstream journals. This fact alone indicates massive fraud in the clinical trials of the drugs.

Then consider that for all 297 officially certified mental disorders, there exist absolutely no physical diagnostic tests. No blood tests, no saliva tests, no urine tests, no genetic tests, no brain scans. The very definitions of these so-called disorders are adjudicated by sitting committees of psychiatrists, who consult menus of behaviors.

Then consider that the major infectious diseases in the West were already on the decline before vaccines or antibiotics had been introduced, and yet vaccines were hailed as the overriding reason for that decline.

These are just several general categories of fraud, misinformation, disinformation. So the question becomes: who exactly is going to program those wonderful little nanobots before they enter the human bloodstream in the near-future, and what medical information are they going to have access to?

And what kind of moron would assume that, just because artificial intelligence will have the ability to process enormous amounts of data about the body, it will process the right and correct and truthful data?

By extension, when it comes to AI solving political or economic or social problems on a massive scale, why should we assume the information AI is deploying will be correct and right and true, and why should we assume that these problems are stated and formulated, in the first place, according to underlying ethical values that we agree to or share?

Just because a computer can be built that works faster than the brain, and on more platforms, why on earth should we then infer that it is operating from a storehouse of information that is relevant or useful?

And as far as human brains “merging with machines,” why don’t we leave that mishmash idea to the Borg and the Star Trek crew?

The famous Watson test proved that a computer could handle Jeopardy questions on television better than two humans dedicated to trivia.

Deep Blue beat the world’s best chess player.

A computer can analyze the poetry of an author and then generate its own poems in that style. Rather poorly.

Do these feats imply something so significant that we want to put our future in the cores of computers? For that matter, if there is some holy-grail source code for the brain, why should we believe possessing it and using it, or even improving it, would qualitatively improve the solutions to our biggest problems as a species?

There are simple and basic laws of logic involved here. You can compute from now until the end of time, but your deductions are always going to proceed from premises, and those premises are going to predetermine direction and ethical values that color the end results. Computers don’t do Right and Wrong in any absolute sense. Never have, never will.

Even more important is the system or mechanism for allowing AI to dominate our decisions. Who is in charge? Who rules? Which humans hold the off-on switches on the machines? Who programs the machines’ premises? Who can, if necessary, use force to make the global population comply with what AI decides? And what are these humans’ motives?

None of such matters are mitigated by “more intelligent machines.”

The technocrats are actually playing a shell game with us. They’re showing us a vast array of quantitative and qualitative improvements in what computers can do, and they’re substituting that for wisdom. They’re redefining wisdom. They’re omitting the whole argument and debate about what kind of society we want to live in. They’re hucksters and hustlers and con men.

When faced, for example, with the problem of how to feed the world, computers would already be biased in favor of certain outcomes, and they would also be biased toward the basic notion of universal distribution of resources. Who made that choice? The humans deploying the machines from behind the scenes.

Is feeding the world an issue that should be solved top-down? Computers don’t answer that question. Humans do. And humans—specifically the ones in charge—make spectacularly wrong choices, according to the wishes and judgments of many people—many people who already know that placing a decision of that magnitude in the hands of a few oligarchs is a recipe for disaster.

Who will decide how to program the basic assumptions of super-brain computers on the issue of climate change? With what “science” will these computers be initially infected? Who decides what the valid and the invalid science is?

Any beginning student in a logic course quickly learns to distinguish between ethical values and data. Neither computers nor brains determine values based on information alone, no matter how quickly they think, no matter how much data they can access.

A person or a machine with an IQ of 7000 can’t be trusted to install values for others. That’s why we have this troublesome thing called freedom. That’s why we have a fundamental principle that you are free to do anything you want to, as long as you don’t interfere with another person’s freedom. Any system that countermands this basic principle, simply because “it can think better,” is a tyrant, whether it is composed of flesh or metal or some synthetic.

NBC news recently did a glowing feature on advanced cell phones that, in the hands of doctors, can carry out a huge array of medical tests on patients. The doctor was enthusiastic. The patient was enthusiastic. The reporter was enthusiastic. It was a virtual love fest.

No one bothered to ask about the meaning, utility, or dangers of the tests themselves. That issue was swept off the table.

Who cares? It’s technology. It has to be good. If the patient’s test results indicate he should be treated with a highly toxic drug, so what? That’s a minor blip on the screen. We should all celebrate the technological breakthrough. Pour the champagne. Forget about the patient.

Some day, up the road, a human will be sleeping in his bed at night. The tiny bots circulating in his body will suddenly decide he needs a drug. They will either release the substance without his knowledge, or a robot sitting next to the bed will lean over and give him a quick shot. Done.

What? He ended up in the hospital next afternoon? Well, whatever the reason, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the little bots or their programming or their method for accessing the vast clouds of data in virtual space. No, those functions are all brilliant and boggling and wondrous. It must have been something else.

A person walking down the street will be picked up by a hundred cameras and other surveillance devices. It will be adjudicated, in a matter of a few seconds, that he’s missed his latest series of a dozen vaccine boosters. At the next corner, a mini-drone, barely visible to the naked eye, will descend on him and give him a quick jab. Or his next meal will magically contain food engineered specifically to deliver the mandated vaccines.

Greatest good for the greatest number. Already decided and programmed.

Is it better to have separate nations with their own armies, or should we have one giant planetary force? Let the AI decide. How? On what basis? There are always value judgments that underlie these questions, and computers don’t suddenly create values unless they’re told to do so. Only in comic books or pulp science fiction novels do advanced races with very high foreheads come down and demonstrate wisdom based on IQ.

There is no evidence that, if you took a general like Julius Caesar and somehow shoved his IQ up off the charts, he would suddenly change his value judgments. Henry Kissinger hasn’t.

If you built a machine that could access every single datum acquired in 100,000 years of human history and store them all on the head of a pin; and if that machine could rearrange all these data in a trillion different patterns in a few minutes; and if that machine could then generate decisions that answer any question put to it, what would you really have? You would have, at best, sheer opinion on the most important matters facing the human race.

Technocracy is selling a myth of intelligence, a fairy tale. In this fairy tale, the smartest brains (coincidentally resembling those of the technocrats) would cross a threshold, beyond which intelligence would become something else, something very different: machines that have “higher access” to “the best moral values.”

Perhaps the most avid and famous proponent of a technocratic future is Ray Kurzweil, acclaimed inventor, author, businessman. He describes the event he calls the Singularity:

“Within a quarter century, nonbiological intelligence will match the range and subtlety of human intelligence. It will then soar past it because of the continuing acceleration of information-based technologies, as well as the ability of machines to instantly share their knowledge. Intelligent nanorobots will be deeply integrated…”

Among the effects of this unprecedented development?

“…the exponential rate of technical progress will create within 40 years an Internet that is a trillion times faster than today’s, a global media, a global education system, a global language, and a globally homogenized culture, thus establishing the prerequisites for the creation of a global democratic state, “Globa,” and ridding the world of war, the arms trade, ignorance, and poverty…Billions of people will be influenced by the ‘best’ ideas that the planet has to offer. People’s minds will be influenced powerfully, so that today’s nationalist mentalities will be gradually transformed into tomorrow’s globist mentalities…”

And just what are these “best ideas” that billions of people will voluntarily accept? The ideas expressed in, say, Plato’s Republic? Or instantaneous 3-D holographic “you are there” porn? Small decentralized organic farms or some Monsanto plan to disseminate GMOs from the sky all over the planet? A three-branched government with rigorous checks and balances, or taking the points on the Jets vs. the Rams? A healthy clean diet or a hundred vaccines by the age of three?

And the “global democratic state?” I’d like to see how the elections of a president and legislators work for the whole of Earth (including the recount after a charge of fraud is leveled by one citizen in southern Argentina).

If presidential debates in the US, targeting the lowest possible common denominators among the voting public, are filled with vapid generalities, I can only imagine the global debates: a few smiles, a few grunts, a few assurances that “we’re all in this together.”

One language for all the world? Sure, why not? Let’s wipe out the memory of what a few thousand years of hundreds of languages have produced.

And don’t worry. All over the planet, “the people,” newly brilliant, will rise up and overthrow their dictators, just as they did during the vaunted Arab Spring, where the crucial presence of cell phones and Facebook was touted as the lever that forced democratic breakthroughs. You remember that Spring: a promoted hoax designed to hide yet one more elite power play.

Greater insight into ethical values based purely on speed and range of information processing is really a quasi-religion. It uses the notion of IQ as the Prophet. It promises that, as the people have access to more and more data, they will naturally and inevitably choose the right values and the right data, because that’s what IQ does, once it passes through a certain upward level.

You can forget about elite power players exerting control over the population of Earth from above because, as in the Marxist formulation, these Rockefellers and Warburgs of the past will simply wither away, no longer needed.

the matrix revealed

I’m happy to learn that. I can relax now. We can all relax. The great day is coming. It will be brought to us by a multi-platformed brain, using its neuronal substrate to reach out and connect with nonbiological libraries of truth.

What were we worried about?

I’m sitting here talking to you and you’re talking to me, and you’re in Bombay and I’m in San Diego, and we’re seeing each other in high-res 3-D holographic brilliance, as if we’re in the same room. And as we talk and access skies full of clouds of relevant data in mere instants, we’re both coming to accept the best ideas and the best values and the best language and the best government, and we’re kicking the ass of the old world and rushing into the New, and life will be different forever, and I know it and you know it, so what else do we need?

My molecularly enhanced IQ is 7000 and so is yours, so we’re on the same precise page. That’s all the human race was waiting for all this time.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

How Swine Flu Was Invented

What if you started a disease-scare and nobody cared?

UPDATED AND EXPANDED to include the whole mind-boggling fraud.

By Jon Rappoport

June 27, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

I wrote a shorter version of this article yesterday. After I was done, I decided to expand it before publishing it. So this is the longer piece. It exposes the whole Swine Flu operation as a complete fraud, from the beginning.

I’m assuming readers want to understand this. They are willing to follow a track of thought from start to finish. They want more than a headline and a few paragraphs. I say this because, as a reporter who has been exposing medical fraud for 25 years, I’ve found that the criminals try to cover their tracks. To see how they do it, you have to unwind their ball of yarn all the way. It’s not one-two-three.

With that proviso, here we go.

Remember these terms: La Gloria, PCR test. They are important in understanding how a fake pandemic can be invented from scratch, based on no evidence. You see, it’s not the germ, it’s the false announcement of the germ. It’s the concoction of an apparition, a ghost, a phantom. That’s how you launch a fake pandemic. That’s how you sell fear. That’s how you try to make people take their vaccines and keep their mouths shut.

In my years as an investigative medical reporter, I’ve developed a rule of thumb when dealing with the US Centers for Disease Control:

If they’re not lying, they’re lying.

I’ve found this guideline works out well. It’s almost magic.

For example, at the so-called height of the Swine Flu epidemic, in the summer of 2009, CBS News exposed the fact that the CDC, in an egregious dereliction of its duty, had stopped counting Swine Flu cases. The CDC just assumed people arriving at hospitals or doctors’ offices with anything resembling the flu had Swine Flu. Therefore, the CDC really didn’t have the faintest idea how many people in America had Swine Flu. Yet, soon after this CBS report broke, the CDC issued a mind-boggling announcement plucked out of thin air: there were undoubtedly 10 MILLION people in the US infected with Swine Flu. No evidence. No test results. No facts. Just scare tactics. As in: “You must get vaccinated.”

Well, they’re bloviating again, in a choice bit of revisionist history.

A new CDC study, published in the Lancet Infectious Diseases Journal, states that the final global figure for Swine Flu deaths, 18,500, was grossly underestimated. The new and far more precise figure is…25,000? No. 50,000? No. 100,000?

No.

250,000! But wait. It actually might be as high as 575,400, say the CDC wizards.

What kind of rabbit hat is the CDC pulling those numbers from? The hat is called “a computer model” or a “statistical model.” This is code for: “We devised algorithms, equations, and charts which no one will bother to examine or assess or judge. Trust us. We’re the pros.”

It’s well known that computer models can be created and spun to achieve a wide variety of outcomes, depending on, for example, the result one favors from the get-go. Models of global warming have come under withering attack on that basis.

In typical bungling CDC fashion, the researchers have left clues about their work. The study authors write, “Diagnostic specimens are not always obtained from people who die with influenza and the viruses might no longer be detectable by the time of death in some people.” You might want to read that sentence again.

Translation: “We don’t know what we’re talking about when we jack up the estimates on deaths from Swine Flu because, well, there are a lot of dead people who died without ever having been tested for the H1N1 Swine Flu virus, and we can’t dig up their bodies now and run the tests. But our computer models can somehow perform post-mortem exams.”

Or: “Many, many people died without anyone knowing whether they had Swine Flu. So naturally we’ll assume they did.”

This is called science, and American tax dollars pay for it. They pay for an agency, the CDC, that is tasked with scaring Americans into getting vaccines, no matter what. Even if a re-write of history is necessary.

You see, after all the whipped-up hysteria, in 2009, when the CDC and the World Health Organization told us that a great horror, the H1N1 virus, was stalking the globe and mowing people down left and right with Swine Flu, the final mortality figure, worldwide, was an extreme embarrassment to these agencies. It was especially embarrassing because, well, the World Health Organization claims that, every year, between 250,000 and 500,000 people die from ordinary regular seasonal flu. This is not called a pandemic that could wipe out humankind. But when 18,500 people die of Swine Flu, this is called a Level 6 Pandemic, the highest danger category the World Health Organization can declare.

The CDC also announced today that, in 2009, the Swine Flu virus was “the predominant virus.” In other words, we are supposed to believe, again, with no evidence, that most people who died that year from flu died from Swine Flu. Or to put it another way, in 2009 the usual seasonal flu viruses that circulate decided to take a holiday and give the new kid on the block, Swine Flu, H1N1, a chance to spread his wings and see what he could do.

Therefore, these viruses must be cordial to one another. When a new one comes along, the others make room. They have a conference (thankfully not supported with tax monies) and they come to a consensus.

In some media outlets, the AFP story on this new CDC Swine Flu study included an interesting final sentence, and in at least one other major outlet, the final sentence was omitted.

It was: “The Council of Europe accused the agency [the World Health Organization] of causing unjustified scare and a waste of public money [in their launch and handling of the Swine Flu debacle.]”

Nothing to see there, just move along. Listen to the CDC and the World Health Organization and obey. Do what they tell you to do. They know stuff; you don’t. They’re brilliant; you’re a robot. Line up and take your vaccine.

If you swallow all that, I have stunning condos for sale on Jupiter.

Now let’s go deeper.

Realize, as well, that when the whole Swine Flu scare was launched in the spring of 2009, the WHO absurdly declared the H1N1 virus a Level-6 Pandemic based on a mere 20, that’s 20, cases of Swine Flu. At the same time, WHO changed its definition of “Level-6 Pandemic” so that severe destruction and widespread human death were no longer required. This is like saying a pandemic can be a pandemic without being a pandemic. (Search Peter Doshi, BMJ Online, for coverage on these two points.)

These factors provide strong circumstantial evidence that Swine Flu was an operation designed to frighten the global population, based on nothing. Nothing but anticipated pharmaceutical profits from the sale of vaccines and drugs.

Where did Swine Flu originate? A place called La Gloria, in Mexico, where a large industrial pig farm was located. Press reports described outdoor “pig feces lagoons” on the property. When workers began to get sick, the area was sprayed with unknown chemicals. More workers fell ill. Anyone with a basic knowledge of public health could testify that this combination of mind-boggling sanitation plus a strong germicide could cause human disease. In fact, it doesn’t matter which particular germs are present in the mix.

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

Why? Why assume when workers who operate in that kind of environment get sick there is some new disease at work? The symptoms of the workers were not unusual, given the circumstances. Workers dying in that vat of filth and chemical soup should be expected.

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

But, you say, cases of Swine Flu were subsequently diagnosed all over the planet. It wasn’t just La Gloria. You have to understand how these diagnoses were made, when they were made at all, beyond eyeballing sick people with “flu symptoms” and automatically claiming Swine Flu was the cause.

There is a test called the PCR. This was the major tool used to diagnose Swine Flu. Given the fact that it’s an expensive genetic assay, we can assume it wasn’t done often. The PCR basically takes very, very tiny amounts of unknown human genetic material and amplifies them to the point where they can be observed. In other words, there wasn’t enough “germ” to begin with. It was so miniscule, you couldn’t ID it as is.

This is called a clue. In order to even begin to think about indicting a germ as a cause of a disease, you need to find very large amounts of it. The army of germs has to be huge and it has to be doing something in the body. The PCR test doesn’t yield such a conclusion at all. If anything, it confirms that the army was non-existent.

The test used to diagnose Swine Flu was useless. It was misleading. It was obvious it was misleading. But it was used. Why?

Because it would provide cover. It would make it seem as if Swine Flu was everywhere on the planet.

This is more circumstantial evidence of an intentional operation.

Call a local environmental calamity (in La Gloria) a new disease based on no evidence. Have the leading public health agency in the world (the WHO) change its definition of pandemic to allow a declaration of a level-6 threat, based on a mere 20 cases. Start labeling ordinary flu Swine Flu. Claim it is a new disease, based on no evidence. Use a test to diagnose it that is useless and misleading.

And you’re home free. You have a global threat. You have fear. You have drug companies making a fortune. You have people believing they have to get their vaccines. You have toxic vaccines (by their very nature and composition) injected into the global population.

You have billions of people listening to the WHO and the CDC and following medical orders, which really amounts to political control. It’s all part of the operation to ensnare people into a cradle-to-grave medical apparatus that diagnoses one disease after another, treats these diseases with highly toxic drugs that produce new symptoms, then diagnosing those symptoms as new diseases and then treating those with more toxic drugs, until eventually death comes.

Except a funny thing happened on the CDC’s road to victory in the Swine Flu operation. The Internet rose up like a bear and swatted the CDC with a big paw. A handful of reporters and researchers (including moi) blew the deal. Exposed the scam.

The CDC and the WHO lost. They were slammed. Governments all over over the world are holding stocks of unused H1N1 vaccine, because people didn’t show up to get jabbed in the arm. It was a fiasco for the medical cartel.

Yes, Virginia, sometimes we win. And when we do, if we learn enough, we’re ready for the next load of lies and we know what to do.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Manipulating evolution from now on

By Jon Rappoport

April 4, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

(August 2013 update: For TruthStreamMedia.com’s article entitled “DARPA to Genetically Engineer Humans by Adding a 47th Chromosome“, click here. For a pdf copy of the DARPA solicitation entitled “Advanced Tools for Mammalian Genome Engineering“, click here. See also Creating a genetic monster.)

“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 it was exported to Nazi Germany, where it was used for a program of pure destruction the American advocates could only dream of.

Now, the population is being softened up for another version of The Human as Bio-Machine. 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: some people should live, and some people should die, or at the very least, not reproduce.

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 it’s one reason many academics believe the Constitution is a badly outmoded document: it asserts that every individual can be free. Claiming that the existence of free will is preposterous, academia determines that any political document based on liberty and freedom can be trampled on with impunity.

“There are only brains and those brains operate purely by electrical/chemical inputs and outputs.”

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:

“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.

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

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

It’s interesting that Silver mentions the value of individual freedom. Would he be willing to discuss his view of the human being honestly? Does he claim the human is a bio-machine and nothing more? And if so, where does this freedom come from? Sub-atomic particles changing their minds every so often? Or does he have a different view of the human?

If we could bring these bio-ethicists and geneticists and academic philosophers out into the light of day, where the issue of free will would be discussed in depth, some very interesting things might happen.

For example: “Well, why shouldn’t we experiment on human beings to see what we can produce genetically? The human is merely sub-atomic particles in motion that have somehow acquired the delusion they have Identity and Free Choice.”

Yes, let’s get it all out into the open, where we can see the underlying assumptions and look at them straight on.

Ideas do move the world, even if the bulk of humanity is disinterested or unwilling to grasp them. To infer that such underlying ideas are a waste of time and should be discarded altogether is exactly the kind of default that leaves the playing field open; open to those who DO have ideas and are willing to act on them—to the detriment of all of us.

Thirty years ago, biotech companies looking for seed money began to hire scientists to shill for them. These pros began promising the moon, in terms of what the research in genetics could deliver in short order. Of course, the promises were completely overblown, but the stage was set for a major PR campaign that would add grants and research funding to the coffers of geneticists—and convince the public that the Brave New World had arrived.

That PR has grown to this day. The man on the street is now blithely ready to attribute all sorts of human behavior to genes and DNA. He’s an expert. He knows. He can repeat the latest promises about genetic cures for disease.

This, despite the fact there is NOT a single gene-treatment for a disease that works across the board. Can someone prove otherwise?

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.

The very basis of the American Republic, 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. One typical argument: once upon a time, people were horrified at the prospect of doing in vitro fertilization; people said it wouldn’t work, it would produce monsters; now it’s accepted as normal and natural.

And THEREFORE, “we should look at genetic manipulation as the next stage of our self-directed evolution. We should try it. We should be ready to deal with failures, because the pursuit of the goal is good and valuable.”

All this presupposes honorable motives and humane objectives. Who cares about a realistic assessment of what scientists will countenance and promote?

We are told there are laws against dangerous gene experiments, and there are medical ethics panels ready to rule out potentially harmful practices. But among the experts, a tide is rising in favor of the overall goal of engineering our genetic future.

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 machines. They might not phrase it that way, but that’s what it comes down to.

The Matrix Revealed

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.”

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 Nazi elite, obsessed with the idea of creating a Master Race, serving that goal, were willing to try any horrendous experiment on any prisoner; they were willing to breed their “ideal” men and women to produce offspring that would fit their definition of “superior.”

Now we are being sold a soft version of Eugenics as the next step in evolution. It’s a kinder, gentler roulette. 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?

Some who look at the future see Orwell’s 1984. Others see Huxley’s Brave New World. I’m here to tell you the 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” of the Religion called Science.

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?

Despite Gregory Stock’s advice to think only in the short term and disregard the broader future, I suggest you consider the implications of government-controlled and funded healthcare. Up the road, the prescribed list of treatments for all diseases will become mandatory. The doctor offers, you accept. You obey. He advocates gene therapy, you fall into line. You’re in the system.

Meanwhile, 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-powerful 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.

A man on his way out of a restaurant trips on a stair and sues the owner; and he’s going to stay quiet when his rich cousin can suddenly play a Beethoven piano concerto?

I asked a retired professor of biology about the social effects of human engineering. His comment was: “These younger geneticists who see paradise over the hill? If they’re living over the hill in big houses, they’re going to need the Army to protect them.”

And will the Army protect them? I asked.

“Look,” he said, “this whole business of inserting genes to create talents is a fantasy (emphasis added). But assuming at some distant time it could come true, the soldiers would have their own synthetic genes, which would presumably make them follow orders to the extreme. The soldiers would do whatever the people who run things want them to do. It would be a tight world.”

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. When freedom is not understood beyond a superficial level, the question, “WHAT IS FREEDOM FOR?”, goes begging. For the past 15 years, I’ve been exploring the question, and I believe, in the answer, we find the imagination and creative power that can allow us to enhance ourselves, without the need to desperately hope for genetic reprogramming.

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.

When the Blood Boils: Vaccines and Autism

by Jon Rappoport

July 2, 2011

(To join our email list, click here.)

Lies passed around like conjured pieces of gold. Medical liars speaking their messages with straight faces, from their pulpits of influence.

We’ve watched them work. We’ve experienced the inner sensation of blood boiling; outrage.

Who are these people? Where did they come from? How did they attain their positions of power? Are they a different species?

And like you, I have watched the passive faces of audiences as they take in these lies, as they know something is wrong, as they refuse to act.

If you control the meaning of words like “evidence,” “cause,” “relationship between,” you own the playing field. You can manipulate outcomes and conclusions, and you can define science itself.

Your power derives from ownership of those simple words.

Suppose a healthy baby with all his faculties intact receives a barrage of vaccines at 15 months. Then, three days later, his temperature soars to 105, he has seizures, he screams, and then he goes silent. He withdraws from the world, from his parents. In the ensuing months, he doesn’t speak. He doesn’t laugh. He shows no interest in life around him. He doesn’t recover from this. He doesn’t regain his former health.

In what sense can it be said that the vaccines caused his condition? That may seem like an absurd question to be asking, but scientists claim it is important. So do judges and government officials. So do drug companies who make and sell vaccines.

They claim it’s very important, because they want to maintain control over the concept of “cause.” It’s their protection in the racket they are running.

Can we track the path, step by step, of these vaccine ingredients as they are injected into a baby and make their way through his system? Can we observe every reaction they produce, in sequence, all the way into and through the recesses of the nervous system and the brain?

Of course not.

By such an impossible standard, everyone falls short.

If perverse officials and scientists suddenly invoke that standard, can anyone fulfill it? No.

But make sure you understand that scientists and bureaucrats judge their own work by far looser principles.

They assert, for example, with psychotic arrogance that the underlying cause of autism is in the genes, although their research has only given them the foggiest of reasons for even beginning to crawl out on that limb—where they crow and lie and ask for more research money.

They say ADHD is created by certain brain abnormalities, even though their scans produce on-again off-again evidence—which, finally, is no evidence at all.

In fact, for every one of the 297 so-called mental disorders that are named and defined and described in the official bible of psychiatric literature, there is not one, not one lucid diagnostic test to back up, biologically, their disease labels and descriptions and definitions.

It’s a game. “We may hold you to an impossible standard. We hold ourselves to no standard at all.”

So you should be aware that, if you choose to enter this game, for whatever reasons, you are playing against a monumentally stacked deck.

The powers-that-be will do everything they can to subvert, deny, and destroy THE STORY OF ONE PARENT ABOUT ONE CHILD.

Why? Because the story is too convincing. It’s too obvious. It’s too real. It’s too DEVASTATING. It’s too dangerous.

“My child was healthy. He was vaccinated. Then he collapsed. He never recovered.”

With that, you are setting dynamite on the rails of the medical princes.

And you are also waking up other parents whose stories are essentially the same. You are igniting a fire in their heads.

Can you imagine what would happen if you said, “Look, my child was hit by a cluster of vaccines delivered when he was fifteen months old, and he was never the same after that, and THAT is what I’m seeking compensation for, and that is ALL I’m seeking compensation for. I don’t care what you call it, what name you give to it.”

And the government said, “Well, all right.”

The ensuing flood would drown them. And would drown the vaccine manufacturers, too.

You must be stopped.

And the way they will stop you is by manipulating the word “cause.” That’s all. That’s their entire policy and program. They execute it on an arcane and pseudo-technical level, employing models and constructs and numbers in their private little universe, while they polish their credentials.

They don’t want YOUR STORY to stand naked in front of the public.

Of course it is obvious that, when health turns to tragedy, the vaccines were at fault, just as when a blow to the head causes memory loss. Of course everyone concerned knows the truth.

But they say: science is not done this way. We must have “evidence of causation.” They occasionally throw a few crumbs to parents whose child was brain-damaged by a vaccine. But in the main, they conjure up a version of pseudo-science and use it to obfuscate the otherwise unpardonable reality of what the vaccine has done.

And how does this conjured and manufactured science work?

It starts with the owned and operated definition of a disease or disorder. In the case of autism, the old behavioral criteria are dragged out. Here they are. I’m sorry for loading the full display on you, but I want you to see it in print:

The following is from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM IV

(I) A total of six (or more) items from (A), (B), and (C), with at least two from (A), and one each from (B) and (C)

(A) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
2. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
3. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
4. lack of social or emotional reciprocity ( note: in the description, it gives the following as examples: not actively participating in simple social play or games, preferring solitary activities, or involving others in activities only as tools or “mechanical” aids )

(B) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:

1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language
4. lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level

(C) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
2. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
3. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
4. persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

(II) Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:

(A) social interaction
(B) language as used in social communication
(C) symbolic or imaginative play

(III) The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett’s Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder

And now you have the full and complete definition of autism from the official manual. There is no other definition. There are no physical tests or blood tests or brain scans. There is only this menu of behaviors.

And there are many so-called related disorders, and each one has its similar complex behavioral definition. These depictions overlap. But no matter. As far as the psychiatrists and pediatricians and medical bureaucrats are concerned, autism is defined. Engraved on tablets.

Does, in the judgment of a doctor, your child fit the definition or doesn’t he? The word is given from on high. The decision is rendered. And we are then one step removed from the reality of the simple and brutal destroying effects of the vaccines. This is good for them. They are now in familiar territory. Protected land.

Now they can say, “Your child, who at fifteen months collapsed, has autism.”

This is the bridge to the next giant step. Which is:

“We have determined that vaccines are not the cause of autism.”

“We know this.”

“We have proved this.”

Therefore, you’re trapped. Your child has been painted with the label “autism”–and perhaps you were actually hoping for that, because you knew something was terribly wrong, and the designation confirms you were correct. But as far as making a link to the vaccines, you’re suddenly at their mercy.

If they decide to compensate you through the federal vaccine compensation system, they will say, “Well, your child actually is suffering from encephalopathy and has autism-like symptoms.” But far more frequently, they will fall back on their pronouncement that vaccines and autism are unconnected, and you will get nothing.

How did these medical experts and their bureaucratic partners determine that vaccines are not the cause of autism?

They examined studies. And the studies “found no link.” In particular, there is the key Verstraeten study, published in two phases. Three HMOs’ records of babies were considered by Verstraeten and his colleagues.

I’m going to quote from the study and then comment:

“Results. In phase I at HMO A, cumulative exposure at 3 months resulted in a significant positive association with tics (relative risk [RR]: 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05–3.38). At HMO B, increased risks of language delay were found for cumulative exposure at 3 months (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.01–1.27) and 7 months (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01–1.13). In phase II at HMO C, no significant associations were found. In no analyses were significant increased risks found for autism or attention-deficit disorder.”

“Conclusions. No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Conflicting results were found at different HMOs for certain outcomes. For resolving the conflicting findings, studies with uniform neurodevelopmental assessments of children with a range of cumulative thimerosal exposures are needed.”

First of all, notice how far away we are from that basic fact that vaccines were delivered to your child and your child collapsed and never recovered. We are miles from that. We’re now discussing correlations between vaccines containing mercury (thimerosal) and various indicators and labels: tics, language delay, autism, attention-deficit disorder, neurodevelopmental outcomes.

We now have a complex situation. First of all, in order to conclude that mercury-containing vaccines are correlated with autism or attention-deficit disorder, the researchers would have to have observed, in these children’s medical records, reports detailing all the behavioral criteria THE RESEARCHERS ASSUME add up to a positive diagnosis of these two INVENTED disorders—neither of which even exists on the basis of actual biological or chemical tests of any kind.

So essentially, if we make the translation from psychiatric-speak to basic English, we have this: “There is no convincing correlation between mercury-containing vaccines and those disorders we invented by slicing and dicing human behavior into compartments and giving them disease-labels.”

This is staggering when you think about it.

Continuing: In the first HMO records, Verstraeten and his colleages found a significant correlation between the vaccines and tics. As in facial tics. Why is that important? Because tics can be a sign of motor brain damage. They have a name for that: tardive dyskinesia. But it means brain damage.

However, if you look at the concocted definitions of the concocted disorders called autism and ADD, you’ll find no mention of tics or tardive dyskinesia. Therefore, an increased risk of tics doesn’t bring the researchers any closer to connecting vaccines and autism—simply because autism wasn’t defined that way. It wasn’t invented that way.

Perusing the records at the second HMO, Verstraeten found an increased risk of language delay. The babies didn’t start speaking when normally expected to. This is one of the listed criteria for a diagnosis of autism, but of course it is not enough, by the concocted rules of the game, to rate a placing of the invented label, autism, on any of those children.

At the third HMO, which was investigated as a separate phase 2 of the study, researchers found no significant associations—meaning no tics, no language delay…nothing that would rate a diagnosis of autism or suggest the presence of any of the invented symptoms of autism.

All in all, Verstraeten and his colleagues found no reason to conclude that mercury-containing vaccines were correlated with autism or other signals of neurological problems.

He played off one HMO against another: “In this one, we found X. But in the other one, we didn’t. We found Y instead. And in the third one, we found neither X nor Y.” Why didn’t he simply use all three HMOs as one reservoir? Possibly because he was trying to guard against the possibility of biased records at one HMO. Who knows?

And why didn’t he conclude, “All in all, we discovered some evidence of harm from the vaccines.”

Again, notice how far we are from the actual event of vaccines causing brain damage in a child.

The study decides that there is no increased risk, from vaccines, for autism or ADD. And that’s that. “Further research” is needed.

A child harmed by vaccines could have a tiny brain lesion or severe immune deficiency or a rewired connection somewhere deep in the recesses of the brain—undetected—but none of this matches up to the invented criteria for a diagnosis of autism.

But millions of people actually believe that autism is a distinct entity which was “discovered,” like a pre-set embedded pattern of errant pathways in the brain. And when those people are told, by experts, that vaccines don’t cause it, the PR value is enormous. For doctors who give the vaccines, for drug companies, for public-health agencies.

This is all a ruse. It’s a fabrication, and the studies that follow from it serve to mask the facts of vaccine damage.

They invent define the disorder, they have no definitive diagnostic tests for it, they conclude that vaccines don’t cause it. It’s one fantasy after another.

It’s as if you drew a map of a gold mine that doesn’t exist, and then you passed a law forbidding people from searching for it.

There are various degrees and events of tragic and lasting impact-damage that are laid upon children. The causes are multiple. One significant cause is vaccines. There is no such thing as autism. It is a construct ultimately designed to get certain people off the hook. And to make profit. And to engender money for research.

They will never find a cure for autism, because it doesn’t exist, except as a menu of behaviors wrapped inside their fantasy. Of course, if they were in the world, the world you live in, they would acknowledge that vaccines do cause brain and neurological damage, and they would compensate for that. They would act in a straightforward and honest fashion.

I spoke to one psychiatrist off the record, who said, “A genetic cause for autism? Are you serious? Autism is an artifact to begin with. So how do you find a gene that causes a fairy tale?”

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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