Category Archives: Vaccine Fraud

CNN GOES PSYCHOTIC ON BIN LADEN, VACCINES

CNN Goes Psychotic on Vaccines, Bin Laden

by Jon Rappoport

June 7, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Maybe they’re dropping acid at CNN. But they’re running a story on how the killing of Bin Laden is tied to a recent “surge” in polio cases in Pakistan.

(CNN: “Bin Laden raid harms Pakistan polio fight”)

I’m not kidding. Here is the thread, such as it is. A Pakistani doctor, secretly working for the CIA, showed up at the bin Laden compound pretending he was promoting vaccinations against polio. He was really there to try to gain intel on the compound and who was living in it.

Since this has gone public, there is now a widespread fear of vaccination in Pakistan because, well, the whole effort to deliver shots to the population must be a CIA op.

This is why, medical authorities say, the people of Pakistan don’t want needles??

Actually, people everywhere are waking up to the fact that vaccines are toxic and ineffective.

The recent “incredible surge” in polio in Pakistan? 198 claimed cases.

Which proves that public health agencies will say ANYTHING to try to get people to take vaccines.

A little history helps here. In the US, in the early 1950s, as the first polio vaccine was being introduced, doctors were being paid $25 for every case of polio they diagnosed. In those days, that was a significant sum. So any patient who walked through the door of a doctor’s office with a slight limp or a fever or a sniffle risked the danger of a diagnosis. Naturally, these payoffs to physicians inflated the numbers of cases of polio being reported.

THEN, after the vaccine was put in play, health authorities changed the definition of polio. By the new standards, it was much harder to claim a person had polio, so case numbers dropped. Of course, the drop was attributed to the vaccine.

I explain all this in detail in my book, AIDS INC., which is a bonus included as an e-book, in my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED. During the writing of the book, I interviewed Dr. Herbert Ratner who, during the 1950s, was the public health officer for Oak Park, Illinois. Ratner documented these scams at the time.

The whole issue of whether polio is even related to a virus has been shoved under the carpet and kept there for a long time. Here you should consult the unique research of Jim West, who wrote a stunning analysis, Images of Poliomyelitis, in the Townsend Letter for Doctors (June, 2000). West connects paralytic polio to the DDT pesticide, and earlier, to lead and arsenic pesticides.

The Matrix Revealed

Coming up to the present, recent revelations about the Bill Gates- sponsored polio vaccine in India are quite staggering. 47,000 cases of paralysis from the vaccine. They’re calling these “non-polio paralysis,” but it’s clear the vaccine has been doing the damage. Don’t worry. Bill is still smiling.

Ever since the advent of the germ theory of disease, germs have been used as cover stories to conceal the actual causes of illness and death. In the Third World, contaminated water supplies, lack of basic sanitation, overcrowding, chronic malnutrition and starvation, stolen farm land, and Western medical intervention with toxic drugs and vaccines are the true causes. They are conveniently unsolved, because it is in the interests of those in charge to maintain debilitated and weak populations.

I pointed this out in AIDS INC., as the HIV hysteria spread. HIV was the latest attempt to deflect attention from the truth. In the course of writing the book, I interviewed a doctor who had set up a small AIDS clinic in Uganda. He decided it would do no good to treat the patients with AZT, because they were too weak from lack of food. (Of course, AZT, a failed chemo drug, is perhaps the most toxic medicine ever released for public consumption.) So this doctor tried something unprecedented. He created a small farm, where food was grown to feed his patients.

Eventually, he said, they grew stronger AND ALL THEIR SO-CALLED AIDS SYMPTOMS DISAPPEARED. At this point, because he was a mainstream doctor, he was baffled. He didn’t know what to do. His people were now healthy. They had been diagnosed with a lethal disease. They “needed drugs.” But why? They were doing well.

It turns out that, in Africa, in 1985, a researcher named Serwadda wrote a paper in which he essentially reinterpreted all the usual symptoms of starvation, contaminated water, lack of sanitation as “slim disease,” and he claimed this wasting away was the result of HIV. From that moment on, the medical cartel had its cover story. The death-dealing hoax was in full bloom.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

VACCINES–YES OR NO?

 

VACCINES—YES OR NO?

 

By Jon Rappoport

February 16, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

 

For some time, I’ve been wanting to do a complete seminar on vaccines, since I’ve investigated that territory on and off for the last 20 years.

 

Well, finally it’s done. My friend and colleague, radio host Robert Scott Bell, and I put together 10 hours of audio and accompanying online text. On my site, www.nomorefakenews.com you’ll see the box to click, to order it.

 

My idea was to present a kind of hologram on vaccines that you could walk around and examine and see from a number of points of view.

 

Such as:

 

What arguments do mainstream medical people use to promote and defend vaccines? Do these arguments hold up? Are they fallacious? If so, why?

 

What are the hidden assumptions about vaccines that need to be probed and picked apart?

 

Is vaccination basically a good practice if the vaccines are protected from contamination? Or is the whole concept false?

 

Exactly how are vaccines supposed to immunize people from disease?

 

What’s the actual track record of vaccination?

 

What studies prove they’re safe and effective?

 

What’s the relationship between vaccines and a person’s own immune system?

 

And so on and so forth.

 

I wanted to be able to arm people with information they can use to make a TRULY informed choice.

 

I wanted to raise and examine the big questions and provide big answers—and also get very specific.

 

I’m happy to say Robert and and I have fulfilled those objectives.

 

You know, the idea and practice of political correctness today reaches far beyond social issues and words that can be said and can’t be said. It extends especially to medical issues, because the promotion of medical solutions to everything under the sun has become more widespread and more relentless.

 

The medical cartel seeks to drive all opposition underground into small marginalized spaces.

 

The notion of intelligent debate on medical solutions is off-limits, because we have a government-medical partnership that exceeds any Constitutional intent. It is a racket. Profits for pharmaceutical companies are, in many areas, guaranteed by government edict, and government is basically claiming that medical pronouncements are golden Truth that can’t be argued against.

 

Say and think what you want to about government-controlled health insurance. Up the road, we are looking at a form of fascism, where you will be able to access only those treatments the government decides you can. Doctors who discover you’re “into natural health” will relegate you to the back of the line. You’ll be told you’re a “non-compliant patient” and you need to accept the mainstream and only the mainstream treatments and prescriptions.

 

In fact, this future is the main reason why the national health insurance bill was pushed through Congress. Behind the Congressional wrangle sit the real benefactors of such a system: the drug companies, and the insurance companies who can muscle their way to the money table where the big profits are handed out.

 

The plan is to “streamline” health care in America, so the millions of people who are seeking help in the natural arena will be forced to give in and accept new limitations.

 

Among these limitations? Take your vaccines when you are told to, and give them to your children without objection. “We know what’s good for you.”

 

That’s the new and improved definition of freedom. Accept the Truth as the government shapes and defines it.

 

But this master plan has flaws. It isn’t a done deal. The future can be changed. People can change it. The natural health revolution has legs. When it comes to vaccines, my objective with this seminar was to provide you with your very own “PhD” on the subject, so you could make a decision you could STAND ON, with confidence.

 

“Medical freedom” and “health freedom” aren’t empty terms. They reflect CHOICE. Your choice. The powers-that-be are banking on the prediction that you’ll eventually give in and go along with the tide. You’ll decide they really are the experts.

 

For every supposed medical condition and solution, there are hundreds or even thousands of studies that purport to explain WHAT REALITY IS. The sheer weight of the details is supposed to make you throw up your hands and surrender. Because that’s what doctors do, after all. They don’t have time to read everything, and they go along with their own system—and then they manage to sound like they’re wizards when they tell you what’s needed and what you should do.

 
large
When I was running for a seat in Congress in 1994, against one of the staunchest defenders of the medical apparatus (Henry Waxman), my launching issue was health freedom, your right to make your own choices, no matter what the experts or the government tells you. In that regard, nothing has changed for me. Except this aspect of freedom has, in the interim, become more and more a co-opted part of the political correctness universe.

 

Which means people need better information, and they need to stand on it.

 

A lot of what I read these days doesn’t make it into print in my articles, because I have my own subjects backed up from here to the moon. But I have to tell you (and I know this doesn’t come as a shock) the sheer mass of criminal behavior in our society is increasing geometrically, from top to bottom. From the White House and Congress and boardrooms all the way down to the street.

 

No matter at what level the crimes are being perpetrated, the criminals have all sorts of stories to explain their actions. Reasons, excuses, denials. And they have colleagues who rally to their “cause,” who will lie at the drop of a hat.

 

The idea that a person should be responsible for his own actions seems to be on the way out.

 

One of the greatest repositories of such crimes and such irresponsibility is the medical system. Children are being shoved into debilitating drugs for imaginary reasons, and they’re being changed for the worse. They’re being drafted into ongoing-patient status. They’ll receive new diagnoses and new harmful drugs for the rest of their lives. And they’ll become crippled and incapable on many levels. And doctors and their masters will NEVER admit fault.

 

Those of us who can still think and reason need to understand this wholesale transformation that is taking place before our eyes.

 

“Being nice about the whole thing” as a “spiritual stance” isn’t an answer at all. It’s bizarre and it’s useless. It’s another form of surrender.

 

I continue to work from the premise that people have eyes and they can see, and if they can see they can make choices and stand up for those choices. They can go against the tide, if necessary, and protect their own. They can refuse all the temptations to sacrifice their freedom and give in. They can become more intelligent and better informed, and they can operate in the world with confidence and even power.

 

They can share what they know. They can achieve victories.

 

When I was growing up, I was given one vaccine for smallpox. That’s it. The Centers for Disease Control now recommends 16 different vaccines for chkldren. According to Answers.com, a child can receive 21 vaccines before the age of six and six more before the age of 18. Some vaccines, like the DtaP, are delivered more than once. DtaP is given five times. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia states that a child is given 24 shots by the age of two and five shots in one visit. If you think this incredible medical intervention needs no rational and extensive debate, you’re whistling in the dark.

 

Jon Rappoport

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.

How madmen think

How madmen think

JUNE 22, 2011. From 1 to 4 this afternoon, all politically correct statements are bullshit.

For instance:

“The scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every professional scientific society in the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged ‘unequivocal.’”

This is the sad man, Al Gore, writing in Rolling Stone.

I could start off picking at his remarks. How does he know 98% of climate scientists in the world endorse the notion of manmade dangerous warming? He has a slide rule in his shirt pocket? He gets hourly updates from the Thought Police?

And the category “climate scientist” doesn’t exist as a discipline in most universities.

How does he personally know this latest and greatest study was conducted by 3000 of the “very best scientific experts in the world?” In fact, how can a study be conducted by 3000 scientists? Did its publication list all of them? Alert to Guinness Book of World Records.

But these aren’t the core issues. The core mind-boggle is that a human of supposed intelligence can think that consensus is the way science is done.

When a researcher does an experiment, his work and methods are supposed to be tested by many other independent researchers, who perform his experiment for themselves. This is called replication.

But even if they agree the first scientist is right, the buck doesn’t stop there. Because replication has a reason and purpose: arriving at the the truth.

That’s the standard.

And truth requires open and honest and extensive debate in professional journals. A back and forth explication of issues and questions and shortcomings.

In the area of climate science, this has never happened. As in: never.

So whether it’s Al Gore, or Jon Stewart, or Bill Maher, or other such important scientists, we must reserve judgment, despite the confirming applause that thunders from their college audiences.

Even when I was in college, I knew students massed in a hall were lunatics.

Gore is a champion of consensus. He lives by it. He builds it, profits from it, and then turns around and cites it.

Using consensus is the last refuge of democracy.

The scientific merits of global warming or any other hypothesis are not about a vote.

As a medical reporter, I’ve heard the consensus argument many times. And in each case, I’ve discovered the consensus was wrong. Often it was promoted as a strategy for making profit or protecting it.

And when I write about imagination, consensus is also a factor, because it is the very essence of surrender to a reality without imagination. Consensus is what you get when imagination does not play a featured role. It’s the default and leftover structure of society.

Consensus, in this regard, is a movie called The Creation of the Drones.

Prior to any important, shattering scientific breakthrough, if you had polled “the best experts” and asked them whether or not the substance of that breakthrough might be true, the majority would have said no. That should tell you something.

It tells you that humanity at large wants to huddle in its bunker of assumed and traditional reality and protect against the incursion of the New.

Then much later, humanity says, of the breakthrough, “Oh, of course. Everybody knows that.”

Everyone knows it because everyone agrees.

So much for consensus.

Yesterday, on my radio show on prn.fm —I interviewed Mary Holland, co-author of the book, VACCINE EPIDEMIC. One of the upshots of that conversation was: the official consensus about vaccines is artificially constructed. It is sustained through fear, peer pressure, media close-mindedness, and government intervention.

Which is to say, frankly, that no one in his right mind would accept the pronouncements of the pro-vaccine “community” at face value.

A drone would, though. A drone would automatically assume that all vaccines are necessary and wonderful, because he had heard it voiced so many times, from so many towers of authority, with so much assurance. A drone would slip right into the consensus, thinking he was a first cousin to a “real scientist.”

On July 27, I’ll be interviewing Andrew Wakefield on my radio show. Don’t miss that one. Andy knows a great deal, first hand, about how the consensus works. He was bulldozed by its architects.

And now, here’s your definition for today:

“Politically correct”: A statement, idea, or position based on, and backed up by, the engineering of a false consensus.

Boom, you’re a PhD.

Jon Rappoport

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

SUPREME COURT “BUYS” VACCINES

 

SUPREME COURT DECISION UNDER THE RADAR

 

IN A MEDICAL DICTATORSHIP

 

JUNE 9, 2011. It happened in February. The media gave it brief attention and moved on.

 

The US Supreme Court decided that parents whose children are severely damaged by vaccines can’t sue the manufacturer.

 

The case was Bruesewitz v. Wyeth. In 1992, Hannah Bruesewitz, six months old, had a hundred seizures after receiving the DPT vaccine. She was never the same.

 

Her parents tried to sue the manufacturer, Wyeth, but there was already a federal law on the books which stated that the only recourse was through the government’s labyrinthine Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

 

Appeals were lodged, and the case finally wound up the Supreme Court’s lap. The Court essentially ruled that no suit can be brought against a manufacturer for “design flaws” in the vaccine, because the architecture of a vaccine implies there will be “unavoidable adverse effects.” It’s a fact of life.

 

This decision sets a new practical standard for crime without punishment. Unless the plaintiff can show that an alternative design of a vaccine would have eliminated the adverse effect, without diminishing the “positive benefit” of the vaccine, it’s a no-go.

 

Aside from derailing all attempts to sue vaccine companies based on design shortcomings, this Supreme Court decision opens the door to a spillover in the entire arena of pharmaceutical drugs. Today, vaccines. Tomorrow, drugs.

 

It can now easily be argued that the design of any drug delivers inherent and unavoidable harm to some patients.

 

And clearly, the drug companies know they can make this case.

 

So what could they do? Copy the vaccine-compensation system created by the government. You apply for a hearing, you enter a wilderness of red tape, mostly you lose, and when you win, the payout is miniscule compared with the potential judgment a court could award. No punitive damages. The $$ paid out in government compensation are funded by a tax bump on the price of all drugs sold in the US.

 

The government protects the drug companies all the way down the line.

 

A fundamental right to justice is erased.

 

Years from now, people may remember Bruesewitz v. Wyeth as the watershed moment, when the whole system took a universally visible turn to into overt criminality.

 

“Yes, there were 50,000 heart attacks, but the drug has helped many people. And there was no way to design it in a way that would have avoided these unfortunate effects without destroying its benefits. If you think another design was possible, prove it.”

 

“Well, I don’t have the $50 million I’d need to prove it.”

 

“Your problem, not ours.”

 

As the federal government and state governments try to close the door on parents seeking to opt out of vaccinating their children, we may also be looking at the day when official policy and law render the following reality:

 

You are forced to accept a product (vaccine) manufactured by a company. If the product injures or kills you or your child, you can’t take legal action against the company. You can only appeal to the government for compensation.

 

Finally, keep this in mind. The 1986 law which the Supreme Court upheld in its recent decision, the law that exempts vaccine companies from financial liability, made it possible then, and makes it even more possible now, since the Supremes have spoken with finality, to guarantee that epidemics will be profitable enterprises.

 

Did you get that?

 

All the phony epidemics that I’ve been documenting for some years now? West Nile, SARS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu? All those duds? They wouldn’t have been possible to launch as PR fabrications, unless the vaccine companies could make and sell the vaccines that were touted as sure-fire prevention.

 

Well, in 1986, those companies went to the federal government and struck a deal, based on the threat that they (the companies) were going to get out of the vaccine manufacturing business, because the successful law suits (for harm, for injury, for death) were draining them of money.

 

The deal was inked. A law would be rammed through to protect these companies from major financial exposure. And thus the way was cleared for the ensuing wave of “epidemics.”

 

Everybody would win, except the public. The vaccine companies would ring up huge profits, there would be no law suits, and the government would have another tool for frightening the population and increasing its level of control.

 

Based on nothing. Based on the invention of the idea of “killer germs on the loose everywhere”–which is what you see when you go to the movies and sit in the dark and eat popcorn.

 

Yes, I bring you news you won’t find elsewhere.

 

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com