Genetic baloney in thick slices

by Jon Rappoport

July 8, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Gene research companies tend to come and go. They start out banging and popping like fireworks in the sky, and then they fade out—selling themselves to larger outfits who’ve hired better liars…

Once upon a time, it sounded easy. Start with a disease, find the gene responsible for the disease, and correct the problem.

Then, researchers wondered, was disease the result of one gene or a group of genes acting together?

Either way, the proof would be in devising cures for diseases using gene therapy. “Not yet, but soon…”

And regardless, the major need was: money. Lots and lots of money.

This need required good PR people. “We have to pump up the idea that we’re on the edge of tremendous breakthroughs. We’re always on that edge…”

This hype also needed to obscure the fact that there wasn’t (and isn’t) ANY gene cure for ANY disease.

As time passed, lack of cure could be a problem. In fact, it could mean curing disease was not a genetic undertaking at all. What about environment? Toxicity? Malnutrition? Poverty? In order to raise money, those factors would have to be pushed back out of view.

Instead, the PR people would need to flood the news with positive glow around the subject of gene research. Also known as exaggeration. Or bullshit.

You can spot the key terms in these articles. POSSIBLE, SHOULD, COULD, EXPECTED TO, SEEMS, ON THE HORIZON, MAY BE, COULD LEAD TO, EVENTUALLY, and of course, the ever-popular BREAKTHROUGH.

I dug back in my files and found a piece I wrote in 2011. As you’ll see, the “breakthroughs” touted then haven’t panned out so far. You don’t read about them in the press these days. The PR pros have moved on to other exaggerations.

The first 2011 article I cited was from Reuters, headlined: SCIENTISTS FIND “MASTER SWITCH” GENE FOR OBESITY. Here are a few choice tidbits. Note the key terms I just mentioned.

“…and say it should help the search for treatments…”

“…the regulating gene could be [a] target for drugs to treat…”

“…seems to act as a master switch…”

“We are working hard…to understand these processes and how we can use this information to improve treatment…”

Sure. You bet.

Zero results.

Next, a 2011 blockbuster piece in the Financial Times. The headline read: SCIENTISTS FIND GENETIC LINK TO DEPRESSION.

Standard trumpet blaring.

Here are the text nuggets. Again, note key terms.

“The discovery…is expected to lead to a better biological understanding of the condition and eventually to more effective antidepressants…”

“…as possibly for the first time we have found a genetic locus for depression.”

“…is likely to pin down the gene responsible…”

“…which may be the basis for designing more effective antidepressants…”

Sure. You bet.

Zero results.

Moving ahead in time—From immunology.org: “On 17 December 2015, the journal Science voted [gene-editing tool] Crispr-Cas9 ‘Breakthrough of the Year’, saying that it had ‘matured into a molecular marvel’. It is already being used in cancer immunotherapy to edit a patient’s own T-cell genome in order to remove the gene that ‘tells’ these immune cells not to target cancerous tissue.

It’s already being used—but where are the cures? Nowhere.

Anybody out there want to partner with me in launching a new company? This is a major winner. It covers a very broad area. Actually, there is no human endeavor it doesn’t cover. The name of the company? MAYBE COULD BE INC.

“We’re always on the edge and the frontier. We’re always breaking through. We’re always raising money. We’re always pumping our stock. We’re always ready to sell the company to a sucker with deep pockets.”

Let’s look at another type of gene research organization. This one happens to be the largest single medical research outfit in the world. It’s part of the US government: the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Their PR is different. They’re hedging their bets and covering their bases in every possible way. They’re saying YES, NO, AND MAYBE all at once. Of course, they can get away with it, because they run on taxpayer money. Their annual budget is a formidable $30 billion. Grit your teeth and read through their text that explains “genetic diseases”:

“A genetic disorder is a disease caused in whole or in part by a change in the DNA sequence away from the normal sequence. Genetic disorders can be caused by a mutation in one gene (monogenic disorder), by mutations in multiple genes (multifactorial inheritance disorder), by a combination of gene mutations and environmental factors, or by damage to chromosomes (changes in the number or structure of entire chromosomes, the structures that carry genes).”

“As we unlock the secrets of the human genome (the complete set of human genes), we are learning that nearly all diseases have a genetic component. Some diseases are caused by mutations that are inherited from the parents and are present in an individual at birth, like sickle cell disease. Other diseases are caused by acquired mutations in a gene or group of genes that occur during a person’s life. Such mutations are not inherited from a parent, but occur either randomly or due to some environmental exposure (such as cigarette smoke). These include many cancers, as well as some forms of neurofibromatosis.”

That is a DON’T BLAME US statement. “Don’t blame us if a disease we thought was genetic turns out to be something else. Don’t blame us if it’s 65.34 percent environmental, 4.52 percent genetic, and 30.14 percent who knows what. Don’t blame us if toxicity triggers genetic malfunctions and, in the absence of the toxicity, there would be zero cases of the disease. Don’t blame us if a disease has nothing to do with genes. We’re ready to jump in any direction. We may not know much, but we’re sitting on a pile of cash. Don’t blame us if we don’t have any solid genetic cures for anything. We’re working hard. That’s all you can ask us to do.”

If there is one disease the public tends to believe can be cured by gene therapy, it is sickle cell anemia. The PR pros have done a good job there. However, sicklecellanemianews.com states: “Gene therapy is an experimental technique that aims to treat genetic diseases by altering a disease-causing gene or introducing a healthy copy of a mutated gene to the body.”

Experimental. Aims to. Not an established cure. The confusion arises because, as with a number of diseases, the researchers and the PR flacks claim they’ve definitely traced the illness to a gene or two. They’ve struck gold. But, as you read further, you discover they’re just not ready to cure the patient. Clinical trials are underway. More work in the lab is necessary. The pudding is there, but the proof of it isn’t. They claim to know the cause; they just don’t know what to do with it.

In science, that’s known as a hypothesis. Or more simply, a speculation. You say you’ve found an answer, but you can’t apply it. This means: you don’t have an answer.

“There is no doubt. We went down into the mine and we found evidence of extraordinary amounts of gold. We just don’t know how to get it out. What’s that? You want to see the gold? No, I’m sorry. The public isn’t allowed down there. Only the professionals can enter. But don’t worry. We’re very close to a breakthrough. The gold will emerge soon. Trust us.”

Trust you? Sure. How much do you need to finish the job? Fifty million? A hundred million? Let me call my broker and sell some stock. I’ll write you a check. Just put a plaque with my name on the wall. Let me know how I’ll profit on this venture. I’m in. I’ve always wanted to invest in MAYBE COULD BE INC.

In case you need to be reminded, the RNA COVID vaccines are genetic treatments. The PR pros tell us they are working quite well. And they’re remarkably safe.

If you’re buying that line, I have electric cars for sale. And they have wings. One charge in your garage, and they’ll get you from Earth to Mars in just under two hours.

(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 29^th 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.

The Delta Variant, the unvaccinated, the two Americas, and other propaganda fabrications

Jul5

by Jon Rappoport

July 5, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

There is no Delta Variant.

Because there is nothing to vary FROM. In other words, as I’ve been proving for more than a year, SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist.

But the vaccine establishment and public health officials are pumping up the Delta hoax in order to convince more people to take the highly dangerous RNA COVID vaccines (genetic treatments).

Their narrative is a threat: in unvaccinated pockets, the Delta percolates and then breaks out, infecting many…followed by a further spread into communities of the vaccinated, where…

It can infect even those people.

Gibberish.

Every covert op starts out with a goal, an objective. Then an action-plan for achieving the goal. Then, the story that will be told to make it seem as if the unfolding actions are “responses to actual events in real time.”

The story about the Delta Variant, for example—from the beginning of the fake pandemic, tales of Variants were always part of the plan, in order to move closer to the goal of universal vaccination.

“When we see the scale of the resistance against vaccination, we’ll give them a Variant narrative, to induce more people to take the shot.”

“Right. We’ll say the Variant is more deadly and contagious than the original form of the virus.”

Another current element of propaganda: “we now have two Americas; the states with high rates of vaccination and those with low rates; this divide is intolerable; we can’t allow it.”

Why not? If millions of ignorant people insist on taking the destructive injection, and a smaller number refuse, and you have bordering states with vastly different vaccination policies and rates, then people have a choice. Live in state A or B.

But choice is not what the establishment wants. THAT’s why they whine and moan and warn about two Americas.

And from the beginning of the op, they knew there would be states with very different vaccination rates—and they knew they would be warning against it.

But wait. There’s more. The propaganda describes people/areas where the vaccination rates are low as: uneducated and Republican, or “people of color.”

All along, the planning involved special targeting of these groups. Demonizing the “uneducated Republicans,” and sympathizing with “people of color” as victims of disinformation.

“You blacks and Hispanics, it’s not your fault you believe the vaccine is dangerous. White anti-vaxxer Devils have been telling you lies.”

The total sum of all this propaganda? “We don’t want to, but in order to save the nation, we may have to institute mandated vaccination.”

The technical term is “layers of bullshit.”

In case you’ve missed the last 10,000 years of human history, political leaders have always called for Unity. It’s been their basic con.

Dissent and freedom of speech have always been afterthoughts, as far as these elitists are concerned.

Therefore, “some people vaccinated and some people unvaccinated” has nothing to do with science (especially since, as I’ve described in dozens of articles, the whole immunization hypothesis is a rank fake). Rather, it has to do with disunity.

“We can’t have division. It would destroy the foundation of this great nation. We must censor dissent from the artificial consensus.”

“Science” is a basic weapon for canceling and burning the 1st Amendment:

“We know what is true. So we don’t need to permit debate. It’s time-consuming, useless, distracting, and harmful. To be generous, we could say people have a right to be wrong, but why bother?”

Phalanxes of overgrown children emerging from colleges without a clue about logic or investigation have a special need to assert the value of their education. They fulfill this need by demanding everyone must follow the (unthinking) science they’ve mastered.

A minor obstacle like the 1st Amendment can be brushed aside as out of date.

“People used to have a right to argue in the old days, before the truth was established.”

The COVID narrative, from 2019 up to this moment, was planned. The art of propaganda involves making that narrative seem as if it’s composed of in-the-moment responses to unanticipated reactions of the public.

And the plan doesn’t require genius or even extensive data collection and profiling. Any reasonably intelligent person could sketch it out on a napkin during lunch. Why?

Because a hundred years of Rockefeller Germ Theory and vaccination lies have tuned up the population to respond to words like “outbreak” and “epidemic” in predictable ways.

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

Jon Rappoport

Pandemics are staged on Television

Jul2

Network: the last great film about The News

by Jon Rappoport

July 2, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

When a new epidemic is launched and promoted, despite the lack of good science and good evidence, it is jacked up on television screens. Images begin to flow:

An emergency medical vehicle on a street. EMT personnel, in hazmat suits, load a man strapped down to a stretcher, into the van. On another street, a man collapses on the sidewalk. We see a quarantined man sitting inside a huge plastic bubble on a third street. Cut to an airport lobby. Soldiers are patrolling the space among the crowds. Cut to a lab. Close-up of vials of liquid. Camera pulls back. Techs in light green scrubs are placing the vials into slots of a table-top machine. Auditorium—a man on a platform, wearing a doctor’s white coat, is pointing a wand at a large screen, on which a chart is displayed, for the audience. Back to the street. People are wearing face masks.

These images wash over the television viewer. Meanwhile, the anchor is imparting his prepared meaning: “The government today issued a ban on all travel into and out of the city…hundreds of plane flights have been cancelled. Scientists are rushing to develop a vaccine…”

The television audience has an IMPRESSION of knowing something. They’re in the flow, the flow of the news…they’re in the images…

—Network, the 1976 film written by Paddy Chayefsky, reveals what media kings would do if they unchained their basic instincts and galloped all the way into the madness of slash-and-burn Roman Circus.

The audience is jaded beyond recall. It needs new shocks to the system every day. The adrenaline must flow. The line between reporting the news and inventing it? Erase it. Celebrate the erasure. Watch ratings soar.

Why pretend anymore? Why spend countless hours preparing and broadcasting synthetic artificial news, as if it were real? Does the audience care about such niceties? The audience just wants action.

The film proceeds from these premises.

Arthur Jensen, head of the corporation that owns the Network, speaks to unhinged Network newsman, Howard Beale, who has revealed, on-air, a piece of the real planetary power structure in a few moments of sanity: “You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it!! Is that clear?!… You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!”

Head of programming for the Network, Diana Christensen, shifts the whole news department over to the entertainment division.

Thus emerge new shows with soaring ratings: Howard Beale, [Religious] Prophet of the Air Waves; The Mao Tse-Tung Hour, in which a guerrilla group films itself carrying out armed bank robberies; and Sybil the Soothsayer, a Tarot reader.

Diana becomes the network’s new executive star.

There is no longer even a pretense of a need for news anchors to appear authoritative, objective, or rational.

Diana Christensen is unstoppable. She sees, with burning clarity, that audiences are bored to the point of exhaustion; they now require, as at the end of the Roman Empire, extreme entertainment. They want more violence, more insanity, out in the open. On television.

In promoting her kind of news division, she tells network executives:

“Look, we’ve got a bunch of
hobgoblin radicals called the
Ecumenical Liberation Army who
go around taking home movies
of themselves robbing banks.
Maybe they’ll take movies of
themselves kidnapping heiresses,
hijacking 747’s, bombing bridges,
assassinating ambassadors.
We’d open each week’s segment
with that authentic footage,
hire a couple of writers to
write some story behind that
footage, and we’ve got
ourselves a series…

“Did you see the overnights on the
Network News? It has an 8 in New
York and a 9 in L.A. and a 27 share
in both cities. Last night, Howard
Beale went on the air [as a newscaster] and yelled
‘BULLSHIT’ for two minutes, and I
can tell you right now that tonight’s
show will get a 30 share at least.
I think we’ve lucked into something…

“I see Howard Beale as a latter-day
prophet, a magnificent messianic
figure, inveighing against the
hypocrisies of our times, a strip
Savonarola, Monday through Friday.
I tell you, Frank, that could just
go through the roof…Do you want to figure out
the revenues of a strip show that
sells for a hundred thousand bucks
a minute? One show like that could
pull this whole network right out
of the hole! Now, Frank, it’s being
handed to us on a plate; let’s not
blow it!”

Television in the “real world” isn’t all the way there yet, but it’s close.

In Network, Diana Christensen personifies the news. She is the electric, thrill-seeking, non-stop force that is terrified of silence.

She lives and feeds on adrenaline. So does the viewing public. Nothing else ultimately matters. Ratings are the top line and the bottom line. The individual and his thoughts are completely irrelevant.

Howard Beale, over the cliff, a news man screaming on-air about the insanity of the news, is perfectly acceptable, because the audience is simply responding to Beale’s inchoate outrage and their own. Nothing deeper is explored. What could have resulted in a true popular rebellion is short-circuited. Beale becomes a crazy loon, a novelty item. Yet one more distraction.

When, in a brief interlude of clarity, he begins telling his audience about the takeover of society by mega-corporations and mega-money, his show droops. Ratings collapse. Diana is no longer interested in him; she wants to sack him.

However, Arthur Jensen, the head of the corporation that owns the television network, wants to keep Beale on the air, as a messenger of the “galactic truth” about the beneficial integration of all human activity under the rubric of global money and global power. He converts Beale to his cause.

Diana sees only one way out of this ratings disaster: kill Beale; on-air; during his show. And so it is done.

Network also shows us the audience becoming actor, player, participant. The audience is jumping out of its skin to be recognized, courted, and adored as a mighty rolling force embodying no particular meaning.

Audience wants to be a star. Audience wants to BE news; audience wants its actions to be shown on television. That establishes its legitimacy. Nothing else is necessary.

Diana knows it, and she is more than willing to accommodate this frantic desire, if only her bosses will let her go all the way.

The best film ever made about television’s war on the population, Network stages only a few minutes of on-air television.

The rest of the film is dialogue and monologue about television. Thus you could say that, in this case, word defeats image. Which was scriptwriter Paddy Chayefsky’s intent.

Even when showing what happens on the TV screen, Network bursts forth with lines like these, from newsman Howard Beale, at the end of his rope, on-camera, speaking to his in-studio audience and millions of people in their homes:

“So, you listen to me. Listen to me! Television is not the truth. Television’s a god-damned amusement park. Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We’re in the boredom-killing business… We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here. You’re beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God’s name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion.”

It is Beale’s language and the passion with which he delivers it that constitutes his dangerous weapon. Therefore, the Network transforms him into a cheap religious figure, whose audience slathers him with absurd adoration.

Television’s enemy is the word. Its currency is image.

Beale occasionally breaks through the image and defiles it. He cracks the egg. He stops the picture-flow. He brings back the sound and rhythm of spoken poetry. That is his true transgression against the medium that employs him.

The modern matrix has everything to do with how knowledge is acquired.

Television, in the main, does not attempt to impart knowledge. It strives to give the viewer the impression that he knows something. There is a difference.

The impression of knowing is a feeling, a conviction, a belief the viewer holds, after he has watched moving images on a screen and listened to a narrator. THIS is what the viewer prefers. He wants no part of knowledge.

A basic premise of modern age is: “everything is (connected to) everything.” This fits quite well with the experience of watching video flow.

Example: we see angry crowds on the street of a foreign city. Then young people on their cell phones sitting in an outdoor café. Then the marble lobby of a government building where men in suits are walking, standing in groups talking to each other. Then at night, rockets exploding in the sky. Then armored vehicles moving through a gate into the city. Then clouds of smoke on another street and people running, chased by police.

A flow of consecutive images. The sequence, obviously, has been assembled by a news editor, but the viewing audience isn’t aware of that. They’re watching the “interconnected” images and listening to a news anchor tell a story that colors (infects) every image: “This is revolution for democracy, created by the technology of cell phones…”

Viewers thus believe something. Television has imparted a sensation to them.

Therefore: a short circuit occurs in the mind.

When you export this pattern out to a whole society, you are talking about a dominant method through which “knowledge” is groped and held close.

“Did you see that fantastic video about the Iraq War? It showed that Saddam actually had bioweapons.”

“Really? How did they show that?”

“Well, I don’t remember. But watch it. You’ll see.”

And that’s another feature of the modern acquisition of “knowledge”: amnesia about details.

The viewer can’t recall key features of what he saw. Or if he can, he can’t describe them, because he was inside them, busy building up his impression of knowing something.

Narrative-visual-television story strips out and discards conceptual analysis. To the extent it exists, it’s wrapped around and inside the image and the narration.

Paddy Chayefsky made his pen a sword, because he was writing a movie about television, against television. He was pitting Word against Image.

When a technology (television) turns into a method of perception, reality is turned inside out. People watch TV through TV eyes.

Mind control is no longer something merely imposed from the outside. It is a matrix of a self-feeding, self-demanding loop.

Willing Devotees of the Image WANT images, food stamps of the programmed society.

The triumph of Network is that it makes its words win over pictures, IN a picture, IN a film.

A pandemic, the false pandemic I’ve been rejecting in many articles, is delivered through video flow and narration. Stacked and cut images.

There is no challenge to the flow in any basic way, through the intrusion of actual knowledge, because that would shut down the parade of images and nullify the reasons for broadcasting them in the first place.

The old theater adage, “the show must go on,” when adapted for television, becomes, “the flow must go on.” Once its course is set, there can be no turning back.

The television audience, imprisoned in homes, rides the river…

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

Jon Rappoport

The Pandemic on Television

Apr27

by Jon Rappoport

April 27, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

It should obvious to all but the most addled minds that television news anchors, their script writers, and editors never question the following (false) assertions:

SARS-CoV-2 is real. It was discovered and sequenced.

The test for the virus is accurate.

Every positive test denotes a “case of COVID-19.”

The case numbers and death numbers are accurate.

Masks, distancing, and lockdowns are necessary, in order to prevent further spread of the virus.

The COVID vaccine is safe and effective.

People who take the vaccine should nevertheless continue to wear masks and limit their exposure to non-family groups.

The mainstream news denizens accept these presumptions without investigation. They’re taking dictation from public health agencies (CDC, WHO).

Therefore, of what value is the news? Instead of elaborate broadcasts, why don’t the networks simply present, once a day, announcements from CDC spokespeople delivered from bland bureaucratic offices?

The answer, of course, is: commercials. Ad revenues. News divisions are expected to make money. They’re not public charities.

News is business.

Lester Holt (NBC) makes $10 million a year. Norah O’Donnell (CBS) makes $6 million a year. David Muir (ABC) makes $5 million a year. Wolf Blitzer (CNN) makes $5 million a year.

News also dresses up content. Instead of a CDC bureaucrat saying, “4000 new cases in Michigan today,” Norah can say, “ALARMING REPORT OF 4000 NEW CASES IN MICHIGAN,” with accompanying quick cuts of charts and graphs, footage of people waiting in line for the vaccine and lab workers fiddling with vials and EMT personnel wheeling a patient down a hospital corridor and Anthony Fauci sitting in the Oval Office across from Joe Biden.

Cut to the Michigan governor at a podium: “The pandemic is far from over. We have a lot of work to do…”

A general in full-dress uniform tells Norah, “Right now, we’re working on a vaccine that will protect against any virus, even ones we’ve never seen or discovered…”

For 60 seconds, two talking heads offer points of view on “the disproportionate dispensing of the vaccine to minority communities.”

A U of Michigan assistant athletic director speculates on whether home football this fall will be played in a packed stadium.

And “We’ll be back after this.”

COMMERCIALS. A drug that causes heart attacks. A drug that causes brain damage. A public service announcement for COVID vaccination. Chevy truck. Teaser for upcoming premiere of a new CBS cop show. One dollar special for double burger and fries and egg and bacon and cheese breakfast at McKing. Save money on your car insurance, click or call. Thick or thin crust, square or round pizza. A drug that makes your hair fall out. Tires that hold the road in the Arctic. Teaser for upcoming special: A Life Well Lived, the Man Who Changed America: Anthony Fauci.

And—back to the news.

That’s not hard work. It’s not intelligent work. It’s certainly not investigative work.

Truth be told, thousands of people could do it, could head up network television news coverage. The quality of American education aside, there are still MANY literate high school and college cheerleaders, drama majors, athletes, and self-assured nerds who could stand in for these high-priced anchors and deliver the goods.

If you peruse the bios of Lester Holt and David Muir, for example, you find they worked their up through positions as local anchors—meaning news readers. They also, up close and personal, “covered hot spots around the world.” Plane crashes, revolutions, hurricanes. In other words, they spoke with official sources in those places, and repeated the official versions of events, while standing under umbrellas whipping in the rain or on evening city rooftops wearing a Dan Rather-style bush jacket or flak jacket.

It goes without saying that network talent spotters are looking for young stars who are INCURIOUS. No digging beneath the surface on stories. Instead—shift horizontally across the top layer and find sweet spots that align with politically designated objectives, when necessary.

“I really like this kid in Cincinnati. He has good teeth, a strong jaw, and his hair looks like it’s made out of iron. Smooth baritone. Occasional self-effacing smile.”

“Yeah, I don’t know. He’s Clark Kent. Too straight.”

“We can work with that. Road trips. Send him to the Ukraine for a few weeks, Poland, El Salvador. Give him some seasoning. Hey, David Muir’s doing all right and he looks like he just stepped out of a men’s underwear catalog.”

“The Cincinnati kid played football at a small college in Nebraska. We could put him with the Bengals reporting on racial issues. That ought to give him a rough edge or two…”

“Wait. Here’s a red flag. Three months ago, he had this lawyer on his broadcast. The lawyer’s filing a suit against a university lab. Claims the COVID PCR test is spitting out false-positives like a fire hose.”

“Crap. Was it just a one-time screw-up?”

“No. Our boy tried to take it further. He brought a crew to the university lab. Got some quotes from techs there.”

“That’s not good. He’s an anchor and he thinks he’s making the news.”

Indeed, that isn’t good. Anchors don’t make news. They don’t ferret it out. They take what’s there and make it sound important.

You or I could go into a college drama department, stand in front of a hundred students, and say, “We’re looking for people who can read text without mistakes and make it sound important”—

And voila, we’d discover a few young men and women who could, with a few weeks of training, assume the role of a local TV news anchor and do a credible job.

In the history of television news, I know of two elite network anchors who—if not in their coverage of stories, but in their manner and attitude—transmitted a significant dissatisfaction with their roles, their limitations, and their virtual imprisonments: Peter Jennings and Jessica Savitch.

Jennings came across as “the man who knew more but wasn’t allowed to report it.” Savitch was a tiger caged at a circus, pacing back and forth in her cell, angry, wanting to rip the bars and jump out. Savitch died at 36, Jennings at 67.

Jennings managed to keep on his staff, for six years, an ACTUAL medical journalist, the late Nick Regush. Regush spent many hours digging below the surface. For example, in 1999, in a blistering ABC report, he expressed serious doubt that the Hepatitis C virus exists. After his departure from the network, he echoed that report:

“Consider this a challenge in progress. This scientific adventure raises the question of whether the hepatitis C virus, blamed for a major silent epidemic of liver disease and even cancer, actually exists. That’s right. You read this correctly: I am raising a question that may disturb scientists and hepatitis C patients alike. But I’m raising it anyway because it is vital to do so in the interests of public health. I’m issuing a challenge to the scientific community to present me with the published, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that such a virus actually exists—namely that it has been properly isolated, according to accepted, fundamental principles of virology.”

Were Regush working for ABC today, he would last about five minutes before being fired.

“Don’t DISCOVER news, RELAY it.”

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

Jon Rappoport

Meet the Medical CIA

Apr22

by Jon Rappoport

April 22, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Yesterday, I presented Dr. Andrew Kaufman’s step-by-step refutation of a typical claim that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and proven to exist.

You find these “isolation” claims in many studies, in the “methods” section, where researchers describe their procedures in detail.

It’s obvious, however, that the researchers have their own special definition of the word “isolated.” For them, it actually means un-isolated. It’s as if they’ve decided that “sunshine” denotes “darkness.”

These researchers create a soup in a dish in a lab. They put toxic chemicals and drugs in the soup. They put monkey and/or human cells in the soup. There is much other genetic material in the brew—including, supposedly, the virus.

The cells, starved of nutrients, and poisoned, begin to die. The researchers then assert THE VIRUS must be doing the killing. Therefore, the virus IS in the soup and it is deadly.

But there is no evidence that the un-isolated virus is in the soup, and there is no evidence it is doing the killing.

On the back of these absurdities, a declaration is made: there is a pandemic, and the cause is a virus, named SARS-CoV-2.

Going even further, the researchers claim they’ve mapped the genetic sequence of the virus. Based on what? Compared to what? They don’t have an isolated specimen of the virus. How do you sequence something you don’t have? You don’t.

Of course, this raises all sorts of troubling questions about “the pandemic.” For the past year, I’ve been answering those questions in detail.

But the root of the deception comes at the beginning, with the claim that a new virus has been discovered.

Furthermore, as I’ve shown in a number of articles, “the virus” is the greatest cover story ever invented. It’s used to obscure the real reasons people are dying, in many places—ongoing government and corporate crimes, such as massive air and water pollution.

Wuhan is one of those places. Chronic deadly air pollution has hung over the city for a long time. A frequent outcome is pneumonia—which was suddenly highlighted as the cardinal symptom of the “new viral pandemic.”

Minimally alert researchers should have been able to make the connection between air pollution and pneumonia. And no doubt, they did—until they were muzzled by the Chinese government.

The same basic pattern existed in areas of Africa in the 1980s: people dying from lack of basic sanitation, contaminated water supplies, overcrowding in the cities, toxic vaccines, forced hunger and starvation, poverty, war, farmland stolen by giant agri-corporations, etc.

But suddenly, all this was: a virus. HIV. Overnight, the powers-that-be had a cover story for the ages.

HIV, like SARS-CoV-2, faces the same challenge—lack of evidence that it has ever been discovered.

Since 1988, I’ve been detailing and documenting the use of “the virus”—meaning A STORY ABOUT A VIRUS—as a covert op designed to deflect attention from what is actually making people sick and killing them.

“How many people did we starve today?”

“About 5000.”

“Good. And how are we explaining that?”

“The virus attacked their immune systems.”

“Everyone is buying this fiction?”

“Yes, sir. Our public health officials are very persuasive.”

Meet the medical CIA.

CDC agents run global covert ops.

They are the virus hunters.

These scouts are the CDC’s little-known Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS). They create disinformation on a scale that must make the CIA jealous.

Graduates of this EIS program, as proudly stated by the CDC, have gone on to occupy key positions in the overall medical cartel: Surgeons General; CDC directors; medical school deans and professors; medical foundation executives; drug-company and insurance executives; state health officials; MEDICAL EDITORS AND REPORTERS IN MEDIA OUTLETS. —Power, at key junctures.

It’s a loyal insider’s club. They collaborate to float prime-cut, A-number-one cover stories of extraordinary dimensions. They invent medical reality out of thin air.

Here is a brief excerpt from the CDC, “50 Years of the Epidemic Intelligence Service” (published in 2001):

“In 1951, EIS was established by CDC following the start of the Korean War as an early-warning system against biologic warfare and man-made epidemics. EIS officers selected for 2-year field assignments were primarily medical doctors and other health professionals…who focused on infectious disease outbreaks. EIS has expanded to include a range of public health professionals, such as postdoctoral scientists in statistics, epidemiology, microbiology, anthropology, sociology, and behavioral sciences. Since 1951, approximately 2500 EIS officers have responded to requests for epidemiologic assistance within the United States and throughout the world. Each year, EIS officers are involved in several hundred investigations of disease and injury problems, enabling CDC and its public health partners to make recommendations to improve the public’s health and safety.” (italics added)

Several hundred investigations a year. An unparalleled opportunity to shape the truth into propaganda. Control of information about disease. Control out in the field, where EIS agents rush to the scene of “outbreaks,” and send their pronouncements into the hallowed halls of academia and the CDC, into the press, into Big Pharma, into multiple government agencies.

Control of information means disinformation. That’s what the EIS is for. They’ve never met a virus-story they didn’t love. They concoct those stories.

They front for the medical cartel. And they provide cover for the crimes of mega-corporations. There’s a town where poverty-stricken people are dying, because horrendous pesticides are running into the water supply and soil? No, it’s a virus. There’s a city where the industrial pollution is driving people over the edge into immune-system failure? No, it’s a virus.

And here’s the capper. Their propaganda is so good most of the EIS people believe it themselves. You don’t achieve that kind of robotic servitude without intense brainwashing. The first installment of the mind-control program is called medical school.

The EIS would have you believe the whole world is being attacked by viruses, all the time. That’s their mission.

And of course, this strengthens the vaccine establishment because, for every virus, there ought to be a vaccine: the shot in the arm.

The EIS. The CDC’s band of brothers. The medical CIA.

Among the “epidemics” in which the EIS has played key roles: smallpox (eradication); 2003 SARS; Zika.

SARS and Zika were outright duds. Predictions and warnings of great danger on the horizon never materialized.

Many years ago, after the so-called smallpox eradication campaign (massive vaccination) was declared a triumph, in Africa, there was a secret meeting of World Health Organization personnel in Geneva. It was decided never to use that vaccine again. Why? Because it CAUSED cases of smallpox.

In a truly open free market (if one existed), cut loose from government funding and their own insiders’ club, the CDC and the EIS would fall apart in the high heat of honest debate with independent researchers.

Since that free market doesn’t exist, the job of rejecting the medical CIA and their cover stories is our job.

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

Jon Rappoport

The unanimous News conforms

Apr16

by Jon Rappoport

April 16, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

The rise of television news, and its power over the mind, necessitated an agreement among the major networks:

On most issues, the networks would have to mirror each other’s coverage. Otherwise, the audience would experience an unacceptable level of confusion and cognitive dissonance.

This principle of agreement was basically about the rules of propaganda—and nowhere was it more evident than in matters of medical science.

For example, suppose, recently, the COVID PCR test became an occasion for disagreement among NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and FOX?

Three networks fell into line with the CDC and the WHO in claiming the test was accurate and meaningful, while the other two strenuously reported on the irreparable and fatal flaws in the test. (I’ve exhaustively detailed those flaws in many articles.)

The network dissonance would upset a huge apple cart smack in the middle of COVID “science.” The public wouldn’t know where to turn.

Therefore, the truth of the matter had to take a back seat to conformity. All the major networks robotically echoed the CDC/WHO.

And the network anchors had to sell the PCR lies. Lester Holt (Lurch/ the Addams family); David Muir (Sears underwear model); Norah O’Donnell (student council president); Wolf Blitzer (“smart bombs went right down chimneys in Iraq”); a collection of shiny suits at FOX; they all had to pretend they’d looked at more than the opening lines of public health press releases.

The guiding light of network news is unanimity, and social media have adopted that m.o. as well.

Truth is the first casualty of The News.

Long before television secured its hold on the public (1923-1928), Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda, wrote: “This is an age of mass production. In the mass production of materials a broad technique has been developed and applied to their distribution. In this age, too, there must be a technique for the mass distribution of ideas.”

“Domination to-day is not a product of armies or navies or wealth or policies. It is a domination based on the one hand upon accomplished unity, and on the other hand upon the fact that opposition is generally characterized by a high degree of disunity.”

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.”

Today, vast numbers of people DO cooperate; they watch the news, which is a virtual construct.

The network editors, writers, on-air talent, and crews conspire and collaborate, every day, to fulfill Bernays’ prescriptions for society. And, for the most part, these plotters are true believers. They think they’re presenting fact.

This is what habit does to the mind.

The CIA has played its role in securing network unanimity of coverage. As soon as the Agency was created, in 1947, it set about researching mind control (MKULTRA). It planted agents in newsrooms. It followed the tenets of Bernays.

Human society had to be hypnotized. Otherwise, profound decentralization would occur.

Consider this simple fact about the PCR test—which any news reporter should be able to spot in a minute, but doesn’t: a person who tests positive is called “a case of COVID-19.”

That isn’t even done with HIV/AIDS. A person who tests positive is called “HIV positive.” If he develops symptoms, then he’s called “a case of AIDS.”

Imagine this conversation: “Hi, Phil, how’s your son?”

“He has the flu.”

Oh. Is he in bed?”

“No. He ran the marathon yesterday.”

“What? You said he has the flu.”

“He does. He tested positive for the virus.”

Absurd.

In 1913, political commentator Walter Lippmann wrote: “Ours is a problem in which deception has become organized and strong; where truth is poisoned at its source; one in which the skill of the shrewdest brains is devoted to misleading a bewildered people.”

If the CDC says the sky is falling, all the networks will report it—and will censor the fact that it isn’t falling.

“…in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” Adolph Hitler, 1925

The distortion of the truth applies to the past as well as to the present. As George Orwell puts it, in 1984:

“The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had been actually destroyed. For how could you establish even the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside your own memory?…To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself…That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.”

Why all this subterfuge? In order to produce mass uniformity of belief and consensus. You can be sure that, in the future, the history of COVID will be transmitted in a way that covers up all the lies and obfuscations. COVID will be invoked to prove contradictory propositions (both A and not-A), when it suits the propagandists.

Over the years, in speaking with mainstream reporters, I’ve gleaned that some of them are aware they’re on an Orwellian path. They squelch that perception. But they know they’re a) believing what they report is true and b) disbelieving what they report.

They understand they’re parrot-performers on a stage under the lights, and yet they accept their roles as absolutely authentic reflections of honesty.

They rationalize this contradiction in the same way that Edward Bernays did in 1928: “Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner [by accepting propaganda as fact] if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.”

Under hypnosis.

Have you ever seen a first-class hypnotist perform his act? The basic requirement—he must appear to know exactly what he’s doing. That skill is paramount.

And this is the standard toward which all television news anchors aspire.

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

Jon Rappoport

Dispatches from the War: Epidemics are staged on Television

Apr12

Network: the last great film about The News

by Jon Rappoport

April 12, 2021