Canada: scientists’ right to free speech shut down

Canada: scientists’ right to free speech shut down

Canada catching up to USA re suppression of science

by Jon Rappoport

May 21, 2015

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

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

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

Not anymore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How things have changed.

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

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

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

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

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

It’s an embrace of mob brothers.

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

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

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

power outside the matrix

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

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

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

But nothing has happened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The dream team.

If you like nightmares.

Jon Rappoport

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

15 comments on “Canada: scientists’ right to free speech shut down

  1. theodorewesson says:

    re: Jon’s mention of fake science, AIDS Inc., and Chuck Ortleb, I found this,…

    by Jon Rappoport — author, AIDS Inc.

    “In the mid-1980s, when I was writing AIDS INC., I came across something very, very rare. A newspaper that fit the mythical mold of the crusading enterprise that journalism was supposed to embody, but in practice almost never did. Charles Ortleb published and edited it. It was headquartered in New York. It was a weekly. Every week you could find it under one of those old iron weights at the public newsstands next to the Post and the Times. It was called New York Native.

    “Week after week, the front page blazed with stories about AIDS, about the phony and self-serving and corrupt research that was going on behind closed doors at various labs around the US. Ortleb was pushing his various reporters to break into that rarified sanctum and deliver the truth, and his mission was working. It was working to an amazing degree.

    “Ortleb had a sword, and he knew how to use it. He left all the highly decorated and respected medical reporters at major dailies in his dust, bleeding and ugly, their rugs askew on their precious parroting heads.

    “You knew the Native wouldn’t last forever. Ortleb and his paper were under constant attack from every vested interest that presumed to speak on the subject of AIDS. Medical bureaucrats, researchers, politicians, activists, fund-raising organizations – they all lined up to take their shots.

    “But during those years, Ortleb and his band of intrepid reporters landed their hard blows and stayed out ahead of the crowd. The money at their disposal was practically invisible. Still, they did it. They won the battle, for those who had a sufficient number of working brain cells to understand what was pouring out of the pages of the Native. In a half-sane world, Chuck would now be occupying a distinguished chair in journalism at a major university. He would be teaching a new generation of reporters what their job is really all about. He would be shaking the dust out of their minds and forcing them to go up against what we all know are the Big Lies of our time, from one end of the news spectrum to the other.

    “Face it, medical research science is the holiest of our holy gods. Few journalists have the intelligence or the courage to hose the money off the clay feet. Chuck Ortleb was and is a brilliant exception. He was one of the first to realize that the vaunted research on AIDS was built on fraud. He never wavered, once he saw what he saw. He attacked. He didn’t simply write articles, although that would have been enough. He didn’t only edit the best AIDS journalism of the day. That would have been more than enough. He founded and ran a complete newspaper. He kept it afloat.Turn loose a celebrated reporter or editor on a job like that, and in two months he’d be dead in the water. Broke and starving. Ortleb probably knows more about the newspaper business and what it should be than any other person in America.

    “This movie, made on a shoestring, is the nightmare AIDS bureaucrats don’t want to have. It reveals their earnest attitude for what it is: a coat of polish over backroom scientific corruption of the lowest order.”


    Regarding “Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation” — in Jon’s Power Outside The Matrix collection (, Jon writes the following in an article titled “Ebola for alert minds: the art of the covert narrative”:

    “When a researcher or an investigator suspects he is looking at an artificial narrative, a storyline that is floated to achieve a hidden agenda, he has to deal with one overriding question:

    “How deep does he want to go, in order to root out the potential lies and false material? Into how basic a level of the narrative does he want to cut, to see what leaks out?”

    Charles Ortleb has cut very deep into the basic a level of the narrative, indeed.

  2. ozziethinker says:

    Of course, in addition, this is the [part] evidence that the NAZI’s won WWII. They established ‘corporate edict’ [by the backdoor], but people are so busy taking [Zionist inspired] pot-shots at the Hitler figurehead, they miss all the detail.

    Now what about all those mysterious micro-biologist deaths over the years; do you smell a connection, Jon?


    • Michael Burns says:

      Paperclip has been a very powerful influence on Americanzi. When you really define Nazism…it was never about armies and soldiers.
      Interesting point Oz.

  3. From Québec says:

    Here in Canada, it seems like we have no opinion of our own or we have no guts, or are very naive.

    We always end up following whatever your country is doing. This is why, I prefer to follow American politics, it gives me an idea of what our Canadian future will look like.

    We Canadians, were always so proud to have the USA as our neighbors. We thought you were the best country in the world. We admired you. And that included myself, before I started to listen to the Alex Jones Show, 11 years ago.

    Now that I know what is going on, I find it very scary to have such neighbors.

    I now consider the USA as the bullies of the world. I’m talking about your government, not the citizens.

    I hope that Canada will never merge with the USA and Mexico. It’s bad here, but compare to the USA, it is heaven… but not for long as I can see from your article, Jon.

    • Michael Burns says:

      Ninety percent Ninety percent of Canadians think that they are a sovereign nation. Wakey, Wakey little moose smoochers.
      Our country/state is run by American corporations and the American government…we eat, drink, dress, drive and screw Americanuck.
      Our politicians pass laws which benifit America. Free trade, NAFTA, TPP, TPPI, this is all laughable.
      Name one thing Canadian?
      Our culture…American.
      How about the Internet…Americanzi.
      American cell analytics, phones, computers , operating systems.
      Logistics, education, political ideology. Philosophy…Americano.
      Canada is America’s front yard…Mexico is their back yard.
      Religions! Science…Americuski.
      Tim, Americanzi Heil.
      Music, movies….News. Television.
      Who own the resources? Who mines ores, minerals? Uranium?
      How about oil? Lumber? Medical sytems, hospitals.
      Wheat, canola…Big Ag. Fishing?
      Pharmaceuticals, space technology? Alex Jones? Jon Rappoport….American.
      You are American Q, and resistance is futile.of Canadians think that they are a sovereign nation. Wakey, Wakey little moose smoochers.
      Our country/state is run by American corporations and the American government…we eat, drink, dress, drive and screw Americanuck.
      Our politicians pass laws which benifit America. Free trade, NAFTA, TPP, TPPI, this is all laughable.
      Name one thing Canadian?
      Our culture…American.
      How about the Internet…Americanzi. Google…smcoogle.
      American analytics, cellphones, computers , operating systems.
      Software, Hardware.
      There are native kids coming from reserves in northern Saskatchewan to town wearing baseball caps on backewards. Singing Yoyo yo. Walking with a black ghetto strut. We are American.
      Logistics, education, political ideology. Philosophy…Americano.
      Canada is America’s front yard…Mexico is their back yard.
      Religions! Science?…Americuski.
      Harper changed the water laws…Why? Amerrr…iiiii…cah
      Tim, Americanzi Heil.
      Music, movies….News. Television.
      Who own the resources? Who mines ores, minerals? Uranium? The wheat board?
      How about oil? Lumber? Medical sytems, hospitals.
      Wheat, canola…Big Ag. Fishing?
      Pharmaceuticals, space technology? Alex Jones? Jon Rappoport….American.
      You are American Q, and resistance is futile.
      Universities are American. Think about it.

      Information American overload Q.
      I am..American. I don’t like it! And thats a fact jack.

      • From Québec says:

        LOL. I believe you are right.

        The only difference is that the USA always have a foot over the line. and we always wind up somewhere on step ahead or behind.

        In disarming citizens.
        In having socialism

        In wars
        Banking system
        Military industrial complex
        Police State
        Prison industry

  4. pgoeltz says:


  5. Sherlock says:

    These percentages are relatively high! 86% would face censure or retaliation for speaking out. Many of the remaining 14% are probably bought and paid by big corporations.
    Thanks Jon for this information.

  6. middleway says:

    The term often used to describe this globalist age phenomenon is ‘Transparency’; white is now black and good is now evil. It is difficult for some to comprehend the predetermined sequence of corruptions that brought us to this state; a story so bizarre that the entire scenario could easily be attributed to Phillip K. Dick.

    Science, in its current materialistic state, exhibits only the fading promise of its formerly envisioned potential. Like us, science has been acquired and has become a self-serving corporate commodity. Once one truly comprehends history and its underlying impetus, joining with others to willingly swim in the cesspool has become a repugnant form of self-delusion. You are correct,… self-transcendence through creative inquiry/imagination is the last and only train waiting to leave the station;… again, ‘people get ready’…

  7. swo8 says:

    The situation in Canada is most distressing. The government policy in science only became evident when I read the book “Corrupt to the Core” by Dr. Shiv Chopra, a Canadian scientist who worked for the animal and food department in the Canadian Federal Government. This must stop.

  8. Another very succinct piece there, Jon.

    When the “watchers” are really owned by the “watched”, just like our so-called FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM (shares of, owned by the member banks).

  9. Thanks for another interesting, informative and educational piece, Jon. Thank you for all that you do to expose conspiracy and corruption in high places.

  10. This RIDICULOUS crap is happening in Canada – Here in the USA with NDAA and now the UK has this new bill which I will share the link below, that is incredible. Freedom of Speech is going away my people, and the reality is…it will CONTINUE TO HAPPEN UNTIL AMERICA and those around the WORLD say HELL NO…to this DRAMATIC Reality these groups of individuals are playing. I AM SICK OF IT….Again I talk about this on my podcast But everyone please share Mr Rappoport’s information to all you can…this dialogue needs to happen. Thanks Jon for what you do. And those interested in the UK issue, please check out the link below:

  11. Anonymous says:

    Lack of free speech isn’t limited to government scientists. You don’t hear of a medical school professor criticizing Obamacare. That person would get a quick response from the school Dean.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.