The big one: how environmental killing becomes a medical disease

The big one: how environmental killing becomes a medical disease

The giant pig farm disaster: a medical hoax and cover story

The full truth has never been told—until now.

by Jon Rappoport

January 18, 2017

“To handle all that [pig-farm feces] waste, farmers in North Carolina use a standard practice called the lagoon and spray field system. They flush feces and urine from barns into open-air pits called lagoons, which turn the color of Pepto-Bismol when pink-colored bacteria colonize the waste. To keep the lagoons from overflowing, farmers spray liquid manure on their fields nearby. The result, says Steve Wing, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is this: ‘The eastern part of North Carolina is covered with shit’.”National Geographic, 10/30/14

The above quote describes corporate pig farming around the world.

In order to carry out this operation, giant companies like Smithfield have influenced legislators and government-agency officials. Environmental laws and regulations are ignored, or changed. Lawsuits are fought, hammer and tongs.

Here is what Robert F Kennedy Jr. told radio interviewer, Rachel Lewis Hilburn on 6/3/16:

“…a hog produces ten times the amount of fecal waste by weight as a human being, so if you have a facility that has ten thousand hogs in it, it’s producing as much sewage as a city of a hundred thousand people. Smithfield has one plant in Utah—they call it Circle Four Farms—that has a million hogs on it, so it’s producing the same amount of waste as New York City every day.”

Here is Kennedy’s kicker:

“There’s no difference between hog waste and human waste in terms of its danger to human health. They [Smithfield and other giant corporate pig operations] ought to have to have a sewage treatment plant that cleans it up. And yet, if they had to build that sewage treatment plan, it would drive the price of hogs up so that they could no longer function in the marketplace… they ought to have to build sewage treatment facilities but nobody’s making them do that because they have used political clout…”

All right, that’s a bit of background. Now I’m going to shift to the subject of Swine Flu, the phony epidemic of 2009.

Where did it start?

At a Smithfield pig-raising operation in Perote, Mexico; in a village called La Gloria. Smithfield raises 950,000 hogs a year there.

Press reports described outdoor “pig feces lagoons” on the property. When workers began to get sick, the area was sprayed with unknown chemicals. More workers fell ill and died.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of public health could testify that this combination of mind-boggling (non-) sanitation, plus strong germicides, plus other toxic chemicals routinely dumped in the feces lagoons, could and would cause human disease.

In fact, it doesn’t matter which particular germs are present in the mix.

People at the CDC had to be well aware of this. Yet, in 2009, their choice was to rush researchers to the Smithfield operation in La Gloria, Mexico, armed with the unfounded assumption that some novel virus, never before seen, was the culprit, and their job was to take blood samples and discover what the new germ was.

Why? Why assume, when workers who operate in that kind of environment get sick, there is some new disease at work? The symptoms of the workers were not unusual, given the circumstances.

Workers dying in that vat of filth and chemical soup should be expected.

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

And that’s how the fake epidemic called Swine Flu was launched.

All the focus that could have centered on the highly toxic Smithfield pig operation in La Gloria was diverted.

Diverted to a virus.

H1N1 it was called. The Swine Flu virus.

Suddenly, it was a medical problem. Not an environmental disaster.

It was RE-INVENTED as a medical problem.

If you don’t yet get what I’m pointing out here, imagine this: you’re living in an old sewage tunnel under a city. You’re surrounded by human excrement and biting insects and fetid waste water and foul air—and when you fall ill, you suddenly see virus-hunting researchers, not haz-mat rescue workers, approach you and take blood samples. Are they crazy?

No, they’re just doing what their bosses tell them to do. Because the CDC is fronting for, and protecting, major corporate agricultural criminals. Because your illness has to be shifted over to a “new disease and a new virus.”

On top of all this, the virus that these “researchers” do find, which, by the way, is in no way proven to cause disease, can be found all over the world. Why? Because it’s been around for a long, long time, and it has never caused any dire condition at all.

This is how the game works.

This is the medical hoax.

In the case of Swine Flu, it gets worse. It turns out that the virus is not so prevalent after all. That is why, in the early autumn of 2009, CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson discovered that the CDC, ignoring its mandate and charter, had secretly stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. You see, the overwhelming percentage of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, when sent to labs for testing, were coming back with no trace of the so-called Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus. CBS put Attkisson’s published report on the shelf and never followed up on it.

Again, the virus as the cause of illness, was the cover story. Intelligence agencies float cover stories on a regular basis. It’s no accident that CDC has a large unit of virus hunters called the Epidemic Intelligence Service.

Right off the top, I can tell you 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 major media outlets.

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’s website, “50 Years of the Epidemic Intelligence Service”:

“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.”

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,” all the way back through the hallowed halls of academia, into the press, into Big Pharma, into the government.

When I say control of information, I mean disinformation. That’s what the EIS is for. They’ve never met a virus they didn’t love, and if they couldn’t find one, they pretended they did.

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 hotel where the plumbing is broken and human waste is getting into all the bathrooms, and they want this hotel to be the epicenter of a new epidemic? No, it isn’t the plumbing, it’s a novel virus never seen before by man. There’s a section of a city where the industrial pollution is driving people over the edge into immune-system failure? No, it’s a virus.


power outside the matrix

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


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.

Psy-op and propaganda begin with the virus hunters of the EIS. They control and own the chokepoint of disease research. They blow up their scanty findings into ex-cathedra pronouncements.

And of course, this strengthens the vaccine establishment because, for every virus, there must be a vaccine: the shot in the arm, loaded with toxic chemicals and a variety of germs.

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

“Show me vast pig-feces lagoons, and I’ll show you a virus you’ve never heard of before. I’ll protect corporate criminals from here to the moon…”

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.

Analyzing mainstream news anti-logic

Analyzing mainstream news anti-logic

by Jon Rappoport

January 17, 2017

Thousands of articles have been written about the so-called Russian hack of the US election. The term “Russian hack” suggests the Russkies actually found a way to subvert the results of voting machines.

But of course, no convincing evidence has been presented to support such a charge. In fact, when you drill down a few inches below the surface, you find this charge instead: Russia hacked into email accounts and scooped up Hillary, DNC, and Podesta emails, and passed them to WikiLeaks, who then published them.

No chain of evidence supporting this claim has been presented to the public, either. But even assuming the assertion is true, an important factor is intentionally being ignored: THE CONTENT OF THOSE LEAKED EMAILS.

In other words, if making all this content publicly available cost Hillary the election, and if no one is seriously questioning the authenticity of the emails, then THE TRUTH undermined Hillary. However, no major media outlet is reporting the story from that angle.

After all, how would this headline look? TRUE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS SINKS HILLARY CLINTON. Or this? HILLARY COULDN’T REFUTE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS AND SO SHE LOST THE ELECTION.

Those headlines would attract millions of clicks. Why weren’t they printed? It’s reasonable to assume big news outlets didn’t want readers to think about the story from that perspective.

Why not? Why was the heavy emphasis put on the hacking of the emails? To obscure the importance of their content: for example, DNC collusion to obstruct and undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders.

“Let’s make the story all about WHO we claim stole the emails, rather than WHAT THE EMAILS CONTAINED.”

When a tape surfaced in which Trump spoke about women who were eager to have sex with famous men, did major media make the story all about who had the tape and who released it to the press? No.

Perhaps you remember this 2009 email-hack controversy. Wikipedia sums it up: “The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as “Climategate”) began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker, copying thousands of emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.”

One of the most revealing elements in the email exchanges: an obvious attempt to sideline scientific critics of global warming. But major media quickly began to reframe the story. It was all about illegal hacking, and investigations were launched to determine the criminal. The contents of the emails were brushed off as “proprietary work product” and “misleading” because “context was missing.”

The case of Edward Snowden was somewhat different. There the media felt compelled to expose the CONTENT of the NSA documents Snowden stole. They also gave considerable space to Snowden himself. To some degree, this was a fait accompli, because The Guardian newspaper was committed, from the beginning, to publishing NSA documents and an analysis of their meaning—so other media outlets followed suit.

Getting the picture?

Big news media decide whether to focus on the WHO or the WHAT, in each case. “Should we give primary coverage to the leaker or what he leaked?”

But that is not a choice you are making. It’s a choice being made for you.

Government agencies and spokespeople leak news to the press all the time. In these instances, the press doesn’t turn around and launch a probe aimed at exposing the WHO and discovering WHY a particular tidbit was passed along for publication. Newspapers and television news departments simply run with the stories.

“Okay, Bob. Here’s a little gem for you. The White House and the Congress are cooperating on this one. In the next few days, a piece of legislation is going to be inserted into a current bill in the House. It’ll establish a working group to combat ‘fake news’ operations that confuse the public…”

Does Bob bite the hand that feeds him? Does he write a story accusing the White House of trying to knock out independent news competitors who contradict official reality? Of course not. Bob plays along.


power outside the matrix

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


Sometimes, both the WHO and the WHAT are censored. Such was the case with CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, who confessed publicly, in August of 2014, that he and colleagues at the CDC committed fraud in a 2004 study of the MMR vaccine and its possible connection to autism. Thompson admitted the study was cooked, to make it seem the vaccine didn’t increase the risk of autism, when in fact it did. The mainstream press put a chokehold on the story. Aside from scattered references, and official denials, the story faded quickly. The leaker and what he was leaking remained in the shadows. Independent news outlets (such as this one) kept the story percolating.

In summary, there is no logic in the mainstream approach to leaks and leakers. These days, the WHO and WHAT are decided on the basis of serving official interests and agendas—and repressing the public interest.

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.

Russian agent: who gave US uranium to Putin, Trump or Hillary?

Russian agent: who gave US uranium to Putin, Trump or Hillary?

by Jon Rappoport

January 16, 2017

Putin controls 20% of US uranium production. That fact is established. But how did it happen?

Now that we know Trump is a hard-core Russian agent who has been undermining America on behalf of his secret twin brother, Vladimir Putin, it stands to reason Trump was the one who gave 20% of US uranium to the Russkie leader. Right?

I mean, why wouldn’t he? All that uranium was up for grabs, it was there, and Trump somehow engineered the deal. I’m shocked the Washington Post and its CIA pals haven’t reported the story by now.

Anybody who passed that much US uranium to our eternal enemy, Russia, would have to be a secret agent working undercover for the Kremlin. No doubt about it.

Therefore, Trump…

Oh, wait a minute, my mistake.

Oops.

The Clintons were instrumental in making the uranium deal.

For proof, let me go to the irrefutable authority on all news in the known galaxy, The New York Times. They’ll settle the issue.

On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal”.

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. The company was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions).

So Putin then possessed 20% of US uranium production!

From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

From the Times: “The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.”

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that [Canadian] group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One. [Uranium One controlled 20% of US uranium.]”

Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton…”

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

“At the time, both Rosatom [the Russian energy agency] and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.”

“…the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.”

—The US State Dept. had to sign off on the deal giving Putin control over US uranium. Hillary headed up the State Dept. Much money from Canadian mining executives, who owned the American uranium, who obviously wanted the Russian deal to go through, found its way into the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation concealed these donations.

If you’re Putin and you’re sitting in Moscow, and the uranium deal has just dropped this bonanza into your lap, what’s your reaction—after you stop laughing and popping champagne corks? Or maybe you never really stop laughing. Maybe this is a joke that keeps on giving. You wake up in the middle of the night with a big grin plastered on your face, and you can’t figure out why…and then you remember, oh yes, the uranium deal. The US uranium. Can we give our girl Hillary a medal? Can we put up a statue of her in a park? Does Bill need any more hookers?


Exit From the Matrix

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


So there it is. By all standards of current mainstream news “logic,” Hillary Clinton is the Russian agent. She and her crooked husband and their Foundation are working for Mr. Putin.

Therefore, Putin didn’t order the hacking of the DNC, Hillary, and Podesta emails and send them to WikiLeaks. No. He never would have torpedoed his own secret agent, Hillary Clinton.

Again, I’m just applying mainstream news “logic” to see where that “reasoning” process goes; and where it goes is: a) the Russians didn’t hack; and b) Hillary Clinton is their secret agent.

Cue the James Bond theme.

Ask yourself: if Trump had been instrumental in turning over 20% of US uranium to Putin, how many decibels of mainstream-news screaming would be assaulting the public day after day after day?

But Hillary and Bill were instrumental. How much screaming do we hear now?

Zero.

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 NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

CDC “Spider” Scientists attack the CDC, blow the lid off

CDC “Spider” Scientists attack the CDC, blow the lid off

They write a letter to the CDC chief of staff

And I write a letter to them

by Jon Rappoport

January 15, 2017

(Update: for Part-2, click here)

There is a group of anonymous scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control—they call themselves the Spider Group—Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research. They have penned a letter to the CDC’s chief of staff, Carmen S. Villar:

Here is the explosive accusation they make:

“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”

“Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right.”

“We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”

I have written at length about another whistleblower at the CDC, William Thompson, a long-time researcher who, in August of 2014, confessed in writing to massive fraud (archive here). He admitted that, in a study on the safety of the MMR vaccine, he and his colleagues literally threw vital sheets of data into a garbage can. The study then gave a free pass to the vaccine, claiming it had no connection to autism—when in fact it did. Thompson is the subject of the film, Vaxxed (trailer).

Now with this letter, we see that other scientists at the CDC are blowing the lid off internal corruption at their Agency.

If, in fact, President-elect Trump gives the green light for an independent investigation of the CDC, as press outlets are now reporting, and if he appoints Robert Kennedy Jr. to head up that panel, as Kennedy claims, we are going to see a large number of hidden facts emerge from the secretive halls of the CDC.

Because this Spider Group is anonymous, I wanted to make sure their letter is real. I contacted reporter Carey Gillam (twitter), who has been covering the story. I received this reply: “I was able to authenticate the letter by contacting CDC’s public affairs office and asking them directly about it after I received it from internal CDC sources.”

You can read the full Spider Group’s letter here at US Right To Know. (More on the letter by Carey Gillam here.)

And now I write a letter to them, so they can deepen their investigation.

Dear Spider Group:

I commend you on making an important start. You’re on the right road. As a reporter who has covered the CDC for many years, I offer you three suggestions. This short list is by no means exhaustive. I’m just pointing to a few areas where your own research will yield very rich and fertile results.

ONE: SWINE FLU FRAUD.

Let me take you back to the late summer of 2009, and the Swine Flu epidemic, which was hyped to the sky by the CDC. The Agency was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine. Remember?

The problem was, the CDC was concealing a scandal.

At the time, star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, was working on a Swine Flu story. She discovered that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases of the illness—while, of course, continuing to warn Americans about its unchecked spread.

The CDC’s main job is counting cases and reporting the numbers.

What was the Agency up to?

Here is an excerpt from my 2014 interview with Sharyl Attkisson:

Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?

Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.

—end of interview excerpt—

It was routine for doctors all over America to send blood samples from patients they’d diagnosed with Swine Flu, or the “most likely” Swine Flu patients, to labs for testing. And overwhelmingly, those samples were coming back with the result: not Swine Flu, not any kind of flu.

That was the big secret. That’s what the CDC was hiding. That’s why they stopped reporting Swine Flu case numbers. That’s what Attkisson had discovered. That’s why she was shut down.

But it gets even worse.

Because about three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.

Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).

Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.

In the summer of 2009, the CDC secretly stops counting Swine Flu cases in America, because the overwhelming percentage of lab tests from likely Swine Flu patients shows no sign of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.

There is no Swine Flu epidemic.

Then, the CDC estimates there are 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US.

TWO: THE CDC BUYS MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF VACCINES AND, AT THE SAME TIME, HEADS UP RESEARCH ON THE SAFETY OF VACCINES. EXPLOSIVE STRUCTURAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

If you wanted to buy a product, and the main source of research on the product was the company selling it, would you automatically assume the product was safe and effective?

But you see, that’s the just the beginning of the problem. Suppose the company’s research was cited thousands of times in the press, as the authoritative standard of proof—and anyone who disputed that research was labeled a conspiracy theorist and a quack and a danger to the community and an anti-science lunatic.

Would you begin to suspect the company had some awesome media connections? Would you suspect some very powerful people were backing the company?

This is exactly the situation that exists at the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Read these two quotes:

“The government’s Vaccine for Children Program (a CDC organization) purchases vaccines for about 50 percent of children in the U.S.” (The Atlantic, February 10, 2015)

“The CDC currently spends over $4 billion purchasing vaccines [annually] from drug makers…” (Health Impact News, October 24, 2016)

However, the CDC is also the gold standard for research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It turns out an unending stream of studies on these subjects. And the results of those studies are dutifully reported in the mainstream press.

Do you think, under any circumstances, the CDC would publish data showing vaccines are ineffective and dangerous? They’d be cutting their own throats.

“Well, we spend $4 billion a year buying vaccines from drug companies, but guess what? These vaccines are often dangerous…”

Every time you read about a CDC study on vaccines, keep this obvious (and clearly illegal) conflict of interest in mind.

THREE: MASSIVE OVERESTIMATE OF FLU DEATHS IN THE US, IN ORDER TO PUSH THE FLU VACCINE.

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

Boom.

You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure.

However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

“Well, uh, we say that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”

The CDC must turn out a steady stream of outrageous lies about the need for vaccines. If they didn’t, they’d have no way to justify the billions of dollars they spend every year buying the vaccines from drug companies.

So, Spider Group, don’t stop now. Deepen your probe. Become true heroes for honest research, expose the deep roots of corruption in your Agency, and do the right thing for the American people you’re sworn to serve.

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 NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Obama’s farewell: soap opera for liberals and minority pawns

Obama’s farewell: soap opera for liberals and minority pawns

January 12, 2017

Here are a few snippets from Obama’s goodbye speech to the American people:

“Going forward, we must uphold laws against discrimination…But laws alone won’t be enough. Hearts must change…For blacks and other minorities, it means tying our own struggles for justice to the challenges that a lot of people in this country face – the refugee, the immigrant, the rural poor, the transgender American, and also the middle-aged white man…For white Americans, it means acknowledging that the effects of slavery and Jim Crow didn’t suddenly vanish in the ‘60s; that when minority groups voice discontent, they’re not just engaging in reverse racism or practicing political correctness…”

The question is: do people want empty sentimental sop from Obama or do they want action?

Well, it’s too late for action, because Obama’s presidency is done. And it makes no difference whether, as a result of his final speech, people view him as a great and honorable man who did his best, or as a con artist, because again, he’s on his way out the door.

Needless to say, his supporters were deeply moved by his words. They want to be moved. They don’t want to look at uncomfortable facts.

For example, let’s go to CNN, which is going to offer the best possible interpretation of economic indicators for black people in America.

“Blacks have seen their median income stagnate, along with the rest of the population…Median income [for blacks] stood at $35,398 in 2014, just a touch below where it was in 2009, when Obama took office. But it has climbed back from [a low of] $33,926 in 2011…The Great Recession sent many Americans into poverty, but blacks were hit particularly hard. The [poverty] rate for blacks hit 27.6% in 2011, nearly 2 percentage points higher than what it was when Obama was sworn in. It has since receded to 26.2%.”

If you call that a ringing endorsement of Obama’s performance as president, you’re in need of help.

Let me put it this way. For all Obama’s talk about racism and prejudice and justice, Americans of every description and color have been willing, for a long time, to work alongside each other and get along—IF THERE IS WORK TO BE HAD. DECENT PAYING WORK.

Obama is, in effect, trying to move back to another time, before that was the case.

When he was elected, in 2008, during the recession, his closest advisors thought he would come out swinging and do everything possible to create jobs. That was the number-one concern of Americans.

They were absolutely shocked when he opted for Obamacare out of the gate, as his first priority. And look what it has led to: a massive mess.

Gazing at his presidency head-on, without excuses, it’s clear that Obama chose to IGNORE jobs. He didn’t want to make a move in that arena.

Why?

The answer is stark and simple: the Globalist agenda forbids the creation of new jobs, and Obama is a Globalist. He was plucked out of nowhere by Ted Kennedy and mentored by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, along with David Rockefeller. The Trilateral Commission is the single most important Globalist force in the world. And of the 87 members of the Commission who live in the US, Obama appointed 11 of them to key posts in his administration.

This is no accident. This is intentional.

The idea that Obama would launch a no-holds-barred effective crusade against corporations leaving the US and throwing huge numbers of Americans (of all colors) out of work, is laughable. Look at the record, if you need verification. It never happened. It was never going to happen.

The man can talk forever about discrimination and prejudice and social justice, but those words fall flat, because he has never taken action to correct the true crime—which is there for all to see: Globalists are committed to torpedoing economies.

Obama can be a master of overly sentimental rhetoric—but this is merely a diversion.

And aside from the massive loss of jobs, if he has been talking about the inner cities of America, he should have focused on the enduring disasters that destroy life in those places and hold law-abiding citizens hostage: gangs, the murders they commit, their other crimes, drugs, and the absence of fathers in homes. That’s where he would have started. And he would have launched solutions.

But he didn’t.

In various ways, over and over, he simply said: “We’re all in this together.” That and $2 will get you a bus ticket in Chicago.

We’re all in this together doesn’t destroy pernicious Globalist trade treaties or create jobs for people who are willing and ready to go to work and support their families.

We’re all in this together doesn’t eliminate gangs, killings, drugs, and highly dangerous neighborhoods.

We’re all in this together doesn’t start a national program of urban farms in inner cities, and suddenly give people the opportunity to grow their own fresh clean food, eat it, and make money by selling the excess.

We’re all in this together doesn’t help create a culture in which fathers deserting their families is a cardinal offense.

We’re all in this together does pour a pleasant syrup of “deep concern” on the heads of people who, above all, want to appear virtuous. These are the people who can be led to believe in an imitation of actual solutions and action.

They are content to think that a leader who espouses a lofty ideal has done enough. Everyone else should put the ideal into action. If they don’t, it’s not the leader’s fault. He flew the banner. He recited poetics. He wanted a better world. He was operating at a higher level—and unfortunately, the bulk of humanity couldn’t grasp its profundity.

That notion and $2.75 will get you a ride on a New York subway.


The Matrix Revealed

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


During his term in office, did the man who said, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin,” ever walk through the devastated black neighborhoods of American cities and talk to long-term law-abiding residents (not self-appointed leaders or criminals) and ask them bluntly what their greatest concerns were, and press for real down-to-earth answers? Or did he think that food stamps, low-income housing, welfare checks, and other forms of government dependence were enough?

When he talked about “educational opportunities,” did he really think Common Core schools, with their lunatic indoctrination into “sustainable economies,” were going to function in communities where masses of unemployed people look over their shoulders in fear of their safety?

Who’s kidding who?

Who bought what he was selling? Liberals.

Who has paid the price? The people who live in the neighborhoods where sentiment gets you nothing.

And those who, still and always, assert how brilliant President Obama is believe his failure to make a difference was just a mistake? An oversight?

Does self-deception have no bounds?

The answer is blowing in the winds of Detroit and Chicago.

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 NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The op: unelected agents now infiltrating ‘critical infrastructures’

The op: unelected agents now infiltrating ‘critical infrastructures’

Massive collection of data

A covert op for the ages: Technocracy United

Technocracy: “control of society by a technical elite”

by Jon Rappoport

January 9, 2017

(Part 1: here)

Note to readers: the people in charge of, yes, running the future are counting on a populace who can’t think beyond a few weeks or months. That’s their ace in the hole. The long-term future must always seem blurry and vague—and a waste of time to consider. Why? It’s obvious. The people in charge are always building the long-term future, brick by brick, and if very few citizens can grasp what it looks like, how can they object or resist or sound an alarm?

If you want to illegally take over an area, you need to invent an external threat justifying the takeover. We’ve been seeing exactly that recently, as Russia has suddenly been painted as a hostile force trying to destroy our “open democracy.”

Therefore, the Department of Homeland Security is now in charge of US elections, to “combat the Russian hackers.”

And it isn’t only elections.

In the release, last Friday, that gave control of US elections to the Department of Homeland Security (a naked coup), we also have this, from ABC News:

“A 2013 presidential directive identified 16 sectors as critical infrastructures, including energy, financial services, health care, transportation, food and agriculture and communications.”

“The designation announced Friday places responsibilities on the Homeland Security secretary to identify and prioritize those sectors, considering physical and cyber threats against them. The secretary is also required to conduct security checks and provide information about emerging and imminent threats.”

ABC got it wrong. The responsibilities (excluding elections) placed on the head of Homeland Security weren’t invented last Friday. They kicked off in 2013, and they represent a technocratic op to infiltrate and exert power over every aspect of American life.

The 2013 Policy Directive, issued by President Obama, was titled: “Critical Infrastructure Security and Review.” It enumerated no less than 16 areas of so-called US “critical infrastructure” where Homeland Security would muscle in:

Chemical; Commercial Facilities; Communications; Critical Manufacturing; Dams; Defense Industrial Base; Emergency Services; Energy; Final Services; Food and Agriculture; Government Facilities; Healthcare and Public Health; Information Technology; Nuclear Reactors, Materials, and Waste; Transportation Systems; Water and Wastewater Systems.

These are the areas where the head of Homeland Security is expected to “manage risk and strengthen security.” HS will also, of course, take charge of integrating and monitoring ALL the data networks of these 16 sectors.

It sounds reasonable to the average person. But the true theme is control. Planning, control, execution. Move in on these areas and exert operational command from the top.

This IS, in fact, the technocratic blueprint for global management of a new system. We’re talking about the re-engineering of society.

Capturing the 16 areas (and their data) above was always the long-term aim, when the Department of Homeland Security was invented in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. If you recall, there was considerable grousing then about the word “Homeland,” because it emitted a strong whiff of Fascism.

If the goal is engineering a new society—and it is—all systems of data collection, communication, and surveillance must be gathered under one roof.

The social and political engineer (aka the technocrat) views every person (unit) as a biological machine that must be profiled six ways from Sunday, for the purpose of inserting him into an overall pattern. As Patrick Wood explains in his brilliant book, Technocracy Rising, “[technology] is being rapidly implemented…to exhaustively monitor, measure and control every facet of individual activity and every ampere of energy delivered and consumed in the life of such individual[s].”

In truth, the Dept. of Homeland Security is spearheading a movement to connect, cross reference, and integrate every major apparatus of data- collection in both the private and public sectors.

This is the ongoing op.

It is not partisan. It flies the banner of no political party. It pretends to protect the citizenry.

But, in fact, it is the major long-term threat to the citizenry.

It is planning a national and global civilization that does not ask for permission to exist.

No one is voting, because if a vote were required, and people were informed about what is really happening, they would overwhelmingly reject technocracy.

Which is why new enemies must be invented on a continuous basis—to justify the “proactive measures that will keep us safe.”

Homeland Security, with its 240,000 employees and its 24 agencies, is in the business of securing untold trillions of pieces of data for the forward march of Technocracy, Inc.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed — which
includes the Logic And Analysis course, click here.)


Suppose, instead of the political-speak we’ve been treated to, the White House and Homeland Security released the unvarnished truth? “Look, we need to collect, record, and store every possible datum on you and you and everyone. This isn’t about our so-called enemies, this is about us, your controllers. This is about the future we’re planning for you. Somewhere up the road, when we’re ready, when we think we can get away with it, we’re going to announce that the planet is in a terminal energy crisis and shortage. Therefore, every person will receive a card that records his use and consumption of energy, and when his quota runs out, he’ll be without energy until the next time period. Get it? This is where we’re headed…”

Again, as author Patrick Wood points out, when you encounter terms like sustainable economy, SmartGrid, green economy, Agenda 21, carbon taxes, cap and trade, and even Common Core (an indoctrination process for the young masked as education), you’re looking at technocracy-in-progress. In fact, you’re looking at declarations, in one form or another, about irreversible energy shortages that requite drastic solutions.

Since 2013, when Obama announced the 16 areas where Homeland Security has to exert its authority, a new phase in the authoritarian ascent to a mountaintop of control, framed as “scientific,” has been underway.

This is the long con, the long op.

The bosses are counting on the inability of citizens to grasp what is going on. The bosses are counting on the passivity of citizens when it comes to thinking about a future of more than a few weeks or months.

They are also counting on the “citizen energy quotas” I mentioned above sounding like nothing more than wild science fiction.

Well, travel back, for a moment to, say, the 1960s. If someone had told you then, “Your cell phones will be collecting data on you, and you’ll happily be profiling yourselves in great detail, for the government, on social media,” you would have said, “What mental institution did you escape from?”

What sounds like fiction becomes fact.

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.

Intelligence agencies make their living by lying; now they’re truthful?

Intelligence agencies make their living by lying: now they’re truthful?

by Jon Rappoport

December 20, 2016

A few delicious contradictions and dissonances:

The political Left has long attacked the CIA and other spying agencies as criminal liars, but suddenly those agencies are as pure as the driven snow, because they claim Russia hacked the US election and took victory away from Hillary Clinton.

Putin, the supposed arch-villain in this operation, heavily censors the press in Russia. That would be bad—except now, many of the people who support the claim that Putin masterminded the election-hack in the US want to heavily censor independent media outlets in the US, who claim the Russian hack is a lie based on zero evidence. Putin censoring news in Russia=bad. Censoring “fake news” in the US=good.

In the push for launching Gulf War 2 in Iraq, the political Left in the US demanded detailed proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. When it comes to the accusation that Russia hacked the US election, no proof is necessary. After all, the CIA must protect its “sources and methods.” A simple assertion of hacking is sufficient.

Among green opponents of GMO crops, it’s common knowledge that the FDA never offered evidence of safety before certifying GMOs in the 1990s. However, those green people who support Hillary only need the CIA to say Russia hacked the election to believe it. No evidence necessary.

Here is a 1981 statement attributed to Bill Casey, incoming director of the CIA: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

And how about this one, from David Talbot, author of The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government. Talbot is discussing James Jesus Angleton, who was the head of Agency counterintelligence from 1954-1975: “These were some of James Jesus Angleton’s dying words. ‘Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars. The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted. . . . Outside of their duplicity, the only thing they had in common was a desire for absolute power. I did things that, in looking back on my life, I regret. But I was part of it and loved being in it’…”

What we’re really looking at here, in the “Russian hack” allegation, is a wholesale revision of attitude toward the US intelligence community. Now, because it’s convenient for “progressives,” these agencies are protecting the security of the United States with truth, honesty, and righteous investigations.

Much of this revisionist propaganda is aimed at the young, who have never studied the history of the CIA, have zero knowledge of its regime-change ops, its MKULTRA mind-control programs, or its illegal structure that exceeds by miles its original charter.

The NSA is also, of course, involved in the Russian-hack story, because that agency spies on emails and phone calls 24/7. They would surely be able to present evidence about who hacked the Hillary, DNC, and Podesta emails—if indeed any hacking, as opposed to inside leaking, occurred at all. But if they offered information, would you believe them? They’ve been lying about the extent of their spying for decades. Their track record doesn’t inspire holy trust.

These days, major media are lining up behind the Russian-hack claim. For them, nothing matters except the political agenda. For them, the election isn’t over and it never will be. Donald Trump scorched them, time and time again, during the campaign, and they will have their revenge, no matter what it takes.

Further, the emails WikiLeaks released reveal extensive cooperation between the press, the DNC, and Hillary Clinton. That’s a bitter pill for the press to swallow, to say the least.

For example, the Daily Caller (10/17/16) reported:

“A Politico reporter has been caught sending his journalism to Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman for approval.”

“In an April 30, 2015 email, released Monday by WikiLeaks, Politico’s chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush asked John Podesta to approve his writing pre-publication. Thrush begged Podesta not to tell anyone he had shared the copy and referred to himself as ‘a hack’ in the email exchange.

“’No worries Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u,’ Thrush wrote to Podesta. ‘Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything’.”

“The Politico reporter then included five paragraphs from a story he would publish May 1 titled: ‘Hillary’s big-money dilemma’. Podesta replied that, off-the-record, there were ‘no problems’.”

Just to be clear, Glenn Thrush isn’t saying he’s a hacker. He’s saying he’s a hack. Dictionary.com offers a useful definition of the term: “a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment…”

But that’s not all. On December 12, 2016, Huffington Post reported: “Politico chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush is joining The New York Times to cover the White House, the newspaper confirmed Monday.”

“Over the past eight years, Thrush has emerged as one of Politico’s standout journalists, most recently writing a 13,000-word dive into the pivotal moments of the 2016 election.”

“’We’re thrilled that Glenn Thrush is joining The Times,’ Elisabeth Bumiller, the paper’s Washington bureau chief, said in a statement to The Huffington Post. ‘He’s a premier political journalist, a master of breaking news and long-form story telling and a stellar addition to our White House team’.”

Wikipedia offers this telling paragraph on the revelations about Thrush in the Wikileaks-released email: “The email and its wording prompted criticism of Thrush from some commentators and on social media. Thrush replied on Twitter that ‘checking if a portion of a story that pertained to him [Podesta] was accurate… I DO THIS WITH EVERYBODY.’ Politico’s vice president of communications, Brad Dayspring, said that ‘Glenn is one of the top political reporters in the country, in no small part because he understands that it is his job is to get inside information, not appear perfect when someone illegally hacks email… I can speak with firsthand knowledge and experience that Glenn checks the validity of often complex reporting with everybody, on both sides of the aisle’.”


power outside the matrix

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


Are you getting this? Are you getting the dazzling spin? It’s quite hilarious. Rotten eggs are turned into caviar.

For big media, it’s vital to support the Russian-hack story. It allows them to denounce and reject the CONTENT of the leaked emails and divert people from focusing on the press-Hillary cooperation throughout the presidential campaign.

“Who cares what the leaked emails SAY? All you need to know is: THE RUSSIANS DID IT. Russians are bad. We are good. Russians bad. We good.”

The CIA is good, too. Always was.

If you buy all this, you’ll surely be interested in purchasing my special ant farms. The ants are trained to drive your car. Put 50 of them behind the wheel and they’ll take you right to the market and back home again. They can also pilot a space ship to Mars. For that, you’ll need to order one of my ships separately…

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 NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.