Zika: Who launched the fake-epidemic story in Brazil?

Zika: Who launched the fake-epidemic story in Brazil?

Explosive: The invention of an epidemic

by Jon Rappoport

February 7, 2016

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

This is an article that explains a great deal—but, with apologies, it involves a line of reasoning, in order to reach a conclusion. That means some readers (not my regular readers) may find it odd. Some readers with short attention spans may suddenly want to switch to a wrestling show or a shopping network. To them I say: give this a try; it does have a payoff; it has its own kind of shock and surprise; explosions do go off in the mind; it is like a ten-car pile-up on the interstate in the fog, late at night; and there is a very nasty plot.

Out of nowhere, a month ago, we were told there was an outbreak of microcephaly in Brazil: over 4,000 cases of babies born with small heads and brain impairment.

The Brazilian researchers then went in and took a closer look at that figure. They walked it back and said there were, at best, only 404 confirmed cases of microcephaly.

Going from 4,000 cases to 404 cases was a revelation. It means there is no reason to claim, so far, that there is an epidemic of microcephaly.

Then, another stunner. Of the 404 cases, only 17 “had a relationship with the Zika virus.” Therefore, obviously, there was no Zika-causing-microcephaly story, either.

Even in those 17 cases, the mere presence of the Zika virus was no evidence the virus was causing microcephaly in 17 babies. A virus has to be more than “present.” It has to be there in huge numbers in an individual human. And the Brazilian researchers haven’t provided any evidence that Zika was present in huge numbers in any of the 17 babies.

There is more. The whole effort of the researchers was to show, if possible, that Zika was present in all the 404 microcephaly cases. You see, they were doing preliminary work. They were looking for the cause of microcephaly. And when you’re on that kind of hunt, you’re trying to find some factor that is present in most or all cases. Otherwise, it’s not the cause.

The Zika hunting expedition failed miserably. The researchers actually showed that Zika wasn’t the cause.

Let me put it to you this way. 400 tourists staying a hotel fall ill with the same symptoms. Researchers try to find the cause. They propose, as a preliminary idea, that the tourists all ate apple sauce. So they interview the sick tourists, they examine the contents of their stomachs, they talk to kitchen workers—and they discover only 17 of the 400 tourists ate apple sauce. Conclusion? Apple sauce is not the cause of the illness. There is no reason to claim it’s the cause in the 17 people who ate it, either. Apple sauce, as an explanation, is a complete dud.

All right. So we have no evidence that there is a widespread epidemic of microcephaly. And for those cases that do exist, we have no evidence, so far, that Zika virus is the cause.

Given all this, a few new questions naturally arise. How did the notion that Zika virus might be the cause suddenly appear in the first place? And who started the story that there was an epidemic of microcephaly?

Let me take up that second question. Apparently, several doctors at two or three hospitals in Brazil noticed more babies with microcephaly than usual. Their report went to someone at the Brazilian health authority. And then a call went out all over the country asking for reports of cases of microcephaly. Those reports came in. They weren’t necessarily accurate. When the numbers were added up, they came to more than 4000.

Then, researchers began to sift through 3,670 of those reports to see what was actually happening—and so far, they see only 404 cases of microcephaly.

Now let’s look at the first question: who proposed the apple sauce? Who proposed the idea that Zika, a virus known about since 1947, a virus which had never been known to cause more than mild transient illness, a virus surely present in humans all over the planet, was now suddenly wreaking great devastation in babies—deformity, brain damage? Who made that very strange leap?

Here is a clue.

This is a quote from a World Health Organization press release, dated January 28, 2016: “WHO to convene an International Health Regulations Emergency Committee on Zika virus and observed increase in neurological disorders and neonatal malformations”:

“In May 2015, Brazil reported its first case of Zika virus disease. Since then, the disease has spread within Brazil and to 24 other countries in the region.”

This is clearly a deception. The first Zika case in Brazil, for a virus that’s been known about since 1947? In India, Zika has been known about (“Zika Fever”) for a long, long time. Discovering “the first” Zika case in Brazil has some special meaning? As I stated above, it’s well known that the virus causes only mild illness and goes away in a short time. So why would anyone care about a Zika case in Brazil? As for the WHO assertion that Zika has subsequently spread (like an epidemic) throughout Brazil and 24 other countries, this is absurd. It would be like saying, “We discovered a person driving a Volkswagen in Brazil. Since then, the occurrence of people driving Volkswagens had spread across Brazil and 24 other countries.” No, the drivers and the Volkswagens were already there.

Why would researchers at WHO make this fundamental error? Why would they make this preposterous claim?

Part of the reason leads back to a preoccupation with (actually, an obsession with) hunting for viruses. Hunting for them, finding them, and then, based on no solid evidence, claiming they cause various disease-conditions.

I’ll continue with a further quote from the January 28 WHO media release:

“Arrival of the virus in some countries of the Americas, notably Brazil, has been associated with a steep increase in the birth of babies with abnormally small heads… A causal relationship between Zika virus infection and birth defects and neurological syndromes has not been established, but is strongly suspected.”

Notice the use of the phrase, “associated with.” This is not true, as we’ve seen, because the Brazilian researchers have found the Zika virus (or indirect evidence of it) in only 17 of the 404 confirmed cases of microcephaly. There is no association. There is disassociation. Remember, in order to begin to say a particular virus is causing a disease, you must find it in almost all, or all, cases of that condition. What WHO is pointing to, re Zika, doesn’t even begin to approach this standard. And as you can see from the above quote, WHO admits they have established no causal connection between Zika and microcephaly.

Yet WHO has been spearheading the drive to blame Zika and, yes, invent the idea that there is a “spreading epidemic” of Zika. Much of what you’re reading and seeing in the mainstream press about this “epidemic” comes directly out of WHO press releases and director Margaret Chan’s remarks.

WHO is determined to fabricate a viral epidemic and its causal connection to microcephaly.

Here is the final quote I want to highlight from the January 28 WHO media release:

“WHO’s Regional Office for the Americas (PAHO) has been working closely with affected countries since May 2015. PAHO has mobilized staff and members of the Global Outbreak and Response Network (GOARN) to assist ministries of health in strengthening their abilities to detect the arrival and circulation of Zika virus through laboratory testing and rapid reporting. The aim has been to ensure accurate clinical diagnosis and treatment for patients, to track the spread of the virus and the mosquito that carries it, and to promote prevention, especially through mosquito control.”

Notice the date mentioned in the quote—May 2015. That’s when “the first case of Zika” was discovered in Brazil. WHO sent people to the scene immediately. They sent their virus hunters from GOARN, which is the WHO equivalent of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS). The virus hunters. Show them a situation; they will find a virus and make an warranted claim about it and push the story forward.

That’s what they’ve done, against all the counter-evidence. They’ve invented a epidemic that doesn’t exist, blaming it on a virus that has never caused serious illness, and they’ve connected that virus, with no evidence, to microcephaly.

It would be like saying, “There was a 20-car crash on the interstate last night, and three miles away, on a lonely road, a boy was walking with his dog. The boy is the prime suspect. He is ‘associated’ with the car crash. And then, on top of that absurdity, we discover that, on the interstate, we can only find two cars that have collided, not 20.”

But the biggest public-health agency in the world is sticking to its story about the 20-car crash and its “association” with the boy walking his dog.

This does not indicate a mere error. This indicates a fixation. “We must find a virus and claim it is the cause.” It also indicates an intention to fabricate.

All right. We’ve now reached the end of the first part of my argument. Let’s proceed and go to motive.

For that exposition, I rely on the very well-known consequences of WHO making its entirely unwarranted and bogus case: an epidemic can be announced. They (WHO) can claim there is an epidemic caused by a spreading virus.

Follow me here. This is crucial. Merely saying there are some microcephaly cases in Brazil, and they can come from many different causes—since any insult to the developing fetal brain can bring about microcephaly—a toxic drug, a toxic pesticide, the pregnant woman falls down a flight of stairs—merely saying there are some microcephaly cases in Brazil creates no appearance of a contagious epidemic spreading around the world.

For WHO, that’s a non-starter. It goes nowhere. But linking microcephaly to a virus and then “discovering” the virus has “broken out” of its “previous containment in Brazil” and is “traveling around the world” and is “causing microcephaly”—-now WHO is in business.

Constructing these several garish lies and hooking them together achieves multiple objectives. The people at WHO may be crazy, but they aren’t stupid. They understand how much hay they can make through their invention.

With the fairy tale about a galloping virus and its potential to create, in any pregnant woman, brain damage to her developing baby, they have a scary epidemic to run and manage and control. They have work, in the same way a movie director has work with a good script that can sell vs. one that won’t. Their allies can rush to develop a (completely unnecessary) vaccine. When the vaccine is ready (ready to make large profits), WHO can run that operation, too, by issuing all sorts of alerts about the need to get vaccinated. WHO can also issue “health directives” about “prevention” to every national government on Earth, thus cementing its superior role as a leading planetary command-post.


power outside the matrix


In past articles, I’ve examined destructive agendas coalescing around multiple factors: toxic vaccines; the promotion and induction of illness; “the virus” as a cover story invoked to protect, for example, mega-corporations that poison populations with pesticides; the in-utero-to-cradle-to-grave system of toxic medical care, and so on. In this article, I just want to show how the invention of an epidemic occurs, how it’s done. How it’s put together.

This is one aspect of the medical Matrix right in front of your eyes: the twisting and curling and distorting and forcing of disparate data into one coordinated scenario that, on analysis, completely falls apart.

Let me give it to you in one boiled-down imaginary quote:

“Okay, boys, this is what we have. Some cases of microcephaly in Brazil. Not many confirmed cases. So, first thing, we have to blow that number up. Get rolling on that. Next, we have this harmless dud of a virus, Zika, which we can find in all sorts of people anywhere in the world. It means nothing, of course, but we’re going to make it mean something. We’re going to claim it causes microcephaly. Wow. Even I’m blown away by the sheer audacity of that. Once we make this spurious connection, we can say women all over the planet are at risk. We can say the virus is spreading and we can confirm that through testing— because, as we know, it’s already there. It’s been there forever. Anywhere. Everywhere. And we say, you see, this virus that causes a horrible birth defect is spreading and popping up in a dozen, 20, 40, 70 countries. Now we’re in business. We potentially have the fight-or-flight mechanism of the whole planet under our control. That’s our goal. Let’s get to work and see how far we can take this Good Battles Evil fairy tale. Remember, we’re the Good. People need to be controlled. Otherwise, who knows what they might do? We do the controlling.”

Indeed.

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.

Official science: the grand illusion

Official science: the grand illusion

by Jon Rappoport

January 14, 2016

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

“Government science exists because it is a fine weapon to use, in order to force an agenda of control over the population. We aren’t talking about knowledge here. Knowledge is irrelevant. What counts is: ‘How can we fabricate something that looks like the truth?’ I keep pointing this out: we’re dealing with reality builders. In this case, they make their roads and fences out of data, and they massage and invent the data out of thin air to suit their purposes. After all, they also invent money out of thin air.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Introduction: Since 1987, one of my goals as a reporter has been to educate the public about false science.

Between then and now, I have found that, with remarkably few exceptions, mainstream reporters are studiously indifferent to false science.

They shy away from it. They pretend “it couldn’t be.” They refuse to consider facts. They and their editors parrot “the experts.”

Official science has a stranglehold on major media. It has the force of a State religion. When you stop and think about it, official science is, in a significant sense, a holy church. Therefore, it is no surprise that the church’s spokespeople would wield power over major information outlets.

These prelates invent, guard, and dispense “what is known.” That was precisely the role of the Roman Church in times past. And those professionals within the modern Church of Science are severely punished when they leave the fold and accuse their former masters of lies and crimes. They are blackballed, discredited, and stripped of their licenses. At the very least.

Totalitarian science lets you know you’re living in a totalitarian society.

The government, the press, the mega-corporations, the prestigious foundations, the academic institutions, the “humanitarian” organizations say:

“This is the disease. This is its name. This is what causes it. This is the drug that treats it. This is the vaccine that prevents it.”

“This is how accurate diagnosis is done. These are the tests. These are the possible results and what they mean.”

“Here are the genes. This is what they do. This is how they can be changed and substituted and manipulated. These are the outcomes.”

“These are the data and the statistics. They are correct. There can be no argument about them.”

“This is life. These are the components of life. All change and improvement result from our management of the components.”

“This is the path. It is governed by truth which our science reveals. Walk the path. We will inform you when you stray. We will report new improvements.”

“This is the end. You can go no farther. You must give up the ghost. We will remember you.”

We are now witnessing the acceleration of Official Science. Of course, that term is an internal contradiction. But the State shrugs and moves forward.

The notion that the State can put its seal on favored science, enforce it, and punish its competitors, is anathema to a free society.

For example: declaring that psychiatrists can appear in court as expert witnesses, when none of the so-called mental disorders listed in the psychiatric literature are diagnosed by laboratory tests.

For example: stating that vaccination is mandatory, in order to protect the vaccinated (who are supposed to be immune) from the unvaccinated. An absurdity on its face.

For example: announcing that the science of climate change is “settled,” when there are, in fact, huge numbers of researchers who disagree. —And then, drafting legislation and issuing executive orders based on the decidedly unsettled science.

For example: officially approving the release and sale of medical drugs (“safe and effective”) which go on to kill, at a conservative estimate, 100,000 Americans every year. And then refusing to investigate or punish the purveyors of these drug approvals (the FDA).

For example: permitting the widespread use of genetically modified food crops, based on no long-term studies of their impact on human health. And then, arbitrarily announcing that the herbicide, Roundup, for which many of these crops are specifically designed, is non-toxic.

For example: declaring and promoting the existence of various epidemics, when the viruses purportedly causing them are not proven to exist and/or not proven to cause human illness (Ebola, SARS, West Nile, Swine Flu, etc.)

A few of you reading this have been with me since 1988, when I published my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century. Among other conclusions, I pointed out that HIV had never been shown to cause human illness; the front-line drug given to AIDS patients, AZT, was overwhelmingly toxic; and what was being called AIDS was actually a diverse number immune-suppressing conditions.

Others of you have found my work more recently. I always return to the subject of false science, because it is the most powerful long-term instrument for repression, political control, and destruction of human life.

As I’ve stated on many occasions, medical science is ideal for mounting and launching covert ops aimed at populations—because it appears to be politically neutral, without any allegiance to State interests.

Unfortunately, medical science, on many fronts, has been hijacked and taken over. The profit motive is one objective, but beyond that, there is a more embracing goal:

Totalitarian control.

On the issue of vaccines, I’ve written much about their dangers and ineffectiveness. But also consider this: the push for mandatory vaccination goes a long way toward creating a herd effect—which is really a social construction.

In other words, parents are propagandized to think of themselves a kind of synthetic artificial “community.”

“Here we are. We are the fathers and mothers. We must all protect our children against the outliers, the rebels, the defectors, the crazy ones who refuse to vaccinate their own children. We are all in this together. They are the threat. The enemy. We are good. We know the truth. They are evil.”

This “community of the willing” are dedicated to what the government tells them. They are crusaders imbued with group-think. They run around promoting “safety and protection.” This group consciousness is entirely an artifact, propelled by “official science.”

The crusaders are, in effect, agents of the State.

They are created by the State.

Androids.

They live in an absurd Twilight Zone where fear of germs (the tiny invisible terrorists) demands coercive action against the individuals who see through the whole illusion.

This is what official science can achieve. This is how it can enlist obedient foot soldiers and spies who don’t have the faintest idea about how they’re being used.

This is a variant on Orwell’s 1984. The citizens are owned by the all-embracing State, but they aren’t even aware of it.

That’s quite a trick.


power outside the matrix


One of my favorite examples of double-think or reverse-think is the antibody test. It is given to diagnosis diseases. Antibodies are immune-system scouts sent out to identify germ-intruders, which can then be wiped out by other immune-system troops.

Prior to 1985, the prevailing view of a positive test was: the patient is doing well; his body detected the germ and dispensed with it. After 1985, the view was suddenly: this is bad news; the patient is sick or he is on the verge of getting sick; he has the germ in his body; it does harm.

Within the medical community, no one (with very few exceptions) raised hell over this massive switch. It was accepted. It was actually good for business. Now, many more people could be labeled “needs treatment,” whereas before, they would have been labeled “healthy.”

While I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in 1987-8, I wrote the FDA asking about a possible AIDS vaccine. I was told the following: every person given such a vaccine would, of course, produce antibodies against HIV. That is the whole purpose of a vaccine: to produce antibodies.

However, I was informed, patients receiving this vaccine would be given a letter to carry with them, in case they were ever tested for HIV and came up positive. The letter would explain that the antibodies causing the positive test were the result of the vaccine, not the result of “natural” action inside the patient’s body.

In other words, the very same antibodies were either protective against AIDS (good) or indicative of deadly disease (bad).

This was the contradictory and ridiculous and extraordinary pronouncement of official science.

It carries over into every disease for which an antibody test is administered. If a vaccine against disease X is given, it delivers immunity, because it produces antibodies. But if a diagnostic test for disease X reveals the presence of the same antibodies, this is taken a sign of illness.

Extrapolated to a more general level, the Word is: synthetic medical treatment is good; the action of the body to heal itself is incompetent.

This is a type of superstition that would astonish even the most “primitive” societies.

It no longer astonishes me. I see it everywhere in official science.

From the medical establishment’s point of view, being alive is a medical condition.

We are now living in a society where an incurable itch to meddle everywhere and at all times is the standard.

A new definition of Reality emerges: “that which needs to be monitored and surveilled.”

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.

Dear WaPo: I’ve got some ‘fringe’ for you right here

Dear WaPo: I’ve got some ‘fringe’ for you right here

Washington Post whines: ‘fringe’ news entering mainstream

by Jon Rappoport

December 14, 2015

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

It’s a terrible thing. Really. The pure and sanctified blood of mainstream news is now infected. Where is the protective vaccine? Quick, call the CDC.

Washington Post, December 11, Paul Farhi, “Thanks to Trump, fringe news enters the mainstream”:

“Trump finding common ground with [Alex] Jones is in keeping with Trump’s own rocky relationship with facts and credible information during the campaign. Many of Trump’s more controversial assertions since he declared for president have come from the murky swamp of right-wing, libertarian and flat-out paranoid sources that have proliferated and thrived as the Internet and social media have grown.”

Got it? The germs are multiplying.

Even the Washington Post, center of all that is good and right and true and holy about the news, is under siege. What can be done to protect WaPo from The Fringe? Is it time for Bob Woodward to write a new book? Do they need surgical masks? Hazmat suits? Should they flee underground and turn the whole operation into a level 4 virus lab with steel vaults and air seals?

Well, dear WaPo, I have a piece of fringe for you. I know you need more readers, and this is a killer. Literally. If you set your hounds loose on it for six months or so, you’ll drag out some of the most explosive material you’ve ever seen, and you’ll be able to print two editions a day. Readers’ll fight with each other to grab issues of the paper off the stands. Watergate? Bill and Monica? Sunday picnics compared with what I’m offering you. And it’s definitely fringe, because you and other mainstream outlets have never covered it with any emphasis. Ready?

The US medical system kills 225,000 people a year. That’s 225,000. Which means 2.25 million killings per decade.

Put that up against wars, so-called epidemics, terror attacks, car accidents, Trump, libertarians, Jones, paranoid right-wingers.

Source number 1:

July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Association, “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, respected and revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Starfield broke it down this way:

106,000 deaths per year from the effects of FDA approved medical drugs, and 119,000 deaths from mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Annual total? 225,000 medically caused deaths in the US.

Source number 2:

BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012;344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. “Anticoagulants cause the most serious adverse events, finds US analysis”

Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices:

“It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”

And here is the dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all medical drugs. Boom.

But wait—source number 3:

A page on the FDA’s own website, which you can access by going to startpage.com and searching for “Why Learn about Adverse [Medical] Drug Events (ADRs)”.

The quote (caps are not mine, they’re the FDA’s):

“Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly/100,000 DEATHS yearly/ADRs 4th leading cause of death ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents and automobile deaths.”

Source number 4:

The following quotes come from the ASA [American Sociological Association] publication called Footnotes, in its November 2014 issue. The article is “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author of the article is Donald W Light.

Donald W Light is a professor of medical and economic sociology. He is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine.

“…appropriately prescribed prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death…About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the US and Europe.

“They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more [6.6 million per year] hospitalizations, as well as falls, road accidents, and about 80 million [per year] medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others.

“Deaths from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.”

Source number 5:

A 2009 email interview I did with the above-mentioned Dr. Barbara Starfield. Here are a few excerpts:

JR: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

BS: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency)…

JR: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the effects of the US medical system?

BS: NO.

JR: Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

BS: Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

JR: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

BS: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

—end interview excerpt—

Dear Wa Po, consider these gifts. Your leads. You can take off from here. You can suck it up and incorporate a piece of fringe and make it go mainstream, and in the process, if you handle it well, set your reporters loose to drag out every doctor and medical bureaucrat who knows the truth but has been hiding it, you’ll have the biggest story in your history. By far.

106,000 annual deaths in the US from FDA approved medicines. 225,000 annual deaths from the overall practice of mainstream medicine in the US. That’s 2.25 million deaths per decade. 2.25 MILLION.


power outside the matrix


Wait. What’s that, WaPo? You don’t want to cover this story with breaking updates every two days for a year? You don’t want to expose the US medical system? You don’t want to show how bringing more Americans under the umbrella of Obamacare automatically ups the number of deaths? You don’t want to bring in more readers than you’ve ever had? You don’t want to blast this story in front-page headlines? You don’t want to take something from the fringe? You don’t want to?

Well, in that case, I guess we’d know where you stand.

It isn’t the fringe that bothers you, it’s the truth.

I don’t blame you. With an operation like yours, you need protection from the truth on so many levels. You do need masks and air filters and steel vaults and seals. And you need drug-ad money. You need continued access to lying official sources, who would drop you in a second if you dove in and worked this fringe story. I get it. I really do.

You have no courage. You have no guts. You’re sick and dying on the vine.

That happens to institutions. They think they’re forever, but when they abandon whatever ideals they’re supposed to have, they disintegrate.

Some funerals are quick affairs. A half-hour and they’re done. Others, like yours, are marathons. They drone on for years, decades.

I’m not attending yours. Never liked zombie events.

But just in case somebody at your paper still has genuine curiosity and balls, I can be contacted.

I’m here, on the fringe.

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.

The psychiatric matrix creates the politically correct victim

The psychiatric matrix creates the politically correct victim

by Jon Rappoport

December 4, 2015

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

“Individual [Harvard law] students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.” (Jeannie Suk, The New Yorker, 12/15/14)

“When you have medical services at colleges all over the country making psychiatric diagnoses and dispensing drugs, day in and day out, what do you suppose is going to happen to those students? They’re going to wear their mental-disorder labels like badges, and they’re going to think of themselves as vulnerable, and they’re going to look for new ways to prove how vulnerable they are. They’re going to say that hearing certain words can cause them to go into a tailspin…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

The current official list of mental disorders hovers at 300. That’s 300—separately defined, treatable, and covered by insurance plans.

On a cultural level, this means the population is being tuned to the idea that they are vulnerable and at high risk. The right trigger at the right moment, a slight change in brain-chemical balance, and there it is: a disorder, with a title, a professional diagnosis, and the need for treatment.

This cultural programming—no surprise—has been a major factor in influencing people to believe they are victims. The obsessive focus on politically correct words that could offend and traumatize is, in reality, an extension of the psychiatric matrix.

A cascade of propaganda has been unleashed around the notion that people are helpless; they can’t rise above “triggering”; they must be attended to and given special consideration, even if their needs interfere with the interests of those who aren’t affected by “insensitive language.”

Hordes of little worker ants are busy digging out new words and expressions that could conceivably disturb the equilibrium of cherished victims. Soon, no doubt, we will learn that “a,” “an,” and “the” carry little violent packages of emotional electricity.

So let’s take a brief tour of the root: psychiatry, in all its glory.

In 2012, the Psychiatric Times reported that the latest edition of the bible of mental disorders, the DSM-V, would make grief a mental disorder.

Specifically, a parent who deeply mourns the loss of a child for more than two weeks would rate a diagnosis of clinical depression (and of course, drugging with one of the toxic SSRI antidepressants.)

This absurdity was even too much for some psychiatrists, and they rebelled. But the “experts” who were assembling the DSM-V didn’t care.

Well, of course not; there is a lot of money to be made by prescribing more drugs, in this case, to grieving parents.

The Psychiatric Times‘ editorial attacking this lunatic classification of grief-as-disease was written by none other than Dr. Allen Frances.

My readers will remember my article about the good doctor. He is the man who was in charge of assembling the previous DSM-IV. His team expanded the definitions of ADHD and Bipolar, so that many more people would be dosed with toxic and destructive drugs like Valproate, Lithium, and Ritalin.

Yet Dr. Frances, in a December 2010 Wired interview (“Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness”), stated:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

He actually said it.

What lies below this psychiatric lunacy is an entire industrial complex. It’s dedicated to brainwashing the public into accepting the notion of discrete and real mental disorders.

Yes, people have problems, they become frustrated and confused, they suffer, but the act of carving up behavior and thought into diseases is a way of a) expanding business and b) extending the overall matrix.

More and more, as a result of relentless PR, the public believes there are a whole host of mental disorders that not only intrude on their lives but require pharmaceutical treatment.

The public believes they are victimized by these diseases and can alleviate them only through drugs.

The public believes it is “humane” to accept the existence of these diseases, and we must all join together to “remove the stigma of diagnosis.”

The public believes they are at the mercy of arbitrary shifts of brain chemistry that bring on these diseases.

The public believes, therefore, that life itself is limited by the potential onset of “psychiatric illness.”

The public believes we’re all, to one degree or another, disabled.

The public believes what they’re told to believe. Therefore, the fictitious existence of discrete mental disorders becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Matrix op called psychiatry provides a focal point, around which are woven many strands of propaganda. The overall objective? A future world that resembles, to a remarkable degree, a Universal Hospital, in which the population, granted “free” care, lives through dozens of diagnoses of diseases and disorders, with (toxic) treatments—from cradle to grave. The eternal patient.

Psychiatry seeks to gain control and domination over the entire area of human behavior, through classification by labels and bogus claims of diagnosis.

Here is the kicker: There are no definitive chemical or biological tests for any so-called mental disorder.

This fact is stunning to people. They automatically assume psychiatry is a science. It isn’t. It’s a shell game.

I refer now to the PBS FRONTLINE presentation, “Does ADHD Exist?” A quite revealing exchange occurs between the interviewer and Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center.

INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY: That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid.

Yes, that does make them invalid. All of them.

Of course, if you want to make science into guesswork and empty promises and speculation and tea-leaf reading, have at it. Privately, and preferably on a desert island.

Go to a library and pick up the DSM-V. Search through it for one defining laboratory test for any mental disorder. See for yourself. There isn’t any such test.

Yet, on this unscientific basis, psychiatry and its allies have managed to transform society. They’ve staged an extraordinarily successful revolution over the past 50 years.

And now, on several branches of that tree, we are seeing the poisonous fruition of a cultural correctness that seeks to encircle freedom.

It will lose. It has already begun to lose. This political-correctness extension of psychiatric gibberish is sowing the seeds of its own destruction because it has gone too far. It has taken its “lessons” too seriously and made a circus, a parade of buffoonery out of its mission.

People with eyes to see will also notice that carving up real human suffering into 300 fictitious mental disorders is far more preposterous.

Language is an important tool of political control, particularly in the form of labels. Five decades of assigning labels to people’s brains and minds have an effect. Feedback loops are created. People invent “information” that confirms the label that is given to them.

Now we are talking about real triggers. The names of mental disorders are a form of hypnosis, in which the patient supplies most of the trance. He defines himself as he is “supposed to.”

Combatting the psychiatric dumb-show will be a lot harder than sweeping away the political-correctness language police. Psychiatry has the official imprimatur of governments, courts, school systems, university departments, and even the military.

Big Pharma sits behind it all, financing the institution of psychiatry and selling the drugs.


power outside the matrix


However, the individual can liberate himself from the whole nexus through insight. He can discover the truth about this pseudoscience. In separating himself from it, he gains separation from one of the most formidable networks that spans a society increasingly built on mind control.

Coda: In the last five years, psychiatric care has become one of the go-to fairy tales, whenever a mass shooting (not linked to terrorism) takes place. “If only the disturbed man had been spotted earlier and treated…” Indeed, Obama, who knows as much about “mental-health” as a deer knows about piloting a space ship, issued an order, after Sandy Hook, to create psychiatric community clinics all across America. This solution will actually increase the murder rate, because it just so happens that the most popular class of antidepressants (e,g., Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft) can and does push patients over the edge into violence, including suicide and homicide. Psychiatry is a Johnny-apple-seed operation for otherwise inexplicable and random killings.

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.

Dr. Starfield’s revelations: shock of shocks

Dr. Starfield’s revelations: shock of shocks

by Jon Rappoport

November 25, 2015

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

Suppose you learned that a single source in the US, every year, like clockwork, kills 225,000 people. That would be 2.25 million killings per decade.

Wouldn’t you think we’d hear about it? Wouldn’t public health agencies make a big, bigger, biggest deal about it? Wouldn’t they call it a pandemic to end all pandemics?

Can you imagine the reaction at every level of society? The insane panic? The madness in the streets? The attacks against institutions tasked with preventing such a cataclysm? The collapse of the stock market and the healthcare system? The predictions of the end of the world? The churches on roaring business highs?

Well, on July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published Dr. Barbara Starfield‘s review, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

In it, Starfield, who was a respected public health expert working at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, stated that:

* The US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.

* 106,000 deaths per year from FDA-approved medical drugs.

* 119,000 deaths per year from error-ridden treatment in hospitals.

I’m aware that independent research puts those death figures much higher, but I focus on Dr. Starfield’s work because no mainstream reporter or government official could challenge her credentials or the credentials of the journal that published her findings.

And yes, there were stories in the press at the time, in 2000. But the coverage wasn’t aggressive, and it faded out quickly.

And none of the mainstream coverage did the obvious extrapolations. We are talking about 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade. And over a MILLION deaths per decade from medicines the FDA has approved as safe and effective.

The US government is aware. You can search for an FDA page titled, “Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs)?”

It states: “Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly.” And “100,000 DEATHS yearly.” (The capital letters are the FDA’s, not mine.)

The FDA, of course, is the single federal agency responsible for certifying all medical drugs safe and effective before they are released for public use. They readily admit the human death-and- maiming devastation…but take no responsibility for it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here are excerpts from that interview.

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

NO.

Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews [of its new drugs]—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.)

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

—end of interview excerpt—


the matrix revealed


Comment: Hyping death is a media industry. But it cuts two ways. The people who do the scare-propaganda also delete the uncomfortable truths, like those Dr. Starfield describes above.

As always, media are fronting for an agenda.

They are selectively inventing reality for the public.

Reality-invention is the biggest business in the world.

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.

Psychiatric fascism: notes from the underground

Psychiatric fascism: notes from the underground

by Jon Rappoport

November 12, 2015

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

These are wide-ranging quotes from my work-in-progress, The Underground. They take up the subject of psychiatry, the absurd pseudoscience licensed by the State.

Since there are no definitive physical tests for any of the 300 officially certified mental disorders—no blood tests, no urine tests, no brain scans, no genetic assays—what we’re left with is a phantasm-map of Nowhere Land, a philosophy of limitation. A translation of human problems and suffering into a professional liar’s language, a made-up nonsensical technical gibberish. And the federal government licenses this as a monopoly.”

“Whenever you come across a pseudoscience, you’re looking at a mask that covers an ideology. And that ideology intends to limit freedom, the free person, the free soul, the free mind, the free psyche, the free creative impulse.”

“Modern psychiatry is an updated version of the CIA’s MKULTRA mind-control program, adjusted for the masses.”

“Psychiatry is basically a mechanism to control people who are dissatisfied, disaffected, rebellious, independent, thoughtful; and then, secondarily, a mechanism to control those who just want to surrender their lives to an external authority and can’t believe in religion anymore. Instead of a priest and a church, they have drugs.”

“If Huxley’s Brave New World is the mountaintop of controlled society, with its genetic manipulations and laboratory births, psychiatry is its ancestor, rambling around in the foothills, pretending to define so-called mental disorders, handing out toxic drugs, giving people electric shocks, performing lobotomies. Psychiatry is the crazy grandfather.”

“Psychiatry is a system of arbitrary definitions. When you get past all the pseudo-technical nonsense, you’re looking at mind control—the attempt to make people believe consciousness is composed of 300 disorders.”

“Psychiatry is a state-of-mind prison for society. You can have this state of mind or that one, and after we treat you, you can have a normal state of mind.”

“But, actually, consciousness is up for grabs. You can have any state of mind you want to. No labels. Does that sound frightening? You’re supposed to feel frightened and crawl back into a little hole. That’s the game.”

“Psychiatry is just another organized religion. Instead of a wafer and a sip of wine, they have drugs. Lots of drugs. Their cosmology is a picture they paint, the subject of which is a paradise called Normal. Sane. Average. By their average definitions.”

“Psychiatry would like to be known as some kind of ultimate information theory. But information theory is what the loser in a poker game is left with. It’s all he’s got, so he has to go out on the street and try to sell it, hypnotize people with it. Pure scrubbed data, as empty and dead as the face of an old politician.”

“Today’s psychiatrists are playing around with brain signals. They have no idea what the mind is. No idea what consciousness is. No idea what freedom is. They have no idea how different individuals would be from one another if they broke out of the collective prison of The Normal.”

“The Wizard of Psychiatry is a hustler from way back. His job is to make Normal plausible.”

“Everything a human being is starts to come into view when he gets rid of Normal.”

“Psychiatry and its government, media, and intelligence-agency allies are saying, ‘See that crazy killer over there? Anybody could turn into that. Even you. So we have to treat the whole population before somebody starts spraying bullets in your neighborhood. We have to sculpt everybody into a good citizen, an average person.’”

“Psychiatry is the Surveillance Society of the brain. The NSA with toxic drugs.”

“Psychiatry is State control of emotion and thought. And its poor cousin, psychology, has become sentimental hokum for the rubes. Slop.”

“At the bottom of his titanic pile of nonsense, the Wizard of Psychiatry is saying, ‘You’re not free.’ But you are.”

“Sixty years ago, a hundred years ago, there was an idea in America. The Open Road. Travel the open road. Adventure. Psychiatry is one of the disciplines that’s tried to shut it down.”

“There never was, and never will be, a science of consciousness, because by its very nature, consciousness is free and unpredictable. Many people find this hard to swallow, because they fear freedom and hate it. They know they’ve lost it somewhere, and they don’t want anyone else to have it.”


exit from the matrix


“We live in a wilderness of bad poetry and overblown sentimental attachments. Or to put it another way, more and more people are attaching themselves to heraldic promises of salvation and rescue from their problems and the problems of the world. The theme is constant: some thing, some force, some being, some power is going to appear and change the world. This is entitlement on a grand scale. At the core it’s surrender of self and surrender of creative power. ‘I want to read the book of my life, I don’t want to write it.’”

“Psychiatry is the action of painting false pictures inside the mind, and obtaining obedience to those images. It’s imposed reality-invention. Meanwhile, under the tons of false information and propaganda that pervade life, the individual is, in fact, intensely creative; he is perfectly capable of inventing and fleshing out his own reality.”

“The real future, the future people run away and hide from, isn’t one state or condition or cosmology. It’s open. It’s the paralleling and intersecting of millions and millions of realities consciously invented by free individuals. No one can predict what this looks like. It isn’t a system. It isn’t an overall design. It isn’t a planned society. It has zero value for the meddlers who fervently believe in one unified shape.”

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.

Who owns your genes? Are they a cure?

Who owns your genes? Are they a cure?

by Jon Rappoport

October 25, 2015

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

“No large institution of society can survive without deploying hundreds or even thousands of cover stories.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

In an October verdict, rendered by the Australian High Court, the purported breast-cancer gene, BRCA1, cannot be patented by any company.

The Court distinguished between an invention, which can be patented, and a discovery of something that is already there, such as a gene in the human body.

The Court’s verdict, hailed as “a victory for the people,” obscures a deeper question: how do genes help cure disease?

Researchers, drug companies, and academic shills will, of course, claim genes are the cutting edge of all future disease therapy; but you or I could claim that toenail clippings are the key to understanding how the universe was built.

In other words, a claim means nothing, unless it is backed up by evidence. There is presently no across-the-board genetic treatment that has been shown to be a cure for any disease.

Quite typical for the biotech sector. They make claims all the time, and promises, and great heraldic statements—in order to keep their money machine turning.

Just examine Monsanto’s claims about higher crop yields with GMOs, and the safety of its number-one pesticide, Roundup, which has now been exposed as a carcinogen.

The biotech industry is all about “fake it ‘til you make it.”

You certainly own your own genes, but that fact doesn’t ensure spectacular cures for what might ail you.

Then there is this: assuming gene damage can cause cancer, suppose the triggering event occurs as a result of coming into contact with environmental toxins? In other words, the toxic effects on genes will continue apace, no matter how much research is done on the composition and disposition of the genes themselves.

Much cancer research does, in fact, discover toxic causes—and it is in the interest of companies that spew those compounds out into the world to cover up their criminal guilt. What better way to achieve that than by asserting: “cancer is all in the genes.”

Look at the giant biotech companies like Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta. In one way or another, they are all involved in chemical and genetic research and production.

So they are in a prime position to deflect the chemical destruction they are wreaking by pushing “the frontiers of gene research.”

“It’s all about the genes.”

Hype. Hype. Hype.

Dr. Samuel Epstein, who devoted a major part of his life to the research of environmental toxins, wrote:

“We are losing the war against cancer. The prohibition of new carcinogenic products, reduction of toxins in use, and right-to-know laws – these are among the legislative proposals which could reverse the cancer epidemic.”

But that would be bad for business. The solution? Promote endlessly the notion that genes and only genes are at the root of cancer.

The big picture? The big con? Imagine a world drowning in pollution of all kinds, and top (bought-off) scientists saying: “Don’t worry, when it comes to cancer we’ve got it covered. Tweak this gene, tweak that gene, and poof, cancer never has a chance. Or if you get cancer, we can go in there and re-position crucial genes and knock out the disease. See, you can live in a chemical soup and never feel adverse effects…”

Genes. High-level, high-flying, high-minded, high-tech answers for the problems we face.

What? The science isn’t solid? The propaganda is wall-to-wall? The shills are everywhere? Don’t worry, be happy. The best minds will come up with solutions. Just wait and see. The great discoveries are right around the corner.

And I have condos for sale on Jupiter.

Step right up.

You can see the same kind of genetic hustle when it comes to autism, which many researchers, based on no real evidence, claim is “surely a genetic disease.”

This assertion covers up the fact that happy and healthy children, soon after receiving a vaccination, experience devastating neurological damage, leading to a diagnosis of autism.

But don’t go there, don’t look there, don’t talk about vaccines. No, instead, listen to the ascendant experts, who say it was just a coincidence that a vaccine was given and a child’s life was destroyed. You see, what really happened was: an errant gene response kicked in at the same moment. Nothing to do with the vaccine. Certainly not.


the matrix revealed


In actuality, the dominant paradigm of this world’s power structure is: float cover stories.

Sell big cover stories and keep selling them. Use them to conceal ongoing crimes.

“It’s the genes” is the latest and greatest cover.

Some of the biggest, best-educated liars on the planet deploy it every day.

Here is the next big thing: genes injected, functioning as vaccines. The hype is over the top. Of course, scientists admit that these injected genes will incorporate themselves in the body and alter its genetic makeup permanently.

If you like and trust that idea, I have condos in the core of the sun for sale. Bargain prices.

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.