Shut down the FDA, start over

Shut down the FDA, start over

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2017

Vera Sharav, at ahrp.org, has posted a piece about an investigation headed by NYU Professor Charles Seife.

Seife and his students probed the work of the FDA, the federal agency tasked with approving medical drugs for public use.

Sharav: “FDA documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that the FDA has been concealing from the medical community and the public serious research misconduct; including fraud, deception, avoidable risks for human subjects — even deaths — that occurred in clinical trials [of medical drugs].”

Professor Seife (from his article at Slate magazine): “Reading the FDA’s inspection files feels almost like watching a highlights reel from a Scientists Gone Wild video. It’s a seemingly endless stream of lurid vignettes—Faked X-ray reports. Forged retinal scans. Phony lab tests. Secretly amputated limbs. All done in the name of science when researchers thought that nobody was watching.”

“That misconduct happens isn’t shocking. What is: When the FDA finds scientific fraud or misconduct, the agency doesn’t notify the public, the medical establishment, or even the scientific community that the results of a medical experiment are not to be trusted. On the contrary. For more than a decade, the FDA has shown a pattern of burying the details of misconduct. As a result, nobody ever finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which drugs might be on the market under false pretenses.”

“The FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud not just from the public, but also from its most trusted scientific advisers, even as they were deciding whether or not a new drug should be allowed on the market. Even a congressional panel investigating a case of fraud regarding a dangerous drug couldn’t get forthright answers. For an agency devoted to protecting the public from bogus medical science, the FDA seems to be spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus science from the public.”

There is much more, but that taste should be enough to convince any sane person that the FDA is a rogue agency, dedicated to protecting and forwarding the profits of pharmaceutical companies.

In past articles, I’ve revealed that, every year in the US, FDA-approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans. This conservative assessment was made by Dr. Barbara Starfield, in her landmark July 26, 2000, review in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

In my 2009 interview with Dr. Starfield, she emphatically stated that she was aware of no systematic federal effort to fix this horrendous ongoing disaster.

In fact, the FDA had (until they removed it) a page on their own site which stated: “Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs (adverse drug reactions yearly.” “100,000 DEATHS yearly.” The FDA was highlighting the catastrophic effects of medical drugs they themselves were certifying as safe and effective. (Update: the slide presentation making these statements now found here.)

Of course, they took no responsibility.

This is on the order of a defendant saying, “Did I kill people? Well, if you look in that field over there, if you start digging, you’ll find a number of bodies. I know. I put them there. But I wasn’t really responsible. Why would you place me on trial?”

In a stunning interview with Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg (7/29/12), former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Kavanagh, exposed the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies:

Kavanagh: “…widespread racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation.”

“I was threatened with prison.”

“One [FDA] manager threatened my children…I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators.”

Kavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the agency who insisted the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.

But honest appraisal wasn’t part of the FDA culture, and Kavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.

What was his secret task at the FDA? “Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs.” In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.

Veterans of the Armed Forces, take note: Kavanagh remarked that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the later effects of nerve gas, “actually increased the lethality” of certain nerve agents.

Kavanagh recalled being given records of safety data on a drug—and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.

Getting the picture?

Anyone who believes the FDA can be fixed with a few adjustments to rules and a few personnel changes is whistling in the dark.

Talk about a swamp.

Nothing short of shutting down the Agency, fumigating the buildings, and starting over with actual humans in charge, humans who believe in human health, would work.

Scores of criminal prosecutions, convictions, and very long prison terms for current FDA employees would also be necessary.


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Here we go again: FDA Commissioner in pocket of Big Pharma

Here we go again: FDA Commissioner in pocket of Big Pharma

by Jon Rappoport

April 17, 2017

The excellent medical reporter, Martha Rosenberg, has written a piece at Salon: “The FDA Now Officially Belongs to Big Pharma.” Here are a few highlights:

“It is hard to believe only four senators opposed the confirmation of [the new FDA Commissioner]…[he] received money from 23 drug companies including the giants like Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Merck, Schering Plough and GSK…”

“[He] also lists financial links to Gambro, Regeneron, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Roche and other companies and equity positions in four medical companies. Gilead is the maker of the $1000-a-pill hepatitis C drug AlterNet recently wrote about. This is FDA commissioner material?”

Oh, wait. I’m sorry.

Gee whiz. How could I have made that mistake?

I must have been asleep. Wow. I apologize. Martha Rosenberg published that Salon article in February of 2016, and she was talking about Robert Califf, who had just been confirmed as the new FDA Commissioner.

Califf was nominated by Obama, not Trump. Oops.

Trump’s current nominee is Scott Gottlieb, who is apparently tasked with speeding up the FDA’s drug-approval process—a disaster in the making, given the fact that FDA-approved medical drugs already kill 106,000 Americans a year (a conservative estimate). Source: see Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

Here are a few quotes about Trump FDA-nominee Gottlieb from The Hill:

“But Gottlieb also faced criticism from groups that are concerned his ties to the drug industry could hurt the agency’s commitment to safety and efficacy.”

“He has longtime ties to the drug and medical industry after leaving the FDA in 2007.”

“He is currently a member of the product investment board for drug giant GlaxoSmithKline, and a member of the board of directors for MedAvante, Gradalis, and Glytec, which does work in medical technology.”

“Public Citizen blasted Gottlieb for taking what they said was hundreds of thousands of dollars from multiple drug and device companies between 2013 and 2015, mostly for consulting and speaking fees.”

Gee, he sounds a lot like Obama’s FDA Commissioner, Califf.

The beat goes on.

You would think these FDA Commissioners are hand-picked by pharmaceutical companies. But that’s impossible. That would never happen.

Certainly not.

If it did, we would be living in a parallel universe where corporations and government are colluding and partnering and decimating people with their medicines…

Instead of living in this universe, where the State and business are entirely separated.

Where all is well.


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Study: manipulating the brain to create honest behavior

Study: manipulating the brain to create honest behavior

Do you care if your brain is controlled in a good cause?

by Jon Rappoport

April 11, 2017

Medicalxpress reports: “Researchers at the University of Zurich have identified the brain mechanism that governs decisions between honesty and self-interest. Using non-invasive brain stimulation, they could even increase honest behavior.”

In an experiment involving rolling dice, where cheating would increase volunteers’ earnings, “researchers applied transcranial direct current stimulation over a region in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (rDLPFC). This noninvasive brain stimulation method makes brain cells more sensitive i.e., they are more likely to be active. When the researchers applied this stimulation during the task, participants were less likely to cheat.”

That result was only obtained with people who weighed moral choices. For volunteers who were wholly committed to cheating, the brain-manipulation had no effect.

This experiment reveals where brain research is going. Change the brain, change behavior. It’s a simple premise. It’s also a dangerous premise, because “greater good” is used as a justification for imposing ironclad behavior.

Of course, there are many people who can’t see consequences, who care nothing about free choice, who would favor this kind of societal control. They would say, “Increasing honesty is a good thing. It doesn’t matter how it’s done.”

In fact, these people would claim it’s extremely positive if people can’t act dishonestly, no matter how hard they try. So much the better.

Why not engineer civilization according to principles of good behavior? Lay down the principles, and then manipulate the brains of the population to obtain that desired result.

Everyone would “do good.” Except everyone would be a walking talking robot.

This distinction escapes a great many people. “What’s freedom anyway? What is this thing called free choice? Who cares?”

In fact, the medicalxpress article includes this gem: “the new [research] results raise the question to what degree honest behavior is based on biological predispositions, which may be crucial for jurisdiction. Michel Maréchal summarizes: ‘If breaches of honesty indeed represent an organic [brain] condition, our results question to what extent people can be made fully liable for their wrongdoings’.”

Why bother prosecuting cheats and liars and con artists and frauds? The perpetrators had no choice in the matter. They were controlled by their own brains. Instead, do away with the court system and treat these offenders. Change their brains. Then they’ll be honest. Substitute a good program for a defective program.

If you’re looking for a word to describe this heinous approach to human behavior and action, try technocracy. It posits the notion that society must be engineered by scientists. They define and plan the outcome, and they achieve it.

DARPA, the technical-research arm of the Pentagon, is leading the way in a mission to program the human brain.

What could go wrong?

In a word, everything.

For example, DARPA is deeply involved in developing the cortical modem, a little piece of equipment that costs about $10.

The gist? Insert proteins into neurons, and then beam photons into those proteins, thus creating image displays that bypass the normal channels of perception.

Virtual reality with no headset. The project is still in its early stages, but the direction is clear: give the “user” an image display beyond his ability to choose.

It’s touted as an overlay. The person, walking down the street, can still see the street, but he can also see what you give him, what you insert into his visual cortex. Of course, as the technology advances, you could take things further: block out physical reality and immerse the person in the virtual.

DARPA’s enthusiasm about this project, as usual, exceeds its current grasp, but its determination to succeed is quite genuine. And the money is there.

Here is a DARPA release (5/27/14) on the upcoming “brain-mapping” plan, in accordance with Obama’s initiative aimed at “preventing violence through improved mental health”—otherwise known as Clockwork Orange:

“…developing closed-loop therapies that incorporate recording and analysis of brain activity with near-real-time neural stimulation.”

Translation: Reading myriad brain activities as they occur, and influencing that activity with various inputs/interferences. Drugs, electrical currents, nano-entities, etc.

Here’s another DARPA quote. This one lays out the foundation for the brain mission:

“…The program also aims to take advantage of neural plasticity, a feature of the brain by which the organ’s anatomy and physiology can alter over time to support normal brain function. Plasticity runs counter to previously held ideas that the adult brain is a ‘finished’ entity that can be statically mapped. Because of plasticity, researchers are optimistic that the brain can be trained or treated to restore normal functionality following injury or the onset of neuropsychological illness.”

Neural plasticity: the idea that brain activity is always changing and, therefore, can be externally molded by operators to fit a conception of “normalcy,” whatever that is, whatever “authorities” decide it is.

Chilling? Of course.

In the long run, this has nothing to do with “recovery from brain injuries.” That’s the cover story. The real goal is programming the brain to fit certain parameters of functioning.

Those parameters will certainly exclude: rebellion, independence.

Here is a quote from a journal article, “The Plastic Human Brain Cortex.” (Annual Review of Neuroscience, Vol. 28: 377-401, July 2005)

“Plasticity is an intrinsic property of the human brain…The challenge we face is to learn enough about the mechanisms of plasticity to modulate them to achieve the best behavioral outcome for a given subject.”

“Modulate them.” “Achieve the best behavioral outcome.” Who defines that? Obviously, not the individual.

Notice the point of view: intervention is a given.

The brain will not be allowed to function on its own.

Behind all brain research lies that premise.

It’s no surprise that, in this technological age, the preferred method of mind control would involve an invasion by “experts.”

There are many, many brain-research professionals, and millions of laypeople, who believe that “intervention” is justified because it “corrects a chemical imbalance” in the brain. This is a myth.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the myth to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times (“Psychiatry’s New Brain-Mind and the Legend of the ‘Chemical Imbalance’”) (paywall) with this staggering and stark admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion [of mental disorders] was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”

No, intervention is all about brain control, not brain health.

What DARPA’s program entails is altering the fundamental relationship between you and your brain. That’s the bottom line.

The alteration will throw up roadblocks. It will shrink the sum of what your brain can do.

The ongoing DARPA brain-programming mission isn’t merely a two-year program or a five-year program. It’s permanent.

It’s the gateway to a controlled society.

And it’s perfectly understandable that this project would come from DARPA, which is an arm of the Pentagon, which is the foremost proponent of “military thought” in the world.

The military is interested in, and devoted to, the issuing of commands and obedience to those commands. Stimulus, response.

The military vision of society is: define the functions of each citizen, coordinate those functions to produce overall “harmony through obedience.”

Since this is the true definition of insanity, and since it is impossible to secure, over the long-term, enough voluntary cooperation to build such a civilization, the target is the brain.

Train the brain, train the collective.

Consider this analogy for you and your brain, and what the objective of programming is:

The rider and the horse. Previously, the rider took his horse far and wide. The rider went where he wanted to go. The horse was willing. But then something happened. The horse was altered, rebuilt. Now he could only move a mile in any direction from his starting point. At the boundary, he stopped. He turned around and returned home. That was the rule. The rider of course wanted to go farther. But the horse was no longer capable.

The “plasticity” of the horse was reduced.

The horse was now normal.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Grand deception in virus and disease research

Grand deception in virus and disease research

by Jon Rappoport

March 31, 2017

Public health officials usually fail to announce their reasons for claiming a particular virus causes a particular disease; they make those claims in an arbitrary authoritarian fashion.

In this article, I’m going to describe two vital steps in the process of proving a virus causes a disease. There are more steps, but these two will highlight a gaping problem.

I’m putting the information in a Q&A format:

Q: Let’s say researchers are claiming there is a new outbreak of a disease, or there is a disease they’ve never seen before. What’s their first step?

A: Most of the time, they assume a virus is the cause, rather than, say, a pesticide or a medical drug. They jump in and start looking for a virus.

Q: And when they find a virus?

A: Assuming they really do find one, they then look for correlation.

Q: What does that mean?

A: Let’s say they claim they’ve discovered 600 cases of the disease. They try to find the same virus in all those people. Because, if you say a virus causes a particular disease, you have to show that virus is present in all known cases of the disease—or an overwhelming percentage of cases, at the very least.

Q: That would be proof…

A: That would be one step of proof.

Q: Suppose, in these 600 cases, they can find the same virus in a hundred cases. Isn’t that pretty significant?

A: No. It isn’t. It means you couldn’t find the virus in 500 cases. And if that’s true, there is no reason to assume you have the right virus. In fact, it’s very strong evidence you don’t have the virus that’s causing the disease. It’s a compelling reason to go back to the drawing board. You say, “Well, we were wrong about that virus, let’s look for a different one.”

Q: All right. What if you do find the virus in 583 cases out of 600? Then what do you do?

A: You have to understand that the mere PRESENCE of the virus in all those cases ISN’T PROOF it’s causing disease. Lots of people walk around with the same virus in their bodies, but that virus isn’t causing them to get sick. You have to go further.

Q: Meaning?

A: Well, the next step would be finding that the 583 cases have a whole lot of the same virus in their bodies. A great quantity of virus. Not merely a trace. Not merely a little bit.

Q: Why?

A: Because cells in the body are reproducing all the time. If the amount of virus in the body is only infecting a tiny fraction of a particular type of cell, the virus isn’t going to cause a problem. The body is going to produce gigantic numbers of fresh uninfected cells every day.

Q: Do researcher carry out this kind of investigation? Do they assess how much virus is in a person’s body?

A: There are many situations where they don’t. For example, with the Zika virus, I see no evidence researchers examined many, many cases to see how much Zika was present.

Q: Why didn’t they?

A: You’d have to ask them. Perhaps they started to do that, and found there was only a tiny bit of Zika in the babies they examined, and they didn’t want to publicize the fact. They just wanted to assume Zika was the causes of babies being born with small heads and brain damage. But assuming isn’t proving.

Q: You’re talking about a major gap in research.

A: Yes.

Q: What method is used to decide how much virus is in a person’s body?

A: There are several methods. For example, the PCR test.

Q: What’s that?

A: With the PCR, you take a tiny, tiny sample of tissue from a patient. It’s so small you can’t observe it directly. You assume, you hope, you think this sample is a fragment of a virus. Now you amplify that fragment many times, until you can observe it, until you can (hopefully) identify it as the virus you claim is causing the disease…

Q: But that test wouldn’t tell you HOW MUCH virus is in the person’s body.

A: Many researchers believe the PCR allows you to infer how much virus is in a person’s body. I see no convincing evidence they can make such an inference. But also—you have to ask yourself, why did they do the PCR test in the first place? And the answer is: they couldn’t find, by more direct methods, any virus! If they had been able to, they wouldn’t have done the PCR. In other words, there was no reason to believe the patient had enough virus in his body to make him sick.

Q: Again, it seems there is a gaping hole in the research.

A: Indeed. But that doesn’t stop scientists from claiming they’ve found the virus that is causing a disease. I would cite two examples. In 2009, the CDC was embarrassed to learn that the overwhelming percentage of tests on Swine Flu patients were coming back from labs with NO TRACE of Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus. And in 2003, in Canada, more and more SARS patients were showing NO TRACE of the SARS virus.

Q: They would be enormous scandals.

A: They should have been enormous scandals, but the news was suppressed and buried.

Q: These people who were labeled with SARS and Swine Flu—what was really making these people sick?

A: There could have been a variety of causes. Don’t assume all so-called SARS or Swine Flu patients were sick for the same reason. The symptoms of these two illnesses were vague enough and general enough to have stemmed from a variety of causes. Since that’s the case, there was no reason to use the SARS and Swine Flu labels in the first place.

Q: The labels were a deception.

A: Yes. The labels group people together when there is no compelling reason to do so. But when you DO group people together with a disease label, you can sell drugs and vaccines designed to “treat the label.”


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Zika vaccine: watch out—it will alter your DNA

Zika vaccine: watch out—it will alter your DNA

Explosive details

by Jon Rappoport

March 24, 2017

First, I’ll lay out a little background—

In many previous articles, I’ve established there is no convincing evidence the Zika virus causes the birth defect called microcephaly. (Zika archive here)

Basically, Brazilian researchers, in the heart of the purported “microcephaly epidemic,” decided to stop their own investigation and simply assert Zika was the culprit. At that point, they claimed that, out of 854 cases of microcephaly, only 97 showed “some relationship” to Zika.

You need to understand that these figures actually show evidence AGAINST Zika. When researchers are trying to find the cause of a condition, they should be able to establish, as a first step, that the cause is present in all cases (or certainly an overwhelming percentage).

This never happened. The correlation between the presence of Zika and microcephaly was very, very weak.

As a second vital step, researchers should be able to show that the causative virus is, in every case, present in large amounts in the body. Otherwise, there is not enough of it to create harm. MERE PRESENCE OF THE VIRUS IS NOT ENOUGH. With Zika, proof it was present in microcephaly-babies in large amounts has never been shown.

But researchers pressed on. A touted study in the New England Journal of Medicine claimed Zika infected brain cells in the lab. IRRELEVANT. Cells in labs are not human beings. The study also stated that Zika infected baby mice. IRRELEVANT. Mice are not humans. And these mice in the lab had been specially altered or bred to be “vulnerable to Zika.” USELESS AND IRRELEVANT.

All this fraud set the stage for the Zika DNA vaccine. Yes, it is under development. It is, in fact, an example of the next generation of vaccines. And this is why you should watch out.

Here is an excerpt from a US National Institutes of Health press release (8/3/16) (here, here, and, the booster to the DNA vaccine here):

“The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health [NIH], has launched a clinical trial of a vaccine candidate intended to prevent Zika virus infection.”

“Scientists at NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center (VRC) developed the investigational vaccine — called the NIAID Zika virus investigational DNA vaccine — earlier this year.”

“The investigational Zika vaccine includes a small, circular piece of DNA — called a plasmid — that scientists engineered to contain genes that code for proteins of the Zika virus. When the vaccine is injected into the arm muscle, cells [in the person’s body] read the genes and make Zika virus proteins, which self-assemble into virus-like particles. The body mounts an immune response to these particles, including neutralizing antibodies and T cells. DNA vaccines do not contain infectious material — so they cannot cause a vaccinated individual to become infected with Zika — and have been shown to be safe in previous clinical trials for other diseases.”

SYNTHESIZED GENES ARE INJECTED INTO THE BODY.

That’s why it’s called a DNA vaccine.

Beginning to wonder what this is all about?

It’s about PERMANENTLY ALTERING YOUR DNA.

It’s about altering the DNA of every person on the planet who is vaccinated.

New York Times, 3/9/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” The article describes the frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was nearly two years ago.]

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.”

Alteration of the human genetic makeup.

Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence. And once a person’s DNA is changed, doesn’t it follow that he/she will pass on that change to the next generation of children, and so on, down the line?

The Times article taps Nobel laureate Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

By now you should be seeing the larger picture. A virus (Zika)…

Never proved to cause anything…

Becomes the occasion for developing and injecting a vaccine…

That is actually a group of synthetic genes…

Which will alter your DNA.


power outside the matrix

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


And that program implies the possibility of a far wider operation:

Covertly, any genes can be injected in the body and called vaccination. Untold numbers of experiments to alter human DNA can be run. Experiments to create more obedient and passive people, more intelligent and talented people, soldiers who have much higher pain thresholds and who will accept orders without thought or question…

And if you think that is science fiction, read these words from biophysicist Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine, to get a glimpse of what “the best and the brightest” are considering:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

Brave New World? Yes, if Brave means Insane.

(For more on the insanity at NIH, click here)

Jon Rappoport

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

What if you sell medicine that causes men to grow breasts?

What if you sell medicine that causes men to grow breasts?

Who’s reserving prison cells for Johnson & Johnson executives?

by Jon Rappoport

March 21, 2017

Who’s reserving the prison cells? The answer: no one.

These Johnson & Johnson execs are free and rich and powerful, although their crimes should have landed them in jail years ago.

And before I read the riot act, chapter and verse, let’s get something straight. Everybody’s talking about the Deep State? Well, Big Pharma is an essential part of the Deep State.

These princes are affecting, with toxic substances, the world population every day. All their lobbying efforts, all their behind-the-scenes political control guarantees they can continue to wage what amounts to chemical warfare on the public.

Today’s focus: Johnson & Johnson.

SCANDAL ONE: RISPERDAL.

March 8, 2017, ibtimes: “More than 100,000 patients are suing US group Johnson & Johnson, alleging that some of its products have caused them harm. They are claiming an antipsychotic medicine [Risperdal] has resulted in 18,500 men developing a condition known as gynecomastia, or breast swelling after taking the drugs as children.”

“Between 2016 and 2017, the number of lawsuits disclosed by J&J dramatically increased from 28,300 to 104,700, and along with it, the company’s legal costs, the Financial Times reports.”

“However, the troubles of J&J with Risperdal are not new. The company has been accused before of wrongly marketing the drug between 1999 and 2005, promoting it for uses not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration – including for the treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).”

“In 2013, this led to the company paying more than $2.2bn to settle investigations into its marketing of the drug and other products.”

“This includes the case of a couple awarded $70m last year by a jury in Philadelphia after their son developed gynecomastia at the age of five, and a man who received $2.5m after growing size 46DD ‘female breasts’.”

This isn’t the only problem associated with Risperdal. Psychiatrist and author of Toxic Psychiatry, Peter Breggin, writes: “On May 26, 2000, a jury in the circuit court of Philadelphia awarded $6.7 million to a patient afflicted with tardive dyskinesia caused by the neuroleptic (“antipsychotic”) drug Risperdal (generic name, risperidone). In Liss vs. Doeff, the jury found the psychiatrist negligent in his treatment of Mrs. Elizabeth Liss. The case is among the first involving Risperdal, a relatively new neuroleptic that was put on the market in 1994 and originally promoted as relatively free of the risk of tardive dyskinesia. Peter R. Breggin, M.D., referred the case to the attorneys and acted as a medical consultant throughout the case.”

“Ms. Liss developed tardive dyskinesia during a fourteen-month period of exposure to Risperdal as a maintenance treatment for manic-depressive (bipolar) disorder. In previous years, she had several relatively brief exposures to other neuroleptics.”

“Tardive dyskinesia is a movement disorder caused by neuroleptic or ‘antipsychotic’ medications. It can afflict any voluntary muscles of control. It can become severe and disabling, and there are no effective treatments…[NOTE:] Withdrawal from antipsychotic drugs can cause overwhelming emotional and neurological suffering, as well as psychosis in both children and adults, making complete cessation at times very difficult or impossible.”

Is that enough? There’s more.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SCANDAL TWO: TALC POWDER.

Ibtimes, 2017: “Other [Johnson & Johnson] drugs have also been blamed for causing harm to patients. More than 3,000 women have so far sued the company, claiming its talc powder caused them to develop ovarian cancer. They accuse J&J of failing to warn them about talc’s potential to increase the risk of ovarian cancer.”

“At the beginning of March, a St Louis jury rejected one of such lawsuits against J&J related to its talc-based products. However, other cases had previously been lost by the group. In February 2016, J&J was for instance ordered to pay out $72m to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer after using the firm’s products for years.”

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SCANDAL THREE: LEVAQUIN.

And then there was this—In 2012, Johnson & Johnson settled lawsuits against them for their antibiotic, Levaquin. FiercePharma writes:

“Johnson & Johnson ($JNJ) appears to be in settlement mode. It has knocked off some more pending litigation, having settled about 25% of the 3,400 lawsuits it faced tied to the dangers of taking antibiotic Levaquin…”

“In a filing in federal court, the drugmaker said it had agreed to settle, for an undisclosed sum, 845 of the legal actions brought by patients who claimed the drugmaker didn’t do enough to warn about the dangers of antibiotic Levaquin, which has been tied to tendon problems, Bloomberg reports. It said it is in negotiations to settle another 190 of the cases.”

“In 2008, the FDA required all makers of antibiotics that fell in the same class as Levaquin to add a ‘black box’ warning to the products that the fluoroquinolones were tied to higher risks of tendon ruptures.”

Medlineplus,gov spells it out further: “Taking levofloxacin [Levaquin] increases the risk that you will develop tendinitis (swelling of a fibrous tissue that connects a bone to a muscle) or have a tendon rupture (tearing of a fibrous tissue that connects a bone to a muscle) during your treatment or for up to several months afterward. These problems may affect tendons in your shoulder, your hand, the back of your ankle, or in other parts of your body. Tendinitis or tendon rupture may happen to people of any age, but the risk is highest in people over 60 years of age…Taking levofloxacin may cause changes in sensation and nerve damage that may not go away even after you stop taking levofloxacin…Taking levofloxacin may affect your brain or nervous system and cause serious side effects. This can occur after the first dose of levofloxacin.”

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SCANDAL FOUR: OVER-THE-COUNTER MEDICINES FOR CHILDREN AND INFANTS.

Let’s go even further back in time.

Washington Post, May 2, 2010: “A division of Johnson & Johnson is recalling 43 over-the-counter medicines made for infants and children — including liquid versions of Tylenol, Motrin, Zyrtec and Benadryl — after federal regulators identified what they called deficiencies at the company’s manufacturing facility.”

“The voluntary recall, which was announced late Friday by McNeil Consumer Healthcare [a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson], affects hundreds of thousands of bottles of medicine in homes and on store shelves throughout the United States and its territories and in nine other countries — a vast portion of the children’s medicine market.”

“In a statement, the company said: ‘Some of the products included in the recall may contain a higher concentration of active ingredient than is specified; others contain inactive ingredients that may not meet internal testing requirements; and others may contain tiny particles.’ It said the problems may affect ‘purity, potency or quality’.”

“This is at least the third major recall of Tylenol products by McNeil since 2008.”

“In January [2010], McNeil recalled 49 types of Tylenol products made for adults and two Tylenol products made for children after consumers complained of a mold-like odor and of temporary and minor nausea, stomach pain, vomiting and diarrhea. The company determined that some of the medicines had been contaminated by trace amounts of a chemical that is sometimes present on shipping and storage material.”

The NY Times, May 1, 2010, reported that Johnson & Johnson indicated the products might be contaminated with “tiny metal specks.”

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SCANDAL FIVE: HIP-REPLACEMENT RECALL.

Also, in 2010, Johnson & Johnson instituted a hip-replacement recall. Wikipedia: “On August 2009, 2010, DePuy, a subsidiary of American giant Johnson & Johnson, recalled its ASR (articular surface replacement) hip prostheses from the market…Pathologically, the failing prosthesis had several effects. Metal debris from wear of the implant led to a reaction that destroyed the soft tissues surrounding the joint, leaving some patients with long term disability. Ions of cobalt and chromium—the metals from which the implant was made—were also released into the blood and cerebral spinal fluid in some patients.”

“In March 2013, a jury in Los Angeles ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay more than $8.3 million in damages to a Montana man in the first of more than 10,000 lawsuits pending against the company in connection with the now-recalled DePuy hip.”

“Some lawyers and industry analysts have estimated that the suits ultimately will cost Johnson & Johnson billions of dollars to resolve.”

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SCANDAL SIX: 2010 SHAREHOLDERS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COMPANY.

Wikipedia: “In 2010 a group of shareholders sued the board for allegedly failing to take action to prevent serious failings and illegalities since the 1990s, including manufacturing problems, bribing officials, covering up adverse effects and misleading marketing for unapproved uses. The judge initially dismissed the case in September 2011, but allowed the plaintiffs opportunity to refile at a later time. In 2012 Johnson and Johnson proposed a settlement with the shareholders, whereby the company would institute new oversight, quality and compliance procedures binding for five years.”

SCANDAL SEVEN: THE JOHNSON & JOHNSON/BIEDERMAN AFFAIR.

From psychcentralcom: “The trickle of incriminating evidence against Dr. Joseph Biederman, a Harvard world-renowned child psychiatrist known for his advocacy of ‘pediatric bipolar disorder,’ has turned into a torrent — of emails and internal documents.”

“The New York Times reports, based upon the release of court documents containing internal documents and emails, that Dr. Biederman was allegedly paid by Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for his promotion of pediatric bipolar disorder and research into showing the efficacy of a [highly toxic and dangerous] drug used to treat it, Risperdal.”

“The Philadelphia Inquirer’s take: ‘Johnson & Johnson gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to a research center run by an influential child psychiatrist [Biederman] explicitly to generate data to help expand sales of the company’s antipsychotic drug Risperdal in children, according to court documents.”

Essentially, Biederman was the prime figure who convinced the psychiatric community that childhood bipolar disease was a real condition—and then took money to promote drug treatment for it, including Risperdal, a Johnson & Johnson drug. Johnson & Johnson paid Biederman to run a research center that would help the company market and sell the drug.

Note: there is no defining physical test of any kind that diagnoses pediatric bipolar disease. No blood test, urine test, brain scan, genetic assay.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SCANDAL EIGHT: NOBODY GOES TO PRISON.

The assessed fines for scandals and crimes haven’t put the company out of business. Not by a long shot.

These Johnson & Johnson executives roam free.

What would they have to do to find themselves behind bars for 20 years?

Carpet-bomb the US?


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Trump seeks to slash $6 billion from gov’t. medical research: why not more?

Trump seeks to slash $6 billion from gov’t medical research: why not more?

by Jon Rappoport

March 21, 2017

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH), a federal agency, is the largest medical research institution in the world.

Its 2010 budget was $30 billion. It employs 20,000 people.

Trump wants to cut $6 billion from its budget.

Here’s what you need to know: no one has ever done a comprehensive investigation of the results of NIH’s research over the years. No one has done a proper assessment of its value.

If NIH were a corporation, it would have undergone numerous assessments of its products. But government work is different. There are no standards. “We’re trying our best” is good enough. Especially when in-house PR flacks with media connections trumpet “breakthroughs” and “upcoming innovations right around the corner.”

Back in 1987, I interviewed Jim Warner, a White House policy analyst in the Reagan administration. Warner told me he had to pull rank to even get through and talk to scientists at NIH.

“These guys [at NIH] assume that it’s their show. They just assume it,” he said. He was referring to the then-current research on AIDS.

I suggested that someone should do an overall investigation of NIH, to see how valuable its research had proved to be over the past 20 years. He agreed. He said he hadn’t thought of that, and it was a good idea.

Of course, it never happened.

The situation at NIH is preposterous. If you owned a company that made parts for planes, wouldn’t you do quality control? Wouldn’t you want to know how well those plane parts were performing in the real world?

Let’s take one area, out of the 27 separate NIH centers that do medical research: NCI, the National Cancer Institute. How is the War on Cancer going?

From The Skeptical Inquirer, Jan.-Feb. 2010, author Reynold Spector:

“…Gina Kolata [reporter] pointed out in The New York Times [2009] that the cancer death rate, adjusted for the size and age of the population, has decreased by only 5 percent since 1950…She argues that there has been very little overall progress in the war on cancer.” (see here and here)

Author Spector points out how researchers can manipulate results to create the impression that cancer treatment is becoming more successful: “…there are several types of detection bias. First, if one discovers a malignant tumor very early and starts therapy immediately, even if the therapy is worthless, it will appear that the patient lives longer than a second patient (with an identical tumor) treated with another worthless drug if the cancer in the second patient was detected later. Second, detection bias can also occur with small tumors, especially of the breast and prostate, that would not harm the patient if left untreated but can lead to unnecessary and sometimes mutilating therapy.”

Spector discusses prostate cancer: “…prostate cancer therapy also presents a serious quandary. At autopsy, approximately 30 percent (or more) of men have cancer foci in their prostate glands, yet only 1 to 2 percent of men die of prostate cancer. Thus less than 10 percent of prostate cancer patients require treatment. This presents a serious dilemma: whom should the physician treat? Moreover, recently, two large studies of prostate cancer screening with prostate specific antigen (PSA) have seriously questioned the utility of screening. In one study, the investigators had to screen over a thousand men before they saved one life. This led to about fifty “false positive” patients who often underwent surgery and/or radiation therapy unnecessarily (Schröder et al. 2009). The second study, conducted in the United States, was negative (Andriole et al. 2009), i.e., no lives were saved due to the screening, but many of the screening-positive patients with prostate cancer were treated. Welch and Albertson (2009) and Brawley (2009) estimate that more than a million men in the U.S. have been unnecessarily treated for prostate cancer between 1986 and 2005, due to over-diagnostic PSA screening tests. In the end, screening for prostate cancer will not be useful until methods are developed to determine which prostate cancers detected by screening will harm the patient (Welch and Albertson 2009; Brawley 2009).”

What about so-called smart drugs for cancer? Spector: “Smart drugs are defined as drugs that focus on a particular vulnerability of the cancer; they are not generalized but rather specific toxins. But the Journal of the American Medical Association (Health Agencies Update 2009) reports that 90 percent of the drugs or biologics approved by the FDA in the past four years for cancer (many of them smart drugs) cost more than $20,000 for twelve weeks of therapy, and many offer a survival benefit of only two months or less (Fojo and Grady 2009).”

Spector cites an example of such a smart drug: “The FDA has approved bevacizumab…Since the median survival of colorectal cancer is eighteen months, bevacizumab therapy would cost about $144,000 (in such a patient) for four months prolongation of survival (Keim 2008)…Moreover, bevacizumab can have terrible side effects, including gastrointestinal perforations, serious bleeding, severe hypertension, clot formation, and delayed wound healing (PDR 2009)…bevacizumab is at best a marginal drug. It only slightly prolongs life, demonstrable only in colorectal cancer, has serious side effects, and is very expensive.”

Cancer research at NIH is plunging ahead, of course. If we could be sure these scientists are on the right track, and their failures and shortcomings are wholly owing to the fact that cancer is such a tough problem, then perhaps they should be funded for their ongoing work.

But that is not the case.

The scientists themselves tell us they’re on the right track. That is the only assurance we have.

I’m fully aware of much cancer research that has taken place outside the mainstream over the past hundred years. In this article, I’m not exploring those efforts. I’m making the point that NIH is flying without navigation tools and pretending they are preeminent princes. WITH NO COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF NIH’S WORK FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS—we are not looking at science.

We are looking at an unaccountable boondoggle—and the brutal effects of conventional treatment.

Trump wants to slash $6 billion from the NIH budget? That’s a start.

But a truly sane approach would result in shutting the place down with NO funds for research, until a truly independent body figures out what the hell has been going on there.

As a reporter who has been investigating deep medical fraud and harm for the past 30 years, I can assure you the scandals that would slither out of deep corners at NIH would fry the brains of the average American.

Just one example: leading researchers, in the mid-1980s, took a failed, highly toxic, chemo drug called AZT off their dusty shelves and decided it was their best shot at treating AIDS. AZT attacks all cells of the body. It decimates bone marrow, where cells of the immune system are manufactured. And this drug became the treatment for AIDS, whose hallmark was: depletion of the immune system. AZT was the medical version of Vietnam: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it…”


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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