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.

Swallow glass and paint with your medicine, it’s good for you

Swallow glass and paint with your medicine, it’s good for you

by Jon Rappoport

March 15, 2017

Medical-drug contamination. It’s not a great advertisement for manufacturers. And then there are the patients…

From FiercePharma (7/20/16) (see also here): “The handwriting was on the wall for a GlaxoSmithKline ($GSK) API [Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient] operation in the U.K. when the drugmaker recalled more than 425,000 Bactroban antibiotic products last fall after an FDA inspection. Now the extent of the problems at the facility have been laid out in a stern agency warning letter that cited it for penicillin cross-contamination, a problem that can lead to fatal drug reactions, as well as microbial contamination.”

(My comment: Fatal, as in death.)

“The FDA said it uncovered 187 instances of penicillin in nonpenicillin manufacturing areas in 3 1/2 years, and that GSK has still not updated its cleaning validation plan.”

(My comment: In those 3 ½ years, who knows how many doses of lethally contaminated drugs GSK put out to pharmacies and patients? And even after that time period, GSK was still manufacturing in a contaminated environment.)

“’Contamination of non-beta-lactam drugs with beta-lactam drugs presents great risks to patient safety, including anaphylaxis and death. No safe level of penicillin contamination has been determined to be a tolerable risk’,” the FDA warning letter points out.”

“But cross-contamination is not the only issue the FDA uncovered at the plant. The warning letter says that the plant has had ongoing issues with microbial contamination in the water used to make APIs. It said there had been 25 instances of breaches of the alert level in the 9 months between April 20, 2014 and Feb. 17, 2015.”

(My comment: How many breaches does it take before GSK wakes up? Or, does the company want to wake up?)

“Further, the inspectors said that in one API batch, GSK found green fibers that were probably from scouring pads, red flakes that might have been painted in the manufacturing plant and black particulates that were consistent with glass particles. While the GSK decided they were ‘acceptable intrinsic’ contaminates, the FDA was not satisfied…”

—end of FiercePharma excerpt—

GSK was saying that, ho-hum, green fibers, red paint flecks, and glass were just part of the day-to-day drug manufacturing process, and posed no problem. Well, not a problem for GSK. For consumers? That would obviously be a quite different story.

For people who are worried about the contents of vaccines, it’s also the drugs.

Here’s an historical note on vaccines. The history of contamination goes as far back as you want to reach:

“In this incident (Kyoto, Japan, 1948) – the most serious of its kind – a toxic batch of alum-precipitated toxoid (APT) was responsible for illness in over 600 infants and for no fewer than 68 deaths.”

“”On 20 and 22 October, 1948, a large number of babies and children in the city of Kyoto received their first injection of APT. On the 4th and 5th of November, 15,561 babies and children aged some months to 13 years received their second dose. One to two days later, 606 of those who had been injected fell ill. Of these, 9 died of acute diphtheritic paralysis in seven to fourteen days, and 59 of late paralysis mainly in four to seven weeks.” (Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization, Athone Press, University of London, 1967.)

Here’s another one: “Accidents may, however, follow the use of this so-called killed (rabies) vaccine owing to inadequate processing. A very serious occurrence of this sort occurred at Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, in 1960. No fewer than 18 out of 66 persons vaccinated with Fermi’s carbolized (rabies) vaccine suffered from encephalomyelitis and every one of the eighteen died.” (Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization.)

Contamination. Just part of the cost of doing business.

Actually, it lowers the cost of doing business.

As long as the devastating effects on actual people aren’t factored in.


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.

Explosive: a quick review of fake medical diagnostic tests

Explosive: a quick review of fake medical diagnostic tests

by Jon Rappoport

March 14, 2017

Over the years, during my investigations of deep medical fraud, I’ve uncovered diagnostic tests that are wrong-headed, misleading, and fallacious.

ONE: Antibody test. This is given to detect the presence of a specific germ in a human. However, prior to 1985, a positive test was generally taken as a sign of good health: the patient’s immune system detected the germ and defeated it. However, after 1985, public health agencies and doctors reversed field. They claimed a positive test showed the person was ill or was going to become ill. No true science backed up this claim.

In fact, a vaccine purportedly produces antibodies and, therefore, is said to confer immunity—but the very same antibodies, generated naturally by the body, signal illness. This is absurd.

TWO: The PCR test. The Polymerase Chain Reaction tests for the presence of virus in a patient. It takes a tiny sample, which technicians assume is a genetic piece of a virus far too small to observe, and amplifies it many times, so it can be identified. But in order to cause disease in a human, a huge quantity of virus (easily observed without the PCR) needs to be present. Therefore, a PCR test-result indicates nothing about disease—except that medical personnel couldn’t find enough virus in a person, to begin with, to assume the person was ill or would become ill.

THREE: MRI brain imaging. As I reported this morning, a significant bug in the software had been discovered in 2015. The software, not medical personnel, is responsible for creating the brain images. Therefore, 40,000 published papers relying on MRI results have been invalidated.

FOUR: All tests resulting in a diagnosis of any of the 300 officially certified mental disorders. There are no definitive tests. No blood, saliva, hair tests. No genetic assays. No brain scans. All so-called mental disorders are diagnosed on the basis of consulting menus of behaviors. This is pseudoscience.

FIVE: All tests designed to assess the effectiveness of vaccines. The only marker is: does the vaccine produce antibodies in a human. But antibodies are only one aspect of the immune system. They aren’t the whole picture. There are numerous studies that reveal vaccinated persons coming down with the disease against which they were supposedly protected.

Food for thought: “Publications by the World Health Organization show that diphtheria is steadily declining in most European countries, including those in which there has been no immunization. The decline began long before vaccination was developed. There is certainly no guarantee that vaccination will protect a child against the disease; in fact, over 30,000 cases of diphtheria have been recorded in the United Kingdom in fully immunized children.” (Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 58.)”

SIX: Unsupported claims from public health officials. No tests at all. For example, at the height of the so-called Swine Flu epidemic, in the fall of 2009, the CDC secretly stopped counting cases in America. Why? Because the overwhelming percentage of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, sent to labs, were coming back with no trace of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu. In other words, the epidemic was a dud and a hoax. Based on this vacuum of evidence, the CDC went on to estimate that, in America, there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu.

But don’t worry, be happy. Keep your mouth shut and obey all doctors’ orders.


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.

Scandal: MRI brain-imaging completely unreliable

Scandal: MRI brain-imaging completely unreliable

Fake news on a grand scale.

by Jon Rappoport

March 14, 2017

Over the years, I’ve exposed a number of medical diagnostic tests. For example, the antibody test was once taken as a sign of good health when it registered positive, but then it was turned upside down—a positive result was read as a signal of illness.

Now we have the vaunted MRI brain-imaging system.

From sciencealert.com (7/6/16): “There could be a very serious problem with the past 15 years of research into human brain activity, with a new study suggesting that a bug in fMRI software could invalidate the results of some 40,000 papers.”

“That’s massive, because functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is one of the best tools we have to measure brain activity, and if it’s flawed, it means all those conclusions about what our brains look like during things like exercise, gaming, love, and drug addiction are wrong.”

“It’s fascinating stuff, but the fact is that when scientists are interpreting data from an fMRI machine, they’re not looking at the actual brain. As Richard Chirgwin reports for The Register, what they’re looking at is an image of the brain divided into tiny ‘voxels’, then interpreted by a computer program.”

“’Software, rather than humans … scans the voxels looking for clusters’, says Chirgwin. ‘When you see a claim that “Scientists know when you’re about to move an arm: these images prove it,” they’re interpreting what they’re told by the statistical software’.”

“To test how good this software actually is, Eklund and his team gathered resting-state fMRI data from 499 healthy people sourced from databases around the world, split them up into groups of 20, and measured them against each other to get 3 million random comparisons.”

“They tested the three most popular fMRI software packages for fMRI analysis – SPM, FSL, and AFNI – and while they shouldn’t have found much difference across the groups, the software resulted in false-positive rates of up to 70 percent.”

“And that’s a problem, because as Kate Lunau at Motherboard points out, not only did the team expect to see an average false positive rate of just 5 percent, it also suggests that some results were so inaccurate, they could be indicating brain activity where there was none.”

“’These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies and may have a large impact on the interpretation of neuroimaging results’, the team writes in PNAS [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences].”

“The bad news here is that one of the bugs the team identified has been in the system for the past 15 years, which explains why so many papers could now be affected.”

“The bug was corrected in May 2015, at the time the researchers started writing up their paper, but the fact that it remained undetected for over a decade shows just how easy it was for something like this to happen, because researchers just haven’t had reliable methods for validating fMRI results.”

40,000 scientific papers invalidated. And from what I gather, not everyone is sure all the problems with MRI have been corrected.

Think about the bloviating—“We now know what the brain is doing when people are running and sleeping and eating…” No reason to have believed any of this.

And then there is Obama’s so called Brain Initiative, a program kicked off and funded after the Sandy Hook School catastrophe. At least some of the scientific work has been relying on MRI imagining. How much of that work needs to be thrown out?

In case you think invalidating 40,000 research papers isn’t a gigantic scandal, consider how many times these worthless papers have been cited as evidence in other studies. The ripple effect creates a tsunami of lies.

And for each one of those lies, there has been a researcher who, quite sure of himself and his reputation, made statements to the press and colleagues and students, promoting his findings.

Fake news? Now here is awesome fake news.


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.

Manufacturing consent in science: the diabolical twist

Manufacturing consent in science: the diabolical twist

by Jon Rappoport

March 8, 2017

“Science plays a larger and larger role in running the world. But much of it is misleading science, slanted, cooked, biased, stepped on, false, and invented out of thin air.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

In the famous 1988 Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman book, Manufacturing Consent, the authors explore how media distort the news and employ propaganda, in order to bring about consent in the population.

This is nothing less than the creation of reality.

From so many directions, official science is shaping our future—that’s why it’s vital to understand the manipulations involved.

It’s one thing to say media collaborate to sell a false picture of reality, a picture which is then bought by the masses. It’s quite another thing to say media collaborate to PRETEND there is ALREADY a consensus of the best professional minds on a given scientific subject—when there ISN’T.

I’ll start with a theoretical example. Let’s say three researchers at a university examine data based on US space shuttle missions, and they conclude that a small set of new conclusions is true. I’ll call this set X.

The researchers publish an article in a journal, and a healthy debate ensues in professional circles. Is X correct? Are there flaws in the research?

However, a powerful public agency decides that X is dangerous. X could lead to inquiries about contractors, investigations into cost overruns, missing money, and, worst of all, flawed engineering of the shuttles.

Therefore, this powerful agency goes on an all-out propaganda campaign, tapping its press sources, culminating in a new study that concludes X is entirely false.

The press basically trumpets: “Experts agree X is false. X was the result of shoddy research. The original researchers made numerous amateur mistakes.”

Notice that, in this case, the press isn’t simply distorting the news. It’s announcing that a superior consensus already/suddenly exists among the best scientific minds.

It’s lying about a consensus that doesn’t exist among scientists who, up until that moment, were having a healthy debate.

The press is presenting the false consensus as if it were real and widespread, when it isn’t.

But at this point, all relevant scientists get the message: keep quiet, don’t debate for another moment; otherwise grant monies will vanish, demotions will occur, peers will lay on heavy criticism, excommunication from The Club will follow.

So these scientists do keep quiet—and NOW a consensus among them comes into being, by implied threat and coercion.

This is basically what happened in the arena of energy-production via cold fusion. Wikipedia adequately summarizes the superficial situation: “The most famous cold fusion claims were made by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989. After a brief period of interest by the wider scientific community, their reports were called into question by nuclear physicists.”

Not just called into question; defamed, derided, mocked, slammed over the head with a sledgehammer.

A superior consensus was invented, despite the fact that many scientists were intensely interested in the Pons/Fleishmann findings. Some of these scientists tried, in vain, to point out that failed efforts to reproduce those findings resulted because researchers were altering Pons and Fleishman’s methods.

No dice. Cold fusion was labeled a giant error and even a fraud. The official door was closed. THEN a consensus hardened—through coercion and intimidation.

In my research leading up to the publication of my first book, AIDS INC., in 1988, I reviewed the period of the early 1980s, when many researchers were coming at the question of the cause(s) of AIDS from different angles. But then, suddenly, in the spring of 1984, the US government officially announced, at a televised press conference, that a virus called HTLV-III (HIV) was the cause.

The science was shoddy, to put it mildly. It was bad science and no science. There was no single published paper that meticulously laid out proof of HIV as the cause of AIDS. But no matter. Overnight, all the monies that had gone into discovering what caused AIDS were diverted into the question: How does HIV cause AIDS? Any scientist who failed to see the handwriting on the wall was shoved out into the cold.

The press closed ranks. The consensus (though it was manufactured in the blink of an eye) was trumpeted around the world.

The big news headline wasn’t just false and distorted. It was false-and-distorted about a consensus that, until a few seconds ago, didn’t exist—and only existed now because researchers went silent and accepted dogma and folded up.

Predatory corporations, who spray poisonous pesticides all over the world and cause birth defects, need special protection and cover? Public health agencies that recommend giving vaccines to pregnant women, and increase the risk of babies born with defects? Solution: invent, overnight, and broadcast, a consensus that a basically harmless virus is the cause of those tragic birth defects.

I can assure you there are many scientists who don’t, for a second, believe the Zika virus is such an agent of destruction. But they have kept their mouths shut, and have chosen to roll with the tide.

However, that tide is turning, in many arenas of science. Journalists and researchers with no allegiance to official bodies have emerged.

A different species of handwriting is being inscribed on the wall.

What can the mainstream press do about it?

They can only deploy the crass tactics I’ve mentioned here.

A massive and stunning re-education is taking place among the population. No school is running it. No agency is sponsoring it. It’s happening from the ground up.

It turns out that living as a cipher and a unit in the sticky web of fabricated consensus isn’t nearly as attractive as it once was.

More and more, major media are using the consensus strategy to invent the news—and people are rejecting it.

Without realizing it, the press is committing professional suicide. An article that was once headlined, “Three dead horses found in a field,” has become, “Scientists agree that the three dead horses were an unconnected coincidence.” And people are laughing the press out of court.

The ongoing scandal surrounding the film, Vaxxed (trailer), is a good example. The press assures the population that pointing out a connection between a vaccine and autism is absurd, because scientific experts agree there is no such connection.

But the film features a long-time researcher at the Centers for Disease Control, who confesses that he and colleagues falsified a 2004 study in order to exonerate such a vaccine, the MMR, which does increase the risk of autism.

One of the film’s subjects is false consensus.

And the press can do no better than repeat, over and over: the consensus is real and valid.

The CDC researcher and whistleblower, William Thompson, essentially said: I was part of the fake consensus. Don’t you get it? I was a card-carrying member of the club that invents fake consensus. And now I’m telling you that.

Bottom line: the media are collapsing into their own swamp.

The swamp they manufacture.

For decades, the press, government agencies, the UN, and a whole host of think-tank, foundation, university players, and financiers have been fronting for a consensus which they falsely claim is already established: planned societies.

They frame this consensus as technology/science—as if science itself dictates that the future must consist of interlocked organizations which insert citizens into slots. Slots where they live, where they work, where they socialize.

Abstract patterns, imposed on humans.

This has the flavor of science, but on reflection, not the substance. “We can make the top-down organization of society look scientific, as if we’re following physical laws. We can sell this as science.”

Really? Is a chart detailing how thousands of slaves will transport huge blocks of stone to chosen sites, where monuments will be built, scientific? Of course not.

In the modern world, this fakery is called technocracy. Technocracy may employ methods such as technological surveillance, but the overriding plan for organizing society has nothing to do with science. It has to do with control.

And when you see it that way, the supposed consensus falls apart.

Who wants to live in an assigned slot “for the greater good?”

Up close and personal, who wants to give up his freedom?

Review your understanding of Marxism. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” It, too, was sold as a scientific analysis of human society. It was imbued with the flavor of science, as if this Marxian principle had been discovered, just as molecules and atoms had been discovered.

And it too was promoted as an already-existing consensus among the wisest and the best and the brightest.


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.