New study: FDA-approved drugs are dangerous

New study: FDA-approved drugs are dangerous

As alarming as the study sounds, it’s a limited hangout—I’ll explain

by Jon Rappoport

May 11, 2017

It turns out every new medical drug should contain a warning: “The FDA approved this medicine. Watch out.”

Perhaps the warning should be more extreme: “If you’re taking this drug, have an emergency medical crew on stand-by.”

A new study, published in the Journal of American Medical Association, examined all 222 drugs approved by the FDA between 2001 and 2010. The finding? Years after approval, roughly a third of the medicines were then labeled with warnings about serious adverse effects; and some of those warnings indicated life-threatening complications. For example, cancer and liver damage. For example, death—which, the last time I looked, is life-threatening.

The Washington Post reports: “Among the drugs with added warnings [years after the drugs were approved, as safe, for public use]: Humira, used for arthritis and some other illnesses; Abilify, used for depression and other mental illness; and Pradaxa, a blood thinner. The withdrawn drugs [taken off the market] and the reason: Bextra, an anti-inflammatory medicine, heart problems; Raptiva, a psoriasis drug, rare nervous system illness; and Zelnorm, a bowel illness drug, heart problems.”

A pharma trade-group spokeswoman told the Post: “Even with rigorous clinical studies and regulatory review it may be impossible to detect certain safety signals until several years after approval, once the medicine is in broader use.”

No doubt. And that’s why the public is subjected to the luck of the draw, a roll of the dice, a spin of the roulette wheel.

Of course, as I never tire of pointing out, a landmark review (July 26, 2000) in the Journal of American Medical Association, by Dr. Barbara Starfield, found that, every year in the US, FDA approved drugs kill 106,000 people. Extrapolating to a decade, that would be a million deaths.

The new study confirms only a small part of the overall problem.

And the overall problem is what major media don’t want to report on—and what the federal government doesn’t want to touch with a 10-foot pole.

The new study is what intelligence agencies would call a limited hangout, which is a public admission of part of a problem or scandal that is, in fact, much bigger. The huge scandal, in this case, is the routine death-by-medicine numbers every year—which is ignored by the press and the government.

106,000 Americans killed by FDA approved medicines every year. That’s the big one. That remains hidden and unacknowledged.

NOTE: under Trump, the FDA is urged to speed up the drug-approval process. It’s good for business. For patients, it’s a disaster on top of the already existing disaster.


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.

The stunning secret behind the thousands of Xarelto lawsuits

The stunning secret behind the thousands of Xarelto lawsuits

by Jon Rappoport

May 8, 2017

(A note to my readers. My site, NoMoreFakeNews.com, is still down. We’ve pinpointed the problem, and we’re working to fix it. My blog, where I publish all my articles, is fine. And so is my email list. Feel free to sign up. Thanks for your patience and continued support. My work, as always, continues.)

Welcome to the circus, boys and girls. Parades, animals, acrobats, clowns, all colluding to approve lethal drugs for public use! Watch people take the drugs and fall down, watch them carted off in colorful cars to hospitals, where the doctors will have no idea what’s causing the life-threatening injuries! It’s wild, it’s crazy, and it’s brought to you by drug companies and their enablers at the FDA! It’s all covered by insurance. We’ve got cotton candy, popcorn, ice cream for the kiddies, and everybody can get in under the big tent! It’s the biggest game and the biggest hustle in town!

Recently, I wrote about the 18,000 lawsuits against Xarelto. Here is a quick recap:

The first court test of Bayer/J&J’s billion-dollar bonanza, blood-thinner, Xarelto, is coming up in New Orleans next week. The outcome will influence how the 18,000 lawsuits behind it will be handled.

The plaintiff in the first suit is Joseph Boudreaux. “While Xarelto was supposed to help cut his stroke risk, Boudreaux says it instead caused internal bleeding that required a week-long hospital stay in the intensive-care unit, several blood transfusions and multiple heart procedures. ‘I don’t want anybody else to suffer like I have from that drug,’ the part-time security guard says,” reports the Chicago Tribune.

Lawyers for Bayer and J&J will argue, in the main, that Xarelto was approved by the FDA as safe and effective.

This is the normal front-line strategy. “Well, the government says our drug is safe and effective, so what else do you want from us? We’ve done our duty. We’re off the hook.”

All right, that’s my recap.

BUT suppose the drugmaker and the government (FDA) both cheated and lied and committed multiple crimes, during the clinical trials of the drug leading up to its approval for public use?

It turns out someone has been investigating those clinical trials of Xarelto, and he has uncovered stunning secrets. His name is Charles Seife. He is a professor of journalism at New York University.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the 18,000 lawsuits against Xaraelto, take notice. This is information you want to have at your fingertips. Seife can provide many details—here I’m just presenting his overview.

Buckle up.

Professor Seife writes, at Slate, about the four human clinical trials of Xarelto. These were called the RECORD trials; RECORD 1, 2, 3, and 4:

“The problems were so bad and so widespread that, contrary to its usual practice, the FDA declared the entire RECORD study to be ‘unreliable.’ Yet if you look in the medical journals, the results from RECORD 4 sit quietly in The Lancet without any hint in the literature about falsification, misconduct, or chaos behind the scenes. This means that physicians around the world are basing life-and-death medical decisions on a study that the FDA knows is simply not credible.”

Seife is pointing out that the FDA never alerted The Lancet that the published report on the Xarelto clinical trials was false through and through.

Seife continues: “RECORD 2, for example, was nearly as awful as RECORD 4: Four out of 10 sites that the FDA inspected showed evidence of misconduct, or other issues grave enough to render the site’s data worthless—including clear evidence of data falsification at one site. In aggregate, these problems raise serious doubts about the quality of all four key rivaroxaban (Xareltio) studies—and, by extension, doubts about how seriously we should take the claim that rivaroxaban is safe and effective. The FDA is keeping mum, even as wrongful-death lawsuits begin to multiply.”

“The sworn purpose of the FDA is to protect the public health, to assure us that all the drugs on the market are proven safe and effective by reputable scientific trials. Yet, over and over again, the agency has proven itself willing to keep scientists, doctors, and the public in the dark about incidents when those scientific trials turn out to be less than reputable. It does so not only by passive silence, but by active deception.”

Basically, Seife is stating that the FDA found horrendous distortions in the clinical trials of Xarelto—and yet the agency approved the drug, as safe and effective, for public use.

—And then people taking the drug began to experience dire “adverse effects,” like uncontrolled bleeding.

And now we have 18,000 lawsuits against Xarelto’s parents, Bayer and J&J.

What about lawsuits against the FDA? That’s a tougher hill to climb for lawyers. Because the FDA is “the government.”

I’ve written many articles about the criminal agency called the FDA (article archive here). For stark revealing light, consider an interview relentless medical reporter, Martha Rosenberg, conducted with an FDA employee, whose job was reviewing new drugs and offering an assessment of their safety and efficacy, prior to agency approval or rejection.

Here is what I wrote in one piece:

In a stunning interview with Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Kavanagh, exposes the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies.

Kavanagh: “…widespread [FDA] 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 that 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.

That’s what I wrote, and considering what has happened in the case of Xarelto, Kavanagh’s statements take on very specific meaning:

The FDA colludes with a drug manufacturer to hide the dangers of a new drug that should never have been approved.

The drug is approved.

The drug assaults people and causes grievous harm.

Based on this article, and many others I’ve written exposing the FDA, I would say the agency is in charge of internal and domestic chemical warfare against the American people.

There. Is that clear enough?

Update—the first lawsuit against Xarelto, in New Orleans, has just been decided by a jury. They have ruled in favor of the drug companies, Bayer and J&J, and against the plaintiff, Joseph Boudreaux.

The major (narrow) issue in the case seems to have come down to this: did the drug companies failed to warn physicians about bleeding risks associated with Xarento?

The jury said Bayer and J&J DIDN’T FAIL TO WARN.

End of story.

The madness continues.

This is what happens when plaintiffs’ lawyers are too dim to see the big picture I presented in this article—or when a presiding judge keeps denying the right to introduce relevant evidence against a drug.

What about the 18,000 Xarelto lawsuits against Bayer and J&J that are waiting in the wings? Right now, the plaintiffs’ lawyers are scrambling to re-think their strategies.

It’s possible that, eventually, all 18,000 cases will be settled, not tried in court. If that happens, the people who have been damaged by Xarelto could each receive a minimal payout for their suffering.

NOTE TO PLAINTIFFS’ LAWYERS: Reveal, in court, the criminal collusion between the FDA and Bayer and J&J. Expose the crimes they committed in order to get the highly dangerous Xarelto approved for public use in the first place—when it should have been rejected and all the stocks destroyed.

Put THAT in front of a jury.


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.

Why isn’t there a medical Edward Snowden?

Why isn’t there a medical Edward Snowden?

by Jon Rappoport

May 4, 2017

The US press is aware that medically caused death is the third leading cause of death in America. But nothing happens in their elite corner of the “information age.”

For years, I’ve been pointing out that the medical apparatus is best-protected structure in the US and the world.

One piece of evidence for that statement: we haven’t had, symbolically speaking, a medical Edward Snowden. Indeed, if you go to WikiLeaks or some other source that routinely exposes leaks, you’ll be hard pressed to find anything substantial about the inner workings of what I call the medical cartel.

And when I say inner workings, I mean memos, emails, and other documents that irrevocably reveal:

* How medical studies are routinely twisted and cooked to achieve a predetermined outcome in contradiction to the facts;

* How virus-hunters casually claim to have discovered “the virus” that causes a disease, when they have not followed standard procedure, and are merely making insupportable and self-serving assumptions;

* How researchers ignore evidence that a “new disease” is indistinguishable from an old disease that has been on the scene for decades or even longer; there is money in new diseases;

* How medical drugs are having grave toxic effects on patients and delivering no visible results;

* How government health officials are conspiring with drug companies to bring medicines to market, despite the fact that there is every reason to assume the drugs are worthless and destructive;

* How public health agencies, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies cover up the widespread harm vaccines are causing;

* How fake epidemics are launched to convince the public that they must follow prescribed vaccination schedules.

These are just a few of the many issues we would expect an insider to expose in blowing the whistle. We would expect to see these issues (crimes) revealed in numerous and detailed and irrefutable paper trails.

What the CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, exposed in 2014 (see the film Vaxxed) mainly concerned one study that falsely exonerated one vaccine (the MMR) from a role in causing autism. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Over the years, I’ve gone after the medical cartel from many angles. There is a surprising amount of open-source material. I have also interviewed medical “dissidents,” doctors who have left the fold and are ready to talk. And using straightforward logic, I’ve discovered deep flaws in spurious medical arguments, and those flaws have led to deeper flaws and lies.

I could easily do a week-long course for honest and independent medical reporters on what I’ve found and how I’ve found it. Connecting the dots often requires a prior knowledge of basic fallacies in the medical framework of “knowledge.”

I have never encountered a medical insider who had access to miles and miles of damning data and was prepared to release it to the world.

Understand: I’m NOT talking about practicing physicians who are willing to talk about medical lies. I’m talking about people who are buried deep in the heart of the pharmaceutical/government agency/research establishment, who are ready to step forward with documents that turn the establishment upside down, as a matter of duty to their various oaths.

This absence of deep insiders speaks to the wall that has been built around the medical cartel. We’re not just talking about insiders’ fear of going public. We’re talking about more. For example, the refusal of major media to cover deep revelations that threaten to torpedo the whole medical structure. A potential whistleblower pauses for thought in the face of that. He could risk everything, and then—silence from the press. No “Snowden coverage.” There would be unanimous press attacks on his person, accusations that the documents are forged or inconclusive, and he is mentally unbalanced. Accusations that he is preventing people from believing in a system that saves lives every day. And so on and so forth.

But that isn’t the end of it. The wall around the medical cartel is, in its origin, a Rockefeller wall. Modern medicine is a Rockefeller production, jump-started in the early 20th century with the famous Flexner Report. On the basis of the Report, medical systems devoted to discovering and treating disease were gradually transformed into a machine that routinely kills 225,000 Americans a year—and that is a conservative estimate.

Rockefeller influence is no small thing.

The march to include every human on the planet under the umbrella of modern diagnosis and treatment is relentless. It is part and parcel of an agenda to weaken, debilitate, confuse, control, and destroy populations. I do not make that statement lightly.

I have shown, in past investigations, that medical-cartel players are surely aware of the damaging effects of their drugs, and yet, for decades, they have stood by and done nothing. The profit motive is one thing; but this is, at the least, indifference to human suffering and death. You could call it reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, but these are euphemisms for assault with deadly weapons (the drugs) and murder.

You could say the reason medical insiders do not step forward and reveal key data is fear for their own lives; but this is true of whistleblowers in other professions who do step forward.

Suppose Edward Snowden, considering a plan to obtain and leak NSA data, felt strongly that the leaks would have no effect, that his revelations would be blacked out by the mainstream press, that no mainstream reporters would take his material and publish it?

Suppose there was no Glenn Greenwald to come to Snowden’s aid? Suppose the NSA had such a powerful propaganda arm that the public was utterly convinced the Agency was an angel with wings and was saving countless lives through its technology? Suppose, the public believed every act of NSA spying was comparable to doctors in an emergency room putting an accident victim back together after a car crash?

Snowden would have paused for thought. He would have wondered deeply about whether his leaks would have any effect at all.

Let me give you an example. For years, I have been writing articles about medically caused death in America. One of the key studies I’ve cited is decidedly mainstream. It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered and honored public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Starfield concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.

That would extrapolate to 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.

Aside from a brief flurry of mainstream press articles that followed Dr. Starfield’s publication, in 2000, the press has been silent. My articles, which have been published at my site and other independent sites, have garnered no mainstream attention. Zero.

I’m not complaining. I’m merely pointing out the degree of mainstream censorship. The medical cartel has great influence.

A medical Edward Snowden, observing the media landscape, would have every reason to pause and consider his options. Why would he risk his reputation, his job, his paycheck, his future, his life, if the cartel he is exposing is so well protected that nothing would come of his bravery?

This is one reason why I write articles about the expanding power and influence of independent media. The day may come, and soon, when a medical Edward Snowden realizes he doesn’t have to find an editor at the New York Times who will look at his treasure trove of data and consider publishing it. Instead, he can pass along that data to any one of a hundred independent media operations and strike gold.

Or he can simply dump all the data on to a site he himself has created, comfortable in the knowledge that these same independent media sources will pick up the data, analyze it, and launch an unstoppable attack on the medical cartel.

Not one day’s coverage. A month, a year of coverage.

Operation Relentless Medical.

Then, the blind spot obscuring medical crimes will recede and vanish.

The public will no longer feel queasy about these revelations; the public will not feel they are witnessing a despicable attack on a wonderful messiah who has come to save the planet.

Eventually, the public will be able to make the distinction between emergency/crisis medicine, where competent and careful doctors (not sloppy and ignorant doctors) can save the lives of people who are lying on streets, after car wrecks, who need to be put back together—the public will be able to separate that from long-term fake medicine, where people are falsely diagnosed and drowned in toxic drugs which create a whole array of new symptoms which are then criminally diagnosed as new medical conditions, leading to the prescription of even more toxic drugs…all the way to the grave.

The public will understand how unnecessary and dangerous surgeries, and unnecessary and poisonous vaccines, are being foisted on them and those they love.

The public will understand. And will rise up.

This is not a pipe dream, if independent media continue to expand, and if they realize revelations of deep medical crimes are at least as important as exposures about the military industrial complex or the spying systems of national governments, or corporate pollution, or high-level money manipulation.

True medical insiders will step forward and reveal the secrets of the Temple.

I assure you, if we are alert, we are far more important and effective than “they” are.

A new day has dawned.

The sun is coming up.


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.

England’s failure in the war on cancer: lunacy on parade

England’s failure in the war on cancer: lunacy on parade

by Jon Rappoport

May 2, 2017

“In the long, long run, the medical cartel is Globalism’s most important component. It pacifies populations through poisons called medicines. And the propaganda wing of the cartel is so successful that citizens, watching the news at night, seeing men in white coats descending from a plane into a Third-World country, ready to treat people suffering from starvation and sewage piped directly into the drinking water, believe this is a humanitarian mission—as if drugs or vaccines could cure starvation.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

How would you assess these outcomes? The drugs failed to prolong life for more than a few months. The drugs were highly toxic and harmed the patients. Prior clinical trials of the drugs showed no appreciable benefits, but the drugs were released for public use anyway.

World pharmacy news reports a stunning study: “Analysis of the drugs that were approved for use by the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) in England has shown that the fund was not good value for patients and society and may have resulted in patients suffering unnecessarily from toxic side effects of the drugs.”

“In a study published in the leading cancer journal Annals of Oncology, researchers led by Dr Ajay Aggarwal, academic clinical oncologist at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (UK), and Professor Richard Sullivan, director of the Institute of Cancer Policy, King’s College London (UK), looked at 29 drugs that had been approved for use through the CDF in January 2015 for 47 specific cancer conditions (or indications).”

“Of these [cancer] indications, only 18 (38%) were based on clinical trials that reported a statistically significant benefit from the drugs in terms of patients’ overall survival; the (median) average overall survival benefit was 3.2 months, ranging from 1.4 months to 15.7 months.”

“When other factors such as quality of life and toxic side effects of the drugs were considered as part of criteria developed by oncologists to measure value to patients, the majority of the drugs failed to show any evidence of meaningful clinical benefit. In fact, the researchers say the benefit to patients in ‘real world’ situations was probably even less than that found in the clinical trials, since clinical trial participants are carefully selected, have fewer other health problems and tend to be younger than patients not included in trials.”

The inferences from this great failure are clear. People in important positions wanted the drugs to be released for public use, regardless of the fact that they were destined to fail, as evidenced by prior clinical trials.

Benefits (profits) for the drug companies outweighed any interest in the welfare of the patients.

The researchers in the project had to keep busy doing something—and if that meant imposing highly toxic drugs on patients, because useful treatments were not forthcoming from the drug companies—so be it.

It adds up to reckless disregard, indifference to human life, and a willingness to torture patients (with the toxic drugs) to squeeze out a few statistically meaningless “survival” numbers on charts.

Those researchers actively leading and participating in the British grand experiment could see the handwriting on the wall (failure to alleviate suffering), but it didn’t matter: to them, the patients weren’t humans.

These are the same arrogant “watchdogs” who condemn natural health treatments as dangerous and irresponsible.


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.

Famous medical-journal editor torpedoes medical journal

Famous medical-journal editor torpedoes medical journal

by Jon Rappoport

May 1, 2017

“There is a system designed to affect every human on the planet, from cradle to grave. For each person, I’m talking about 30 or 40 diagnoses of physical and mental conditions, many of which are false; and treatment with toxic chemicals that progressively debilitate, confuse, weaken, and destroy health and life. What would you call this system? Who would you blame?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Her name is Dr. Marcia Angell.

During her 20 years of work, she looked at, perused, and analyzed more medical studies than all mainstream science bloggers in the world put together.

You want to listen to an actual pro? Listen to her:

Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, in the NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

Before you count Dr. Angell as a hero, consider this: why didn’t she blow the whistle loud and clear while she was editing The New England Journal? Why didn’t she burn her own Journal down to the ground? After all, she was publishing studies of clinical trials of new drugs, and those fake studies were praising the drugs as safe and effective.

And therefore, The New England Journal was aiding and abetting a crime—unleashing dangerous and ineffective drugs on the public.

Her Journal was responsible for that.

Yes, the dreaded R word. Responsibility. In many circles these days, it’s not a popular term.

Take drug companies, for example. As I wrote in a recent piece, when lawsuits are launched against these companies for making drugs that kill and maim, the standard defense is: “Don’t blame us. The FDA approved our medicine as safe and effective. We’re off the hook. We’ve discharged our responsibility.”

Really? Who created the drug in the first place? Who did the clinical trials? Who sells the drug?

There’s an either-or situation here. It needs to be exposed. It goes this way: Either the pharmaceutical company or the FDA is responsible for people dying. You can’t accuse both. Pick one.

That’s a fool’s game. Both entities are responsible; the company that created the drug and the FDA who approved it and certified it as safe and effective. (And the medical journals that published the crooked studies of clinical trials are also responsible.)

The FDA seal of approval doesn’t automatically exonerate the company. “Well, the government said our company’s drug was fine.” So what? Since when does the government have the last word? Would you say the US military-industrial complex is solely the responsibility of the government, and the defense contractors play no role in launching endless wars? That would be naïve to the extreme.

As my readers know, because I’ve cited the key review dozens of times, pharmaceutical drugs kill 106,000 Americans every year. That’s a conservative mainstream estimate. (See Dr. Barbara Starfield, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”)

All those drugs are approved as safe and effective by the FDA. They’re also created, developed, tested, and sold by drug companies. Anyone with a shred of understanding of RESPONSIBILITY would correctly point to the FDA AND the drug companies. (And medical journals.)

Therefore, a company arguing in court that they’re off the hook for killing people with their drugs, because the FDA approved them, is evading responsibility and trying to shift it to the government. And an honest judge and a reasonably intelligent jury would recognize that in a minute.

From the drug company’s point of view, there is a game going on. The company is doing whatever it can to please and satisfy the FDA, and if it can, then it can walk away without shouldering blame.

Obscuring one’s own responsibility is one of the major industries in any nation you care to examine. The numbers of people involved, the amount of money, the time, energy—this is a field of endeavor that expands every year.

A simple law would go a long way toward righting the ship: “A government certification of a product does not exempt the creator, developer, and seller of the product from facing legal action in criminal and civil court.”

From the street thug, to the highest corporate boardroom, to professional academic fabricators, the theme is the same: “It wasn’t me.”

Oh yes it was. And is.

Let’s break down the word-origin of “responsible.” “Respond” comes from the Latin. “Re”=“again.” “Spondere”=“to pledge.” This construction eventually morphed into: pledging again for one’s actions, standing behind one’s actions, re-affirming one’s actions. And finally, “responsible” also means “legally accountable.”

—As opposed to attributing the cause of one’s action to someone else.

“I defend my actions by claiming: ‘it wasn’t me’, someone else was in charge, someone else decided my actions were correct.”

No. Not even close.

Of course, the US Dept. of Justice isn’t interested in any of these matters. If they were, they would be arresting drug company executives and researchers, FDA executives and drug-reviewers, and medical-journal editors who permit the publication of obviously fake studies of new drugs.

Understand: When you have medical drugs killing 106,000 Americans a year, this necessarily implies that published studies of clinical trials of those drugs—studies that praise those drugs as safe and effective—are a rank fraud.

Medical journals, the FDA, drug companies (and doctors)—a club. And each member of the club is responsible. Accountable. Culpable.

The next time a doctor, or some “science blogger” who loves mainstream published studies, sounds off about “real science,” show them this piece. And if they say that Dr. Marcia Angell is just one medical-journal editor, point them to the following:

Richard Horton (another pro’s pro), editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…”

Two famous editors (Angell and Horton) of two of the most prestigious medical journals in the world torpedo their own corrupt practices.

And if that isn’t enough to put a dent in some potato-head, conventional, medical devotee, then just keep going with this, by the same Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet (from the same piece I just quoted:

Horton makes reference to a recent symposium he attended at the Wellcome Trust in London. The subject of the meeting was the reliability of published biomedical research. His following quote carries additional force because he and other attendees were told to obey Chatham House rules—meaning no one would reveal who made any given comment during the conference.

Horton: “‘A lot of what is published is incorrect.’ I’m not allowed to say who made this remark [at the conference] because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in ‘purdah’—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations [biomedical science]”.

Conventional science bloggers, take notice. You’re working in a field where studies supporting the general consensus are tainted and stained.

Starting sentences with “the FDA approves” or “the CDC confirms” or “a study published in The New England Journal established” isn’t a ticket to the truth. Far from it.

You’re wading in a stench-ridden swamp, and you don’t know it; or you do know it and you don’t care, because you want to be part of the club; or someone is paying you to make absurd assertions. One way or another, you’re doomed if you follow the party line.

This is a much different landscape than you think it is. It’s a wholesale fabrication of what looks, sounds, smells, tastes, and feels like truth. But it isn’t. It’s a lying cartoon.

And it has vicious consequences for the health of the millions of people.


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.

New drug for rare childhood disease; price tag, $702,000 a year

New drug for rare childhood disease; price tag, $702,000 a year

And an explosive statement from the FDA

by Jon Rappoport

May 1, 2017

by Jon Rappoport

The FDA has just approved a new drug, Brineura, for a rare childhood brain-disease known as CLN2, which progresses quickly and is considered fatal.

BioMarin, the drug’s manufacturer, has pegged the yearly price of the drug for a patient at an astronomical $702,000. Discounts will be offered—the average annual price for the patient will come down to $486,000.

While recovering from the pricing shock, consider this statement from the FDA: “Brineura is the first FDA-approved treatment to slow loss of walking ability (ambulation) in symptomatic pediatric patients 3 years of age and older…”

Translation: There is no claim that the drug cures the disease. The drug may slow down the progression of only one of the many symptoms. For $486,000 a year, if the patient lives for a year.

Well, we’ll see whether even that “slowing down” assertion pans out, because the clinical trial of the drug was carried out on only 22 children, to determine efficacy, and 24 children to determine safety.

Of course, the drug’s manufacturer would state that, since CLN2 is a very rare disease, it wasn’t easy to find patients on whom to test it. Nevertheless, the FDA approval for the drug was based on scanty evidence—to say the least.

It’s fairly clear that researchers and drug companies look at this situation as a first step in developing more (highly expensive) drugs to treat CLN2. The gateway has been opened. Though they wouldn’t admit it, Brineura is an experimental medicine, and if follow-up doesn’t record a high percentage of deaths occurring sooner than expected (according to what parameters?), it will be considered a great success.

Here is how the drug is invasively administered. Keep in mind that the patient is a very young child who is already unable to function in the world, is confused, is having great difficulty walking and even sitting:

FDA press release (4/27/17): “Brineura is administered into the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) by infusion via a specific surgically implanted reservoir and catheter in the head (intraventricular access device). Brineura must be administered under sterile conditions to reduce the risk of infections, and treatment should be managed by a health care professional knowledgeable in intraventricular administration. The recommended dose of Brineura in pediatric patients 3 years of age and older is 300 mg administered once every other week by intraventricular infusion, followed by an infusion of electrolytes. The complete Brineura infusion, including the required infusion of intraventricular electrolytes, lasts approximately 4.5 hours. Pre-treatment of patients with antihistamines with or without antipyretics (drugs for prevention or treatment of fever) or corticosteroids is recommended 30 to 60 minutes prior to the start of the infusion.”

Shocker: I found this explosive statement in FDA press release: “The initial symptoms [of the childhood disease CLN2] usually include language delay, recurrent seizures (epilepsy) and difficulty coordinating movements (ataxia). Affected children also develop muscle twitches (myoclonus) and vision loss. CLN2 disease affects essential motor skills, such as sitting and walking. Individuals with this condition often require the use of a wheelchair by late childhood and typically do not survive past their teens.”

Does that sound like anything you’ve ever heard of?

It’s the result, in some children, of administered vaccines.

Vaccine damage.

Imagine this. A doctor says to a mother: “You have to stop talking about the horrible things that happened to your child right after he received a vaccine. You’re wrong. You’re not making sense. It wasn’t the vaccine. Your child has a rare genetic brain disorder called CLN2. We now have a drug that may slow down one of the progressing symptoms. It’ll cost $486,000 a year. To give the drug, we’ll need your child for five hours every other week. We’ll insert a catheter in his head…”


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.

SSRI antidepressants increase risk of intracranial hemorrhage

SSRI antidepressants increase risk of intracranial hemorrhage

by Jon Rappoport

April 30, 2017

From healthline.com: “Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) refers to acute bleeding inside your skull or brain. It’s a life-threatening emergency. You should go to the emergency room right away or call 911 if you think you or someone you know is experiencing ICH.”

The public has learned about the increased risk of suicide and violent behavior (including murder) stemming from the use of SSRI antidepressants. Now there is more:

Psychiatric News reports (4/7/17): “A study published in February in JAMA Neurology has found that patients taking antidepressants that are strong inhibitors of serotonin reuptake (SSRIs) may be at an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage, particularly during the first month of use…”

“The results showed that compared with patients taking [the older] tricyclic antidepressants, patients being treated with SSRIs had a 17 percent increased risk of experiencing an intracranial hemorrhage. The risk was highest during the first 30 days the patients were taking the medications.”

SSRIs include: Celexa; Prozac; Paxil; Zoloft; Lexapro; Luvox.

Here are quotes from other Psychiatric News articles about SSRI use and bleeding:

“Physicians prescribing selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) should make patients aware of the possibility of gastrointestinal bleeding, especially if they have pre-existing risk factors or are taking other drugs that increase risk, said a University of Pennsylvania psychiatrist.”

From a January 2014 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry—“Short-term SSRI use—even as little as 7 days—elevated the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, especially in male patients. Just as with NSAIDs and aspirin, physicians should carefully monitor for this side effect.”

Note: Suddenly withdrawing from these drugs can be very dangerous. Psychiatrist Peter Breggin publishes this warning: “Most psychiatric drugs can cause withdrawal reactions, sometimes including life-threatening emotional and physical withdrawal problems. In short, it is not only dangerous to start taking psychiatric drugs, it can also be dangerous to stop them. Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done carefully under experienced clinical supervision. Methods for safely withdrawing from psychiatric drugs are discussed in Dr. Breggin’s new book, Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families.”


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.