Medical drugs: too big to fail

Medical drugs: too big to fail

A message to Wikileaks, Cryptome, Public Intelligence, and other sites that expose secrets.

by Jon Rappoport

October 16, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

As my readers know, I’ve reported on a number of scandals concerning the toxicity of medical drugs and vaccines, including shocking death numbers in the US.

These scandals are leaks from inside the National Security State.

If you visit Wikileaks, Cryptome, Public Intelligence, and other similar sites, how many purely medical documents do you find posted?

How many damaging leaks exposing the crimes of the medical cartel do you find?

Very, very few.

Where are the medical insiders who are liberating and passing along incriminating documentary evidence?

Some of the best exposers of political, intelligence-agency, and military crimes are way behind the curve, when it comes to medical matters. They’re living in a fantasy. They see nothing in the medical arena.

The medical sphere, for various reasons, is far better protected than any other segment of society.

For the hundredth time, let me cite Dr. Barbara Starfield’s stunning review, “Is US health really the best in the world?” published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Starfield, at the time, was working as a highly respected public health expert, at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

She concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. That would add up to 2.25 million deaths per decade.

Laid directly at the door of the American medical complex.

Aside from the genocidal death toll, Starfield’s findings also reveal massive fraud in all medical journals that routinely publish the glowing results of clinical trials of drugs.

How could such trials open the door to the marketing of drugs that kill, according to Starfield, 106,000 Americans every year, unless deep, continuing, and abetted research fraud were the order of the day?

Indeed, Dr. Marcia Angell, the editor of New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years, wrote the following:

“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.” (NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009)

Finally, here’s a document (as a slide presentation) in plain sight, on the FDA’s own site: “FDA Why Learn About Adverse Drug Effects?”. You’ll see the FDA admits there are 100,000 deaths per year resulting from these “drug effects.”

The FDA, of course, is the single government agency responsible for certifying drugs as safe and effective, before their public release is permitted. Yet the FDA takes absolutely no responsibility for the deaths.

Can you imagine the feeding frenzy, if, say, some leaker in the Pentagon passed along a political/military document to Wikileaks that showed the Dept. of Defense was poisoning to death, like clockwork, a hundred thousand of its own soldiers every year—and was readily admitting it?

Let’s stop this insane nonsense of separating one whole set of government crimes from another, simply because the propagandized priests in the white coats are above reproach.

We’re not living in 1950 anymore, and this isn’t Kansas.


power outside the matrix


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.

A universal flu vaccine: the mad science solution

by Jon Rappoport

October 15, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has launched efforts to create a vaccine that would protect people from most flu strains, all at once, with a single shot.

Over the years, I’ve written many articles refuting claims that vaccines are safe and effective, but we’ll put all that aside for the moment and follow the bouncing ball.

Massachusetts Senator and big spender, Ed Markey, has introduced a bill that would shovel no less than a billion dollars toward the universal flu-vaccine project. You like something, it sounds good, you know nothing about the details, throw money at it.

Here is a paragraph from an NIAID press release that mentions one of several research approaches:

“NIAID Vaccine Research Center scientists have initiated Phase 1/2 studies of a universal flu vaccine strategy that includes an investigational DNA-based vaccine (called a DNA ‘prime’)…”

This is quite troubling, if you know what the phrase “DNA vaccine” means. It refers to what the experts are touting as the next generation of immunizations.

Instead of injecting a piece of a virus into a person, in order to stimulate the immune system, synthesized genes would be shot into the body. This isn’t traditional vaccination anymore. It’s “protective gene therapy”.

In any such method, where genes are edited, deleted, added, no matter what the pros say, there are always “unintended consequences,” to use their polite phrase. The ripple effects scramble the genetic structure in numerous unknown ways.

Here is the inconvenient truth about DNA vaccines—

They will permanently alter your DNA

The reference is the New York Times, 3/9/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research—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 three 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, he will live with that change—and all the ripple effects in his genetic makeup—for the rest of his life.

The Times article taps 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.”

Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.

This is genetic roulette with a loaded gun. Anyone and everyone on Earth injected with a DNA vaccine will undergo permanent and unknown genetic changes…

And the further implications are clear. Vaccines can be used as a cover for the injections of any and all genes, whose actual purpose is re-engineering humans in far-reaching ways.

If you’re going to alter humans, for example, to make many of them more docile and weak, and some of them stronger, in order to restructure society, you want everyone under the umbrella. No exceptions. No exemptions.

The emergence of this Frankenstein technology is paralleled by a shrill push to mandate vaccines, across the board, for both children and adults. The pressure and propaganda are planet-wide.

The freedom and the right to refuse vaccines has always been vital. It is more vital than ever now.

It means the right to preserve your inherent DNA.


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.

Psst, kid, want drugs? I’m a psychiatrist

by Jon Rappoport

October 11, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Look at it this way. The kid doesn’t have to pay for drugs out of his pocket. He gets them in a shrink’s office. Insurance covers it.

His parents may be able to work a Social Security disability claim and receive $$ and other free medical treatments.

The kid’s school cashes in. They’re now teaching a disabled child. Government aid.

No wonder Health Day News (4/24/14) reports that 1 in 13 American children are now on at least one psychiatric medication.

In 2012, the Archives of General Psychiatry reported a 7-fold increase in psychiatrists prescribing (powerful and toxic) antipsychotic meds to children, based on an analysis of office visits. (see also this.)

Then we have this (12/13/2009, truth-out.com, by Evelyn Pringle): from 1996-2006, US child prescriptions for psychiatric drugs up 50%; in 2006, more money was spent ($8.9 billion) on treatment for child mental disorders in the US than for any other medical condition in kids.

The legal drug traffickers (pharmaceutical companies) are banking on the obvious: rope in a child, get him on psychiatric meds, and you may well have a customer for life.

Mass shootings reportedly involving children? A Pharma bonanza. “We have to catch the mental disorder early and treat (drug) it, to avoid more such tragedies.” Obama announces a program to build community mental health centers (pushers) across America.

Never mind that the SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, et al) can and do produce violent behavior. Suicide, homicide. See work of Peter Breggin, SSRI Stories, and David Healy.


In 2012, I reported this:

It’s the latest thing. Psychiatrists are now giving children in poor neighborhoods Adderall, a dangerous stimulant, by making false diagnoses of ADHD, or no diagnoses at all. Their aim? To “promote social justice,” to improve academic performance in school.

The rationale is, the drugged kids will now be able to compete with children from wealthier families who attend better schools.

Leading the way is Dr. Michael Anderson, a pediatrician in the Atlanta area. Incredibly, Anderson told the New York Times his diagnoses of ADHD are “made up,” “an excuse” to hand out the drugs.

“We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid,” Anderson said.

A researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, Dr. Ramesh Raghavan, goes even further with this chilling comment: “We are effectively forcing local community psychiatrists to use the only tool at their disposal [to “level the playing field” in low-income neighborhoods], which is psychotropic medicine.”

So pressure is being brought to bear on psychiatrists to launch a heinous behavior modification program, using drugs, against children in inner cities.

It’s important to realize that all psychotropic stimulants, like Adderal and Ritalin, can cause aggressive behavior, violent behavior.

What we’re seeing here is a direct parallel to the old CIA program, exposed by the late journalist, Gary Webb, who detailed the importing of crack cocaine (another kind of stimulant) into South Central Los Angeles, which went a long way toward destroying that community.

Deploying the ADHD drugs creates symptoms which may then be treated with compounds like Risperdal, a powerful anti-psychotic, which can cause motor brain damage.

All this, in service of “social justice” for the poor.

And what about the claim that ADHD drugs can enhance school performance?

The following pronouncement makes a number of things clear: The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard):”Stimulants [given for ADHD] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity, conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment.”

So the whole basis for this “social justice” program in low-income communities—that the ADHD drugs will improve school performance of kids and “level the playing field,” so they can compete academically with children from wealthier families—this whole program is based on a lie to begin with.

Meddling with the brains of children via these chemicals constitutes criminal assault, and it’s time it was recognized for what it is.

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841]. Adderall and other ADHD medications are all in the same basic class; they are stimulants, amphetamine-type substances.

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse affects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:
• Paranoid delusions
• Paranoid psychosis
• Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
• Activation of psychotic symptoms
• Toxic psychosis
• Visual hallucinations
• Auditory hallucinations
• Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
• Effects pathological thought processes
• Extreme withdrawal
• Terrified affect
• Started screaming
• Aggressiveness
• Insomnia
• Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
• Psychic dependence
• High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
• Decreased REM sleep
• When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
• Convulsions
• Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

In what sense are the ADHD drugs “social justice?” The reality is, they are chemical warfare. Licensed predators are preying on the poor.

You know the old saw, “Children are our future.” Yes, well, this means a future populated by millions of adults who grew up with government-approved brain-addling drugs and, chances are, they’re still taking them.


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.

The capture of Health Freedom

by Jon Rappoport

October 9, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“So you start off in charge, you’re an independent operator, you don’t work inside the system, but then you figure out the system thinks it includes you, some moron must have slipped in that clause while you weren’t looking, so you go talk to him, and it’s a pretty congenial meeting, although he does come across like a company man, and then later on you get an engraved invitation to come to a party. The food is very good and the people seem reasonable in a sort of washed-out way, but the upshot is, you can come in out of the cold if you want to. They’ll take you in. You can sit in an office and make twice as much as you were making on your own. That’s what they tell you. The only thing is, you have to sign a piece of paper that says you were never born and you’re actually a desk ornament. They assure you it’s just a formality and they’ve signed the same paper, and look, it hasn’t hurt them…” — The Magician Awakes

When I was running for a Congressional seat in 1994, I was also in the middle of a fight to preserve access to alternative health care, against FDA attack—and during that process, I was enlightened through meeting various members of the Pod People species, who had their own ideas about what health freedom meant.

These were high-IQ idiots who had some sort of access to politicians and academics. They were expert compromisers and sell-out artists, who saw their mission in life as something on the order of “integrating” everything they could get their hands on.

In coming years, they would become hangers-on at Center for Alternative Medicine (CAM) (later renamed as Center for Complementary and Integrative Health), the new office of alternative health established at the National Institutes of Health. Think “seedy tout at the racetrack.”

CAM was, for many people, the realization of a wet dream. Finally, the federal government, gripped in a new cloud of Love, was going to admit that alternative medicine existed and could be “integrated” into “real medicine.”

Yes, yes. A new day was dawning. A day of recognition. A big gold star would be pinned to chests of chiropractors and naturopaths and acupuncturists. O joy.

“You like me! You really like me!”

In these meetings with the Pods, I observed their loafers, their pressed jeans, their safari jackets, their carefully arranged thinning hair, their casual smiles. Holy shit, these were recent incarnations of the frat boys I had gone to college with:

“Everything’s good. All we have to do is craft language the politicians and bureaucrats can understand and accept, and they will reach their hands across the divide, because, in the final analysis, all that separates people is a diversity of background and experience. We can integrate that.”

The sub-text was:

In the coming years, alt. medicine will be recognized. Professorships and bureaucratic jobs and positions at hospitals will spring up out of tax money, and we can dig into that stash and find cushy work, if we play our cards right. But don’t rock the boat. Don’t attack the feds. Don’t go after the FDA. Don’t be “negative.” Love may not conquer all, but it can worm its way into government budgets.

And that was right and true. These days, the professions of chiropractic and naturopathy and acupuncture have, at the highest levels, sold their souls to allopathic medicine and federal regulators. Therefore, for them, the fight for health freedom is over. They think they’ve actually won.

In the 1960s, this whole process was called co-opting. Government or big business would find ways to absorb (“integrate”) its opposition.

Whereas, once upon a time, the naturopaths were tough seasoned fighters who were holding government at bay and plowing ahead with the work of healing, now they have their own bureaucrats cashing checks and enlightening the young dewy-eyed generation of practitioners on how the game is played:

“Hey, it’s all legal now, baby. Don’t sweat it. (cough, cough) I mean, we are in conference with major players at NIH, and a task force has been created to elucidate the work of two prior study groups, and in this regard we have secured ex-officio membership on a sub-committee to examine the psychological effect, on medical doctors, of reading published studies on minimal supplementation with extremely low-dose Vitamin C during the first five hours of head colds which were preceded by a tingling sensation at the back of the throat and a genital twitching in rabbits…in fact, and you’ll really like this, at the new complementary-medicine wing of a hospital in Northern Alaska, some of our fourth-year students here at the naturopathic college will be able to apply for positions as interns applying a citrus concentrate to toilets in the men’s rooms on the third floor, to assess the results, vis-a-vis germ eradication, against the old toxic cleaning solutions…”

And that about sums up what will happen to the chiropractors and the naturopaths and the acupuncturists up the road. Chiros will adjust the spines of hard cases in homeless shelters who refuse Thorazine and then publish their findings on government-issued toilet paper.

Gradually, the great golden promise of integration will come true, only not in the way this new brand of alt. practitioner expects.

I have news for the New Age Pod alt. bureaucrats. Once you’re in with the government, you’re all the way in. You take the scraps they leave on the table. You learn how to love the scraps. You primp and pump up your pretended achievements and cash your checks. That’s your role. When you’re called on to sell out further, you do it with a smile. You kiss the ring. And you come to realize your profession of natural healing has become a cartoon of itself. You live in that cartoon and you make your little speeches and mount your plaques on the office wall. When you want more money, you stand in line at the federal trough and wait. Bullshit is thy name.

What the Pods never learned is that, when you negotiate with your your opponents, you are you and they are they. Since that is the case, especially when you are coming from a position of relative weakness, your “victories” are wholly a function of who your opponents are and what they really want and what they are willing to do to get it, in the long, long run. Can I make it any simpler?

In this context, integration means you will eventually find yourself in quicksand holding a long stick, and the person on the other end of the stick will be your enemy. Then, he can re-negotiate everything. Immediately.

Yes, Virginia, there are enemies. They exist. They aren’t just an illusion fostered by “old discredited modes of thought.” You don’t make them vanish through some puerile trick. For starters, you don’t put any stock in their promises. Instead, to begin with, you make public their bad deeds. Come on. Wake up. This strategy goes back to the cave men. The first time it was used, a guy stopped his girl friend from marrying some oaf when he said, “Hey, Oaf Dude rolled four boulders we use for bonfires into his own cave. I’ve got him in the act on video. Look.”

This was my strategy when I was running for Congress. I went on the offensive against the FDA. The material at my disposal then, as now, was voluminous. It’s in the public record.

The Pods castigated me for my approach. They saw this as a hindrance to, yes, integration. They told me we were in a new age, and now the preferred method was extensive negotiation. Conflict resolution.

One night in 1994, a few months before the passage of the so-called Health Freedom Bill in Congress, which I was assured would protect us against the FDA forever, I sat in a last-ditch meeting with a dozen other people. We wanted to draft an amendment to the Bill that would nail down the protections we really needed.

A towering hack from UCLA, whose specialty was apparently Brainstorming and Conflict Resolution, a fat domehead who was as interested in health freedom as a scuttle fish is interested in the orbit of the moon, chaired this meeting. He had been invited in as an expert.

So he asked us all to introduce ourselves, one by one, and after that little excruciating exercise, he said he would write, on the blackboard behind him, each of our ideas about why this amendment was important. Well, of course, we already knew why it was important. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have come to the room in the first place.

I saw he was going to take a couple of hours, moving us through his hoops, to get to the heart of the matter, so I said, in my usual gracious style, “This is stupid.”

He looked at me. He tried to smile.

I said, “Let me summarize. We’re here to draft an amendment to the Hatch Bill that will give us more guarantees. We can write this sucker in twenty minutes. I will write it. Does anyone in the room want to go off and write his version? Then we can compare.”

One hand was raised.

“Good,” I said. “Do it. I’ll go into this next room here and type out mine. Let’s take a break and come back in twenty minutes.”

So that’s what happened, and we did hash out an amendment, and of course nobody in Washington wanted to give it three seconds of time, because all the elements of the Hatch Bill had already been agreed upon, behind closed doors.

After our meeting, a man in the room who knew the UCLA hack came up to me and said, “You were pretty harsh there.”

“Really?” I said. “If we’d followed his little Chinese torture technique, it would have taken us six hours to come to the same place we are now. Who did he think he was dealing with, second graders?”

The man frowned.

“That’s not the point,” he said. “Brainstorming has its own style, and we needed to follow that.”

“Why?” I said. “We already knew what we needed. We’re not building a rocket ship here.”

“Okay,” he said, “but this meeting was supposed to be about integrating our ideas, so that, in Washington, the same spirit of integration might prevail and get us what we wanted.”

“By osmosis?” I said. “That’s quite a leap of logic. Do you have a church?”

“What?”

“A church.”

I looked him over. He was lean and bronzed. I imagined he did push-ups under a tanning lamp in his home gym. He was crinkled around the eyes, probably from forced smiling, a practice I don’t normally advocate. His combover seemed to be threaded with minor extensions. I couldn’t be sure. He was wearing one of those bush jackets with the many pockets. His nails were done with transparent polish.

He wasn’t smiling now.

“I sense a church here,” I repeated. “With a doctrine derived from As So Above, So Below. If we’re nice here tonight, ‘Washington’ will mystically pick up the vibe and be nice. Anyway, you don’t remember me, but I was with you at a meeting last month, and you were pushing for a committee to study the amendment, which would have put us so far behind schedule the Bill would have passed before we got our pencils correctly sharpened.”

The man blushed.

“Don’t worry,” I said. “You’re winning. You’re going to get a gig in whatever structure comes out of this war we’re waging. You’ll always be the good guy in the room. The folks in Washington like that.”

And by God, he did get a gig. Within the swelling bureaucracy of alt. medicine. A series of gigs. I was told he’s a brainstorming expert, and when he holds meetings of his minions, he bores them so greatly a few of them want to push him out a window.

But he’s simultaneously for health freedom and for “sensible government regulations,” and he’s for cooperating with the FDA and he’s for integrating medical drugs and nutrients—judiciously, of course—and he’s for increased government inspections of organic farms and he’s for genetically modified food, with some (again, “sensible”) restrictions, and he’s for 15 rather than 49 doses of vaccines for babies, and he’s for bringing naturopaths and chiropractors and acupuncturists into the fold, and drafting new “standards of practice and external monitoring” for them.

I believe he calls himself, on occasion, an ex-hippie who still applies the lessons of his youth to the exigencies and realities of our time. I’m thrilled. (Integral integration with integrity.)

With Pods like this working for us, our job is complete. We can take heart and look forward to a new century of love, during which our great-great grandchildren will be birthed in organic oak vats where, synthetic genes imparted, they’ll bathe in a solution that delivers 60 or 70 vaccines at the moment of emergence into the world.

A chiropractor with an advanced degree will clean out the vat and dump the contents into a drain, mop the floor, and take out the garbage.

Outside the baby factory, a fully licensed government naturopath will be raking the leaves on the lawn.

A PhD acupuncturist who’s done post-doc work at the Mayo Clinic will be smoothing out the sand and picking up candy wrappers in the kiddies’ playpen.

They’ll stop working and look up as the hospital dietitian, who researches processed-food injectables, rolls by in her Mercedes.


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.

Placebo, antibody, and the destiny of failure

by Jon Rappoport

October 4, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

There is a fallacy buried in diagnostic tests that employ antibodies as the standard of measure.

The presence of antibodies specific to a particular germ doesn’t automatically signify illness, and yet that is the interpretation being made these days.

This would be an interesting challenge:

A lab is given blood samples from a number of patients. Each sample, it is found, indicates antibodies to germ X. The lab must state whether these people are displaying symptoms of illness X.

By the rules, the answer would be yes in every case. Yet, the answer would be wrong in a majority of cases—perhaps in all cases.

Why? Because naturally produced antibodies normally mean the person’s immune system has warded off the germ.

At this point, the lab might say, “Well, yes, but chances are these people will get sick. It just hasn’t happened yet. Or they have the disease without symptoms.”

These are not scientific statements. One would have to follow the test cases for a while to see whether they get sick. I would bet against it. In any event, a diagnosis of illness based on a positive antibody test is not about the future. It’s about the present. Public health agencies routinely count case numbers on the basis of antibody tests. And the idea of a disease without symptoms is just a feint. It’s a contradiction in terms.

On to placebo. In any serious controlled trial of a medical drug, there are two groups. One group gets the drug; the other gets a sugar pill. The reason for this practice has been obscured in modern times. Actually, it is done because a certain percentage of people (around 20%) will get better no matter what you give them. Therefore, the drug has to perform significantly better than the placebo.

However, we need to return to the medical origin of the placebo. This is it: a country doctor, faced with a patient who was a hypochondriac, would hand him a sugar pill. The patient would take it and then feel better.

But…you see, the patient believed he was getting effective medicine. That’s what caused him to recover.

In a controlled trial, this is not the case. The patient knows, beforehand, that he will get EITHER the medicine or a placebo. This setting doesn’t provoke the same belief. It’s different. It’s weaker.

Therefore, one can expect that the “cure rate” in the placebo group will be lower than the normal 20%. And, as a result, the actual drug will only need to meet a lower standard of success, relative to the results obtained by the placebo.

Bottom line? A medical drug can test out with fewer positive outcomes to be deemed effective. Unless someone decides that the placebo group performed in an unexpected manner—but who cares about that when the goal is to establish that the drug is a winner?


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.

Culture wars: a child’s “medical right” to change gender in the Brave New World

by Jon Rappoport

September 6, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth.” (Wikipedia)

“Technocracy is shaping a new world based on twisting morality into pseudoscientific ‘facts’ that demand compliance. It’s a hoax on a grand scale.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Government programs to teach the issue of gender in schools are gaining steam. “Fluid-gender” is the artificial construct used to promote these programs.

For years, I’ve been warning about the fabricated use of medical labels as a pretext for “protecting the rights of the child.”

The op goes this way:

Shift a decision about morality into a decision about the right to obtain medical treatment. For example, claim there is a disorder called Gender Dysphoria. Claim many children suffer from it.

State that gender reassignment is the treatment that cures the disorder.

State that every child has the “right” to choose the treatment—AND parents who oppose it are illegally restricting their children.

Breitbart reports on a current case: “Parents of a 17-year-old girl lost custody of their daughter for opposing her wish for transgender medical treatments.”

“Judge Sylvia Sieve Hendon of Hamilton County, Ohio has allowed the girl to be taken into the custody of her grandparents – who support her medical transition – allowing them to make decisions that will further along her physical transition to the opposite sex.”

“The parents reportedly continued to call their daughter by her given name, rather than a male name, and refused to consent to hormone treatments that were recommended by her medical team. The girl claimed she became suicidal as a result of her parents’ refusal to accept that she wanted to transition to a male.”

“’We think the grandparents are the ones who have an open mind and will … make this sort of decision best for the child’,” said attorney Paul Hunt, who represents the court-appointed guardian ad litem. ‘The parents have clearly indicated that they’re not open to it’.”

“According to the news story, the parents argued their daughter was not ‘even close to being able to make such a life-altering decision at this time’. A county prosecutor, however, claimed the parents were opposed to their daughter transitioning to become a male because of their Christian religious beliefs.”

A court decides the parents are not in charge.

The parents are denying their child the right to obtain a “medical treatment.”

Therefore, the State must intercede.

Here is another case that goes much further. The basis of the decision is so insane that most people are unwilling to think about it—the criminality is so egregious it paralyzes the mind. AND AT THE BOTTOM OF IT, THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT A PERSON WHO IS IN NO WAY INTELLECTUALLY OR MORALLY OR EMOTIONALLY OR SPIRITUALLY CAPABLE OF MAKING A CHOICE ABOUT PERMANENLTY MUTILATING HIMSELF/HERSELF IS, IN FACT, GRANTED SUCH A “CHOICE” BY SOCIETY.

Yahoo 7 News, Australia, reports (9/16): “A four-year-old who identifies as transgender has begun to transition before their first day at school, hoping to complete the full transformation by 2017.”

“While the child is the youngest on Australian record to change their gender, the New South Wales government has revealed ‘hundreds’ of other children are being referred to the state’s hospitals for gender dysphoria.”

“The four-year-old is reportedly being supported throughout the transition by the education department, and is part of the Safe Schools program.”

Yes, the Safe Schools program. Safe for whom?

Deputy Secretary of School Operations Gregory Prior made this announcement at a budget hearing, which presumably means the four-year-old child’s parents are receiving public funds for the sex change.

No mention of how the parents of the four-year old came to their “medical” decision. No mention of the “discussion” with the child that led to this decision.

The New South Wales government doesn’t just stand aside; it supports this madness.

A four-year old. He/she comes up with this idea (gender change) out of the blue? He/she expresses it to his parents?

He/she is supposed to understand the medical procedures and the consequences?

The doctors go along with this?

“We have a four-year old coming in today to begin a sex-change.”

“Good. The team will be ready.”

Not a flicker of doubt.

Here is the Wikipedia definition of gender dysphoria: “Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth.”

Assigned? This is supposed to be some sort of arbitrary labeling that is handed to an infant?

This whole social program has gained so much steam that many people are paralyzed—they refuse to express outrage. They refuse to point out the obvious. They knuckle under. The criminally delusional parents who go along with (and urge and initiate) sex change for their own children consider themselves enlightened. They’re in a trance, and they feel good about the trance.

“Yes, our four-year old is undergoing gender transition and we think it’s wonderful.”

What coaching did these parents engage in with their very young child to push along this insanity?

A boy put on his mother’s dress one day, and then the parents sat down with him and engaged in a deep conversation?

A four-year old is now the ruler of his/her own fate?

This is legalized genital mutilation and torture, undertaken as a “proper medical procedure.”

The doctors should have their licenses stripped, and they should be sent to prison. They should share their cells with the government officials who support this crime.

On some level, medical sex change for children is an outgrowth of the obsession about children being “special.” Ultra-special. The child’s wisdom extends to all sorts of insights he/she has about life.

A child does have a free and open attitude toward life, but this has nothing to do with making decisions that have enormous consequences for him/her. And the word “consequences” hardly begins to describe the surgical mutilation.

“What has become of our society?” The answer is clear. There are masters and slaves. The slaves are going along. The masters are psychopaths. But that leaves a lot of middle ground, where parents, educators, and bureaucrats are willingly cooperating in destruction. It’s not simply a lack of courage. It’s self-induced brainwashing.

“This is freedom. Freedom is a good thing. What could be more free and innovative than a child deciding to change his/her own sex at the age of four? We’re creating a better world.”

The parents’ eyes are bright. Their smiles are wide.

And if medical sexual mutilation of a child is gladly permitted, what isn’t permitted? What “voluntary” or mandated medical procedure would be ruled out as too grotesque?

For example, shouldn’t we support, in glowing terms, mass sterilization of women through vaccination campaigns that covertly create future miscarriages? After all, in the Third world, where such efforts have already been made (Kenya), overpopulation is a problem. We know it’s a problem because, decades ago, Henry Kissinger said so.

In Australia, where this four-year-old child is about to go through sex change, every doctor in the country should stand up and refuse. They should say, “Look, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, we see what your decision is, and we can’t even begin to describe how we feel. Don’t look to us for help in committing this horror on your child. If we hear of any doctor who goes along with your plan, we’ll publicize his name and, if necessary, physically remove him from the country. We’ll see to it he never practices medicine in Australia another day in his life.”

As for the parents of this four-year old, they’re lost. They’re lost to themselves and their child. They’re in a hell of their own making. And they’re fashioning a worse hell for their child.

And they don’t even know it.

They’re “progressive” and proud of it.

They’re leading their child to surgical genital destruction and, through drugs, the permanent derailment of his/her endocrine system.

It’s “scientific and medical,” so it must be a good thing.

The program of child gender change is also an attack against society at its most basic biological level. The goal is destruction.

Behind it are decades of preparation in the form of so-called moral relativity: every group and person has their own definition of right and wrong, and these views are all equal. No one has the right to challenge another’s moral position as inferior.

There must be placid acceptance.

Eventually, this leads to accepting that a four-year old is capable of understanding, and making choices about, his/her own sexuality. No challenge. No moral outrage.

This is on the order of accepting and facilitating euthanasia.

For centuries, societies and civilizations have struggled to define and embed moral truth in their cores. This has never been a pure process, but it has taken place, at great human cost.

We are now seeing a reversal of that struggle. Now, monsters can ensure that physical mutilation is placed on a pedestal. It is given special protection, as a right. The very, very young, who have no idea what this is all about, are coerced into agreeing to “procedures” that violate every shred of sanity and goodness and innocence and decency.

This is evil.

And its purveyors are in the public square, touting their own humanity.


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.

How many people are on psychiatric drugs?

by Jon Rappoport

August 30, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Antidepressants are neurotoxic, that is, they harm the brain and disrupt its functions. As a result, they cause innumerable kinds of abnormal thinking and behaviors, including mania, suicide and violence. In the process, they cause detectable damage to the brain of the child or adult, and also to the fetus of pregnant mothers who take the drug.” (Peter Breggin, MD and psychiatrist, author of Toxic Psychiatry, St. Martin’s Press)

“I keep telling people all over the world that there are no reliable lab tests for diagnosing ANY so-called mental disorder. I explain this in great detail. Of course, for many people, this is too much to handle. They run away. What is my strategy for dealing with this? I keep finding new ways to tell them the truth. I don’t stop. That’s what an actual reporter does.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

I came across a Forbes article (5/27/15) by Judy Stone, “Why the U of Minnesota Research Scandal threatens us all.” In the piece, Stone mentions some boggling reports about Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disorders taking psychiatric drugs:

“The use of drugs for mental health conditions in the U.S. is staggering, according to a 2011 mental health report by Medco Health Solutions:”

“—more than one in 5 adults was on at least one psychiatric med in 2010, up 22% from 2000”

“—more than 25% of adult women were on mental health meds in 2010 vs. 15% of men; 21% of women were on antidepressants”

“—11% of women aged 45-65 were on anti-anxiety meds”

“—4% of adults were on medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). There are an estimated 5.4 million children carrying a diagnosis of ADHD”

“—The figures for use of these anti-depressants in children are even more appalling, being 2-3%. (This is especially scary since the drugs themselves can increase the risk of suicide).”

These numbers show there is a plague afoot in America—a plague of diagnosing and prescribing drugs.

Over the past 35 years, I’ve spent a great of time reporting on the complete falsity of psychiatric diagnoses, as well as the extreme toxicity of the drugs. We’re talking about nothing short of chemical warfare against the population. The nation is being eaten out from the inside—and all under the guise of proper psychiatric treatment.

I’ve spoken off the record with psychiatrists who readily admit that the whole basis on which mental disorders are labeled and described and diagnosed is a rank fraud; and they’ve also told me that this is an open secret inside the psychiatric profession.

I’ve published quotes from well-known psychiatrists admitting there are NO diagnostic lab tests for ANY of the 300 officially certified and labeled mental disorders.

To grasp the sheer insanity of this, imagine sitting in a doctor’s office chatting for a few minutes, when suddenly the doctor says, “You have cancer.”

“What?!” you say, bolting out of your chair.

“Yes,” the doctor says, “no doubt it’s cancer.”

What about tests??”

“Not necessary. I can tell it’s cancer from your answers to my questions. Anyway, there are no tests…”

Of course, manufacturers of the psychiatric drugs are having a field day. Researchers keep claiming they’ve “discovered” new mental disorders, and the manufacturers keep putting together new drugs to fit these research “breakthroughs.”

Psychiatry has monopolistic protections from the federal government. Without them, in a truly free and competitive market, the profession wouldn’t last another 20 years.

But that’s socialism for you. The government, colluding with corporations and professional organizations, gives credence and primacy to a whole industry that is based on fabrication and does grave harm through its products (the drugs, in this case).

“Dear Citizen, We, the government, care about you and love you. We keep psychiatry alive for you, so you can benefit from the most absurd and unfounded diagnoses possible, and the enormously toxic drugs that follow. Trust us…”

Who could resist such a good deal?


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.