Huge drug (pharma) money changes hands in high-level financial deals—why?

Huge drug (pharma) money changes hands in high-level financial deals—why?

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2018

These are notes on money-musical-chairs among drug companies. Big-time money.

Clues as to why there is such a tidal wave of cash:

One: Consolidation, of course. Fewer giant companies, who have greater control over the market, are too big to fail, and have more lobbying power with governments.

Two: The companies are making deals left and right to temporarily give stockholders and prospective investors the impression that “something good” is happening, while concealing the fact that numerous new drugs in the testing pipeline are failing to produce beneficial results, and are unsafe. Sleight of hand.

Three: The companies are making very favorable loan deals with banks, enabling them to buy out other drug firms. Before the loan repayments are completed, the companies will have sold themselves (and the debt) to bigger fish.

Four: A drug company knows its development of a new drug is fraudulent, and is riddled with illegal practices, such as lack of informed consent in recruiting volunteers for clinical trials. So it sells the research unit for that drug to another company, making it their problem.

Here are $$ details. Follow the astonishing money trails.

From: https://www.fiercepharma.com/m-a/sanofi-advent-international-nearing-eu2b-deal-for-european-generics-business-report:

“Other bidders may have dropped out of an auction for Sanofi’s European generics unit, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t found a buyer. The drugmaker is nearing an agreement and could announce a sale in the next several days, Bloomberg reports.

“Sanofi’s board could meet as soon as Monday to vote on a deal worth about €2 billion ($2.48 billion), according to the news service’s sources. Of course, the sources note that the deal isn’t final and that it could ultimately fail to materialize.

“The news follows previous decisions by private equity firm Nordic Capital and Indian drugmaker Torrent Pharma to bow out of negotiations, worried that the unit is too pricey, according to press reports. PE firm Carlyle Group and Brazil’s EMS remained in deal talks through final bidding, according to Bloomberg.

“And that’s not the only deal Sanofi has had in the works. The company has been toiling to reshape itself for several years, and as part of that effort on Monday sold 12 “noncore” pharma brands to Cooper-Vemedia for €158 million, a spokesperson confirmed.

“The drugmaker talked about selling the business in 2015, but CEO Olivier Brandicourt made other M&A moves after coming on board instead. In 2016, Brandicourt offloaded Sanofi’s animal health unit Merial in an asset swap with Boehringer Ingelheim, getting BI’s consumer health business in return.

“The drugmaker hasn’t only slimmed down, though. Sanofi purchased nanobody biotech Ablynx for $4.8 billion and hemophilia-focused Bioverativ for $11.6 billion in sizable deals early this year. Afterward, Brandicourt said the acquisitions “dramatically reshape our portfolio in specialty care” and boost the company’s R&D presence.”

Here is more: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/takeda-still-eyeing-a-buy-shire-casts-off-oncology-for-2-4b:

“With suitor Takeda circling Shire, the Dublin-based target has pulled off a deal of its own.

“On Monday, Shire announced it had agreed to hand its oncology business to France’s Servier for $2.4 billion, a move it said would sharpen its focus on rare diseases. And more streamlining deals are likely on the way.

“While the oncology business has delivered high growth and profitability, we have concluded that it is not core to Shire’s longer-term strategy,” CEO Flemming Ornskov said in a statement, adding that “we will continue to evaluate our portfolio for opportunities to unlock further value … with selective disposals of nonstrategic assets.”

“Meanwhile, Servier will land an “immediate presence” in the U.S. with products such as Oncaspar, which Shire nabbed in its Baxalta buyout. Baxter had bought the med to diversify its pharmaceutical portfolio before spinning it off into Baxalta, which Shire later picked up after a monthslong pursuit.

“The oncology move makes things interesting for Japanese drugmaker Takeda, which late last month made its buyout interest in Shire public.

“The deal should … boost Shire’s negotiating position on asking price in the current offer period with Takeda, in our view,” Jefferies analyst Peter Welford wrote in a note to clients.”

And more: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/mylan-s-advanced-talks-for-merck-kgaa-s-4b-plus-otc-unit-report:

“Pfizer may have run into snags trying to sell its consumer health business, but Merck KGaA may be in advanced discussions with a player over its own for-sale unit. And that player is Mylan, according to reports.

“The two companies are negotiating a price between $4.3 billion and $4.9 billion, Reuters says, although there’s no certainty they’ll lock down a deal. The German drugmaker has also reportedly chit-chatted with private equity groups about a sale, according to the news service.

“Mylan, for its part, denies the report. “Although it’s Mylan’s policy to not comment on rumors or speculation, given the egregious inaccuracy of reports issued this morning, the company is compelled to confirm that the Reuters article is untrue,” the company said in a statement.

“It’s not the first time Mylan has gone after a deal in the consumer biz. It spent the better part of 2015 in hostile pursuit of store-brand specialist Perrigo, whose shareholders ultimately rejected Mylan’s offer. And in the wake of that offer, it snapped up Sweden’s Meda.

“It’s also not the first time Mylan and Merck KGaA have talked transaction, Reuters noted. Back in 2007, Mylan took Merck’s generics unit off its hands in a $6.7 billion deal that also sent severe allergy blockbuster EpiPen over to the copycat.

“Meanwhile, Pfizer, which boasts a larger OTC business than Merck’s, has been watching its own sale options dwindle as retail kings such as Amazon threaten OTC drugmakers’ sales. Late last month, both Reckitt and GlaxoSmithKline withdrew from the bidding process, though rumor has it there’s a small chance the New York drugmaker could still unload the asset to Procter & Gamble.”

And now, here is a list of top pharma mergers and acquisitions in the past several years:

10. Abbott-Alere, $5.8bn, 2016
“At the start of February American pharmaceutical giant Abbot agreed to buy Alere Inc. for $5.8bn or $56 a share to become the lead holder in the market for medical tests and diagnostics. Alere which has annual sales of about $2.5bn makes tests for infections such as malaria, HIV, dengue fever and tuberculosis. Abbott stated that at the end of 2015 its diagnostic sales were $4.6bn, a figure which would now exceed the $7bn-a-year mark. Abbott currently has more than 73,000 employees and revenues in 2015 reached $20.405bn.”

9. Mylan-Meda, $7.2bn, 2016
“February, 2016 saw Mylan agree a takeover of Swedish drug maker Meda for $7.2bn. The new company is expected to have 2015 sales of $11.8bn, and the deal also boosts Mylan’s range of branded and generic medications and gives it an additional leg-up in the area of over-the-counter medications that will now achieve sales of around $1bn a year. Mylan had been in pursuit of Meda for a while before the deal closed, having two offers rejected in 2014 that were valued at $6.7bn. Mylan is a global generic and specialty pharmaceutical company registered in the Netherlands with headquarters in the UK. It currently provides more than 30,000 pharmaceutical jobs.”

8. Celgene-Receptos, $7.2bn, 2015
“In August, 2015, American biotechnology company Celgene acquired Receptos for $7.2bn and its phase III autoimmune treatment for ulcerative colitis and multiple sclerosis. If all goes to plan the drug could end up bringing in peak sales as high as $6bn. Celgene was founded in 1986 and currently has more than 4,100 employees. In 2015 the company achieved a 21% year-on-year growth in product sales reaching $9.2bn.”

7. Endo International-Par Pharmaceutical, $8.1bn, 2015
“Endo International, headquartered in Ireland and the USA, is a global specialty pharmaceutical company employing more than 6,200 people. In September last year, it completed its buyout of Par Pharmaceutical in a deal worth $8.1bn. The acquisition firmly establishes Endo as one of the world’s fastest growing and notable generics businesses and will help the company to position itself for strong growth in the years to come.”

6.Alexion Pharmaceuticals-Synageva BioPharma, $8.4bn, 2015
“In June, 2015 Connecticut-based Alexion Pharmaceuticals successfully completed its acquisition of Synageva BioPharma for $8.4bn. The acquisition strengthened Alexion’s global leadership in devastating and rare diseases, and created one of the strongest rare disease portfolios in the biotech industry. Alexion was founded in 1992 and employs more than 3,000 people serving 50 countries worldwide.”

5. Valeant-Salix Pharmaceuticals, $15.8bn, 2015
“March, 2015, saw Canadian-based Valeant acquire Salix Pharmaceuticals for $15.8bn, adding to its portfolio of gastroenterology drugs. The $158-per-share deal came after reports that Valeant had been competing with Shire for a takeover of Salix. In addition to the $15.8bn price tag, Valeant would absorb $5bn in debt and the merger would provide $500m a year in cost-saving opportunities and cut the tax paid on Salix revenues which stood at 35%. Valeant currently employs around 17,000 individuals and achieved revenues of $10.5bn in 2015.”

4. Pfizer-Hospira, $17bn, 2015
“US-based pharmaceutical giant Pfizer agreed to buy Hospira in a $17bn takeover that would expand its portfolio of drugs and add Hospira’s portfolio of sterile injectable treatments and biosimilar drugs to Pfizer’s broad offerings. At the time Hospira had 11 biosimilar molecules in its pipeline, with the market value for biosimilars and sterile injectables set to reach around $90bn by 2020. The deal was expected to provide around $800m a year in cost-savings by 2018. Pfizer achieved revenues of $49bn last year and currently provides more than 78,000 pharmaceutical jobs.”

3. AbbVie-Pharmacyclics, $21bn, 2015
“In May, 2015, AbbVie closed a deal to buy California-based Pharmacyclics for $21bn. The massive deal would boost AbbVie’s cancer portfolio substantially. AbbVie currently relies heavily on its ageing $10bn-a-year auto inflammatory drug Humira, and 2 years earlier split from its partner Abbott in the hopes of finding large merger deals to fill its sparse drugs pipeline. One of the driving factors for the merger was Pharmacyclics blood cancer drug, Imbruvica, which is expected to achieve worldwide sales of $5.8bn by 2020. AbbVie achieved revenues of $22bn in 2015 and currently employs more than 28,000 people.”

2.Shire-Baxalta, $32bn, 2016
“In January 2016 Shire finally closed a deal to acquire Baxalta for $32bn after 6 months of negotiations. Shire stated that the new firm would be able to achieve double-digit sales growth to over $20bn by 2020, with about two-thirds of this revenue coming from immunology, neuroscience, haematology, lysosomal storage disorders, gastrointestinal diseases and heredity angioedema. Both companies are predicting around $500m in annual cost-savings within the first 3 years, with the combined tax rate down 7% to 16%.”

1.Teva-Allergan Generics, $40.5bn, 2015
“July, 2015, saw Israeli firm Teva buy Allergan’s generics unit for a massive $40.5bn in cash and stock. The deal meant that Allergan received $33.75bn in cash and Teva shares valued at $6.75bn, giving it a 10% stake in Teva. Investors had been pressuring Teva to make a major deal as generics erosion meant that the firm could face severe losses from its $4.2bn a year multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone. Teva hopes that the deal with Allergan generics will establish a foundation for long-term sustainable growth and assist in building a strong portfolio of products in both generics and specialty areas. Teva achieved revenues of around $20bn in 2014, and currently employs more than 40,000 individuals.”


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.

Gene therapy and the trans-human agenda

Gene therapy and the trans-human agenda

Cure disease or alter humans?

by Jon Rappoport

April 17, 2018

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

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

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.


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 US government colludes in Mass Deaths by Opioids

US government colludes in Mass Deaths by Opioids

Get the truth out and spread it

by Jon Rappoport

April 10, 2018

The major pipeline for trafficking opioid drugs starts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, who are intentionally distributing opioids far beyond any legitimate need.

2 MILLION OPIOID ADDICTS IN THE US.

300,000 DEATHS SINCE THE YEAR 2000 IN THE US.

A significant percentage of this human carnage results from illegal distribution of opioids.

Here is the open secret:

A 2016 LAW SIGNED BY OBAMA SHACKLED THE DEA (DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION) IN ITS EFFORTS TO CRACK DOWN ON BIG PHARMA TRAFFICKERS.

That law is the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2016, passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on 4/9/16.

And that is the federal government’s role in perpetuating and expanding the opioid crisis.

Honest agents inside the complacent DEA want to have the right to march into a pharmaceutical company headquarters and say, “We know you’re shipping millions of opioid pills to little pharmacies and clinics that, in turn, are selling the pills to street dealers. We’re going to freeze those shipments now, and we’re going to arrest key executives.”

But that 2016 law raises the bar so high on what the DEA can do, the whole law-enforcement effort is hamstrung, throttled, and loaded down with legal complications.

In essence, the US Congress gave drug companies a free pass.

And no one in the Congress is admitting it or talking about it.

The Washington Post, October 15, 2017, “The Drug Industry’s Triumph Over the DEA”: “In April 2016, at the height of the deadliest drug epidemic in U.S. history, Congress effectively stripped the Drug Enforcement Administration of its most potent weapon against large drug companies suspected of spilling prescription [opioid] narcotics onto the nation’s streets.”

“A handful of members of Congress, allied with the nation’s major drug distributors, prevailed upon the DEA and the Justice Department to agree to a more industry-friendly law, undermining efforts to stanch the flow of pain pills, according to an investigation by The Washington Post and ‘60 Minutes’…”

“The law was the crowning achievement of a multifaceted campaign by the drug industry to weaken aggressive DEA enforcement efforts against drug distribution companies that were supplying corrupt doctors and pharmacists who peddled [opioid] narcotics to the black market. The industry worked behind the scenes with lobbyists and key members of Congress [to pass the 2016 law], pouring more than a million dollars into their election campaigns.”

“For years, some drug distributors were fined for repeatedly ignoring warnings from the DEA to shut down suspicious sales of hundreds of millions of pills, while they racked up billions of dollars in sales.”

“The new [2016] law makes it virtually impossible for the DEA to freeze suspicious narcotic shipments from the companies, according to internal agency and Justice Department documents and an independent assessment by the DEA’s chief administrative law judge in a soon-to-be-published law review article. That powerful tool [freezing opioid shipments] had allowed the agency to immediately prevent drugs from reaching the street.”

“Besides the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill, few lawmakers knew the true impact the law would have. It sailed through Congress and was passed by unanimous consent, a parliamentary procedure reserved for bills considered to be noncontroversial. The White House was equally unaware of the bill’s import when President Barack Obama signed it into law, according to interviews with former senior administration officials.”

“Michael Botticelli, who led the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy at the time, said neither [the Department of] Justice nor the DEA objected to the bill, removing a major obstacle to the president’s approval.”

BUT SINCE EVERYONE IS NOW AWARE OF THE LAW’S HORRENDOUS IMPACT, WHY DOESN’T THE CONGRESS REPEAL IT?

The fact that no one is stepping up to the plate with a fast repeal is proof that multiple parts of the federal government are, in fact, tacitly supporting the opioid crisis and its devastating impacts on human life.

“We didn’t know what we were voting on” is, at best, a temporary excuse, until the truth comes to light.

After that, failure to act swiftly amounts to collusion in Death by Opioids.

Former President Obama, the Congress, and officials within the Justice Department and the DEA are all guilty.


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 gold standard of medical tests is fake

The gold standard of medical tests is fake

by Jon Rappoport

April 4, 2018

Because of their sophistication and complexity, scientific tests are accepted without question. But what happens when they don’t work and are nothing but professional gibberish?

One such test is the PCR (polymerase chain reaction), when it is used to measure the amount of a particular virus present in the human body and, therefore, the presence of disease.

The PCR is used all over the world as a gold standard of disease diagnosis.

PCR starts with what is presumed to be a tiny, tiny, tiny piece of a virus from a patient. This piece is far too small to be seen directly. The test amplifies the supposed viral fragment many times. Think of a whisper of a sound in a far-off forest turning into a full orchestra three feet away from you. It’s that level of amplification.

The result? According to the pros, they can then observe the virus and identify it. And they can also tell how much of it is in the patient’s body.

“Well, Mr. Jones, you have virus X24. So you have disease X24.”

Brilliant.

Except for a few issues.

First, in order to say a person has a disease, you would have seen lot and lots and lots of virus in his body. Millions. A few little critters aren’t going to make any impact on the person’s health.

So why is the PCR test necessary in the first place?

If all you can find is a tiny, tiny fragment of what might be a virus, you already know you’re barking up the wrong tree.

Without the PCR, you should be able to establish that millions of a particular virus have invaded the patient’s body.

If you can’t, why bother using the PCR?

And second, the claim that the PCR can be used to say there ARE millions of a particular virus in the body is unverified. It could be verified or rejected, if more direct tests were done, but I don’t see that happening.

For example, you do a PCR on a patient, and you conclude he has a huge load of virus X in his body. Well, then, use a different test and confirm this is true. It should be easy. With filters and a centrifuge, for example, show that you can extract a concentrated pellet consisting of millions of virus X particles.

The PCR test itself is a remarkable procedure. But its use in disease diagnosis is way off the mark. Fake.

What are the implications? All over the world, every day, patients are tested with the PCR. The results say nothing about disease, yet that’s exactly how and why the test is deployed.

False disease diagnoses are made, and toxic drugs are prescribed.

“Well, we did a PCR test on Mr. Jones, and we found he has virus X, so he has disease X.”

“You didn’t find out anything. If Mr. Jones has disease X, he would have millions and millions of virus X in his body. You could find that out by using other direct tests. But when you do those other tests, you can’t find large quantities of virus X.”

“That’s ridiculous. I’m too busy to talk to you. I have to get to the lab.”

In 1996, journalist John Lauritsen wrote, “Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Science for inventing the PCR…has stated: ‘Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron’.”

Translation: the PCR test can’t be used to say how much virus is in a person’s body.

Using PCR to measure the number of viruses in the human body (quantitative) is contradictory to the way the test works. The test isn’t designed to spout those numbers. Therefore, using it to diagnose active disease in a person is absurd.


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.

A universal flu vaccine: the mad science solution

A universal flu vaccine: the mad science solution

by Jon Rappoport

March 29, 2018

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.

New CRISPR gene-editing: the extreme dangers

New CRISPR gene-editing: the extreme dangers

by Jon Rappoport

March 27, 2018

Technologynetworks.com (6/26/17): “CRISPR gene editing is taking biomedical research by storm. Providing the ultimate toolbox for genetic manipulation, many new applications for this technology are now being investigated and established. CRISPR systems are already delivering superior genetic models for fundamental disease research, drug screening and therapy development, rapid diagnostics, in vivo editing and correction of heritable conditions and now the first human CRISPR clinical trials.”

All hail.

It’s called CRISPR, a much faster, more precise, and cheaper technique for editing genes. Researchers are in love with it. You can find hundreds of articles and studies fawning over the innovation.

At phys.org, however, we have this, ahem, warning note (5/29/17): “…a new study published in Nature Methods has found that the gene-editing technology can introduce hundreds of unintended mutations into the genome.”

Oops.

“In the new study, the researchers sequenced the entire genome of mice that had undergone CRISPR gene editing in the team’s previous study and looked for all mutations, including those that only altered a single nucleotide.”

“The researchers determined that CRISPR had successfully corrected a gene that causes blindness, but Kellie Schaefer, a PhD student in the lab of Vinit Mahajan, MD, PhD, associate professor of ophthalmology at Stanford University, and co-author of the study, found that the genomes of two independent gene therapy recipients [mice] HAD SUSTAINED MORE THAN 1500 SINGLE-NUCLEOTIDE MUTATIONS AND MORE THAN 100 LARGER [GENE] DELETIONS AND INSERTIONS. None of these DNA mutations were predicted by computer algorithms that are widely used by researchers to look for off-target effects.” (Emphasis is mine.)

“’Researchers who aren’t using whole genome sequencing to find off-target effects may be missing potentially important mutations,’ Dr. Tsang says. ‘Even a single nucleotide change can have a huge impact’.”

Genetic roulette is alive and well.

Spin the wheel, see what numbers come up. Good effects, bad effects, who knows? Step right up and take your chances.

Of course, researchers who admit these tremendous problems remain optimistic. They look forward to “refining the method.” That’s a cover for: “we really don’t know what we’re doing right now.”

Unfortunately, much science operates in this fashion. Launch a new technology, and turn a blind eye to the consequences. For example, place mercury, a devastating neurotoxin, in vaccines. What harm could result—aside from the destruction of children’s brains.

Here is more gushing PR, otherwise known as throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks:

“There are weekly press releases and updates on new advances [in CRISPR] and discoveries made possible with this technology; the first evidence is now emerging that CRISPR-Cas9 could provide cures for major diseases including cancers and devastating human viruses such as HIV-1.” (technologynetworks.com, “CRISPR: Emerging applications for genome editing technology”)

The train has left the station.

And just in case you think only the most careful and competent leading lights of the genetic research community would be permitted to get within a mile of CRISPR, here is more from technologynetworks.com:

“CRISPR-Cas9 systems, tools and basic methodology are very accessible as ready to go toolkits that anyone with lab space and an idea can pick up and start working with…In response to a growing need, companies such as Desktop Genetics have developed open access software to accelerate CRISPR experimentation and analysis.”

That’s good to know. “Anyone with lab space and an idea” can jump on board and have at it.

Do your own cross breeding of the pregnant phrases, “What could possibly go wrong,” and “Nothing to see here, move along,” and you’ve summarized the situation.

“They say they cured my anemia, but now I turn green and purple and I keep falling down.”

If all this isn’t enough to make you see the dangers of CRISPR, consider this statement about engineering human immune cells (T-cells) in a “safer” way. From statnews.com (June 23, 2016):

“The experiment would alter the immune system’s T cells only after they’re removed from a patient. That gives scientists the chance to screen the CRISPR’d cells to make sure only the three intended genes, all involved in making T cells find and destroy tumor cells, are altered. But after those T cells are infused back into a patient to fight melanoma, sarcoma, or myeloma, the CRISPR system can keep editing DNA, and tracking such edits becomes like following a polar bear in a snowstorm.”

Not very comforting. Once set in motion, even under the most protected and limited conditions, CRISPR can keep on working, scrambling genes in unknown ways.


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.

CDC vaccine science covers up giant conflict of interest

CDC vaccine science covers up giant conflict of interest

by Jon Rappoport

March 21, 2018

If you wanted to buy a product…

And the main researcher of the product was the company selling it to you…

Would you automatically assume the product was safe and effective?

But you see, that’s the just the beginning of the problem. Suppose the company’s research was cited thousands of times in the press, as the authoritative standard of proof—and anyone who disputed that research was labeled a conspiracy theorist and a quack and a danger to the community and an anti-science lunatic.

Would you begin to suspect the company had awesome media connections? Would you suspect some very powerful people were backing the company?

This is exactly the situation with the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Read these two quotes:

The government’s Vaccine for Children Program (a CDC organization) purchases vaccines for about 50 percent of children in the U.S.” (The Atlantic, February 10, 2015)

“The CDC currently spends over $4 billion purchasing vaccines [annually] from drug makers…” (Health Impact News, October 24, 2016)

However, the CDC is also the gold standard for research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It turns out an unending stream of studies on these subjects. And the results of those studies are dutifully reported in the mainstream press.

Do you think, under any circumstances, the CDC would publish data showing vaccines are ineffective and dangerous? They’d be cutting their own throats.

“Well, we spend $4 billion a year buying vaccines from drug companies, but guess what? These vaccines are often dangerous…”

Every time you read about a CDC study on vaccines, keep this obvious conflict of interest in mind.

When, in 2014, William Thompson, a long-time CDC researcher, publicly admitted he and his colleagues had buried data that would have shown the MMR vaccine increases the risk of autism, he was throwing a stick of dynamite into the whole CDC operation. He was also saying, in recorded phone conversations, that the CDC was lying about vaccine safety in other studies.

This is why major media refused to cover or investigate Thompson’s claims. This is why they spread a blanket of silence over his revelations.

Thompson was threatening a $ 4-billion-a-year enterprise.

The CDC is both a PR agency for, and a buyer from, Big Pharma.

Speaking of PR, would you like to see an example of how the CDC promotes the yearly flu vaccine by lying egregiously about flu deaths in the United States?

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

Boom.

You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure.

However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

“Well, uh, we used to say 36,000 people died from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”

The CDC must turn out a steady stream of outrageous lies about the need for vaccines. If they didn’t, they’d have no way to justify the billions of dollars they spend every year buying the vaccines from drug companies.

Since the sold-out major media won’t connect these dots, I and others need to.


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.