Which completely screwed up healthcare bill do you want?

Which completely screwed up healthcare bill do you want?

by Jon Rappoport

July 4, 2017

You can have Obamacare. Or you can take the current Republican re-do. Have you read it? Do you know exactly what’s in it? Of course not.

I can tell you this. Every possible healthcare bill has the same flaw. It’s called death. I’ll explain in a moment.

But first I want to mention that, for the past decade, as a working reporter, I’ve taken many actions to put a piece of medical information in front of mainstream news media, and they won’t bite. No matter what. I’ve published the information, backed it up seven ways from Sunday, and it doesn’t matter. No dice.

Here it is. Again. Every year, like clockwork, the US medical system kills 225,000 people. That’s a mainstream conclusion. A conservative conclusion. By extrapolation, that means the US medical system kills 2.25 MILLION people per decade.

Therefore, any new law that places more Americans inside the medical system through insurance plans will increase those death numbers. The death numbers will rise to new heights.

Where does the 225,000 death figure come from? A review in the July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, titled: “Is US Health really the Best in the World?” The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

When I interviewed her in 2009, not long before her death, I asked whether the federal government was doing anything to comprehensively fix the medical horror show, and whether any official from the government had approached her to consult on that fix. To both questions, she emphatically answered: “NO.”

In her Journal review, Starfield broke down the ongoing medical tragedy this way: annually, 106,000 Americans die from the effects of correctly prescribed, FDA approved, medicines. 119,000 Americans die as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals.

Again, it doesn’t matter what kind of national health insurance plan you prefer. As long as it puts more Americans under the umbrella of the medical system, the death figures will rise.

Starfield was not the only person to blow the whistle. I’ll give you two more examples.

Consider this article, “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and is the 2013 recipient of ASA’s [American Sociological Association’s] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.

Donald Light: “Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [than the deaths: 6.6 million hospitalizations annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.” (ASA publication, “Footnotes,” November 2014)

One more. The journal citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989), “Anticoagulants cause the most serious adverse events, finds US analysis.” Author, Jeanne Lenzer.

Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”

And here is the final dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because THE FDA CERTIFIES, AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, ALL THE DRUGS THAT ARE ROUTINELY MAIMING AND KILLING AMERICANS.

What I’m pointing out in this article is an ongoing devastation that sits at the bottom of any conventional health plan.

All discussions about which national insurance scheme is right for you ignores that devastation.

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.

UK, Netherlands: wrong sperm, three parents, ultimate agenda

UK, Netherlands scandals: wrong sperm, three parents, ultimate agenda

by Jon Rappoport

July 3, 2017

Sperm bank mix-up of sperm samples; DNA from three people to produce a baby. What’s going on?

In 2016, as dw.com reports: “A Dutch medical center has launched an investigation after uncovering that dozens of women may have been fertilized by the wrong sperm. Half of the women who underwent IVF [in vitro fertilization] treatment are pregnant or had their babies.”

“The University Medical Center in Utrecht (UMC) said on Tuesday that a ‘procedural error’ may have caused up to 26 women to be fertilized with the wrong sperm cells at its IVF treatment laboratory.”

Also in 2016, as dw.com reports: “Three-parent IVF techniques have been declared safe enough by British scientists to be offered in ‘specific circumstances.’ The treatments can reduce the risk of mothers passing hereditary diseases to their babies.”

“The treatment is known as ‘three-parent’ IVF because the babies, born from genetically modified embryos, would have DNA from a mother, a father and from a female donor.”

And now we have this emerging scandal in the Netherlands: A sperm bank owner in Rotterdam, Jan Karbat, who died two months ago, is being accused of secretly fathering dozens of children. According to 23 families, Karbat switched sperm samples and substituted his own for the donors’.

As grisly as these scandals and practices are, they are mere covers for a much deeper agenda: making conception, pregnancy, and birth AN INCREASINGLY SYNTHETIC PROCESS.

Here’s another factor (summarized in the Daily Beast). In 2011, the European Science Foundation reported that 20% of European men, between the ages of 18 and 25, are “sub-fertile.” Not only that, both sperm count and sperm effectiveness have been falling since 1960.

The Daily Beast article goes on to highlight research indicating that bisphenol-A (BPA), “found in hard plastic items like food containers, could tinker with reproduction because it’s an estrogen-like ‘endocrine disruptor’…Men with the highest levels of BPA in their urine had 23 percent lower sperm concentrations than did men with the lowest exposure to BPA.”

The deeper you drill into this whole issue, the clearer the outlines become. Behind the scandals and bizarre practices, the population is being conditioned to accept all forms of synthetic conception, pregnancy, and birth.

We are approaching the day when these natural events will be laboratory-type processes. “It’s best and safest for everyone that the experts handle human reproduction.”

In other words, the scandals are a limited hangout: confess to errors and mistakes and even crimes, as a way of making the deeper story go away. Admit a fragment of the truth, and conceal the rest.

If the public believes the whole process of giving birth, from the beginning, from conception, is fraught with problems, they will look for security and safety. They will look toward scientists “who have all the answers.” And those answers, more and more, will entail artificial and synthetic processes of conception, fertilization, and DNA tinkering.

The nuclear family? An outmoded notion.

Into the dustbin of history.

The inclination is to say, “Well, if enough scandals surrounding synthetic conception and birth are brought to light, the public and the authorities will demand a return to natural practices.” It’s counter-intuitive to imagine these scandals will drive the public into the arm of scientists for answers and guidance. But that’s the way it’s working out.

What has to happen is an awakening from the basic trance, in which all official science is considered a god.

Then people can think and look for themselves.

And one of things they can think about is the degree to which they want the birth of their children to become a technocratic institution for a Brave New World.

Substitute-sperm from an anonymous donor’s bank-deposit to impregnate a future mother? Combining and engineering the DNA from three or more donors, in order to produce an embryo? These are steps along the path to Huxley’s dystopia:

“Hot tunnels alternated with cool tunnels. Coolness was wedded to discomfort in the form of hard X-rays. By the time they were decanted the embryos had a horror of cold. They were predestined to emigrate to the tropics, to be miner[s] and acetate silk spinners and steel workers. Later on their minds would be made to endorse the judgment of their bodies. ‘We condition them to thrive on heat’, concluded Mr. Foster. ‘Our colleagues upstairs will teach them to love it’.”


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.

Deep medical fraud: logical insight cancels brain fog

Deep medical fraud: logical insight cancels brain fog

by Jon Rappoport

June 28, 2017

In the course of an investigation, a clue can turn up that changes everything. It exposes massive falsehoods and fraud.

But the meaning of the clue doesn’t always tap the investigator on the shoulder and reveal its full implications. The force of the rational insight is on a delay mechanism, as it were.

When I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in the late 1980s, I was surrounded by much confusion. A bewildering number of facts and opinions and lies were being fed to me by various sources. I was taping notes to my walls and trying to sort out the mess of spaghetti.

One day, while I was researching the AIDS antibody test, I spoke to an official at the FDA. He mentioned that, if a vaccine were developed for HIV, anyone who received it would be given a special letter from the government. The letter would declare that if this person ever tested positive for HIV, the result should be ignored, because the antibodies that made the test turn positive were resulting from the protective vaccine, not lethal HIV in the body.

After I hung up the phone, I tried to think through what I had just heard. Something strange was going on. What was it?

About a week later, it hit me. The brain fog was gone.

The official government position implied: if an HIV vaccine were ever developed, it would stimulate antibodies to HIV in the body and thus confer protection against AIDS. But…

If an unvaccinated person, taking an HIV test, registered positive, that result would signal the presence of antibodies to HIV in the body—and THAT would mean the person had AIDS or was on the road to developing it.

However, in either case, THE ANTIBODIES WERE THE SAME.

If they were stimulated and acquired through a vaccine, that was a good sign. It meant immunity.

But if these same antibodies were acquired naturally, as a response to making contact with HIV, that was a bad sign. It meant AIDS, now, or just up the road.

Vaccine antibodies GOOD.

Natural antibodies BAD.

THE SAME ANTIBODIES.

Unintentionally implicit in the FDA spokesman’s statements was the logical walkway called reductio ad absurdum; a reduction to absurdity. In other words, if you took the FDA man’s claim about the letter a person vaccinated against HIV would carry with him—and if you thought it through and saw all the implications, you would see the whole proposal was absurd to the highest degree.

A vaccine would produce an effect, X, which would confer immunity. The body, producing the same effect, X, would signal impending disease and even death.

Medical solution GOOD.

Body’s natural solution BAD.

Time and time again in my investigations, I’ve found reductio ad absurdum to be a very good friend and ally. Aristotle originally formulated the strategy, and it has stood the time of time quite nicely.

The overall pattern is rather simple: take an assertion; understand what it claims; lay out the chain of implications that follow from the assertion; show that this chain leads to an impossible or absurd consequence. THEREFORE, reject the assertion.

It’s like following a faulty set of directions. You drive through various streets and shift from one highway to another, all in the process of finding your way home from a distant location. But the directions finally lead you to a series of barriers at the desolate end of a highway, beyond which there is no road, only a pile of construction materials and a dank dark river you’ve never seen before.

It’s not home. It’s not useful. It makes no sense. It’s reductio ad absurdum.

The idea that a HIV vaccine would confer immunity, while a person’s own body—producing the same antibodies—wouldn’t confer immunity, is preposterous.

In the years since AIDS INC. was published, I’ve written about the sea-change that has occurred in disease diagnosis and vaccine “protection.” These days, a person receiving an antibody test for ANY given disease is told he is “positive” for the disease if antibodies show up on the test. But if he receives a vaccine that produces the same antibodies, he’s told he’s immune.

It makes zero sense.

Here is a final clue. A positive antibody test is no reason to tell a person he is sick or is going to get sick. A positive test most often indicates the person’s immune system has swung into gear and neutralized the germ in question. BUT if the medical establishment decides, arbitrarily, to interpret every positive test as a sign of illness, then many, many more people can be diagnosed with diseases. And then…

They can be treated with drugs.

And then, pharmaceutical cash registers ring like crazy with profits.


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

When the most basic logic fails to penetrate the mind

When the most basic logic fails to penetrate the mind

“He has the disease, but he doesn’t have the disease.”

by Jon Rappoport

June 27, 2017

As a freelance reporter, a main thrust of my research over the past 35 years has been medical fraud. Deep fraud. Fraud that takes place in research labs, where “new diseases” are discovered.

I wrote a number of articles about the so-called SARS outbreak of 2003. Health agencies and governments built up a ton of hysteria and sold it to the global public.

A few basic “facts”: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) includes the following symptoms—cough, fever, fatigue, sore throat. It originated in South China. It is caused by the SARS coronavirus. SARS is unique. It is a newly discovered condition. The coronavirus is newly discovered.

I saw holes in this presentation. For example, the SARS symptoms are indistinguishable from ordinary traditional flu or other non-specific illness that has been known about for centuries.

I kept going.

The SARS coronavirus was purportedly discovered by World Health Organization researchers working in ten labs linked by a private closed-circuit communication system. No outside researchers were given access.

The WHO researchers very quickly found the unique and never-before-seen coronavirus.

No statistics were released that demonstrated how many diagnosed SARS patients had the coronavirus virus in their bodies and how many didn’t.

But months later, a WHO microbiologist in Canada, Frank Plummer, wandered off the reservation and spoke with reporters. What he said, in a series of statements, was shocking:

Plummer basically admitted that almost all of the newest blood samples from SARS patients coming into his lab showed no trace of the SARS coronavirus.

Here is where logic enters the scene. When I reported what Frank Plummer said, I concluded that something was very, very wrong, because…how could people be diagnosed with SARS when they didn’t have the SARS virus in their bodies?

However, even in certain independent media outlets, that conclusion didn’t catch on. People were unable to realize:

If a patient is diagnosed with a disease, and that disease is supposed to be caused by a particular virus, but that patient doesn’t have the virus in his body, he can’t have the disease.

It’s as if you read, “Linguistics researchers at MIT just finished studying the characteristics of 120,000 sentences that contain exactly five words. Their findings are based on sentences that contain four words.”

Red flags, alarm bells, stop signs.

Basic logic has been violated.

But it turns out that a certain percentage of the population doesn’t recognize contradictions. They just pass over them, as if they aren’t there.

“Let’s see. Almost all the newest SARS patients don’t have the SARS virus. Okay. I guess that’s unusual.”

Not unusual. Impossible, by definition.

This is how education works in these times. See a blatant contradiction? Move on. Doesn’t matter. Contradictions are…a matter of opinion. Some people see blue, other people see green.

If you were shepherding society into a new era where control from above would be much tighter, you’d want to decide how the population should think about information—and if you could disable their capacity to the point where blatant contradictions passed unnoticed, you would count that as a victory.

On the other hand, if you were a parent who was prepared to pay a stunning sum of money for your child to attend college, and you knew he would emerge, after four years, unable to tell the difference between “blue” and “not blue,” you might be disturbed.

Consider this: In the wake of microbiologist Frank Plummer’s astonishing remarks to the press in 2003, not one major media news outlet in the world followed up and launched a probing investigation of a SARS scandal. It didn’t happen. It hasn’t happened since.

“A newly discovered disease” with the same symptoms as ordinary seasonal flu is said to be unique, because every person who has it also has a never-before-seen virus EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT EVERY PERSON DOESN’T HAVE THE VIRUS.

Memo to college and medical school students: write a thousand words on the logical implications of the above paragraph.

If you can’t, turn around immediately and go back to high school. Stage protests until the school offers a mandatory course in logic taught by a competent instructor.

Jon Rappoport

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

Zika, HIV: the abstract vs. the concrete in the pursuit of logic

Zika, HIV: the abstract vs. the concrete in the pursuit of logic

by Jon Rappoport

June 26, 2017

Medical Warning: this article may require THINKING. Ask your doctor if thinking is right for you.

When a philosopher has no more room to move and finds his back up against a cold wall in the middle of the night, he usually throws up his hands and surrenders his abstract position to concrete interests (like money, position, and power). I watched this happen in the late 1980s, when I saw my first book, AIDS INC., come into print.

The book took on CAUSATION, one of the interests of both the medical and philosophical profession. My investigation centered on: how do you decide a particular germ causes a particular disease?

I won’t bother going into all the details here. Suffice it to say, when I contacted a few academic folks I knew from my days as a college student studying philosophy, they shut their eyes tight and pretended they were having a bad dream, nothing more. They built a wall of silence. You see, asking them for a comment about causation was now treading on medical territory—far more real than the realm of their usual philosophical fiddling. If it turned out the entire medical cartel was tap dancing and faking a concept of causation, in order to falsely blame certain viruses for causing certain (high-profit) diseases, THAT was a scandal of immense proportions. And these academic philosophers wanted no part of it. They didn’t want to see their cozy positions in ivory towers ripped asunder. They didn’t want the concrete to intrude on the abstract. It was all well and good to cite Hume and Ayer and various logicians on the issue of causation, when nothing was at stake, but to move forward into a world where, depending on your view of cause and effect, some people made billions of dollars while other people died unnecessarily…that was out of the question. Therefore, my book was “reckless.” Therefore: no comment. Therefore: “Leave us alone. We never meant for you to grab these ideas and actually use them, logically, to shake up the invisible power structure. You’re doing something unseemly. You’re reflecting badly on us. You’re endangering reputations.”

Aha.

Do not upset apple carts. Do not expose crimes.

In my book, AIDS INC., I performed an obscene act. I implied that, by any reasonable standard of cause and effect, HIV had never been proved to cause the condition called AIDS. I was suddenly a philosopher with a weapon. I was shining a light in a cave where researchers were plundering logic to fake a proof. And, to continue the exercise, I was therefore demonstrating that AIDS was not one condition at all. It was an array of circumstances that produced, in different ways, in different people, the destruction of the immune system—and if you wanted to heal THAT, you had to find, in each afflicted person, what had attacked his immune system (not HIV), and then you had to try to reverse that affliction. In doing so, you could save lives. If, on the other hand, you persisted with the HIV myth, and utilized highly toxic drugs like AZT, you would kill people. Many people.

But the “philosophers” I approached saw no benefit in examining that investigation. The benefit (to them) was in ignoring it.

I would have welcomed an honest debate. But no offer was forthcoming.

I already knew, from my college years, that the walled off Territory of the Abstract was its own province; but this experience with my book, in 1988, was the last straw.

I was trying to approach cowards.

Unfettered, reasoned free speech was not their aim.

Up to a point, advanced education exists. But when you go beyond that point, you’re in the Empty Quarter. You’re staring at a vast parched desert.

Turn around. Walk away. You’re on your own. Your education now takes on a completely different cast. You learn how to apply analysis and do investigation independently.

That process, speaking from experience, is exhilarating.

The mines, and the caves in them, contain gold.

Here’s a quick contemporary analysis of causation: the Zika virus. In a nutshell, Brazilian researchers, working at “ground zero of the purported microcephaly (birth defect) outbreak,” declared Zika to be the cause. However, they admitted—before they cut off all communication on the subject—that traces of Zika could only be found in roughly 15% of babies with microcephaly. This correlation was astonishingly weak.

No matter what version of cause and effect you might favor, there is no way under the sun you can conclude that Zika causes microcephaly, when it can’t be found in 85% of cases.

Any honest researcher will tell you this is a reason to reject Zika as the cause and go back to the drawing board.

But that hasn’t happened. In fact, several groups are conducting studies on a Zika vaccine. They’re plunging forward.

One of these candidate-vaccines delivers synthesized genes into the body…where the genes…permanently alter the recipient’s DNA.

In this case, lying about causation leads to unbridled tinkering with populations’ genetic structure.

But why should academic philosophers care about that? They’re in their safe world, apart from, what shall we call it, LIFE.

HIV faced a similar problem that Zika does. Researchers correlated a diagnosis of AIDS with a positive HIV antibody test: many people who tested positive were later diagnosed with AIDS. There was a problem, however. The HIV antibody test will register positive for at least 60 reasons that have nothing to do with the presence of HIV in the body.

Independent researcher Christine Johnson documented this fact. Her classic investigation has been reprinted at aliveandwell.org. Here is just a partial list of factors that will cause an HIV antibody test to read positive for reasons that have nothing to do with HIV:

1. Anti-carbohydrate antibodies (52,19,13)
2. Naturally-occurring antibodies (5,19)
3. Passive immunization: receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies) (18, 26, 60, 4, 22, 42, 43, 13)
4. Leprosy (2, 25)
5. Tuberculosis (25)
6. Mycobacterium avium (25)
7. Systemic lupus erythematosus (15, 23)
8. Renal (kidney) failure (48, 23, 13)
9. Hemodialysis/renal failure (56, 16, 41, 10, 49)
10. Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients (54)
11. Flu (36)
12. Flu vaccination (30, 11, 3, 20, 13, 43)
13. Herpes simplex I (27)
14. Herpes simplex II (11)
15. Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu) (11)
16. Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines (11)
17. Prior pregnancy (58, 53, 13, 43, 36, 65)

Fake causation. It’s a big one.

There is much, much more to the HIV story (including serious doubts about whether HIV actually exists). But you get the general idea. The correlation between HIV and AIDS is irreparably weak…

I had a brief conversation about this with an academic philosophy professor. It went this way:

—So, Professor, you see that this is an issue of causation. If the correlation is very weak, the whole assumption of causation fails.

—Well, I don’t know about that. Other factors could be involved.

—Such as?

—That’s the whole point. We don’t know what the other factors are.

—We know enough. If researchers are going to say a particular virus causes a particular disease, they have to establish, at minimum, strong correlation. They have to prove, for starters, that the virus is present in the overwhelming percentage of cases of the disease.

—So this is the kind of thing you’ve been doing since you graduated from school?

—Yes.

—I think you need to reassess your approach.

—Why?

—Disease causation is an issue best left to medical experts.

—Why?

—It’s their field.

That’s where the conversation ended.

Beautiful, just beautiful.


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Shocker: study unwittingly links vaccines to autism

Shocker: study unwittingly links vaccines to autism

by Jon Rappoport

June 14, 2017

Start with this:

A new study links fever in pregnant women to an increased risk of autism in their babies.

MedicalNewsToday (6/13/17): “A study of a large group of children found a link between raised risk of autism spectrum disorder and their mothers reporting fever during pregnancy. The link was strongest with fevers reported during the second trimester.”

“The study – led by the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University in New York City, NY – also found that the risk of autism increased in line with the number of fevers reported after 12 weeks of gestation – rising to 300 percent higher risk [of autism] with reports of three or more fevers.”

Next, here is a one-word item from the World Health Organization web page, Vaccine Safety Basics. The item comes under the heading of “minor vaccine reactions,” and applies to every vaccine: the reaction is FEVER.

Pregnant woman gets vaccines. Vaccines cause fevers. Fevers are linked to autistic babies.

Here is a CDC list of vaccines given to pregnant women, under various conditions: HepA, HepB, Flu, Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis), meningococcal, polio, Rabies. Fever, as a typical and minor adverse effect, would be expected and ignored for ANY AND ALL of these vaccines.

Accepting the finding of the new study, cited above—routine vaccination for pregnant women is linked to an increased risk of autism in their babies.

That’s it in a nutshell.

No doubt if you pointed out the inevitable conclusion to a doctor or a researcher, they would try to worm out of it. They would say, “Well, we’re not talking about fever resulting from vaccines. We’re talking about fever coming from an infection in the pregnant woman.” Really? Why don’t you think the vaccine is producing fever? It’s causing an infection, and the immune system is reacting. Fever is an entirely expected consequence.

Note: I’m not saying the creation of fever is the only reason vaccines cause autism and various types of neurological damage. I’m saying here is a new connection.

And mainstream medicine and the mainstream press will ignore it completely.


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.

Medical drug effects in a world organized on Scarcity

Medical drug effects in a world organized on Scarcity

by Jon Rappoport

June 12, 2017

First, I want to give you a quick overview of the devastating effects of medical drugs.

The article is, “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and is the 2013 recipient of ASA’s [American Sociological Association’s] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.

Donald Light: “Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [6.6 million annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.” (ASA publication, “Footnotes,” November 2014 — see link above)

The statistics I’m quoting reveal a problem on the level of a tsunami sweeping across the whole of America and Europe—while somehow, people carry on with their lives as if nothing is happening. Unless it’s happening to them or those they love.

In past articles, I’ve explained how and why this crime is ongoing, from several perspectives (profit motive, indifference to human life, the need to control populations and render them weak, etc.). Here, I want to focus on an underlying principle:

THE CONDITION OF GOOD HEALTH IS SCARCE; THE CONDITION OF SICKNESS IS ABUNDANT.

This principle doesn’t merely attempt to describe the way things are. It also reflects a mindset that assumes this is the way the world operates. WHAT WE MOST DESIRE IS SCARCE. WHAT WE MOST WANT TO AVOID IS ABUNDANT.

Adopting that mindset leads to all sorts of dire consequences. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Reversing the mindset can only be achieved by understanding a deep and buried level of individual spiritual psychology. At that level, the individual perceives a quite different reality. He perceives the potential of abundance on the side of The Good.

I’m not talking about some shallow New Age “rainbows and marshmallows” premise. I’m talking about a profound realization of Creative Force—the capacity to create positive outcomes without limit.

And of course, one of those outcomes would be good health and well-being.

If that idea took hold, the horrifically destructive effects of modern medicine would go the way of extinct species.

A future historian would conclude: “For a time, the universal treatment of sickness gave rise to the notion that ill-health was a basic human condition, from cradle to grave. This was the staggering conception of abundance, applied in a most perverse way. Fortunately, an awakening occurred. Finally, humans perceived that health was, in fact, the abundant underlying power…”

Which kind of abundance does each individual see and choose and act upon? The type that saps strength or the type that funnels unlimited amounts of amounts of energy into inventing a better future?

This is not a theoretical or academic question. This is as real as real gets, because it goes to the heart of what the individual will do or not do.

Will he decide all is lost, or will he decide all can be gained?


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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