Part 2, Faking Medical Reality

Placebo washout: Another outrageous medical coverup

by Jon Rappoport

December 7, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

(Note: For Part-1, click here.)

Here is yet another way to do medical studies that guarantee a waterfall of lies will spread out far and wide. Another way to make the studies look good when they aren’t.

Let’s say you went into a school to see if it was a good place for your child to acquire a real education. And you were shown overall performance records of the students on standardized tests, and these records looked quite impressive.

Upon inquiring a little further, though, you came across an interesting point. The head of the school believed that some students just didn’t perform well on tests—and so he had excused them from taking any exams.

Shocked, you said to him, “Your performance records are a sham. They don’t reflect the truth. You’ve stacked the deck.”

And he replied, “Not at all. I’ve merely kept statistics on those pupils who have the ability to take tests. That’s the important population. The others shouldn’t be tested at all. In this venue, they don’t count.”

Keep that analogy in mind as we proceed.

I want to alert you to a staggering medical practice in clinical trials of psychiatric drugs.

It’s called “placebo washout.”

Basically, it works this way. Before a drug company starts to test the effectiveness of a new medicine they want to market, they bring together all the volunteers—and they give them a sugar pill.

They tell them, “We’re going to give you a sugar pill.”

After a ten-day period on the placebo, the researchers weed out the people who improved, got better, feel better. They dump them from the ensuing clinical trial. Bye bye.

They don’t want these people around for the real clinical trial that is to follow.

Of course, they claim there are good reasons for this washout strategy. But the fact is, eliminating these volunteers from the study makes it far more likely that the drug being tested will look good, when it shouldn’t.

First, in case you don’t believe placebo washout is a real and widespread practice, do a search for it at the NIH website.

It’s real. They give everybody a sugar pill, and then they dismiss all those who got better on it.

Then they get down to the actual clinical trial. They divide the remaining volunteers into two groups. Those who will receive the drug, and those who will be given another placebo.

Nobody is told which group they’re going to be in. That’s the whole point. Blinding the study enables researchers to compare the number of people who get better on the drug with those who get better on the placebo.

You see, it’s common knowledge that some people will get better on anything. That’s why they form the two groups. They have to prove (to the FDA) the drug is performing better than the sugar pill.

General estimates vary on what percentage of people get better on placebos. 35-45%, some researchers say, is a rule of thumb. Sometimes the % is higher.

But wait! The researchers ALREADY kicked out the people who got better on the sugar pill during the 10-day preliminary washout!

What’s going on here?

Well, in the actual clinical trial, where half the people get the placebo and half get the medicine, some people who get the placebo—armed with the hope that they might be getting the medicine—will feel better, even though they’re only swallowing sugar pills.

And the researchers must show that more people who are getting the drug are feeling better than those who are getting the placebo.

That’s the whole reason for this type of clinical trial.

“See, 47 people who took the drug feel better. And only 22 people who took the sugar pill feel better. Therefore, the drug really works.”

Sure it works. Because you already kicked out all the people who felt better on a placebo in the washout phase.

In effect, you did a screening. You “cut out the competition.”

It’s like saying, “We have a great runner on our team. His times in the 100-meter dash are exceptional…there’s only one thing. In track meets, we insist he run only 80 meters and you have to imagine it’s 100.”

The FDA, which approves all drugs for public use, knows all about the placebo washout con job. Researchers know this. Shrinks know this. Drug companies know this. Even some medical reporters know this.

And yet, the practice goes on.

Placebo washout is on the order of saying, “Yes, we tested the new plane and it performs magnificently. Of course, we didn’t put it into the air. We rolled it across the runway.”

If there are any psychiatrists out there who are reading this, any researchers who want to defend placebo washout, I suggest we set up a debate with Dr. Peter Breggin, psychiatrist and author. But I warn you. Buckle up. It’ll be a bumpy ride.

Placebo washout. Rigging the game. Stacking the deck. The bigger the lie and the more obvious it is, the harder it is to believe that’s what’s you’re looking at. Until you LOOK.

In my 30 years as a reporter, I’ve come across maybe 100 scandals that could cause a significant sector of the medical cartel to burst into flames and blow away in the wind. This is one of those.

Of course, media, government, and drug corporations make sure such a thing never happens. And when I say media, I’m including publications you’d think would love to watch a really good fire. Turns out they have no stomach for it.

NOTE: In case you’re still a little shaky on this scam, let me lay it out this way:

A drug company has a new drug, Gx, for depression. It’s not on the market yet. For that they need FDA approval, and the approval rests on the results of a clinical trial the company is going to launch.

The company signs up 500 volunteers, all of whom meet mainstream criteria for a diagnosis of clinical depression.

The company brings together the 500 volunteers and administers them a sugar pill (placebo) for 10 days. Everybody knows it’s a sugar pill.

After 10 days, the company discovers which of the 500 people responded well to the pill: placebo effect. Let’s say 80 people did. They feel better. Boom. They’re dumped from further consideration. They’re gone.

Why? Because chances are very good that, were they allowed on to the next phase, those among them who ended up with the sugar pill would have said, “Wow, I feel better. I feel less depressed.”

And THAT means the people who were given the actual drug, Gx, would be “up against stiffer competition” from the group who took the placebo.

After those 80 people were booted from the placebo washout phase, with 420 volunteers left, they were divided into 2 groups of 210 each, and then 210 got the drug, Gx, and 210 got a sugar pill. None of the volunteers knows what they’re getting. This phase of the trial goes on for 6 weeks. At the end of that period, the study is “unblinded,” and everyone knows who got which pill. Now, among the placebo group of 210, it turns out that 60 showed significant improvement, and among the group of 210 who got Gx, 85 showed improvement.

The researchers conclude, “Those on Gx performed significantly better than those on placebo. This drug is good.”

But had those original 80, who were kicked to the side of the road after the placebo washout phase, been included in this later phase, the conclusions of the researchers could have turned out quite badly for the drug and the drug company. Gx could have performed no better than the sugar pill. It could have done worse.

And this is called SCIENCE.


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.

Faking Medical Reality

by Jon Rappoport

December 6, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

(Note: For Part-2, click here.)

“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.” —Marcia Angell, MD

“The secret of acting is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” —George Burns

The faking of medical reality is, at bottom, an operation designed to bolster the power of the medical cartel, one of the most important forces on the planet.

What do doctors rely on? What do medical schools rely on? What do medical journals and mainstream medical reporters and drug companies and the FDA rely on?

The sanctity of published clinical trials of drugs. These trials determine whether the drugs are safe and effective. The drugs are tested on human volunteers. The results are tabulated. The trial is described in a paper that is printed by a medical journal.

This is science. This is rationality. This is the rock. Without these studies, the whole field of medical research would fall apart in utter chaos.

Upon this rock, and hence through media, the public becomes aware of the latest breakthrough, the newest medicine. Through doctors in their offices, the public finds out what drugs they should take—and their doctors know because their doctors have read the published reports in the medical journals, the reports that describe the clinical trials. Or if the doctors haven’t actually read the reports, they’ve been told about them.

It all goes back to this rock.

And when mainstream advocates attack so-called alternative or natural health, they tend to mention that their own sacred profession is based on real science, on studies, on clinical trials.

One doctor told me, “The clinical trials and published studies are what keep us from going back to the Stone Age.”

So now let me quote an article in the NY Review of Books (May 12, 2011) by Helen Epstein, “Flu Warning: Beware the Drug Companies.”

“Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false, in the sense that independent researchers couldn’t replicate them. The problem is particularly widespread in medical research, where peer-reviewed articles in medical journals can be crucial in influencing multimillion- and sometimes multibillion-dollar spending decisions. It would be surprising if conflicts of interest did not sometimes compromise editorial neutrality, and in the case of medical research, the sources of bias are obvious. Most medical journals receive half or more of their income from pharmaceutical company advertising and reprint orders, and dozens of others [journals] are owned by companies like Wolters Kluwer, a medical publisher that also provides marketing services to the pharmaceutical industry.”

Here’s another quote from the same article:

“The FDA also relies increasingly upon fees and other payments from the pharmaceutical companies whose products the agency is supposed to regulate. This could contribute to the growing number of scandals in which the dangers of widely prescribed drugs have been discovered too late. Last year, GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia was linked to thousands of heart attacks, and earlier in the decade, the company’s antidepressant Paxil was discovered to exacerbate the risk of suicide in young people. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx was also linked to thousands of heart disease deaths. In each case, the scientific literature gave little hint of these dangers. The companies have agreed to pay settlements in class action lawsuits amounting to far less than the profits the drugs earned on the market. These precedents could be creating incentives for reduced vigilance concerning the side effects of prescription drugs in general.”

Also from the NY Review of Books, here are two quotes from Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, perhaps the most prestigious medical journal in the world. (“Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption”)

“Consider the clinical trials by which drugs are tested in human subjects. Before a new drug can enter the market, its manufacturer must sponsor clinical trials to show the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective, usually as compared with a placebo or dummy pill. The results of all the trials (there may be many) are submitted to the FDA, and if one or two trials are positive—that is, they show effectiveness without serious risk—the drug is usually approved, even if all the other trials are negative.”

Here is another Angell statement:

“In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that [drug] industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeated in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.”

It turns out that the source of the informational pipeline that feeds the entire perception of pharmaceutical medicine is a rank fraud.

It would be on the order of an intelligence agency discovering that the majority of its operatives were actually working for the other side.

And then continuing on with business as usual.

Sometimes the body is dead even though it keeps on walking. It can smile and nod and perform basic functions—a zombie—but it is doing so only because certain implacable criminals back it up and give it a machine-like force.

“We have the clinical trials of studies on drugs and they are published in top-rank journals. We are the epitome of science.”

Yes, false science. Riddled from top to bottom with lies.

Perhaps this will help the next time a friend, pretending he actually knows anything, tells you pharmaceutical medicine is a resounding success.

If you need more, cite Dr. Barbara Starfield’s famous study, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000. Starfield concludes that 225,000 people are killed by the medical system in the US every year—106,000 by FDA-approved medicines. That latter figure would work out to over a MILLION deaths per decade.

A final note: The august editors of medical journals have a game they can play. Suppose a drug company has just finished writing up the results of a clinical drug trial and has submitted the piece to a journal for publication. The editor knows the company carried out a half-dozen other such trials on the same drug…and they didn’t look good. The drug caused wild fluctuations in blood pressure and blood sugar. There were heart attacks. Strokes. But this ONE study, the one submitted for publication, looks very positive. The editor knows if he prints it and forgets about “ethics,” the drug company will order re-prints of the piece from him and distribute them to doctors all over the world, and to reporters, professors, government officials. The drug company will order and pay for so many re-prints, the medical journal can make $700,000 from publishing THAT ONE STUDY. Let’s see. In one hand, the editor sees: I won’t publish it=no money. In the other hand, he sees: I’ll publish it=$700,000. What to do?


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

Cure disease or alter humans?

by Jon Rappoport

November 28, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“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.

Flashback: creating a genetically altered human

by Jon Rappoport

November 27, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Combing through my files, I came across a piece I’d written in 2011 about genetic alteration. But my piece referred to experiments done much earlier, in 2001.

Given what happened in 2001, one can only imagine how far scientists have now gone in tinkering with DNA—openly, and in secret.

From The Telegraph, Sep.27, 2001, “Boy’s DNA implanted in rabbit eggs,” written by Roger Highfield:

“Scientists in China have inserted a boy’s DNA into empty rabbit eggs and grown hybrid embryos, it is reported today. A team at the Sun Yat-Sen University of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, are trying to overcome a practical limitation…In some of the 100 or so successful transfers to a rabbit egg stripped of chromosomes, an embryo developed to the morula stage, [which is] the compact ball of cells that forms after about three days of development. For stem cells to be isolated, the embryos must be coaxed into developing further.”

Also in 2001, there was another, far more ambitious experiment:

BBC Online (May 4, 2001): “Scientists have confirmed that the first genetically altered humans have been born and are healthy.”

“Up to 30 such children have been born, 15 of them as a result of one experimental programme at a US laboratory [the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey]…”

“Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year-old children confirm that they contain a small quantity of additional genes not inherited from either parent.”

“The additional genes were taken from a healthy donor and used to overcome their mother’s infertility problems.”

“…The additional genes that the children carry have altered their ‘germline’, or their collection of genes that they will pass on to their offspring…[Note: This means the new abnormal configuration of genes will spread out into the general population, over time, with unknown effects.]

“Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers say that this ‘is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children.’”

The superhighway into a genetically designed future isn’t just a science-fiction fantasy. Stones on that highway have already been laid down.

This is how the op proceeds:

Out front, scientists say they are curing infertility and other medical problems by genetic alteration—and many scientists believe this is the only purpose of the work. But behind that, something else is happening:

Wholesale gene alteration to invent different and new types of humans.

This is the technocrats’ Holy Grail. A society in which different classes of humans are assigned to different levels of work and living.

Lee Silver, an eminent molecular biologist at Princeton, has written a book, Remaking Eden (1998), about the future of gene science in society. This is how he views the future just over the horizon:

“The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—[will] all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class…”

“Naturals [who aren’t genetically altered] work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.”

“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do.”

“Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of repro-genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. [W]hether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”

As shocking as Lee Silver’s assessment is, it’s mild when put up against the pronouncement of Gregory Stock, former director of the 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.”

That’s quite an “innovative” definition of scientific responsibility.

And note that Gregory Stock is also talking about new “life forms” that are combinations of biological and technological elements—bio-machines.

Give the current state of genetic science, and the inflated claims of competence, you can be sure that many thousands of hit-and-miss experiments are being carried out. It’s trial and error. One can only imagine some of the grotesque “errors.”

Behind all this is the assumption that human beings are deficient; they need alteration; as composed, they are woefully insufficient to take their place in the new world order.

Which is why I’m posting this piece—because we are seeing yet another vector in the attack on The Individual. As I’ve maintained for the past 35 years, there is nothing wrong with the individual, except his reluctance to recognize his own power and his own capacity to envision his best future and pursue it with commitment.

In full bloom, the individual is not only adequate, he is dynamic and majestic.

Understanding this is the “adjustment” we need to make.


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.

Super-high levels of toxic aluminum found in brains of autistic patients: aluminum is present in many vaccines

by Jon Rappoport

November 21, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

(For Part-2, click here.)

Here I am printing the abstract of a new study: “Aluminium in brain tissue in autism.” The publication is Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology.

The authors of the study are associated with The Birchall Centre, Lennard-Jones Laboratories, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK; Life Sciences, Keele University; and the Department of Clinical Neuropathology, Kings College Hospital, London, UK.

The findings? Shockingly high levels of aluminum were found in these brain samples. It’s widely acknowledged that aluminum can enter the brain and disrupt its functions.

Of course, aluminum is present in many vaccines.

Here is the abstract of the study. I’ve put several statements in caps for emphasis:

“Autism spectrum disorder is a neurodevelopmental disorder of unknown aetiology. It is suggested to involve both genetic susceptibility and environmental factors including in the latter environmental toxins. Human exposure to the environmental toxin aluminium has been linked, if tentatively, to autism spectrum disorder. Herein we have used transversely heated graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry to measure, for the first time, the aluminium content of brain tissue from donors with a diagnosis of autism. We have also used an aluminium-selective fluor to identify aluminium in brain tissue using fluorescence microscopy. THE ALUMINIUM CONTENT OF BRAIN TISSUE IN AUTISM WAS CONSISTENTLY HIGH. The mean (standard deviation) aluminium content across all 5 individuals for each lobe were 3.82(5.42), 2.30(2.00), 2.79(4.05) and 3.82(5.17) μg/g dry wt. for the occipital, frontal, temporal and parietal lobes respectively. THESE ARE SOME OF THE HIGHEST VALUES FOR ALUMINIUM IN HUMAN BRAIN TISSUE YET RECORDED AND ONE HAS TO QUESTION WHY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ALUMINIUM CONTENT OF THE OCCIPITAL LOBE OF A 15 YEAR OLD BOY WOULD BE 8.74 (11.59) μg/g dry wt.? Aluminium-selective fluorescence microscopy was used to identify aluminium in brain tissue in 10 donors [10 donors or 5, as mentioned above?]. While aluminium was imaged associated with neurones it appeared to be present intracellularly in microglia-like cells and other inflammatory non-neuronal cells in the meninges, vasculature, grey and white matter. The pre-eminence of intracellular aluminium associated with non-neuronal cells was a standout observation in autism brain tissue and may offer clues as to both the origin of the brain aluminium as well as a putative role in autism spectrum disorder.”

The study authors mention “clues.” What about the many aluminum-containing childhood vaccines now on official schedules?

Worldmercuryproject.org writes:

“What does this mean for today’s generation of children who receive 5,000 mcg of aluminum in vaccines by the age of 18 months and up to 5,250 additional mcg if all recommended boosters, HPV and meningitis vaccines are administered.”

This might well constitute a “clue,” pointing to where at least some of that highly toxic aluminum in autistic brains comes from.

As “the experts” deny this vaccine-aluminum-autism connection, I would suggest they back up their “science” by stepping forward themselves and taking ALL the vaccines on the official schedule, including boosters, in order to catch up with their shots. They should do this in the limited time recommended by public health agencies.

After all, if aluminum (and other toxic substances) in vaccines aren’t a problem, what do they have to lose?

They’re desperate to mandate the full load of vaccines for every man, woman, and child—so they should start with themselves.

Otherwise, they have no standing to make claims.

Neither do “science bloggers” who embrace every official mainstream study as if it were manna from heaven. To them, I offer the following quotes from two famous medical-journal editors, who have pored over more studies than these bloggers have dreamed of.

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

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

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

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

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

I want to see more on the new study showing shocking levels of aluminum in autistic people. I want to see funding provided to other researchers—INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS with no ties to drug companies or government agencies—so they can follow up on the new study and come to their own conclusions.

And I want to see common sense applied to aluminum toxicity.

As in: why would anyone want to inject children with a known neurotoxin?

Would you be willing to spin the roulette wheel on YOUR child’s life and future and brain?

Well, would you?

(Flashback: “Vaccines-aluminum-autism: but don’t worry, go back to sleep”.)


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.

To science bloggers living with mommy

by Jon Rappoport

November 19, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

These conventional science bloggers are really something. They’ve never met a published study extolling mainstream science they haven’t loved. I don’t know, maybe the studies somehow remind them of mommy and her warm basement where they still live at age 40 and do their important work.

A study praising a new drug? A study claiming a vaccine was “well tolerated?” A study claiming GMOs are perfectly safe? A study reporting the dire effects of manmade warming? They kiss it and try to make it better.

So here are a few statements they can chew on like week-old delivery pizza.

Warning: what follows could forever alter your view of published science.

We begin with quotes from two editors of prestigious science journals. These people have read, pawed over, analyzed, and dissected more science studies than 1000 bloggers taken together ever will.

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

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

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

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

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

Three: John PA Ioannidis, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece, and Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Department of Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, in PLoS Medicine, August 30, 2005, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”:

“There is increasing concern that most current published research findings [in all scientific fields] are false… a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller…when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias…There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.”

Four: Back to Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet. In the same editorial quoted above, Horton makes reference to a recent symposium he attended at the Wellcome Trust in London. The subject of the meeting was the reliability of published biomedical research. His following quote carries additional force because he and other attendees were told to obey Chatham House rules—meaning no one would reveal who made any given comment during the conference.

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

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

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

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

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


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.

Death doesn’t equal someone’s opinion about death

by Jon Rappoport

November 15, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“I saw people die of HIV.”

No. You saw people die. Doctors said they had HIV.

“I saw people die from Ebola.”

No you didn’t. You saw people die. You yourself have no idea what killed them. You can pretend you know, but you don’t.

“The doctors know what kills people.”

You win a gold star for your faith. You’re now a fully-fledged member of the Church of Biological Mysticism.

People who see other people die often assume they know why it happened. Certainly, when it comes to viruses, they don’t have a clue. They’re sure they know. That doesn’t make them right.

A parent’s healthy son returns from the doctor’s office, saying he just found out he’s HIV-positive. He tells his mother the doctor has put him on AZT. Three weeks later, the boy folds up, can’t get out of bed. He’s so weak he can hardly move. The doctor says, “HIV has spiraled out of control. It’s full-blown AIDS. He must continue taking his AZT.” Three months later, the boy is dead.

The mother says, “My son died of HIV.”

Does she know that AZT, a failed chemotherapy drug, was taken off the shelf for AIDS patients, and that it mercilessly attack all cells of the body, including the immune-system cells?

Of course not.

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out over the past 30 years (starting with my first book, “AIDS Inc., Scandal of the Century”), covert medical ops will use death and dying to construct a false picture of the cause of death and dying.

They know this strategy works, because people, seeing death, will accept what the authorities tell them caused it.

I’ve often cited the groundbreaking review, “Is US health really the best in the world?” Author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Publisher: The Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000.

Starfield concluded that, every year in the US, the medical system directly kills 225,000 people. 106,000 die as a result of medicines the FDA has approved as safe. The other 119,000 die as a result of treatment in hospitals.

Add it up. That’s 2.25 million deaths per decade caused by the US medical system.

Now for the question: how many of those deaths… do you think doctors…voluntarily admit…to families of the dead patients…are medically caused?

I’ll tell you.

None.

In every case, a lie was cooked up. “I’m sorry, but the disease suddenly accelerated…”

That’s 2.25 million lies per decade about the actual cause of death.

But people continue to worship at the feet of doctors and medical experts.

If a doctor says a patient died of virus VCX-2QK-89tf, a supposed thing the mother of the patient will never see and never have a chance of seeing…and if the doctor says he knows the patient had the virus because a diagnostic test was run on the patient…the mother will believe the doctor…even though she has absolutely no idea what kind of diagnostic test was run or whether it is accurate or even relevant.

“I saw my son die of the virus.”

She didn’t. But she’ll believe it. We can understand why she believes it.

But that doesn’t affect our judgment when we look into a virus and investigate whether it is real, whether it actually causes disease, and whether the diagnostic tests for the virus tell a true story.

When you have hundreds of millions of people who assert that Ebola is killing people, you’re looking at faith.

Blind faith in authorities who don’t deserve it.

You’re looking at the construction of reality, which is then sold.

Take this example—a farming village in Liberia, one of the so-called epicenters of Ebola. The families manage to produce enough to get by. They live downstream from a giant Firestone rubber plantation.

For years, to no avail, the people of the village have been protesting the runoff of noxious elements into their water supply. Fish are dying. Crops are failing. That means malnutrition, hunger.

That means chemical assault on their immune systems.

People are developing sores, lesions, fevers, respiratory problems, digestive problems, including diarrhea.

How easy is it to call this Ebola, in light of the current hysteria?

“Everyone knows” it’s Ebola. But it isn’t.

People are obsessed by the idea that a whole population, in far-off nation, under the gun, must all be suffering from One Thing—in this case, a virus.

Splitting this apart into a number of different causes in different regions—contaminated water, open sewage, severe malnutrition, decimating wars, toxic vaccine campaigns, the vast overuse of antibiotics, industrial pollution—this doesn’t have the compelling ring of: “It’s a virus.”

So people say, “Forget about all that. We don’t want to know about it. We know it’s a virus.”

No they don’t.


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.