Guide to paying a small fine and making billions

Guide to paying a small fine and making billions

by Jon Rappoport

July 30, 2017

The key factor is: be a drug company.

In this case, Celgene. Their drugs are Thalomid and Revlimid. They are approved for multiple myeloma, one type of cancer.

Here’s the thing. Doctors can decide to prescribe drugs for uses which are not approved by the FDA, but the manufacturers can’t promote those “off-label” uses to doctors. That’s illegal.

A long-running suit against Celgene, launched by Beverly Brown, who used to be the company’s sales manager, contends that:

Celgene trained its sales team to promote off-label uses to doctors;

Celgene sales people intentionally lied about studies, claiming the studies showed the off-label uses were beneficial to patients;

And the company omitted vital warnings about the drugs’ uses from the drugs’ labels.

Back in 2014, the judge in the case, George King, slammed Celgene for trying to convince him to dismiss the case. King pointed out that the plaintiff, Beverly Brown, appeared to have direct knowledge of the scam, because company higher-ups laid out the details to her.

Finally, now, the lawsuit has been settled. Celgene will pay out $280 million.

But wait. Revlimid, one of the two Celgene drugs named in the suit, garnered a whopping $5 billion in sales, in 2015. FiercePharma, a website dedicated to industry news, predicts the drug will rake in $15 billion in 2022.

On top of all this, Celgene admits no wrongdoing in the lawsuit settlement.

Nice work if you can get it, and Celgene can.

There is an easy formula at work, if you’re a drug company.

Misrepresent the uses of a drug.

Promote it to the sky, to doctors, for purposes for which it wasn’t approved.

Therefore, make billions of dollars.

Get sued, go to court, force the case to drag on for years.

And finally settle up for chump change, admit nothing, promise nothing, and walk away, free as a bird.

That’s a plan.

That’s a workable plan, UP FRONT.

Before the drug is ever approved.

“Let’s see. We’ve got a drug for cancer. Hey, it’s highly toxic and it causes cancer in some people and, at best, it doesn’t really prolong survival in the patient for more than a few months of extreme suffering and pain—but we aren’t even talking about that. We’ve got a cancer drug, and we can get it approved for treating one type of cancer. Once that happens, we can promote it like hell to doctors for treating other cancers. That’s illegal, but who cares? Even if the federal government gets involved in the case, the most we can expect is a fine. Nobody will go to jail. So, BY SUCCESSFULLY PROMOTING THE DRUG FOR ILLEGAL USES, A VERY NECESSARY STEP, our profit picture will look great. Eventually, we’ll get sued. So what? We’ll pay a small fine, the drug will still be on the market, and life will be good. For us.”

Get it?

A drug company isn’t scrambling after the fact of getting sued, trying to figure out how to proceed. That would be fake news.

No, the company has the whole scenario figured out from the beginning.

“Dear Drug, when you were just a gleam in your parents’ eye, we knew your birth would be a wonderful event. And dear child, you’ve made us proud. With a push from us, you’ve exceeded all our expectations. You’ve grown up to be a winner. Here’s to you.”

By the way, if you want a good example of crony capitalism, as opposed to actual capitalism (in which buyer and seller voluntarily engage in commerce, the product does not cause harm, the people involved are honorable, the exchange of value for value isn’t regulated), you’ve just found one:

A medical drug’s manufacturer, and the federal government, and even the prescribing doctors, all know a drug is useless for off-label purposes, and also creates harm. But all the parties (cronies) feign ignorance, while protecting each other, and no law-enforcement agency charges any participant with a crime. All parties involved pretend, when the suit is filed and the settlement is reached, that justice has been done. One hand washes the other.

And, at the same time, if a researcher or doctor or layperson happens to come up with a non-toxic method of treating the disease for which the drug in question is the preferred option, and if that innovative natural method does no harm, and if responsible adults want to try the method…

The house comes down on the researcher’s head. The full force of “experts” and government enforcement agencies and mainstream doctors and the MSM press comes into play.

The “experts” and cronies, of course, trumpet concern for people’s health and lay claim to righteousness and ethics and science.

Sure. They’re messiahs, taking us into the medical promised-land.

Or, to put it slightly differently:

They’re scum of the Earth.


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.

Measles outbreak in Europe: convenient lies

Measles outbreak in Europe: convenient lies

by Jon Rappoport

July 25, 2017

There is an invariable first rule of propaganda: know exactly what your agenda is, and then design every statement to forward that agenda.

The World Health Organization is now touting a measles epidemic in Europe. And of course, they’re explaining it with propaganda—it’s the fault of people who refuse to allow their children to take the measles vaccination.

The focus is on Italy, where, “coincidently,” protesters are outraged at a new law mandating vaccination for children. Perfect. “You see? Don’t take the shot and this is what you get. A massive outbreak.”

Well, here is an official report. In Italy, there are 3300 case of measles and two deaths.

That’s the classic and traditional and age-old picture of measles. 3298 children have survived. Kids get measles, they recover, and thereafter they’re immune.

As for the two children who died, you would have to do a very careful independent investigation, to determine what health problems they may have had before they contracted measles. And “health problems” would include prior toxic medical treatment. The actual cause of death isn’t always what health authorities say it is.

In addition to the above, here are two revealing quotes to consider:

“…the window of vulnerability of an infant may be even greater in vaccinated women than in with women with natural measles infection.” (Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 79(5), 2008, pp. 787–792).

Translation: Measles occurring in infants—which is unusual and dangerous—is more likely to occur when the mother has been vaccinated against measles. Why? Because, as a result of her being vaccinated, she no longer passes down, to her child, the natural components of immunity to measles from her having had the disease. And the vaccination she received didn’t confer immunity to her baby.

“Administration of KMV (killed measles vaccine) apparently set in motion an aberrant immunologic response that not only failed to protect children against natural measles, but resulted in heightened susceptibility.” JAMA Aug. 22, 1980, vol. 244, p. 804, Vincent Fulginiti and Ray Helfer. The authors indicate that such children can come down with “an often severe, atypical form of measles. Atypical measles is characterized by fever, headache… and a diverse rash (which)… may consist of a mixture of macules, papules, vesicles, and pustules… ”

In other words, the measles vaccine can create a worse form of measles. This is not the normal form of the illness, from which children routinely recover with the bonus of lifetime immunity. No, this is a severe, atypical, dangerous, synthetic, vaccine-induced disease.

Does all this mean the health authorities in Europe aren’t telling the whole story, are twisting the truth?

I’m shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

To cite just one parallel in the US among many, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) buys and dispenses several billion dollars’ worth of vaccines every year. At the same time, the CDC is in charge of doing key studies to test the safety and efficacy of those vaccines. This unconscionable conflict of interest is an ongoing crime—because there are NO circumstances under which the CDC would ever say that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective, since they, the CDC, are a leading commercial customer and purveyor of those medical products. They would be cutting their own throats.

Do public health authorities lie?

Is the Pope Catholic?


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.

Love the medical spy in your home

Love the medical spy in your own home

by Jon Rappoport

July 23, 2017

“O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.” (George Orwell, 1984)

What are Merck/Amazon up to these days?

The drug giant is sponsoring a contest, in association with Amazon, to develop voice-activated programs for patients with diabetes.

Utilizing Amazon Alexa, the voice-interactive AI box that functions as a personal assistant—a spy in your own home—Amazon will enable “help” for people managing their disease.

An article at fiercepharma.com describes one of the finalists in the Merck contest: “The intelligent personal assistant platform creator Ejenta advanced into the finals with PIA, or personal intelligent agents. Its entry aims to leverage NASA artificial intelligence technology and Internet of Things connectivity to detect risky behaviors and encourage healthy habits. The system could also notify care teams if abnormalities are detected.”

Are you getting this?

Personal intelligence agents?

Detecting risky behaviors and abnormalities?

Notifying CARE TEAMS?

“Personnel dispatched to 142 Summit Street, home of John Jones, diabetic. Alexa heard the crinkle of a package-wrap associated with sugar cookies. 92% probability Jones just opened the bag and is quietly chewing the cookies. Front-door entry advised. Do not ring bell. Move into the home quickly and disarm the subject…”

But don’t worry, it’s for people’s own good. Of course. People need protection from their bad habits.

“I had a close call today, Fred. I was aching for chocolate candy, and I guess I made some kind of lip-smacking sound. I was on the edge. But my Alexa alerted the care team and they showed up in a few minutes and their dogs found my secret stash in a trunk in the basement. The guys sprayed the trunk with high-dose fluoride and Roundup and a few other chemicals…”

“That’s nothing, Jim. I was calling my ex-wife. I wanted to get together for lunch. But my psychiatrist had told me any contact with her would be a negative. Alexa alerted the care team and they disconnected the call before it went through, showed up with a shot of Thorazine and put me under for a few hours. When I woke up, I felt better. Saved again.”

It takes a village.


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.

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.