BRICS and Brexit countries: secrets of the crypt

BRICS and Brexit countries: secrets of the crypt

by Jon Rappoport

May 3, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, 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, New York Review of Books, 2009

Over the years, I’ve found it’s often easier to talk to sources outside the US.

They understand American press propaganda and you don’t have to explain it. You don’t have to offload so much nonsense to get to the real issues.

The UK is now considering whether to exit the European Union. Britain+Exit=Brexit. The bottom line is: only the Globalists in Britain want to stay in. Everybody else sees the wisdom of leaving, because the EU structure is a nightmare. It was put there to swallow up the whole continent, torpedo national economies, and emerge as Region X in the Globalist plan to create a number of supra-national sectors that would eventually be drawn together: one Earth, one ruling force.

If the UK exits the EU, it’ll drive a wound into the plan. It will be a cause for celebration. It might create a contagion of withdrawals. It will shake the pillars.

On another front, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa have started to build their own economic and political alliance. BRICS. They see and understand the US and Globalist empire builders, and they’re revolting.

The one key they’re missing is medical/chemical/biotech. They should understand this for what it is, in Globalist (Rockefeller) terms: a long-term op aimed against them.

Highly toxic medical drugs and vaccines; harmful GMOs paired with toxic pesticides.

In the US, the propaganda is so concentrated a large proportion of the populace is still asleep. The lunatic campaign to vaccinate everybody with poisons—presented as a medical miracle—is still working against the dumbed-down masses, who would buy a donkey if it was labeled a Cadillac.

The BRICS nations have an opportunity here. Reject this medical/chemical/biotech cartel. In the process, they would strike a blow against the most dangerous and powerful Globalist-backed corporations in the world—the primary beneficiaries of treaties like the TPP and TTIP.

Treat the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control like crazy criminals and front men for the med cartel, because that’s what they are. Stop buying their fake science and fake studies. Their whole operation is corrupt from top to bottom.

The BRICS countries don’t understand that if they keep accepting the medical/chemical/biotech-cartel package, they’ll end up buying all of Globalism—they and their people will be too debilitated to resist. The most important cartel in the Globalist framework is the one I’m talking about here. It is the long-term project for Earth’s population—cradle to grave.

And when you strip away the sheen, what you see is chem/bio warfare.

Nothing less.

I offer the BRICS nations a clue. Look at the actual death statistics for the heavily hyped epidemics of recent years: SARS, West Nile, Swine Flu, Ebola, and now Zika. They’re all fake epidemics. In perhaps the most egregious case, the CDC stopped counting US Swine Flu cases in the summer of 2009, and the agency didn’t make that fact public. As CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson discovered, the CDC abandoned its job because the overwhelming number of blood tests, from the most likely Swine Flu cases, were coming back from labs with no trace of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu. In other words, the epidemic was a non-starter; it was a hoax. Yet a few weeks after CBS News published Attkisson’s revelation, the CDC, doubling down, estimated there were 22 million cases of Swine Flu in America. Talk about lies. That one was right up there.

Why do I mention these fake epidemics? Because the cartel uses them to promote fear and compliance, and to promote the notion that disease is everywhere and could pop up at any moment. Not just the epidemic variety, but all diseases—which, of course, require multiple doses of vaccines. It’s diabolical propaganda.

Any cartel that would use (AKA concoct) “epidemics” for the purpose of enforcing its monopoly on medical treatment is an enemy. Anything it says or writes about disease is highly suspect, to say the least.

And under that cover, it spreads toxic medical drugs and vaccines in ever-expanding numbers. This is a war strategy.

The BRICS nations have a chance to expose and reject it.

Putin, in particular, is smart enough to see through the con.

For the benefits of the BRICS, I’ll mention the explosive July 26, 2000, review I often refer to. Journal of the American Medical Association; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public-health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Starfield concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 people a year in America. Per decade, that works out to 2.25 million deaths.

In an interview I did with her a year or so before she died, Dr. Starfield told me she considered her figures a conservative estimate.

Her assessment is in the public domain. The US federal government, and the entire US medical community, is aware of it. Yet, since the year of its publication, not a finger has been lifted to overhaul the system that does the killing.

So this goes a lot farther than “we didn’t know” or “we’re appalled.” This goes to complicity.


the matrix revealed


Under the rubric of Healing, the most important Globalist cartel is carrying out massive covert warfare on a planetary level—and the BRICS nations are among the targets. If those nations would see this, expose it, and band together to reject it in the strongest possible terms, they would not only do themselves a monumental favor, they would eventually gain the respect of people all over the planet.

The cartel’s heavy veneer of propaganda would peel away and leave the terms of the war in full view.

No media outlet would be able to shore up a defense.

How about it, BRICS? Want to take on and defeat a giant? And thus secure your authentic independence?

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.

Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House insider

Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House insider

And another conversation with a virologist

by Jon Rappoport

April 18, 2016

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

There are a number of cases in which a virus is said to be the cause of a disease—but the evidence doesn’t stand up.

I first realized this in 1987. I was writing my book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century.

Robert Gallo, who claimed he had found the cause of AIDS, hadn’t done proper work. From everything I read, he had discovered HIV in 35 to 60 percent of AIDS patients he had studied.

He should have been able to isolate HIV in virtually every patient.

Then there was the fact that the most popular tests for HIV, the Elisa and Western Blot, were fatally flawed. They could register positive for a whole host of reasons that had nothing to do with HIV.

And no one had found sufficient quantities of HIV in humans to justify claiming it caused any kind of illness.

My own research into the so-called high-risk groups revealed that the immune suppression in those groups could be explained by factors other than a virus.

(Note: All my research at that time assumed HIV existed. Since then, several researchers, including the Perth Group, have made compelling arguments that the existence of HIV was never demonstrated.)

As I was winding up the final draft of AIDS INC., I spoke, off the record, with a well-known and well-respected mainstream virologist at a large US university. I expressed my conclusions about HIV.

He spoke, first, about the difficulties in making an absolute decision about a virus as the cause of a disease.

I brought the conversation back to HIV.

He paused. Then he repeated that he couldn’t go on the record. I asked him why.

He said HIV was a subject fraught with problems. Politics were involved.

He said he and his colleagues were taking a pass on getting into a dispute about the virus. They were aware that the science was shaky. They just didn’t want to go near it. They might enter into other arguments about other kinds of research, but as far as they were concerned, HIV was off-limits.

His obvious implication was: careers were on the line.

Attacking HIV as the cause of AIDS could result in blacklisting.

He stopped short of saying HIV wasn’t the cause of AIDS, but it was clear he had seen enough to know there were major holes in HIV science.

This was a man who had no interest in unconventional points of view. He was an orthodox researcher from A to Z. He wasn’t a rebel of any kind. And yet he readily admitted to me that the whole AIDS research establishment was proceeding on a lack of proof.

Exposing this fact would go far beyond the usual definition of a scandal. The result would be a volcanic eruption, if, say, a dozen respected virologists told the truth.

After we finished our conversation, I understood something about consensus reality. It contains elements about which people can argue in public—but then there are other elements which are completely out of bounds, which can never be refuted in a mainstream setting.

Why? Because if certain lies are exposed, they initiate a contagion of doubt and insight that spreads to the whole complex inter-structure of what people take to be reality.

Great curtains are torn away. Pillars are cracked, and fall. Images which are taken to be absolute and unchanging distort, dissolve, and blow away in the wind.

A week after AIDS INC. was shipped to bookstores, in 1988, my friend and colleague, hypnotherapist Jack True, told me a copy of the book was on its way to Russia in a diplomatic pouch.

I asked him how he knew. He shrugged and said he had a few connections.

Of course, I’ve never heard anything back about the Russian response to the book, but I find it interesting that, in America, my publisher and I never made any headway in connecting with government officials.

There was one exception. In 1987, I had a conversation with James Warner, a White House policy analyst. The interview was published in the LA Weekly.

Warner had serious doubts about the HIV theory of AIDS, and would arrange a White House conference on the issue. Pro and anti HIV scientists would be permitted to speak at length.

At the last minute, the conference was cancelled.


the matrix revealed


Here are a few brief excerpts from my conversation with Warner. As a White House analyst, his comments are explosive:

Warner: The government really hasn’t fulfilled its role in providing good information [on AIDS]. We just may not know enough. With AIDS, we’re dealing with a syndrome, not a disease. We may see a patient who has a genetic defect that’s causing his immune deficiency [instead of HIV being the causative agent]. I’m not satisfied we know all we think we do, by any means.

Rappoport: Robert Gallo, Max Essex, people like that, were the field commanders on the NIH [National Institutes of Health] war on cancer in the 70’s. They lost that war. So why are they in charge of AIDS research now? It seems odd that we don’t have other people running the show.

Warner: If ever I’ve been tempted to believe in socialism, science has disabused me of that. These guys [at NIH] assume that it’s their show. They just assume it.

Rappoport: Peter Duesberg, a distinguished molecular biologist at Berkeley, has said that HIV does not cause AIDS. Have you asked people at NIH what they think, specifically, of his arguments?

Warner: Yes. I’ve been told that Peter Duesberg’s refutation of HIV has been discounted by the scientific community. I was given no explanation as to why. I was very offended. No evidence was presented to me. Just that Duesberg had been ‘discounted.’ That’s absurd. It’s not a scientific response to dismiss Duesberg as a crank.

Rappoport: The definition of AIDS in Africa is now becoming synonymous with starvation. They’re saying the three major symptoms are chronic diarrhea, fever, and wasting-away. Weight-loss. It certainly makes a perfect smokescreen for the aspect of hunger which is political [and intentionally maintained] – just call it AIDS.

Warner: I had not considered that. There is a program to make Africa self-sufficient by the year 2000. This could certainly hinder that activity. You know, I was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. I experienced weight-loss of eighty pounds. And when I came home, I was suffering from a form of dysentery that you could call opportunistic. A number of us were. We didn’t have AIDS.

—end of interview excerpt—

In this current political atmosphere, a White House analyst wouldn’t dare go on the record with comments like these.

Rigid consensus must be maintained.

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.

Vaccine-autism connection: I stand with the mothers

Vaccine-autism connection: I stand with the mothers

by Jon Rappoport

April 4, 2016

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

Since the controversy surrounding vaccines causing autism has resurfaced with the release of the explosive film, Vaxxed (trailer), I want to make a few things clear.

First of all, statements from the CDC and “the entire scientific community,” refuting any causal connection, are all based on the sacred status of published studies.

So again, here is what the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine wrote, in 2009, about this holy of holies:

“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, “Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)

There is nothing holy or even believable about “the truth is in the published studies.”

Here is an excerpted statement from a mother. I put more stock in it than a hundred studies exonerating vaccines. The mothers know, and they are being pushed off to the side, in order to protect the vaccine manufacturers and the medical powers-that-be:

“…immediately after my son received his 18 month shots he spiked a high fever, was listless and began to scream. I called the nurse line informing them of his symptoms and my concern for a reaction to the jab, they said, ‘give him Tylenol.’…within 72 hours he began to lose words, eye contact, became sensitive to light, noise touch. He began to self limit, eating only milk and toast and I watched my baby disappear into a hell promoted and created by big pharma…

“The first doctor I raised concerns to told me, ‘oh he’s just two, give him whatever he wants and he’ll stop crying’…I spent the next five years researching everything I could find and I exhausted myself, determined to get my baby back…while he slept praying to God to not let him wake and feel the pain, to please let him come back…Some days he would want me to take him in the car in the dark garage and just hold him tight. He would get up every morning and stand at the top of the stairs and scream because his sensory systems were destroyed, so I would have to carry him down the stairs…[at night he would watch movie[s] over and over until Six am drinking milk, eating toast. Each time the movie ended he would scream until I put it [the movie] in again. Finally at sunrise he would sleep…This went on for years.

“Little by little I would start to see flickers and once in a while it almost looked as though he would smile. And one day I [came] down all dressed up to go to dinner and he said, ‘mommy you look pretty’. I began to weep, my heart was back. I didn’t realize ’til then that he had never said anything that indicated I was even a person. I think ’til he was about 4 he though[t] we were one as he could not separate without becoming panicked and hysterical. If I showered he would kick and scream and pound the door until I came back out…”


exit from the matrix


How many mothers have reports like this about their babies?

Many.

Many.

I have read them and heard them.

Believe the doctors if you want to. I believe the mothers.

These horrendous medical crimes happen every day.

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.

Does HIV exist? An explosive interview

Does HIV exist? An explosive interview

by Jon Rappoport

April 4, 2016

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

The interview, conducted by excellent freelance journalist, Christine Johnson, delves into these questions:

How should researchers prove that a particular virus exists? How should they isolate it? What are the correct procedures?

These questions, and their answers, reside at the heart of most disease research—and yet, overwhelmingly, doctors never explore them or even consider them.

Johnson interviews Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…”

I strongly suggest you read the whole interview. Here I’m publishing and highlighting excerpts. Technical issues are discussed. Grasping them is not the easiest exercise you’ve ever done, but I believe the serious reader can comprehend the vital essentials.

CJ: Does HIV cause AIDS?

EPE: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

EPE: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.

CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?

EPE: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]

CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.

EPE: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.

CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?

EPE: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.

CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.

EPE: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.

The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.

That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.

CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?

EPE: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.

CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?

EPE: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.

CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.

EPE: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.

CJ: And what was that method?

EPE: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.

CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?

EPE: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.

CJ: But what about their pictures?

EPE: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…”


the matrix revealed


If you grasp the essentials of this discussion, you’ll see there is every reason to question the existence of HIV, because the methods for proving its existence were not followed.

Therefore, more questions emerge. How many other viruses have been named as causes of disease, when in fact those viruses have never been isolated or proved to exist?

Of course, conventional-consensus researchers and doctors will scoff at any attempt to raise these issues. For them, “the science is settled.” Meaning: they don’t want to think. They don’t want to stir the waters.

A few years ago, chemist David Rasnick sent a request to the CDC, asking for evidence demonstrating that the Ebola virus had ever been isolated from a human. The answers he received did not begin to approach a level of certainty.

After 30 years working as a reporter in the area of deep medical-research fraud, I’ve seen that false science occurs in levels.

The deeper you go, the stranger it gets. To put it another way: the deeper you go, the worse it gets.

Jon Rappoport

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

The vaccine in Vaxxed: so pure, angels sent it for your kiddies

The vaccine in Vaxxed: so pure, angels sent it for your kiddies

by Jon Rappoport

March 29, 2016

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

Whatever happens in a doctor’s office must be good, right?

Don’t worry, be happy, angels brought the MMR vaccine to Earth so doctors could shoot your kiddies with it.

The film, Vaxxed (trailer), which has been axed from the Tribeca Film Festival, is all about the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

Long-time CDC researcher, Bill Thompson, publicly admitted he and his colleagues committed gross fraud, to make the vaccine seem safe, to pretend it had no connection to autism, when it did. They lied. That’s what Vaxxed is about.

So pardon me, but I thought I’d offer some quotes about MMR. Just to keep you in the loop.

“In 1977, 34 new cases of measles were reported on the campus of UCLA, in a population that was supposedly 91% immune, according to careful serological testing. Another 20 cases of measles were reported in the Pecos, New Mexico, area within a period of a few months in 1981, and 75% of them had been fully immunized, some of them quite recently. A survey of sixth-graders in a well-immunized urban community revealed that about 15% of this age group are still susceptible to rubella, a figure essentially identical with that of the pre-vaccine era.” Richard Moskowitz, MD, The Case Against Immunizations, 1983, American Institute of Homeopathy.

At the excellent site, thinktwice.com, long-time vaccine investigator and author, Neil Z Miller, has assembled an impressive cache of information about the MMR vaccine. Here are a few highlights:

“The drug company that makes the MMR vaccine publishes an extensive list of warnings, contraindications, and adverse reactions associated with this triple shot. These may be found in the [MMR] vaccine package insert available from any doctor giving MMR, and in the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) at the library. The following afflictions affecting nearly every body system — blood, lymphatic, digestive, cardiovascular, immune, nervous, respiratory, and sensory — have been reported following receipt of the MMR shot: encephalitis, encephalopathy, neurological disorders, seizure disorders, convulsions, learning disabilities, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), demyelination of the nerve sheaths, Guillain-Barre’ syndrome (paralysis), muscle incoordination, deafness, panniculitis, vasculitis, optic neuritis (including partial or total blindness), retinitis, otitis media, bronchial spasms, fever, headache, joint pain, arthritis (acute and chronic), transverse myelitis, thrombocytopenia (blood clotting disorders and spontaneous bleeding), anaphylaxis (severe allergic reactions), lymphadenopathy, leukocytosis, pneumonitis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, erythema multiforme, urticaria, pancreatitis, parotitis, inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, meningitis, diabetes, autism, immune system disorders, and death.”

More from Neil Miller: “This section contains unsolicited adverse reaction reports associated with the MMR vaccine. They are typical of the daily emails received by the ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute:

[MMR114] My 12-month-old received his MMR shot on a Friday. The following Friday he had a 104 degree temperature and became violently ill. The doctor said it was a stomach virus. But on Monday morning he woke up with a rash all over. I took him to the doctor and was very upset to learn that this is very common.

[MMR128] Recently, my 13-month-old had his MMR. He now has constant high fevers and seizures, which he never had. He is a totally different boy. This is devastating.

[MMR176] My friend’s 15-month-old daughter received an MMR vaccine. Within eight days she was hospitalized with a 104 degree fever and a skin rash. My friend called to see what I could find out about Stevens-Johnson syndrome. They told her that her daughter may die as a result of this.

[MMR203] A dear friend lost her 15-month old daughter two weeks after her MMR. She was healthy and showed no signs of illness yet died suddenly in her sleep one afternoon. The post mortem revealed a viral infection and traces of pneumonia, but her mother and I find it very hard to believe that the vaccination wasn’t to blame.

[MMR216] Three days ago my friend’s 15-month-old daughter was hospitalized after experiencing a high fever and her first seizure. The hospital put the baby through a series of tests, including a CAT scan and CBC. My friend told me he thought it was a reaction to the MMR vaccine she recently received. However, the doctors were puzzled as to the cause and disallowed this explanation.

[MMR315] When my daughter was just over one year old, she received her MMR vaccination. Later that day she had a high fever, and I put her to bed. I was busy doing housework downstairs and got this “mother’s intuition” that something was wrong. I rushed upstairs to find her blue and not breathing. I called a nurse. My daughter seemed to be convulsing, so I was instructed to reach down her throat to open her air passage. She was rushed to the hospital and they immediately put her into a cool bath. She was in the hospital for almost a week. Had it not been for my gut feeling that something was wrong, my baby would not be with me today.

[MMR317] Our son developed seizures after his MMR vaccine at 14 months. Today, after two years of anti-epilepsy medications, he has totally regressed. We decided to stop all medications five weeks ago and his grand mal fits have stopped. We are now left with a child experiencing severe constipation and bowel problems.

[MMR321] One week after the MMR shot for my 16-month-old daughter, she had diarrhea. The next day she had three seizures. What steps should be taken once a reaction has occurred. I want to be sure it is documented and the government is made aware.

[MMR398] My daughter had a serious reaction to the MMR shot when she was 22 months. She developed brain damage after a fever of 106 degrees. She also has seizures which are unresponsive to medication, damage to the nerves of her eyes, and learning disabilities that she battles every day. We took her case to court and lost. The doctor who testified on their behalf stated that the government only called him in when they wanted a finding in their favor. What a setup! Of course they don’t have to live with the frustrations and expense of raising these vaccine-damaged children.

[MMR402] Three days after my daughter received her MMR vaccine, she started blinking her eyes and sniffling a lot. She’s been doing this for 2 1/2 months now. Is there a link between the MMR vaccine and facial tics?

[MMR436] My 12-year-old had a seizure within 10 minutes of his second MMR. His head rolled side to side and his arms jerked a couple of times. He was unaware of this, so he must have blanked out. Afterwards, he felt woozy, very tired, and had a headache at the bridge of his nose. Also, his arm that got the shot was numb. The feeling in it gradually returned over the course of an hour.

[MMR443] I have a 15-year-old daughter. I recently moved to the U.S. from the U.K. without her medical records. Upon arrival we were required to give her complete immunizations. I strongly objected, but felt pushed into re-immunization because of state laws to get her into school. After her second MMR she has been complaining of dizzy spells and continuous headaches. Is there a link between over-immunization of MMR and this sickness?

[MMR509] Today, shortly after I was inoculated with the MMR vaccine, I began feeling faint and short of breath. After ten minutes of holding my head between my knees in a dirty gas station bathroom, I decided I could drive the 20 miles home.

[MMR518] I had an MMR shot about three year ago and have suffered from many reactions to this vaccine since.

[MMR552] When I was a child I was given the MMR vaccine. Almost seven days to the hour I became ill: fever, sweats, throwing up even the slightest amount of fluid or food. This went on for a month or so. The doctors would not even consider that the shots caused the illness. Later, they wanted me to have the second MMR; my parents refused. The doctors went through the usual tantrums and said I wouldn’t be able to attend school. When my parents said ‘Fine, he won’t go,’ the doctors gave in. At about the age of 18, I had a blood screening and was told I didn’t have all of the MMR vaccine. Forgetting the episode as a child, I let them give me the shot. Seven days later I was sick again, but not as severe.

[MMR580] My college refused to admit me without an MMR vaccine. I had a terrible reaction and was rushed to the hospital with piercing screams, a high temperature and delirium. Now I have trouble focusing, and can be scattered and forgetful. I can’t stand change and don’t seem to have the energy and drive that I once had. My family thinks I developed obsessive-compulsive disorder. I am very bright, but nearly blew my scholarship after the shot.

[MMR588] I was told by the nursing school where I am enrolled, “No vaccine, no school.” Even though I had all the normal vaccines as a child, I was unable to show this. Five days after I received the MMR vaccine, I was so ill that I ended up in the emergency room. The doctor told me that the MMR did not cause my sickness, and my nursing school supervisor said it was a virus. Why does the medical establishment deny vaccine reactions? Why can’t they tell us this important information and let us make educated responsible decisions. The irony is that I got the vaccine and now I’m so sick that I can’t go to school.


the matrix revealed


—-But all the quotes I’m giving you in this article—they must be wrong. They must be. The authorities know what they’re doing. They always do. Of course. They would never feed us false information. Everything is good. How could it not be good?

Don’t worry, be happy.

Never listen to mothers of those children who end up with brain damage after getting a vaccine shot. All these mothers must be lying. Of course they are. They don’t actually care deeply about their own children. Right?

Sure. Keep dreaming. Keep dreaming. Keep dreaming.

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.

Bernie Sanders and the rise of the single-payer universe

Bernie Sanders and the rise of the single-payer universe

by Jon Rappoport

March 26, 2016

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

“There are a whole lot of high-IQ lunatics running around detailing all the crimes of the State…and then saying the wonderful answer is the State, which suddenly becomes the messiah in radiant robes. These loons are the crown princes of cognitive dissonance. They’re the Mickey Mouse Club of political philosophy.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

When you boil it down, the formula is simple: take any rotting, stench-ridden institution of society that appears to promise good things for all, and make it free. Make it available to everyone with a pulse.

“We’ve got this wonderful aging army of giant octopuses, and we want to bring the whole population into their grasp. Won’t it be wonderful? We’ll call this army Mommy and Daddy. It’ll work. Promise.”

Take two of Bernie’s favorite monsters: medical care and college education. Turn them into single-payer operations.

The federal government pays, which means the tax payer pays, which means taking budget money from there and putting it here. Whatever.

But heaven forbid, let me look below the surface.

The US medical system kills 225,000 Americans every year. Every decade, the system kills 2.25 million people.

The basic citation on this is: Dr. Barbara Starfield, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Starfield offers a conservative estimate of the damage. 106,000 Americans killed every year by correctly prescribed, FDA-approved drugs. 119,000 killed by mistreatment and errors in hospitals.

In my 2009 interview with Dr. Starfield, a revered public-health expert at the John Hopkins School of Public Health, I asked her whether the federal government had undertaken an effort to correct this horrendous situation (capital crime), and whether the government had ever approached her to consult on such a mission. To both questions, she answered, resoundingly: No.

Inevitably, a single-payer medical system in America would bring far more people (everyone) under the umbrella—and the death toll would shoot up to the sky (see also this shocker).

This is a fact, not a speculation.

So what looks and sounds good on the surface—“free medical care for all”—turns out to be an all-embracing holocaust.

If you haven’t read any of my numerous articles on medical killings (for starters, see this and this), and therefore this comes as a great shock to you, take a minute to try to recover…and read on.

Free college education for all—another nice-sounding idea. If you want to subject your children to a federally controlled interlocking directorate of commissars who bypass unimportant items like reading, the ability to write coherently, any sort of grasp on history, this system will put a goony smile on your face.

Who cares about the Humanities, as long as students learn how to complain and protest the use of words (any words) that trigger their emotions and put them in a highly vulnerable state, and provoke their need for safe spaces where they can whine and complain and protest? These experiences will surely prepare them for life in the real world after their guaranteed graduation.

In college, they will learn that government (or some vague representation of it that doesn’t actually exist) will lead us all into a better future where individual achievement is a marker of fraud, deception, and unearned privilege.

Colleges will become mind-control propaganda factories for all children, not just some. Hail, Caesar.

Manuals and texts will appear that mandate how values and group-think must be inserted into gullible minds, and professors who object (see here and here) will find themselves selling plastic popcorn and ptomaine dogs at movie theaters. O joy.

How could federal control of higher education for every child in America possibly present a problem? How could Big Mommy and Daddy Octopuses harbor evil and grotesque designs?

How many times have we been promised that shocking illiteracy at the college level will be corrected? But don’t worry, be happy, because the solution to this problem will suddenly emerge when every child, no matter who, no matter what, can matriculate and win a degree. That, you see, was the missing key. Somehow.

Bernie knows the answers. He knows that when the federal government is granted more and more power to execute the Big Fix for America, a revolution of hearts and minds can’t be far behind.

It was, understand, the unfairness and the wretched exclusion of the system that produced all the failures…and when that is eliminated, the ignorant will become smart, the devious will become honest, the incompetent will become magisterial, the crooked will develop new morals.

When teachers become full-fledged agents of the State, on behalf of every child, an alchemical transformation will occur on all levels. Thank goodness.

Grandpa Bernie knows. He’s the one.

Make sure you understand that when Bernie says he’s a socialist, he doesn’t, ahem, really mean it. How could he? How could he want to place the means of production under the direct control of the State? How could he want the State to own the means of production? He’s, well, a sort-of socialist, right? He’s a Denmark socialist, which is kinder and gentler than a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist. He’s an FDR socialist or a Eugene Debs socialist. He doesn’t want massive redistribution of goods and services in America, dictated from above. He may want some redistribution, but no one would really notice it. They would only notice things getting better. And they would get better because America would essentially become a single-payer nation. Government pays, tax payers pay (more). Government invents new money whenever it needs to, just like now, except in much larger amounts. The kids love Bernie, so he must be great. More free stuff. Who doesn’t like more free stuff?

In his 487 years in the Senate, Bernie has been on hold. But now he’ll break out and bring the revolution we’ve all been seeking. The unwilling and unable and under-privileged will emerge—perhaps with government jobs, because we’ll need many more government employees. This is something to look forward to with great excitement. We don’t have enough zero-tolerance and incompetence and robotic control. That problem will be solved, at last.


exit from the matrix


But now the robots will have garlands around their necks and rainbows in their eyes. It’ll happen, because no one will be left out. We’ll all be together, and we’ll finally know it. Cosmic collective consciousness will stake its claim.

Sure it will.

Who can say what Bernie will do? The only way to find out is to elect him. Then we can unwrap the presents under the tree.

And 50 years from now, everyone in America will work for the government. That’s the beautiful pop-up.

We’ll all be in the same boat, so we can sail into the great dawn.

I’ve always suspected that government and the State were wondrous miracles…and now the vision is clarifying.

Put us all in charge, working for the Man. And we’re the Man. The logic is inescapable. It’s, what’s the word, equality.

From each according to his mass psychosis, to each according to his mass psychosis.

No one will notice, because we’ll all be crazy in the same way.

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.

Taking apart psychiatry: fraud-kings of the mind

Taking apart psychiatry: fraud-kings of the mind

Exploding the myth of “good science”

by Jon Rappoport

February 29, 2016

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

“Promoting diabolically false science, psychiatry creates a gateway for defining many separate states of consciousness that don’t exist at all. They’re cheap myths, fairy tales.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

USA Today, January 26, 2016: “Primary care doctors should screen all adults for depression, an expert panel recommended Tuesday.”

—Let’s screen everybody to find out if they have mental disorders. Let’s diagnose as many people as possible with mental disorders and give them toxic drugs—

Wherever you see organized psychiatry operating, you see it trying to expand its domain and its dominance. The Hippocratic Oath to do no harm? Are you kidding?

The first question to ask is: do these mental disorders have any scientific basis? There are now roughly 300 of them. They multiply like fruit flies.

An open secret has been bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

In a PBS Frontline episode, Does ADHD Exist?, Dr. Russell Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, unintentionally spelled out the fraud.

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY: That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid… There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]

Oh, indeed, that does make them invalid. Utterly and completely. All 297 mental disorders. They’re all hoaxes. Because there are no defining tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.

You can sway and tap dance and bloviate all you like and you won’t escape the noose around your neck. We are looking at a science that isn’t a science. That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.

There’s more. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”

Well, sure. If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been obliquely referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.

If this is medical science, a duck is a rocket ship.

To repeat, Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definitions of Bipolar and ADHD were expanded to include more people.

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

* acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;

* life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;

* brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

* intercranial pressure leading to blindness;

* peripheral circulatory collapse;

* stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:

* serious impairment of cognitive function;

* fainting;

* restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).

Dr. Frances self-admitted label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of Ritalin (and other similar compounds) as the treatment of choice.

So…what about Ritalin?

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

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

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

* Paranoid delusions

* Paranoid psychosis

* Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis

* Activation of psychotic symptoms

* Toxic psychosis

* Visual hallucinations

* Auditory hallucinations

* Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences

* Effects pathological thought processes

* Extreme withdrawal

* Terrified affect

* Started screaming

* Aggressiveness

* Insomnia

* Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects

* Psychic dependence

* High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug

* Decreased REM sleep

* When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia

* Convulsions

* Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991)

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on it week after week? They are in harness.

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

Let’s take a little trip back in time and review how one psychiatric drug, Prozac, escaped a bitter fate, by hook and by crook. It’s an instructive case.

Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a while. Stories on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off. But on February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.”

She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”

Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, “Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?”

In his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin mentions that the Donahue show (Feb. 28, 1991) “put together a group of individuals who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous after taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response confirmed the problem.”

A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes:

“Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

An instructive article, “Protecting Prozac,” by Michael Grinfeld, in the December 1998 California Lawyer, opens several doors. Grinfeld notes that “in the past year nearly a dozen cases involving Prozac have disappeared from the court record.” He was talking about law suits against the manufacturer, Eli Lilly, and he was saying that those cases had apparently been settled, without trial, in such a quiet and final way, with such strict confidentiality, that it is almost as if they never happened.

Grinfeld details a set of maneuvers involving attorney Paul Smith, who in the early 1990s became the lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the famous Fentress lawsuit against Eli Lilly.

The plaintiffs made the accusation that Prozac had induced a man to commit murder. This was the first action involving Prozac to reach a trial and jury, so it would establish a major precedent for a large number of other pending suits against the manufacturer.

The case: On September 14, 1989, Joseph Wesbecker, a former employee of Standard Gravure, in Louisville, Kentucky, walked into the workplace, with an AK-47 and a SIG Sauer pistol, killed eight people, wounded 12 others, and committed suicide. Family members of the victims subsequently sued Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, on the grounds that Wesbecker had been pushed over the edge into violence by the drug.

The trial: After what many people thought was a very weak attack on Lilly by plaintiffs’ lawyer Smith, the jury came back in five hours with an easy verdict favoring Lilly and Prozac.

Grinfeld writes, “Lilly’s defense attorneys predicted the verdict would be the death knell for [anti-]Prozac litigation.”

But that wasn’t the end of the Fentress case. “Rumors began to circulate that [the plaintiffs’ attorney] Smith had made several [prior] oral agreements with Lilly concerning the evidence that would be presented [in Fentress], the structure of a postverdict settlement, and the potential resolution of Smith’s other [anti-Prozac] cases.”

In other words, the rumors declared: This plaintiff’s lawyer, Smith, made a deal with Lilly to present a weak attack, to omit evidence damaging to Prozac, so that the jury would find Lilly innocent of all charges. In return, the case would be settled secretly, with Lilly paying out big monies to Smith’s client. In this way, Lilly would avoid the exposure of a public settlement, and through the innocent verdict, would discourage other potential plaintiffs from suing it over Prozac.

The rumors congealed. The judge in the Fentress case, John Potter, asked lawyers on both sides if “money had changed hands.” He wanted to know if the fix was in. The lawyers said no money had been paid, “without acknowledging that an agreement was in place.”

Judge Potter didn’t stop there. In April 1995, Grinfeld notes, “In court papers, Potter wrote that he was surprised that the plaintiffs’ attorneys [Smith] hadn’t introduced evidence that Lilly had been charged criminally for failing to report deaths from another of its drugs to the Food and Drug Administration. Smith had fought hard [during the Fentress trial] to convince Potter to admit that evidence, and then unaccountably withheld it.”

In Judge Potter’s motion, he alleged that “Lilly [in the Fentress case] sought to buy not just the verdict, but the court’s judgment as well.”

In 1996, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued an opinion: “…there was a serious lack of candor with the trial court [during Fentress] and there may have been deception, bad faith conduct, abuse of the judicial process or perhaps even fraud.”

After the Supreme Court remanded the Fentress case back to the state attorney general’s office, the whole matter dribbled away, and then resurfaced in a different form, in another venue. At the time of the California Lawyer article, a new action against Smith was unresolved. Eventually, Eli Lilly escaped punishment.

Based on the rigged Fentress case, Eli Lilly silenced many lawsuits based on Prozac inducing murder and suicide.

Quite a story.

And it all really starts with the institution of psychiatry inventing a whole branch of science that doesn’t exist, thereby defining 300 mental disorders that don’t exist.

Here’s a coda:

This one is big.

The so-called “chemical-imbalance theory of mental illness is dead.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”

Boom.

Dead.

However…urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.

In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to cover his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:

“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”

Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.

And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…

…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…

…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct a chemical imbalance?


power outside the matrix


Here’s what’s happening. The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They’re taking heavy flack on many fronts.

The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage.

Psychiatry is a pseudo-pseudo science.

So the shrinks have to move into another model, another con, another fraud. And they’re looking for one.

For example, genes plus “psycho-social factors.” A mish-mash of more unproven science.

“New breakthrough research on the functioning of the brain is paying dividends and holds great promise…” Professional gibberish.

It’s all gibberish, all the way down.

Meanwhile, the business model demands drugs for sale.

So even though the chemical-imbalance nonsense has been discredited, it will continue on as a dead man walking, a zombie.

Big Pharma isn’t going to back off. Trillions of dollars are at stake.

And in the wake of Aurora, Colorado, Sandy Hook, the Naval Yard, and other mass shootings, the hype is expanding: “we must have new community mental-health centers all over America.”

More fake diagnosis of mental disorders, more devastating drugs.

You want to fight for a right? Fight for the right to refuse medication. Fight for the right of every parent to refuse medication for his/her child.

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.