Part 2, Faking Medical Reality

Placebo washout: Another outrageous medical coverup

by Jon Rappoport

December 7, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep that analogy in mind as we proceed.

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

It’s called “placebo washout.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s going on here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yet, the practice goes on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this is called SCIENCE.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Mainstream fake-news: the devious limited hangout

by Jon Rappoport

December 4, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Big media attacks “fake news.” Independent reporters rightly point the finger at big media as the predominant purveyor of fake news.

Here I want to comment on one of the most devious forms of MSM fake news: the limited hangout.

When necessary, news outlets will do a PARTIAL EXPOSURE of a hidden crime. The assumption is, once the story is published and broadcast, everyone will shake their heads and say, “That’s terrible,” and move on. The whole thing will be forgotten in a matter of days, as if the whole truth has been revealed. Limited hangout.

From media’s point of view, a limited hangout means: “We won’t do any further digging. We’ll shut down further investigation.” Vital questions won’t be asked:

Why did the criminals do what they did? Why are they still at large? Who is refusing to press charges and make arrests? What deeper crimes are still secret?

The mainstream press could set their hounds loose and build a story into a huge wave. Over time, they could bring hidden players out into the open and expose them and wring confessions out of them. They could get some of these players to roll over and point to higher-level criminals. The story could achieve tsunami status, at which point the government would have to make arrests and lay on trials in open courtrooms.

But that doesn’t happen. Limited hangout rules the day.

I’m going to present a story about a crime now. It’s big. Very big. It was covered, to a degree, by the mainstream press. The coverage seemed to be significant. But it was a limited hangout.

As you read on, imagine what might have happened if the press had decided to go in with guns blazing and investigate all the way, over a period of months, releasing new revelations as they discovered them. Imagine the repercussions. Imagine the public outcry. Instead of a limited hangout, we would have seen…well, I’ll leave it to you to fill in the blanks.

In 1975, the US signed on to an international treaty banning the production, use, and stockpiling of biological weapons. Ditto for chemical weapons, in 1993. Another treaty.

Here’s a quote from the Washington Post (9/4/13, “When the US looked the other way on chemical weapons”): “…The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items…including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague…”

Between 1985 and 1989, a US 501C3 firm, American Type Culture Collection, sent Iraq up to 70 shipments of various biowar agents, including 21 strains of anthrax.

Between 1984 and 1989, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control!) sent Iraq at least 80 different biowar agents, including botulinum toxoid, dengue virus, and West Nile antigen and antibody.

This information on the American Type Culture Collection and the CDC comes from a report, “Iraq’s Biological Weapons Program,” prepared by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS).

Then we have a comprehensive article by William Blum (one of the good investigators in this whole story) in the April 1998 Progressive called “Anthrax for Export.” Blum cites a 1994 Senate report confirming that, in this 1985-1989 time period, US shipments of anthrax and other biowar agents to Iraq were licensed by…drum roll, cymbal crash…the US Dept. of Commerce.

Blum quotes from the Senate report: “These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program.”

This 1994 Senate report also indicates that the US exported to Iraq the precursors for chemwar agents, actual plans for chemical and biowar production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment. The exports continued until at least November 28, 1989.

Blum lists a few other biowar agents the US shipped to Iraq. Histoplasma Capsulatum, Brucella Melitensis, Clostridium Perfringens, Clostridium tetani—as well as E. coli, various genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA.

Blum also points out that a 1994 Pentagon report dismissed any connection between all these biowar agents and Gulf War Illness. But the researcher who headed up that study, Joshua Lederberg, was actually a director of the US firm that had provided the most biowar material to Iraq in the 1980s: the American Type Culture Collection.

Newsday revealed that the CEO of the American Type Culture Collection was a member of the US Dept. of Commerce’s Technical Advisory Committee. See, the Dept. of Commerce had to license and approve all those exports of biowar agents carried out by the American Type Culture Collection. Get the picture?

Now, as to other US companies which dealt biowar or chemwar agents to Iraq—all such sales having been approved by the US government—the names of these companies are contained in records of the 1992 Senate hearings, “United States Export Policy Toward Iraq Prior to Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait,” Senate Report 102-996, Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, 102d Congress, Second Session (October 27, 1992):

Mouse Master (Georgia), Sullaire Corp (Charlotte, North Carolina), Pure Aire (Charlotte, North Carolina), Posi Seal (Conn.), Union Carbide (Conn.), Evapco (Maryland), BDM Corp (Virginia), Spectra Physics (Calif.).

There are about a dozen more.

This also from the Blum article: “A larger number of American firms supplied Iraq with the specialized computers, lasers, testing and analyzing equipment, and other instruments and hardware vital to the manufacture of nuclear weapons, missiles, and delivery systems. Computers, in particular, play a key role in nuclear weapons development. Advanced computers make it feasible to avoid carrying out nuclear test explosions, thus preserving the program’s secrecy. The 1992 Senate hearings implicated [Hewlett Packard, Palo Alto, CA — among others].”

Hewlett Packard said that the recipient of its shipments, Saad 16, was some sort of school in Iraq. But in 1990, the Wall St. Journal stated that Saad 16 was a “heavily fortified, state-of-the-art [Iraqi] complex for aircraft construction, missile design, and, almost certainly, nuclear-weapons research.”

If you review and think about all these WMD shipments from the US to Iraq, you understand there were many US officials and corporate employees who knew about them. Knew about them then, in the 1980s, and knew about them later, during 2 US wars in Iraq, when American soldiers were sent to Iraq, and could have been exposed to the bio/chem weapons.

And these officials and employees said nothing.

Officials at the CDC and the Dept. of Commerce said nothing. People at the American Type Culture Collection said nothing. People at the Pentagon and the CIA and the NSA said nothing. Presidents said nothing. Employees of the corporations who supplied germs and chemicals said nothing.

—Now imagine the NY Times and the Washington Post releasing their hounds to dig deeper into this boggling story. Interviews with the players. Investigations into the role of the CDC. The cover-ups. After a year of relentless probing and publishing, this would have built into an unstoppable tidal wave. The whole country (and the world) would have been agog. Prosecutions would have followed.

But it didn’t happen.

Instead, the story dissolved and went away.

The history that could have been made…

Wasn’t made.

This is fake news at its finest; by omission. By limited hangout.


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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

To science bloggers living with mommy

by Jon Rappoport

November 19, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

What if television news disappeared and we invented ourselves?

by Jon Rappoport

October 29, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

The desperate networks are grasping at straws. Their ratings reflect a continuing audience exodus.

I once wrote that, if tomorrow the top news anchors admitted they were drag queens, the whole country would immediately collapse. That’s how fragile America actually is.

I’ve updated that comment, because the USA is now so tolerant the top anchors could come out as collies or toasters and everyone would feel compelled to consider the revelation with warm regard.

So here is the new formulation: If tomorrow, television news disappeared completely, the human mind would lose its mirror and chaos would ensue.

The minds of most viewers lack context, are satisfied with cartoons of reality, yearn for authorities, and will accept any version of “being informed.”

This is what the news is all about. The superficial mind clings to the news as a representation of what the mind is.

Take away that mirror and millions of people would enter a highly disturbing void, an absence, a vacuum.

It would be quite interesting.

Some people would realize the degree to which they demand to be told what to think, what to see, what to assume. Others would simply spin into a deep confusion.

At bottom, most minds want to know what exists, even if the portrait is a total lie. A lie is better than nothing. “Give me something, anything.”

That morbid desire is in direct proportion to the absence of any ambition to create reality on one’s own.

Every psyop since the dawn of time is based on, and works because of, the individual’s refusal to create his own reality.

This refusal is, in turn, the cornerstone of highly organized, layered, hierarchical, top-down societies.

These societies generate majestic deceptions, enemies, wars, and huge disparities between the haves and the have-nots. History reveals many elements of progress, but it doesn’t show a solution to these chronic injustices.

To put it another way, the solutions will not appear, in the long run, until millions of people do, in fact, create their own realities.

And that capacity to create requires a revolution at the deepest possible level.

Most people don’t even understand what it means, and/or won’t admit it’s possible.

They would rather rearrange deck chairs on a sinking ship:

“Give me THESE liars as leaders (creators of mass reality), and if you won’t do that, give me THOSE liars as leaders…”

“Ladies and gentlemen, this is the end of the last newscast anywhere. Good night and good luck.” Blackout.

If government’s media mouthpiece were gone, people would be forced to make up their own minds about government (or, in the age of President Trump, one could say, people would be forced to make up their own minds about the deep-state, non-patriotic, sell-out, operatives within government). And eventually, they would. And it wouldn’t be a happy moment, for government (deep-state operatives).

Unsurprisingly, the first “newspapers,” in ancient China, Egypt, and Rome, were government-issued bulletins. They were decrees, commands, and announcements.

They were deployed to control citizens’ actions and paint an official picture of reality.

At some point, leaders recognized that, with the expansion of individual freedom, more subtle methods for control and “guided perception” were necessary. Hence, modern media.

For this to work, reporters had to be elevated to privileged status. They were now town criers dressed to kill.

“Owing to excessive propaganda, lies, and style masquerading as substance, all news is canceled.” That would be a kind of forced declaration of independence.


In 1982, when I began writing for LA Weekly, I sat down with the editor, who explained that investigative reporting was a dying function of the news, because it was too expensive. Its outcome was always uncertain—a newspaper could assign a reporter to a story and pay him for a few months, and at the end of it he might or might not come up with something explosive.

There was, of course, another reason for squelching investigative reporting. A reporter might dig too deep and find too much gold. The wrong people (actual high-level criminals) could be indicted and exposed.

For the most part, mainstream news has canceled real investigation. It’s gone. It exists as limited hangout, meaning it’s constructed to execute partial and ultimately harmless exposure of crimes. The limited hangout pretends to be the last word, and everybody packs up and goes home, thinking the job is done.

Which is exactly the way most minds operate, when it comes to the truth. They poke around a little, come up with a bit of “deep” material, and check out. Nothing more to see, move along.

Any reporter who goes too far with a story is stopped by his bosses and reassigned to lighter topics. I know of one such hound, who broke open several heavy scandals and was then pulled off to do other work. Allowed to continue his investigations, he would have torn apart the Dept. of Justice and the CDC.

All of mainstream news is a limited hangout, because it purports to be coverage of reality. Actually, it invents reality by establishing narrow context, selecting which stories are important, and twisting their meaning.


So my original question, what if television news disappeared, is in a way a moot point. It’s already disappeared. It never was. It was always a simulacrum.

The Matrix can be viewed as the simulacra the mind invents to stand in for reality. This obsession for what psyops specialists used to call stereotypes is the putty-like target for engineers of deception:

“People already want false images. We merely make sure they buy our false images.”

Coming out of World War 2, US psychological warfare operators turned their attention to new conditions of “peace.” They fed the population images and simulacra of distant peoples and places and cultures.

The premise was: there are billions of people Americans will never meet or come to know. We, the princes of psyops, have to give them pictures of who these foreign humans are, to align with US foreign policy (empire building).

Now, the psyop operators’ target has expanded to a significant degree. The premise reads: there are billions and trillions of bits of information people will never be able to evaluate or organize. We have to tell them what all this information means. We have to shrink it down and frame it and paint shorthand pictures of it. Our pictures, not theirs.

Hence, the news.

Notice the basic fixation in all this madness. It’s the fixation on deciding what reality is, rather than what new realities can be created.

That is the threshold most people refuse to cross or understand. They’ll do anything to avoid it. And when I say most people, I don’t mean groups, I mean individuals.


Here is the real news: People’s problems and confusions and anxieties will never be resolved until they invent realities they truly desire with power and imagination.

I’m talking about inventing social reality and political reality and personal reality and aesthetic reality. This is no cotton-candy prescription. It calls for the deepest conviction and commitment.

When, in the 1960s, various Asian philosophies and spiritual systems were twisted and reduced and re-cooked and distorted, for importation into the West, one of the underlying themes was: enlightenment comes by accepting What Is.

That was a psyop of major proportions, on the level of consciousness and spirit. It was aimed at the closing the door on the oceanic creative impulse.

Accept What Is. Don’t try to change it. Surrender. Stop struggling. Then all your problems will disappear.

False.

The ability to accept reality ultimately and paradoxically depends on surpassing it by inventing new realities in profusion. Then, you can look at What Is and accept it as a fact that, like all other facts, can be radically changed.

Peace attained through a struggle to “let go of everything” is a deception. It’s one piece of a much larger story. That story centers on us and our creative force, the titanic and submerged faculty that always was and always will exist, no matter how many ploys are engaged to reject it.

The news doesn’t cover this story

The news is a drug to put this story to sleep.

The news is a voice expressing itself. But what about the far more important voice of the individual? What is it expressing, if consciousness itself is buttoned up?

I can tell you this. 100 percent of individuals have no idea what they would express if they opened up all creative channels. Oh, they might know what their opening shots would be. But beyond that? They don’t know. They couldn’t know. Because they haven’t invented the full range of their voices.

You could sit down and write a thousand pages to “express what you really want to say,” and you would only be scratching the surface. You would only be warming up your engine.

The mind is trained for delivering summaries and bytes. After throwing off that colossal inhibition, you’re at the beginning of the road. Just the beginning.

The news and all its allied support systems are a reflection of the mind held in check, the imagination held in check. As such they are really meaningless.

We have no clue about what a civilization would be, if many individuals entered the untapped universes of what amounts to endless expression. We live in a shorthand world. We convince ourselves that’s all there is.

That isn’t all there is. It’s just one atom of potential experience.

As far as individual creation is concerned, we live in a world that’s a kindergarten. It’s a nursery school. When people are asked to invent something, to express something, they look for the short form. The brief statement (like the news).

Write a thousand pages and see where you are. Paint a thousand paintings and see where you are. Reinvent your business a hundred times and see where you are. Reinvent your group that seeks to fulfill a social cause a hundred times and see where you are. Become an endless artist of expression and invention and see where you are.

Now we are getting down to the real crime of the news. It looks for the lead paragraph and the bottom line. It searches for the wrap-up and the stinger. It short-circuits the potential of the individual mind because the mind wants to be short-circuited.

And within this prison, people look for answers. It’s a joke. There are no answers there.

We are operating at one tiny end of the light spectrum, claiming that the whole remaining arc of possible light is invisible. Yes, it’s invisible because we shut ourselves off from it, because we fail to realize it becomes visible only when we live through and by imagination.


The myth of Prometheus is really an expression of self-limited creative consciousness seeking to break out and invent realities and worlds without end. The fire Prometheus stole from the gods wasn’t merely “knowledge” or “technology.” It was the infinite creative force.

There was no crime. The gods were already bored to death with their own powers. They had abandoned imagination. They had become tyrannical managers of humans. The gods were pathetic paupers living on borrowed time.

And when Prometheus delivered fire to humans, he wasn’t punished by the gods. He wasn’t chained to a rock and tortured. He was astonished by humans’ refusal to pick up the torch.

The Olympian gods were the News. They were the purveyors of What Is. They demanded allegiance.

The people chose to listen to the news from above. They chose to abdicate the endless road of expression and creation and instead worship an external narration of existence, a tired and bloated and worn-out and stench-ridden song emitted from Broadcast Central.


Imagine this:

Rachel Maddow of MSNBC News, appears on screen and says, “Tonight I begin to tell you a story. The story of myself. But not the narrow history. Not just where I was born and what happened to me. Yes, there will be some of that. But my story, like yours, is largely unknown, because I haven’t launched it yet. It isn’t only memory or fact. It’s a fuller and deeper expression, and it’s also an invention. Every night, for a thousand and one nights, I’ll be here on television unspooling and imagining myself. There will be many starts and stops. There will be moments of confusion, and there will be times when I don’t know where to go. But I’ll continue, because I want to, because I’m the artist of myself. As I talk, you’ll see parts of myself disappear and new parts surface. No doubt there will be long periods when I speak impersonally, and then a new intimacy will arise. It will loom up, vanish, and I’ll move into other realms. There is no wrong way to go. This is an Everything, an everything that expands and shrinks and submerges and ends and begins and swells and explodes and starts again from nowhere. This is an adventure. The goal is not a specific thing. The goal is not the truth. The truth is an illusion we concoct to sum up the adventure and give it structure, but this story will be about far more than the truth. It occurs to me that the news is our way of avoiding the ocean of our being, and that ocean contains logic and illogic, myth and also what could never happen but does happen. We perceive certain immovable and credible boundaries that we actually throw up to cover ourselves, to eliminate great cores of energy, to pretend we exist in one centralized space and time. I will tell this story in as many dimensions as I can…”

As improbable as it seems, if such an event took over the news, night after night, for years and years, the so-called vital events of our time, as usually reported by the news, would pale in importance, and something else would take over.

Something we sense but do not express. Something that will revolutionize our lives. We will remember we once knew the endless telling of the endless story, we knew it was the projection of both dream and reality that could and would change, not just the world, but how the world is built…taking it out into uncharted islands, snapping the chains we forged to keep us in a minor tale, always waiting for a romantic moment of liberation to come, forgetting what we need to do to change the sameness of the music:

Tell the endless story without limits.

Ordinary self, extraordinary self, both fuel for the fire.

Here is a quote from a work-in-progress, The Magician Awakes:

“There is a thing called Endless Story. It has no walls, floor or ceiling. It reflects how consciousness actually operates, once the programming is cast aside. Endless Story isn’t a cultural artifact. It cuts across all cultural lines. It is pure invention. Nothing that has already happened is sacred…Imagination finds its energy. All common and inhibiting symmetries are cast into the creative fire. Exploration and discovery are redefined. They no longer depend on what already has been laid down as Pattern. Symbols no longer have conventional meanings. Endless Story is the answer to the old alchemical mystery called Quintessence, or Philosopher’s Stone, which was supposed to be the key to transformation of unresolvable conflicts. Endless story overtakes and overrides ‘things as they are.’ Beginning, middle, and end, the cherished components of traditional story, fly out the window into a new dawn, a new day, a new night…”


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

How CNN boss Jeff Zucker helped elect a US president and a governor of California

by Jon Rappoport

October 25, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

One thing you have to understand about Mr. Zucker. What he does, he does for show. For ratings. If he could get away with claiming Trump met with Putin on the dark side of the moon to concoct a way to beat Hillary Clinton, he would run with it. If he could get away with claiming Arnold Schwarzenegger was the love child of Joseph Stalin and Greta Garbo, he would lead the evening newscast with it. He keeps selling the CNN Trump-Russia “investigation” because he’s (barely) getting away with it and he thinks it’ll keep drawing an audience.

In April, CNN boss Jeff Zucker told the New York Times, “The idea that politics is sport is undeniable, and we understood that and approached it that way.” The “it” was certainly the 2016 presidential campaign.

Zucker always has understood politics in this corrupt way—and in the process, he helped elect a US president and a California governor.

Who is Trump’s most consistent media enemy now? CNN is right up there.

But Jeff Zucker, CNN’s boss, was the man who launched The Apprentice, starring Donald Trump, at NBC, in 2004.

In other words, Zucker happened to play a major role in electing Donald Trump. There is no getting around it.

Washington Post, October 2, 2016: “Looking for someone specific to hold responsible for the improbable rise of Donald Trump?”

“Although there are many options, you could do worse than to take a hard look at Jeff Zucker, president of CNN Worldwide.”

“It was Zucker, after all, who as the new head of NBC Entertainment gave Trump his start in reality TV with ‘The Apprentice’ and then milked the real estate developer’s uncanny knack for success for all it was worth in ratings and profits.”

“And it succeeded wildly — boosting the network’s ratings, as well as Zucker’s [and Trump’s] meteoric career. In turn, under Zucker, the show gave rise to ‘Celebrity Apprentice,’ another Trump extravaganza. And, in turn, Zucker became the head of NBC overall.”

“The show [The Apprentice] was built as a virtually nonstop advertisement for the Trump empire and lifestyle,” according to the book ‘Trump Revealed,’ by Washington Post journalists Marc Fisher and Michael Kranish.”

“The executive [Jeff Zucker] rode the Trump steed hard. When the reality-TV star was preparing to marry Melania Knauss in 2005, Zucker wanted to broadcast the wedding live. (Trump, uncharacteristically, declined.)”

“But make no mistake: There would be no Trump-the-politician without Trump-the-TV-star. One begot the other.”

POLITICS IS TELEVISION, AND TELEVISION IS POLITICS.

If you’re looking for a person who embodies that fake version of reality most purely, you need look no further than Jeff Zucker.

Despite his network’s present hatred of Trump, Zucker would give Trump his own show right now if he wanted one.

For ratings and ad revenues.

Let’s go back in time and consider another event, one which I’ve analyzed in great detail. It took place on NBC in 2003, when Zucker was the head of the network’s entertainment division. Keep in mind that The Tonight Show, with Jeno Leno, was a prime piece of the entertainment division then. What Leno pulled off in 2003 had to have the OK from Zucker, because it was a highly unusual move, a distinctly unethical move.

What happened when an actor wanted to launch a political career and become a governor? The whole news division of a major network surrendered itself, for one ratings-busting night, to a talk show.

This is how Arnold Schwarzenegger won the California governor’s race. It all came down to his famous appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, where he announced that he was going to run.

I obtained a copy of show, watched it many times, transcribed the dialogue, and noted the audience reactions.

Breaking down the segments revealed what happens when news and entertainment and PR and political advocacy all blur together in a single wave.

The show had been hyped as the moment when Arnold would announce whether he was going to run in the recall election against California Governor Gray Davis.

The public anticipation was sky-high. No one seemed concerned that NBC was turning over its news division, for one night, to its entertainment division. Jeff Zucker, head of NBC entertainment, was all in.

Turning over network news to network entertainment was precisely the subject of the best movie ever made about television, Paddy Chayefsky’s Network. That didn’t register with the national media.

If Arnold decided to run for governor, he wouldn’t be announcing it at a stale press conference at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, after a brief introduction from The Snoozer, LA Mayor Richard Riordan. No, Arnold would obtain a rocket boost from Jay Leno.

Keep in mind that talk shows warm up and prep their studio audiences to act and respond with amphetamine-like enthusiasm.

And then that audience transmits its glow and howling racket to the wider television audience, thereby blowing an artificially enhanced event across the landscape.

On the night of August 6, 2003, Tonight Show host Jay Leno devoted two six-minute segments to The Arnold.

Of course, it was more than an interview. Jay had been touting this night as the occasion for a key revelation in the comic play called The California Recall Election.

Arnold would say yes or Arnold would say no. He would run for governor or he would decline.

Bigger than conventional news, Arnold strode out on to Jay’s stage. A Tonight Show camera picked him up from a grossly complimentary low angle, making him appear even larger and more physically imposing than he is. Jay was positioned standing behind him, applauding, lending an affirmative gloss to the entrance. Already, it looked and felt political.

This was not a beginning; the impression was of something already in motion, a train to catch up with.

As the man of the hour sat down next to Jay, he commented that there was a big audience in the house (“Can you believe all these people here?”) and, capping his first gambit, he stated that every one of them was running for governor of California. Ha-ha. (At one point, there were 135 gubernatorial candidates.)

Quickly, Jay gets down to business. The business of making the evening extra-special: “Now, I don’t think we’ve ever had this much press at The Tonight Show for any—[let’s look at] our press room—normally [the press] sit in the audience.”

Cut to a stark room, shot from above. About 40 reporters doing almost nothing at tables. Obviously, the room was set up for this event.

Jay cracks a couple of jokes about the press gaggle, lowers his voice and turns his full attention to Arnold: “…it’s been weeks…and people going back and forth…taken you awhile, and you said you would come here tonight and tell us your decision. So what is your decision?”

Arnold replies, “Well, Jay, after thinking for a long time, my decision is…”

The sound cuts off, and the TV screen displays an old PLEASE STAND BY notice. Thick white letters against a background of an ancient station test pattern from the 1950s. A mechanical tone plays for several seconds.

The audience laughs. There is applause, too.

Cut back to Jay and Arnold. Arnold says, “That’s why I decided that way.” Big audience laughter.

Jay, going along—as if Arnold had spilled the beans during a momentary technical malfunction—shouts, “Right, good, right! I tell you I am shocked! I can’t believe it! I can’t believe it!”

Jay then starts out from the bottom again. “[Whether you’re going to run has been] in my monologue…it’s been good for, like, a thousand jokes over the last couple of weeks…”

Once more, he gently poses the question. “What are you going to do?” It’s still too early for an answer, and Jay knows it.

Arnold wants another false start. He’s planned it.

“Well, my decision obviously is a very difficult decision to make, you know…it was the [most] difficult decision that I’ve made in my entire life, except the one in 1978 when I decided to get a bikini wax.”

Laughter, applause, whistles.

The studio audience warms to the fact that Arnold glimpses an absurdity about the whole proceeding.

“He’s our Arnie, laughing the way we laugh. Hell, all we’ve got are laughs in this life, and our boy isn’t going to go stuffed-shirt on us.”

Arnold then gives his rehearsed political speech.

He reflects that California was a grand land of opportunity when he arrived in 1968. It was the greatest state in the greatest nation.

However, now the atmosphere in California is “disastrous,” he says. There is a “disconnect” (thank you, pop psych 101) between the people and the politicians.

“The politicians are fiddling, fumbling, and failing.”

Very big applause follows. The audience is doing its job.

Close by, off camera, we hear Jay thumping his own personal hand claps. The host is pumping his studio crowd and giving his seal of approval to a remark whose veracity is supposed to be tested by the recall election itself.

And there is a phalanx of teen-age girls screaming at a very high pitch in the studio. They’re adding a major element of hysterical enthusiasm. Where did they come from? Are they a legitimate Arnold demographic? Were they pulled out of a Valley mall to paper the crowd? Do they migrate from talk show to talk show? From this point forward, they’ll play a huge role in every audience outburst.

Arnold gathers steam. He tells one and all that the people of California are doing their job.

They’re working hard.

Paying their taxes.

Raising their families.

But the politicians are not doing their job.

Now he executes a blend around the far turn: “And the man that is failing the people more than anyone is [Governor] Gray Davis!”

The crowd goes wild. The girls scream as if they’re at a kiddie rock concert in the magic presence of four sixteen-year-old pretty boys. It’s eerie.

And now the audience is suddenly on edge.

They can handle the juice. The longed-for result.

Arnold senses it.

He lets the audience-hysteria roller coaster die down and then, taking it up to heaven, announces that, he, Arnold is…

Yes…

GOING TO RUN FOR GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA.

Boom. Bang. Pow. Zow.

The studio audience cracks the ceiling. Wilder than wild. The girls are shrieking walls of sound way above high C. Undoubtedly, the show is flashing applause signs.

Jay shakes his head and grins like a pro hypster who’s just witnessed a very, very good variation on bait and switch. As if Arnold was supposed to say no, but now he’s saying yes.

The Tonight Show band lays down some heavy chords.

Jay shouts, “There you go! There you go! That woke ‘em up! That woke ‘em up!” We cut to the press room, and sure enough, the reporters are now on phones, typing at their keyboards. The story is live and good to go. A global event is underway.

Amid the roar and the music, Jay, smiling broadly and wisely, shakes his finger at Arnold and says to him, “You know something?”

It seems Jay’s about to utter, “That’s the best damn switcheroo I ever saw!” But he doesn’t do it. Instead, as the noise abates, he says it’s a good time to go to a break.

The band plows into a funk riff, under the applause, and the show cuts to commercial.

The sea has parted. The consecration has been performed.

The ax felled the tree in the forest, and everyone heard it.

Marshall McLuhan rolled over in his grave, sat up, grinned, lit a cigar, and sipped a little brandy.

After the commercials, in the next six-minute segment, Jay and Arnold attain a few more highs of audience madness.

High one: Arnold mentions that 1.6 million Californians have signed the recall petition and are saying, “We are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore!” Wowee.

No one notices or remembers this line was made massively famous in Network, the bitter satire on news as entertainment.

Is it remotely possible Arnold recalls the 1976 Paddy Chayefsky film and its newsman, Howard Beale, who survives a ratings dive by delivering a delirious populist message on air, and becomes, for a short time, the most revered man in America?

Is it possible Arnold knows the TV network portrayed in the film gave its news division to its entertainment division—exactly what’s transpiring right there, for the moment, on The Tonight Show?

High two: Arnold clarifies his message to all politicians everywhere. “Do your job for the people and do it well, or otherwise you’re out. Hasta la vista, baby!” Zowee.

High three: After telling the crowd they all know Gray Davis can run a dirty campaign “better than anyone”—and that Davis has been selling off pieces of California to special interests—Arnold says with conviction and confidence, “I do not have to bow to any special interests; I have plenty of money; no one can pay me off; trust me, no one.” Audience hysteria. They love that he’s rich.

High four: Arnold says of Davis, “Everyone knows this man has to go!” Huge roar.

High five: Arnold plays a final pun card. “I will pump up Sacramento!” Yet another roar.

The band takes it out with more funk. Jay stands up and goes over and hugs Arnold, in profile, near his desk, and follows him closely toward an exit at stage left. Jay starts to whisper something in Arnold’s ear, but pulls back and smiles and, still on camera, applauds Arnold along with the audience.

It’s show biz in a bottle. Jay, Arnold, the crowd, the band, bouncing off one another and yielding the effect of absolute (synthetic) thrill.

The Tonight Show provided the moment for a globally famous actor to decide to run for office in the same state where the show originates. In the entertainment capital of the world. In front of the clear prime-cut admiration of the host.

And the studio audience, that specialized creature from whose maw instant credibility can be coaxed and birthed in seconds—was very, very ready to go. All along.

Imagine an advance man pre-selling this kind of PR stunt:

“I know a guy who can introduce your message to the softest, wildest, water-cooler crowd this side of paradise.”

“Oh yeah? How big a crowd?”

“Only a thousand or two. But they’re instantly hooked up to, say, ten million people in the target area. It’s as infectious as Ebola.”

“Come on.”

“And that’s not all. I’ve got a host for that softest, wildest audience, and he has the whole world in the palm of his hand. When he exposes your message—for the first time anywhere—and when his audience goes nuts with glee, nothing will stand in your way. Your opponents will go down like bowling pins.”

“Too good to be true.”

“Wrong. And let me point out what I’m saving you from. If you tried to launch your message at a shopping center or a press club or a hotel ballroom or construction site or on a movie-studio sound stage, you could get laughed right out of town. Really. Because, let’s face it, you do have a pretty vapid message when you boil it down. You need a unique venue, where the joke and the camp and the craziness are all folded into the event itself, and the shock and surprise and hoopla are integrated. You need an audience that celebrates bad and good jokes as all good, and the host has the ability to marry up every shred of this bizarre happening and take his crowd to orgasm.”

“And the contagion factor?”

“The audience in the television studio and the viewing audience at home are One. My boy, what stuns and delights the former incorporates itself into the living cells of the latter. The home audience is terrified of being left out. The host and his in-studio crowd give instant universal legitimacy to the moment. Believe me, it’s irresistible.”

“Like that McLuhan thing. The audience becomes the actor.”

“Precisely.”

That is how it happened. That is how Arnold Schwarzenegger obtained his billion-dollar ad on Jay Leno, on August 6, 2003, and that was when he won the recall election. There was no counter-strategy for it.

Governor Gray Davis was left out in the cold.

The announcement of Arnold’s candidacy was the end of the election.

In the aftermath, media pundits did not punch up this piece of mind control with any serious heat; nor did they immediately seek a heavy investigation of NBC’s ethics in allowing the Leno-Arnold event to take place.

The Tonight Show was a perfect killing ground: Arnold, the earnest and powerful and Germanically jolly and occasionally self-deprecating soul, aware of the comic-book component of his success; Jay, the jokester, who can work as a homer and straight man at the drop of a hat; and Jay’s audience, willingly propelled into the late-night nexus of “we’ll laugh so hard at any old damn thing we’ll make a cosmic celebration out of it.”

Something out of nothing.

GE (then the owner of NBC): “We bring good things to life.”

An election campaign message was passed, hand to hand, mind to mind, adrenal gland to adrenal gland, from a concocted, groomed, cultivated, prepackaged television studio audience to every voter-district in California, and out to the whole world.

When people show up in the studio to see Leno in person, they soon understand the game. They’re not just there as happy onlookers. They’re drawn into the process. They’re offered a trade-off.

If they become active shills for the show right there in the studio, they’ll become part of the story. They’ll attain new status. Their laughs and squeals and shrieks and rebound guffaws, their revved-up salvational applause, at those moments when a guest segment or a joke is falling flat, will provide key segue and filler and affirmation and speed candy for the larger audience at home. It’s a group collaboration.

Who cares—except when a fading movie action hero suddenly says he’s going to take over the reins of California?

In the television studio, and in millions of homes, the audience roared and helped Arnold go for his coronation. They experienced a reasonable facsimile of emotional torque and busted a move that showered sparks around Arnold’s head and pushed him through a porthole into an ozone that just might have been the closest thing they’d ever find to immortality.

On October 10, three days after Arnold scored number one in the recall vote count, The NY Times ran a piece by Bill Carter headlined, “NBC Supports the Politically Partisan Leno.”

But Carter’s story was merely about Jay, on the night of October 7, taking the stage in Los Angeles to introduce Arnold as the recall election winner.

THIS was the issue? This was the barrier that Leno had crossed? Carter mentioned nothing about those 12 minutes on August 6th, on The Tonight Show, when Arnold announced he was running and thereby sewed up the election.

Jeff Zucker, then the head of entertainment at NBC (NOW THE BOSS AT CNN), told Carter he was aware Jay was going to introduce Arnold at the victory celebration. “I did not and do not have a problem with it,” he said.

Zucker noted that Jay was a private citizen with all the accruing rights of same.

Not a word from Zucker either, about the propriety of Leno hosting Arnold’s campaign launch on August 6, on The Tonight Show.

The Studio Audience, on the night of August 6, 2003, fingered and chose and elected a governor of California.

Jay Leno has gone on to thousands of other jokes.

But he’ll never forget that one.

And neither will Zucker.

He helped elect Arnold. And he made Trump a global star of the first magnitude on The Apprentice, and thereby helped him win the presidency.

If you like interesting coincidences, both the Leno Moment and launch of The Apprentice happened in 2004. And when Donald Trump left The Apprentice in 2015, who took over as the host?

Arnold Schwarzenegger, of course.


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.

Industrial-strength scare-propaganda: mind control

by Jon Rappoport

October 18, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

From time to time, I reprint my interview with Dr. Barbara Starfield. Each time I try to write a new introduction.

In this case, I’ll highlight the arbitrary nature of scare-propaganda. And by arbitrary, I mean “has a covert agenda.”

For instance, suppose you learned that a single source in the US, every year, like clockwork, kills 225,000 people. That would be 2.25 million killings per decade.

Wouldn’t you think we’d hear about it? Wouldn’t public health agencies make a big deal about it? Wouldn’t they call it an epidemic?

After all, we supposedly have a handful of “Ebola cases” in the US, and the media are hyping this “fact” to the skies.

Suppose they had far, far bigger numbers to work with? Suppose they had 225,000 deaths, not just once, but every year, as the raw material for their stories?

Suppose they could say, “We now have 225,000 deaths in the US as a result of Ebola, and the authorities are quite sure that next year, and the year after that, and every year we’re going to have 225,000 more.”

Can you imagine the reaction at every level of society? The insane panic? The madness in the streets? The attacks against institutions tasked with preventing such a cataclysm? The collapse of the stock market and the healthcare system? The predictions of the end of the world? The churches on roaring business highs?

On July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published Dr. Barbara Starfield’s review, “Is US health really the best in the world?”


The Starfield paper can be downloaded freely (as a .pdf) from here (via drug-education.info). The paper is fully cited as Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world?. JAMA. 2000; 284(4):483-4.


In it, Starfield, who was a respected public health expert working at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, stated that:

* The US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.

* 106,000 deaths per year from FDA-approved medical drugs.

* 119,000 deaths per year from error-ridden treatment in hospitals.

I’m aware that independent research puts those death figures much higher, but I focus on Dr. Starfield’s work because no mainstream reporter or government official could challenge her credentials or the credentials of the journal that published her findings.

And yes, there were stories in the press at the time, in 2000. But the coverage wasn’t aggressive, and it faded out quickly.

And none of the mainstream coverage did the obvious extrapolations. For example, we are talking about 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade. And over a MILLION deaths per decade from medicines the FDA has approved as safe and effective.

The US government is aware. You can search for an FDA page titled, “Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs)?”

It states: “Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly.” And “100,000 DEATHS yearly.” (The capital letters are the FDA’s, not mine.)

The FDA, of course, is the single federal agency responsible for certifying all medical drugs safe and effective before they are released for public use. They readily admit the human death-and- maiming devastation…but take no responsibility for it.


On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here are excerpts from that interview.

JR: What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

BS: The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

JR: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

BS: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

JR: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

BS: NO.

JR: Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

BS: Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews [of its new drugs]—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

JR: Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

BS: They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

JR: Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

BS: Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.)

JR: Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

BS: Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

JR: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

BS: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

JR: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

BS: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

JR: Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

BS: I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

—end of interview excerpt—


Comment: Hyping death is an industry. It cuts two ways. The people who do the scare-propaganda also delete the uncomfortable truths.

As always, they are fronting for an agenda.

They are inventing reality for the public.

Reality-invention is the biggest business in the world.


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.

Destroy Trump for opposing NAFTA

by Jon Rappoport

September 3, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

NAFTA…The North American Free Trade Agreement…born on January 1, 1994…it’s a deal among the governments of the U S, Mexico and Canada.

One group has stated:

“Negotiated behind closed doors with hundreds of official corporate advisors, NAFTA was radically different than past trade deals that focused on traditional trade matters, like cutting border taxes. Instead, most of NAFTA’s provisions grant new powers and privileges to multinational corporations.”

So Trump recently spoke out decisively against NAFTA—and as in any situation where he speaks at all, he’s attacked by the press.

Here is a pop quiz. Here are three statements about NAFTA. You decide who uttered them.

ONE: “…most of NAFTA’s provisions grant new powers and privileges to multinational corporations. These new powers make it easier for corporations to outsource jobs…NAFTA’s ‘investor protections’ create incentives for corporations to relocate production and jobs elsewhere. Indeed, the U.S. has lost more than 950,000 American jobs due to NAFTA, according to the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) database.”

“Plus, NAFTA guts the Buy American policies that require the government to buy American-made goods when spending our tax dollars. This outsources our tax dollars rather than investing them to create jobs here.”

“NAFTA has also lowered U.S. wages, increased inequality, and hurt U.S. manufacturing and agriculture in all 50 states. At the same time, it has decimated the Mexican economy, driving millions from their homes.”

TWO: “I will fundamentally rewrite NAFTA, other trade agreements…Not only did I oppose permanent normal trade relations with China, I stood with Steel workers and united electrical workers in opposition to it…Normalized trade with China cost us 3.2 million jobs including over 120,000 here in Pennsylvania.”

THREE: “Remember, NAFTA was one of the WORST Trade Deals ever made. The U.S. lost thousands of businesses and millions of jobs. We were far better off before NAFTA – should never have been signed. Even the Vat Tax was not accounted for. We make new deal or go back to pre-NAFTA!”

OK? Ready with your answers? Yes, you guessed correctly from recognizing the rhetoric—statement 3 was written by President Trump (an additional part to that statement was also tweeted here).

Statement 1 was written by Lori Wallach, who works for Ralph Nader’s group, Public Citizen, which is decidedly on the political Left. And statement number 2 was made by none other than presidential candidate and avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders.

What’s the main difference between these three characters? Wallach and Sanders can say anything they want to, and the amount of heat coming their way is relatively minor. No matter what Trump says, he gets heat. And yet…

On this MAJOR issue, NAFTA, and free-trade treaties in general, Wallach, Sanders, and Trump are in agreement. They all see the insanity and criminality. A socialist, a far-left activist, and a bull capitalist.

Thus demonstrating that, for the press, it matters not what you say, it only matters who they decide you are.

And they decide who you are according to an agenda. Whose agenda? Simple: Rockefeller Globalists, who love free trade treaties, who have spent decades crafting them and foisting them on the public, who see President Trump as a wild card unpredictable swaggering cowboy…


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.