Deep State? What about elite television news anchors?

Deep State? What about elite television news anchors?

The elite news anchor is the eunuch: “trusted everywhere”

by Jon Rappoport

April 13, 2018

It’s not only the content of news that is embraced, it’s the style, the manner of presentation—and in the long run, the presentation is far more corrosive, far more deadly than the content.

The imitations of life called anchors are the arbiters of style. How they speak, how they look, how they themselves experience emotion—all this is planted deep in the brains of the viewers.

Most of America can’t imagine the evening news could look and sound any other way.

That’s how solid the long-term brainwashing is.

The elite anchors, from John Daly in the early days of television, all the way to Brian Williams (until he was exposed) and Scott Pelley, have set the tone. They define the genre.

The elite anchor is not a person filled with passion or curiosity. Therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be passionate or filled with curiosity, either.

The anchor is not a demanding voice on the air; therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be demanding.

The anchor isn’t hell-bent on uncovering the truth. For this he substitutes a false dignity. Therefore, the audience can surrender its need to wrestle with the truth and replace that with a false dignity of its own.

The anchor takes propriety to an extreme: it’s unmannerly to look below the surface of things. Therefore, the audience adopts those manners.

The anchor inserts an actor’s style into what should instead be a relentless reporter’s forward motion. Therefore, members of the audience can become actors shaping “news” about their own lives through Facebook.

The anchor taps into, and mimics, that part of the audience’s psyche that wants smooth delivery of superficial cause and effect.

From their perch, the elite television anchors can deign to allow a trickle of sympathy here, a slice of compassion there.

But they let the audience know that objectivity is their central mission. “We have to get the story right. You can rely on us for that.”

This is the great propaganda arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold billions to convey that false assurance.

The elite anchor must pretend to believe the narrow parameters and boundaries of a story are all there is. There is no deeper meaning. There is no abyss waiting to swallow whole a major story and reveal it as a hoax. No. Never.

With this conviction in tow, the anchor can fiddle and diddle with details.

The network anchor is the wizard of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable, unimaginable truth.

The anchor is quite satisfied to obtain all his information from “reputable sources.” This mainly means government and corporate spokespeople. Not a problem.

Every other source, for the anchor, is murky and unreliable. He doesn’t have to worry his pretty little head about whether his sources are, indeed, trustworthy. He calculates it this way: if government and corporations are releasing information, it means there is news to report.

What the FBI director has to say is news whether it’s true or false, because the director said it. So why not blur over the mile-wide distinction between “he spoke the truth” and “he spoke”?

On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.

This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.

Essentially, the anchor is saying, “See, I’m ascetic in the service of truth. Why would I hamstring myself this way unless my mission is sincere objectivity?”

All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion. In recent times, it was Brian Williams—until his “conflations” and “misremembrances” surfaced.

The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor “great.” Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow. Huntley was just a touch too masculine, so they teamed him up with David Brinkley, a medium-boiled egg. Brinkley supplied twinkles of comic relief.

The cable news networks don’t really have anyone who qualifies as an elite anchor. Wolf Blitzer of CNN made his bones during the first Iraq war only because his name fit the bombing action so well. Brit Hume of FOX has more anchor authority than anyone now working in network television, but he’s semi-retired, content to play the role of contributor, because he knows the news is a scam on wheels.

There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”

Neutrality implies: this is a democracy; an anchor is no more important than the next person (and yet he is—another contradiction, swallowed).

Neutrality implies: we, the news division, don’t have to make money (a lie); we’re not like the cop shows; we’re on a higher plane; we’re performing a public service; we’re like a responsible charity.

The anchor poses the age-old question about the people. Do the people really want to suck in superficial cause and effect and surface detail, or do they want deeper truth? Do the people want comfortable gigantic lies, or do they want to look behind the curtain?

The anchor, of course, goes for surface only.

The anchor is so accustomed to lying and so accustomed to pretending the lies are true that he wouldn’t know how to shift gears.

At the end of the Roman Empire, when the whole structure was coming apart, a brilliant and devious decision was made. The Empire would proceed according to a completely different plan. Instead of continuing to stretch its resources to the breaking point with military conquests, it would attack the mind.

It would establish the Roman Church and write new spiritual law. These laws and an overriding cosmology would be dispensed, in land after land, by official “eunuchs.” Men who, distanced from the usual human appetites, would automatically gain the trust of the people.

These priests would “deliver the news.” They would be the elite anchors, who would translate God’s orders and revelations to the public.

By edict, no one would be able to communicate with God, except through these “trusted ones.” Therefore, in a sense, the priest was actually higher on the ladder of power than God Himself.

In fact, it would fall to the Church to reinterpret all of history, writing it as a series of symbolic clues that revealed and confirmed Church doctrine (story line).

Today, people are believers because the popular stories are delivered by contemporary castrati, every night on the evening news.

If these castrati say a virus is threatening the world; and if they are backed up by neutral castrati bishops, the medical scientists; and if those medical scientists are supported by public health bureaucrats, the cardinals; and if the cardinals are given a wink and a nod by the President, the Pope—the Program is working.

And the news is spread to the people…

But the true viruses are the anchors. They spread the illnesses.

Through their style. The style of the eunuch.


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.

Facebook censorship: the grotesque mainstream solution

Facebook censorship: the grotesque mainstream solution

by Jon Rappoport

April 11, 2018

The problem with Facebook started a long time ago. They used their money to promote their social media operations, and tons of users jumped on board, believing that conventional rules of free speech applied.

That was a mistake.

The mistake was on the level of believing the military-industrial complex is only interested in legitimate defense of the nation; or believing the pharmaceutical industry is only interested in alleviating existing illness with safe drugs.

Some lawyers and scholars are trying to “correct” Facebook. But beware: most of them are arguing that, since the Internet is a new platform, far beyond the ability of the Founding Fathers to have anticipated, we now have to change the meaning of the 1st Amendment, in order to make social media “more responsible” about the content they permit. In other words, Facebook should eliminate “more fake news.” This is the road to disaster, as any sane person can see.

Who decides what is fake? Government appointed fact checkers? The CIA? Either of the two major political parties? A biased hate speech organization?

These scholars and attorneys want social media to be defined as “public square, town hall, news media”—but not so public that all political views are allowed through the door. No. They only want “reasonable” content, to protect “robust debate in a democracy.” This is pure baloney.

We’re also seeing increasing calls for government regulation of social media. This means more censorship. We’re witnessing that in California, where State Senator Richard Pan has introduced a bill (SB 1424), designed to force all Internet activity based in California to use designated fact checkers and issue warnings about fake news.

It may seem like a good move to redefine social media giants as “more than private companies,” but that direction is dangerous. In the main, it’s not being shaped by true free-speech advocates, it’s controlled by mainstream operatives who want their news to dominate the scene.

A 10/11/17 Wired article contains this stunning piece: “’You cannot run a democratic system unless you have a well-informed public, or a public prepared to defer to well-informed elites,’ says Larry Kramer, president of the Hewlett Foundation and an expert in constitutional law. ‘And we are now rapidly heading toward neither. Without one or the other, our constitutional system and our liberal democracy will end, perhaps not imminently, but over time’.”

Defer to well-informed elites? Really? This is the mainstream argument right out in the open: The vaunted traditional news outlets speak the truth and we must listen to them. We must censor all the extraneous “noise” on the Internet. The NY Times and the Washington Post and CNN and CBS would never lie. They vet their stories and fact check them. They are objective. They light the lamp of truth and point the way. They protect democracy.

To mainstream scholars, improving social media means destroying the 1st Amendment under the guise of “adjusting and updating it.”

Eliminating hate speech includes censoring material that contradicts the “progressive culture” on issues like immigration, open borders, gun control, vaccination, and gender identity.

“Free speech” is replaced by “better speech.”

“I don’t like what you say” is replaced by “you have no right to say it.”

The very popular pro-Trump Diamond and Silk duo recently reacted to Facebook censorship: “…giving us the run around, Facebook gave us another bogus reason why Millions of people who have liked and/or followed our page no longer receives notification and why our page, post and video reach was reduced by a very large percentage. Here is the reply from Facebook. Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:40 PM: ‘The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community’.”

I guess Diamond and Silk are part of the dangerous noise that distracts the American people from “responsible journalism” so necessary to maintaining a robust democracy.

Yes, that must be it.

As far as I can tell, the following quote about the news was written before the Internet and Facebook existed, and therefore—heaven forbid—was actually aimed at mainstream sources:

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. . . . I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors.” (Thomas Jefferson, June 11, 1807)

Censor Jefferson! He’s contributing to doubt and disbelief in our most trusted streams of information. Ban him from Facebook! He’s unsafe to the community. He’s a corrosive influence. He’s obstructing democracy. He’s a conspiracy lunatic. The new and improved 1st Amendment doesn’t protect him. How can we conduct intelligent and proper debate on serious matters in the face of such blanket condemnations which he spews?

Yes, ban him, so we can be safe again.


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.

The US government colludes in Mass Deaths by Opioids

US government colludes in Mass Deaths by Opioids

Get the truth out and spread it

by Jon Rappoport

April 10, 2018

The major pipeline for trafficking opioid drugs starts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, who are intentionally distributing opioids far beyond any legitimate need.

2 MILLION OPIOID ADDICTS IN THE US.

300,000 DEATHS SINCE THE YEAR 2000 IN THE US.

A significant percentage of this human carnage results from illegal distribution of opioids.

Here is the open secret:

A 2016 LAW SIGNED BY OBAMA SHACKLED THE DEA (DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION) IN ITS EFFORTS TO CRACK DOWN ON BIG PHARMA TRAFFICKERS.

That law is the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2016, passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on 4/9/16.

And that is the federal government’s role in perpetuating and expanding the opioid crisis.

Honest agents inside the complacent DEA want to have the right to march into a pharmaceutical company headquarters and say, “We know you’re shipping millions of opioid pills to little pharmacies and clinics that, in turn, are selling the pills to street dealers. We’re going to freeze those shipments now, and we’re going to arrest key executives.”

But that 2016 law raises the bar so high on what the DEA can do, the whole law-enforcement effort is hamstrung, throttled, and loaded down with legal complications.

In essence, the US Congress gave drug companies a free pass.

And no one in the Congress is admitting it or talking about it.

The Washington Post, October 15, 2017, “The Drug Industry’s Triumph Over the DEA”: “In April 2016, at the height of the deadliest drug epidemic in U.S. history, Congress effectively stripped the Drug Enforcement Administration of its most potent weapon against large drug companies suspected of spilling prescription [opioid] narcotics onto the nation’s streets.”

“A handful of members of Congress, allied with the nation’s major drug distributors, prevailed upon the DEA and the Justice Department to agree to a more industry-friendly law, undermining efforts to stanch the flow of pain pills, according to an investigation by The Washington Post and ‘60 Minutes’…”

“The law was the crowning achievement of a multifaceted campaign by the drug industry to weaken aggressive DEA enforcement efforts against drug distribution companies that were supplying corrupt doctors and pharmacists who peddled [opioid] narcotics to the black market. The industry worked behind the scenes with lobbyists and key members of Congress [to pass the 2016 law], pouring more than a million dollars into their election campaigns.”

“For years, some drug distributors were fined for repeatedly ignoring warnings from the DEA to shut down suspicious sales of hundreds of millions of pills, while they racked up billions of dollars in sales.”

“The new [2016] law makes it virtually impossible for the DEA to freeze suspicious narcotic shipments from the companies, according to internal agency and Justice Department documents and an independent assessment by the DEA’s chief administrative law judge in a soon-to-be-published law review article. That powerful tool [freezing opioid shipments] had allowed the agency to immediately prevent drugs from reaching the street.”

“Besides the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill, few lawmakers knew the true impact the law would have. It sailed through Congress and was passed by unanimous consent, a parliamentary procedure reserved for bills considered to be noncontroversial. The White House was equally unaware of the bill’s import when President Barack Obama signed it into law, according to interviews with former senior administration officials.”

“Michael Botticelli, who led the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy at the time, said neither [the Department of] Justice nor the DEA objected to the bill, removing a major obstacle to the president’s approval.”

BUT SINCE EVERYONE IS NOW AWARE OF THE LAW’S HORRENDOUS IMPACT, WHY DOESN’T THE CONGRESS REPEAL IT?

The fact that no one is stepping up to the plate with a fast repeal is proof that multiple parts of the federal government are, in fact, tacitly supporting the opioid crisis and its devastating impacts on human life.

“We didn’t know what we were voting on” is, at best, a temporary excuse, until the truth comes to light.

After that, failure to act swiftly amounts to collusion in Death by Opioids.

Former President Obama, the Congress, and officials within the Justice Department and the DEA are all guilty.


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.

Fake news and the programmed viewer

Fake news and the programmed viewer

by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2018

Every television newscast: staged reality.

The news is all about manipulating the context of stories. The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it.

If you want to visualize this, imagine a rectangular solid. The news covers the top surface. Therefore, the viewer’s mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time, the fourth dimension.

Focus on the network evening news. This is where the staging is done well—until recently.

First, we have the studio image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they aren’t. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? I don’t need a gun. The police have guns. Could I kill somebody if he broke into the house?”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of (false) continuity.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context thin—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is: small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

Next we come to words and pictures. More and more, news broadcasts are using the rudimentary film technique of a voice narrating what the viewer is seeing on the screen.

People are shouting and running and falling in a street. The anchor or a field reporter says: “The country is in turmoil. Parliament has suspended sessions for the third day in a row, as the government decides what to do about uprisings aimed at forcing democratic elections…”

Well, the voice must be right, because we’re seeing the pictures. If the voice said the riots were due to garbage-pickup cancellations, the viewer would believe that, too.

We see Building #7 of the WTC collapse. Must have been the result of a fire. The anchor tells us so. Words give meaning to pictures.

Staged news.

It mirrors what the human mind, in an infantile state, is always doing: looking at the world and seeking a brief summary to explain what that world is, at any given moment.

Since the dawn of time, untold billions of people have been urging a “television anchor” to “explain the pictures.”

The news gives them that precise solution, every night.

“Well, Mr. Jones,” the doctor says, as he pins X-rays to a screen in his office. “See this? Right here? We’ll need to start chemo immediately, and then we may have to remove most of your brain, and as a follow-up, take out one eye.”

Sure, why not? The patient saw the pictures and the anchor explained them.

Eventually, people get the idea and do it for themselves. They see things, they invent one-liners to explain them.

They’re their own anchors. They short-cut and undermine their own experience with vapid summaries of what it all means.

And then, of course, when the news cuts to commercial, the fake products take over:

“Well, every night they’re showing the same brand names, so those brands must be better than the unnamed alternatives.”

Which devolves into: “I like this commercial better than that commercial. This is a great commercial. Let’s have a contest and vote on the best commercial.”

For “intelligent” viewers, there is another sober mainstream choice in America, a safety valve: PBS. That newscast tends to show more pictures from foreign lands.

“Yes, I watch PBS because they understand the planet is interconnected. It isn’t just about America. That’s good.”

Sure it’s good, if you want the same thin-context or false-context reports on events in other countries. Instead of the two minutes NBC might give you about momentous happenings in Syria, PBS will give you four minutes.

PBS’ experts seem kinder and gentler. “They’re nice and they’re more relaxed. I like that.”

Yes, the PBS experts are taking Valium, and they’re not drinking as much coffee as the CBS experts.

There are various forms of mind control. The one I’m describing here—the thinning of context—is universal. It confounds the mind by pretending depth doesn’t exist and is merely a fantasy.

The mind, before it is trained away from it, is always interested in depth.

Another way of putting it: the mind naturally wants more space, not less. Only constant conditioning can change this.

Eventually, when you say “mind,” people think you’re referring to the brain, or they don’t know what you’re talking about at all.

Mind control by eradicating the concept of mind.

That’s quite a trick.

But now, on the national evening news, something has changed. The quality of the elite anchors has plummeted. These mind-control pros are less and less capable of delivering: the voice of authority.

In the old days, you had Water Cronkite, Harry Reasoner, Chet Huntley, Tom Brokaw, and (before he crashed and burned) Dan Rather. Big-time fakers.

Eventually, this devolved into a B-team of bench players: Dianne Sawyer, Brian Williams, Scott Pelley. Less believable—but still fairly effective.

However, now, at the three major networks, it’s androids on parade. Two pretty boys, David Muir and Jeff Glor, and the NBC cadaver, Lester Holt.

The ship is sinking.

Instead of trying to label their competition Fake News, the networks should look to themselves and try to figure out why they can’t find father figures to deliver their no-context broadcasts.

The audience is wising up. The correct notes on the scale of mind control aren’t being struck.

The system is falling apart.

When I named this site No More Fake News 17 years ago, I could see a fatigue factor setting in—not only in the mainstream news audience, but in the networks themselves. They were playing out the string, hoping to coast on their prior reputations. They weren’t just putting their viewers to sleep (their covert goal), they were slowly falling asleep themselves.

In the following years, the situation grew worse. The networks were moving on auto-pilot.

And now, they’re reaching the end of the line. They’re focusing on the only story that can deliver them ratings: Trump.

They fear him, they hate him—and they love him, because he gives them the numbers that justify their advertising rates.

It’s always problematical when the only thing maintaining your survival is your enemy. Especially an enemy whose whole method of attack is to accuse you of subverting your basic mission.

Since the dawn of time on this planet, news has been controlled, for good reason. The people who own the news are able to paint an overall surface of reality for the masses. Which has been their intent.

In a last-ditch attempt to save themselves now, the major networks are enlisting the help of big social media, in order to censor independent media. But even here, there is a problem. Millions and millions of people know where independent news sites are. They don’t have to go through Facebook and Twitter and You Tube (or Google) to find them.

Efforts at censorship strengthen the rebellion against major news outlets.

There are signs that social media are reaching the point of exhaustion. Their users are becoming fed up with the debilitating effects of playing the game. Accumulating followers and likes hasn’t turned out to be the key to happiness.

If these behemoths fall, what is left?

Two options: stay asleep and keep crawling over the fake surface mainstream news creates;

Or wake up.


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.

Firefight breaks out over gene-editing dangers

Firefight breaks out over gene-editing dangers

by Jon Rappoport

March 30, 2018

We have claims that a recent study highlighting gene-editing dangers was sloppily done, incompetent, and wrong.

Lovers of the revolutionary gene-editing tool, CRISPR, are crowing over a “victory,” but as usual the verdict is far from in.

The other day, I highlighted a 2017 study and quoted from a phys.org article, as follows:

“…a new study published in Nature Methods has found that the gene-editing technology can introduce hundreds of unintended mutations into the genome.”

“The researchers determined that CRISPR had successfully corrected a gene that causes blindness, but Kellie Schaefer, a PhD student in the lab of Vinit Mahajan, MD, PhD, associate professor of ophthalmology at Stanford University, and co-author of the study, found that the genomes of two independent gene therapy recipients [mice] HAD SUSTAINED MORE THAN 1500 SINGLE-NUCLEOTIDE MUTATIONS AND MORE THAN 100 LARGER [GENE] DELETIONS AND INSERTIONS. None of these DNA mutations were predicted by computer algorithms that are widely used by researchers to look for off-target effects.” (Emphasis is mine.)

Now, just in yesterday (March 29, 2018), Gizmodo reports: “Now, the authors [of that study] have published a preprint paper with some very different results: In a new mouse experiment, the authors did not find an excess of unintended genetic mutations, as they had in their initial work.”

“[The authors of the study state]: ‘Our previous publication suggested CRISPR-Cas9 editing at the zygotic stage might unexpectedly introduce a multitude of subtle but unintended mutations, an interpretation that not surprisingly raised numerous questions’…[But now we say] These whole-genome-sequencing-level results support the idea that in specific cases, CRISPR-Cas9 editing can precisely edit the genome at the organismal level and may not introduce numerous, unintended, off-target mutations’.”

Sounds like a partial, carefully worded mea culpa. On the other hand, perhaps the authors were leaned on and told to retract their work.

The point is, this conflict over CRISPR gene-editing is not going away. In my previous article on the subject, I also pointed out a quote from technologynetworks.com (“CRISPR: Emerging applications for genome editing technology”):

“CRISPR-Cas9 systems, tools and basic methodology are very accessible as ready to go toolkits that anyone with lab space and an idea can pick up and start working with…In response to a growing need, companies such as Desktop Genetics have developed open access software to accelerate CRISPR experimentation and analysis.”

That’s good to know. “Anyone with lab space and an idea” can jump on board and have at it.

Yes, indeed. Scientists of various calibers with various motives—to say nothing of groups determined to wreak biological havoc—have access to the gene-editing tech—and if you think this is a good idea, you should think again.

Then we have a cautionary statement from one of the key researchers who helped discover CRISPR, Jennifer Doudna:

“I guess I worry about a couple of things. I think there’s sort of the potential for unintended consequences of gene editing in people for clinical use. How would you ever do the kinds of experiments that you might want to do to ensure safety? And then there’s another application of gene editing called gene drive that involves moving a genetic trait very quickly through a population. And there’s been discussion about this in the media around the use of gene drives in insects like mosquitoes to control the spread of disease. On one hand, that sounds like a desirable thing, and on the other hand, I think one, again, has to think about potential for unintended consequences of releasing a system like that into an environmental setting where you can’t predict what might happen.”

Lovers of CRISPR want to believe the controversy is all over. They’re so, so wrong.

There’s more. The study which has provoked a firestorm is not the only one which reports “unintended consequences” from the use of CRISPR. Here is another one, published in Nature Communications on May 31, 2017, titled, “CRISPR/Cas9 targeting events cause complex deletions and insertions at 17 sites in the mouse genome.” As the title indicates, researchers found genetic “deletions and insertions” in the genome of mice as a result of CRISPR.

And how about this study? It was published in Genome Biology on June 14, 2017, and is titled, “CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing induces exon skipping by alternative splicing or exon deletion.” An exon is “a segment of a DNA or RNA molecule containing information coding for a protein or peptide sequence.” So you can see that exon skipping or deletion might not be a good idea.

But perhaps corporations involved in monetizing CRISPR would like to see these studies retracted, as well as the study I described at the beginning of this article.

Let’s apply a NEWS version of CRISPR and delete all negative reporting on gene-editing. Then we can learn to accept what we’re told by the mainstream and poof, there will be no unintended consequences.

Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so? However, after 35 years of working as a reporter, I can tell you that editing out dissent has a way of coming around to bite the Ministry of Truth.

Quite painfully.


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.

CDC vaccine science covers up giant conflict of interest

CDC vaccine science covers up giant conflict of interest

by Jon Rappoport

March 21, 2018

If you wanted to buy a product…

And the main researcher of the product was the company selling it to you…

Would you automatically assume the product was safe and effective?

But you see, that’s the just the beginning of the problem. Suppose the company’s research was cited thousands of times in the press, as the authoritative standard of proof—and anyone who disputed that research was labeled a conspiracy theorist and a quack and a danger to the community and an anti-science lunatic.

Would you begin to suspect the company had awesome media connections? Would you suspect some very powerful people were backing the company?

This is exactly the situation with the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Read these two quotes:

The government’s Vaccine for Children Program (a CDC organization) purchases vaccines for about 50 percent of children in the U.S.” (The Atlantic, February 10, 2015)

“The CDC currently spends over $4 billion purchasing vaccines [annually] from drug makers…” (Health Impact News, October 24, 2016)

However, the CDC is also the gold standard for research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It turns out an unending stream of studies on these subjects. And the results of those studies are dutifully reported in the mainstream press.

Do you think, under any circumstances, the CDC would publish data showing vaccines are ineffective and dangerous? They’d be cutting their own throats.

“Well, we spend $4 billion a year buying vaccines from drug companies, but guess what? These vaccines are often dangerous…”

Every time you read about a CDC study on vaccines, keep this obvious conflict of interest in mind.

When, in 2014, William Thompson, a long-time CDC researcher, publicly admitted he and his colleagues had buried data that would have shown the MMR vaccine increases the risk of autism, he was throwing a stick of dynamite into the whole CDC operation. He was also saying, in recorded phone conversations, that the CDC was lying about vaccine safety in other studies.

This is why major media refused to cover or investigate Thompson’s claims. This is why they spread a blanket of silence over his revelations.

Thompson was threatening a $ 4-billion-a-year enterprise.

The CDC is both a PR agency for, and a buyer from, Big Pharma.

Speaking of PR, would you like to see an example of how the CDC promotes the yearly flu vaccine by lying egregiously about flu deaths in the United States?

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

Boom.

You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure.

However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

“Well, uh, we used to say 36,000 people died from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”

The CDC must turn out a steady stream of outrageous lies about the need for vaccines. If they didn’t, they’d have no way to justify the billions of dollars they spend every year buying the vaccines from drug companies.

Since the sold-out major media won’t connect these dots, I and others need to.


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.

The deeper reason for drug ads on television

The deeper reason for drug ads on television

by Jon Rappoport

March 11, 2018

Television viewers are inundated with drug ads from Big Pharma. It’s a flood.

Have you ever heard of these drugs? Otezla, Xeljanz, Namzaric, Keytruda, Breo, Cosentyz? Not likely. If you have, do you know what conditions they treat? Highly unlikely. But there they are, splashed in commercials.

Why? Who is going to remember to ask their doctor whether these and other obscure meds are right for them?

What’s going on here?

The answer is: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT DRUGS ARE BEING ADVERTISED.

If Pharma can pay enough TOTAL money for ads, for ALL drugs, and dominate the allotted TV time for commercials, it can control the news—and that is exactly what it wants to do.

Pharmaceutical scandals are everywhere. Reporting on them, wall to wall, isn’t good for the drug business. However, as an industry ponying up billions of dollars for TV ads, Pharma can limit exposure and negative publicity. It can (and does) say to television networks: If you give us a hard time on the news, we’ll take our ad money and go somewhere else. Boom. End of problem.

Face it, the billions of dollars Pharma is paying for TV ads are a drop in the bucket, compared with its profits gained from selling the drugs. The ads are a good investment. As a bribe.

Control the news.

There is another reason for the insane flood of TV drug ads:

By their sheer number, they convince viewers that medical drugs (no matter what they are) are absolutely necessary.

Hour by hour, viewers numbly watch drug commercial after commercial. The overall message is: To keep illness from your door, to cure illness, to alleviate illness, you must take these medicines. THIS IS LIFE IN THE 21ST CENTURY. You’re all sick, and you need help, and this is the ONLY kind of help there is.

The drug companies could invent names of fake drugs that don’t even exist, advertise them in a cascade on television, with the same intent. DRUGS ARE AS VITAL TO LIFE AS WATER OR AIR.

But what about all those dire warnings of side effects from the drugs? By law, the companies must include them in their commercials. Well, the companies have calculated that, on balance, the stark, front-line, unending message of DRUGS, DRUGS, AND MORE DRUGS will outweigh the warnings in viewers’ minds.

If the television audience is nailed with the idea that they can’t escape; that their health always hangs in the balance; that dire illnesses are always waiting in the shadows to strike; that the slightest ache or pain could be a precursor to a crippling or fatal disease; and drugs are the only solution and protection—they’re going to overlook the warnings about side effects.

ALL IN ALL, DRUG ADS ARE NEWS.

That’s the approach. Pharma is blasting out 24/7 news asserting modern medicine’s central and commanding role in the life of every human.

It’s a gigantic and stupendous piece of mind control, but when did that ever stop tyrants from inventing reality for the masses?

Implicit in “ask your doctor if drug X is right for you,” is the message: “go to your doctor.” That’s the key. If the ads can put a viewer into the system, he will be diagnosed with something, and he’ll be given a drug for it.

So the drug ads are also promotions for doctors, who are the arbiters and the decision makers. Some kind of medical need (drugs) always exists—and the doctor will tell you what it is. And all patients should OBEY. Even if, in the process, they go broke.

Take the case of Opdivo, a drug that treats squamous non-small cell lung cancer. Cost? $12,500 a month. Patients on Medicare will pay $2500 a month out of their own pockets. And the result?

Wall St, Journal: “In the clinical study on which the Opdivo ad bases its claims, the drug extended median patient survival to 9.2 months from the start of treatment…”

The cancer patient pays $22,500 for nine months of survival, during which the suffering continues, and then he dies.

The ad isn’t mentioning THAT.

The ad relies on the doctor to convince the patient to go along with this lunatic program.


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.