Mental disorders do not exist

by Jon Rappoport

October 30, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

To say that a person should have a right to consider himself mentally ill and to take a drug is one thing. This is an argument from the principle of individual freedom.

To say that such a person knows what he is doing by some objective standard is quite another thing.

Objectively speaking, mental illnesses and disorders do not exist.

Officially, all mental disorders are said to be chemical imbalances in the brain. Not just any imbalances, but specific ones. But, this is assertion is unproven. There is no evidence for it.

For example, for any of the 297 so-called mental disorders listed in the official publication of the American Psychiatric Association, there are no defining physical tests. No blood tests, no urine tests, no saliva tests, no laboratory tests of any kind.

This is a fact.

Since it is a fact, it is odd that all psychiatrists are medical doctors. What are they doing that is medical?

Well, they are prescribing drugs. Yes. But I could prescribe drugs if I had a license to do so and a prescription pad.

The profession of psychiatry asserts that these drugs erase or alleviate “the brain chemical imbalances” that form the basis for all mental disorders. Yet the brain-imbalance hypothesis is unproven. It may “make sense” to some people, but that doesn’t constitute evidence.

People, of course, are free to believe the brain-chemical-imbalance hypothesis is true. Belief doesn’t make it true.

People are also free to believe the hypothesis that strange behavior emanates from the Devil or a Karmic curse.

A person says, “I was diagnosed with clinical depression and I took Prozac, and ever since then I’ve felt much happier.”

Yes. Fine. I have no interest in challenging that statement. I merely point out that there are people who have felt depressed and took a crystal they claimed was sacred, rubbed it on their heads, and felt better from then on.

There are people who have joined a church and prayed and felt better.

Why is the Prozac experience more compelling than crystals or prayer?

I’m not talking about what a person says makes him feel better. I’m talking about what psychiatrists claim is science. And when you scratch the surface of that, you come up with: no compelling evidence.

Yet, in courts and in doctors’ offices and at academic conferences and in the pages of professional journals and in political gulags, the science of discrete and separate and definable mental disorders is treated as settled, confirmed, verified, certain. That is a baldfaced lie.

All 297 official mental disorders, listed in the (DSM) publication of the American Psychiatric Association, are defined and approved by committees of psychiatrists. Whether it is schizophrenia or autism or ADHD or clinical depression or bipolar disease, the definitions consist wholly of described behaviors. That’s all.

Psychiatrists will tell you these symptomatic behaviors are signs of underlying chemical imbalances or genetic aberrations, but again, they have no tests to back up this assertion. Therefore, all they left with are the behaviors and their own menu-like collections of those behaviors.

Yes, people suffer in life, and they experience confusion and doubt. They have problems. They have trouble with relationships. They feel sad. They feel all sorts of things. They feel pain. They don’t know how to move ahead with plans. They sometimes feel their lives are at an impasse. Yes.

This is far different from claiming they have a specific and detectable chemical imbalance which can be tested for.

“Well,” many psychiatrists say, “the hypothesis of chemical balance is confirmed if the drugs work, because the drugs are, in fact, based on the idea that chemical imbalances underlie mental disorders.”

Let’s examine that approach. Take, for example, Ritalin.

The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard): “Stimulants [such as Ritalin] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity, conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment.”

Not a ringing endorsement.

How about, say, the antidepressants prescribed to children?

A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

Here is a link to the official psychiatric definition of autism disorder. It’s worth reading:

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html

Notice that all the criteria for a diagnosis are behavioral. There is no mention of laboratory tests or test results. There is no definitive mention of chemical imbalance or genetic factors.

Despite public-relations statements issued by doctors and researchers, they have no laboratory findings to establish or confirm a diagnosis.

But, people say, this makes no sense, because children do, in fact, withdraw from the world, stop speaking, throw sudden tantrums. Common sense seems to dictate that these behaviors stem from serious neurological problems.

Let’s briefly examine that. What could cause the behaviors listed in the official definition of autism disorder:

* a vaccine injury;
* a head injury in an accident;
* an ingestion of a neurological poison;
* an environmental chemical;
* a severe nutritional deficit;
* perhaps the emotional devastation accompanying the death of a parent…

However, in that case, why bother to call it “autism?” Why not just say vaccine injury or head injury? The answer should be clear: By establishing a label like autism, medical drugs can be sold. Studies can be funded. An industry can be created.

In fact, when it comes to the US government’s vaccine injury compensation program for parents whose children have suffered vaccine injury, the government can engage in a con game. The government can say, “In order to establish a cause for autism, we must find a single underlying factor that applies to all cases of autism. Since we know that some children who are diagnosed with autism have not received vaccines, or have not received vaccines containing a neurological poison (mercury), we do not compensate parents whose children are vaccine-injured on the basis that they have autism.”

But, of course, what is called autism (merely a label) is not one condition caused by one factor. It is a loose collection of behaviors that are caused by various traumas.

The official mental disorder called autism disorder does not exist.

People find such statements very unsettling. They argue, “My child’s life was stolen away from him. He must have autism.”

This proves that a label provides some measure of relief for the parents. It doesn’t prove that the label actually means something. In fact, the label can be a diversion from knowledge that would actually help the child. Suppose, for example, that after receiving the DPT vaccine, the child went into a screaming fit and then withdrew from the world. Calling that autism tends to put the parents and the child in the medical system, where there is no effective treatment. Outside that system, there might be some hope with vaccine detox or, say, hyperbaric oxygen treatments.

What is stated here about autism applies to all 297 official mental disorders. They are labels. There is no reason to suppose that, for each label, there is a single cause. There is no reason to suppose that the labels name actual conditions. Research that attempts to find a single cause for a label stands no better chance of succeeding than research designed to prove a man on the moon is selling land leases to citizens of Fiji.

Again, people have every right to believe they have been helped by a psychiatric diagnosis and a prescribed drug. But they also have the right to reject that paradigm and seek knowledge and help elsewhere. The whole thrust of official psychiatry and its allies is to monopolize their self-appointed territory and use all necessary means to eliminate the competition. This approach has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with profit and fascist control.

“But my cousin was depressed. He took Zoloft and felt much better.”

Read this article again. It neither denigrates your cousin nor makes your cousin’s experience the basis of actual far-reaching science. This article is about 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.

Psst, kid, want drugs? I’m a psychiatrist

by Jon Rappoport

October 11, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Look at it this way. The kid doesn’t have to pay for drugs out of his pocket. He gets them in a shrink’s office. Insurance covers it.

His parents may be able to work a Social Security disability claim and receive $$ and other free medical treatments.

The kid’s school cashes in. They’re now teaching a disabled child. Government aid.

No wonder Health Day News (4/24/14) reports that 1 in 13 American children are now on at least one psychiatric medication.

In 2012, the Archives of General Psychiatry reported a 7-fold increase in psychiatrists prescribing (powerful and toxic) antipsychotic meds to children, based on an analysis of office visits. (see also this.)

Then we have this (12/13/2009, truth-out.com, by Evelyn Pringle): from 1996-2006, US child prescriptions for psychiatric drugs up 50%; in 2006, more money was spent ($8.9 billion) on treatment for child mental disorders in the US than for any other medical condition in kids.

The legal drug traffickers (pharmaceutical companies) are banking on the obvious: rope in a child, get him on psychiatric meds, and you may well have a customer for life.

Mass shootings reportedly involving children? A Pharma bonanza. “We have to catch the mental disorder early and treat (drug) it, to avoid more such tragedies.” Obama announces a program to build community mental health centers (pushers) across America.

Never mind that the SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, et al) can and do produce violent behavior. Suicide, homicide. See work of Peter Breggin, SSRI Stories, and David Healy.


In 2012, I reported this:

It’s the latest thing. Psychiatrists are now giving children in poor neighborhoods Adderall, a dangerous stimulant, by making false diagnoses of ADHD, or no diagnoses at all. Their aim? To “promote social justice,” to improve academic performance in school.

The rationale is, the drugged kids will now be able to compete with children from wealthier families who attend better schools.

Leading the way is Dr. Michael Anderson, a pediatrician in the Atlanta area. Incredibly, Anderson told the New York Times his diagnoses of ADHD are “made up,” “an excuse” to hand out the drugs.

“We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid,” Anderson said.

A researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, Dr. Ramesh Raghavan, goes even further with this chilling comment: “We are effectively forcing local community psychiatrists to use the only tool at their disposal [to “level the playing field” in low-income neighborhoods], which is psychotropic medicine.”

So pressure is being brought to bear on psychiatrists to launch a heinous behavior modification program, using drugs, against children in inner cities.

It’s important to realize that all psychotropic stimulants, like Adderal and Ritalin, can cause aggressive behavior, violent behavior.

What we’re seeing here is a direct parallel to the old CIA program, exposed by the late journalist, Gary Webb, who detailed the importing of crack cocaine (another kind of stimulant) into South Central Los Angeles, which went a long way toward destroying that community.

Deploying the ADHD drugs creates symptoms which may then be treated with compounds like Risperdal, a powerful anti-psychotic, which can cause motor brain damage.

All this, in service of “social justice” for the poor.

And what about the claim that ADHD drugs can enhance school performance?

The following pronouncement makes a number of things clear: The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard):”Stimulants [given for ADHD] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity, conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment.”

So the whole basis for this “social justice” program in low-income communities—that the ADHD drugs will improve school performance of kids and “level the playing field,” so they can compete academically with children from wealthier families—this whole program is based on a lie to begin with.

Meddling with the brains of children via these chemicals constitutes criminal assault, and it’s time it was recognized for what it is.

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841]. Adderall and other ADHD medications are all in the same basic class; they are stimulants, amphetamine-type substances.

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

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:
• Paranoid delusions
• Paranoid psychosis
• Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
• Activation of psychotic symptoms
• Toxic psychosis
• Visual hallucinations
• Auditory hallucinations
• Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
• Effects pathological thought processes
• Extreme withdrawal
• Terrified affect
• Started screaming
• Aggressiveness
• Insomnia
• Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
• Psychic dependence
• High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
• Decreased REM sleep
• When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
• Convulsions
• Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

In what sense are the ADHD drugs “social justice?” The reality is, they are chemical warfare. Licensed predators are preying on the poor.

You know the old saw, “Children are our future.” Yes, well, this means a future populated by millions of adults who grew up with government-approved brain-addling drugs and, chances are, they’re still taking them.


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.

Culture wars: a child’s “medical right” to change gender in the Brave New World

by Jon Rappoport

September 6, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth.” (Wikipedia)

“Technocracy is shaping a new world based on twisting morality into pseudoscientific ‘facts’ that demand compliance. It’s a hoax on a grand scale.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Government programs to teach the issue of gender in schools are gaining steam. “Fluid-gender” is the artificial construct used to promote these programs.

For years, I’ve been warning about the fabricated use of medical labels as a pretext for “protecting the rights of the child.”

The op goes this way:

Shift a decision about morality into a decision about the right to obtain medical treatment. For example, claim there is a disorder called Gender Dysphoria. Claim many children suffer from it.

State that gender reassignment is the treatment that cures the disorder.

State that every child has the “right” to choose the treatment—AND parents who oppose it are illegally restricting their children.

Breitbart reports on a current case: “Parents of a 17-year-old girl lost custody of their daughter for opposing her wish for transgender medical treatments.”

“Judge Sylvia Sieve Hendon of Hamilton County, Ohio has allowed the girl to be taken into the custody of her grandparents – who support her medical transition – allowing them to make decisions that will further along her physical transition to the opposite sex.”

“The parents reportedly continued to call their daughter by her given name, rather than a male name, and refused to consent to hormone treatments that were recommended by her medical team. The girl claimed she became suicidal as a result of her parents’ refusal to accept that she wanted to transition to a male.”

“’We think the grandparents are the ones who have an open mind and will … make this sort of decision best for the child’,” said attorney Paul Hunt, who represents the court-appointed guardian ad litem. ‘The parents have clearly indicated that they’re not open to it’.”

“According to the news story, the parents argued their daughter was not ‘even close to being able to make such a life-altering decision at this time’. A county prosecutor, however, claimed the parents were opposed to their daughter transitioning to become a male because of their Christian religious beliefs.”

A court decides the parents are not in charge.

The parents are denying their child the right to obtain a “medical treatment.”

Therefore, the State must intercede.

Here is another case that goes much further. The basis of the decision is so insane that most people are unwilling to think about it—the criminality is so egregious it paralyzes the mind. AND AT THE BOTTOM OF IT, THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT A PERSON WHO IS IN NO WAY INTELLECTUALLY OR MORALLY OR EMOTIONALLY OR SPIRITUALLY CAPABLE OF MAKING A CHOICE ABOUT PERMANENLTY MUTILATING HIMSELF/HERSELF IS, IN FACT, GRANTED SUCH A “CHOICE” BY SOCIETY.

Yahoo 7 News, Australia, reports (9/16): “A four-year-old who identifies as transgender has begun to transition before their first day at school, hoping to complete the full transformation by 2017.”

“While the child is the youngest on Australian record to change their gender, the New South Wales government has revealed ‘hundreds’ of other children are being referred to the state’s hospitals for gender dysphoria.”

“The four-year-old is reportedly being supported throughout the transition by the education department, and is part of the Safe Schools program.”

Yes, the Safe Schools program. Safe for whom?

Deputy Secretary of School Operations Gregory Prior made this announcement at a budget hearing, which presumably means the four-year-old child’s parents are receiving public funds for the sex change.

No mention of how the parents of the four-year old came to their “medical” decision. No mention of the “discussion” with the child that led to this decision.

The New South Wales government doesn’t just stand aside; it supports this madness.

A four-year old. He/she comes up with this idea (gender change) out of the blue? He/she expresses it to his parents?

He/she is supposed to understand the medical procedures and the consequences?

The doctors go along with this?

“We have a four-year old coming in today to begin a sex-change.”

“Good. The team will be ready.”

Not a flicker of doubt.

Here is the Wikipedia definition of gender dysphoria: “Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth.”

Assigned? This is supposed to be some sort of arbitrary labeling that is handed to an infant?

This whole social program has gained so much steam that many people are paralyzed—they refuse to express outrage. They refuse to point out the obvious. They knuckle under. The criminally delusional parents who go along with (and urge and initiate) sex change for their own children consider themselves enlightened. They’re in a trance, and they feel good about the trance.

“Yes, our four-year old is undergoing gender transition and we think it’s wonderful.”

What coaching did these parents engage in with their very young child to push along this insanity?

A boy put on his mother’s dress one day, and then the parents sat down with him and engaged in a deep conversation?

A four-year old is now the ruler of his/her own fate?

This is legalized genital mutilation and torture, undertaken as a “proper medical procedure.”

The doctors should have their licenses stripped, and they should be sent to prison. They should share their cells with the government officials who support this crime.

On some level, medical sex change for children is an outgrowth of the obsession about children being “special.” Ultra-special. The child’s wisdom extends to all sorts of insights he/she has about life.

A child does have a free and open attitude toward life, but this has nothing to do with making decisions that have enormous consequences for him/her. And the word “consequences” hardly begins to describe the surgical mutilation.

“What has become of our society?” The answer is clear. There are masters and slaves. The slaves are going along. The masters are psychopaths. But that leaves a lot of middle ground, where parents, educators, and bureaucrats are willingly cooperating in destruction. It’s not simply a lack of courage. It’s self-induced brainwashing.

“This is freedom. Freedom is a good thing. What could be more free and innovative than a child deciding to change his/her own sex at the age of four? We’re creating a better world.”

The parents’ eyes are bright. Their smiles are wide.

And if medical sexual mutilation of a child is gladly permitted, what isn’t permitted? What “voluntary” or mandated medical procedure would be ruled out as too grotesque?

For example, shouldn’t we support, in glowing terms, mass sterilization of women through vaccination campaigns that covertly create future miscarriages? After all, in the Third world, where such efforts have already been made (Kenya), overpopulation is a problem. We know it’s a problem because, decades ago, Henry Kissinger said so.

In Australia, where this four-year-old child is about to go through sex change, every doctor in the country should stand up and refuse. They should say, “Look, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, we see what your decision is, and we can’t even begin to describe how we feel. Don’t look to us for help in committing this horror on your child. If we hear of any doctor who goes along with your plan, we’ll publicize his name and, if necessary, physically remove him from the country. We’ll see to it he never practices medicine in Australia another day in his life.”

As for the parents of this four-year old, they’re lost. They’re lost to themselves and their child. They’re in a hell of their own making. And they’re fashioning a worse hell for their child.

And they don’t even know it.

They’re “progressive” and proud of it.

They’re leading their child to surgical genital destruction and, through drugs, the permanent derailment of his/her endocrine system.

It’s “scientific and medical,” so it must be a good thing.

The program of child gender change is also an attack against society at its most basic biological level. The goal is destruction.

Behind it are decades of preparation in the form of so-called moral relativity: every group and person has their own definition of right and wrong, and these views are all equal. No one has the right to challenge another’s moral position as inferior.

There must be placid acceptance.

Eventually, this leads to accepting that a four-year old is capable of understanding, and making choices about, his/her own sexuality. No challenge. No moral outrage.

This is on the order of accepting and facilitating euthanasia.

For centuries, societies and civilizations have struggled to define and embed moral truth in their cores. This has never been a pure process, but it has taken place, at great human cost.

We are now seeing a reversal of that struggle. Now, monsters can ensure that physical mutilation is placed on a pedestal. It is given special protection, as a right. The very, very young, who have no idea what this is all about, are coerced into agreeing to “procedures” that violate every shred of sanity and goodness and innocence and decency.

This is evil.

And its purveyors are in the public square, touting their own humanity.


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 secret behind fake bipolar disease in children

by Jon Rappoport

July 18, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

ABC News, 5/11/12: “…Columbia University researchers found a 40-fold rise in office visits among youth diagnosed with bipolar disorder between 1994-95 and 2002-3.”

In 1995, a new wind began blowing across the psychiatric landscape. The public wasn’t aware of it. But among professionals, it was big, very big:

Children, including the very young, could, for the first time, legitimately be diagnosed with bipolar disease (aka manic depression).

The impetus for this “revelation” was a 1995 report, “Is Your Child Bipolar?” written by two doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital, Janet Wozniak and Joseph Biederman.

Biederman would go on to become the target of internal investigations at Harvard and Mass General—did the pharmaceutical money he took influence his judgment in deciding bipolar was a real disorder among children? The charges against him were ultimately reduced to a few light slaps on the wrist; he retained his prestigious position.

But back in 1995, he and Wozniak, as the NY Times Magazine recounts (9/12/08, “The Bipolar Puzzle”), arrived at an earthshaking conclusion about children coming through their hospital clinic: a number of them fit the description of “bipolar irritable manic.”

It was a huge wow for the psychiatric profession. No one had seriously insisted, with “convincing evidence,” that very young kids could develop bipolar.

But now, psychiatrists were going to pick up that ball and run with it. Drug companies were going to develop and promote drugs (very serious and toxic drugs, like Risperdal) to treat childhood bipolar.

However, what the Times Magazine story mentions—but no one pays attention to—is this: Every one of these original manic “bipolar children” coming through Mass General, minus only one child, HAD ALREADY BEEN DIAGNOSED with ADHD, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

Boom.

What Biederman and Wozniak—and the rest of the psychiatric profession—failed to realize, or didn’t want to see, was: drugs given to treat ADHD (e.g., Ritalin, Adderall) are versions of speed; and speed causes, among other reactions, very irritable hyper emotions, which are indistinguishable from “manic.”

In other words, the obvious takeaway, which no one took away, was that the “manic” symptoms of these kids were reactions to the prior speed drugs prescribed for ADHD.

There was no bipolar.

In fact, and you can find this repeated in many press reports, there are no lab tests for diagnosing bipolar. No blood tests, no brain scans. It’s all done by consulting menus of “indicative” behaviors assembled by committees of psychiatrists. See, for example, the National Institute of Mental Health, “Bipolar Disorder in Children and Teens”: “There are no blood tests or brain scans that can diagnose bipolar disorder. Instead, the doctor will ask questions about your child’s mood and sleeping patterns. The doctor will also ask about your child’s energy and behavior…”

You can give young kids ADHD drugs like Ritalin or Adderall and watch, in many cases, all the symptoms of so-called bipolar come to life before your eyes. In the old days, people used to call this a speed crash.

At first, speed can give a person a sense of clean fresh energy and clarity. Then after taking it for a few days or a week or a few weeks or a month (user reactions vary widely), the person begins to come apart. He’s sitting in a corner, in a puddle of sadness, then he’s very high energy (“manic”) and yelling and throwing things and cursing at people.

He’s crashing.

This isn’t a sophisticated situation. This is basic brain disruption.

Here’s another drug sequence with the same outcome: ADHD diagnosed, Adderall prescribed; child goes into a big funk and this is diagnosed as depression; doctor prescribes Zoloft, which causes a few high-flying “manic episodes.” New diagnosis: bipolar.

Or a young toddler is fed formula that is largely synthetic, and chemicals cause a severe series of reactions, which are labeled “bipolar.”

Or a child is given a series of vaccine shots containing aluminum (a known neurotoxin), formaldehyde, and other injurious chemicals, and as a result develops severe symptoms labeled “bipolar.”

The drugs prescribed for bipolar are quite heavy and dangerous: Valproate, Lithium, Risperdal.

Adverse effects of Valproate include:
* acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;
* life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;
* brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium include:
* intercranial pressure leading to blindness;
* peripheral circulatory collapse;
* stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal include:
* serious impairment of cognitive function;
* fainting;
* restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).

In January, 2002, psychiatrist and author Peter Breggin told CBS News: “Psychiatry is out of control when it comes to drugging children…The drug [Risperdal] has an effect. The effect is basically a chemical lobotomy . . .”

And all this bipolar fakery started in 1995 when kids on psychiatric speed showed up at Mass General Hospital…

And here’s the key paragraph from the New York Times Magazine article, “The Bipolar Puzzle,” 9/12/08, about that decisive moment in time at Mass General: “…In an influential 1995 paper that began the paradigm shift toward bipolar disorder within child psychiatry, Janet Wozniak — the director of the pediatric bipolar-disorder program at Massachusetts General Hospital and co-author of ‘Is Your Child Bipolar?’ — working with the chief of pediatric psychopharmacology, Joseph Biederman, revealed that 16 percent of the children who came to the clinic met the D.S.M. criteria for mania [manic symptoms]. This was shocking news; it was widely believed until then that mania in children was extremely rare. Wozniak reported that the children’s mania most often took the form of an irritable mood rather than an elevated one, and that the mood was often chronic: the norm, rather than the exception. All but one of the manic children in the study also suffered from A.D.H.D.”

It almost seems as if the author dropped in that last sentence as a clue to the whole scam.


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.

Many ordinary meds cause depression; public trust in Pharma hits new low

Many ordinary meds cause depression; public trust in Pharma hits new low

by Jon Rappoport

June 14, 2018

—For years, I’ve been writing about the medical system’s self-feeding mechanism:

Give a patient a drug to treat his symptoms; the drug causes new symptoms, which are diagnosed as a new illness; and then new drugs are given, and those drugs cause still more symptoms, which in turn are diagnosed as a new condition…on and on it goes. Drugged patients suffer tragically and needlessly, and cash piles up in Big Pharma’s coffers.

At one time, this circle of devastation might have been called an accident. But now, all the experts know the truth. Therefore, this is rightly labeled a MARKETING STRATEGY, and, at the highest levels, a covert op to disable the population.

Here is a new revelation:

Suppose your doctor told you this: “I’m prescribing an antidepressant because the other drugs you’ve been taking have a side effect—they cause depression.”

You might say, “Wow, where is my compensation for suffering depression?”

The answer, of course, is: Nowhere.

Yahoo News (6/12) has the story: “One third of Americans are taking prescription and over-the-counter drugs, such as birth control pills, antacids and common heart medications, that may raise the risk of depression, researchers warned on Tuesday.”

“Since the drugs are so common, people may be unaware of their potential depressive effects, said the report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).”

“’Many may be surprised to learn that their medications, despite having nothing to do with mood or anxiety or any other condition normally associated with depression, can increase their risk of experiencing depressive symptoms, and may lead to a depression diagnosis,’ said lead author Dima Qato, assistant professor of pharmacy systems, outcomes and policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago.”

Here is the kicker: “The report was released one week after US health authorities said suicides have risen 30 percent in the past two decades, with about half of suicides among people who were not known to suffer from mental illness.”

“Anti-depressants are the only drug class that carries an explicit warning — called a black box warning — of suicide risk.”

“For other common medications — like blood pressure lowering pills, antacids known as proton pump inhibitors, painkillers and hormonal contraceptives — the warnings are harder to find or simply don’t exist in the packaging.”

And who knew this? “Researchers found that more than 200 commonly used prescription drugs have depression or suicidal symptoms listed as potential side effects.”

In the Yahoo article’s comments section, one person writes: “That explains why so many heart patients get diagnosed with clinical depression and PTSD. I went from 0 pills a day to over 20 a day after a heart attack. Several months later after becoming clinically depressed I was [p]ut on antidepressants.”

Quite possibly, the depression wasn’t simply the reaction to having a heart attack. The drugs used to treat the attack were at fault.

Hundreds of meds causing depression have produced a $$ bonanza for the psychiatric drug business: THOSE drugs OVER THERE cause depression; THESE drugs HERE treat it.

Of course, the SSRI antidepressants (e.g., Paxil, Zoloft) contain warnings about suicidal effects—because they, too, cause depression. And my readers know I’ve been presenting evidence for years about the ability of antidepressants to cause people to commit violence, including murder.

This is quite a “situation.” Hundreds of ordinary meds bring on depression. Doctors then prescribe antidepressants, which can deepen depression and push people into suicide and homicide.

Taking this further, the official solution to mass shootings is “earlier intervention with people at risk,” which means more psychiatric clinics, more diagnoses of mental disorders, and more drugging with compounds which induce violent actions.

Here is a new report indicating the public may be waking up to “the brutal pharma game”. From fiercepharma.com (June 13): [Public] Trust has hit a new low for pharma in Edelman’s annual Trust Barometer survey. The 13-point drop from 51% to 38% in the U.S. was the category’s biggest plummet in the five years the public relations and marketing firm has been tracking [public] sentiment…Pharma’s score of 38 puts it firmly in distrusted territory…”

None of this press coverage digs deeper into the tragedy. As I’ve been reporting for several years now, the landmark mainstream report on the effects of pharmaceuticals was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.

Written by Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered researcher at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, the report—“Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”—concluded that, annually, these drugs kill 106,000 Americans. Extrapolating that number out to a decade, the drugs kill a MILLION people.

In 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield. She adamantly stated that the US government had never consulted her about fixing the horror; nor had they launched any program to reverse the catastrophic trend.

When I label this overall operation chemical warfare against the population, I’m not exaggerating.

For obvious reasons, the mainstream press refuses to reveal the truth. It’s not only Big Pharma’s advertising revenues that are on the line, it’s the chaos that would be caused by cracking a foundational pillar of modern society.

Reality itself would undergo a vast disruption, as branches of the secular religion called modern medicine collapsed in full view of the public.


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.

Mass shootings and psychiatric drugs: the connection

Mass shootings and psychiatric drugs: the connection

by Jon Rappoport

June 12, 2018

I’ve been tracking the connection since 1999, when I wrote a long white paper, for the Truth Seeker Foundation, on school shootings and psychiatric drugs. The paper was titled: “Why Do They Do It? School shootings Across America.”

The drugs aren’t the only causative factor, but they produce what I call the Johnny Appleseed effect throughout society. Sprinkle enough of the drugs among enough people and you get otherwise unexplainable violence popping up—in schools, in workplaces. The psychiatric plague eats out the country from the inside.

Here are excerpts from my 1999 report—

The massacre at Columbine High School took place on April 20, 1999. Astonishingly, for eight days after the tragedy, during thousands of hours of prime-time television coverage, virtually no one mentioned the word “drugs.” Then the issue was opened. Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine, was on at least one drug.

The NY Times of April 29, 1999, and other papers reported that Harris was rejected from enlisting in the Marines for medical reasons. A friend of the family told the Times that Harris was being treated by a psychiatrist. And then several sources told the Washington Post that the drug prescribed as treatment was Luvox, manufactured by Solvay.

In two more days, the “drug-issue” was gone.

Luvox is of the same class as Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil. They are labeled SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). They attempt to alleviate depression by changing brain-levels of the natural substance serotonin. Luvox has a slightly different chemical configuration from Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft, and it was approved by the FDA for obsessive-compulsive disorder, although many doctors apparently prescribe it for depression.

Prozac is the wildly popular Eli Lilly antidepressant which has been linked to suicidal and homicidal actions. It is now given to young children. Again, its chemical composition is very close to Luvox, the drug that Harris took.

Dr. Peter Breggin, the eminent psychiatrist and author (Toxic Psychiatry, Talking Back to Prozac, Talking Back to Ritalin), told me, “With Luvox there is some evidence of a four-percent rate for mania in adolescents. Mania, for certain individuals, could be a component in grandiose plans to destroy large numbers of other people. Mania can go over the hill to psychosis.”

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo is a psychiatrist in private practice in Washington DC. He is the president of the Washington chapter of the American Society of Psychoanalytic Physicians. Tarantolo states that “all the SSRIs [including Prozac and Luvox] relieve the patient of feeling. He becomes less empathic, as in `I don’t care as much,’ which means `It’s easier for me to harm you.’ If a doctor treats someone who needs a great deal of strength just to think straight, and gives him one of these drugs, that could push him over the edge into violent behavior.”

In Arianna Huffington’s syndicated newspaper column of July 9, 1998, Dr. Breggin states, “I have no doubt that Prozac can cause or contribute to violence and suicide. I’ve seen many cases. In a recent clinical trial, 6 percent of the children became psychotic on Prozac. And manic psychosis can lead to violence.”

A study from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Dr. Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

Other studies:

“Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al. It reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”

September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.

The well-known Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics reveals a strange fact. It states that Ritalin [given for ADHD] is “structurally related to amphetamines … Its pharmacological properties are essentially the same as those of the amphetamines.” In other words, the only clear difference is legality. And the effects, in layman’s terms, are obvious. You take speed and, sooner or later, you start crashing. You become agitated, irritable, paranoid, delusional, aggressive.

In his book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin discusses the subject of drug combinations: “Combining antidepressants [e.g., Prozac, Luvox, Paxil] and psychostimulants [e.g., Ritalin] increases the risk of cardiovascular catastrophe, seizures, sedation, euphoria, and psychosis. Withdrawal from the combination can cause a severe reaction that includes confusion, emotional instability, agitation, and aggression.” Children are frequently medicated with this combination, and when we highlight such effects as aggression, psychosis, and emotional instability, it is obvious that the result is pointing toward the very real possibility of violence.

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

Scarnati listed over a hundred adverse affects of Ritalin and indexed published journal articles for each of these symptoms.

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

• Paranoid delusions
• Paranoid psychosis
• Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
• Activation of psychotic symptoms
• Toxic psychosis
• Visual hallucinations
• Auditory hallucinations
• Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
• Effects pathological thought processes
• Extreme withdrawal
• Terrified affect
• Started screaming
• Aggressiveness
• Insomnia
• Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphatamine-like effects
• psychic dependence
• High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
• Decreased REM sleep
• When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
• Convulsions
• Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

Other ADHD medications, which also have a chemical profile similar to amphetamines, would be expected to produce some of the same effects listed above.

The ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News publishes the following warning in bold letters: “Do Not Try to Abruptly Stop Taking Psychiatric Drugs. When trying to withdraw from many psychiatric drugs, patients can develop serious and even life-threatening emotional and physical reactions…Therefore, withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done under clinical supervision…”

—end of excerpts from my 1999 white paper on school shootings and psychiatric drugs—

There is a problem. It is chilling. Pharmaceutical companies, which manufacture drug after drug for “mental disorders,” are doing everything they can to cover up the drugs’ connection to violence.

They use their lawyers and PR people—and their influence over the press—to scrub the connection.

And now, one typical, disturbing, official reaction to every new mass shooting is: build more community mental health facilities. Obama was prominent in this regard, after Sandy Hook in 2012. The implication? More drug prescriptions for more people; thus, more violent consequences.

I’ll close with another excerpt from my 1999 report. It is the tragic account of Julie Marie Meade (one account of many you can find at ssristories.org (also here)):

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo has written about Julie Marie Meade. In a column for the ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News, “Children and Prozac: First Do No Harm,” Tarantolo describes how Julie Meade, in November of 1996, called 911, “begging the cops to come and shoot her. And if they didn’t do it quickly, she would do it to herself. There was also the threat that she would shoot them as well.”

The police came within a few minutes, “5 of them to be exact, pumping at least 10 bullets into her head and torso,” as she waved a gun around.

Tarantolo remarks that a friend of Julie said Julie “had plans to make the honor roll and go to college. He [the friend] had also observed her taking all those pills.” What pills? Tarantolo called the Baltimore medical examiner, and spoke with Dr. Martin Bullock, who was on a fellowship at that office. Bullock said, “She had been taking Prozac for four years.”

Tarantolo asked Bullock, “Did you know that Prozac has been implicated in impulsive de novo violence and suicidalness?” Bullock said he was not aware of this.

Tarantolo is careful to point out, “Violent and suicidal behavior have been observed both early (a few weeks) and late (many months) in treatment with Prozac.”

The November 23rd, 1996, Washington Post reported the Julie Meade death by police shooting. The paper mentioned nothing about Prozac.

Therefore, readers were left in the dark. What could explain this girl’s bizarre and horrendous behavior?

The answer was there in plain sight. But the Post refused to make it known.


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 psychiatric Matrix: what you need to know

The psychiatric Matrix: what you need to know

by Jon Rappoport

May 21, 2018

First of all, as I reported some months ago, 25% of college students in America have received a diagnosis of a mental disorder, or are on psychiatric drugs. I mention this to indicate how widespread psychiatric control has become.

That statistic has been reported by NAMI, the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

NAMI also states: “Approximately 1 in 5 adults in the U.S.—43.8 million, or 18.5%—experiences mental illness in a given year.”

These figures are earthshaking. They reflect a relentless push, by organized psychiatry and their pharmaceutical partners, to expand the diagnoses of mental disorders and the toxic drugging that follows.

Indeed, if you consult the DSM, the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, you’ll find listed 297 distinct and defined and labeled disorders. This is marketing at an awesome level.

This is also a cultural revolution. Over the past few decades, millions of Americans have been convinced they have a brain malfunction of some kind. If you don’t think that creates a vast victim mentality, think again.

And yet, wait for it—not one of the 297 mental disorders has a defining diagnostic lab test. Not one.

I’ve made this point many times. Occasionally, readers point out that there are tests. Yes, but not DEFINING tests. If tests existed which invariably point to a true diagnosis of a true condition, those tests would be published in the DSM, the bible of the psychiatry. But they aren’t. Nowhere in the DSM will you find them.

Instead, every mental disorder is defined by a list of behavioral “symptoms.” Committees of psychiatrist gather and debate, and decide which clusters of symptoms add up to which labels of mental disorders.

It would be as if you walked into a doctor’s office, talked to him for ten minutes, and then he said: “You have cancer. I can tell by the way you’re talking and behaving. We start chemo tomorrow.”

As with a number of investigation I’ve done, some people respond with: “Oh no, that couldn’t be.” But it could be, and it is:

There is NO DEFINING lab test for any so-called mental disorder. No blood test, no urine test, no brain scan, no genetic assay.

Professional researchers will try to tap dance and bloviate around this shocking revelation: “We do a different kind of science. We’re making breakthroughs every day. We’re getting closer.”

Fine. Let us know when you’ve arrived. Until then, don’t diagnose 25% of the population with mental disorders, and don’t drug them with debilitating and toxic chemicals.

Here is what we’re dealing with: the profession of psychiatry has been given the government seal of approval to monopolize the field of mental health. The nature of their psychiatric work marks these “professionals” as some of the craziest people on the planet.

How do psychiatrists get away with it? They have journals. They populate schools and hospitals. They testify in criminal trials. They are funded and backed by some of the most powerful corporations in the world: Big Pharma. They’re medical doctors, and the public is trained to believe them.

Worst of all, the psychiatrists believe themselves.

They’re indoctrinated through years of schooling.

They’re in a waking trance.

They’re men and women who would never sacrifice their exalted positions of authority and their money for the sake of the truth.

What about parents and their children? “Jimmy, we’re so happy you’re going to college. Now, there is a 25% chance you’ll be diagnosed with a mental disorder while you’re there. That’s a good thing. You’ll get help. Listen to the doctor. Take the drugs.”

Of course, parents don’t say that. But by default, and through ignorance, that’s what they’re setting up their children for.

“This college you’re attending, Jimmy—it’s basically a psychiatric clinic. But you’ll also learn valuable academic information on the side.”

One of the great rebels inside the psychiatric profession is Dr. Peter Breggin. He wrote the 1991 classic, Toxic Psychiatry. Here is a story Breggin recounts. Read it and remember it:

“Roberta was a college student, getting good grades, mostly A’s, when she first became depressed and sought psychiatric help at the recommendation of her university health service. She was eighteen at the time, bright and well motivated, and a very good candidate for psychotherapy. She was going through a sophomore-year identity crisis about dating men, succeeding in school, and planning a future. She could have thrived with a sensitive therapist who had an awareness of women’s issues.”

“Instead of moral support and insight, her doctor gave her Haldol. Over the next four years, six different physicians watched her deteriorate neurologically without warning her or her family about tardive dyskinesia [motor brain damage] and without making the [tardive dyskinesia] diagnosis, even when she was overtly twitching in her arms and legs. Instead they switched her from one neuroleptic [anti-psychotic med] to another, including Navane, Stelazine, and Thorazine. Eventually a rehabilitation therapist became concerned enough to send her to a general physician, who made the diagnosis [of medical drug damage]. By then she was permanently physically disabled, with a loss of 30 percent of her IQ.”

“…my medical evaluation described her condition: Roberta is a grossly disfigured and severely disabled human being who can no longer control her body. She suffers from extreme writhing movements and spasms involving the face, head, neck, shoulders, limbs, extremities, torso, and back-nearly the entire body. She had difficulty standing, sitting, or lying down, and the difficulties worsen as she attempts to carry out voluntary actions. At one point she could not prevent her head from banging against nearby furniture. She could hold a cup to her lip only with great difficulty. Even her respiratory movements are seriously afflicted so that her speech comes out in grunts and gasps amid spasms of her respiratory muscles…Roberta may improve somewhat after several months off the neuroleptic drugs, but she will never again have anything remotely resembling a normal life.”

Welcome to the psychiatric matrix.


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.