How to stage a fake bioterror attack

How to stage a fake bioterror attack

by Jon Rappoport

January 31, 2018

“Imagine this. A big-time doctor from the US Biological Warfare Group waddles into a meeting room, where a collection of Army, CIA, NSA, and DHS representatives sit quietly in their chairs. He says: ‘So I understand you boys want to put on a little domestic bioterror show, to keep the natives from becoming too restless. Well, the first thing you need to know is, germs don’t obey orders. Forget all that sci-fi nonsense. Germs work and they don’t work. It’s a crapshoot. You could have a big fat dud on your hands. I can tell you how to make it work, though, if you give up on your fancy high-tech wet dreams…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

There are future scenarios which, with enough exposure before they’re staged, can be stopped—or at least analyzed correctly when they occur.

A calculated bioterror event is one of those.

The primary fact is: no matter what kind of germ you’re talking about or where it came from, releasing it intentionally does not guarantee predictable results. Far from it.

For instance, people whose immune systems operate at different levels of strength are going to react differently.

The perpetrators may find that less than 2% of people exposed get sick or die.

But there is another strategy that should be understood:

The use of a germ as a cover story for a chemical.

In other words, there is no germ attack. It’s called a germ attack, but that’s a lie. The perps bring in researchers to the affected area, who go on to claim they have isolated a germ that is the cause of death and illness. It’s a sham. What really happened was:

The spread of a toxic chemical that can’t be detected, unless you’re looking for it.

The chemical has severe, deadly, and predictable effects for a week or two. Then it disperses and loses potency and the “epidemic” is done.

In some town, a fairly isolated community, the word goes out that people are suddenly falling ill and dying. The CDC and the Army are called in to cordon off the area and quarantine all citizens. A peremptory announcement is made, early on, that this is a biowar attack.

Major media are allowed outside the periphery. Network news anchors set up on-location and do their wall to wall broadcasts “from the scene.”

The entire nation, the entire world, is riveted on the event, 24/7.

People inside the cordon fall ill and die. Reports emerge from the town:

The networks state that “heroic doctors are taking samples of blood and the blood is being analyzed to find the germ that is causing the epidemic.” The DOD confirms over and over that this is, indeed, a biowar attack.

Human interest stories pile up. This family lost three members, that family lost everybody. Tragedy and horror produce the desired empathic response from “the world community.”

It’s a soap opera, except real people are dying.

The medical cartel promotes fear of the germ.

All controlling entities obtain their piece of the terrorist pie.

Finally, the doctors announce they have isolated the germ causing death in the small town, and researchers are rushing to develop a vaccine (which they produce in record time).

Everyone everywhere must be vaccinated, now. No choice. Do it or be quarantined or jailed.

In this declared martial law situation, the doctors are the heroes. The doctors and the Army. And the government, and even the media.

Then, after a few weeks, when the potency of the secret chemical has dispersed, it’s over.

When you think about it, this scenario is a rough approximation of what happens every day, all over the world, in doctor’s offices. The doctors are prescribing chemicals (drugs) whose effects are far more dangerous than germs that may (or may not) be causing patients to be ill.

In other words, a chem-war attack is being leveled at people all over the world all the time.

See Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, “Is US health really the best in the world?” 106,000 people in America are killed every year by FDA-approved medical drugs. That’s over a million people per decade.

In the wake of a staged “biowar” terror attack, new laws are enacted. The State clamps down harder on basic freedoms. The right to travel is curtailed. Criticizing the authorities is viewed as highly illegal. Freedom of assembly is limited.

“Citizens must cooperate. We’re all in this together.”

A new federal law mandating the CDC schedule of vaccines for every child and adult—no exceptions permitted—is rushed through the Congress and signed by the President.

It’s all based on a lie…in the same way that the disease theory of the medical cartel is based on a lie: the strength of an individual’s immune system is the basic determinant of health or illness, not germs considered in a vacuum.

There are people who are determined to inflate the dangers of germs. They trumpet every “new” germ as the end of humankind on the planet. They especially sound the alarm when researchers claim a germ may have mutated or jumped from animals to humans.

“This is it! We’re done for!”

However, if you check into actual confirmed cases of death from recent so-called epidemics, such as West Nile, SARS, bird flu, Swine Flu, and Ebola, the numbers of deaths are incredibly low.

If political criminals, behind the scenes, wanted to stage a confined “biowar” event, they would choose a chemical, not a germ, and they would leverage such an event to curtail freedom.

Understand: researchers behind sealed doors in labs can claim, with unassailable ease, that they’ve found a germ that causes an outbreak. Almost no one challenges such an assertion.

This was the case, for example, with the vaunted SARS epidemic (a dud), in 2003, when 10 World Health Organization (WHO) labs, walled off from view, in communication with each other via closed circuit, announced they’d isolated a coronavirus as the culprit.

Later, in Canada, a WHO microbiologist, Frank Plummer, wandered off the reservation and told reporters he was puzzled by the fact that fewer and fewer SARS patients “had the coronavirus.” This was tantamount to confessing that the whole research effort had been a failure and a sham—but after a day or so of coverage, the press fell silent.

SARS was a nonsensical farce. Diagnosed patients had ordinary seasonal flu or a collection of familiar symptoms that could result from many different causes.

But the propaganda effort was a stunning success. Populations were frightened. The need for vaccines, in the public mind, was exacerbated.

Several years ago, I spoke with a biologist about the fake bioterror scenario I’ve sketched out above. His comment was: “Do you think any mainstream scientist would dare go into that cordoned-off town and actually check the area for a highly toxic chemical? He’d be blackballed, exiled, and discredited in a minute. The authorities would call him crazy. And that’s if he were lucky.”

Such is “science,” these days. A researcher can discover anything he wants to, if it’s approved. Otherwise, the door is closed.

After 30 years of covering and reporting on deep science fraud, I can tell you that most scientists know, without instructions from above, the dimensions of their “permitted territory.” They can sniff out career danger from a mile away.

GMOs? Roundup? Other toxic pesticides? Climate change? Vaccines? Medical drugs? Diagnostic medical tests? Actual environmental pollution? Mercury? Chemicals in food? Radiation? Nuclear power plants? Fracking? Fluorides? On these and a whole host of other issues, government is centrally involved as a ruling force. And there are armies of compliant scientists ready and willing to carry out preferred government (and corporate) dictates. These scientists already know the answers before the questions are even asked.

Meanwhile, propaganda rivers flow, extolling the glories of science.

It’s a dream situation, for the terminally corrupt.

A huge number of scientists, who don’t actually participate in research fraud, stand back and watch it happen and say nothing. They see the handwriting on the wall in very large letters.

In 1988, while writing my first book, AIDS INC., I interviewed a highly respected virologist at a US university. I mentioned that several molecular biologists were challenging the HIV-causation hypothesis of AIDS. He told me that he and a number of his colleagues were aware that “a serious problem” existed concerning evidence for the hypothesis, but they were all going to “let this one go.” It was too political, he said.

Yes, well, an enormous amount of science turns out to be political.

Keeping one’s head down and letting things go by may not be part of a PhD curriculum, but soon after school is out, researchers enter a different kind of training.

A main theme then pops up: do you want a career, or do you want to live in the middle of nowhere, in exile?

As it so happens, building a broad scientific consensus resting on sand is a straightforward job. It takes time and money, but the work requires no brilliance.

You just flash signs at scientists. The signs say: money; job security; status; advancement; promotion; grants; prestige; reputation; pension; exposure; censure; discrediting; exile; isolation; death.

They get the idea right away.

They would get the idea when a fake bio-attack (that was actually a chemical) occurred. Stay quiet, agree with the authorities.

“Sure, I knew it was a chemical, but I have house payments to make, and my kids are applying to expensive universities…”


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.

Exposing psychiatry as a fraud from top to bottom

Exposing psychiatry as a fraud from top to bottom

by Jon Rappoport

January 18, 2018

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

Note: This is an expanded version of my recent piece about psychiatry. It contains far more evidence that psychiatry is a highly dangerous fraud.

Regardless of what you think of Donald Trump, the deployment of psychiatrists to diagnose a person they oppose on political grounds is a tactic—not science.

In some cases, psychiatrists give favored individuals a soft landing—“Well, he’s suffering from bipolar and he needs help straightening out his life”—while in other cases these shrinks use their diagnoses to discredit and diminish public figures—“his judgment is impaired, pay no attention to what he’s saying, he needs treatment (toxic drugs).”

It’s the old USSR strategy, with a few cultural twists to fit the American landscape.

It’s time to lay out the facts about psychiatry, to show how bankrupt this “science” really is.

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

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

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

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

No blood tests, no urine tests, no saliva tests, no brain scans, no genetic assays.

And along with that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BANG.

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

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

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

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

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

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:
acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;
life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;
brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:
intercranial pressure leading to blindness;
peripheral circulatory collapse;
stupor and coma.

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

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

So…what about Ritalin?

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

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

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

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

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

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

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

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quite a story.

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

Here’s a coda:

This one is big.

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

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

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

Boom.

Dead.

However…urban legend? No. For decades, the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “We’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain; every mental disorder stems from such a chemical imbalance.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psychiatry is a pseudoscience.

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

For example, mental disorders are the result of genes plus “psycho-social factors.” A mish-mash of more unproven science.

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

It’s all gibberish, all the way down.

Meanwhile, the business model demands drugs for sale.

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

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

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

More fake diagnosis of mental disorders, more devastating drugs.

You want to fight for a right?

Fight for the right of every adult to refuse medication. Fight for the right of every parent to refuse medication for his/her child.


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.

A whole branch of science turns out to be fake

A whole branch of science turns out to be fake

by Jon Rappoport

November 29, 2017

Devotees of science often assume that what is called science is real and true. It must be. Otherwise, their faith is broken. Their superficial understanding is shattered. Their “superior view” of the world is torpedoed.

Such people choose unofficial “anti-science” targets to attack. They never think of inspecting their own house for enormous fraud.

For example: psychiatry.

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

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

And along with that:

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

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

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

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

But we have a mind-boggling twist. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front in inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for several years, almost no one noticed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BANG.

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

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

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

Here is a smoking-gun statement made by another prominent mental-health expert, on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”

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

BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid.

Without intending to, Dr. Barkley blows an ear-shattering whistle on his own profession.

So let’s take Dr. Barkley to school. Medical science, and disease-research in particular, rests on the notion that you can make a diagnosis backed up by lab tests. If you can’t produce lab tests, you’re spinning fantasies.

These fantasies might be hopeful, they might be “educated guesses,” they might be launched from traditional centers of learning, they might be backed up by billions of dollars of grant money…but they’re still fantasies.

Dr. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. If a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have science at all, and that would mean our whole profession rests on nothing—and that is unthinkable, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”

That logic is no logic at all. That science is no science at all. Barkley is proving the case against himself. He just doesn’t want to admit it.

Psychiatry is all fraud all the time. Without much of a stretch, you could say psychiatry has been the most widespread profiling operation in the history of the human race. Its goal has been to bring humans everywhere into its system. It hardly matters which label a person is painted with, as long as it adds up to a diagnosis and a prescription of drugs.

300 so-called mental disorders caused by…what? No lab evidence. No defining diagnostic tests. No blood tests, saliva tests, brain scans, genetic assays. No nothing.

But psychiatrists continue to assert they are the masters of causation. They know what’s behind “mental disorders.” They’re in charge.

What about the generalized “chemical imbalance” hypothesis stating that all mental disorders stem from such imbalances in the brain?

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

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

Boom.

Dead.

The point is, for decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed.

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, the business model demands drugs for sale.

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

Two questions always pop up when I write a critique of psychiatry. The first one is: psychiatric researchers are doing a massive amount of work studying brain function. They do have tests.

Yes, experimental tests. But NONE of those tests are contained in the DSM, the psychiatric bible, as the basis of the definition of ANY mental disorder. If the tests were conclusive, they would be heralded in the DSM. They aren’t.

The second question is: if all these mental disorders are fiction, why are so many people saddled with problems? Why are some people off the rails? Why are they crazy?

The list of potential answers is very long. A real practitioner would focus on one patient at a time and try to discover what has affected him to such a marked degree. For example:

Severe nutritional deficiency. Toxic dyes and colors in processed food. Ingestion of pesticides and herbicides. Profound sensitivities to certain foods. The ingestion of toxic pharmaceuticals. Life-altering damage as a result of vaccines. Exposure to environmental chemicals. Heavy physical and emotional abuse in the home or at school. Battlefield stress and trauma (also present in certain neighborhoods). Prior head injury. Chronic infection. Alcohol and street drugs. Debilitating poverty.

Other items could be added.

Psychiatry is: fake, fraud, pseudoscience from top to bottom. It’s complete fiction dressed up as fact.

But the obsessed devotees of science tend to back away from this. They close their eyes. If a “branch of knowledge” as extensive as psychiatry is nothing more than an organized delusion, what other aspect of science might likewise be parading as truth, when it is actually mere paper blowing in the wind?


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Why you shouldn’t believe anything the FBI says about the Vegas shooting

Why you shouldn’t believe anything the FBI says about Vegas shooting

by Jon Rappoport

October 9, 2017

No matter how the Vegas shooting investigation looks, the FBI is playing a large role. The forensics, in particular, would be checked by FBI techs and labs.

Vital lab analysis of weapons and ammunition and bullet-angles and cartridges and residue. Weapons Paddock had or didn’t have. Ammunition he had or didn’t have. Modifications he made or didn’t make to those weapons. How many different kinds of bullets were found in victims? What weapons did those bullets come from?

And depending on that evidence—were there multiple shooters, for example?

Should you believe the FBI’s analyses?

Are you kidding? The scurrilous reputation of the FBI in its handling of forensics is astonishing. Read on. Note: I’m saving the best for last:

In 2014-15, stories appeared in the press about the phenomenal corruption of the FBI evidence lab. But since then, there has been very little follow-up. I find no compelling evidence that the federal government has fixed the problem.

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…[an FBI source states] ’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload.’”

Washington Post, April 18, 2015: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

“Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.”

“The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.”

Giant long-term scandal and corruption. The story is covered. Then it disappears.

Now here’s the capper:

On April 19, 1995, one-third of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City blew up, killing 169 people and wounding 680 others.

Three men were arrested and convicted: Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier. McVeigh was put to death on June 11, 2001, Nichols is currently serving multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole, and Fortier was sentenced to 12 years (he served that term and was released).

The official narrative of the bombing stated: A Ryder truck parked at the curb outside the Murrah Building contained barrels of ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil (ANFO bombs), and their coordinated explosion occurred shortly after 9AM on the morning of April 19th.

In addition to the deaths and the woundings, the explosion impacted 324 buildings and 86 cars in the area.

(In my 1995, book, “The Oklahoma City Bombing, the Suppressed Truth,” I laid to rest the claim that ANFO bombs could have caused that much damage; and more importantly, I showed that an explosion coming out of a Ryder truck at the curb could not have caused the particular profile of damage sustained by the Murrah Building.)

The vaunted FBI lab decided that, indeed, all the damage and death HAD been caused by ANFO bombs in the Ryder truck.

But wait.

Buckle up.

Two years after the bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

And with those revelations, the case, the investigation, the court trials, and press probes should have taken a whole new direction. But they didn’t.

The fake science was allowed to stand.

So now…there is no reason to believe anything the FBI says about Paddock, his weapons, his ammo, his modifications, the degree of his participation (or non-participation) in the shooting, the trajectories of bullets, the types of bullets found in victims, the nature of the expended shell casings, and other VITAL forensic details in the case.


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.

MD: I’ve seen cases of vaccine injury for 40 years

MD: I’ve seen cases of vaccine injury for forty years

Australian doctor exposes vaccine damage, stands up to government/media attacks

Here is what he wrote

by Jon Rappoport

September 4, 2017

In Australia, the noose is tightening around parents’ and children’s necks.

There is already a policy in place that denies certain government benefits to families who don’t vaccinate their kids. Now, there is legislation that would deny unvaccinated children enrollment in daycare and kindergarten.

But a grassroots rebellion is underway.

Australian MD John Piesse has stepped out of the shadows and reported his findings and research on vaccine damage. The government is investigating him. They may strip his license. The press is attacking him mercilessly.

He isn’t backing down.

His stance is certainly heroic, but remember that every doctor takes an oath to do no harm to his patients. Without question, there are many other doctors who know the truth, first-hand, about what vaccines really do. But they stay silent.

Some of these doctors don’t vaccinate their own children…but they continue to inject toxic chemicals and viruses into their young patients. That is a crime and betrayal of the first order.

Here, in full, is a letter Dr. Piesse recently wrote to The Age. Read it. Study it. Understand it. This isn’t the unhinged raving of a madman, as the press would have you believe.

This is basic truth that every parent should have and own:

“I have been encountering cases of vaccine injury for over 40 years. In June it was a happy, healthy nearly 5-year-old whose parents were required to put her on a catch-up schedule, in order to get her into kindergarten. She won’t be going to kinder. She’s in a wheel-chair, brain-damaged. Her life ruined. Then came a friend’s father who died after a flu vaccine, and last week a 4 year old boy, made autistic by a catch-up schedule.”

“In 1988, the US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created. It has paid out over US$3.5 billion to the vaccine-injured. The NVICP was set up to protect vaccine manufacturers from ruinous costs of litigation by vaccine-damaged people. It was deemed preferable to have ‘unavoidably unsafe’ vaccines than no vaccines. Unfortunately the protection provided to vaccine manufacturers also reduced incentives to develop safer vaccines in USA.”

“Vaccines contain health-damaging ingredients, not the least aluminium – a known neurotoxin implicated along with mercury, in brain damage as in autism, developmental delay, ADHD, and learning difficulties. Aluminium is also a powerful promoter of auto-immune diseases. Vaccines can claim to be mercury-free if their mercury content is below a still-toxic threshold. Most influenza vaccines contain mercury – also a neurotoxin. In addition, polysorbate 80 in vaccines increases the permeability of the blood brain barrier and potentiates the risks of these neurotoxins. The known presence of carcinogenic viruses in the MMR vaccine, has been covered-up. Vaccines also contain formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.”

“Proof of vaccine safety requires rigorously conducted clinical studies comparing vaccinated versus truly unvaccinated children for health outcomes. Are there any such studies that confirm that vaccinated children are not worse-off than those unvaccinated? No. There are none. Hence, child vaccines are unproven for safety – an inconvenient truth for a profession that prides itself on being scientific.”

“One analysis indicated that national infant mortality rates were proportional to the number of vaccine doses (Miller NZ 2011), contradictory to the claim that ‘vaccination saves lives’.”

“From mid-2015, parents who wished not to vaccinate their children, started to converge on my practice seeking assistance with gaining exemption from the penalties directed at non-vaccinators by the No Jab No Pay and No Jab No Play Legislation.”

“Analysis up to the end of 2016 of parent’s reasons for not vaccinating, indicated that 64% of 166 parents knew of vaccine-damaged individuals in their own family. The study of ‘Adversomics’ confirms polymorphic and genomic susceptibility factors common to vaccine–damaged individuals and their families. (Poland GA 2015). 40% of unvaccinated children had pre-existing health problems that parents considered would make them more at risk of harm from vaccines. 60% of unvaccinated children were very healthy, but only 6% of the vaccinated children. There were no cases of autism in 212 unvaccinated children, but 8 autism cases in the 50 vaccinated children (16%), and 36% with ASD [autism spectrum disorder], compared to 1.4% in the unvaccinated.”

“As yet there are no large-scale vaccinated versus truly unvaccinated studies of the sort needed prove that vaccines do or do not cause autism.”

“So where does the widespread belief that vaccines do not cause autism derive? In a nutshell: from an over-whelming quantity of ‘manufactured science’ of low quality, scientific fraud, and ignoring evidence supporting causality. Few doctors and politicians are aware of the pivotal scientific fraud committed in the US Centers for Disease Control. A study of the MMR vaccine in black American babies showed a 2.5 fold higher level of autism in babies given the MMR vaccine at 12 months of age compared to 3 years. The CDC refused to publish these findings but manipulated the data to disguise the undeniable association found. The fraudulent data was then published (DeStefano F 2004 ) and promoted as the final statement on the question. Thereafter the official line was that vaccination did not cause autism. 5000 vaccine-damaged children had their applications in the Vaccine Court for compensation quashed after this deception. But [CDC] whistle-blower William Thompson released the true unabridged data which was published briefly until pressure from the CDC forced its retraction (Hooker B 2014)”

“A recent study of home-school students showed a 6.6 fold increase in neurodevelopmental disorders in the vaccinated group over the unvaccinated. Autism spectrum disorders were 4.7 times more prevalent in the vaccinated children (Mawson AR 2017).”

“So long as doctors and governments continue to be hood-winked into believing that vaccines do not cause autism, no action will be taken to stop the alarming surge in the autism epidemic. A tragedy that need not happen if we demand good science and safe vaccines.”

Who is next?

Who is the next doctor to step into the light and tell the truth, regardless of the consequences?

“Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them…”

In this case, “Arms” means the truth. Because if it spreads far enough, from many doctors, there will be an end to the high mounds of intentional lies that compose official science, which is fake science—designed to put children under the gun, under the needle.


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Chemical-dosing experiment to force friendship toward migrants: not science fiction

Chemical-dosing experiment to force friendship toward migrants: not science fiction

by Jon Rappoport

August 30, 2017

I really hope you understand this.

It is not a fantasy. It isn’t science fiction. It isn’t satire.

It is Brave New World, but not the Huxley novel. It’s happening now.

It’s a new published study that appears on the website of the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

The title of the study is, “Oxytocin-enforced norm compliance reduces xenophobic outgroup rejection.”

Xenophobia is defined as: “fear or hatred of foreigners, people from different cultures, or strangers.” (Dictionary.com)

Oxytocin, the chemical used in this study, is described by Medical News Today: “Widely referred to as the love hormone, oxytocin has also been dubbed the hug hormone, cuddle chemical, moral molecule, and the bliss hormone due to its effects on behavior, including its role in love and in female reproductive biological functions in reproduction.”

“Oxytocin is a hormone that is made in the brain, in the hypothalamus. It is transported to, and secreted by, the pituitary gland, which is located at the base of the brain.”

“In chemistry, oxytocin is classed as a nonapeptide (a peptide containing nine amino acids), while its biological classification is as a neuropeptide. It acts both as a hormone and as a brain neurotransmitter.”

The published study details a successful attempt at chemical mind control. The goal is making people more “happy and friendly” about mass migration, by changing their hormonal response toward migrants.

Nothing in the study cites inherent migration problems, such as increased violent crime, back-breaking financial pressure on government budgets, and the eroding of local cultures. It’s all about shifting feeling and reaction toward waves of immigrants.

Here are extensive quotes from the new study:

“Here we report the results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment showing that enhanced activity of the oxytocin system paired with charitable social cues can help counter the effects of xenophobia by fostering altruism toward refugees. These findings suggest that the combination of oxytocin and peer-derived altruistic norms [social cues] reduces outgroup rejection even in the most selfish and xenophobic individuals, and thereby would be expected to increase the ease by which people adapt to rapidly changing social ecosystems [mass immigration].”

“Never before have individuals had to adapt to social environments defined by such magnitudes of ethnic diversity and cultural differentiation. However, neurobiological evidence informing about strategies to reduce xenophobic sentiment and foster altruistic cooperation with outsiders is scarce. In a series of experiments settled in the context of the current refugee crisis, we tested the propensity of 183 Caucasian participants to make donations to people in need, half of whom were refugees (outgroup) and half of whom were natives (ingroup). Participants scoring low on xenophobic attitudes [already accepting toward immigrants] exhibited an altruistic preference for the outgroup, which further increased after nasal delivery of the neuropeptide oxytocin. In contrast, participants with higher levels of xenophobia generally failed to exhibit enhanced altruism toward the outgroup. This tendency was only countered by pairing oxytocin with peer-derived altruistic norms [social cues], resulting in a 74% increase in refugee-directed donations. Collectively, these findings reveal the underlying sociobiological conditions associated with outgroup-directed altruism by showing that charitable social cues co-occurring with enhanced activity of the oxytocin system reduce the effects of xenophobia by facilitating prosocial behavior toward refugees.”

Here is the study’s basic backgrounder: “At this time, we are witnessing one of the largest movements of refugees since the end of World War II (1, 2). Ongoing conflicts, persecution, and poverty in the Middle East and Africa have continued forced displacement of more than 65 million people since 2015 (2). Accommodating the large influx of migrants not only challenges the humanitarian capacities of European countries but also requires their native populations to adjust to rapid growths in ethnic diversity, religious pluralism, and cultural differentiation. However, the impetus to adapt to changing social ecosystems is susceptible to considerable interindividual heterogeneity (3). Resistance to this transition often goes along with xenophobic sentiment (4), and as a consequence, recent elections in Europe have favored populist candidates who have openly expressed xenophobic attitudes toward refugees (5). However, at the same time, volunteer work for migrants in the hosting countries has reached all-time highs and is estimated to exceed 1.6 million hours per month in Germany alone (6). In the face of growing tensions over differences in ethnicity, religion, and culture (3), there is an urgent need for devising strategies for helping foster the social integration of refugees into Caucasian societies.”

The truly disturbing and mind-boggling aspect of this study is: many people would accept it as a reasonable way to “solve” the migrant crisis.

Forget about the actual effects of immigration. They’re irrelevant. Instead, focus on re-shaping people’s minds, through chemical intervention.

The authors of the mind-control study are basically saying, “If you have a problem with mass immigration, the problem has nothing to do with facts. It only has to do with your hormone system. Basically, you have a deficit of oxytocin.”

I have written many articles about the effects of philosophic materialism, including its conclusion that humans are merely biological machines and, therefore, can be manipulated at will by “those in charge.”

“Free will? A delusion. Individual choice? Unacceptable. Humans are inherently programmed in every respect, and badly programmed at that. The central flaws must be fixed. Humans must be reconfigured so they automatically respond to stimuli in new ways. ‘More humane ways’.”

Lost in this study, as well, are the effects of dosing with oxytocin on a person’s overall hormone system. You don’t suddenly ramp up one hormone without changing levels of others—testosterone, for example. But who cares, when the social and political goal must be attained? If men become more passive in the process, why not?

Perhaps that notion will be the formation of the next study. “Let’s cut testosterone and see what happens. How much of it do we need to reduce before men just lie around and play with toys and dolls?”

Interestingly enough, the authors of the study never considered dosing male immigrants of military age with the oxytocin “love hormone.” Heaven forbid. That would be “interfering in their culture.”

That’s called a clue.


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Exclusive: mind-boggling FDA confession about the smallpox vaccine

Exclusive: FDA confession about smallpox vaccine

by Jon Rappoport

August 30, 2017

The FDA has just released a statement (8/28) about its crackdown on a California company pushing an unapproved treatment for cancer patients: stem cells mixed with a smallpox vaccine.

But that’s not the big story. The big story is buried in the FDA press release. Here is the Agency’s statement:

“Serious health problems, including those that are life-threatening, can also occur in…people who…have problems with their heart or immune system if they become infected with the [smallpox] vaccine virus, either by being vaccinated or by being in close contact with a person who was vaccinated.”

The FDA states that those with certain prior health conditions who pick up the smallpox virus, as a result of vaccination, are at exceptionally high risk. AMONG THOSE PRIOR HEALTH CONDITIONS IS: “IMMUNE SYSTEM PROBLEMS.”

That simply means weak and compromised immune systems.

And yet…during the years 1966-1980, a massive smallpox eradication campaign was carried out in Africa, under the auspices of the World Health Organization. Roughly 100 million doses of the smallpox vaccine were given to Africans, MANY OF WHOM ALREADY HAD COMPROMISED IMMUNE SYSTEMS.

How much devastation was wrought by this vaccination campaign?

The World Health Organization, in 1980, celebrated the eradication of smallpox on the African continent—but was that what really happened?

Or was it this? The visible signs of smallpox receded, but people with already-compromised immune systems began dying in large numbers.

The FDA has just unwittingly implied what researchers have known for decades; the so-called smallpox eradication campaign in Africa was one of the most dangerous medical interventions in history.

In the late 1980s, a respected biologist with close knowledge of the Africa eradication campaign, told me, off the record, that after the World Health Organization celebrated their “victory,” they held a very secret meeting in Geneva.

At this meeting, it was decided that the smallpox vaccine they deployed in Africa would never be used again.

I asked him why.

Because it caused cases of smallpox, he said.

So the African eradication campaign had a double effect. In some people, the vaccine caused smallpox, which it was supposed to prevent. In others, who already had very weak immune systems, it wrought extreme devastation and death without giving the appearance of smallpox.

More lies, more widespread destruction from the vaccine establishment.

(For more on this topic, see Enormous basic lies about vaccination…)


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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