Victims of vaccine damage can sue manufacturers in the US

Victims of vaccine damage can sue manufacturers in the US

It’s happening now…

by Jon Rappoport

May 7, 2017

(Note to our loyal readers: We’re working to restore NoMoreFakeNews.com. Meanwhile, this blog is fully operating. Posting continues. To join our email list, click here.)

Major media aren’t giving this story the coverage it deserves. I certainly am.

Short question: Can a person sue a US vaccine manufacturer?

Short answer: Under certain conditions, yes.

Note: I’m not framing this article as professional legal advice. I’m reporting what I’ve been able to dig up on a very explosive issue so far. I’ve communicated with two lawyers and a law professor. I’ve been pointed to an important passage on a federal web page.

Right now, lawyers and their clients are suing Merck, the manufacturer, for injuries incurred from Merck’s shingles vaccine, Zostavax.

Among the claimed injuries: contracting shingles; blindness in one eye; partial paralysis; brain damage; death.

One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys told me he has already filed two cases in California. Each case has 50 plaintiffs. He states he has 5000 clients waiting in the wings. There are other attorneys with other plaintiffs.

But wait. Isn’t there a federal law that bars people from suing vaccine manufacturers?

Isn’t that law the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act? Doesn’t it demand that people go to a special federal “vaccine tribunal/court” and plead for compensation from the government?

Aren’t vaccine manufacturers shielded from liability for causing injury?

Well, it turns out there are exceptions to the rule.

Adult vaccines are not part of the 1986 federal law.

The law shielding vaccine companies only applies to childhood vaccines.

The Merck shingles vaccine is only for adults.

The special federal “vaccine tribunal/court” is established as part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). This is where parents who claim their children were injured by vaccines must go, to ask for compensation from the government—not from vaccine manufacturers.

But on a web page of the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, under “Health Resources and Services Administration,” we see “Frequently Asked Questions.” And we read this rather opaque statement:

“In order for a category of vaccines to be covered, the category of vaccines must be recommended for routine administration to children by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…” [Note: On this clumsy FAQ web page, you have to click on “View Answer” under the following question to see it: “If a new vaccine product is licensed, what needs to occur before the vaccine will be covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)?”]

What does “covered” mean? It means “covered exclusively by the federal compensation program.” It means a parent who believes her child has been injured by a vaccine goes to the special federal “court.” The vaccine must be FOR CHILDREN. However, an adult seeking compensation for vaccine injury, FROM AN ADULT VACCCINE, would, with a lawyer, argue his case in ordinary state or federal court. That adult would sue the vaccine manufacturer.

This message from the federal government is clear. The ban against suing vaccine manufacturers only applies to vaccines recommended for children (and pregnant women). The ban does not apply to adult vaccines.

Naturally, adults are going to be interested in seeing a list of adult vaccines, because in the case of vaccine-injury, these people can and must go to ordinary state or federal courts and sue the vaccine manufacturer. And they can sue for punitive damages. This is what scares vaccine manufacturers. Punitive-damage money can soar into the stratosphere.

Here, from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is the list of adult vaccines: Influenza; Td/Tdap; MMR; VAR; HZV (shingles); HPV Female; HPV male; PCV13; PPSV23; HepA; HepB; MENACWY/MPSV4; MenB; Hib.

However, some of the vaccines on this list are recommended for both adults and children. When a vaccine is recommended by the CDC for both adults and children, adults seeking compensation for vaccine-injury would not be permitted to argue their cases in ordinary courts and sue the manufacturer. Instead, they would have to go to the special federal vaccine “court” and try to obtain compensation from the government.

It will be very important to see what happens as these lawsuits against Merck and their shingles vaccine move forward. Many tactics will be deployed. Right now, in one suit filed in Philadelphia, Merck is arguing for a change of venue. Change of venue often signals an attempt to find a more friendly court.

We’re in the beginning stages of a struggle.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have high hurdles to climb. Among them: causation. How do you prove a vaccine “caused” an injury? I’m not talking about truth, common sense, or even conventional medical standards. I’m talking about legal proofs, and what is admissible in court. That territory is a Twilight Zone of complexity.

Stay tuned.

Lawsuits for vaccine injury, against one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world (Merck), are sprouting like weeds. Will judges find a reason to cut them off, or will they proceed to trial? Will these lawsuits inspire other attorneys and their clients to sue vaccine manufacturers for injury from other adult vaccines?

Is this going to build to a tsunami?


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.

New drug for rare childhood disease; price tag, $702,000 a year

New drug for rare childhood disease; price tag, $702,000 a year

And an explosive statement from the FDA

by Jon Rappoport

May 1, 2017

by Jon Rappoport

The FDA has just approved a new drug, Brineura, for a rare childhood brain-disease known as CLN2, which progresses quickly and is considered fatal.

BioMarin, the drug’s manufacturer, has pegged the yearly price of the drug for a patient at an astronomical $702,000. Discounts will be offered—the average annual price for the patient will come down to $486,000.

While recovering from the pricing shock, consider this statement from the FDA: “Brineura is the first FDA-approved treatment to slow loss of walking ability (ambulation) in symptomatic pediatric patients 3 years of age and older…”

Translation: There is no claim that the drug cures the disease. The drug may slow down the progression of only one of the many symptoms. For $486,000 a year, if the patient lives for a year.

Well, we’ll see whether even that “slowing down” assertion pans out, because the clinical trial of the drug was carried out on only 22 children, to determine efficacy, and 24 children to determine safety.

Of course, the drug’s manufacturer would state that, since CLN2 is a very rare disease, it wasn’t easy to find patients on whom to test it. Nevertheless, the FDA approval for the drug was based on scanty evidence—to say the least.

It’s fairly clear that researchers and drug companies look at this situation as a first step in developing more (highly expensive) drugs to treat CLN2. The gateway has been opened. Though they wouldn’t admit it, Brineura is an experimental medicine, and if follow-up doesn’t record a high percentage of deaths occurring sooner than expected (according to what parameters?), it will be considered a great success.

Here is how the drug is invasively administered. Keep in mind that the patient is a very young child who is already unable to function in the world, is confused, is having great difficulty walking and even sitting:

FDA press release (4/27/17): “Brineura is administered into the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) by infusion via a specific surgically implanted reservoir and catheter in the head (intraventricular access device). Brineura must be administered under sterile conditions to reduce the risk of infections, and treatment should be managed by a health care professional knowledgeable in intraventricular administration. The recommended dose of Brineura in pediatric patients 3 years of age and older is 300 mg administered once every other week by intraventricular infusion, followed by an infusion of electrolytes. The complete Brineura infusion, including the required infusion of intraventricular electrolytes, lasts approximately 4.5 hours. Pre-treatment of patients with antihistamines with or without antipyretics (drugs for prevention or treatment of fever) or corticosteroids is recommended 30 to 60 minutes prior to the start of the infusion.”

Shocker: I found this explosive statement in FDA press release: “The initial symptoms [of the childhood disease CLN2] usually include language delay, recurrent seizures (epilepsy) and difficulty coordinating movements (ataxia). Affected children also develop muscle twitches (myoclonus) and vision loss. CLN2 disease affects essential motor skills, such as sitting and walking. Individuals with this condition often require the use of a wheelchair by late childhood and typically do not survive past their teens.”

Does that sound like anything you’ve ever heard of?

It’s the result, in some children, of administered vaccines.

Vaccine damage.

Imagine this. A doctor says to a mother: “You have to stop talking about the horrible things that happened to your child right after he received a vaccine. You’re wrong. You’re not making sense. It wasn’t the vaccine. Your child has a rare genetic brain disorder called CLN2. We now have a drug that may slow down one of the progressing symptoms. It’ll cost $486,000 a year. To give the drug, we’ll need your child for five hours every other week. We’ll insert a catheter in his head…”


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Julie and the boys: CDC, Merck, vaccines

Julie and the boys: CDC, Merck, vaccines

by Jon Rappoport

April 24, 2017

I write this story now to remind people there are several titanic unresolved issues surrounding research fraud at the CDC, involving the MMR vaccine.

We all know about CDC whistleblower William Thompson, a long-time researcher at the CDC. Thompson still works there.

On August 27, 2014, he released a statement through his lawyer, Rick Morgan, in which he admitted research fraud.

Thompson confessed he and his CDC co-authors cooked the data in a key 2004 study, thereby exonerating the MMR vaccine from any blame in causing autism.

Thompson has never been subpoenaed by Congress to confess what he knows about this case.

But what about Stephen Kraling and Joan Wlochowski?

Who?

They’re two former Merck virologists who filed a qui tam suit against Merck, the manufacturer of the very same MMR vaccine. (Ref: Federal Civil Lawsuit: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al. v. MERCK & CO., Pennsylvania Eastern District Court, Case No. 2:10-cv-04374-CDJ, District Judge C. DARNELL JONES, II, presiding)

The suit claims Merck defrauded the US government by selling the vaccine, under a federal contract, when Merck knew the mumps component of the vaccine was far less effective than advertised.

Of course, Merck disputed this claim, but on September 5th, 2014, Judge Jones, of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, gave the green light for the suit to move forward.

Kraling and Wlochowski assert several levels of Merck fraud:

To achieve a slam-dunk success, Merck tested the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine against the version of the virus in the vaccine, rather than against the natural mumps virus a person would catch in the real world.

Merck irrelevantly and deceptively added animal antibodies to the test results, thus giving the false appearance of strong human immune response to the vaccine.

On top of that, Merck faked the quantitative results of the tests to which the animal antibodies had been added.

Here is where these two Merck whistle blowers and Thompson, the CDC whistle blower, intersect:

In 2004, according to a report I have seen, Thompson wrote a letter to CDC Director, Julie Gerberding, warning her that he was about to present troubling and sensitive data about the MMR vaccine at an upcoming conference on vaccines and autism.

Thompson’s meaning was clear. He had found a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Gerberding never answered his letter, and Thompson’s presentation at that conference was canceled.

Gerberding left the CDC in 2009.

She moved on to become…

The president of Merck Vaccines, the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine.

Major media consider this a non-story, on the level of a can of overflowing garbage on a quiet street corner.

Well, they have to consider it a non-story. If they reported it and pressed it and dug deep into it, they could fracture the pillars of the entire vaccine establishment.

In order to get at the whole truth (or refute any of the charges raised in this article), Congress needs to hold hearings, and competent committee members need to question, at length, William Thompson, the two Merck whistle blowers, and Julie Gerberding.

I say the chance of that happening is close to zero. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I see no sign Congress is willing to step up to the plate.

Too many drug-company lobbyists, too much campaign money from the drug companies, too much fear of going up against entrenched “scientists” who keep claiming all vaccines are safe and effective.

We’ve heard, from sources other than President Trump, that he is going to order a task force to investigate vaccine safety. We’ll see if it happens.

Earlier this year, I wrote about a group of CDC employees who are anonymously chomping at the bit to expose criminal behavior at their agency.

They call themselves the Spider Group—Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research. They have penned a letter to the CDC’s chief of staff, Carmen S. Villar:

Here is the explosive accusation they make:

“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”

“Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right.”

“We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”

Since this initial explosion, I have heard nothing from the Spider Group. Perhaps they are waiting for a signal from President Trump that it is safe to proceed.

There is too much waiting. Whistle blower William Thompson is waiting for Congress to subpoena him. Congress is sitting on its hands, waiting. The two Merck whistle blowers are waiting for their law suit to move forward.

Children’s futures and lives are on the line.

Every day that passes brings new vaccine damage.


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

The cruel autism trick played on vaccine-damaged children

The cruel autism trick played on vaccine-damaged children

And their parents

by Jon Rappoport

April 10, 2017

I’ve covered this subject in various ways. Here I’m going to use a Q & A format to highlight vital points.

Q: What do people need to know about names for diseases?

A: A disease-label of any kind is something you need to look at the way you’d look at a scorpion on your porch.

Q: Why?

A: Because the label is meant to make you think there is a specific condition.

Q: Isn’t that the case?

A: Not necessarily. For example, autism.

Q: Isn’t autism a specific condition?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Well, start with this. There is no defining diagnostic test for autism. No defining physical test. No blood test, saliva test, urine test, brain scan, genetic assay.

Q: That’s impossible.

A: It’s true.

Q: How can that be?

A: Autism is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the bible of the psychiatric profession. The definition of autism is basically a menu of behaviors. There is no defining diagnostic test. You’ll find, in the official lexicon, other names for various so-called “developmental neurological disorders,” too. And none of them in the DSM have defining diagnostic tests, either.

Q: What are you driving at? Are you saying autism is some kind of illusion, that there is no damage or problem?

A: Of course not. Of course there is damage.

Q: So what is your point?

A: If a parent applies to the US federal vaccine court, for compensation, because her child was severely damaged by a vaccine, and if she or her doctor calls that damage “autism,” there is almost no chance the government will award her compensation.

Q: Why?

A: Because the government is committed to saying, come hell or high water, vaccines don’t cause autism. But if that same parent says her child developed “encephalopathy”—a generalized term meaning a condition that adversely affects the structure or function of the brain—her chances of receiving compensation increase by a small percentage.

Q: Even if she says a vaccine caused the encephalopathy?

A: Yes. It’s all a word game, and if the parent doesn’t know how to play it, she’ll almost certainly lose.

Q: That’s ridiculous.

A: Indeed it is.

Q: If none of these neurological disease-labels in the DSM has a specific and defining diagnostic test, then why doesn’t the parent just tell the vaccine court, “My child’s brain was damaged by a vaccine”?

A: Because the rules demand that she present evidence that the vaccine caused a known and officially accepted disease condition with a disease label.

Q: But the truth is, the vaccine caused brain damage.

A: Truth is not the goal of the government’s game.

Q: Are you saying there is no such thing as autism?

A: I’m saying there is no conclusive evidence for the existence of autism as a specific condition. Otherwise, there would be a defining diagnostic test for it, and there isn’t. There are various causes for neurological and brain damage. When a vaccine is the cause, it should be called VACCINE DAMAGE, and compensation should be awarded on that basis. Period. Stop the fiddling and game playing.

Q: But the government doesn’t want to admit that vaccines cause severe damage.

A: That’s why they play their word games.

Q: What are some causes for neurological damage?

A: A blow to the head, a fall, almost drowning in a pool, oxygen deprivation at birth, severe and long-term nutritional deficits, toxic pesticides, toxic medical drugs, vaccines.

Q: Why are these and other causes hidden under fancy medical names?

A: Because, for example, for each disease-name, drugs can be developed and sold.

Q: What are some names for neurological disease or damage?

A: Fragile X syndrome, Asperger, Rett syndrome; Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, Intellectual Disability, autism.

Q: Are there overlaps of symptoms?

A: Yes.

Q: Is it possible that any of these could be caused by vaccines?

A: The actual DAMAGE that is at the heart of these disease-labels could be caused by vaccines. Or other factors. Each child must be assessed uniquely.

Q: You’re suggesting that, in a sane world, parents and doctors and government officials would call vaccine damage VACCINE DAMAGE, and forget all the rest of it.

A: Neurological vaccine damage, yes. Because that’s what it is. You can say, “Well, we think this group of nerve cells is affected or that group is affected, or possibly this part of the brain is affected or that part,” but when a vaccine is the cause, it’s vaccine damage, plain and simple.

Q: Any other medical tricks people should be aware of, relating to autism?

A: Yes. Researchers can say they know vaccines don’t cause autism, because there are children diagnosed with autism who have never been vaccinated. That assertion is a hoax. The label and the definition of autism are worthless, to begin with, because there is no specific test that invariably diagnoses autism. Instead, as I keep saying, vaccine damage is real and it should be labeled as such. Then, there is no argument about what is and isn’t autism, or what does and doesn’t cause it. There is just naked straightforward truth.

Q: So when a doctor tells a parent, “Your child has autism…”

A: He’s really saying, “Your child has suffered some kind of neurological damage. We have a general label for it. Autism. The label doesn’t tell us what caused your child’s damage.”

Q: But the doctor wouldn’t admit that.

A: No, he wouldn’t.

Q: Suppose he did admit that. Suppose all doctors admitted that.

A: Then there would be a whole new world. Doctors would be tasked with trying to find out what caused the damage in each child. And in talking to a parent, who was there and saw the radical change in her child after vaccination, a doctor would realize that a vaccine was the cause.

Q: It sounds like the government is leading a parent with a vaccine-damaged child into a blind alley with its vaccine court.

A: That’s right. The parent is seeking compensation to pay for her child’s care. The court is essentially saying, “If you claim your child was damaged by a vaccine and call that damage autism, even though the word “autism” is just a meaningless label, we’ll deny compensation. We’ll deny it because we’ve arbitrarily decided that vaccines can’t cause autism.”

Q: This is pure insanity.

A: Yes, cruel insanity.

Q: Let me see if I can sum all this up. First, we have a meaningless label called “autism.” It’s meaningless because there are no defining diagnostic tests for autism. Therefore, there is no proof that autism is a specific condition, beyond the fact that a child has been neurologically damaged in some way. But most people, and the government, and the medical system, ALL BUY INTO THE IDEA THAT AUTISM IS REAL AND SPECIFIC…AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT TURNS AROUND AND SAYS: A PARENT WHO IS SEEKING COMPENSATION FOR VACCINE DAMAGE, ON THE BASIS THAT A VACCINE CAUSED HER CHILD TO “DEVELOP AUTISM,” WON’T BE COMPENSATED, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF THAT ANY VACCINE CAUSES AUTISM. THE GOVERNMENT IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING: THERE IS NO PROOF A VACCINE CAN CAUSE A CONDITION WHICH HASN’T BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST.

A: Yes, that’s correct.

Q: This is even crazier than I thought it was.

A: You can add in one more factor. There are parents with vaccine-damaged children, and these children have been diagnosed with autism. If you tell these parents there is no proof that autism exists, and their child simply has devastating neurological vaccine damage, they will protest. They’re caught in a situation they don’t fully understand, and they’re determined to hold on to the idea that their child “has autism.” They want that label to be applied to their child. For them, it provides an “explanation” for what happened to their child. They won’t let it go. And THEN, they will go to the federal vaccine court and ask for compensation, not realizing that if they use the word “autism,” that’s doom. The court will deny their claim.

Q: It’s like being caught in a maze.

A: That’s exactly what it is.


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.

Grand deception in virus and disease research

Grand deception in virus and disease research

by Jon Rappoport

March 31, 2017

Public health officials usually fail to announce their reasons for claiming a particular virus causes a particular disease; they make those claims in an arbitrary authoritarian fashion.

In this article, I’m going to describe two vital steps in the process of proving a virus causes a disease. There are more steps, but these two will highlight a gaping problem.

I’m putting the information in a Q&A format:

Q: Let’s say researchers are claiming there is a new outbreak of a disease, or there is a disease they’ve never seen before. What’s their first step?

A: Most of the time, they assume a virus is the cause, rather than, say, a pesticide or a medical drug. They jump in and start looking for a virus.

Q: And when they find a virus?

A: Assuming they really do find one, they then look for correlation.

Q: What does that mean?

A: Let’s say they claim they’ve discovered 600 cases of the disease. They try to find the same virus in all those people. Because, if you say a virus causes a particular disease, you have to show that virus is present in all known cases of the disease—or an overwhelming percentage of cases, at the very least.

Q: That would be proof…

A: That would be one step of proof.

Q: Suppose, in these 600 cases, they can find the same virus in a hundred cases. Isn’t that pretty significant?

A: No. It isn’t. It means you couldn’t find the virus in 500 cases. And if that’s true, there is no reason to assume you have the right virus. In fact, it’s very strong evidence you don’t have the virus that’s causing the disease. It’s a compelling reason to go back to the drawing board. You say, “Well, we were wrong about that virus, let’s look for a different one.”

Q: All right. What if you do find the virus in 583 cases out of 600? Then what do you do?

A: You have to understand that the mere PRESENCE of the virus in all those cases ISN’T PROOF it’s causing disease. Lots of people walk around with the same virus in their bodies, but that virus isn’t causing them to get sick. You have to go further.

Q: Meaning?

A: Well, the next step would be finding that the 583 cases have a whole lot of the same virus in their bodies. A great quantity of virus. Not merely a trace. Not merely a little bit.

Q: Why?

A: Because cells in the body are reproducing all the time. If the amount of virus in the body is only infecting a tiny fraction of a particular type of cell, the virus isn’t going to cause a problem. The body is going to produce gigantic numbers of fresh uninfected cells every day.

Q: Do researcher carry out this kind of investigation? Do they assess how much virus is in a person’s body?

A: There are many situations where they don’t. For example, with the Zika virus, I see no evidence researchers examined many, many cases to see how much Zika was present.

Q: Why didn’t they?

A: You’d have to ask them. Perhaps they started to do that, and found there was only a tiny bit of Zika in the babies they examined, and they didn’t want to publicize the fact. They just wanted to assume Zika was the causes of babies being born with small heads and brain damage. But assuming isn’t proving.

Q: You’re talking about a major gap in research.

A: Yes.

Q: What method is used to decide how much virus is in a person’s body?

A: There are several methods. For example, the PCR test.

Q: What’s that?

A: With the PCR, you take a tiny, tiny sample of tissue from a patient. It’s so small you can’t observe it directly. You assume, you hope, you think this sample is a fragment of a virus. Now you amplify that fragment many times, until you can observe it, until you can (hopefully) identify it as the virus you claim is causing the disease…

Q: But that test wouldn’t tell you HOW MUCH virus is in the person’s body.

A: Many researchers believe the PCR allows you to infer how much virus is in a person’s body. I see no convincing evidence they can make such an inference. But also—you have to ask yourself, why did they do the PCR test in the first place? And the answer is: they couldn’t find, by more direct methods, any virus! If they had been able to, they wouldn’t have done the PCR. In other words, there was no reason to believe the patient had enough virus in his body to make him sick.

Q: Again, it seems there is a gaping hole in the research.

A: Indeed. But that doesn’t stop scientists from claiming they’ve found the virus that is causing a disease. I would cite two examples. In 2009, the CDC was embarrassed to learn that the overwhelming percentage of tests on Swine Flu patients were coming back from labs with NO TRACE of Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus. And in 2003, in Canada, more and more SARS patients were showing NO TRACE of the SARS virus.

Q: They would be enormous scandals.

A: They should have been enormous scandals, but the news was suppressed and buried.

Q: These people who were labeled with SARS and Swine Flu—what was really making these people sick?

A: There could have been a variety of causes. Don’t assume all so-called SARS or Swine Flu patients were sick for the same reason. The symptoms of these two illnesses were vague enough and general enough to have stemmed from a variety of causes. Since that’s the case, there was no reason to use the SARS and Swine Flu labels in the first place.

Q: The labels were a deception.

A: Yes. The labels group people together when there is no compelling reason to do so. But when you DO group people together with a disease label, you can sell drugs and vaccines designed to “treat the label.”


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.

Herd immunity used for fear and guilt

Herd immunity, pop version, fraud

by Jon Rappoport

March 6, 2017

Hail to the herd! The herd is all!

The concept of herd immunity (protection for the population) is often used by vaccine addicts as a way to push guilt at people who don’t line up their children for shots.

“Your unvaccinated child is a danger to my vaccinated child!”

Excuse me?

Protecting children who are already vaccinated? Really?

Little Jimmy, whose parents have decided not to vaccinate him, will pass diseases on to kids who are already vaccinated? What? Oh, you mean those immunized kids aren’t really safe? Then why did you vaccinate them in the first place?

What actually protects people against disease, or enables them to recover from disease with no lasting ill-effects, is the strength of their immune systems.

If a person has a chronically weak immune system, he will get sick again and again, and it doesn’t matter how many people around him are vaccinated against how many diseases.

The health of populations has everything to do with good nutrition, adequate sanitation, and an absence of toxic elements in the environment.

There are many doctors who know this, but they refuse to speak out, because they know they’ll suffer consequences.

Vaccination, as a propaganda strategy, is used to medicalize the population—to assert that good health is fundamentally a medical matter.

It isn’t.

If tomorrow, two things happened, they would change the face of health in any industrialized country:

One, millions more people buying healthy food and/or growing their own food, in yards; and in inner cities, growing food in community gardens;

And two, the courts delivering justice in the form of billion-dollar fines and long, long prison sentences to corporate employees (including CEOs) for severe and real pollution.

Note: That justice would eliminate GMO crops which rely on toxic pesticide use.

I’m not spinning rainbows. I’m just pointing out that, with these two changes alone, hospitals and clinics and doctors’ offices would empty out, and the medical cartel would finally experience vast comeuppance.

Health and life are not medical functions.

Any science that claims they are medical functions is false science, and the people who make those claims are liars or morons or criminals, or some combination of all three.

“The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” (Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977)

Host resistance=strong immune system.

Go to any poverty-stricken Third World country, and you will find: contaminated water supplies, starvation, lack of basic sanitation, over- crowded living conditions, stolen farm land—and large vaccine programs. The outcome? Chronic illness.

It doesn’t matter which disease labels are placed on this illness; it persists. And it will persist until these factors are remedied.

Take a wealthy community like Beverly Hills. How many doctors would dare tell a parent, “Look, your child needs fresh air, sunlight, exercise, and he needs to stop eating junk food and playing video games ten hours a day. Until that happens, there’s nothing anyone can do for him.”

A doctor insisting on non-medical solutions? Forget it.

The basic elements that promote a healthy and strong immune system undercut vaccination and other medical interventions. People can rail against that fact; they can attack it; but they can’t change it.

Naturally strong immune system=you don’t get sick, or if you do, you recover without lasting ill-effects.

Weak immune system=you get sick from many possible causes.

So, soccer moms, try applying a little common sense and intelligence to the situation. What should you be doing to strengthen your child’s immune system, and why are you so worried that unvaccinated kids are a danger to your vaccinated child, if he is protected? Face it, you’re acting as a dupe for the gigantic socialization strategy called vaccination.


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.

Genetic manipulation of humans: Jeff Rense and Jon Rappoport

Genetic manipulation of humans: Jeff Rense and Jon Rappoport

by Jon Rappoport

February 22, 2017

(Update: Part-1 here, Part-2 here)

Listen to a brand new conversation between Jeff Rense and Jon Rappoport, on the subject of new vaccines that will permanently change the DNA of humans. This is vital information.

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.