Would You Censor Alex Jones & Mike Adams If You Could?

censorship
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 27, 2017

I write this in the wake of Google’s takedown of Mike Adams’ Natural News, and adroll.com’s decision to stop placing product-ads for Alex Jones’ infowars. These are momentous events.

In the current climate, there are MANY people who would, at the drop of a hat, censor and erase a news outlet if they could. And they would believe they’re doing Good.

Their knowledge of the 1st Amendment and its implications? Zero. Free speech? Who cares?

Much better to delete, erase, scream, light fires, turn over cars, block speakers, shout them down.

Here are several statements about free speech written by non-screamers:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (First Amendment to the United States Constitution. December 15, 1791)

“There is nothing so fretting and vexatious, nothing so justly TERRIBLE to tyrants, and their tools and abettors, as a FREE PRESS.” (Samuel Adams, 1768)

“Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.” (Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992)

But you see, there are now many groups who have traveled miles past a tolerance for ideas they despise. And these aren’t merely people in the street. Google apparently has passed the point of tolerance. So has adroll.com, a company that makes money by placing ads for clients like infowars. Then we have college professors and students from shore to shore, who insist on silencing those who dissent from their political ideology. And Facebook and Twitter are practicing censorship. To say nothing of major media outlets, who block stories that contradict their covert agendas.

There is always a THEY whose words and ideas are too dangerous to allow into the light. This assumption is shared by strange bedfellows: defenders of the National Security State and paid provocateurs throwing bricks at car windshields.

There is always a reason to shut people up.

“I’m in favor of free speech, but when (insert name) goes off on one of his crazy diatribes, he’s threatening basic human values, and he has to be stopped.”

Yes, and who appointed this “human-values defender” king?

Obama recently told an audience that news needs to be “curated” in some way, in order to limit the infection of “fake news.” Who appointed him to stand in for the 1st Amendment?

Peter Maass, The Intercept: “…the Obama administration has used the draconian 1917 law [the Espionage Act] to prosecute more leakers and whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined.”

No problem. The president takes precedence over the Constitution, doesn’t he? Ask any college student, as long as you insert Obama’s name for “president,” and not Trump’s name.

It all depends, you see. It all depends on who is speaking about free speech. And it all depends on who is being attacked. It’s relative.

If you’re a medical blogger living in mommy’s basement, and you attack Mike Adams for his medical views, you’re golden. You want to limit Mike’s 1st Amendment rights? Why not? “Mike is dangerous. Mike is a threat to real science. Therefore, who cares if Google delisted his web site?”

The Constitution was actually an exercise in political and social relativity, right? It was never intended to mean what it said. It was always a “floater,” designed to favor good and oppose evil—and those moral decisions have to be made by “the wise ones.”

Shortly after the election results in November, the CIA-connected Washington Post launched a campaign against “fake news” sites. The campaign quickly morphed into: these sites aided a Russian op to throw the election to Trump. In other words, free speech was actually aiding and abetting a crime. That’s the way it was positioned.

Smear free speech as criminal. Any which way.

Here is another excuse for censoring free speech: “It is engendering hate.” Accepting that premise, every presidential campaign in the history of the United States could have been shut down. Untold numbers of statements made by pundits about presidents in office could have been blocked.

If a person “taking offense” at something someone says becomes the standard for censoring “offending remarks,” Congress should pass a law requiring silence 24/7 from all citizens.

So: who would censor a political website if they could? Huge numbers of clueless people with an ax to grind. They would do it without a moment’s thought. They would do it without a shred of understanding. They would do it based on zero knowledge of the Bill of Rights. They would do it minus an education that reveals how rational debate is a prerequisite for the survival of a Republic. They would do it based on zero knowledge of the meaning of “Republic.”

They would do it with the reflex of cows munching on grass in a pasture.

And even worse, few people would voice objections to the act of censorship.

“I would rather eat a cupcake, watch Law&Order, play World of Warcraft, put mustard on a hot dog, hand out a trophy for ‘participation’ than object to censorship.”

Or this: “I don’t like Alex Jones and Mike Adams. Never did. So while I defend the basic right to free speech, I don’t really care if they’re hamstrung. I don’t care if they’re blocked in some way. On balance, it’s a good thing. I pick my battles, and this isn’t one of them…”

Really? What about MSNBC? Suppose the network was shut down and censored? Would such an action rate as a serious incursion on the 1st Amendment? What about censorship of the Huffington Post or Politico or CNN? Would that rate a howl of protest?

Let’s have a scale of importance. Take names like Karl Marx, Hitler, Lenin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Plato, St. Augustine, Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Hillary Clinton, Henry Kissinger…

Decide how to rank them, in terms of who is deserving of outright censorship.

Then, burn the 1st Amendment.

Burn it to ashes, scatter the ashes in a fetid swamp, and celebrate the victory of “moral values” and the protection of the citizenry over “dangerous freedom.”

I PICK MY BATTLES.

FREEDOM, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, IS A GOOD THING. BUT KNOWING WHO THE BAD PEOPLE ARE AND SHUTTING THEM UP IS PRIOR TO ALLOWING FREEDOM. AFTER ALL, WE’RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER. OUR CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE. MUMBLE, MUMBLE…

The 1st Amendment isn’t there so we can admire the freedom of the people who utter what we already agree with. The 1st Amendment is there so we can rise up to a higher level, where we defend the rights of the people who are uttering all the wrong things, the things we’re quite sure are wrong.

Well, except for Trump. Except for Hillary. Or Bannon. Pelosi. Ryan.

Or Alex Jones and Mike Adams.

This is the age of information. Some information. Select information. Good information. Proper information.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

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.

By Blacklisting Natural News Articles On Holistic Health & Cancer Prevention, Google Proves It Is A DANGER To All Humanity

Image: By blacklisting Natural News articles on holistic health and cancer prevention, Google proves it is a DANGER to all humanity

Source: NaturalNews.com
Mike Adams
February 26, 2017

“Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell

Google advertising is funded to a large extent by direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising, making its recent blacklisting of the entire Natural News website not all that surprising to those who understand corruption.

Over the last few years, Google has intensified its bans on advertising of natural medicine, herbal remedies and nutritional therapies, thereby blockading providers of such products in a way that strengthens pharmaceutical monopolies. Now, with its censorship of Natural News, Google has moved into a new phase of blacklisting massive collections of human knowledge on holistic health and disease prevention, giving the pharmaceutical drug cartels yet another victory in their quest to suppress alternative medicine.

The human cost of this move, of course, will be higher rates of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, kidney disorders, osteoporosis and much more. Denied access to knowledge on holistic health and disease prevention, many more people will sooner or later become victims of the pharmaceutical drug cartels or the criminally-run cancer industry that preys upon human suffering and disease.

ACTION: SIGN THE WHITE HOUSE PETITION TO HALT GOOGLE CENSORSHIP. (Already nearly 50K signatures, we need 100K total, so share everywhere…)

Google: You are not allowed to know your options when it comes to health and medicine

In its outrageous censorship of the entire NaturalNews.com domain, Google has decided that you are not even allowed to know your options. By tweaking its search algorithm over the last few years, Google has also steadily penalized holistic health websites, making sure their rightful search results positions are replaced by “official” medical information that’s almost always tied to the pharmaceutical drug cartels, which dominate medical schools, government agencies and the funding of the media.

The conclusion is inescapable: Google is a tyrannical, monopoly enforcer of Big Pharma domination over public debate. Online content which does not promote pharmaceuticals, toxic vaccine ingredients (such as mercury) and chemotherapy is systematically penalized or blacklisted altogether, as is now irrefutably demonstrated with the unjustified blacklisting of NaturalNews.com. Meanwhile, sites that promote healthy living, organic food, nutritional therapies and disease prevention are buried in health symptom search results, nearly to the point of irrelevancy.

This is just one of the many reasons why Google has become a clear and present danger to humanity. Instead of serving as a tool of discovery for public debate where people might hear the holistic side of the debate, Google has crushed that debate by silencing the side that doesn’t pay it the most money. In essence, Google has sold out to the pharmaceutical interests and has exploited its monopoly power to make sure Big Pharma continues to be the only real “choice” when people are searching for solutions to their health symptoms.

When Google applies the same evil thinking to robotics, the result may be a “Rise of the Machines” war against humanity

The Brave New World is upon is, and it’s run by corrupt technocrats pushing poison for profit. This seems to surprise no one, since people have long had a feeling that Google was up to no good… they just couldn’t put their finger on it.

Now, Google is working on its “Rise of the Machines” project to build battlefield robots designed to eliminate human enemies. (You didn’t think all their robots were dreamed up just to work in factories, did you?)

Knowing that Google will sell out humanity for corporate interests, do you really think Google has the ethical pedigree to say “no” when the military wants them to build an army of robot soldiers? They’ll take the contract with a smile, and they’ll build the robot army that will one day be turned against the People. Review every scene from the original Terminator movie if you want a preview of what Google has in mind… steel-tracked war machines rambling over stacks of crushed human skulls is just the beginning.

The same nefarious corporate monstrosity that is right now trying to turn you into a pill-popping profit center for the drug cartels will also gladly engage in human depopulation activities using its advanced robotics technology, you see. As the factory jobs and agricultural jobs are replaced by human robots, the powers that be will see that they have no use for human labor anymore. With a simple command, Google will unleash its army of Terminator soldiers to execute the “undesirables” — which, if this were to happen today, would no doubt include all those who support President Trump.

Don’t think it could happen? Your grandparents never thought you would be living in a world where 75% of the adult population is swallowing expensive chemical medications on a daily basis, either. And now, with Google already proving it will destroy human knowledge that saves lives by banning Natural News, it’s only a small step to directly destroying human lives with robots in the near future.

Seriously, do you really think Google cares about humanity? No, it is an evil, dangerous, monstrous enemy of humanity that only cares about its own selfish power and greed.

Let us hope President Trump can find a way to investigate Google for anti-trust violations and halt its blatant and dangerous censorship of holistic health solutions.

I’ve elaborated on this in more detail in the following podcast called “A message to Google employees: When you get cancer one day, you’ll wish Google hadn’t censored Natural News.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

British high court awards massive payout to child who was permanently damaged by the swine flu vaccine… government tried to suppress the truth for years

Image: British high court awards massive payout to child who was permanently damaged by the swine flu vaccine… government tried to suppress the truth for years
Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan Huff
February 24, 2017

A young man from the U.K. who was seriously injured after being vaccinated for swine flu during the fake pandemic of 2009 has finally received the payout he was due from the British government. For years the government tried to cover up the truth about the deadly vaccine, known as Pandemrix, which caused thousands of young people — including young children — to develop narcolepsy.

As you may recall, more than 30 million people across Europe — and roughly six million in the U.K. — were vaccinated with Pandemrix, a product of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) that was rushed through safety trials and brought to market because of the “emergency” at hand. Not long after people started getting the jab was it discovered that many of them were developing serious adverse reactions to the vaccine.

Rather than pull Pandemrix from the market, the British government made a deal with GSK to basically just compensate those who developed the most serious health conditions from the jab, setting up a $92 million fund from which victims could receive payouts.

$92 million is nothing compared to the billions of dollars in profits GSK was able to rake in from the manufactured crisis. This allotment basically served as hush money for those who would make the most ruckus about developing injuries from Pandemrix, of which there are now reportedly more than 1,500 cases.

Despite its paltry sum, this $92 million still represents something for the families of those who were injured, helping them to receive the medical care they need while regaining some level of quality of life — that is, if they actually receive any of the money. According to reports, many victims are being denied their respective payouts as the government hems and haws about how to distribute it.

“So far, only two sufferers in the U.K. have been compensated after developing narcolepsy as a result of receiving Pandemrix: Josh Hadfield, 10 years old, and Katie Clark, 23 years old, who was awarded her compensation posthumously after she committed suicide as a result of the condition,” writes Francois Lubbe for The Daily Health.

“A third claimant — only known as John — was denied compensation by the UK’s Department for Work and Pensions, because it was of the opinion that John’s disabilities are not severe enough to pass the 60 per cent threshold to trigger a pay-out … That’s despite the fact that a 2015 Upper Tribunal ruling had already awarded him £120,000.”

Courts rule that government owes Pandemrix victims speedy compensation

For John, though, the situation recently took a turn for the better after a Court of Appeal heard the case and decided that John’s injuries were severe enough to warrant a cash payout. And because of his win, it sets a new precedent for other victims like him who have also been waiting to receive their cash payouts for Pandemrix injuries.

John’s lawyers told the media that his served as a test case for how the courts will handle Pandemrix injuries moving forward. Based on the decision of the Court of Appeals, in other words, compensation payouts to others should move much more smoothly, and hopefully this type of situation will never happen again. (RELATED: Learn more about vaccine company immunity in the legal system by visiting VaccineCourtNews.com)

“What’s even better is the fact that this case has now opened the door to civil claims against GlaxoSmithKline — the manufacturer of Pandemrix — who was previously indemnified by the UK government against any claims at the time the vaccine was released,” Lubbe adds.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

TheDailyHealth.co.uk

TheGuardian.com

My Memories From The Fake News Business

fakenews

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 13, 2017

“The true job of a reporter is using facts to overturn reality. Things are already upside down, and his job is to show that. In his work, he has to be relentless. This inevitably leads him to publishing his own words, on his own, because entrenched press outlets are in the business of propping up the very reality he aims to expose. He can’t go to them for publication. Once he learns that, he’s launched, and his life is never the same. It improves exponentially.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

There was the time a newspaper publisher inserted his own paragraph at the top of my story, under my name, as if I wrote it. He didn’t tell me. I found out later when the paper came out. I called him up. He was clueless. To him, his intrusion meant nothing. It was my story, but it was his newspaper. I learned something. If you want your own words, and only your words, to stand, publish them yourself.

There was the time I wrote a story about a dubious drug/supplement people were selling under the counter at health food stores. I took the supplement for a week and folded my experiences into the article, which was mainly about the unfounded “scientific background” in the package insert. The editor couldn’t fathom how a story could contain “two separate threads.” He axed half my story. I learned something. If you want your own words to stand, publish them yourself.

There was the time I wrote a piece about widespread fraud in psychiatric diagnosis. The editor claimed I had employed “too much logic” and not enough “expert opinion.” He said “original research” was “out.” To no avail, I pointed out that logic was in the public domain, and therefore my “original research” could be checked. I learned something. If you want your own words to stand, publish them yourself.

An editor once told me an article I’d written criticizing a senator wouldn’t be published. My harsh criticism was valid, he said, but readers might infer that the newspaper was turning against the senator’s political party. I learned something. If you want your own words to stand, publish them yourself.

Once my career as a reporter was launched, magazine editors began contacting me with all sorts of proposed assignments. The subjects of the stories were boring, to say the least. I soon realized the editors were using those stories to fill out their no-context version of reality. I learned something. If you don’t want your words to be published, don’t submit them.

A newspaper editor once told me (paraphrasing from memory): “This story you wrote…part of the reason we don’t want to publish it is we don’t want to give it the contagion factor. If we publish it, other news outlets will pick up on it. We’re in an echo chamber. We ricochet stories back and forth. We all use the same experts to bolster our stories. So we take your controversial story and publish it, and then when the roar gets loud enough in the echo chamber, people are going to object. And we’ll be the ones they blame because we started it.”

I said to an editor, a year or so after 9/11: If I could give you ironclad evidence, from many reputable sources, proving that the planes crashing into the Towers couldn’t have caused them to fall, would you print the story? He said: The official story is already in place. There’s no way anyone could dislodge it now. I said: So it doesn’t matter what the truth is. He said: It matters, maybe 30 years in the future, but probably not.

A publisher once told me: We have our own definition of “controversial.” We decide what that is. It’s not your definition. It’s…

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

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 Fallacy Of Circular Reasoning: A Vast Infection In Public Discourse

Is Circular Reasoning Always Fallacious? | GospelSpam.com
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 9, 2017

The simplest definition of circular reasoning is: assuming what you’re trying to prove.

But that makes no sense.

Exactly.

As an abstract example—it always rains in Seattle. Today, it’s cloudy in the city. Therefore, it’s going to rain today.

Not necessarily, unless you assume up front that it “always” rains in Seattle. You give the impression of proving it’s going to rain today, but actually you’re already assuming that.

How about this? Mayor X is a racist. When he says he hopes black people living in the city will help the police catch criminals by providing eyewitness testimony, he’s demeaning black people.

Well, no. He may be correct or incorrect in believing these residents will, in fact, make reports to the police, but his statement isn’t, on its own, racist—unless you assume, in advance, that the mayor IS racist.

And if you do assume he is, then you ought to provide evidence.

—To which some readers will reply, “What you’re talking about here is miles beyond what happens in real life. There is no thought in real life. There are just knee-jerk reactions.”

No, not among all people. Raising the level of logic and understanding is an extremely worthwhile activity, and it benefits those who can grasp the essentials.

Here is another example: “We know Senator X is guilty of the crime he’s charged with, because no one reaches the level of senator unless he’s been blackmailed for committing crimes.” There are people who would accept this as a given, but it’s spreading a generality over all senators. And furthermore, even if Senator X has committed crimes, that doesn’t means he’s guilty of the one he’s been charged with recently. Perhaps, for instance, he’s been charged in order to smear his reputation, because he’s supporting a bill that would endanger the profits of a large corporation.

Here are three slightly different versions of circular reasoning:

“There is no reason to allow Politician X to air his views on television talk shows. He doesn’t have a following because his ideas don’t make an impact.” Really? Perhaps his ideas make no impact because no one will allow him exposure on national television.

“If the herbal treatment you’re suggesting had value, it would have been studied and tested at universities.” Is that so? Maybe it wasn’t tested at universities because it did have potential value, and would present a challenge to pharmaceutical drugs.

“Europe doesn’t need a leader like him. He’s a divider, he sets people against each other, and we need unity.” Again, the person being marginalized is rejected by definition. Maybe he divides people because he’s the only one who will speak up against a unity based on submission and abject compliance.

How about this? “The science is settled, and here comes that professor with his crazy ideas.” The professor is defined as crazy and out of step. But maybe he’s the one who will show the science isn’t settled at all, or shouldn’t be.

“He’s all about money. We want a better society where everyone can share, but he wants to keep everything for himself. He’s a greedy capitalist. Capitalism is dead. It’s been discredited.” The person being attacked is buried under a welter of preconceptions, with no evidence offered as to why he’s “bad.”

In circular reasoning, the deception happens right at the beginning. That’s where the conclusion is embedded. Then, some appearance of reasoning and proof are advanced. But there is no reasoning or proof.

Here is an example I would call disguised circular reasoning. It’s a bit slippery: “Frank’s cousin Sam was convicted of bank fraud in 1998. Now Frank has been brought up on the same basic charge. Wouldn’t you say that’s a pretty odd coincidence?” Yes, it is odd, but if you’re going to imply Frank is guilty, you’re going to need more than his cousin’s conviction. A lot more. Some people would call this example guilt by association, and it is, but there is also the telltale assumption of “proof” right at the start, when there is no proof.

“Look, I just counted 27 articles in respected newspapers claiming that the Russians hacked the election. I mean, what else do you want? The facts are obvious. So this guy who comes along and says there is no evidence—he’s spreading fake news. That’s the other thing all these newspapers are talking about: the pernicious spread of fake news.” Same basic approach, used with a bit more complexity: pile on the preconceptions right from the get-go, and then make it seem as if actual reasoning and evidence are being supplied to demean the “denier.” This is also an example of the ad hominem fallacy: attack the person and ignore what he has to say.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
____________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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

Must Read: 10 Basic Forms Of Fake News Used By Major Media

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 5, 2017

The basic purpose of these ten forms is the presentation of a false picture of reality.

You could find more forms, or divide these ten into sub-categories.

The ten basic forms are:

* Direct lying about matters of fact.

* Leaving out vital information.

* Limited hangout. (This is an admission of a crime or a mistake, which only partially reveals the whole truth. The idea is that by admitting a fraction of what really happened and burying the biggest revelations, people will be satisfied and go away, and the story will never be covered again.)

* Shutting down the truth after publishing it—includes failing to follow up and investigate a story more deeply.

* Not connecting dots between important pieces of data.

* Censoring the truth, wherever it is found (or calling it “fake news”).

* Using biased “experts” to present slanted or false “facts.”

* Repeating a false story many times—this includes the echo-chamber effect, in which a number of outlets “bounce” the false story among themselves.

* Claiming a reasonable and true consensus exists, when it doesn’t, when there are many important dissenters, who are shut out from offering their analysis.

* Employing a panoply of effects (reputation of the media outlet, voice quality of the anchor, acting skills, dry mechanical language, studio lighting, overlay of electronic transmissions, etc.) to create an impression of elevated authority which is beyond challenge.

These are all traditional forms and methods.

Here’s an example of a big story that deployed all ten forms of fake news: the Swine Flu pandemic of 2009.

In the spring of 2009, the World Health Organization (elevated authority beyond challenge) announced that Swine Flu was a level-6 pandemic—its highest category of “danger.” In fact, there were only 20 confirmed cases at the time (direct lying about “danger”). And W.H.O. quietly changed the definition of “level-6” so widespread death and damage were no longer required (another aspect of direct lying).

The story was, of course, picked up by major media outlets all over the world (echo chamber effect, fake consensus, never connected dots re W.H.O. lies), and quite soon, Swine Flu case numbers rose into the thousands (direct lying, as we’ll soon see).

Medical experts were brought in to bolster the claims of danger (biased experts; important dissenters never given space to comment).

In the early fall of 2009, Sharyl Attkisson, then a star investigative reporter for CBS News, published a story on the CBS News website. She indicated that the CDC had secretly stopped counting the number of Swine Flu cases in America. No other major news outlet reported this fact (omitting vital information).

Attkisson discovered the reason the CDC had stopped counting: the overwhelming number of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients were coming back from labs with: no trace of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu. Therefore, a gigantic hoax was revealed. The pandemic was a dud, a fake.

Despite Attkisson’s efforts, CBS never followed up on her story (shutting down the truth after exposing it). Never probed the lying by the CDC (failure to connect dots). In a sense, CBS turned Attkisson’s story into a limited hangout—a further investigation would have uncovered acres of criminal behavior by both the CDC and the World Health Organization, to say nothing of the governments and media outlets that supported these lying agencies. The mainstream press essentially censored Attkisson’s revelations.

Then, about three weeks after CBS published Attkisson’s story, WebMD published a piece in which the CDC claimed that its own (lying) estimate of 10,000 or so cases of Swine Flu in the US was a gross understatement. Truly, there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US (doubling-down on lying).

And that was that.

Which leads to an 11th form of fake news: if one lie doesn’t quite fly, tell a much bigger lie.

And these mainstream sources are currently shouting and bloviating about independent media spreading fake news. I guess you could call that number 12: accusing their opponents of committing the crimes they are, in fact, committing.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
______________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

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