The Cruel Autism Trick Played On Vaccine-Damaged Children

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
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.

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.

Advertisements

Jon Rappoport: Number One Mind Control Program At US Colleges

Source: Infowars.com
via: OpenMinds
Jon Rappoport | NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com

For more details, please see investigative reporter Jon Rappoport’s piece on this very subject:

The Number One Mind Control Program At US Colleges

Study: Psychiatrists Now Prescribing Dangerous Antidepressants For Unhappy Marriages

[Editor’s Note]

As Dr. Kelly Brogan has postulated with overwhelming evidence, depression is a symptom, not a disease.  And if that’s the case, then doctors prescribing antidepressants are not getting to the root of the problem. Of course, not treating the root of the issue predictably/unfortunately means more profits for Big Pharma/Big Medica.

For more information regarding this the countless issues with antidepressants please read:

A Mind Of Your Own: The Truth About Depression & How Women Can Reclaim Their Lives by Dr. Kelly Brogan
Toxic Psychiatry – Dr. Peter R. Breggin

Marriage counseling
Source: NaturalNews.com
Amy Goodrich
July 12, 2016

Being in an unhappy marriage can hugely impact your daily life and make you depressed. Depression and marital conflicts often go hand in hand. And it’s a vicious cycle; not only will an unhappy relationship make you depressed, but being depressed can in turn negatively impact your marriage or relationship.

According to a new study published in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, many psychiatrists today opt for the easy way out and prescribe antidepressants, rather than couple therapy, when clients complain about an unhappy marriage or other domestic issues.

Is that really the thing these couples need to solve their problems? Jonathan M. Metzl, the Frederick B. Rentschler II professor of sociology and medicine at Health and Society at Vanderbilt, and the study’s lead author, isn’t so sure about that.

He said that the assumption that people who struggle with their marriage or other domestic issues are depressed, is not supported by the way depression is defined medically.

Unhappy marriage seen as a psychiatric illnesses

For the study, Metzl and his team used the records from 1980 to 2000 of a Midwestern medical center. He notes that the period of the data followed a 1974 decision to remove the term “homosexuality” from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The DSM is the standard reference book that describes all psychiatric illnesses.

“As it became less acceptable to overtly diagnose homosexuality, it became increasingly acceptable to diagnose threats to female-male relationships as conditions that required psychiatric intervention,” Metzl said.

Back then, doctors and psychiatrists increasingly began to prescribe antidepressants to patients experiencing problems with heterosexual love and its discontents. Not surprisingly, the researchers also report that this is the same time-frame in which Prozac and other SSRI antidepressants were introduced and heavily marketed by pharmaceutical companies.

Unfortunately, the trend of prescribing dangerous antidepressants for unhappy marriages or marital issues is still continuing today.

Cultural pressure and insecurity

Relationships can be very challenging. When somebody is spiraling out of control and not entirely sure about the relationship he or she is in, it is much harder to be fully present in the relationship. This often comes with out-of-control feelings of despair and depression.

After analyzing the data, the researchers discovered a pattern. Metzl said that attaining or maintaining heterosexual relationships was often seen as a symptom of depression. However, these marriage woes have little or no connection to the current DSM criteria for depression.

Metzl said it has much more to do with the picture society paints of how men and women should behave. Nonetheless, cultural pressure and couple insecurity are decisive factors when making a diagnosis and prescribing antidepressants.

Isn’t that just making things worse? What happened to couple talk therapy or other natural solutions like diffusing essential oils in combination with meditation to ease feelings of insecurity, depression or anxiety?

Instead of suppressing feelings through the use of harmful antidepressants that may induce suicidal thoughts, therapy provides a long-term solution.

Talk therapy vs. antidepressants

Under pressure from Big Pharma, antidepressants have become the first line treatment for a broad range of ailments and conditions, including both unhappy marriages and binge eating. Addictive antidepressants should be reserved for only the most severe cases of mental disorders. And even then, they should only be prescribed as a last-resort when therapy or other treatments have failed.

A person with a binge-eating disorder often uses food to suppress negative emotions such as anxiety and depression. While antidepressants have proven their effectiveness in treating these people, a review published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine found that talk therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy is as effective as most antidepressants on the market.

Nonetheless, harmful antidepressants are still the preferred way to go to treat binge-eating disorders and other conditions that can more safely be remedied with therapy or other natural approaches.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Psychiatry As Mystical Symbolism

FactsTruthLies
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
May 31, 2016

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

Every time I re-publish this piece, I find another angle to emphasize.

This time, it’s reductionism, the strategy of making the truth, whatever it is, into something overly simple and, therefore, deceptive and false.

Approaching the subject of human suffering and anguish, from an honest viewpoint, gives you all sorts of experience to explore: people are abused, they are minimized, they have severe nutritional deficits, they live in poverty, they are surrounded by the threat of violence, they receive poor and confusing educations, they are exposed to toxic chemicals and drugs, they develop weak immune systems, they don’t know how to cope with peer pressure to conform, they never learn what freedom means, and so forth and so on.

And then…all this is reformulated and boiled down to a series of so-called mental disorders with names and labels. Symbols. Reductionism.

Such symbols can snare many people and drag them into slave-camps of the mind.

If you want people to become far more ignorant than they already are, you need look no further than the field of psychiatry, which is rife with symbols, which are the names of so-called mental disorders. There are about 300 in the official psychiatric bible. They appear to designate actual mental states, but upon close inspection, they’re empty of scientific meaning.

Pretending to represent erudite research, they impart gibberish.

An acceptance of these mental-disorder symbols automatically short-circuits any investigation of the mind’s true potential or power.

False map, no authentic territory, no treasure.

As a psychiatrist who left his profession in disgust once wrote me, “I was playing a shell game with my patients. I could label a person with one disorder, prescribe a drug, eventually diagnose a new disorder, combine drugs, adjust the dosages, and go on this way for many appointments. But all the labels were shams…”

They’re symbols. They appear to stand for something solid, but they don’t.

As I’ve shown in several articles, all so-called mental disorders are based on no definitive diagnostic tests. No saliva, no blood, no genes, no brain scans, for any of the 300 labels.

So what we have in psychiatry is a secular organized religion, a Tower of Babble outfitted with thousands of entirely fictional symbols. Which the priests know how to use. They have that training.

People in the general population are asking for shorthand explanations, and the professional symbol-talkers fulfill that need. That’s the exchange. That’s the transaction. The psychiatrist announces a symbol, which is the label for a disorder, the patient asks what it means, and the doctor explains.

Without the symbol, however, nothing happens. Nothing is consummated.

Give a human a symbol and he’s all ears. He wants to know. He must know. A symbol functions like a scent to a dog. He has to track it down.

If psychiatrists could make it work, they’d wear purple robes embroidered with esoteric shapes and signs and a tall hat topped by a star. They’d gaze into a pond and stir the water with a stick and produce Insight. They’d channel an entity from Ursa Minor in a dark room with organ music.

Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, the father of modern public relations, used his skills to promote his uncle’s work. Surely, Bernays saw, in Freud, a brilliant salesman, who had invented a whole new library of symbols that could be dumped on the masses, and then translated for public consumption.

A new church of the mind would be born.

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

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.

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, then 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. [Emphasis added]

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.

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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

 

Taking Apart Psychiatry: Fraud-Kings Of The Mind

QuestionEverything

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
February 29, 2016

USA Today, January 26, 2016: “Primary care doctors should screen all adults for depression, an expert panel recommended Tuesday.”

—Let’s screen everybody to find out if they have mental disorders. Let’s diagnose as many people as possible with mental disorders and give them toxic drugs—

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.

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. [Emphasis added]

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 around your neck. 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.

Continue Reading At: JonRappaport.wordpress.com