The Political Movie Projected On The Screen Of The Subconscious

LeftRightParadigm
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 28, 2017

This article has to do with people who pick a political side or candidate and refuse to budge an inch, no matter how much troubling evidence is presented to them.

Their filter is firmly in place.

They have a vague impression of a politician—but vagueness is not an indicator of weakness. In this case, vague is mighty and powerful and immovable.

Such people feel an attachment, which they adore. The politician reflects back to them a belief they already hold. That belief, too, is vague. For example, “We must be kind to everyone.” But again, the vagueness is not a weakness. It is unshakable. Can the believer consider evidence that, in a particular situation, kindness is inappropriate or wrong? No. Never.

Based on a vague impression of a politician, and a vague belief, the person will go to his grave and beyond, gripping his attachment to both politician and belief. The entire power of the universe, focused on him, wouldn’t alter his stance.

“But you see, your candidate was instrumental in launching an unnecessary war that killed a hundred thousand people and turned a country into a hell hole, and here are the specifics…”

“Doesn’t matter. A few mistakes may have been made along the way…”

It’s vague, it’s forever, it’s adoration, it’s love. Or a perfect imitation.

“Do you see that giant rock sitting on top of the hill above our village? It’s getting ready to fall. Let me show you some video and measurements.”

“I always loved that rock. It looks like a heart. Have you ever noticed? Don’t you dare try to split it in half or disturb it! When I was a child, I used to sing a song about The Granite King. We’d sit around the fire and roast marshmallows…”

It’s as if the person’s eyesight is becoming hazier as time passes, and yet his belief and attachment are gaining in strength.

“I’ve got my perception-filter, and I’m seeing everything through it, and I never put the filter aside and look at things as they are. Now, what was it you wanted to discuss?”

Of course, most politicians and their handlers capitalize on this hazy crazy psychological condition. Their prime goal is to impart a vague impression to the constituency. Why bother to strive for more?

George Bush the Elder spoke of a “kinder, gentler” society. Bill Clinton said, “I feel your pain.” These are rational political positions in the same way that the Rockefellers are, first and foremost, philanthropists.

Once a person’s perception-filter is fixed in place, he can be whipsawed without let-up. His candidate is good and glorious, and the other candidate is a monster. No facts necessary.

Evidence? Never heard of it.

One side endlessly good; the other side endlessly evil.

Even if that proposition were true, it wouldn’t matter. What matters is how perception can be managed.

Now we’re talking about real triggering. Actual Pavlovian stimulus-response. The mere mention of the “monster’s” name or a cartoon of his face or a quote from him about the weather is sufficient to set off a foaming drool of rage.

Is this externally induced programming? Yes. But at a deeper level, the person is shaping his own response. He’s the author. He’s installing the conditioning.

And at a high enough perch of power, the opportunities are abundant. “We can set both sides against each other and provoke warfare. We can make the most ridiculous claims and feed them to the rabid dogs…”

Again, the degree to which one politician or the other is a monster or a proponent of virtuous progress is irrelevant. The divide-and-provoke-and-conquer operation is all that matters to controllers who are running the op.

Then there is this factor: the all-important initiation of an adrenaline reaction.

When people become tuned to that feeling, they seek it out. This is what they want. If a situation isn’t fight or flight, they’re not interested. They yawn and turn away.

“Where’s the action? I need the action.”

“I don’t want to see a movie. I want to see a movie with fifty titanic explosions and bodies strewn on the street and buildings collapsing. And there’d better be athletic sex, too. And the hero has to experience at least ten close calls. I’m talking imminent death.”

Linking adrenaline surges to politics is vital.

“Supporting my candidate has to feel like love dangerously poised on the edge of a cliff, and the other candidate has to have a live nuclear bomb in his hand. That’s the movie I want to watch. I want to be inside that movie…”

The mere suggestion that one candidate might have a small flaw, while the other candidate is not quite Satan incarnate in every aspect, ruins the show. It dampens the hormonal rush.

“Who wrote that script? Give me my money back.”

Politics must be a movie projected on the screen of the subconscious. It must enter that territory unimpeded. Once there, it must take root and give birth to uncontrollable impulses.

Movie studios and high-level political manipulators are looking for this sweet spot. It’s cash and psychological payoffs and lines around the block.

“Look, we want love versus hate in this script. But it has to be ramped up to a fever pitch. No holds barred. We have to make the evil feel like EVIL, and the good feel like GOOD. At the same time, the hero and villain have to seem real. The audience has to experience being in their shoes and pants and underwear. We’re spending three hundred million on this piece of dreck, and it has to work…”

If the movie-studio gods can make half the audience root for the hero and the other half root for the villain, that’s pure gold. If they can provoke serious animosity between viewers, THEY CAN DEGRADE THE WHOLE NATURE OF THE ENTERPRISE and, when we’re talking about politics, that’s exactly what they’re shooting for.

“We can pit people against people and create a stalemate, where very little gets done—except the provocation of conflict. Then we’re home. Everyone sinks lower into a stimulation-response universe. We own that universe. We built it.”

Yes, they did, and they do. Ushering people into it makes it easier to control both sides and ultimately lower an apolitical boom on their heads. Otherwise known as erasing freedom.

“Political policy? Ideals? We don’t have that kind of agenda. The only agenda we have is installing chains around the mind.”

Achieving this goal, in the current American political landscape, only requires a quick inventory of: ratings. Where was the real heat? Where were the real numbers? Why, of course, it was during the campaign leading up to the election. Everybody was tuned in. Therefore, the campaign must never end. We must return to that time. Trump must never be president, and Hillary must never go away. Her shadowy presence and symbolic value—and surrogates—must persist. Thus, the endless challenge to Trump’s legitimacy. He didn’t win. The election was fixed. Perfect. That throws us into the furnace. Again.

Let us return to those days of yore, when families split apart, when the dire flow of energy and desire and vague impression and eternal attachment were King. That’s where we have to build the flames. That’s the subconscious target.

That’s the bulls-eye.

The mind.

Issues and scandals are gasoline pumped into the conflagration.

THIS person’s subconscious will veer THAT way, and THAT person’s subconscious will veer THIS way.

Those people who can see and argue actual evidence will be swallowed up in the noise and the roar.

The movie is called Degradation.

The box office is sensational.

It’s surround-sound and holographic.

Move past partisan payoffs to understand such a strategy. Even move past divide and conquer. The purpose, intent, and objective is eventual mental, emotional, hormonal, and energetic exhaustion.

The whole movie is a trap. The ending, if it ever comes, creates profound passivity in the mind.

Therefore, stepping outside the theater is an absolute necessity.

It’s the first move toward clarity.

And actual choice.

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.

Another Devastating Revelation On Killer Medical Drugs Is Buried

drugs
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 5, 2017

Every once in a while, an analysis that explodes confidence in the medical system surfaces.

It might appear as a newspaper article, or a review published in a medical journal.

Its fate is always the same. It sinks like a stone in a dark lake. As if it never happened.

Months or years later, people who read the original article begin to doubt their own memory. “Did I really read that? If I had, surely other articles would have been written. There would have been uproar…”

No. It’s par for the press to bury uncomfortable stories and give them a quick death. It’s another form of censorship.

For example:

The citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012;344:e3989) “Anticoagulants cause the most serious adverse events, finds US analysis.” Author, Jeanne Lenzer.

Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”

And here is the final dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because THE FDA CERTIFIES, AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, ALL THE DRUGS THAT ARE ROUTINELY MAIMING AND KILLING AMERICANS.

And here is another “stone that sank in the lake” I just came across. This one is from the June 27th, 2014, issue of the Harvard Safra Center for Ethics newsletter, by Donald Light, “New Prescription Drugs: A Major Health Risk With Few Offsetting Advantages”:

“Few know that systematic reviews of hospital charts found that even properly prescribed drugs (aside from misprescribing, overdosing, or self-prescribing) cause about 1.9 million hospitalizations a year. Another 840,000 hospitalized patients are given drugs that cause serious adverse reactions for a total of 2.74 million serious adverse drug reactions. About 128,000 people die [per year] from drugs prescribed to them. This makes prescription drugs a major health risk, ranking 4th with stroke as a leading cause of death. The European Commission estimates that adverse reactions from prescription drugs cause 200,000 deaths; so together, about 328,000 patients in the U.S. and Europe die from prescription drugs each year. The FDA does not acknowledge these facts and instead gathers a small fraction of the cases.”

Any sane person would expect a massive reaction to these stories. Congressional probes, court cases, arrests and prosecutions of FDA officials and pharmaceutical executives and researchers, mass firings of editors at medical journals who publish studies praising the killer drugs.

But no. It doesn’t happen.

Essentially, these criminals are left alone, and they continue in their work. They’re like war criminals who have let off the hook for their crimes against humanity.

And these days, the elite media outlets who are crowing about “fake news” are not put under the spotlight for their decades of inattention to medical murder.

In their silence, they enable medical murder.

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 Covert Op To Neuter The Rebel

Matrix

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February23, 2017

If you want to track a civilization as it collapses, watch what happens to the concept of the rebel.

From the 1960s onward—starting with Lee Oswald and the assassination of JFK—the whole idea of “the rebel” with power has been sequentially updated and repackaged. This is intentional.

The objective is to equate “rebel” with a whole host of qualities—e.g., runaway self-serving paranoia; random destruction; out-of-control drug use; generalized hatred; the commission of crimes…

On a lesser, “commercialized” level, the new rebel can define himself by merely showing up at a concert to scream and drink heavily and break something, having already dressed to make a dissident fashion statement. He can take an afternoon off from college classes and have his arms tattooed. All the while, of course, he functions as an avid consumer of mainstream corporate products.

You even have people who, considering themselves rebels of the first order, support a government that spies on its people 24/7, launches military attacks all over the world, and now funds a Manhattan Project to map every move of the 100 billion neurons of the brain, for the ultimate purpose of controlling it.

Going back as far as the 1950s, the so-called decade of conformity, psyops professionals sculpted notions of The Rebel: He was the person who, because he had psychological problems, didn’t want to take part in the emerging bland corporate culture.

He was imagined and presented as troubled, morose; a wobbly unfocused JD Salinger Holden Caulfield, or an unkempt beatnik, a Madison Avenue caricature of somebody who opposed Madison Avenue.

In other words, the people who were shaping the consumer culture were creating the image of the rebel as a cartoon figure who just didn’t want to buy into “the good life.”

Time Magazine ran a cover story on the beatniks, and characterized them as a disaffected trend. Marlon Brando, heading up a bunch of moronic motorcycle riders, invaded a town of pleasant clueless citizens and took it over, wreaking destruction. The 1953 movie was The Wild One. James Dean, who had the same trouble Brando did in articulating a complete sentence, was “the rebel without a cause” in the “iconic film” of the same name. He raced cars toward cliffs because his father couldn’t understand him.

These were all puff pieces designed to make rebels look ridiculous, and they worked. They also functioned to transmit the idea to young people that being a rebel should be a showbiz affectation. That worked, too.

Then the late 1960s arrived. Flower children, in part invented by the major media, would surely take over the world and dethrone fascist authority with rainbows. San Francisco was the epicenter. But Haight-Ashbury, where the flowers and the weed were magically growing out of the sidewalks, turned into a speed, acid, and heroin nightmare, a playground for psychopaths to cash in and steal and destroy lives. The CIA, of course, gave the LSD culture a major push.

For all that the anti-war movement eventually accomplished in ending the Vietnam war-crime, in the aftermath many of those college students who had been in the streets—once the fear of being drafted was gone—scurried into counselors’ offices to see where they might fit into the job market after graduation. The military industrial complex took its profits and moved on, undeterred.

The idea of the rebel was gone. It later resurfaced as The Cocaine Dealer, the archangel of the 1980s.

And so forth and so on. All these incarnations of The Rebel were artificially created and sustained as psyops. At bottom, the idea was to discredit the Individual, in favor of The Group.

Now, in our collectivist society of 2017, The Group, as a rapidly expanding victim class, is the government’s number one project. It’s a straight con. “We’re here to make you worse off while we ‘lift you up’.”

In the op to demean, distort, and squash the rebel, there is a single obvious common denominator: the establishment media are doing the defining; they are the ones who are setting the parameters and making the descriptions; they are the ones who build the cartoons; looking down their noses, pretending to a degree of sympathy, they paint one unflattering picture after another of what the rebel is and does and says; they have co-opted the whole game.

These days, the ultimate rebels, the media would have you believe, are “gun-toting racist bitter clingers who have religion.” Another attempt to shape a distorted unflattering portrait

You can take a whole host of political films and television series of the past 50 years, and look at them for signs of the Rebel: Seven Days in May, Advise and Consent, The Candidate, The Seduction of Joe Tynan, Dave, Primary Colors, The Contender, Good Night and Good Luck, The American President, West Wing, Scandal, The Newsroom…

Good acting, bad acting, drama, message—at the end you’re looking for the core. What do the rebel heroes really stand for? What are their principles? It’s all bland. It’s vague. It has the posturing of importance, but little else.

As I was finishing this piece, a friend wrote with a quote attributed to Robert Anton Wilson: “The universe is a war between reality programmers.”

This is exactly where the real rebel enters the scene. He’s not trying to program people. Freedom means cutting loose from programming.

The Rebel doesn’t go to the market and choose which reality program he wants. They’re all used up as soon as they come out of the package.

“THIS or THAT” is the history of Earth: choose reality program A or B. The choice was always a con.

We’re well into a time period when the experts and scientific authorities are settling on the human being as a biological machine that can only respond to programming. That’s their view and their default position.

It’s sheer madness, of course, but what else do you expect? We’re in an intense technological age, and people are obsessed with making things run smoother. They treat their precious little algorithms for control like the Crown Jewels. They’re terribly enthusiastic about the problem they’re solving, and that problem is us.

We’re the wild cards, a fact which they take to be result of our improper and incomplete conditioning. They aim to…

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.

Genetic Manipulation Of Humans: Jeff Rense and Jon Rappoport

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 23, 2017

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.

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 Number One Mind Control Program At US Colleges

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 7, 2017

Here is a staggering statistic from the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI): “More than 25 percent of college students have been diagnosed or treated by a professional for a mental health condition within the past year.”

Let that sink in. 25 percent.

Colleges are basically clinics. Psychiatric centers.

Colleges have been taken over. A soft coup has occurred, out of view.

You want to know where all this victim-oriented “I’m triggered” and “I need a safe space” comes from? You just found it.

It’s a short step from being diagnosed with a mental disorder to adopting the role of being super-sensitive to “triggers.” You could call it a self-fulfilling prophecy. “If I have a mental disorder, then I’m a victim, and then what people say and do around me is going disturb me…and I’ll prove it.”

The dangerous and destabilizing effects of psychiatric drugs confirm this attitude. The drugs DO, in fact, produce an exaggerated and distorted sensitivity to a person’s environment.

You want to know where a certain amount of violent aggressive behavior on campuses comes from? You just found it. The psychiatric drugs. In particular, antidepressants and speed-type medications for ADHD.

You want to know why so many college students can’t focus on their studies? You just found one reason. The brain effects of the drugs.

The usual variety of student problems are translated into pseudoscientific categories of “mental disorders”—and toxic drugging ensues.

A college student says to himself, “I’m having trouble with my courses. I don’t understand what my professors want. My reading level isn’t good enough. I don’t like the professors who have a political bias. I’m confused. I miss my friends back home. I feel like a stranger on campus. I’d like to date, but I don’t know where to start. There are groups on campus. Should I join one? Well, maybe I need help. I should go to the counseling center and talk to a psychologist. That’s what they’re there for. Maybe I have a problem I don’t know about…”

And so it begins.

The student is looking for an explanation of his problems. But this search will morph into: having a socially acceptable excuse for not doing well. Understand the distinction.

After a bit of counseling, the student is referred to a psychiatrist, who makes a diagnosis of depression, and prescribes a drug. Now the student says, “That’s a relief. Now I know why I have a problem. I have a mental disorder. I never knew that. I’m operating at a disadvantage. I’m a victim of a brain abnormality. Okay. That means I really shouldn’t be expected to succeed. Situations affect my mood. What people say affects my mood.”

And pretty soon, the whole idea of being triggered and needing a safe space makes sense to the student. He’s heading down a slippery slope, but he doesn’t grasp what’s actually going on. On top of that, the drug he’s taking is disrupting his thoughts and his brain activity. But of course, the psychiatrist tells him no, it’s not the drug, it’s the condition, the clinical depression, which is worsening and making it harder to think clearly. He needs a different drug. The student is now firmly in the system. He’s a patient. He’s expected to have trouble coping. And on and on it goes.

Buckle up. Here is the background. Here is what psychiatry is all about—

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.

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

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

* acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;
* life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;
* brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

* intercranial pressure leading to blindness;
* peripheral circulatory collapse;
* stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:

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

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

So…what about Ritalin?

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

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

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

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

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

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

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

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

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

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

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

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

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

A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes:

“Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quite a story.

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

Here are data about psychiatric drugs and violence from several studies:

February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) reports on “six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed `intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment.’ The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk. While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding `suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”

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

The well-known publication, California Lawyer, in a December 1998 article called “Protecting Prozac,” details some of the suspect maneuvers of Eli Lilly in its handling of suits against Prozac. California Lawyer also mentions other highly qualified critics of the drug: “David Healy, MD, an internationally renowned psychopharmacologist, has stated in sworn deposition that `contrary to Lilly’s view, there is a plausible cause-and-effect relationship between Prozac’ and suicidal-homicidal events. An epidemiological study published in 1995 by the British Medical Journal also links Prozac to increased suicide risk.”

When pressed, proponents of these SSRI antidepressant drugs (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) sometimes say, “Well, the benefits for the general population far outweigh the risk.” But the issue of benefits will not go away on that basis. A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

In wide use. This despite such contrary information and the negative, dangerous effects of these drugs.

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

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

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

Here’s a coda:

This one is big.

The so-called “chemical-imbalance theory of mental disorders” is dead. The notion that an underlying chemical imbalance in the brain causes mental disorders: dead.

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

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

Boom.

However…urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s all gibberish, all the way down.

Meanwhile, the business model still demands drugs for sale.

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

Big Pharma isn’t going to back off. Trillions of dollars are at stake.
And in the wake of Colorado, Sandy Hook, the Naval Yard, and other mass shootings, the hype is expanding: “We must have new community mental-health centers all over America.”

More fake diagnosis of mental disorders, more devastating drugs.

You want to fight for a right? Fight for the right to refuse toxic medication. Fight for the right of every parent to refuse toxic medication for his/her child.

Here is a story Dr. Breggin tells in his classic book, Toxic Psychiatry. It says it all:

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

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

“…my medical evaluation described her condition: Roberta is a grossly disfigured and severely disabled human being who can no longer control her body. She suffers from extreme…

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.

Brand New Elite Whistleblower Smashes Global Warming Science

Awarded Climate Medal By Obama – Now He Finds Enormous Fraud & Exposes It

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 6, 2017

A highly respected, medal-winning climate scientist just wound up and threw a giant monkey wrench into global warming science.

His name? John Bates. His target? A recent fraudulent study that claimed the uncomfortable “pause” in warming was really no pause at all. That study, pretending warming had never stopped, was timed to help negotiating nations at the Climate Summit in Paris. It was timed to help them enact draconian economic measures to reduce warming.

But, Bates reveals, that study was cooked on several counts. It was such a mess no self-respecting scientist would sign on to it. However, scientists did sign on to it. And a prestigious journal, Science, published it. Apparently, the brains at Science were on vacation. Or they were determined to play ball and assist the Globalist plan to drastically reduce CO2-producing energy production in nations across the globe, thus escalating poverty, in order to “save us” all from frying.

Here are choice quotes from David Rose’s exclusive Daily Mail article that exposes the far-reaching deception:

“The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.”

“A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed [fraudulent] report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.”

“The [fraudulent] report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.”

“But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.”

“It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.”

“His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the [fraudulent] Pausebuster paper.”

“His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.”

“In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation…in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.”

“Both datasets [used in the fraudulent study] were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.”

“The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.”

“The paper [fraudulent study] relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.”

“None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.”

“Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.”

“Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.”

“The [fraudulent] paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported [warming] ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.”

“But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.”

“Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer’.”

“Moreover, the…software [used in the fraudulent study] was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results.”

“Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before…

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.