UFO Disclosure: the insider game of “reliable sources”

NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 2, 2018

(UFO archive, here)

In the current wave of UFO disclosures, the press (in particular, the New York Times) has decided to use Luis Elizondo, a career intelligence case officer, as its main source.

This choice reveals a time-honored strategy of elite news operations: cherry-pick who is reliable and who isn’t.

Of course, the press presents its case as flowing FROM the source. But that’s not true, because reporters and editors could have used other “reliable sources” to tell a different, or even contradictory, story.

Everything depends on who, at the moment, is pumped up and ushered on to center stage, and tagged as “reliable.”

I’m not saying Mr. Elizondo is telling lies from wall to wall. But, for example, where was the Times when reports began to emerge of UFOs appearing at a missile base in Montana (1967) and shutting down launch-capability? There were a number of professional military observers at the time. They could have been deemed “reliable sources,” but they weren’t. For decades, this event has been suppressed or downplayed by the mainstream press.

“Well, we did look into it, but we concluded there just wasn’t enough there. We didn’t go with the piece because the confirmation was thin.” That’s a frequent excuse. Often, it doesn’t hold water. It reflects an arbitrary decision to ignore a valid account.

This is how the game is played.

“Reliable source” can be managed, on a case by case basis.

“Let’s see. We can imply the steep rise in autism is the result of more careful monitoring of cases, or a genetic problem, or the rapid expansion of the CDC vaccination schedule. Let’s do a piece on genetics. Who can we tap for comments? Round up the usual list of expert sources and get quotes. ‘New research suggests a stronger link to genes than previously supposed.’ That’ll work…”

When I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century, in 1987, I decided to look into the widely promoted notion that HIV had spread to humans, in Africa, through contact with green monkeys. When the US press wants to promote a “new disease,” they inevitably go to far-off places around the globe for their “origin story.” The last time I looked, no new epidemic has ever begun in Brooklyn. I called a prominent AIDS researcher at Harvard. Without pause, he told me the green monkey theory had no evidence to support it. Well, obviously, the press hadn’t used him as a “reliable source.” They might use him to comment on other matters, but not this one—because “green monkey” was the preferred scenario for the moment.

On the UFO front, the Times could have jumped with both feet into Steven Greer’s Disclosure Project years ago (twitter). Greer had scores of military and intelligence officers who were testifying to all sorts of UFO contact. But back then, the story was verboten. So the sources were ignored.

Sometimes, the graduation from nonsense-story to breaking news isn’t the decision of a major press outlet. The newspaper or broadcast network takes its cue from a “higher authority.” The CIA or the Pentagon, for example. Or from an anonymous heavy hitter who will never be revealed. Depending on the topic of the story, the heavy hitter could exist within the core of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Vatican, the upper reaches of the “banking community” (a Rothschild front man), etc.

This is the “green light” phenomenon. What was once a studiously ignored piece suddenly turns into an imperative to publish. The chosen news outlets jump into action.

The green light can also click through indirect means. Consider the name, Jim Semivan. He is on Tom DeLonge’s team at the newly formed To the Stars Academy, the group which includes Mr. Elizondo, mentioned above. Here is a thumbnail bio of Mr. Semivan from Simon & Schuster publishers: “Jim retired in 2007 after a 25-year career in the Central Intelligence Agency’s National Clandestine Service. At the time of his retirement he was a member of the CIA’s Senior Intelligence Service. Jim served multiple overseas and domestic tours along with senior management positions in CIA headquarters. He is the recipient of the Agency’s Career Intelligence Medal.”

Semivan’s emergence in UFO disclosure activities would alert the New York Times that it should pay attention to any information coming out of To the Stars Academy. Semivan is more than a witness or a researcher. He’s a high-level man connected to the intelligence community. If he backs up a story, it’s “official.”

I’ll give you a name: Richard Dolan. Dolan is the author of books on UFOs, and he is a publisher in the same field. A highly intelligent observer, when he makes inferences from data he explains his reasons. He possesses a formidable knowledge of UFO incidents over the course of decades. Major media outlets could go to him as a direct source for articles, or as a guide who could point them to credible stories. But that doesn’t happen.

Why? Because Mr. Dolan could unleash “too much information.” He could open up too many cans of worms. And he doesn’t have an official position in government or corporate circles.

He is reliable, but not in the media sense of the word. He could give, say, the reporters at the New York Times far more help than their editors could—but that doesn’t matter.

What matters to the Times and other mainstream outlets is the agenda of the moment. And who will bolster that agenda.

Why isn’t long-time UFO researcher Grant Cameron writing op-ed pieces for the Times? He has a very interesting take on how various UFO spokespeople have been used by the military-intelligence complex. Alas, Cameron makes too much sense. He goes…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Fake News Outlet New York Times Forced To Retract ‘Russian Hacking’ story

Source: HangTheBankers.com
July 1, 2017

The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.

On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.

In the Times’ White House Memo of June 25, correspondent Maggie Haberman mocked Trump for “still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.”

However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman’s ridicule of Trump in place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence “assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”

The Times’ grudging correction was vindication for some Russia-gate skeptics who had questioned the claim of a full-scale intelligence assessment, which would usually take the form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a product that seeks out the views of the entire Intelligence Community and includes dissents.

The reality of a more narrowly based Russia-gate assessment was admitted in May by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan in sworn congressional testimony.

Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.

Clapper further acknowledged that the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 assessment on alleged Russian hacking were “hand-picked” from the CIA, FBI and NSA.

Yet, as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you “hand-pick” the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. For instance, if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided report that they did.

Politicized Intelligence

In the history of U.S. intelligence, we have seen how this selective approach has worked, such as the phoney determination of the Reagan administration pinning the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II and other acts of terror on the Soviet Union.

CIA Director William Casey and Deputy Director Robert Gates shepherded the desired findings through the process by putting the assessment under the control of pliable analysts and sidelining those who objected to this politicization of intelligence.

The point of enlisting the broader intelligence community – and incorporating dissents into a final report – is to guard against such “stove-piping” of intelligence that delivers the politically desired result but ultimately distorts reality.

Another painful example of politicized intelligence was President George W. Bush’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD that removed State Department and other dissents from the declassified version that was given to the public.

Since Clapper’s and Brennan’s testimony in May, the Times and other mainstream news outlets have avoided a direct contradiction of their earlier acceptance of the 17-intelligence-agencies canard by simply referring to a judgment by “the intelligence community.”

That finessing of their earlier errors has allowed Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats to continue referencing this fictional consensus without challenge, at least in the mainstream media.

For instance, on May 31 at a technology conference in California, Clinton referred to the Jan. 6 report, asserting that “Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence voters in the election.”

The failure of the major news organizations to clarify this point about the 17 agencies may have contributed to Haberman’s mistake on June 25 as she simply repeated the groupthink that nearly all the Important People in Washington just knew to be true.

But the Times’ belated correction also underscores the growing sense that the U.S. mainstream media has joined in a political vendetta against Trump and has cast aside professional standards to the point of repeating false claims designed to denigrate him.

That, in turn, plays into Trump’s Twitter complaints that he and his administration are the targets of a “witch hunt” led by the “fake news” media, a grievance that appears to be energizing his supporters and could discredit whatever ongoing investigations eventually conclude.

Read More At: Hangthebankers.com

Trumps Idea-Man Steve Bannon X-Rays NY Time’s Skull: Empty

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 29, 2017

A few days ago, the NY Times interviewed Trump’s special counselor, Steve Bannon. Bannon wasted no time:

“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for awhile.”

“The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”

“The elite media got it [their election prediction] dead wrong, 100 percent dead wrong…a humiliating defeat that they will never wash away, that will always be there.”

“The mainstream media has not fired or terminated anyone associated with following our [Trump] campaign. Look at the Twitter feeds of those people [reporters]: they were outright activists of the Clinton campaign.”

“That’s why you [the NY Times and other press outlets] have no power. You were humiliated.”

The Times asked Bannon if he thought Sean Spicer, Trump’s new press secretary, had “lost credibility with the media.”

Bannon said: “Are you kidding me? We think that’s a badge of honor… The media has zero integrity, zero intelligence, and no hard work. You’re the opposition party. Not the Democratic Party. You’re the opposition party. The media’s the opposition party.”

The Times thought they were being clever by getting Bannon’s quotes “on the record.” They knew he would attack the press, and they knew their loyal readers would tsk-tsk and shake their heads as they sipped their morning coffees. O dear, o my, who is this wild man Bannon lashing out at our beloved newspaper?

Bannon knows the game. He understands the Times and the Washington Post, and the rest of the media echo-chamber that bounces agreed-upon stories among themselves. That’s what they did during the presidential campaign, and despite their best efforts, Globalist queen, Hillary Clinton, hit the skids and ended up back in Chappaqua, the Oval Office forever out of her reach. Cry for her, America.

Bannon is right. The media is the opposition party. They oppose the people’s right to know, on hundreds of major stories, and whether you love or hate Donald Trump, the media are criminal rogues in a long-running stage play.

The media believe an election campaign is an event they own. It’s their property. They can twist it any which way.

If something can be printed on page one and put on the nightly news, the media claim ownership. This is why ABC is asserting that their recent interview with Trump cannot be aired by ANYONE after February 1. ABC owns history. They can erase it. (See here and here. Oh, and for good measure, see here.)

Sound familiar? It’s straight out of Orwell’s 1984.

And hold on: since Trump’s election, Orwell’s novel has jumped to number one on Amazon’s list of best sellers. Number one. Its publisher, Penguin, has ordered a new print run of 75,000 to keep up with the demand. 47,000 copies have been sold since Trump won the election.

My God, the basket of deplorables can read.

Something’s happening, Mr. NY Times, and you don’t know what it is.

You’re clueless. You’re outflanked. You’re throwing power-puff punches in the dark.

What’s your next move? An interview with Beelzebub, who says he voted for Trump?

My guess is you’ve got a team down in Mexico right now, talking to your principal investor, billionaire Carlos Slim, begging him for more money to refinance the refinance of your debt, so you can keep paddling along in your vast sea of red ink.

Meanwhile, more and more people will be reading Orwell’s 1984 and identifying you as the Ministry of Truth.

Even readers from Hillary’s camp, taken in by your claim that fake news brought her down, will discover, when they read 1984, that the prime number one faker is the State media apparatus, not 50,000 independent outlets.

You, the NY Times, have been THE State media apparatus for a long, long time.

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 29^th 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.

 

Why Fake News Matters

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 12, 2017

For the past 34 years, I’ve been working as a reporter, in order to expose fake news. My target: major media. Right from the beginning; and always.

The premise is simple: these liars are in the business of putting people into a false reality and keeping them there. How does that audience move out into truth if they’re basing their own ideas on a synthetically created artifact called The News?

Now we have a president-elect who, as I write this, is holding a press conference and calling CNN fake news. Regardless of who Trump is, that is a moment people should understand as a wild departure from what happens in politics. It never happens. But it is happening.

This is shaking the egg until it cracks.

It’s called an opportunity.

—An opportunity for all of us to keep shaking the egg and exposing the liars, until there is no more egg.

Some of my joy comes from knowing reporters and editors in the mainstream who have been parading around, for decades, believing they are untouchable and vital and necessary and beyond reproach. They never thought this day would come. But it is here.

And they know it now. That’s what makes them so crazy.

Out of view, “their children” (audience) have grown up, and aren’t buying what “the adults” are selling. Trump has simply brought all that to a head. He went over the edge with it. He didn’t care. You tell me that some other candidate, who presented himself as more balanced, more measured, more mature, could have pulled this off, and I’ll tell you you’re wrong. A wild cowboy was necessary, and he showed up. Hate him, love him, he showed up.

Don’t let this moment be wasted.

Part of the reason the major media are pulling out all the stops in attacking Trump and blasting him? They want to paint a portrait of a man who isn’t really president. “See, the guy who has been defaming us isn’t a president at all. He’s just a nut. Therefore, don’t take his assault on us seriously. It means nothing.”

Good luck with that strategy. It’s another fail. It’s another goof in a long history of media goofs. The media are saying: “Don’t look at us. We’re fine. We’ve always been fine. Instead, look at Trump. He’s the villain. He’s the loon.”

Yesterday, he was a Russian agent. Today, he’s a John with hookers he paid to desecrate a hotel bed Obamas slept in. Tomorrow, he’ll be an alien from the Orion Belt who arrived in a space ship.

“His flying saucer landed on the US-Mexico border. Why wasn’t he vetted by Customs&Immigration? Why was he allowed into the US?”

Well, why is the NY Times in such bad shape that Carlos Slim has to be its largest investor? And why is Jeff Bezos, whose parent company, Amazon, has a $600 million contract with CIA to provide computing services, the sole owner of the Washington Post?

Because those two venerable papers were going down the toilet.

For that matter, why does David Rhodes, the president of CBS News, have a brother, Ben Rhodes, who is Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communication?

Almost without exception, major media are liberal. This means, among other things, they are staunch (covert) supporters of Globalism, which means: a new planetary economic and political order, in which sovereign nations cease to exist—having being supplanted by mega-corporations and mega-banks.

The stories that major media spin have two basic aims: conceal the advances of Globalism, and support those advances under different names.

Working for these media outlets is a snap: aid in the cause and pick up a paycheck, while selling your soul.

No one will ever know what you’re really doing.

But that has changed. The operation has been exposed.

The egg has cracked.

And as in one of those remarkable Hieronymus Bosch paintings, all manner of strange and grotesque creatures are spilling out of the egg and showing their true colors.

Here is a quick quiz. All the following items are part and parcel of the Globalist agenda, because they imply far-reaching measures that…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.woredpress.com

NYTimes hires writer who runs stories by Clinton before publishing

Source: RTAmerica
December 21, 2016

Glenn Thrush was a reporter for Politico, which is supposed to be a trusted news outlet online. But thanks to Wikileaks, we got to see that Thrush was actually sending his ‘unbiased’ news stories to Hillary Clinton’s staff before he published it, to make sure Clinton’s people were cool with the ‘news’ he was gonna report. Now, the NY Times just announced that Glenn Thrush will actually be writing for them. This is how real news works!

Veteran Reporter Exposes The New York Times’ Arrogant, Disconnected, Agenda Driven Perspective

Source: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
Michael Krieger
November 11, 2016

Yesterday, Michael Cieply, a 12-year veteran of the New York Times who left this past July, wrote a phenomenal article at Deadline Hollywood titled, Stunned By Trump, The New York Times Finds Time For Some Soul-Searching. Before highlighting some key excerpts, let’s set the stage.

The New York Times’ coverage of the 2016 Presidential election was an abysmal disgrace. I first became aware of the extent of the paper’s shady and compromised reporting, when the editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary over Bernie Sanders without making an intelligible or coherent argument to justify the stance. This outraged me to such an extent, I wrote a post titled, A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton, which you should reread in full.

Here’s how I began the piece:

The New York Times’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary consists of an unreadable, illogical piece of fiction. In this post, I will critique the paper’s position in detail, but first I want to take a step back and explain to people what I think is going on in the bigger picture.

In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.

One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.

With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.

After the paper successfully helped to dispose of Senator Sanders, it continued to commit egregious errors as a result of its blinded, fanatical support of Hillary Clinton. I highlighted an example of this behavior in the August post: New York Times Fails to Disclose Op-Ed Writer’s Ties to Hillary Clinton’s ‘Principal Gatekeeper’.

Fast forward to just one week before the election, when I discovered a tweet in my stream from the paper with such an absurd forecast I immediately flagged it with the following tweet:

I didn’t find the Times’  tweet absurd because I was some ardent Trump supporter (I wasn’t). Rather, I was able to recognize it as absurd because it was absurd. So why was I, a nobody blogger, able to see the ridiculousness of this forecast so clearly when the New York Times couldn’t? Because The New York Times had a predetermined agenda, and this agenda blinded it to reality.

With that out of the way, let’s dig into how things work at The New York Times according to…

Continue Reading At: LibertyBlizkrieg.com

Is WikiLeaks being treated fairly in the press?

Source: RT
October 24, 2016

Why has the mainstream media been so dismissive of the contents in the recent WikiLeaks email dumps? To discuss how the US media has portrayed Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, Dave Lindorff, founding editor of ThisCantBeHappening.Net joins RT America’s Manila Chan.

Now We’re Running Out of Sand, Another False ‘Scarcity’ Meme

Source: TheDailyBell.com
August 26, 2016

Sand is essential for modern construction. Almost every new office tower, road and shopping mall being built in Asia’s booming cities is made with concrete mixed with sand. And to get more sand, companies and people are pulling sand out of rivers and oceans at an unprecedented rate, say scientists. And in the deep ocean waters off the U.S., sand is being excavated to restore coastlines from Louisiana to New Jersey. Some estimate that extracting sand is a $70-billion industry. Diane and a panel of guests take a look at the increasing demand for sand, and concerns about the impact of dredging on river and ocean life worldwide. -thedianerehmshow.org

We’ve been writing about elite scarcity memes for so long that we are always surprised when find a new one, especially a big one.

But here it is: We’re running out of sand.

Now even though we’re being told we’re running out of sand by such publications as The New York Times (see below), we’re not sure we believe it.

We were told for years about the dangers of peak oil, and it turns out there’s a lot more oil in the world than we were taught.

In fact oil is probably abiotic, made at least partially deep down in the earth as a result of geological processes.

Any time an industry can establish the rarity of its product or services, prices can be elevated. Whether it is oil, water, food … or sand, perceived scarcity is helpful.

More – from a New York Times article just posted in June, (here):

One of the 21st century’s most valuable resources [is] sand.  Believe it or not, we use more of this natural resource than any other except water and air.

Sand is the essential ingredient that makes modern life possible. And we are starting to run out.  That’s mainly because the number and size of cities is exploding, especially in the developing world.

… To build those cities, people are pulling untold amounts of sand out of the ground. Usable sand is a finite resource. Desert sand, shaped more by wind than by water, generally doesn’t work for construction. To get the sand we need, we are stripping riverbeds, floodplains and beaches.

Extracting the stuff is an estimated $70 billion industry. It runs the gamut from multinational companies’ deploying enormous dredges to villagers toting shovels and buckets. In places where onshore sources have been exhausted, sand miners are turning to the seas.  This often inflicts terrible costs on the environment.

We can see this is what we call a portmanteau meme (here). This is elite propaganda that encompasses more than one scarcity theme. In this case the lack of sand has been caused by an overabundance of people. And this in turn creates an environmental crisis as well as an industrial one.

The solution, as always, will be more government and more regulation. The sand-scarcity meme is especially attractive to elites because they are looking for international problems to resolve.

This is one reason that there has been a good deal of emphasis about shifting from a criminal approach to drugs to a health-oriented one. The UN can be involved in a health-oriented approach via a regulatory paradigm that it can support globally.

Global problems yield to global solutions and so global governance expands.

Is there really a problem with sand? Will the world run out – or will substitutes be developed as necessary. We will argue the latter. In fact, we did a quick look on the ‘Net to see what else was being discussed, and sure enough there are plenty of other possibilities being considered, from ways to grind sand more finely to adding crushed glass to expand the volume.

This is the way the Times article ends.

It once seemed as if the planet had such boundless supplies of oil, water, trees and land that we didn’t need to worry about them. But of course, we’re learning the hard way that none of those things are infinite, and the price we’ve paid so far for using them is going up fast. We’re having to conserve, reuse, find alternatives for and generally get smarter about how we use those natural resources. That’s how we need to start thinking about sand.

Conclusion: Always this sort of propaganda doesn’t provide alternatives. We are basically told we will need to “conserve.” Once we are running out of something, the end-result is always scarcity. We can never have more of something … only less. The world is involved in an inevitable pilgrimage toward austerity. And yet … People are creative and it seems to us that human action minimizes most potential catastrophes. You’re not supposed to understand that.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

New Vaccines Will Permanently Alter Human DNA

\Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
May 17, 2016

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

Consider this article in light of the accelerating push to mandate and enforce vaccination across the planet.

The reference is the New York Times, 3/15/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.”

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.” Alteration of the human genetic makeup. Permanent alteration.

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

New York Times Accused Of ‘Whitewashing’ Clinton’s War Record

Source: RT
May 3, 2016

It comes as no shock that the media plays a sizeable role in the public’s perception of presidential candidates, with some getting endless free of airtime and others repeatedly snubbed. But beyond how much exposure candidates get, the newspapers and TV networks also decide what we know about the candidates. The venerable New York Times, in particular, is being accused of whitewashing Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s war record in a series of articles by Russ Baker, editor-in-chief of whowhatwhy.org. Baker joins RT America’s Anya Parampil to explain.