by Jon Rappoport

Medical News Today reports that, in 2011, there was a modest uptick in the number of prescriptions written in the US.

The increase brought the total to: 4.02 billion.

Yes, in 2011, doctors wrote 4.02 billion prescriptions for drugs in America.

That’s an average of roughly 13 prescriptions for each man, woman, and child.

That’s about one new prescription every month for every American.

The Medical News Today article concluded, “…the industry should be heartened by the growth of the number of prescriptions and spending.” Yes, I’m sure the drug industry is popping champagne corks.
We’re talking about prescriptions here. We’re not talking about the number of pills Americans took. We’re also not counting over-the-counter drugs or vaccine shots.

Pharmacopoeia, a 2011 exhibition at the British Museum, estimated that “the average number of pills a person takes in his or her own lifetime in the UK is 14,000.” That’s as a result of prescriptions. Including over-the-counter drugs, the 14,000 number would swell to 40,000 pills taken in a lifetime.
What are the effects of all these drugs?

We are looking at a supreme Trojan Horse that is rotting out America and all other countries from the inside. Wars, no wars, economic deprivation, economic prosperity, the drugs continue to do their work, debilitating and ruining and terminating lives.

Many sources can be cited to confirm this assessment.

On January 8th, 2001, the LA Times published an article by one of the best medical reporters in the business, Linda Marsa: “When Good Drugs Do Harm.” Marsa quoted researcher Dr. David Bates, who indicated that, in the US, there are 36 million serious adverse reactions to medical drugs per year.
On July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published the most stunning mainstream estimate of medical-drug damage in history: “Is US health really the best in the world?” The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a respected public-health researcher at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

Starfield concluded that medical drugs were killing Americans at the rate of 106,000 per year.
That’s a million deaths per decade.

This is a conservative sketch of the Trojan Horse that has been placed in the center of every country in the world.

The pharmaceutical juggernaut will continue, no doubt about it. The only question is, how many people will wake up and seek another way?
The destruction of societies by medical drugs goes far beyond what some people call “over-prescribing.” This isn’t just a tilt in the wrong direction. It isn’t simply errors of judgment compounded by the number of doctors dispensing medicines.

Those are all polite terms suggesting the situation can be corrected through a show of good will and better judgment. That will never happen.

Countries of the world are literally being assaulted by pharmaceutical companies and their foot-soldier doctors. It’s chemical warfare.

To even begin to see light at the end of the tunnel, hundreds of millions of people must add themselves to the rolls of those who already are pursuing better health through natural means.
We need an all-out rebellion against the Pharmacopoeia.

Not even the Nazis and their dearly beloved cartel, the monster IG Farben, dreamed of the day when the citizenry would line up and demand to ingest more and more life-destroying chemicals.

In case anyone thinks the FDA, the single agency responsible for certifying drugs as safe and effective, has “overlooked the problem,” Google “FDA, Why Learn About Adverse Drug Events.” You’ll find the following statements on the FDA’s own site:

“Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs [Adverse Drug Events] yearly; 100,000 DEATHS yearly.”
The only thing missing is:

“And we, the FDA, said the drugs were safe.”

(Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed, Exit From The Matrix, and Power Outside The Matrix).

by Jon Rappoport

“How is a self-contained world built? Well, you can take a major situation which has an obvious cause, and then relabel the situation with a new name and say the cause is unknown. Then you can claim you’re looking for the cause, and you can keep looking and stalling for 50 years.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport).

First of all, there is NO definitive evidence that autism is a specific condition with a single cause.

If you doubt this, look up the definition of autism in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and try to find a definitive lab test that leads to a diagnosis of autism. There is no such test.

That means there is no confirmed cause of autism. And THAT means there is no proof autism is a single and specific condition.

Like other so-called developmental disorders or neurological disorders, autism is a collection of behaviors and symptoms, clustered together by committees of psychiatrists.

Basically, what is being called autism is DAMAGE. Various forms of neurological damage.

This means the cause(s) could be coming from a variety of places.

For example, vaccines can and do cause damage.

Neurological damage, brain damage.

Parents of damaged children know this. There were there. They saw their children before vaccination and after vaccination.

Everything else claimed about these children is diversion. High-class sophisticated deceptive diversion.

For example: shuffling various disease and disorder labels; studies claiming there is no link between vaccines and autism; the hoops the government makes parents jump through, in order to try to obtain financial compensation for their damaged children; the legal deal allowing vaccine manufacturers to avoid law suits; the invented cover stories claiming autism begins in utero or is a genetic disorder; the pretension that autism has even been defined—
All lies. All avoidances.

A child gets a vaccine. The child suffers brain damage. That happens.

That’s the truth which the government buries in a mountain of obfuscation.

In general, how much damage do vaccines cause every year in the US?

Unsurprisingly, there is no reliable count.

For a sane reference, see “In the Wake of Vaccines,” by Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the private National Vaccine Information Center. Her article was published in the Sept./Oct. 2004 issue of Mothering Magazine.

Gathering information from several sources, Fisher makes a reasonable estimate of vaccine damage—actual figures are not available or carefully tracked or vetted. The system for reporting adverse effects is broken.

Fisher: “But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, ‘Introducing MEDWatch,’ [JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]”

“There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.”

“Even so, each year about 12,000 reports [of vaccine damage] are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. [See RT Chen, B. Hibbs, ‘Vaccine safety,’ Pediatric Annals, July 1998: 445-458]”

“However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events [damage]. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.”

Then why does the government say, over and over, that vaccines are safe?

Because they want to lie.

What about all the studies that show this vaccine and that vaccine are safe?

The following quote will give you a clue. The writer is an insider’s insider, and a doctor. She’s scrutinized more published medical studies than all the “highly educated” science-blog writers in the world put together.

Dr. Marcia Angell, for 20 years, was the editor of the most prestigious medical journal in America.
On January 15, 2009, the NY Review of Books published Dr. Angell’s devastating assessment of medical literature:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Marcia Angell, MD, “Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)

Vaccine damage is being called autism.

It diverts attention from the grave harm vaccines are causing.

Autism is essentially any kind of severe neurological damage a child suffers from unknown causes.
When the cause is obvious and known—as in the case of vaccines—the names and labels are changed:
To protect the guilty.

(Jon Rappoport is Tthe author of three explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed, Exit From The Matrix, and Power Outside The Matrix).

by Gabriel M Schivone

The death of seven-year-old Jakelin Caal in US custody follows decades of US-sponsored devastation in her home countryA grainy cellphone image from a small indigenous Guatemalan village shows seven-year-old Jakelin Amei Rosmery Caal Maquin, wearing a blue blouse and jeans and looking diffidently into the camera with her arms hanging at her sides. Not long after the photo was taken, she accompanied her father on the over 2,000-mile journey to try and reach the US. She died while in US border patrol custody after arriving at a New Mexico port of entry to claim asylum.

Traveling with a father, like Jakelin was, accounted for the main reasons small children were regularly separated under Barack Obama (the other reason being the mass incarceration program Operation Streamline), though Donald Trump outmatched his predecessor in sheer scale if not in practice.

The father and daughter fled their small village in Alta Verapaz, one of the areas targeted for annihilation during two successive, US-backed regimes over the Carter-Reagan years, atrocities that a 1999 UN truth commission deemed “acts of genocide” perpetrated against indigenous Mayan ethnic groups that included Jakelin’s Q’eqchi’ people. Of the 200,000 people killed, eight out of 10 were indigenous.

The targeted scale of death, contrasted by the lack of global action and public outcry, led a group of international lawyers to call the period a “silent holocaust”.

The term “holocaust” isn’t exaggerated. Just over 100 miles from Jakelin’s village, so many bodies were piling up that a Guatemalan military base in Huehuetenango (one of those that proliferated under Kennedy-era military funding programs) operated a crematorium to incinerate the bodies of “the disappeared”.

Guatemala’s unique national criminal trials in recent years, prosecuting lower soldiers, senior officers and heads of state, have implicated US national security doctrine, first instituted by Kennedy under the guise of fighting communism. US military and embassy officials over the years admitted to, even took credit for, the formation of informal death squads to assist military and security forces in the butchery.

An estimated 10,000 people alone were killed in the first three months after a March 1982 military coup by President Reagan’s favorite “man of great personal integrity”, General Efraín Ríos Montt, trained at Fort Bragg, whose forces averaged 19 massacres per month. Whole villages (over 400 were destroyed) were literally burned off the face of their earth and their inhabitants killed, often gruesomely.

When people started fleeing the nightmare in record numbers (also from US-backed forces in El Salvador), the Reagan administration stepped up border security with methods first tried and tested in Guatemala’s US counterinsurgency “laboratory”.

Reagan denied asylum claims wholesale to people like Jakelin and her father by referring to them as economic migrants unworthy of asylum, instead of taking responsibility for creating the conditions of political economy that encompass both migrants and refugees. By 1984 a mere 0.79% of Guatemalan asylum applicants had their requests grants and, by the next year, Reagan was deporting 1,000 Central Americans per month back to the death squads. Then, as today, US civil society sanctuary efforts began.

Jakelin’s mother recalls her daughter’s dream to send money home from the US, a dream she shared with other members of Guatemalan civil society who implored President Clinton in 1999 to relax immigration controls, which skyrocketed under his watch, so that these valuable remittances could continue. Clinton was in Guatemala City the day the UN released its report on Guatemala. Looking genocide survivors in the face, he admitted the decades of decisive US military assistance “was wrong” but flatly rejected their pleas for immigration reform, because, he said, “we must enforce our laws”.
Other forms of denial run deep. Obama’s former UN ambassador, Samantha Power, wrote an authoritative study on genocide, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, whose index fails to even list “Guatemala”. US-backed torture of Guatemala traces back to the Franklin D Roosevelt years and prior, but today conditions have only grown worse.

Every time the media fail to report this historical wreckage from which Jakelin’s people are still fleeing across the US-Mexico border; every time US officials fail to treat these survivors with compassion – indeed massive financial reparations would be more appropriate – contributes to an active case of genocide denial.

There’s a scene in Steven Spielberg’s film Schindler’s List where the protagonist Oskar Schindler watches, on horseback from the safety of a distant bluff, the Nazi liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto. Nazi soldiers are killing people indiscriminately, yet Schindler can’t take his eyes off a little girl in a red coat, about the same age as Jakelin, who scuttles, unscathed, along the blood-soaked cobblestones – later to be seen in a pile of bodies. In a 2017 HBO documentary, Spielberg reflects that the red-coated little girl of Jakelin’s age “was less about what turned” Schindler’s sympathy and “more that the world turned a blind eye on the holocaust and the industrial process of wholesale murder”.

In other words, the Nazi holocaust was once, like Guatemala’s, a “silent” one.
While Jakelin, the little girl in the blue blouse, rates headlines for the time being, an enduring question remains. When will Guatemala’s suffering grow louder than the din of US interests – from Roosevelt to Kennedy to Reagan to Clinton to Obama to Trump – and fill the silence of inaction with demands for justice and accountability on this side of the border?

(Gabriel M Schivone is an immigration asylum sponsor and humanitarian aid volunteer on the Arizona/Mexico border).

When government-guaranteed checks keep rolling in, there’s no incentive for colleges and universities to lower their prices. In fact, they do the opposite.

by Daniel Kowalski

In Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell wrote that prices are what tie together the vast network of economic activity among people who are too vastly scattered to know each other. Prices are the regulators of the free market. An object’s value in the free market is not how much it costs to produce, but rather how much a consumer is willing to pay for it.

Loans are a crucial component of the free market because they allow consumers to borrow large sums of money they normally would not have access to, which are later paid back in installments with interest. If the borrower fails to pay back the loan, the lender can repossess the physical item the loan purchased, such as a house or car.

Student loans are different. Education is abstract; if they’re not paid back, then there is little recourse for the lender. There is no physical object that can be seized. Student loans did not exist in their present form until the federal government passed the Higher Education Act of 1965, which had taxpayers guaranteeing loans made by private lenders to students. While the program might have had good intentions, it has had unforeseen harmful consequences.

The Problem with Government-Backed Student Loans
Millennials are the most educated generation in American history, but many college graduates have tens of thousands of dollars in debt to go along with their degrees. Young Americans had it drilled into their heads during high school (if not earlier) that their best shot—perhaps their only shot—at achieving success in life was to have a college diploma.

This fueled demand for the higher education business, where existing universities and colleges expanded their academic programs in the arts and humanities to suit students not interested in math and sciences, and it also led to many private universities popping up to meet the demands of students who either could not afford the tuition or could not meet the admission criteria of the existing colleges. In 1980, there were 3,231 higher education institutions in the United States. By 2016, that number increased by more than one-third to 4,360.

Secured financing of student loans resulted in a surge of students applying for college. This increase in demand was, in turn, met with an increase in price because university administrators would charge more if people were willing to pay it, just as any other business would (though to be fair, student loans do require more administration staff for processing). According to Forbes, the average price of tuition has increased eight times faster than wages since the 1980s. In 2018, the Federal Reserve estimated that there is currently $1.5 trillion in unpaid student debt. The Institute for College Access and Success estimates that in 2017, 65 percent of recent bachelor’s degree graduates have student loans, and the average is $28,650 per borrower.

The government’s backing of student loans has caused the price of higher education to artificially rise; the demand would not be so high if college were not a financially viable option for some. Young people have been led to believe that a diploma is the ticket to the American dream, but that’s not the case for many Americans.

Financially, it makes no sense to take out a $165,000 loan for a master’s degree that leads to a job where the average annual salary is $38,000—yet thousands of young people are making this choice. Only when they graduate do they understand the reality of their situation as they live paycheck-to-paycheck and find it next-to-impossible to save for a home, retirement, or even a rainy-day fund.
Nor can student loans be discharged by filing for bankruptcy. Prior to 1976, student loans were treated like any other kind of debt with regard to bankruptcy laws, but as defaults increased, the federal government changed the laws. So, student debt will hang above the borrower’s head until the debt is repaid.

How to Fix the Problem

There are two key steps to addressing the student loan crisis. First, there needs to be a major cultural shift away from the belief that college is a one-size-fits-all requirement for success. We are beginning to see this as many young Americans start to realize they can attend a trade school for a fraction of what it would cost for a four-year college and that they can get in-demand jobs with high salaries.

Second, parents and school systems should stress economic literacy so that young people better understand the concepts of resources, scarcity, and prices. We also need to teach our youth about personal finances, interest, and budgeting so they understand that borrowing a large amount of money that only generates a small level of income is not a sound investment.

Finally, the current system of student loan financing needs to be reformed. Schools should not be given a blank check, and the government-guaranteed loans should only cover a partial amount of tuition. Schools should also be responsible for directly lending a portion of student loans so that it’s in their financial interest to make sure graduates enter the job market with the skills and requirements needed to get a well-paying job. If a student fails to pay back their loan, then the college or university should also share in the taxpayer’s loss. Only when the demand for higher education decreases will we witness a decrease in its cost.

(Daniel Kowalski is an American businessman with interests in the USA and developing markets of Africa).

by Jon Rappoport

Television viewers are inundated with drug ads from Big Pharma. It’s a flood.
Have you ever heard of these drugs? Otezla, Xeljanz, Namzaric, Keytruda, Breo, Cosentyz? Not likely. If you have, do you know what conditions they treat? Highly unlikely. But there they are, splashed in commercials.

Why? Who is going to remember to ask their doctor whether these and other obscure meds are right for them?
What’s going on here?
The answer is: it doesn’t matter what drugs are being advertised.

If Pharma can pay enough total money for ads, for ALL drugs, and dominate the allotted TV time for commercials, it can control the news—and that is exactly what it wants to do.

Pharmaceutical scandals are everywhere. Reporting on them, wall to wall, isn’t good for the drug business. However, as an industry ponying up billions of dollars for TV ads, Pharma can limit exposure and negative publicity. It can (and does) say to television networks: If you give us a hard time on the news, we’ll take our ad money and go somewhere else. Boom. End of problem.

Face it, the billions of dollars Pharma is paying for TV ads are a drop in the bucket, compared with its profits gained from selling the drugs. The ads are a good investment. As a bribe.

Control the news.

There is another reason for the insane flood of TV drug ads:
By their sheer number, they convince viewers that medical drugs (no matter what they are) are absolutely necessary.

Hour by hour, viewers numbly watch drug commercial after commercial. The overall message is: To keep illness from your door, to cure illness, to alleviate illness, you must take these medicines. This is life in the 21st century. You’re all sick, and you need help, and this is the only kind of help there is.

The drug companies could invent names of fake drugs that don’t even exist, advertise them in a cascade on television, with the same intent. Drugs are as vital to life as water or air.
But what about all those dire warnings of side effects from the drugs? By law, the companies must include them in their commercials. Well, the companies have calculated that, on balance, the stark, front-line, unending message of drugs, drugs, and more drugs will outweigh the warnings in viewers’ minds.

If the television audience is nailed with the idea that they can’t escape; that their health always hangs in the balance; that dire illnesses are always waiting in the shadows to strike; that the slightest ache or pain could be a precursor to a crippling or fatal disease; and drugs are the only solution and protection—they’re going to overlook the warnings about side effects.
ALL IN ALL, DRUG ADS ARE NEWS.

That’s the approach. Pharma is blasting out 24/7 news asserting modern medicine’s central and commanding role in the life of every human.

It’s a gigantic and stupendous piece of mind control, but when did that ever stop tyrants from inventing reality for the masses?
Implicit in “ask your doctor if drug X is right for you,” is the message: “go to your doctor.” That’s the key. If the ads can put a viewer into the system, he will be diagnosed with something, and he’ll be given a drug for it.

So, the drug ads are also promotions for doctors, who are the arbiters and the decision makers. Some kind of medical need (drugs) always exists—and the doctor will tell you what it is. And all patients should OBEY. Even if, in the process, they go broke.

Take the case of Opdivo, a drug that treats squamous non-small cell lung cancer. Cost? $12,500 a month. Patients on Medicare will pay $2500 a month out of their own pockets. And the result?
Wall St, Journal: “In the clinical study on which the Opdivo ad bases its claims, the drug extended median patient survival to 9.2 months from the start of treatment…”
The cancer patient pays $22,500 for nine months of survival, during which the suffering continues, and then he dies.

The ad isn’t mentioning that.

The ad relies on the doctor to convince the patient to go along with this lunatic program.

(Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed, Exit From The Matrix, and Power Outside The Matrix).