PDA

View Full Version : Excerpts from Jon Rappoport's "The Matrix Revealed"



WantDisclosure
8th February 2019, 13:32
I purchased The Matrix Revealed, a package of five sections made up of PDFs and audio files.

Right now I'm reading a Q & A between Rappoport and one of his sources, Ellis Medavoy (a pseudonym), a master of PR, propaganda, and deception who worked for controllers in the medical and political arenas.

(As of 2011, according to Rappoport, Medavoy was retired and living comfortably.)

Regarding newspapers:


Q: The newspapers…

A: Every major news source has to be trained. Like a circus animal. They all work the same way. You train them to take their news, their information, from certain types of sources. That’s all you really have to do. Most of the time. If somebody gets too smart, you fire them or transfer them or promote them. Or if you have to, you blow up something somewhere else in the world and divert everybody, and then they forget what they were thinking about.

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3)
Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 12

Regarding psychological warfare:


Q: You were involved in psychological warfare.

A: As a very young man, during World War 2. Got Americans to view the Japanese as animals, sub‐human. Once you see how well it works, you begin to apply it to other areas. A lot of us learned our basic lessons during the War.

Q: How to manipulate populations.

A: What else are you going to do? One way or another, it’s going to happen.

Q: As opposed to personal freedom.

A: I’ve never had much faith in that.

Q: So you were ideal for your line of work.

A: You could say that. I was born a cynic.


THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3)
Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 12

Dreamtimer
8th February 2019, 13:56
My brother used to be very good at manipulating me. I had to learn to not let it happen. It's difficult because the ego doesn't want to admit it's being controlled.

My sister-in-law is a manipulator, she even spoke of 'manipulation for good will', but if you tell her she manipulates she'll bite your head off. How dare you suggest!...

So we can avoid being controlled in this way if we work at it. And it's hard not to get swept up in mob mentality.

I'm interested in this, thanks for sharing.

WantDisclosure
8th February 2019, 14:06
My brother used to be very good at manipulating me. I had to learn to not let it happen. It's difficult because the ego doesn't want to admit it's being controlled.

My sister-in-law is a manipulator, she even spoke of 'manipulation for good will', but if you tell her she manipulates she'll bite your head off. How dare you suggest!...
I have an equally serious issue with my older sister, but it's hard for me to describe.

I'm undergoing psychotherapy at present for which I'm keeping a journal.

Doing something about my love/hate relationship with my sister is at the top of the list of my priorities at present.

What a task!

:mad:



So we can avoid being controlled in this way if we work at it. And it's hard not to get swept up in mob mentality.
Amen!

Dreamtimer
8th February 2019, 14:17
My sister-in-law was my best friend before she married my brother so that adds a big dimension. We get along, and it can be a challenge.

She gave me a dish towel one year that says something along the lines of, "Family Drama, the gift that keeps on giving." It's funny and true. And sometimes sad.

WantDisclosure
8th February 2019, 14:27
My sister-in-law was my best friend before she married my brother so that adds a big dimension.
Hmmm.

I wonder.

Did your brother really respect your opinion at the time so that was one reason why he married her?

Dreamtimer
8th February 2019, 14:37
That's difficult to know. He rarely acknowledges any value coming from me. But my parents weren't too hot on her as my friend. I defended her and her quality. They weren't opposed to her dating him because they thought she was a good influence on him.

It was a really weird double standard.

My parents taught me about integrity, and for them to be so lacking in this regard was really disappointing to me.

I don't go for double standards.

WantDisclosure
8th February 2019, 14:43
That's difficult to know. He rarely acknowledges any value coming from me. But my parents weren't too hot on her as my friend. I defended her and her quality. They weren't opposed to her dating him because they thought she was a good influence on him.
Maybe they thought you could do much better, but they were desperate for someone to get their son off their backs!

Family dynamics is one of the most fascinating things.

There's sibling rivalry.

There's parents living vicariously through their children.

WantDisclosure
8th February 2019, 22:48
Regarding the CIA:


Q: The CIA—

A: —As I said, the CIA is many things. They are a front for the NSA. They are a grouping, a loose grouping of many separate interests. Most of which are not known to the director. The CIA helps businesses. I was involved with that.

Q: How?

A: You have US‐based transnational corporations. They want to get into Third World countries and basically take them over. They need front operations to go in first. That sometimes means CIA. The public is supposed to think these corporations are good people who are trying to help the poor countries by building them up, by providing infrastructure. So I assisted in creating that public perception. Some people call this perception management. It involves the press, it involves convincing government agencies in the Third World. It sometimes involves spreading
disinformation about recalcitrant Third World leaders.

Q: What sort of disinformation?

A: You know, so and so leader has three mistresses stashed in Paris, he has been robbing his own treasury, he is a Communist, he is a drunk. Whatever works. You study the country and you find out what lies will have the most effect. You may leak a story which is true or false—it doesn’t matter—that the leader has been taking bribes. That often has the desired effect. People use it in Japan, for example, now and then.

Q: And you did this.

A: I didn’t start the ball rolling. I was given my orders, and I provided the stream of information which the press picked up. My expertise was in dealing with people, with finding who would take what I had and run with it. You always need somebody like me. To grease the wheels. To give things the appearance of a reality that has abruptly surfaced. You shape the bullet. You give it the right spin and velocity. You fire it slowly at first, and you make it seem that the info is hard to come by. That entices reporters. Then you hook up a reporter with a source, a different source he already trusts from other stories he’s done. That reliable source feeds the reporter what YOU just gave him…it looks like two separate sources.

Q: Well, take the case of Bill Clinton.

A: A complex operation. But yes, it was just like bringing down a Third World dictator. Except, in Clinton’s situation, the objective was really to bring down other people. You see, Clinton was a groomed president. He was a perfect type. A very good memory, very good sincerity in his speeches, he could do the presidential thing. He was on top of issues. He seemed real. He was a Jimmy Carter with a difference. He was stronger. He was Mr. Forward Looking. Bring us into a new era. All that. He was on the calendar to become president a long time ago.

Q: How long ago?

A: From his first term as governor. When I say on the calendar, I don’t mean he was always a sure thing. Anything can happen. But he was at the top of a list.

Q: Whose list?

A: A part of the CIA that is not under the control of the director. A part that answers to a higher authority. And don’t ask me who the higher authority is, because I don’t know. But I know they exist. I can infer it from lots of material I’ve seen and lots of conversations I’ve had. It’s obvious. And the “they” aren’t really in the government.

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 14.

"A part of the CIA that is not under the control of the director."

"A part that answers to a higher authority. . ."

I refer to the higher authority as the Deep State, and I agree, they're not really in the government. They're the controllers who bribe and threaten people in the government.

Aragorn
8th February 2019, 23:29
Regarding the CIA:

[snip]

"A part of the CIA that is not under the control of the director."

"A part that answers to a higher authority. . ."

I refer to the higher authority as the Deep State, and I agree, they're not really in the government. They're the controllers who bribe and threaten people in the government.

I would wager that they are an international bunch of people. They probably use the USA as their primary tool because of its economic and military weight at the international scale, but I suspect that the rulers are actually spread out across the entire world. Or perhaps not "the entire world" in the literal sense, but let's just say that they're most likely distributed across several wealthy nations.

Which brings me to the Bilderberg Group. They are such an international bunch of leaders, and they always gather behind closed doors, even though their list of guests is publicly visible. Among them you will find royals, presidents and prime ministers, business leaders, bankers, et al. The Spanish-Russian journalist Daniel Estulin has done extensive research into the group and its activities, and he has published several books about them. :hmm:

WantDisclosure
8th February 2019, 23:48
I would wager that they are an international bunch of people.
I agree with that.

I don't think they have any alliance or loyalty to any nation, however; they're just people who serve themselves, ruthlessly.

I think they believe themselves to be superior, and believe we normal people are lower animals.

Aragorn
9th February 2019, 01:14
I agree with that.

I don't think they have any alliance or loyalty to any nation, however; they're just people who serve themselves, ruthlessly.

I think they believe themselves to be superior, and believe we normal people are lower animals.

I agree, and I will even say that I've already met such people in real life. Clinically, they bear all the hallmarks of certifiable psychopaths.

WantDisclosure
9th February 2019, 04:02
I guess the following is how this source rationalized what he did in his own mind:


Q: I have to believe that, beyond all this social tinkering and engineering, you really are interested in whether UFOs are real. Whether AIDS is caused by forty different things. Whether any kind of freedom can survive in the next century.

A: You’re right. On some days I’m interested in those things. But on most days, I’m thinking about how we can create a world in which we don’t blow ourselves up. And for accomplishing that goal, I’ve made my stand. Many years ago. You have to control the human being. You have to program. You have to guide the human mind into set paths.

Q: That’s insanity.

A: By your definition. That’s what we’re fighting about. Whose definition will win.

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 17.

WantDisclosure
9th February 2019, 12:03
I agree, and I will even say that I've already met such people in real life.
What do these people do for a living?

WantDisclosure
9th February 2019, 13:32
I remember seeing and listening to Katherine Graham being interviewed many years ago. And I believe I read about her in some memoir I read. (I used to read one memoir after another. This was before the internet.)

So this is interesting for me:


Q: Back to the Washington Post. The owner, Katherine Graham—

A: —Hated Nixon. She wanted to teach him a lesson. I don’t know all the details. I believe he was instrumental in denying her a TV license. But you see, again, she was used by others, by people who knew she could be used along that line. Her paper became the focus. Slowly break the Watergate story, and concentrate on all the people who were covering it up. That was the key. The cover‐uppers were numerous, and they were rather easy targets. As far as I’m concerned, Deep Throat was simply one of the manipulators who was—like myself—feeding information to the press. Except he did it in a parking garage. And he had these two rather innocent reporters who jumped on what he was saying and loved it. See? That’s why they needed Woodward and Bernstein, as opposed to more cagey veterans. The young guys—and Woodward wasn’t quite so innocent—would swallow the whole unfolding story as it was being spoon‐fed to them, and they wouldn’t see the strings being pulled in the background. They were vital to the whole get‐Nixon operation.

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 18.

I also remember watching the Watergate hearings all summer long when I was a teacher and had the summers off.

I taught the son of one of the players in those hearings: John Ehrlichman. I also taught his daughter, Jody Ehrlichman; she was a sweetheart.

Aragorn
10th February 2019, 00:34
I agree, and I will even say that I've already met such people in real life.

What do these people do for a living?


Oh, they're from all walks of life, really. But many of them qualify as what you could call yuppies ─ insurance/banking people and self-employed people (in various sectors). They think they're better than everyone else, they like flaunting their wealth, they like pretending that they're important, and they're incredibly decadent ─ drugs, alcohol, sexual promiscuity and gambling. They also have no manners whatsoever, they know no shame, and they're incredibly arrogant, rude and materialistic.

WantDisclosure
10th February 2019, 01:16
Oh my God.

The passage I'm about to post is mind-boggling to me in its frankness and its relevance, because a source I followed years ago, Stefan Lanka, said the same thing about the so-called AIDS virus. Only he was/is a scientist, not an insider or a journalist.

This comes right after the part about bringing down Nixon:


Q: Did you ever work in that way?

A: Yes. In Africa. I found reporters and government people who loved the idea that a new germ was on the loose and was going to be a plague. Great story. My job was essentially to find people who would accept the highly suspect idea that Robert Gallo, a man who had experience failing in the War on Cancer, was discovering a germ that would explain a great deal of death and suffering on a continent where the reasons for that had been known for centuries. It was a delicate thing. I had to use World Health Organization experts, and I had the backing of one or two people at the World Bank. I was one of the front men in what was essentially an intelligence operation. A pure disinformation operation.

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 18.

Aragorn
10th February 2019, 01:29
Oh my God.

The passage I'm about to post is mind-boggling to me in its frankness and its relevance, because a source I followed years ago, Stefan Lanka, said the same thing about the so-called AIDS virus. Only he was/is a scientist, not an insider or a journalist.

This comes right after the part about bringing down Nixon:


Q: Did you ever work in that way?

A: Yes. In Africa. I found reporters and government people who loved the idea that a new germ was on the loose and was going to be a plague. Great story. My job was essentially to find people who would accept the highly suspect idea that Robert Gallo, a man who had experience failing in the War on Cancer, was discovering a germ that would explain a great deal of death and suffering on a continent where the reasons for that had been known for centuries. It was a delicate thing. I had to use World Health Organization experts, and I had the backing of one or two people at the World Bank. I was one of the front men in what was essentially an intelligence operation. A pure disinformation operation.

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 18.

So in this excerpt, he is actually saying that they were ─ with the support from people at the World Bank ─ creating a hype regarding an imaginary pandemic. Well, things like that certainly affect the economy, and are therefore quite Machiavellian in nature.

But that said, my brother and I have both served in the military over here ─ we still had compulsory military duty in those days ─ and my brother was stationed at a NATO communications base. He had a security clearance because he had to process all kinds of classified documents. He told me ─ and this was corroborated by the Colonel in charge of the base at the time ─ that AIDS and Ebola had both been weaponized. Mind you, I'm not saying that they were genetically engineered diseases, but that they had been weaponized, meaning that NATO had devised methods of spreading both diseases. :hmm:

WantDisclosure
10th February 2019, 01:46
So in this excerpt, he is actually saying that they were ─ with the support from people at the World Bank ─ creating a hype regarding an imaginary pandemic. Well, things like that certainly affect the economy, and are therefore quite Machiavellian in nature.

But that said, my brother and I have both served in the military over here ─ we still had compulsory military duty in those days ─ and my brother was stationed at a NATO communications base. He had a security clearance because he had to process all kinds of classified documents. He told me ─ and this was corroborated by the Colonel in charge of the base at the time ─ that AIDS and Ebola had both been weaponized. Mind you, I'm not saying that they were genetically engineered diseases, but that they had been weaponized, meaning that NATO had devised methods of spreading both diseases. :hmm:
The work that Stefan Lanka did had to do with the claim that a virus had been isolated and it caused AIDS. He challenged Gallo's work and he also showed that the real cause of AIDS was extreme drug abuse. Ellis Medavoy seems to be saying that in Africa it has not been an AIDS epidemic it has been extreme poverty and malnutrition.

But I do think that biological weapons are created in labs.

Aragorn
10th February 2019, 01:52
But I do think that biological weapons are created in labs.

That they have been and still are being created is a given. Most of the documents my brother had to process pertained to NBC ("nuclear, biological and chemical warfare"). The question however is to what extent they have so far been (and are perhaps still being) deployed. :hmm:

Dreamtimer
10th February 2019, 03:42
People are so dumb. Most scientific and medical breakthroughs are accidental. People who think they can control germs which evolve at rates which are still likely beyond our comprehension are just dumb, imo.

WantDisclosure
10th February 2019, 03:49
That they have been and still are being created is a given. Most of the documents my brother had to process pertained to NBC ("nuclear, biological and chemical warfare"). The question however is to what extent they have so far been (and are perhaps still being) deployed. :hmm:
I just don't know about HIV and Ebola. I think Jon Rappoport has written about Ebola. There is so much to learn from him.

One whole section in this The Matrix Revealed that I'm reading is about AIDS.

WantDisclosure
10th February 2019, 12:59
I think Jon Rappoport has written about Ebola.
Google Advanced Search did not work for Rappoport’s website, so I had to pull this from a re-posting of his work:


Ebolagate: 47 questions and answers By Jon Rappoport

October 2, 2014
Source: www.nomorefakenews.com
By Jon Rappoport

I have presented this information, in depth, in other recent articles. Here I present the bare bones.

Q: What is the major psychological factor at work here?

A: Above all else, it is people making an automatic connection between their own frightening image of Ebola and the statement, "So-and-so is sick."

Q: "Sick" doesn't automatically=Ebola?

A: That's right, even when an authority says some person is sick and in the hospital and has Ebola.

Q: Is the Ebola epidemic a fraud, in the same way that Swine Flu was a fraud?

A: In the summer of 2009, the CDC stopped counting cases of Swine Flu in the US.

Q: Why?

A: Because lab tests on samples taken from likely and diagnosed Swine Flu cases showed no presence of the Swine Flu virus or any other kind of flu virus.

Q: So the CDC was caught with its pants down.

A: Around its ankles. It was claiming tens of thousands of Americans had Swine Flu, when that wasn't the case at all. So why should we believe them now, when they say, "The patient was tested and he has Ebola." The CDC is Fraud Central.

Q: Where is the fraud now, when it comes to counting Ebola cases and labeling people with the Ebola diagnosis?

A: The diagnostic tests being run on patients---the antibody and PCR tests are most frequently used---are utterly unreliable and useless.

Q: Therefore, many, many people could be labeled "Ebola," when that is not the case at all?

A: Correct.

Q: But people are sick and dying.

A: People are always sick and dying. You can find them anywhere you look. That doesn't mean they're Ebola cases.

Q: In other words, medical authorities can place a kind of theoretical grid over sick and dying people and reinterpret them as "Ebola."

A: Exactly. The map can be drawn in any number of ways.

Q: Could an "Ebola patient" have other viruses in his body?

A: Of course. Many other viruses. The mere presence of a virus does not mean a person is sick or is going to get sick.

Q: What test needs to be run, in order to say, "This person is sick because of Ebola."

A: First of all, the Ebola virus would need to be isolated from the patient directly. The two tests I mentioned above are indirect. Then, if Ebola is isolated from the patient directly, a test needs to show that the patient is harboring millions of active Ebola virus---that's called a test for titer.

Q: Are these procedures being done as a matter of course on people suspected of having Ebola?

A: No.

Q: We're told that the Dallas Ebola patient was vomiting profusely outside his apartment, before he was sent to the hospital. Isn't this a symptom of Ebola?

A: It could be a symptom of many things. Some news reports state that the patient had already been to the hospital, where he was given antibiotics and sent home. All classes of antibiotics list nausea and vomiting as adverse effects.

Q: So the symptoms of Ebola, like cough, fever, fatigue, diarrhea---these can be attributed to many causes?

A: Absolutely. The flu, for example.

Q: Now we're seeing a search operation for contacts of several Ebola patients.

A: This will whip up hysteria to new heights. But where is the proof that the original patients have Ebola?

Q: Again, the original patients are sick.

A: "Sick" does not automatically equal "Ebola."

Q: What's killing all those people in West Africa?

A: With the tests being run on them---and many are simply eyeballed and called "Ebola"---there is no proof that any of these people have Ebola.

Q: There are other long-term reasons for death and dying in West Africa?

A: Protein-calorie malnutrition, hunger, starvation, extreme poverty, contaminated water supplies, overall lack of basic sanitation, a decade of horrific war, toxic medical drugs, prior toxic vaccine campaigns, etc.

Q: And the combined effect of these conditions?

A: Destruction of immune systems. Then, any germ that sweeps through the population, a germ that would ordinarily be defeated, instead kills many people. Why? Because the immune system is too weak to respond. With healthy and strong immune systems, the germs would have no significant effect.

Q: What about the health workers in West Africa who have died?

A: Since unreliable diagnostic tests would have been run on them, we don't have any idea why they died. But at least some of them were suffering greatly from working inside hazmat suits, sealed off from the outside. In a one-hour shift, in boiling heat, they were losing five quarts of body fluid, then coming out, rehydrating, disinfecting with toxic chemicals, putting their suits on again, going back to patients for the next shift, losing extraordinary amounts of body fluid again, and so forth and so on. That would cause anyone to collapse.

Q: But this has to be an Ebola epidemic, with all the press coverage, with statements from the CDC, with announcements from experts.

A: That's what they said about Swine Flu, which was a dud. This doesn't have to be Ebola just because official sources say it is.

Q: Let's get back to the psychological factors involved here.

A: A person has heard all about how dangerous Ebola is. He has a fear of some unknown invisible tiny killer, a virus. He has heard about "bad diseases" coming from Africa. Now, someone from the CDC stands up and talks about the threat of Ebola and says a patient with Ebola is in a Dallas hospital, and is sick. What's the effect? Utter acceptance of the idea that the hospital patient has Ebola. "It's Ebola. It couldn't be anything else."

Q: But it could be something else?

A: Of course.

Q: People don't want to accept that, though. They want to believe in the doctors and the CDC and the tests that are run on people to decide if they have Ebola.

A: That belief isn't based on anything real.

Q: People believe in the power of what they're told.

A: Yes. It's interesting to see people who otherwise call the CDC a fraud suddenly accept the CDC's edict about Ebola. There is no rational substance to that acceptance.

Q: So to be clear, you're saying there might not be an Ebola epidemic at all.

A: What do you need to determine whether people have Ebola? Accurate diagnostic tests. Accurate tests aren't being done. So this is an unproven epidemic. And making the assertion of an epidemic is a hoax.

Q: Like the Swine Flu.

A: Exactly. As I said, in the summer of 2009, the CDC stopped counting cases of Swine Flu and yet maintained there was an epidemic. The samples of blood from patients they sent to labs showed, in the overwhelmingly number of cases, that there was no Swine Flu virus present.

Q: And at that time, how many cases of Swine Flu had the CDC already said were present in the US?

A: Tens of thousands.

Q: And what did the CDC do next?

A: Unbelievably, they doubled down and estimated there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US. That's the level of lying we're dealing with here. And now, the CDC says Ebola is loose. The diagnostic tests they're running and relying on are useless. But everybody and his brother believes the CDC.

Q: Again, people dying doesn't automatically equal Ebola? You'll hear, "What else could it be? It must be Ebola."

A: People have all sorts of preconceptions that lead them to say, "It must be Ebola." Here is the sequence: We hear nothing about people dying. Then the press reports, "People are dying. It's an outbreak. It's Ebola." And that is automatically accepted. Why? Because populations have been tuned up by decades of propaganda to make those connections.

Q: Believing what you say here---this would imply such an enormous level of fraud---it's unthinkable.

A: No, it's not unthinkable. Again, for comparison, I refer you to the Swine Flu hoax. That was absolutely staggering. It was exposed by CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson in October of 2009. She published her work on the CBS website. CBS was about to put the story on the Evening News. Then it was stopped. Attkisson was cut off at the knees. Censored.

Q: Why?

A: Because the entire vaccine establishment, including the CDC, which is really a PR agency for pharmaceutical companies, would have been exposed for all to see. By calling Swine Flu an epidemic, millions and millions of Swine Flu shots were given. The CDC, knowing the "epidemic" was a fraud, their own fraud, was pitching the vaccine as if their lives depended on it.

Q: Was the World Health Organization (WHO) involved in the fraud?

A: They started it.

Q: How?

A: As Peter Doshi has written in BMJ Online, in the spring of 2009, with only 20 cases of Swine Flu in the world---20---the WHO declared Swine Flu a "level 6 pandemic," their highest classification of danger. Not only that, they changed their own definition of "pandemic," so that it no longer had to mean widespread and severe death and dying. They just changed the meaning of word "pandemic." Quite Orwellian.

Q: But the US government is buying and distributing hazmat suits. People are being quarantined. There is a hunt for contacts of the Dallas patient. Stories in the press are ramping up fear. All these people couldn't be wrong.

A: I have condos for sale on the moon. I think you might be an ideal customer.

Q: Speaking of the CDC, a long-term scientist with the agency, William Thompson, recently admitted he committed fraud, when he co-authored a 2004 study that claimed the MMR vaccine had no connection to autism.

A: Thompson had several co-authors from the CDC on that study. They all committed fraud. Consider the conversations that must have taken place at the CDC to arrange that fraud.

Q: Do you think the fraud went all the way to the top of the CDC?

A: In 2004, whistleblower Thompson wrote a letter to Julie Gerberding, the head of the CDC. He warned her he was about to present troubling and sensitive data about the vaccine at an upcoming conference on vaccines and autism. His meaning was clear. He had found a vaccine-autism connection.

Q: What did Gerberding do?

A: She never answered Thompson's letter, and his presentation at the conference was canceled.

Q: Is Gerberding still the head of the CDC?

A: No. She left the CDC in 2009.

Q: Where is she now?

A: She's the president of Merck vaccines.

Q: What vaccine do they manufacture?

A: The MMR.

Q: The same vaccine Thompson found had a connection to autism?

A: Yes.

Q: And for 10 years, from 2004 to now, Thompson and his co-authors sat on the knowledge that the MMR vaccine has a connection to autism?

A: Yes.

Q: And this is the same CDC that now wants us to believe that there is an Ebola epidemic?

A: Yes. As I was saying, I have a lovely condo for you on the dark side of the moon. Swimming pool, outdoor grill, playground for the kiddies, nine-hole golf course. Interested?

Q: No comment. But since we've come this far, perhaps you could explain why the tests for diagnosing Ebola are unreliable and useless.

A: Let's start with the antibody test. Two problems. First, the test is notorious for what's called "cross-reactions." That means the test isn't really registering, in this case, the presence of Ebola. It's registering one of a whole host of other factors. For example, the patient received a vaccine, and that triggers a falsely positive reading.

Q: What's the second problem?

A: The antibody test doesn't say whether a person was sick, is sick, or will get sick. At best, if there are no cross-reactions, it merely says the person had contact with the virus in question. So a positive antibody test for Ebola is far from saying "this person has Ebola." That's a lie. In fact, before 1985, the general conclusion from positive antibody tests was: this is a good sign; the patient's immune system contacted the germ and threw it off, defeated it.

Q: What about the PCR test for Ebola?

A: This test is prone to many mistakes, starting with the tiny, tiny sample of material taken from the patient. Is it really genetic material, and is that material really a piece of a virus, or is it just a piece of general and irrelevant debris? The test itself takes that tiny sample and amplifies it millions of times so it can be observed. Assuming it is actually Ebola virus, or a fragment of Ebola virus, there is no indication there is enough of the virus in the patient's body to make him sick. There have to be millions upon millions of active virus in the patient's body to begin to say that virus is causing problems. The PCR test says nothing about that. In fact, why was it necessary to do the PCR test at all? If the patient had enough Ebola virus in his body to cause illness, there was no need to search for a tiny fragment of a hoped-for Ebola virus, to start the PCR test. The virus would have been everywhere.

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

https://exopolitics.blogs.com/ebolagate/2014/10/ebolagate-47-questions-and-answers-by-jon-rappoport.html

If I'm not mistaken, Stefan Lanka made exactly the same point about the antibody and PCR tests in relation to HIV and AIDS. When I get time, I'll re-research his work, because I think he was on to something.

I also have on my list of things to do to look up what happened to CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson in October of 2009.

William Thompson's story is also interesting. And Julie Gerberding.

palooka's revenge
11th February 2019, 02:21
If I'm not mistaken, Stefan Lanka made exactly the same point about the antibody and PCR tests in relation to HIV and AIDS. When I get time, I'll re-research his work, because I think he was on to something.

I also have on my list of things to do to look up what happened to CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson in October of 2009.

William Thompson's story is also interesting. And Julie Gerberding.

i'm looking forward to your reports and thank you for the diggin'. and while i'm at it, thank you to all who post here at TOT, much of which requires further diggin' down even deeper into an already, well dug hole. WE ROCK!!!!!

btw... WD, welcome back...

WantDisclosure
11th February 2019, 10:00
i'm looking forward to your reports and thank you for the diggin'. and while i'm at it, thank you to all who post here at TOT, much of which requires further diggin' down even deeper into an already, well dug hole. WE ROCK!!!!!

btw... WD, welcome back...
You are so kind to show appreciation.

I am compelled to keep reading and listening to Jon Rappoport and others like him. It is very time consuming but worth it.

And I'm grateful for a place to share without being told I need to be de-programmed, which is what my older sister said to me.

WantDisclosure
11th February 2019, 12:22
William Thompson's story is also interesting.
William Thompson's story is featured in the documentary VAXXED: From Coverup to Catastrophe:


2312

http://vaxxedthemovie.com/
The Director of the documentary is Andrew Wakefield.

Years ago I learned about Andrew Wakefield’s experience going up against the international medical mafia.

In my opinion, he is another Jon Rappoport in his integrity.

WantDisclosure
11th February 2019, 12:53
I also have on my list of things to do to look up what happened to CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson in October of 2009.

Apparently, Sharyl Attkisson is a supporter of Trump.

God forbid.

Am I allowed to talk about it here?

Yes, I'm a little bit angry.


Attkisson: Every Smear Tactic Used Against Trump Bounces Off Of Him, He Is Kryptonite To Smear

Posted By Tim Hains
On Date July 17, 2017

2313

Sharyl Attkisson, author of The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What you See, What you Think and How You Vote (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062468162/ref=asc_df_00624681625077511?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=shopzilla0d-20&ascsubtag=shopzilla_rev_472-20;15003081316457403562810090302008005&linkCode=df0&creative=395093&creativeASIN=0062468162), and host of Full Measure (http://fullmeasure.news/), joins the Daily Caller News Foundation (https://amp.dailycaller.com/2017/07/15/news-orgs-keep-trying-to-take-down-trump-but-hes-kryptonite-to-the-smear-video/) for an interview. Attkisson is a former CBS investigative reporter. She discusses what lessons the media needs to learn about itself in the wake of the 2016 election, and what lessons the public has learned about the media.

She also discusses President Trump's use of socal media and quips that Obama would have been "heralded" for being "creative" if he had used Twitter more. "Because it is Trump, they are not going to say that about him. And also because of the nature of some of his tweets," she adds.

"I don't think the media has learned a lesson yet," Attkisson also said.

But: "For the public though, the lesson was already learned. When you see these narratives, and these overwhelming opinions that are being perpetuated on the news, you can not always rely on those. In fact, I would question most of them. When you see this overwhelming sentiment on one side, because it is usually an effort to try to make you think in a certain way, or a way to make you not look in a different direction at something that they don't want you to pay attention to."

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION: You talk pretty clinically about Transactional Journalism, as you call it. But from another point of view, with a lens that I might wear, you can also see it as political warfare. An effort to undermine, delegitimize, and remove a duly elected president, using some pretty threatening tactics. What do you say to that?

SHARYL ATTKISSON: I think part of this was rooted in an ideological motive to unseat candidate Trump, and now to harm President Trump. And news agencies have admitted as much. We see news organizations, at least like I've never seen before, come forward and say this man is so dangerous, so [antithetical] to their beliefs that he is dangerous and we must suspend our normal rules of journalism, and our normal systems and processes.

Think about that! Journalists exempting themselves from their own ethical systems and standards because they say this man is such a problem, and as a result, I think that is why we have seen formerly respectable news organizations -- CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times-- make horrible mistakes that wouldn't have been tolerated in journalism school. Reporting mistakes with errors. That is my response to that.

DAILY CALLER: Chapter six of your book, [The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What you See, What you Think and How You Vote] was rather jaw-dropping to me. Where you did name names, and you got very specific when it comes to Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic, trying to get coverage of a Hillary Clinton speech. Or David Aguilar at CPB trying to redefine corruption. And what it meant to people underneath him. Or your whistleblower on Fast and Furious John Dobson. Many of the examples you are naming. Is it hard to name these names and take the flak for doing so?

ATTKISSON: All I'm using are -- these aren't my words, these are the words of the people operating the system. I quote the smear operators themselves in my book. In the case of what I called transactional journalism -- where the journalists are making ethically inappropriate deals with the people they are reporting on. To report things a certain way, a certain percentage of your story has to discuss this and that, here is the timing, here is how it has to be done. Those are there own words with emails we have [from WikiLeaks]. It is not difficult at all for me to publish and discuss those.

DAILY CALLER: Why do you think WikiLeaks -- I can see where the FOIA lawsuits have given you some resources to check, but why do you think WikiLeaks exposed all that they did last year?

ATTKISSON: I think because the documents fell into their lap. If those had fallen into the lap of any journalism organization, or if they had been able to obtain those, you would have made stories out of those as well. WikiLeaks did what news organizations used to do, when they obtained things like that, just publish them and let you decide. You could read the whole email and make of them what you will.

I think today, if certain news organizations got a hold of those emails, through legal means, they would 't have done the stories on them. Five years ago maybe, but today WikiLeaks was maybe one of the only places that would expose that kind of material. And there was a lot of news in there. It wasn't just salacious gossip and rumors.

DAILY CALLER: Explain in your book, why you say Trump can be Kryptonite to the Smear.

ATTKISSON: I call him the anti-smear candidate, because every traditional smear tactic used against him -- very effective tactics against other people -- just kind of bounced off of him. In fact, he was able to grab it and pull it and co-opt it and turn it around in almost every case.

I argue that if he had apologized in the summer of 2015 when the first attack I noticed was after John McCain called some of his followers crazies, and Trump counterattacked by saying he wasn't a war hero in Vietnam. People were calling for him to get out of the race, they aired more of him thinking that the public would hate him if they saw more of him, but the public liked him. I think if he had apologized then, he would never have made it. But he did the opposite thing that you would intuit for politicians, but it turned out to be the right thing for him to do for his followers…

I'm not a student of Donald Trump, but maybe his business dealings, which are probably as nasty as politics can be if not nastier, prepped him for this. And him not coming up through the political system where he is surrounded by advisors saying, 'You have to apologize! You have to apologize! You have to apologize! Here's what you have to do.' Instead he was surrounded by people who were a little bit different, maybe that was responsible for him reacting differently…

On the lessons the media should learn from the election:

ATTKISSON: There are two lessons. One for us in the media, and one for the public. The lesson for the media should have been a serious reexamination of what we did. And when we got the election so wrong, we said he couldn't win/wasn't going to win/was about to collapse. I put in the book all the headlines and the narratives and they were just 180 degrees wrong.

So you would expect after the election, you would see an examination and maybe a change. But instead, I see us as having doubled down on these efforts. In fact it has gotten worse, if anything. I don't think the media has learned a lesson yet.

For the public though, the lesson was already learned. When you see these narratives, and these overwhelming opinions that are being perpetuated on the news, you can not always rely on those. In fact, I would question most of them. When you see this overwhelming sentiment on one side, because it is usually an effort to try to make you think in a certain way, or a way to make you not look in a different direction at something that they don't want you to pay attention to.

DAILY CALLER: So the Tweets are [President Trump's] fireside chats?

ATTKISSON: I think so. I don't think a president Obama or Bush would have tweeted out the same provocative things that Trump has, but if either of them had used social media in a similar way -- President Obama did, and it didn't even exist under Bush. But if they had each used it in a creative way, I think in Obama's case he would have been heralded. 'Look at the modern president using modern tools!' Because it is Trump, they are not going to say that about him. And also because of the nature of some of his tweets.

You do get news. You get the leading edge of information -- mixed in with some weird stuff. So, that's how he uses it.


(Via Daily Caller News Foundation)

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION: You talk pretty clinically about Transactional Journalism, as you call it. But from another point of view, with a lens that I might wear, you can also see it as political warfare. An effort to undermine, delegitimize, and remove a duly elected president, using some pretty threatening tactics. What do you say to that?

SHARYL ATTKISSON: I think part of this was rooted in an ideological motive to unseat candidate Trump, and now to harm President Trump. And news agencies have admitted as much. We see news organizations, at least like I've never seen before, come forward and say this man is so dangerous, so [antithetical] to their beliefs that he is dangerous and we must suspend our normal rules of journalism, and our normal systems and processes.

Think about that! Journalists exempting themselves from their own ethical systems and standards because they say this man is such a problem, and as a result, I think that is why we have seen formerly respectable news organizations -- CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times-- make horrible mistakes that wouldn't have been tolerated in journalism school. Reporting mistakes with errors. That is my response to that.

DAILY CALLER: Chapter six of your book, [The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What you See, What you Think and How You Vote] was rather jaw-dropping to me. Where you did name names, and you got very specific when it comes to Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic, trying to get coverage of a Hillary Clinton speech. Or David Aguilar at CPB trying to redefine corruption. And what it meant to people underneath him. Or your whistleblower on Fast and Furious John Dobson. Many of the examples you are naming. Is it hard to name these names and take the flak for doing so?

ATTKISSON: All I'm using are -- these aren't my words, these are the words of the people operating the system. I quote the smear operators themselves in my book. In the case of what I called transactional journalism -- where the journalists are making ethically inappropriate deals with the people they are reporting on. To report things a certain way, a certain percentage of your story has to discuss this and that, here is the timing, here is how it has to be done. Those are there own words with emails we have [from WikiLeaks]. It is not difficult at all for me to publish and discuss those.

DAILY CALLER: Why do you think WikiLeaks -- I can see where the FOIA lawsuits have given you some resources to check, but why do you think WikiLeaks exposed all that they did last year?

ATTKISSON: I think because the documents fell into their lap. If those had fallen into the lap of any journalism organization, or if they had been able to obtain those, you would have made stories out of those as well. WikiLeaks did what news organizations used to do, when they obtained things like that, just publish them and let you decide. You could read the whole email and make of them what you will.

I think today, if certain news organizations got a hold of those emails, through legal means, they would 't have done the stories on them. Five years ago maybe, but today WikiLeaks was maybe one of the only places that would expose that kind of material. And there was a lot of news in there. It wasn't just salacious gossip and rumors.

DAILY CALLER: Explain in your book, why you say Trump can be Kryptonite to the Smear.

ATTKISSON: I call him the anti-smear candidate, because every traditional smear tactic used against him -- very effective tactics against other people -- just kind of bounced off of him. In fact, he was able to grab it and pull it and co-opt it and turn it around in almost every case.

I argue that if he had apologized in the summer of 2015 when the first attack I noticed was after John McCain called some of his followers crazies, and Trump counterattacked by saying he wasn't a war hero in Vietnam. People were calling for him to get out of the race, they aired more of him thinking that the public would hate him if they saw more of him, but the public liked him. I think if he had apologized then, he would never have made it. But he did the opposite thing that you would intuit for politicians, but it turned out to be the right thing for him to do for his followers…

I'm not a student of Donald Trump, but maybe his business dealings, which are probably as nasty as politics can be if not nastier, prepped him for this. And him not coming up through the political system where he is surrounded by advisors saying, 'You have to apologize! You have to apologize! You have to apologize! Here's what you have to do.' Instead he was surrounded by people who were a little bit different, maybe that was responsible for him reacting differently…

On the lessons the media should learn from the election:

ATTKISSON: There are two lessons. One for us in the media, and one for the public. The lesson for the media should have been a serious reexamination of what we did. And when we got the election so wrong, we said he couldn't win/wasn't going to win/was about to collapse. I put in the book all the headlines and the narratives and they were just 180 degrees wrong.

So you would expect after the election, you would see an examination and maybe a change. But instead, I see us as having doubled down on these efforts. In fact it has gotten worse, if anything. I don't think the media has learned a lesson yet.

For the public though, the lesson was already learned. When you see these narratives, and these overwhelming opinions that are being perpetuated on the news, you can not always rely on those. In fact, I would question most of them. When you see this overwhelming sentiment on one side, because it is usually an effort to try to make you think in a certain way, or a way to make you not look in a different direction at something that they don't want you to pay attention to.

DAILY CALLER: So the Tweets are [President Trump's] fireside chats?

ATTKISSON: I think so. I don't think a president Obama or Bush would have tweeted out the same provocative things that Trump has, but if either of them had used social media in a similar way -- President Obama did, and it didn't even exist under Bush. But if they had each used it in a creative way, I think in Obama's case he would have been heralded. 'Look at the modern president using modern tools!' Because it is Trump, they are not going to say that about him. And also because of the nature of some of his tweets.

You do get news. You get the leading edge of information -- mixed in with some weird stuff. So, that's how he uses it.


(Via Daily Caller News Foundation)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/07/17/sharyl_attkisson_journalists_are_so_afraid_of_pres ident_trump_they_have_suspended_normal_rules_and_s tandards.html

Dreamtimer
11th February 2019, 13:01
You are so kind to show appreciation.

I am compelled to keep reading and listening to Jon Rappoport and others like him. It is very time consuming but worth it.

And I'm grateful for a place to share without being told I need to be de-programmed, which is what my older sister said to me.

I was told I was brainwashed. I was also told that I'm extreme. And that happened here. But don't worry. I didn't take it personally and I won't call you any names and I won't judge you either.

I wore the labels like a badge. Literally. I gave myself badges which are on the Chaos Thread. Sometimes a person just has to stand strong.



Trump and his supporters are using the media as a blanket excuse for all kinds of things.

And so, last week, when his intelligence folks spoke before congress and it was broadcast in full, Trump kept saying the media mischaracterized what they said.

The media broadcast what they said. There was no characterizing. The public heard the intelligence folks' words directly.

Outright lies like that are what dictators do.

In case people don't realize that.

Aragorn
11th February 2019, 13:42
William Thompson's story is featured in the documentary VAXXED: From Coverup to Catastrophe:


The Director of the documentary is Andrew Wakefield.

Years ago I learned about Andrew Wakefield’s experience going up against the international medical mafia.

In my opinion, he is another Jon Rappoport in his integrity.

I'm afraid you would be wrong in your assessment of Andrew Wakefield, WantDisclosure. First of all, "VAXXED" is deliberately untruthful and serves an agenda, and secondly, there is a reason as to why Wakefield was barred from ever practising medicine again in the UK.

As someone who comes from ─ among other things ─ a medical and paramedical background training, and who is himself on the autism spectrum, I am insulted in all of my being by Wakefield's claims that autism would be caused by vaccines, because I know and understand that it is a genetically predisposed neurological difference ─ not a disease, but a difference. This has been proven, and several genes responsible for an autism spectrum neurology have already been identified ─ 17 of them, I believe, but there may be more.

Furthermore, Wakefield has admitted in court that he had falsified his research in order to be able to apply for an extra grant. But his supporters won't tell you that, or they will deny it. Because it's so much more romantic to be able to believe in a hero who goes in against the mainstream than to accept the cold, hard truth that this "hero" is a conman and a liar.

As always, you have to be careful with these so-called "alternative heroes". Most of them have proven themselves to be narcissists, conmen or psychopaths. Sadly enough, the so-called alternative community is all too eager to accept for true with a knee-jerk what these characters say because they (appear to) go in against the mainstream. And that's exactly why we always keep on chasing our own tails.

I will leave you with these wise words ─ there's a self-fulfilling joke in it too...:



"Everyone will readily accept any quote they read on the internet if it happens to confirm their preconceived notions."

(Martin Luther King)

WantDisclosure
11th February 2019, 14:36
Trump and his supporters are using the media as a blanket excuse for all kinds of things.

And so, last week, when his intelligence folks spoke before congress and it was broadcast in full, Trump kept saying the media mischaracterized what they said.

The media broadcast what they said. There was no characterizing. The public heard the intelligence folks' words directly.

Outright lies like that are what dictators do.

In case people don't realize that.
I'm not going to ask any follow-up questions this time because I don't have time for a tit-for-tat.

I am a member of a senior center near where I live. The Trump-bashing there is palpable. Even one of the staff members is guilty of cornering men in a discussion activity called "Mental Muscle Health" where she chose to talk about feminism.

They serve lunch at the center and I have sat with a group who call Trump a criminal and go on and on about him. One day, one of them said, "My grandson wants to know when he will be assassinated."

That did it.

I left before lunch was served.


I'm afraid you would be wrong in your assessment of Andrew Wakefield, WantDisclosure. First of all, "VAXXED" is deliberately untruthful and serves an agenda, and secondly, there is a reason as to why Wakefield was barred from ever practising medicine again in the UK.

As someone who comes from ─ among other things ─ a medical and paramedical background training, and who is himself on the autism spectrum, I am insulted in all of my being by Wakefield's claims that autism would be caused by vaccines, because I know and understand that it is a genetically predisposed neurological difference ─ not a disease, but a difference. This has been proven, and several genes responsible for an autism spectrum neurology have already been identified ─ 17 of them, I believe, but there may be more.

Furthermore, Wakefield has admitted in court that he had falsified his research in order to be able to apply for an extra grant. But his supporters won't tell you that, or they will deny it. Because it's so much more romantic to be able to believe in a hero who goes in against the mainstream than to accept the cold, hard truth that this "hero" is a conman and a liar.

As always, you have to be careful with these so-called "alternative heroes". Most of them have proven themselves to be narcissists, conmen or psychopaths. Sadly enough, the so-called alternative community is all too eager to accept for true with a knee-jerk what these characters say because they (appear to) go in against the mainstream. And that's exactly why we always keep on chasing our own tails.

I will leave you with these wise words ─ there's a self-fulfilling joke in it too...:



"Everyone will readily accept any quote they read on the internet if it happens to confirm their preconceived notions."

(Martin Luther King)

I think for myself.

Let's just agree to disagree.

I must say, you seem to think you know better from some position of authority.

I can't imagine where you get that from.

Elen
11th February 2019, 15:30
I think for myself.

Let's just agree to disagree.

I must say, you seem to think you know better from some position of authority.

I can't imagine where you get that from.

Hmmmm...:scrhd:in this case I too have to disagree with you as well. Aragorn happens to be Autistic and he is right about: "Autism is NOT a disease". It's a very common condition...much more common than what people would suspect in naturally born children. Aragorn has looked into this in depth I can assure you.

The most incredible people are Autistic...i.e. Einstein, Tesla, DaVinci, etc. etc. etc. To even think that Genius can be developed by a vaccine is far fetched and as crazy as the idea that vaccines are the cure for all things in life.

If you feel that an Autistic has "stepped on your toes" and you feel hurt...you just have to get used to it...it is never meant to be an insult toward you personally. OK Sister? ;)

Dreamtimer
11th February 2019, 16:25
I can't judge Trump's characterization of the media unless I look at what the media is actually doing. I questioned Abby Martin recently because she made a blanket statement which was not backed up by reality.

There is a reality which can be observed.

When intelligence officials are making statements, to describe that as media 'characterizations' is simply wrong. Because Trump is not stupid and does what he does deliberately, I can say with confidence that it's a lie and he knows it.

He doesn't care. He has said so. He says things because they work. He knows it's negative, but he cares more about effective than good. He's also said he won't be around for the fallout from environment or economic collapse so he doesn't care about that either. I can listen to his words and understand them for what they are.

Also, since it came up, I have never personally heard anyone call for an assassination. I was recently visiting some elderly folk who were unhappy with Trump and wanted nothing more than to vote him out. Most weren't even calling for impeachment.

There's clearly a spectrum of opinion.

As long as we have outlets which aren't violent, we'll be OK. Those outlets include talking, voting, and becoming involved in community. Not everyone has to or can do all of it. We can all do something.

WantDisclosure
12th February 2019, 02:27
Hmmmm...:scrhd:in this case I too have to disagree with you as well. Aragorn happens to be Autistic and he is right about: "Autism is NOT a disease". It's a very common condition...much more common than what people would suspect in naturally born children. Aragorn has looked into this in depth I can assure you.
Aragorn being autistic does not make him an expert on the work and the integrity of Andrew Wakefield.

Aragorn
12th February 2019, 02:37
I'm afraid you would be wrong in your assessment of Andrew Wakefield, WantDisclosure. First of all, "VAXXED" is deliberately untruthful and serves an agenda, and secondly, there is a reason as to why Wakefield was barred from ever practising medicine again in the UK.

As someone who comes from ─ among other things ─ a medical and paramedical background training, and who is himself on the autism spectrum, I am insulted in all of my being by Wakefield's claims that autism would be caused by vaccines, because I know and understand that it is a genetically predisposed neurological difference ─ not a disease, but a difference. This has been proven, and several genes responsible for an autism spectrum neurology have already been identified ─ 17 of them, I believe, but there may be more.

Furthermore, Wakefield has admitted in court that he had falsified his research in order to be able to apply for an extra grant. But his supporters won't tell you that, or they will deny it. Because it's so much more romantic to be able to believe in a hero who goes in against the mainstream than to accept the cold, hard truth that this "hero" is a conman and a liar.

As always, you have to be careful with these so-called "alternative heroes". Most of them have proven themselves to be narcissists, conmen or psychopaths. Sadly enough, the so-called alternative community is all too eager to accept for true with a knee-jerk what these characters say because they (appear to) go in against the mainstream. And that's exactly why we always keep on chasing our own tails.

I will leave you with these wise words ─ there's a self-fulfilling joke in it too...:



"Everyone will readily accept any quote they read on the internet if it happens to confirm their preconceived notions."

(Martin Luther King)

I think for myself.

Let's just agree to disagree.

I must say, you seem to think you know better from some position of authority.

I can't imagine where you get that from.

Well, I have both the education and the personal experience to offer me a perhaps unique perspective on autism, and I've also done the research. I also know plenty of other people who have done the exact same research, and who also understand these things for what they are. Sadly enough, most people do not, and knee-jerks are ─ as Americans say ─ a dime a dozen within this so-called alternative community. Fourteen months as a member at Project Avalon and almost four years here at The One Truth, three-and-a-half years of which as the administrator, have made that abundantly clear to me.

I will also note that back when I was still on Facebook ─ which I've left in 2010 ─ I have had more than one very unpleasant encounter with the foaming-at-the-mouth fans of Andrew Wakefield and the pitch forks they were waving around, and I have been grossly insulted and bullied by them. And most of them ─ not all but most ─ were women, by the way. Women in denial, who couldn't accept their child's autism, because it ruined the pretty picture they had painted for themselves of what said child's future had been planned (by them) to look like.

I'm afraid that's all I'm going to be saying about this subject. I have already long ago elaborated on the interaction between the preservatives in vaccines and children with an autism spectrum neurology ─ because there is an interaction, yes, but not a causality ─ and it's really getting old. In fact, I have done that here at the forum, and certain people were getting vicious with me because jerking their knees felt more comfortable to them than hearing me explain what was really going on at the neurological and physiological level.

There are none so deaf as those who will not hear, and I'm done with that sort of people. One of this allegedly alternative community's biggest problems is that ego tends to overrule common sense. And perhaps it is not just one of the biggest problems of this community, but rather one of the biggest problems within the whole of humanity. :hmm:


:flag:

WantDisclosure
12th February 2019, 11:20
Well, I have both the education and the personal experience to offer me a perhaps unique perspective on autism, and I've also done the research. I also know plenty of other people who have done the exact same research, and who also understand these things for what they are.
Your education, and your research, is from the mainstream, isn't it? You had a formal education, and you think the newspaper Independent is fairly reliable.

All of us have been brought up in the mainstream.

Previous to 9/11, I trusted it. Now I don't. I look to alternative sources. I don't call it the "so-called" alternative community. But you seem to think the mainstream is better. So, of course we will disagree. I call it planet earth A and B. It's all in where you get your information from.

You have your personal experience with autism, and so does Andrew Wakefield, treating his patients.

In your case, you have your own ego complicating the issue, however. That is a fact.

Dreamtimer
12th February 2019, 11:39
Knowing Aragorn pretty well at this point, I feel confident saying that his opinions are not derived from his ego. Aragorn's ego does not determine his positions. He is capable of rising above that.

Planet A and B are in the same overlapping space. Due to that fact, I personally don't make it a practice to ignore half of what's going on. The alternative media simply does not have enough knowledge, expertise, experience etc. to be relied upon solely. And there are a whole lot of folks in the alternative media who are not trust worthy at all.

A person must listen with a critical ear and think for oneself. Which is much better than closing the ears and mind.

WantDisclosure
12th February 2019, 11:50
Knowing Aragorn pretty well at this point, I feel confident saying that his opinions are not derived from his ego. Aragorn's ego does not determine his positions. He is capable of rising above that.

We're not here to discuss each other, so I will leave that alone.



Planet A and B are in the same overlapping space. Due to that fact, I personally don't make it a practice to ignore half of what's going on. The alternative media simply does not have enough knowledge, expertise, experience etc. to be relied upon solely. And there are a whole lot of folks in the alternative media who are not trust worthy at all.

I don't ignore the mainstream; I just don't waste my time with the crap.

Dreamtimer
12th February 2019, 11:54
OK. As long as you're actually looking past the crap to the real stuff that's going on.

Remember, truth is always mixed in with lies. Whether it's mainstream, alternative or other.

They're all mixing truth with lies. Some much more than others. All of the media has to be sifted for valuable information. Whatever angle they're coming from.

WantDisclosure
12th February 2019, 14:49
OK. As long as you're actually looking past the crap to the real stuff that's going on.

Remember, truth is always mixed in with lies. Whether it's mainstream, alternative or other.

They're all mixing truth with lies. Some much more than others. All of the media has to be sifted for valuable information. Whatever angle they're coming from.

There's nothing there I disagree with.

It's the same with people.

Sometimes we're not aware that we're being less than truthful.

That applies to all of us, including me.

All of us, in my opinion.

It's about the human ego, and past traumas.

WantDisclosure
12th February 2019, 14:58
. . . Sharyl Attkisson . . .
I am more than pleased to learn that Sharyl has a news program once a week on Sunday.

I rarely watch TV. But I have my DVR set to record her program on ABC at 10 AM on Sundays.

:)

I hope I'm not disappointed. I hope she's not caving in to pressure. I hope she still has the same backbone.

WantDisclosure
12th February 2019, 17:11
I am more than pleased to learn that Sharyl has a news program once a week on Sunday.
Now I see that she also has a YouTube channel for the programs. Here is her latest video:


Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson
Published on Feb 11, 2019

President Trump has announced Vietnam will be the site of his next historic meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. Today, we take our own fascinating advance trip to Vietnam where the US once fought and lost an unpopular war. The winners were communists allied with China. Now, Scott Thuman discovered, our former enemy is playing a central role in an economic war between the U-S and China --to their own benefit.

oGmuw8_oho4

---------
Full Measure is a weekly Sunday news program focusing on investigative, original and accountability reporting. The host is Sharyl Attkisson, five-time Emmy Award winner and recipient of the Edward R. Murrow award for investigative reporting. She is backed by a team of award winning journalists.

Each week, we have a cover story that explores untouchable topics in a fearless way including: immigration, terrorism, government waste, national security and whistleblower reports on government and corporate abuse and misdeeds.

Full Measure is broadcast to 43 million households in 79 markets on 162 Sinclair Broadcast Group stations, including ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, MyTV, Univision and Telemundo affiliates. It also streams live Sunday mornings at 9:30 a.m. ET.

Read more about us at: http://fullmeasure.news/about
Find out where to watch us at: http://fullmeasure.news/about
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FullMeasureNews
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FullMeasureNews

Category
News & Politics

Two more published the same day:


Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson
Published on Feb 11, 2019

When it comes to government secrecy, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice ranks right up there with some of the stealthiest. Investigator Daniel Van Schooten of the watchdog Project on Government Oversight says we should know more about it. His group recently won a fight to make some of the agency's documents public.

DMXMx07tKKQ


Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson
Published on Feb 11, 2019


Regular viewers of C-SPAN —or House and Senate floor speeches— are familiar with the charts members of Congress use to make their point. They’ve been using so-called Floor Charts since at least the early 1900s, long before we could see them on TV. And now William Gray, Founder and Curator of FloorCharts.com, is trying to track and preserve them.

_zR-cebb1rE
---------
Full Measure is a weekly Sunday news program focusing on investigative, original and accountability reporting. The host is Sharyl Attkisson, five-time Emmy Award winner and recipient of the Edward R. Murrow award for investigative reporting. She is backed by a team of award winning journalists.

Each week, we have a cover story that explores untouchable topics in a fearless way including: immigration, terrorism, government waste, national security and whistleblower reports on government and corporate abuse and misdeeds.

Full Measure is broadcast to 43 million households in 79 markets on 162 Sinclair Broadcast Group stations, including ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, MyTV, Univision and Telemundo affiliates. It also streams live Sunday mornings at 9:30 a.m. ET.

Read more about us at: http://fullmeasure.news/about
Find out where to watch us at: http://fullmeasure.news/about
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FullMeasureNews
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FullMeasureNews

Category
News & Politics

Aragorn
13th February 2019, 01:18
Well, I have both the education and the personal experience to offer me a perhaps unique perspective on autism, and I've also done the research. I also know plenty of other people who have done the exact same research, and who also understand these things for what they are.

Your education, and your research, is from the mainstream, isn't it? You had a formal education, and you think the newspaper Independent is fairly reliable.

All of us have been brought up in the mainstream.

That doesn't make it invalid. One cannot claim an understanding of any particular scientific discipline without studying said discipline. If you know how these things work, and if you are willing to take out the time for introspection and self-analysis, then you will get a lot closer to the truth than by way of knee-jerk reactions and blind adherence to the incredible personalities championed by this so-called alternative community.


Previous to 9/11, I trusted it. Now I don't. I look to alternative sources. I don't call it the "so-called" alternative community. But you seem to think the mainstream is better. So, of course we will disagree. I call it planet earth A and B. It's all in where you get your information from.

I am not saying that the mainstream would be better, but at this point in time, there is more misinformation going round within this so-called alternative community than in the mainstream media, and you can take that to the bank.

The reason why I'm calling it "so-called alternative" is that it isn't alternative at all, but that it merely puts up a self-delusional pretense that it would be. To pour it into an aphorism, if the mainstream is room A on the ground floor, then the so-called alternative community is room B on the same ground floor, thinking that it has moved up to the second floor.

It's getting old, but I feel that I have to repeat it one more time: out of thesis and antithesis, synthesis will be born. The so-called alternative community is not looking for the synthesis, but instead it is addicted to jerking its knees by way of an antithesis. It is rejecting sound knowledge for the sake of being reactionary.


You have your personal experience with autism, and so does Andrew Wakefield, treating his patients.

He wasn't treating them. He was taking advantage of them. And he has admitted it in court.


In your case, you have your own ego complicating the issue, however. That is a fact.

No, that's not a fact, that's an ad hominem knee-jerk reaction. It's a pity that you felt you had to go there again, after you had first made a good new start. I guess some things will never change. :rolleyes:

If you even remotely knew me as a person, then you would know that I don't have a particularly large ego, even though some people might interpret that differently because I happen to be quite vocal. But I am not speaking from ego ─ I never am, in these matters. I am speaking from empirical research, experience and observation. And even though I'm not above admitting that I am wrong when I really am wrong, so far history has always proven me correct.

Some people just don't want to hear the truth. And that is the true ego issue here: the knee-jerk dismissal without understanding the facts. And I am sorry but I'm done with people who adhere to that kind of foolish attitude, not to mention when their foolishness prompts them to go ad hominem with someone who's only trying to educate them, and for that matter, in a civilized manner.

From now on I will stay out of your threads. Should some kind of moderation or technical action be required on your threads, then the other staff members will be able to take care of that.

WantDisclosure
13th February 2019, 08:53
He wasn't treating them.
By treating patients I meant that in his position as an academic gastroenterologist, he was contacted by a parent of an autistic child with stomach issues, and soon learned from several other parents of autistic children that their symptoms showed up immediately after receiving the MMR vaccine.

His investigation led to him recommending that children not receive three vaccines in one dose.

That began the firestorm that put him in the crosshairs of the international medical mafia.

Obviously, this is a complicated issue.

WantDisclosure
13th February 2019, 09:56
I am amazed that the conversations between Jon Rappoport and this propagandist with the pseudonym Ellis Medavoy that I’ve read so far took place before 9/11.

This tells me how astute Rappoport is and has been about what’s really going on in the world.

This is from page 47:


July 6, 2001

HOW CITIZENS CAN MOUNT THEIR OWN PR CAMPAIGNS

Q: Why is it important to attack an opponent? Why not let him fester in his own juices? Why not let the next day’s news just sweep him into oblivion?

A: Well, the next day’s news does do that. It does tend to make people forget whatever had been true yesterday, as if truth has only a one‐day shelf life. But…there are exceptions.

Q: For example?

A: Let me start with a quote. I won’t tell you where it comes from. “Sub‐Saharan Africa is now being destroyed… Led by the British Commonwealth, the very political existence of nations of Africa is being liquidated. There is a deliberate policy in the Great Lakes region of Africa to depopulate it of its indigenous population… Some people think that Americans and Europeans should live there instead of Africans. Once the ethnic removal of the Africans has taken place, then they will sell the real estate to Europeans and Americans to live there… eastern Zaire is being carved up into small baronies. These baronies are run by corporations. One is a British Commonwealth company called Barrick Gold, whose highest representative is Sir George Bush, the former President of the United States. They have stolen gold and petroleum reserves in the northeast of Zaire. We have, in other areas, copper, nickel mines, that sort of thing, and diamond mines. These are being taken over again by concessions, using mercenary armies to control the territory.”

Q: Are you going to tell me who said that?

A: Yes, but first I’ll say he was, several times, a candidate for the presidency of the United States. This man, during his campaigns, made appearances on national television.

Q: So he had exposure.

A: He wasn’t just a person in a small apartment talking to his friends. This quote is incendiary. It threatens to expose a major operation underway. Underway for some time.

Q: Of course what this man said is true.

A: You bet.

Q: And AIDS is used a cover story to explain the death and destruction and obscure these wars being waged to get control of the land and minerals—and eliminate the population.

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 47.

Aragorn
13th February 2019, 10:20
Note: This will be my last post on this thread, because I have already elaborated on this subject elsewhere, and because I take issue with the allegation that my ego would be standing in the way of my judgment.



He wasn't treating them.

By treating patients I meant that in his position as an academic gastroenterologist, he was contacted by a parent of an autistic child with stomach issues, and soon learned from several other parents of autistic children that their symptoms showed up immediately after receiving the MMR vaccine.

Yes, because there is ─ as I've said before ─ an interaction, but the anti-vaccine people are getting their causality all backwards. Here's the truth of the matter...

An autism spectrum neurology can manifest in many different ways, which is why it is called a syndrome. The signs are not always visible from birth, especially not when the infant is high-functioning ─ as is the case for myself. However, if you understand what autism really is, then you will also quickly come to understand the problem with these vaccines, and most specifically, with the Thiomersal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal) used in these vaccines as a preservative. Thiomersal ─ and anti-vaxxers commonly don't even get the name right, because they spell it it as "Thimerosal", "Timmorosol", or something similar ─ is an antibiotic and antifungal agent, added to vaccines in order to give them a longer shelf life.

So here's what an autism spectrum neurology really is, from the neurophysiological point of view... Autistic brains have literally a multitude of the number of neurons and synapses found in a "normal" brain, albeit that the neurons and synapses are somewhat less "specialized" in their information-processing than those found in a "normal" brain. As a result, autistic people's brains do not filter out the "white noise" from the information they have to process in the same manner as what happens in a neurotypical brain, and this renders autistic people a little slower on the uptake, because they have to do the filtering themselves.

This does not mean that autistic people are retarded in the usual sense, but rather in the etymologically literal sense. The word "retard" ─ pronounced with a long "a" and a muted "d" ─ is French and literally means "delay". "Le train est en retard" means "the train is running late." Of course, some autistic people are retarded in the colloquial sense, just as there are plenty of mentally challenged people who are not on the autism spectrum.

For that matter, an autism spectrum neurology does not have to manifest as autism proper. Dyslexia, synesthesia, OCD ("obsessive-compulsive disorder"), AD(H)D ("attention-deficit (and hyperactivity) disorder") and an eidetic memory are all autism spectrum conditions. Any or all of these conditions may occur within the same individual.

The high-functioning form of autism used to be called Asperger Syndrome, but this name has now been dropped again from the DSM-5, presumably ─ but I could be wrong about that ─ in light of some new discoveries regarding Hans Asperger's interaction with the Nazis. Initially Asperger ─ who was an Austrian national, and Austria was neutral during World War II ─ protected autistic individuals against the Nazis, but later on ─ presumably under pressure or under threat ─ he started aiding the Nazis in selecting autistic individuals for dangerous work, because the Nazis considered them unworthy and expendable.

However, describing autism proper doesn't end with the above elaborations. Given that autistic people literally have a multitude of the number of neurons found in a typical brain, they are also far more sensitive, not just on account of their receptiveness to information, but also in terms of allergic reactions. And this is where the Thiomersal comes into play, because Thiomersal contains mercury, which is ─ wait for it ─ a neurotoxin.

So, when an infant is on the autism spectrum but high-functioning, then its parents won't know that it is on the spectrum because the child is way too young to be tested. But when the child then receives the vaccine with the neurotoxin in it, then naturally, the child will develop severe and possibly life-threatening allergic reactions. This usually starts as an inflammation of the abdomen ─ the intestines ─ but it can also spread to the brain and lead to brain damage.

Sadly enough, it is this reaction that then prompts certain physicians ─ and this seems to be primarily the case in the Anglo-Saxon world, but nowhere else ─ and/or the parents of the infant to conclude that the vaccine made the child autistic. And if the child is then later diagnosed with brain damage as the result of having been injected with a neurotoxin, then this brain damage is regarded by the parents as being one and the same thing as autism. Which couldn't be farther from the truth.

Note: I was born in Belgium in 1963, which was long before MMR vaccines appeared on the scene, and at this point in time, I don't even know whether MMR vaccination is mandatory over here. Several other vaccines are ─ e.g. polio and smallpox ─ but I have no idea with regard to MMR. As such, I have never received the MMR vaccine. I have contracted the measles, the mumps and rubella at different times as a boy, and I've recovered from all of them in the natural way, as did my brother, and all other children of my generation.


His investigation led to him recommending that children not receive three vaccines in one dose.

I would recommend that too. I have serious considerations with the industrialization of this sort of thing, and especially since it concerns very young infants whose immune system is not as strong yet as that of older children or adults.


That began the firestorm that put him in the crosshairs of the international medical mafia.

No, what got Wakefield into trouble was the fact that he started doing research on the link between vaccines and autism, in which he then suggested that vaccines cause autism, and then falsified his research results in order to receive a government research grant. When the foul play was discovered, he eventually admitted that he had falsified his research in order to appeal unto government subsidies, and he was from henceforth banned from ever practising medicine in the UK again.

I will agree that the medical industry is a mafia ─ and for that matter, a huge one ─ but in this case, it's the "hero" who was to blame. This does not diminish the danger of adding Thiomersal to vaccines as a preservative, but it's not the Thiomersal that causes autism. Autism is a genetically predisposed condition.

I have been officially diagnosed with autism in 2009, because I wanted it in writing (for bureaucratic reasons). Even though I already suspected that I might be autistic when I was 15 years old, I was in denial about it because of the associated stigma that I would have been "retarded" or "crazy". I only ever fully realized that I'm autistic in 2004. My parents have never known, because they died in the 1990s, and the schools I attended also never even suspected anything.

My teachers told my parents that I was very intelligent but that I was lazy, because I needed more time than the other kids. And one of the reasons why I needed more time was that I have OCD and mild dyslexia, and so I always wanted to make sure that my replies to tests et al were correct and that I hadn't overlooked anything. But it made me slow compared to other students, and so the teachers attributed me with laziness, over which I was then chastised and punished by my parents.

And as for the "retarded" part, I'm going to refrain from mentioning my IQ, but let's just say that several tests have put me somewhere in the vicinity of good old Albert E., who was posthumously also diagnosed as autistic because of his somewhat peculiar behavior. For instance, he refused to wear socks, his first job was as a clerk in a shoe shop, he was a virtuoso on the violin who used to play in vaudeville theater, he was once caught giving a lecture before an entirely empty auditorium, and ─ surprisingly ─ he was also a kleptomaniac.

Like I said at the start of this reply, this will be my last post on this thread, and I am now going to be consistent with that resolve. :wry:

WantDisclosure
13th February 2019, 10:58
I am amazed that the conversations between Jon Rappoport and this propagandist with the pseudonym Ellis Medavoy that I’ve read so far took place before 9/11.

And this quote is so on-point I have to highlight it.

A screenshot:

2319

WantDisclosure
13th February 2019, 23:57
This is Jon Rappoport talking, followed by a response:


. . . In truth, the Cold War was staged at the highest level of the cartels. It was a cartel op.

This op was in the planning stage before World War 2 even started. The Cold War was pure George Orwell. If you have not read Orwell’s novel, 1984, I strongly recommend you do so. The Cold War was a pristine cartel op which would cast two great enemies in the spotlight.

Both America and the USSR would justify enormous expenditures and the (further) curtailment of civil liberties on the basis that everything had to be subordinated to the struggle for victory. Lies would be told to the people of America and the USSR. Many lies. Both populations would be given grisly portraits of the enemy that would be unverifiable. Lost in all of this would be the simple fact that the citizens of America and the citizens of the USSR were not enemies of one another.

Through media and political manipulation, messages would be communicated to the American and Soviet citizens:

OBEY AUTHORITY. OBEDIENCE IS FREEDOM. SLAVERY IS FREEDOM. LIES ARE THE TRUTH. LIES ARE NECESSARY. VICTORY IS ALL. LIES WILL RESULT IN FREEDOM. THE ENEMY IS STUPID. THE ENEMY IS CLEVER. THE ENEMY IS TIRELESS. THE ENEMY IS STRONG. WE MUST BE STRONGER. OBEDIENCE IS STRENGTH.

And so on. One of the great purposes of the Cold War in America was the strengthening of the MEDIA cartel. All important information would come from the elite media. The public would be hypnotized to accept the media as the single vital source of all‐important information. That would set the stage for a future in which citizens would implicitly accept the pictures of reality presented by the media.

The Cold War was formed in order to plant the idea that THERE IS ALWAYS AN ENEMY.

The cartels operate on the basis that, in order to lead the mass of people, you must direct their emotions toward an enemy. That mobilizes people. That keeps them in line. Without an enemy, the people will soon grow tired of external control. They will naturally drift into more natural freedom. The cartels know they must derail this drift.

As the Cold War proceeded, it became apparent to the cartels that absolute control was slipping away from them. More and more people were becoming suspicious of arbitrary authority on all fronts. Financial, political, medical, informational.

Therefore, paradoxically, the solution became, end the Cold War. End the Cold War and create new enemies to feed the level of emotion in people that has been trained to focus on an enemy. Make new and better enemies.

Gorbachev, a cartel cutout who could be used for many ops, was set loose to bring down the Soviet Union—as the easiest way to end the Cold War.

Then came the new and improved War on Drugs, War on Cancer, War on Terrorism, in order to create new enemies. And, oh yes, the War on Crime. And the War on Killer Viruses. These new enemies would be thrust into the limbo surrounding the end of the Cold War.
The War on Drugs would be used as a cover story for funding elite military groups in the US and abroad who would supposedly crush the drug trade. In fact, these army groups abroad would aid dictator‐governments in smashing incipient revolution in their countries, keeping cartel politicians in place. In the US, military troops would become a recognized presence in fighting drugs—even though such actions are against the law. The American federal police and the American military would begin to blend, making it difficult to tell the difference between one group and another. America would move closer to a military state.

The War on Cancer would become a means for elevating THE DOCTOR in people’s eyes to the level of a supreme authority, a priest. This War would try to divert people from the fact that much cancer is caused by chemical companies and their products. This War would instill FEAR, fear of cancer and a possible cancer virus and a possible cancer gene.

Likewise, the War on Terrorism and the War on Crime would actually, through covert cartel ops, encourage crime and terrorism, and bring more fear into the lives of people.

Behind all this, the Orwellian world was being transformed by the cartels into a reality predicted by another great novel: Brave New World (Aldous Huxley). The cartels realized that in order to maintain a high level of control over people, it would be necessary to develop technology that would affect brains and human energy centers. Control through drugs, through brain‐affecting drugs, through gene-insertion,through the use of electromagnetic energies—to induce certain “cooperative” behavior and the illusions of satisfaction and happiness, regardless of external circumstances. That is the cartel goal for the 21st century. The Brave New World.

Q: So what do you think about that briefing?

A: Well, it has relevance for me, because I was in the middle of the Cold War. I finally saw through to the level you are describing. You see, in one sense, the Cold War was very real. The 2 enemies really were enemies. The governments of the USSR and the US. They weren’t fooling around.

Q: And on that level, what was your job basically?

A: For a while it was the planting of stories in the European press that would make the USSR look all bad and the government of the US look all good.

Q: You didn’t choose this job.

A: Hell no. I was for hire. I was paid to do this. I was completely neutral.

Q: And then what happened?

A: I got an assignment to create a diversion.

Q: What type?

A: I have to be careful here. Let’s just say that certain “free world” bigshots, people in government, were caught in a very compromising situation. A few men. This involved women, sex, kinky stuff, a cover‐up, a couple of underage girls. Q: And it was going to come out in the press?

A: Maybe. They were on very thin ice. They were calling in all sorts of markers to try to squelch it. The level of exposure was dangerous. Highly.

Q: And you were brought in?

A: I was. Other people in my trade were.

Q: How many?

A: Who the hell knows? They pulled out all the stops. But they couldn’t involve too many people.

Q: What did you do?

A: I was working with a few other spinners. We were looking for a diversion, an event we could pump up that would shut people’s mouths about THIS scandal. It was tricky. It couldn’t just be any diversion. It had to look so serious people would say, “To expose the sex scandal could endanger the whole Cold War effort.” See? It had to be that kind of thing, where people would feel very ashamed of breaking the sex story, because it would damage people who were high up in fighting the Cold War.

Q: And you found something?

A: No. I wasn’t that high up in the food chain. It wasn’t my place to create the plotline. I was making suggestions, but the orders came down from a man I’ll just call my boss. My control.

Q: So someone else cooked up the story.

A: Yes.

Q: And what was the fake story?

A: Again, I have to be careful. But basically, it was a spin at a time when…the story was, the Russians had a lot more nuclear weapons than we thought they did. There were all sorts of sub‐heads to that, but that was it.

Q: I see. So no one could buck that. . . .

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, pages 64-67.

WantDisclosure
14th February 2019, 10:03
From page 71:


A: The 21st century, as we’ve discussed many times, is the progression from 1984 to Brave New World. Those are the two books. I could take a bunch of graduate students and use those two books and show them the blueprint for the Plan.

Q: In the sense that…

A: Once you fatigue people enough with the strategies of 1984, they are set up for the medicalization of society. Which is the brain stuff. The altering of the human brain with drugs and other approaches. Genes, perhaps. A brain‐machine linkup. Creating a different perception of reality. Externally applied electromagnetic fields. In which people will feel happy even though they are slaves. You see, in 1984 it’s really all about hysteria. The people are being driven into the wall with lies about wars and lies about enemies and lies about political structure, and the control over individuals is very harsh, and the leaders are not looking to create real happiness, not the fluffy stuff. Redemption, yes. Forgiveness, perhaps. The people are being fed pain and big brother is commanding them like a drill sergeant through their TV sets. But after that, after people sink into an acceptance of the delusions that are being foisted on them, then comes the science. The making of some kind of replica of happiness. The old order is 1984. You can call that the Plan from the dawn of time to about 1945. After that is the transition to Brave New World.

Q: And that’s why the medical cartel is the prince of the cartels.

A: The prince, the king.

Q: 1984…

A: Leaves people with no moral conviction. It runs over that like a freight‐train. 1984 is dark. Brave New World is sunny and light and the control is applied so that
the interior life changes.

Q: So you worked on medical stories.

A: Yes. Making the medical cartel look good, look humane, look rational, look like excellent science that works. Especially psychiatry and neurology. And pharmacology. That became a major job for me. Because…they’re experimenting on the human race, and they want their horrible mistakes which are legion, to look like advances and good science at every step until they get it right, until they have your brain in their hands from cradle to grave.

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 71.

WantDisclosure
14th February 2019, 10:25
Regarding education:


A: Look, it’s ALL about PR. Take Tesla, Royal Rife, this doctor, Koch, you’ve been writing about. They were buried by PR operations put together by people who knew what they were doing. So you get a wipe‐out of the real knowledge, the real potential breakthroughs, and then on top of that you have kids learning about science that can’t be the latest thing, because the latest thing was buried 70 years ago. It…an analogy would be someone studying how to play the violin by using his elbows, after the actual way to play the damn thing had been discredited for some reason or another. Do you see?

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 74.

tarka the duck
14th February 2019, 13:47
The Director of the documentary is Andrew Wakefield.

Years ago I learned about Andrew Wakefield’s experience going up against the international medical mafia.

In my opinion, he is another Jon Rappoport in his integrity.

I don't want to derail this thread, but I would like to respond to this statement :rolleyes:

Wakefield was not motivated by integrity. He was motivated by money. It’s as simple as that.

He was hired to attack MMR by a lawyer, Richard Barr who was a conveyancing solicitor who had the idea of getting together a speculative class action lawsuit
against drug companies which manufactured the triple shot. Wakefield charged himself at £150 per hour - billed through a company in his wife’s in an attempt
at secrecy), charging at total of £435,643 - plus expenses. And that was just the beginning: that company, Carmel Heathcare Ltd, projected earning of £28m
in year 3 as shown in its financial statement. A nice little earner indeed.

To rub salt in the wound, a great deal of money was paid to Wakefield from the UK legal aid fund which is run by the government to give people with low incomes
access to justice.

He also happened to have filed a patent on a single measles vaccine which would only have succeeded if he could succeed in damaging the reputation of MMR.

I suggest you look into this more deeply: the word “integrity” is misplaced when applied to Wakefield, who had set up a network of companies and business and
was set to earn millions from this scam.

The investigative journalist who exposed him through wide ranging and meticulous research was Brian Deer.
https://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

WantDisclosure
14th February 2019, 14:15
The investigative journalist who exposed him through wide ranging and meticulous research was Brian Deer.
Brian Deer is the person who smeared Andrew Wakefield.

Fresh Fraud: Brian Deer’s Vanishing Writing (https://www.ageofautism.com/2011/08/fresh-fraud-brian-deers-vanishing-writing.html)


Published on May 13, 2016
DIRECTOR: Andrew Wakefield

CAST: Del Matthew Bigtree, Mark F. Blaxill, Michaela Blaxill

Dr. Hooker enlists the help of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the British gastroenterologist falsely accused of starting the anti-vax movement when he first reported in 1998 that the MMR vaccine may cause autism. In his ongoing effort to advocate for children’s health, Wakefield directs this documentary examining the evidence behind an appalling cover-up committed by the government agency charged with protecting the health of American citizens.
mT0VzAvfnb4

WantDisclosure
14th February 2019, 16:33
I am more than pleased to learn that Sharyl has a news program once a week on Sunday.

I rarely watch TV. But I have my DVR set to record her program on ABC at 10 AM on Sundays.

:)

I hope I'm not disappointed. I hope she's not caving in to pressure. I hope she still has the same backbone.

Here she is in a video from the Children's Health Defense YouTube channel:



Children's Health Defense
Published on Feb 16, 2017

Stay informed and stay connected. To sign up for updates please visit www.worldmercuryproject.org

DqWhzKewILk

Aragorn
15th February 2019, 02:22
Brian Deer is the person who smeared Andrew Wakefield.

It isn't a smear when there's cold, hard and irrefutable evidence on the table. It happened exactly as tarka the duck says it happened, and it was so proven in court, not to mention ─ as I've already stated twice before on this thread ─ that Andrew Wakefield himself has admitted his guilt.

But that was all a long time ago, and people's memory span is short. The "VAXXED" pseudo-documentary serves a knee-jerking agenda, and it should come as no surprise that Wakefield was all too happy to cooperate on that.

Oops, I was going to stay out of this thread. Sowwy... :getcoat:

WantDisclosure
15th February 2019, 09:11
It isn't a smear when there's cold, hard and irrefutable evidence on the table. It happened exactly as tarka the duck says it happened, and it was so proven in court, not to mention ─ as I've already stated twice before on this thread ─ that Andrew Wakefield himself has admitted his guilt.

But that was all a long time ago, and people's memory span is short. The "VAXXED" pseudo-documentary serves a knee-jerking agenda, and it should come as no surprise that Wakefield was all too happy to cooperate on that.

Oops, I was going to stay out of this thread. Sowwy... :getcoat:
Aragorn,

You, personally, have a lot invested in being autistic.

That's all I'm going to say.

I do my homework when it comes to public figures who are attacked by the establishment.

There is an international medical mafia on planet Earth. It is a complex subject. I will be posting more about it as I continue to read and listen to audios in Jon Rappoport's The Matrix Revealed.

Aianawa
15th February 2019, 09:24
Thankyou, am catching up on forum and threads of late and chuckled when coming across this, ta.


Apparently, Sharyl Attkisson is a supporter of Trump.

God forbid.

Am I allowed to talk about it here?

Yes, I'm a little bit angry.

Dreamtimer
15th February 2019, 13:25
Do you include admissions of guilt in that research, WD?

WantDisclosure
15th February 2019, 14:01
Do you include admissions of guilt in that research, WD?

Show me what you have, Dreamtimer, and I'll respond to it.

Dreamtimer
15th February 2019, 14:05
Are you asking me to do research for you? The admission of guilt was pointed out by others here. I asked if you include that in your research.

WantDisclosure
15th February 2019, 14:20
Are you asking me to do research for you? The admission of guilt was pointed out by others here. I asked if you include that in your research.

That is a cop-out.

A non-reply.

What do you have to point out?

WantDisclosure
15th February 2019, 14:45
I was a member of the forum Above Top Secret at the time the Andrew Wakefield controversy began. I remember watching an interview of him and I probably posted about it, but I can't find the post or the video now.

Here is an interview of him that is available at this time:



Mercola
Published on Jun 21, 2012

New Evidence Refutes Fraud Findings in Dr. Wakefield Case (https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/24/new-evidence-refutes-fraud-findings-in-dr-wakefield-case.aspx) Natural health expert Dr. Joseph Mercola and Dr. Andrew Wakefield talks about autism, childhood vaccine safety, and his controversial MMR study.

d40suCKnjbI

Dreamtimer
15th February 2019, 15:08
You characterize things incorrectly in order to redirect conversation. Cop out is a projection. My question was direct and simple. You claim to be familiar with this situation. The answer should be easy.

tarka the duck
15th February 2019, 16:14
Brian Deer is the person who smeared Andrew Wakefield.

Maybe you’re thinking of another Brian Deer :eyebrows: The Brian Deer I’m talking about spent decades investigations into the pharmaceutical industry,
exposing the shoddy practices, lies and corruption.

So far, his investigations have resulted in:

the withdrawal of the painkiller Vioxx
the sale of the Wellcome Trust
the withdrawal of the antibiotic Septrin
"The drug trial that went wrong"
examination of fabricated research relating to the safety of the contraceptive pill
the documentary of the drug trial for the antibody TGN1412

He is no friend of Big Pharma. I’m surprised that you don’t seem to value his work.


The "VAXXED" pseudo-documentary serves a knee-jerking agenda, and it should come as no surprise that Wakefield was all too happy to cooperate on that.




A film about Andrew Wakefield, written and directed by Andrew Wakefield, starring Andrew Wakefield and telling Andrew Wakefield’s
version of events is not to be taken seriously - for obvious reasons - by anyone who wants to try and dig out the truth.

WantDisclosure
15th February 2019, 21:52
tarka the duck,

Have you ever listened to a professionally done (not hostile) interview of Andrew Wakefield?


You characterize things incorrectly in order to redirect conversation. Cop out is a projection. My question was direct and simple. You claim to be familiar with this situation. The answer should be easy.

You are obfuscating the fact that you really have nothing of your own to say.

WantDisclosure
15th February 2019, 22:03
If you're worth your salt as a seeker of truth, you will listen to the person being charged with wrong doing, with an open mind.

You will not believe a news story on face value.

I see no one thanked me for posting an interview of Andrew Wakefield.

That speaks volumes.

Aragorn
16th February 2019, 05:00
You characterize things incorrectly in order to redirect conversation. Cop out is a projection. My question was direct and simple. You claim to be familiar with this situation. The answer should be easy.

You are obfuscating the fact that you really have nothing of your own to say.

That's an outright ad hominem, and I'm sorry to have to jump into this thread again, but Dreamtimer is correct in her assessment. You are pushing your prejudice in favor of Andrew Wakefield as the truth in spite of all the evidence against him, and at the same time, you are dodging the references to said evidence by redirecting the dialog.





If you're worth your salt as a seeker of truth, you will listen to the person being charged with wrong doing, with an open mind.

Mirror, mirror on the wall... :rolleyes:

By the way, Andrew Wakefield is not being charged. That phase has already long been over. He has admitted to foul play and he was found guilty in court. End of story.


You will not believe a news story on face value.

News stories can be (and are constantly being) faked, and this documentary serves an agenda.


I see no one thanked me for posting an interview of Andrew Wakefield.

That speaks volumes.

It's not because you posted that documentary, but because of your stubborn refusal to look at the facts, and because you immediately grow hostile toward anyone who does not agree with your vantage.

Change your attitude and you will quickly see the reactions to your posts change in kin.

WantDisclosure
16th February 2019, 12:21
This conversation took place January 25, 2002.

Ellis Medavoy is talking about the importance of awareness of philosophy, to understand what’s going on in the world:



A: Right. Like I was saying about 9/11, there is a world of information being built. We’ve got caves full of documents, we’ve videos of bin Laden, we’ve got this kid who is a dupe—Johnny Walker—who tells his American captors that he spoke with bin Laden and he knows that bin Laden planned and ordered 9/11—we’ve got the famous passport of the terrorist found near the WTC. We’ve got thousands of pieces of information that all hook up to tell the same basic story about who was behind 9/11.

Q: The self‐contained world inside the vacuum jar.

A: Yes. Who would doubt it? You see?

Q: It’s like the cosmology floated by the Vatican for centuries.

A: Sure. You get far enough inside all that information and you lose sight of the fact that none of it is hooked to anything OUTSIDE. You’ve got entities from here to Pluto, you’ve got all these different classes of angels with names and titles and job
descriptions—it’s so overwhelming that you swallow the whole thing.

Q: What does this have to do with philosophy?

A: It’s all about time. Time and emotion.

Q: You’ve lost me.

A: Think. How do you build time?

Q: Build time?

A: Yes. You need two things to build time. You need a constructed time‐line of events. That’s the first thing. A chain of events which you tie together. It doesn’t matter if the events really connect, and it doesn’t matter whether the events are real. What matters is you have built that line, and it seems to make sense.

Q: And this means?

A: There is a fundamental human hunger for TIME.

Q: What?

A: It’s like dessert or sex or fresh air. People WANT TIME. They want that sense of it, that there is flow and the flow is real. People want SEQUENCE.

Q: I see.

A: I hope so. If you can give people time, they flock to you. You are giving them a cornerstone of what they consider to be EXISTENCE. They have to have it. And that is what good propaganda does. It suggests or marks out the flow of time in a sequence.

Q: And it doesn’t matter whether that sequence is true.

A: It doesn’t matter at all. More than half of all history is fiction. It’s a time line that is constructed to give people the sense that things happened in a certain way, in a certain order.

Q: Yeah?

A: Take evolution. Forget that the theory is full of holes. The PROPAGANDA which is said to be science suggests a flow of events. First came the amoeba, and then from that we got the multi‐celled organism, and you go on from there. It feels right because it has that chain of events from before to after, from day 1 to day 456789. Evolution is a very easy sell. You fill up museums with fossils and bones and labels, and everybody buys in, because there is that beautiful idea of a time line of history.

Q: And all propaganda works the same way.

A: It does. Now, you don’t really need a complete and tight time line. You just need the IMPRESSION of one. That fills the human need for TIME. That need plays right into the profession of propaganda. And the theorists of propaganda know this. They may talk about it in different ways, but they know it. It’s their bread and butter.

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, pages 92-94.

Dreamtimer
16th February 2019, 12:30
I asked you a simple question, WD. Your response was rude. There is no reason to be rude here.

Rude responses and personal attacks are a sign of a weak position.

WantDisclosure
16th February 2019, 12:52
More:


Q: You said time and emotion.

A: Yes. Emotion is like a proof of time.

Q: Proof?

A: Look. In order to construct a time line, you need human response to it. You need human cement, so to speak, to give the sense that the time line is real. Otherwise, you just have factoids.

Q: So you’re saying—

A: I’m saying that the propagandist creates “a fact” that will result in a human emotion. I say fact X and the human being reacts with, say, outrage. Now we’re cooking. Now we have a fact that gets an emotion sprouting all over the place. The emotion is the closer, the convincer. Now the human being really believes in the fact because, after all, he just responded to it! What could be a better “proof” than that? The human being is so self‐centered that he believes his own emotion makes a fact real. He is saying, essentially, “This fact couldn’t be a lie. Because I just felt ABC.”

Q: It must be true.

A: Right. If I felt ABC, then the thing that made me feel that must be true.

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 94.

WantDisclosure
17th February 2019, 01:39
Rude responses and personal attacks are a sign of a weak position.
Yes, they are, and I've been the target of them here, by you:


You accuse people of smearing on a regular basis, Keep Trying. It may enlighten you to look up bsbray on this forum. He used to be a super moderator. He didn't like my opinions about Trump and he wiped the floor with me. To the point that Aragorn had to step in.

That's what smearing really looks like. You may benefit from the perspective presented there.

palooka's revenge
17th February 2019, 02:37
More:


Q: You said time and emotion.

A: Yes. Emotion is like a proof of time.

Q: Proof?

A: Look. In order to construct a time line, you need human response to it. You need human cement, so to speak, to give the sense that the time line is real. Otherwise, you just have factoids.

Q: So you’re saying—

A: I’m saying that the propagandist creates “a fact” that will result in a human emotion. I say fact X and the human being reacts with, say, outrage. Now we’re cooking. Now we have a fact that gets an emotion sprouting all over the place. The emotion is the closer, the convincer. Now the human being really believes in the fact because, after all, he just responded to it! What could be a better “proof” than that? The human being is so self‐centered that he believes his own emotion makes a fact real. He is saying, essentially, “This fact couldn’t be a lie. Because I just felt ABC.”

Q: It must be true.

A: Right. If I felt ABC, then the thing that made me feel that must be true.

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 94.

some of this may end up as part of the unpackin... we'll see after a deeper look at this medavoy guy... his youtube channel shows 2 subscribers... but that don't mean he don't know what he's talkin' bout...

trump uses a very similar tactic ad nauseam... 'n it's not all directed at his base... so do a lot of other people use it.... but the trumpster is particularly good at it...

WantDisclosure
17th February 2019, 02:42
some of this may end up as part of the unpackin...

trump uses a very similar tactic ad nauseam... 'n it's not all directed at his base...

Thank you for giving your take as you see it, based on your interpretation of the Jon Rappoport interview of a propagandist.

Please expand a little bit.

"part of the unpackin..." I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

Aragorn
17th February 2019, 03:21
Rude responses and personal attacks are a sign of a weak position.
Yes, they are, and I've been the target of them here, by you:


You accuse people of smearing on a regular basis, Keep Trying. It may enlighten you to look up bsbray on this forum. He used to be a super moderator. He didn't like my opinions about Trump and he wiped the floor with me. To the point that Aragorn had to step in.

That's what smearing really looks like. You may benefit from the perspective presented there.

You really do have a way of misinterpreting both unmistakably clear English and other people's intentions, WantDisclosure. Read again what you quoted from Dreamtimer. At no point was she smearing you. You brought up the allegations of smearing, and Dreamtimer only pointed you at the posts by bsbray in which he, as her colleague, was sweeping the floor with her on the open forum and smearing her, and Dreamtimer only mentioned this as an illustration of what real smearing looks like.

And what I am about to say next isn't a smear either ─ it is criticism. So here it is...

You are fanatically clinging onto a belief system in spite of all the evidence that your belief system is ill-founded, and in your denial of both the facts regarding the truth behind this belief system and your fanatic adherence to it, you are deflecting the topic of the discussion by attacking well-meaning people and accusing them of the very things that you yourself are doing ─ and that they are not doing. You are projecting your own shortcomings upon them. And then, to top it all off, you are putting yourself in the victim role, while all along you (and only you) are the aggressor.

It would seriously behoove you, WantDisclosure, to engage in some introspection and examination of your motives. Because facts are undeniable, and yet you are denying them nevertheless. And you are attacking people, and then accusing them of having attacked you while they have done no such thing.

Oh and lastly, as for bsbray, he was clearly prone to psychosis and he was obsessive-compulsive. He was hounding Dreamtimer all over the forum because she didn't agree with his ultra-right-wing vantages, and in all of it, Dreamtimer kept her cool and her dignity. And then when Malc and I confronted bsbray with the unfairness of his conduct ─ because it was turning my stomach inside out to see him hounding Dreamtimer, and on multiple publicly visible threads to boot ─ he urgently requested to be retired, and he even went so far as to threaten me, just so that I would terminate his account one way or the other.

He was clearly neurotic and feeling dirty for being on the same forum as people who didn't support his ultra-nationalist and pro-Trump infatuations, and so he couldn't get away from here soon enough ─ back to Project Avalon, the forum run by Bill Ryan, the very guy whom bsbray sought to bring down during his tenure as a staff member here. And in the meantime, bsbray ─ currently known at Project Avalon (and by now already residing on the ignore list of many members there) as "A Voice from the Mountains" ─ has become such a sadistic bully, a slanderous liar and a sociopathic badmouth that he has now been banned from The One Truth for life.



P.S.: Everything I have written here-above is verifiable fact, not opinion, nor a belief system.

WantDisclosure
17th February 2019, 03:48
From page 97:


Q: You’re forcing this whole conversation into a discussion of what reality is.

A: And why not? If we all shrink away from that, we are left with exactly what we have now. Which is the world as we see it. Let’s go for the gold.

Q: What the hell. This reminds me very much of the Tibetan metaphysics.

A: It should. The culture of Tibet has a lot of unvarnished truth in it. Which is why everybody and his brother has been trying to destroy it or dilute it, and some of the best destroyers have been people who are supposed to teach that philosophy. The two cornerstones of Tibet are CREATION and the VOID. Step one, any being, any person, can create ANYTHING FROM NOTHING. And two, when you stop creating you end up with a great VOID, a great nothing. Mastery consists of being able to create consciously—and being able to stop creating. That’s the whole deal. The daily newspaper of Earth is a perfect example of the insatiable need for more and
more creation, no matter what. That’s where I came in. I supplied the parade of facts, most of which were pure inventions, and I linked up those invented facts to form a message, a cover story, a thought‐form that fed the masses. I served masters who wanted certain thought‐forms to predominate.

Q: Which thought‐forms do they want to predominate?

A: Fear, lack of hope, misguided hope, faith in the masters, a collective fate for all as opposed to the fate that results from the free creation by conscious individuals. 9/11 is a scenario wrapped around all those thought‐forms. It is fed by those forms, and it feeds those forms. Back and forth, back and forth, like rivers flowing into each other.

Q: And all the medical propaganda you did?

A: Same thing. The medical cartel has the secret goal of making those thoughtforms predominate. Do the math. Figure it out for yourself.

Q: We really are into philosophy here.

A: You have one level which is time. Time is invented chains of events plus the attendant emotions. Above that we have the level of thought‐forms, which are the “messages” people derive from the lower level of time. Those thought‐forms then become hidden sources and directors of action for people. People act ACCORDING to the encapsulated meaning of the predominant thought‐forms. It’s mind control. It’s life on planet Earth.

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 97.

Our job is to overcome the mind control.

WantDisclosure
17th February 2019, 04:20
Oh my God:


A: No. I did my work through reporters and their sources. I was a source for the sources. I was a floater. In the history of AIDS, there came a moment when there was the danger that it might get out that the HIV tests were unreliable. A man at the Harvard School of Public Health had released an article that proved, mathematically, that the tests were giving lots of false positives. I was brought in to squelch that perception. I created a sort of stop‐gap. I lined up doctors who spoke with key reporters and assured them that everything was okay. The tests were good. They were accurate to a very high percentage. I massaged the data, and I had doctors with pharmaceutical connections massage the data and feed the lies to reporters. That job was tricky, I can tell you. I had to find doctors who already had good rapport with journalists, and I had to get these doctors to make the right statements. At times, this required some arm‐twisting. You know, I had to tell a few MDs that people were counting on them. Drug companies and their reputations were on the line. The future of medicine was on the line. A crisis in public confidence could cause the whole AIDS research effort to stumble and lose ground. I had to spin a whole story and wrap the thing in national security and whatever else, to make it stick. I was working my people. I called in favors. And at the same time, I preserved the sense that everybody involved was really doing the right thing. Pure lies. You would be surprised how often national security has been invoked to cover up medical scandals and lies. PR, propaganda, takes many forms. People just don’t know. National security, for example, is a funnel through which lots of lies are made to pass, and the expansion of this theme of national security has PR specialists.

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 100.

palooka's revenge
17th February 2019, 06:14
Thank you for giving your take as you see it, based on your interpretation of the Jon Rappoport interview of a propagandist.

Please expand a little bit.

"part of the unpackin..." I'm not sure what you're referring to there.


this... (https://jandeane81.com/showthread.php/12848-Atlantean-survivors?p=842007016&viewfull=1#post842007016)

WantDisclosure
17th February 2019, 11:45
this... (https://jandeane81.com/showthread.php/12848-Atlantean-survivors?p=842007016&viewfull=1#post842007016)

Please, what does "DD" stand for here:


which is not to say my expansion would represent "the way it is". it's just the way i see it. but it does make sense (at least to me) and makin' sense is one of my prerequisites. iow, if'n it don't make sense, i ain't buyin' it without further DD.

palooka's revenge
17th February 2019, 16:57
due diligence... something way too many of us are short on...

palooka's revenge
17th February 2019, 20:34
Note:...... just as there are plenty of mentally challenged people who are not on the autism spectrum.




im a multi-task flunk out with an intense focus runnin'... and... based on 75 yrs of reflections... is apparently runnin' in extreem slo-mo... do I qualify for the group???

it does have its advantages though... it's been a very long, rewardin', and enjoyable 75 yrs...

WantDisclosure
17th February 2019, 22:09
How pharmaceutical companies operate:


Q: Tell me a little about how a drug company promotes a new drug.

A: It’s quite an operation. The company finds an area where they think they can make money. Lots of money. They scout out the marketplace and they find, say, that there is an opportunity for a new heart drug. They get their researchers—or they hire researchers to work on it. They come up with a compound. Then they finance studies that compare the effects of this drug with other drugs for the same purpose that are already in the marketplace. Every single time, those studies show that their new drug performs better. There has never been a study financed by a drug company which compares their own drug with older drugs that shows the older drugs are better. NEVER. You can’t find one. Then the company applies for FDA approval. I’m short‐cutting the process here—but anyway, once the drug is okayed, the company wants lots of publicity. Their PR people go to work and get articles in the press. At the same time, the company might go the symposium route.

Q: What is that?

A: The company funds a symposium where papers will be presented which show that the new drug is wonderful. The company pays researchers to write these papers. The researchers are flown to the symposium, and put up in hotels. See, these papers don’t need to be published in a journal. They’re just presented at the symposium. Then, the company might approach a journal and offer to fund a whole issue which will more or less feature that drug or feature the symposium. And in that issue, summaries of the papers presented at the symposium will be printed. This part can work several ways. Of course, the researchers paid by the company always come up with glowing reports on the new drug. [See Trust Us, We’re Experts, by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton. Several variations of this con are described.] The drug company publishes some kind of PR release on the symposium and spreads that around, and it buys up lots of copies of the journal that features the symposium and gives those away too. Pretty soon you have a juggernaut made out of PR, and it works. Doctors believe the PR. They prescribe the drug. These MDs never stop and think that they have never read a study funded by a drug company which shows that its drug performs less well than a similar drug already on the market. These doctors are really true believers in the APPEARANCE of science, in what LOOKS LIKE science. It’s all a religious scam in that sense, and a money scam and a PR scam.

Q: So it’s no surprise years later when the drug turns out to kill people.

A: Everybody denies everything. But you have to keep in mind that we’re talking about mid‐level and low‐level dupes here. The whole program of drug development is ultimately motivated from a place where the inner core of the medical cartel—the Nazis in white coats—WANT to kill people. Want to disable people. It’s the plan. If you eat out a society from the inside, as you’ve written, you can work invisibly. It’s war carried on without guns. It weakens all the threads that hold society together, and it makes society ripe for takeover.

Q: Has your family been visited by this drug disaster?

A: I had a situation a few years ago. I had to intercede.

Q: What was the drug?

A: I won’t go into details. But I had to wield some heavy influence. I had to make myself a real pain in the ass. I played the role of dictator, and I didn’t take any crap.

Q: I guess that didn’t make you very popular.

A: Popular is not in my lexicon. People think you have to be “fair.” Their idea of fair is allowing people to get poisoned. I don’t work that way. Now if a guy down the street wants to take Zoloft for years and end up with some brain malady, that’s his problem. But in my own family, that won’t fly. I know 50 ways to “treat depression” and none of them involves drugs. I’ll put down my foot if I have to, and usually that foot ends up on someone’s head. There is “a period of re‐adjustment,” as they say, and then calm prevails. I make a pretty good “counselor” when the situation calls for it. And I eat school officials for lunch.

Q: You believe that the medical cartel, in the long run, is the most dangerous cartel.

A: It’s not a question of belief. I worked for them. I know them. There is nothing they can do that will surprise me or take me off guard. I’ve told their lies for them. That puts me in a unique position. The PR doesn’t influence me, because I did the PR. I was in the bastard club. I know all about the bastards. And quietly, in the background, very far in the background, I’ve done some PR for people who were filing law suits against drug companies. Those plaintiffs don’t know who I am, they just know somebody helped them in certain ways. I still have press contacts here and there, and I can still call in a few favors. I’ll tell you something. Part of my outrage against the middle class—what you just heard me saying that sounded so harsh—comes from the fact that a lot of these people can stand by and watch their families go down the drain because of medical drugs. They won’t lift a finger, and they won’t file a suit. They’re cowed, they’re scared. For a long time I banked on that fear, because I was working that fear. Fear is what gave people like me a big edge. But after I retired, a few things changed for me. I could wallow in my guilt about it, but I’m not that kind of person. So instead I do my bit, here and there, to throw a few monkey wrenches into the machine of the medical cartel.

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, pages 105-107.

Aragorn
18th February 2019, 05:32
Note:...... just as there are plenty of mentally challenged people who are not on the autism spectrum.


im a multi-task flunk out with an intense focus runnin'... and... based on 75 yrs of reflections... is apparently runnin' in extreem slo-mo... do I qualify for the group???

it does have its advantages though... it's been a very long, rewardin', and enjoyable 75 yrs...

I don't know. :hmm: You might have ADD ─ which would put you on the spectrum ─ but it's impossible for me to say. Everyone's mind wanders at times. :)

You are either way not mentally challenged, though. :)

WantDisclosure
18th February 2019, 19:16
I'm now on the second of three PDFs about propagandist Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym).

From page 2:


February 1, 2002

As a retired propagandist, Ellis worked for many years behind the scenes spinning gigantic medical and political lies that “found their way” into the mainstream press. He’s been there, he’s done it, and he knows the ropes from A to Z. Some readers will see that, in these conversations with Ellis, he is changing. In revealing more about himself and what he knows, he is stabilizing a new position for himself. I believe he takes another quantum leap in this direction in this interview.

Q: (Jon Rappoport) Will big PR companies which work on contract with big chemical companies ever get caught in a mess like Enron?

A: (Ellis Medavoy) Doubtful but not impossible. I have done a little work on these PR companies, and I have had the results passed along through a couple of friends to, shall we say, “interested parties.” As far as I’m concerned, all PR people should be viewed as hired gunslingers. When they “come to town,” they should be ready to disclose publicly every dime they have ever taken, and from whom. Because they are professional liars. That is what the heavy PR types are paid to do. A real propagandist takes X dollars from source Y? You automatically know he is lying for Y.

Q: Some years ago, that would have been you.

A: Sure. I’ve never denied that. Because I’ve told the lies, I know what a lot of the lies ARE.

Q: But you never worked for a big PR firm.

A: I was in a different world.

Q: How so?

A: I was paid through cutouts, who in turn worked for groups like the Council on Foreign Relations. And when I say the CFR, I don’t even mean the official group. I mean people who were very high up in CFR, who were launching their own agendas. I needed cover stories for myself. I won’t tell you what those covers were, but I was not in a position to be able to say, “I’m in PR for so and so.” Because I wasn’t. And because I existed by seeming NOT to be a PR or propaganda man at all. I was a floater. I moved around. And from time to time, I changed my own cover. It was not the easiest thing to do.

Q: I was just talking with a friend about Hollywood.

A: Don’t get me started.

Q: How certain films like The Magnificent Seven, Bonnie and Clyde, and The Dirty Dozen trade on the public’s love of star actors.

A: You mean, how they present villains.

Q: Exactly. Here you basically have murderers and thieves of people’s hard earned money—but those roles are being played by actors with “a lot of box office charisma.” So the public automatically forgives the characters their crimes.

A: Sure. The actor becomes the salesman for crime. It’s a long‐established art.

Q: And when these actors get into war movies, the public believes that war is really fought by Jim Coburn or Matt Damon, and war is well‐lit and although the soldiers get dirty and blood‐stained, the blood is basically clean and the dirt is clean.

A: As one who knows a little about war, I can tell you it isn’t that way.

Q: Even so‐called hard‐nosed movies like Platoon. I mean, wasn’t Charlie Sheen in that?

A: After Vietnam, no US reporter with a video camera has gotten close to the real action. If a network just played a whole week of uninterrupted programming of a war, close‐up, without voice‐over—just the real stuff—the public would have its collective head turned.

Q: Nobody moralizing.

A: Right. Just the footage up very close and relentlessly. On and on. No commentary. No attempt to persuade. No good or bad stuff. Just the war itself. Now you’re talking about the real power of a camera. You see five or ten people getting blown apart, and it focuses the mind. The public is conditioned to expect commentary that makes it all into something else. But if the camera holds on a leg that is lying in a piece of ground all by itself—if the camera just stays there—the public is hoping against hope that some well‐modulated voice will intercede and give what amounts to a rationalization. If no voice comes, the public is left with its own feelings and thoughts. See? No one is saying this is good or this is bad. No one is saying anything. There is no music. The leg is just there.

Q: Sentimentalizing is the word.

A: If you don’t sentimentalize war, then people begin to wake up. The waking up isn’t easy, but it happens. And then you transcend politics. And if you get enough people in enough countries viewing film like this, something will happen. Meanwhile, the network says nothing. It doesn’t join the debate and the shouting and whatever. It just keeps showing the film of a war, close‐up.

Q: Has anyone ever really tried this?

A: Are you kidding? They’d be shut down like airport in an ice storm.

Q: The critics who review these supposedly hard‐nosed commercial movies about war, like Platoon, keep pumping them up as “so real.” But that’s just another layer of lie. And the public thinks, “Well, if that’s what war really is, then it’s not as bad as I thought it might be.”

A: The critics are complicit. No question about that. They give their seals of approval. When, last week, I talked about how propaganda really creates time, I stressed the role of eliciting emotions in the public. Here’s a good example. In this case, it’s by identification with the Hollywood hero who’s toting the big gun in the war. If you get the audience to identify with the hero—the actor—then the public buys into EVERYTHING. That’s why the star actor is such a precious commodity. He can get people to merge with him, emotionally. Same for the star politician. I think
only very ugly people should be allowed to run for president. (laughs)

Q: Reagan said he was going to get the government off people’s backs. But during his terms, the size of government increased fantastically.

A: And no one noticed. Because he was the matinee idol. People merged with him emotionally. And now his supporters talk about how he rallied the country and made people feel good about the US again. What they mean is, the public merged with him emotionally. It’s an important distinction, and those who are in the propaganda business understand that. You can rot a country by playing this sentimental propaganda game over and over. You get the public to identify with certain “stars.” It becomes the main point of life itself for many people—to make that identification. It becomes their whole life. Jonas Salk was made into that kind of star. So people accepted the polio vaccine as a product of their hero. Meanwhile, the vaccine was killing and paralyzing and infecting people right and left. I was never in the business of plumping up and creating stars. But I know people who were. They spent their years creating little gods. That’s what they did.

THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 2 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, pages 2-4.

tarka the duck
19th February 2019, 11:57
tarka the duck,

Have you ever listened to a professionally done (not hostile) interview of Andrew Wakefield?



Oh yes...I'm a Brit, and watched the whole fiasco unfold all those years ago.

A non-hostile interview? Maybe that’s one of the differences between us, WD: I expect to see those who make extraordinary claims challenged
to explain their thinking. I think that’s what you might call ‘hostile’ but for me, it’s the basis of responsible journalism.

Why would I want to listen to a proven liar preaching to the converted who give him free rein to spread his lies? Lying about your research to
someone who does not challenge your claims does not enlighten or educate anyone. An interview where he is free to make whatever claims he
chooses to without answering to anyone, while omitting to mention anything that proves beyond doubt that his words are false, has no value.
It's just a meeting of a mutual admiration society.

Wakefield not been targeted by “a ruthless, pragmatic attempt to crush any attempt to investigate valid vaccine safety concerns” (his words).
If they'd really wanted to shut him up, he wouldn't still be appearing on the (lucrative) lecture tour and cruise ships.

He was accused of unethical behaviour, misconduct and dishonesty. He was not struck off for saying that there is a link between MMR, bowel disease
and autism. The case against him was nothing to do with the fact that their research questioned the safety of MMR. It was concerned with whether
they acted in an ethical manner, and whether their actions contravened the Declaration of Helsinki.

His story is that of a physician who set out to cast doubt on vaccine safety before he’d gathered the evidence: he did so not for the public good but
for personal gain.

Wakefield is not the victim here, however much he tries to paint himself as such. The victims are the children who underwent painful and
unnecessary medical procedures so that he could obtain samples of their colon in an attempt to find measles RNA sequences (samples which
Wakfield then treated so carelessly that they were rendered useless for research).

Could you help me understand your position by explaining your reasons for believing Wakefield? In the face of overwhelming evidence that his work
was fraudulent and deeply flawed and his behaviour unethical, what would it take for you to review your opinion?

WantDisclosure
19th February 2019, 12:10
Oh yes...I'm a Brit, and watched the whole fiasco unfold all those years ago.

Yes, fiasco is the word.

And if you are basing your reaction to him on the fiasco, then there's nothing to discuss.

Thank you for your post, but I'm not here to try to change minds that have already been exposed to a happening and are satisfied with their opinion.

Let's just agree to disagree.

tarka the duck
19th February 2019, 12:20
Yes, fiasco is the word.

And if you are basing your reaction to him on the fiasco, then there's nothing to discuss.

Thank you for your post, but I'm not here to try to change minds that have already been exposed to a happening and are satisfied with their opinion.

Let's just agree to disagree.


I asked you a question and would genuinely appreciate an answer: your adherence to a viewpoint that is contrary to all rational thought is fascinating,
and I've found it very common within the 'alt community' in all the years I've been hovering on the sidelines. I've asked that similar questions to other
true believers across a range of topics, but no one has ever had a serious go at answering it ... all I get is the usual accusations about being a
shill or a troll etc etc etc etc etc :rolleyes:

To repeat: Could you help me understand your position by explaining your reasons for believing Wakefield? In the face of overwhelming evidence that
his work was fraudulent and deeply flawed and his behaviour unethical, what would it take for you to review your opinion?

Dreamtimer
19th February 2019, 12:50
I really appreciate your question here, tarka. I share your fascination.

Elen
20th February 2019, 06:14
I really appreciate your question here, tarka. I share your fascination.

As do I...:tiphat:

WantDisclosure
20th February 2019, 11:29
To repeat: Could you help me understand your position by explaining your reasons for believing Wakefield? In the face of overwhelming evidence that his work was fraudulent and deeply flawed and his behaviour unethical, what would it take for you to review your opinion?
There is no overwhelming evidence.

This thread is about the free-lance investigative reporter Jon Rappoport's extensive work.

That's what it takes in this world to get at the truth. Free-lance investigation.

When the truth is genuinely sought, it is found.

Years ago there was some other free-lance investigator who interviewed Wakefield. As I recall, I did not view the interview on YouTube. There was some website that posted it. I tried to re-locate the interview but couldn't find it. That's where I learned about what actually happened to Wakefield.

One major part of his saga that is important is that step one was that he was contacted by the parent of an autistic child who had stomach problems. Wakefield suggested that not getting three vaccinations in one dose was indicated.

That's it. That started the firestorm.

There is an international medical mafia on planet Earth.

I highly recommend Jon Rappoport's The Matrix Revealed to learn about it.

Aragorn
20th February 2019, 12:22
That's where I learned about what actually happened to Wakefield.

No, that's where you learned about what Wakefield claims happened. Just because you choose to believe him doesn't make it the truth yet.

WantDisclosure
20th February 2019, 12:55
No, that's where you learned about what Wakefield claims happened. Just because you choose to believe him doesn't make it the truth yet.

There were two sides of the interview. Wakefield speaking and the journalist asking questions.

Truth is determined by listening carefully and using both our intellect (IQ) and intuition.

That's the way I do it.

Wakefield's story is one of many stories I've researched for the last ten years or so.

One has to do the work (put in the time it takes) of seeking information and connecting dots to get to the truth.

None of us, however, can claim to be God and know-all.

None of us.

Aragorn
20th February 2019, 13:05
Truth is determined by listening carefully and using both our intellect (IQ) and intuition.

That's the way I do it.

The man lied to his patients and abused them. This is documented fact. He has also admitted to it. Accept the facts for what they are and save yourself the aggravation of finding out later that you've been ramming your head into a wall while believing a proven liar.

Best advice I can give you.

WantDisclosure
20th February 2019, 13:55
The man lied to his patients and abused them. This is documented fact.

Who documented it?

Aragorn
20th February 2019, 15:10
Who documented it?

Court cases are always documented. So are the records of the UK Medical Register. Much of it can be read in the pertinent Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield) ─ and yes, the article is factual, even though it does not mention that Wakefield did at some point admit to foul play.

A brief summary of the article follows...





Source: Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield)



Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957) is a discredited former British doctor who became an anti-vaccine activist. He was a gastroenterologist until he was struck off the UK medical register for unethical behaviour, misconduct and dishonesty. In 1998 he was the lead author of a fraudulent research paper claiming that there was a link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism and bowel disease.

After the publication of the paper, other researchers were unable to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism, or autism and gastrointestinal disease. A 2004 investigation by Sunday Times reporter Brian Deer identified undisclosed financial conflicts of interest on Wakefield's part, and most of his co-authors then withdrew their support for the study's interpretations. The British General Medical Council (GMC) conducted an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Wakefield and two former colleagues. The investigation centred on Deer's numerous findings, including that children with autism were subjected to unnecessary invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies and lumbar punctures, and that Wakefield acted without the required ethical approval from an institutional review board.

On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally delayed children. The panel ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research. The Lancet fully retracted the 1998 publication on the basis of the GMC's findings, noting that elements of the manuscript had been falsified. The Lancet's editor-in-chief Richard Horton said the paper was "utterly false" and that the journal had been "deceived". Three months following The Lancet's retraction, Wakefield was struck off the UK medical register, with a statement identifying deliberate falsification in the research published in The Lancet, and was thereby barred from practising medicine in the UK.

In January 2011, an editorial accompanying an article by Brian Deer in BMJ described Wakefield's work as an "elaborate fraud". In a follow-up article, Deer said that Wakefield had planned to launch a venture on the back of an MMR vaccination scare that would profit from new medical tests and "litigation driven testing". In November 2011, another report in BMJ revealed original raw data indicating that, contrary to Wakefield's claims in The Lancet, children in his research did not have inflammatory bowel disease.

Wakefield's study and his claim that the MMR vaccine might cause autism led to a decline in vaccination rates in the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland and a corresponding rise in measles and mumps, resulting in serious illness and deaths, and his continued claims that the vaccine is harmful have contributed to a climate of distrust of all vaccines and the reemergence of other previously controlled diseases. Wakefield has continued to defend his research and conclusions, saying there was no fraud, hoax or profit motive. In February 2015, he publicly repeated his denials and refused to back down from his assertions, even though—as stated by a British Administrative Court Justice in a related decision—"There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr. Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked".



[ continue reading here ] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield)

Source: Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield)





Be sure to check out the footnotes, all of which lead to the various information sources. Also, please take note of...


the fact that Robert de Niro has retracted his support for Wakefield's "VAXXED" documentary; and


the fact that true scientific research has confirmed that Wakefield's claims were either way false, and that autism is only one manifestation of a broader underlying and genetically predisposed neurological structure.

WantDisclosure
20th February 2019, 15:52
Court cases are always documented. So are the records of the UK Medical Register.
This is from the website Age of Autism:


All of the documented evidence and testimonies submitted to the General Medical Council, upon which GMC issued its guilty verdicts against Dr. Wakefield and his two co-defendants in 2010, were subsequently forensically assessed by the UK High Court in March 2012, in the appeal of Professor John Walker-Smith, the senior clinician and senior author of the Lancet case series. The High Court determined that the verdicts of professional misconduct and ethics violations were unsupported by the evidence.

https://www.ageofautism.com/dr-andrew-wakefield/

In my opinion, Wikipedia is a goldmine of well-written articles that are reliable only if the topic is not controversial.

palooka's revenge
20th February 2019, 19:58
There is no overwhelming evidence.

This thread is about the free-lance investigative reporter Jon Rappoport's extensive work.

That's what it takes in this world to get at the truth. Free-lance investigation.

When the truth is genuinely sought, it is found.

Years ago there was some other free-lance investigator who interviewed Wakefield. As I recall, I did not view the interview on YouTube. There was some website that posted it. I tried to re-locate the interview but couldn't find it. That's where I learned about what actually happened to Wakefield.

One major part of his saga that is important is that step one was that he was contacted by the parent of an autistic child who had stomach problems. Wakefield suggested that not getting three vaccinations in one dose was indicated.

That's it. That started the firestorm.

There is an international medical mafia on planet Earth.

I highly recommend Jon Rappoport's The Matrix Revealed to learn about it.


When the truth is genuinely sought, it is found.

That's highly debatable... mostly... as a result of the truth meter within having been severely compromised over eons of time thru the unseen role of denial... to put that another way... we are, literally, missin' half the recipe for discernment...

no... i need to rephrase that... it's not so much that it's missin'... it is because it has been made toxic as a result of not being allowed to evolve like the other half of the recipe has been accepted for what it is and, consequently, allowed to evolve...

consequently... the truth meter is responding but the info is skewed relative to the issue at hand... influenced, instead, by original cause events...

which is, admittedly, a collection of rather cryptic statements... but i'm workin' on the upackin'... for whatever it might be worth...

WD... I'm doin' my best to try to see where your comin' from 'n where yer tryin' to go.

For one thing... because, I'm well aware...


There is an international medical mafia on planet Earth.

The bones of many victims litter the landscape... some have survived and risen from the ashes... catherine austin fitts comes to mind... though it was the mafia, it wasn't the medical mafia in her case...

are U claiming the court case was a smack down designed to cover the truth and discredit the 'truth bearer'??? the part I find hard to square with in the case of wakefield is this...


why then, did he cop to it?? under oath, in court??

others have asked with direct question... i'm not sure i've seen a direct answer... except for...


Wakefield suggested that not getting three vaccinations in one dose was indicated.

That's it. That started the firestorm.

so, let me ask U this....


what am i'm missin' from your point of view?

WantDisclosure
20th February 2019, 22:37
When the truth is genuinely sought, it is found.

That's highly debatable... mostly... as a result of the truth meter within having been severely compromised over eons of time thru the unseen role of denial... to put that another way... we are, literally, missin' half the recipe for discernment...

no... i need to rephrase that... it's not so much that it's missin'... it is because it has been made toxic as a result of not being allowed to evolve like the other half of the recipe has been accepted for what it is and, consequently, allowed to evolve...

consequently... the truth meter is responding but the info is skewed relative to the issue at hand... influenced, instead, by original cause events...

which is, admittedly, a collection of rather cryptic statements... but i'm workin' on the upackin'... for whatever it might be worth...

WD... I'm doin' my best to try to see where your comin' from 'n where yer tryin' to go.

For one thing... because, I'm well aware...


There is an international medical mafia on planet Earth.

The bones of many victims litter the landscape... some have survived and risen from the ashes... catherine austin fitts comes to mind... though it was the mafia, it wasn't the medical mafia in her case...

are U claiming the court case was a smack down designed to cover the truth and discredit the 'truth bearer'??? the part I find hard to square with in the case of wakefield is this...


why then, did he cop to it?? under oath, in court??

others have asked with direct question... i'm not sure i've seen a direct answer... except for...


Wakefield suggested that not getting three vaccinations in one dose was indicated.

That's it. That started the firestorm.

so, let me ask U this....


what am i'm missin' from your point of view?

I'm watching a documentary The Pathological Optimist right now. I put it on pause to take a break.

Before I put it on pause, Brian Deer appeared on the screen.

I suspect that Brian Deer fits into the same category as propagandist Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym), the person interviewed and the subject of this thread so far.

Here is the YouTube trailer for the documentary:



The Film Arcade
Published on Aug 30, 2017

The Pathological Optimist explores the controversial Andrew Wakefield, who was stripped of his medical license for his infamous study suggesting a link between vaccines and autism that sparked one of the biggest firestorms in modern medicine.

Release Date: September 29, 2017
Director: Miranda Bailey

FRA0w1pvFLk

There is no question in my mind that Andrew Wakefield is a man of utmost integrity and an absolute hero.

palooka's revenge
21st February 2019, 04:02
There is no question in my mind that Andrew Wakefield is a man of utmost integrity and an absolute hero.

is that your answer to my question? tell me something goin' on in yer mind i don't already know...

oh... so maybe it's buried somewhere in the vid? another one... thx... but... no thx.

frankly, i won't take the time or invest the energy to chase down who is the bad guy(s) in this one... bad guys are everywhere.... instead.. maybe you'll do me the favor of splainin' to me why his admission to the court was him lying to the court alon with some explanation of why he would do that... take yer best shot while i'm still willin' to be open minded....

edit to add... maybe the answer to that is in one of these vids? i admit, i quit watchin.... and... i quit readin trasncript awhile ago...

i like rappaport... mostly... but that don't mean he ain't on my shit list...

WantDisclosure
21st February 2019, 07:31
is that your answer to my question? tell me something goin' on in yer mind i don't already know...
I guess you don't know his story from an interview where the interrogator was free-lance and therefore, independent from the Deep State controllers?

Have you read my excerpts in this thread?

If you have, you'll know how evil the man behind the curtain is, and how pervasive propaganda is in the world we live in. That is, if you believe the two people in the excerpts.

There are 7 basic cartels according to Medavoy: money, government, military, intelligence, media, medical, and energy. Medavoy calls the medical cartel "the prince of the cartels" because it ultimately results in the control of the human brain.



frankly, i won't take the time or invest the energy to chase down who is the bad guy(s) in this one... bad guys are everywhere.... instead.. maybe you'll do me the favor of splainin' to me why his admission to the court was him lying to the court alon with some explanation of why he would do that... take yer best shot while i'm still willin' to be open minded....
The only thing I can glean from listening to his side of the story is that there was some blood drawn for lab work using his son's friends at a birthday party, which was ethical, but he failed to formally submit the plan to do this to a committee for approval ahead of time, and he regrets that.

That's it.

There is much corruption everywhere we look. Luckily, there are exceptions. Luckily, we have some honest journalists. But the vast majority of talking heads are beholden to the corporate controllers behind them, so we're inundated with their propaganda.

That's what we're up against.

palooka's revenge
21st February 2019, 09:01
If you have, you'll know how evil the man behind the curtain is, and how pervasive propaganda is in the world we live in. That is, if you believe the two people in the excerpts.



i don't BELIEVE anything in this case. and though i have read some of your excerpts i don't need them to know there's an evil man behind the curtain or how pervasive propaganda is.

all i WAS trying to do was get a straight, direct answer from you....

WantDisclosure
21st February 2019, 09:13
i don't BELIEVE anything in this case. and though i have read some of your excerpts i don't need them to know there's an evil man behind the curtain or how pervasive propaganda is.

all i WAS trying to do was get a straight, direct answer from you....

Well, I tried to answer your question in what I said about his admission that he didn't put before an ethics committee the technique of drawing blood from his son's friends, with permission and voluntarily, for lab work.

That's the only thing I know of that Wakefield admitted to.

I understand that that incident was used to claim he abused children.

From everything I've listened to and read, I believe Wakefield is the victim of the medical cartel's use of propaganda (lies) to protect their precious profits from pharmaceuticals.

Aragorn
21st February 2019, 09:32
This is from the website Age of Autism:


All of the documented evidence and testimonies submitted to the General Medical Council, upon which GMC issued its guilty verdicts against Dr. Wakefield and his two co-defendants in 2010, were subsequently forensically assessed by the UK High Court in March 2012, in the appeal of Professor John Walker-Smith, the senior clinician and senior author of the Lancet case series. The High Court determined that the verdicts of professional misconduct and ethics violations were unsupported by the evidence.

https://www.ageofautism.com/dr-andrew-wakefield/

The Age of Autism website was created by a so-called "autism mom", which is a generic term for the mother of an autistic child, but which has in the meantime come to mean "the mother of an autistic child who cannot accept her child's autism and is angrily seeking a culprit she can blame and sue."

I have personally been confronted with such people and their denial-driven agendas for several years. It was one of the reasons ─ not the only reason but one of the reasons nevertheless ─ why I left Facebook behind me in 2010. They are all in denial, they are all vicious and full of rage, and they are all looking for someone to blame. You cannot even reason with these people, because you will be insulted and falsely accused right away.

I for one was accused of being a shill for Big Pharma, simply for trying to point out the science to these people. It's not that they couldn't accept my explanation ─ they didn't even want to hear me out. Rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth knee-jerking is all it was. One of them even rebutted my explanation with "You lost me at 'hi'." These people are just about as fanatic and as intransigent as the Flat Earth believers, if not more so.

Anyway, here's a pertinent Wikipedia snippet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Olmsted#The_Age_of_Autism) about the website...:






The Age of Autism


From 2005 to July 2007, Olmsted wrote about his investigative findings concerning the apparent global epidemic of autism in a series of columns titled The Age of Autism. Though some scientific research suggests that autism is a primarily genetic disorder and that reported increases are mainly due to changes in diagnostic practices, Olmsted, claimed that the increases are due to mercury poisoning, particularly from vaccines, and that the genetics is mostly secondary. Though Olmsted continued to make this claim, thimerosal, the mercury-containing preservative blamed by Olmsted, was removed from most vaccines as a precaution beginning in the late 1990s, with no effect on autism diagnosis rates.





I will also add that this Wikipedia article carefully uses the words "Though some scientific research suggests that autism is a primarily genetic disorder", but it must once again be said that this is the Anglo-Saxon interpretation of things ─ this particular Wikipedia article was written by a US American contributor, and articles in other languages are (commonly) written by people who natively speak those languages, and completely independently from any other articles on the same subject in other languages. In the rest of the world, it is a known and indisputable fact that autism is an exclusively genetic condition.

Another thing I will point out is that Age of Autism is not the only such website/organization. There are several more, among which Autism Speaks, which ─ contrary to what its name suggests ─ does not allow autistic individuals to speak up, but instead focuses on feeding into the "vaccines cause autism" myth. Furthermore, the managing director of Autism Speaks is earning himself a very royal six-figure annual income. So much for an alleged non-profit organization.

Either way, Age of Autism is not a neutral source of information. It has an agenda.

palooka's revenge
21st February 2019, 12:29
The Age of Autism website was created by a so-called "autism mom", which is a generic term for the mother of an autistic child, but which has in the meantime come to mean "the mother of an autistic child who cannot accept her child's autism and is angrily seeking a culprit she can blame and sue."

I have personally been confronted with such people and their denial-driven agendas for several years. It was one of the reasons ─ not the only reason but one of the reasons nevertheless ─ why I left Facebook behind me in 2010. They are all in denial, they are all vicious and full of rage, and they are all looking for someone to blame. You cannot even reason with these people, because you will be insulted and falsely accused right away.

I for one was accused of being a shill for Big Pharma, simply for trying to point out the science to these people. It's not that they couldn't accept my explanation ─ they didn't even want to hear me out. Rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth knee-jerking is all it was. One of them even rebutted my explanation with "You lost me at 'hi'." These people are just about as fanatic and as intransigent as the Flat Earth believers, if not more so.

Anyway, here's a pertinent Wikipedia snippet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Olmsted#The_Age_of_Autism) about the website...:






The Age of Autism


From 2005 to July 2007, Olmsted wrote about his investigative findings concerning the apparent global epidemic of autism in a series of columns titled The Age of Autism. Though some scientific research suggests that autism is a primarily genetic disorder and that reported increases are mainly due to changes in diagnostic practices, Olmsted, claimed that the increases are due to mercury poisoning, particularly from vaccines, and that the genetics is mostly secondary. Though Olmsted continued to make this claim, thimerosal, the mercury-containing preservative blamed by Olmsted, was removed from most vaccines as a precaution beginning in the late 1990s, with no effect on autism diagnosis rates.





I will also add that this Wikipedia article carefully uses the words "Though some scientific research suggests that autism is a primarily genetic disorder", but it must once again be said that this is the Anglo-Saxon interpretation of things ─ this particular Wikipedia article was written by a US American contributor, and articles in other languages are (commonly) written by people who natively speak those languages, and completely independently from any other articles on the same subject in other languages. In the rest of the world, it is a known and indisputable fact that autism is an exclusively genetic condition.

Another thing I will point out is that Age of Autism is not the only such website/organization. There are several more, among which Autism Speaks, which ─ contrary to what its name suggests ─ does not allow autistic individuals to speak up, but instead focuses on feeding into the "vaccines cause autism" myth. Furthermore, the managing director of Autism Speaks is earning himself a very royal six-figure annual income. So much for an alleged non-profit organization.

Either way, Age of Autism is not a neutral source of information. It has an agenda.


as.....

an exclusively genetic condition

then this...

"the mother of an autistic child who cannot accept her child's autism and is angrily seeking
a culprit she can blame and sue."

makes alotta sense...

cuzz momma... or daddy... or both...
is GUILTY!!!

WantDisclosure
21st February 2019, 12:44
cuzz momma... or daddy... or both...
is GUILTY!!!

Sarcasm?

(Sorry, but I often have to be told things directly because jokes or sarcasm have gone over my head.)

Do you personally think people who think vaccinations and autism are linked are way out of line?

Aragorn
21st February 2019, 12:51
Sarcasm?

(Sorry, but I often have to be told things directly because jokes or sarcasm have gone over my head.)

Do you personally think people who think vaccinations and autism are linked are way out of line?

He is stating the opinion that people refuse to accept the genetic origins of autism because it means that their own genes are responsible for the autism in their children, and that they thus rather seek to blame someone else ─ someone they can sue.

As for the link between autism and vaccines, I have explained into detail what this link is in post #44 of this thread (https://jandeane81.com/showthread.php/12834-Excerpts-from-Jon-Rappoport-s-The-Matrix-Revealed?p=842006890&viewfull=1#post842006890), and that it is not a causal link but an interaction. That is the cold, hard science, but you dismissed it as a personal opinion and you continue to champion Andrew Wakefield. So what else is there to say?

tarka the duck
21st February 2019, 14:00
I guess you don't know his story from an interview where the interrogator was free-lance and therefore, independent from the Deep State controllers?

To whom are you referring in this statement?



The only thing I can glean from listening to his side of the story is that there was some blood drawn for lab work using his son's friends at a birthday party, which was ethical, but he failed to formally submit the plan to do this to a committee for approval ahead of time, and he regrets that.

Where did you get that idea from? Paying children to take a blood sample is ethical??! :shocked: Don't tell me ... let me guess. Wakefield told you that :fpalm:

You seem to be confused about medical ethics: blood is not bought or sold in the UK.
To educate yourself, read these Guidelines for Ethical Conduct of Medical Research Involving Children, Royal College of Paediatrics Ethics Advisory Committee
https://adc.bmj.com/content/82/2/177

Here are the charges placed before Wakefield by the General Medical Council regarding that "blood buying" incident:-

The Birthday Party

'42. a. On a date unknown prior to 20 March 1999 at your son’s birthday party you,
i. took blood from a group of children to use for research purposes,
ii. paid those children who gave blood £5 each for doing so,

b. On 20 March 1999 you gave a presentation to the
MIND Institute, in California, USA in the course of which you,
Admitted and found proved to the words ‘California, USA’
i. described the incident referred to in 42.a. above in humorous terms,
ii. expressed an intention to obtain research samples in similar circumstances in the future;

‘43. a. Your conduct as set out in paragraph 42.a. above was unethical in that,
i. you did not have ethics committee approval for your actions,
ii. you took blood from children in an inappropriate social setting,
iii. you offered financial inducement to children in order to obtain blood samples,
iv. you showed a callous disregard for the distress and pain that you knew or ought to have known the children involved might suffer,
v. in the circumstances you abused your position of trust as a medical practitioner,
b. Your conduct set out in paragraph 42.b. was such as to bring the medical profession into disrepute;’

palooka's revenge
21st February 2019, 14:01
Sarcasm?

NO... what Aragorn said... and... what it is to me is fucking SAD!!!


Do you personally think people who think vaccinations and autism are linked are way out of line?

i don't consider myself qualified to make that call...

tarka the duck
21st February 2019, 14:08
I really appreciate your question here, tarka. I share your fascination.


Unfortunately, I don't think any of us are going to get an answer ...



Let's just agree to disagree.

Nope. Can't do that :cool:. If we were discussing whether straight chips or crinkle cut chips are best, we could
agree to disagree cos that's all about opinion. But we're not dealing with opinions when it comes to this topic
and all its implications, I will never agree to disagree, I'm afraid. I'm stubborn that way ...


This is from the website Age of Autism:

What is the point you are making by posting that paragraph about Walker-Smith?