Category Archives: Rappoport articles

Passport to the Brave New World: the vaccine

Passport to the Brave New World: the vaccine

Jon Rappoport

If you don’t know what freedom is, better figure it out now

by Jon Rappoport

April 14, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

I have already written about the currency reset and other features of a technocratic future waiting in the wings. —New levels of visible surveillance, social credit scores, universal guaranteed income, Internet of Things, energy-use quotas, smart cities.

—Events can move in several directions, going forward. In this article, I explore one of those directions.

The occasion is this fake pandemic; the big hammer is the vaccine against the phony COVID.

As Fauci mentioned a couple of months ago, it could be a DNA vaccine—new technology—which means it is really gene therapy. Synthesized genes are injected into the body. They purportedly set up immunity. Actually, they PERMANENTLY alter the genetic makeup of the recipient.

As you can imagine, this creates the opportunity to put many different genes into humans. To try to invent “new humans.”

The so-called immunity certificates Fauci is now talking about? They would be issued to people who test positive on the new antibody tests for COVID-19—which is an interesting turnaround, because, since 1984, positive tests results have generally been taken to mean “infected.” Why the shift?

Because there is a need for these immunity certificates—as an INTRO to condition the population to an IDEA.

If and when the COVID vaccine arrives, the certificates would be used to signify immunity for all those who take the shot.

It would function as a license. Your passport into the Brave New World. You’re “immune,” so you’re allowed to move out of fear mode. And circulate and travel and enter schools…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.”

Alteration of the human genetic makeup.

Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence.

The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.

This is genetic roulette with a loaded gun.

And the further implications are clear. Vaccines can be used as a cover for the injections of any and all genes, whose actual purpose is unannounced.

The vaccine masters have a problem. They know their genetic technology is far from perfect. Plans to re-engineer the human race are not a simple one two three.

For example, consider the latest and greatest genetic tool, called CRISPR.

Here is a backgrounder I wrote a year ago.

New CRISPR gene-editing: the extreme dangers

Technologynetworks.com (6/26/17): “CRISPR gene editing is taking biomedical research by storm. Providing the ultimate toolbox for genetic manipulation, many new applications for this technology are now being investigated and established. CRISPR systems are already delivering superior genetic models for fundamental disease research, drug screening and therapy development, rapid diagnostics, in vivo editing and correction of heritable conditions and now the first human CRISPR clinical trials.”

All hail.

It’s called CRISPR, a much faster, more precise, and cheaper technique for editing genes. Researchers are in love with it. You can find hundreds of articles and studies fawning over the innovation.

At phys.org, however, we have this, ahem, warning note (5/29/17): “…a new study published in Nature Methods has found that the gene-editing technology can introduce hundreds of unintended mutations into the genome.”

Oops.

“In the new study, the researchers sequenced the entire genome of mice that had undergone CRISPR gene editing in the team’s previous study and looked for all mutations, including those that only altered a single nucleotide.”

“The researchers determined that CRISPR had successfully corrected a gene that causes blindness, but Kellie Schaefer, a PhD student in the lab of Vinit Mahajan, MD, PhD, associate professor of ophthalmology at Stanford University, and co-author of the study, found that the genomes of two independent gene therapy recipients [mice] HAD SUSTAINED MORE THAN 1500 SINGLE-NUCLEOTIDE MUTATIONS AND MORE THAN 100 LARGER [GENE] DELETIONS AND INSERTIONS. None of these DNA mutations were predicted by computer algorithms that are widely used by researchers to look for off-target effects.” (Emphasis is mine.)

“’Researchers who aren’t using whole genome sequencing to find off-target effects may be missing potentially important mutations,’ Dr. Tsang says. ‘Even a single nucleotide change can have a huge impact’.”

Genetic roulette is alive and well.

Spin the wheel, see what numbers come up. Good effects, bad effects, who knows? Step right up and take your chances.

Of course, researchers who admit these tremendous problems remain optimistic. They look forward to “refining the method.” That’s a cover for: “we really don’t know what we’re doing right now.”

Unfortunately, much science operates in this fashion. Launch a new technology, and turn a blind eye to the consequences. For example, place mercury, a devastating neurotoxin, in vaccines. What harm could result—aside from the destruction of children’s brains.

Here is more gushing PR, otherwise known as throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks: “There are weekly press releases and updates on new advances [in CRISPR] and discoveries made possible with this technology; the first evidence is now emerging that CRISPR-Cas9 could provide cures for major diseases including cancers and devastating human viruses such as HIV-1.” (technologynetworks.com)

The train has left the station.

And just in case you think only the most careful and competent leading lights of the genetic research community would be permitted to get within a mile of CRISPR, here is more from technologynetworks.com:

“CRISPR-Cas9 systems, tools and basic methodology are very accessible as ready to go toolkits that anyone with lab space and an idea can pick up and start working with…In response to a growing need, companies such as Desktop Genetics have developed open access software to accelerate CRISPR experimentation and analysis.”

That’s good to know. “Anyone with lab space and an idea” can jump on board and have at it.

Do your own cross breeding of the pregnant phrases, “What could possibly go wrong,” and “Nothing to see here, move along,” and you’ve summarized the situation.

“They say they cured my anemia, but now I turn green and purple and I keep falling down.”

If all this isn’t enough to make you see the dangers of CRISPR, consider this statement about engineering human immune cells (T-cells) in a “safer” way. From statnews.com (June 23, 2013):

“The experiment would alter the immune system’s T cells only after they’re removed from a patient. That gives scientists the chance to screen the CRISPR’d cells to make sure only the three intended genes, all involved in making T cells find and destroy tumor cells, are altered. But after those T cells are infused back into a patient to fight melanoma, sarcoma, or myeloma, the CRISPR system can keep editing DNA, and tracking such edits becomes like following a polar bear in a snowstorm.”

Not very comforting. Once set in motion, even under the most protected and limited conditions, CRISPR can keep on working, scrambling genes in unknown ways.

So…when it comes to DNA vaccines, aka gene therapy, a plan to precisely re-engineer humans could quite easily descend into uncontrolled chaos.

And the controllers and elite funders of the vaccine know that.

What to do?

With the global population as their guinea pigs, perhaps they would start small. Introduce the slightest possible gene-alteration, stand back and see what happens. Try out a gene that would ordinarily—hopefully—achieve next to nothing. Try to measure the results.

Viewed from one angle, the whole fake epidemic is a set-up for the vaccine, and for mandatory vaccines.

I have written about the special exemption from liability recently issued by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services. Basically, anyone associated with pharmaceutical strategies undertaken “against the coronavirus” cannot be sued, regardless of “adverse effects” of medicines or vaccines.

Taking a stand against mandatory vaccines—any and all vaccines—is more important than ever.


 

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


Jon Rappoport

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

The post Passport to the Brave New World: the vaccine appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

COVID: The squeeze play on the population

COVID: The squeeze play on the population

by Jon Rappoport

April 13, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

It’s a con as old as the hills. The ancient chieftain of a little territory looks out across his domain and says to his top aide, “You know, we have these clusters of people worshiping different gods. That’s not good for business.

“Our business is CONTROL, so we need UNITY. Make up the name of some god, and go out there and sell it. Take down those little shrines and tell all the people they have to believe in the new deity.

“Use force and censorship when necessary. Later on, I may decide I’M really the name you chose for the new god. We’ll see. If you have any trouble right away, call me on my cell. I’ll be out sunning by the pool.”

Unity of thought. That’s what controllers are after.

In the case of this fake epidemic, the population must view WHAT IT IS in the way public officials and the press are describing it. Dissenting analysis must be pushed into the background.

Here is a 4/9 Bloomberg News headline: “5G Conspiracy Theory Fueled by Coordinated Effort.” [1] A sub-headline states, “Researchers identify disinformation campaign but not source.” The article begins: “A conspiracy theory linking 5G technology to the outbreak of the coronavirus is quickly gaining momentum…”

Obviously, such wayward thinking has to be stopped. And down further in the Bloomberg article, we have chilling news: “Some social media companies have taken action to limit the spread of coronavirus conspiracy theories on their platforms. On Tuesday, Google’s YouTube said that it would ban all videos linking 5G technology to coronavirus, saying that ‘any content that disputes the existence or transmission of Covid-19’ would now be in violation of YouTube policies.”

“In the U.K., a parliamentary committee on Monday called on the British government to do more to ‘stamp out’ coronavirus conspiracy theories, and said it was planning to hold a hearing later this year at which representatives from U.S. technology giants will be asked about how they have handled the spread of disinformation on their platforms.”

Independent analysis of the “epidemic” hangs in the balance. The masters of control want to maintain an information monopoly.

It goes without saying that, in order to achieve this monopoly, detailed surveillance of Internet content is necessary.

Another type of surveillance is also part of the squeeze play. Apple.com has the story (press release, 4/10) [2]:

“Across the world, governments and health authorities are working together to find solutions to the COVID-19 pandemic, to protect people… Since COVID-19 can be transmitted through close proximity to affected individuals, public health officials have identified contact tracing as a valuable tool to help contain its spread. A number of leading public health authorities, universities, and NGOs around the world have been doing important work to develop opt-in contact tracing technology.”

“To further this cause, Apple and Google will be launching a comprehensive solution that includes application programming interfaces (APIs) and operating system-level technology to assist in enabling contact tracing. Given the urgent need, the plan is to implement this solution in two steps while maintaining strong protections around user privacy.”

“First, in May, both companies will release APIs that enable interoperability between Android and iOS devices using apps from public health authorities. These official apps will be available for users to download via their respective app stores.”

“Second, in the coming months, Apple and Google will work to enable a broader Bluetooth-based contact tracing platform by building this functionality into the underlying platforms. This is a more robust solution than an API and would allow more individuals to participate, if they choose to opt in, as well as enable interaction with a broader ecosystem of apps and government health authorities. Privacy, transparency, and consent are of utmost importance in this effort, and we look forward to building this functionality in consultation with interested stakeholders. We will openly publish information about our work for others to analyze.”

“All of us at Apple and Google believe there has never been a more important moment to work together to solve one of the world’s most pressing problems. Through close cooperation and collaboration with developers, governments and public health providers, we hope to harness the power of technology to help countries around the world slow the spread of COVID-19 and accelerate the return of everyday life.”

If you believe citizen privacy is an utmost concern in the minds of Google and Apple, I have condos for sale on the far side of the moon.

The tracing tools appear to involve a very rapid expansion of Snitch Culture. What else are “opt-in users” going to communicate about? The weather? Lunch?

“Dear Relevant Users and Public Health Officials: Yes, I know Marty. Sad to hear he’s been diagnosed with COVID-19. I did have a brief meeting with him just prior to the lockdown. I suppose I might be infected. I should get tested right away. Let’s see, who else was at the meeting? Marty’s brother, Felix, and Carrie, who is Felix’ on and off girlfriend. Six months ago she was tested for an STD, I don’t know the results—Sandy, the broker at Wilson and Wise was also at the meeting—OMG, that could mean the whole company is infected—and Sandy’s dog Tootsie—can animals spread the virus?—then there was a janitor who came into the room, I think his name is Al. He lives down near the docks. He has a brother who I hear is a drug dealer and a compulsive gambler. He owes money to some nasty people, I think…Anything I can do to stop the spread of the virus, let me know…”

Enlist the citizenry to act as spies on each other. A useful tactic.

It rips the fabric of social trust.

It blows apart privacy.

It exposes people to government intervention.

It cements the UNITY DICTUM: the epidemic has only one portrait, and the population must bow before it.

An answer? A counter? More citizens must become independent reporters and publish their findings. More citizens must set up blogs and sites that act as old-fashioned street newsstands, posting the work of independent journalists and investigators.

For every ten they censor, a hundred must spring up.

Nothing is riding on this except the immediate future—freedom, slavery, medical dictatorship, a borderless planet operated as one super-corporation, the individual vs. the collective, the energy of the individual soul.

Or people can say doom is upon us and nothing can be done about it.

Or people can sit at home and suck on the lockdown lollipop.

In Ohio, there is a protest:

https://www.youtube[dot]com/watch?v=bJZyikCVmsM

https://www.youtube[dot]com/watch?v=Ev4tRS4rJU8

The post COVID: The squeeze play on the population appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

My conversation with State Senator and doctor who exposes Medicare payouts for COVID-19 patients

My conversation with State Senator and doctor who exposes Medicare payouts for COVID-19 patients

As you’ll see by end of this article, the specific decisions about money mentioned here affect life and death outcomes for patients.

by Jon Rappoport

April 12, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

A state senator has suddenly come out of nowhere and made big news.

My conversation with Minnesota State Senator, Dr. Scott Jensen, took place after I read the explosive statement he made to FOX News, on April 9th. So let’s start with his earlier FOX statement [1]:

“Right now Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you’ll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much. Nobody can tell me, after 35 years in the world of medicine, that sometimes those kinds of things [don’t] [have] impact on what we do…”

I reached out to Senator Jensen, and obtained clarification. Jensen told me his remark pertained to patients with Medicare coverage. And the 2 payouts he mentioned are standard insurance payments from Medicare which would go to the hospital.

Of course, he explained, some hospitals have a pay-share plan with their staff doctors. Therefore, a windfall for the hospital is passed along to those doctors.

Jensen told me: Take a Medicare patient who is diagnosed with simple non-COVID pneumonia. The hospital would receive a one-time Medicare lump-sum payout of $4600.

However, if that Medicare patient is diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia, the Medicare coverage is a one-time $13,000 payment. And if the hospital puts that COVID-19 pneumonia patient on a ventilator, the one-time payment is $39,000. NOTE: It doesn’t matter how long these patients stay in hospital—there is only going to be one lump-sum insurance payment.

So, I infer, there are several types of financial incentives for hospitals—

ONE: Diagnose as many people as possible with COVID-19.

TWO: Diagnose as many people as possible with COVID-19 who have light symptoms—making it easy to move them out of the hospital quickly.

THREE: Put as many COVID patients as possible on ventilators for as short a time as possible.

Under the heading of “diagnose as many patients as possible with COVID-19,” there is also the key question of what constitutes “a COVID-19 patient”—and how the use of that label can be multiplied and manipulated. Senator Jensen made a few choice comments to FOX on this subject as well.

From FOX News: “Dr. Scott Jensen, a Minnesota family physician who is also a Republican state senator, told ‘The Ingraham Angle’ Wednesday that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) guidelines for doctors to certify whether a patient has died of coronavirus are ‘ridiculous’ and could be misleading the public.”

“Host Laura Ingraham read Jensen the [CDC] guidelines, which say: ‘In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID cannot be made but is suspected or likely (e.g. the circumstances are compelling with a reasonable degree of certainty) it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.’”

“In response, Jensen told Ingraham the CDC’s death certificate manual tells physicians to focus on ‘precision and specificity,’ but the coronavirus death certification guidance runs completely counter to that axiom.”

“’The idea that we are going to allow people to massage and sort of game the numbers is a real issue because we are going to undermine the [public] trust,’ he said. ‘And right now as we see politicians doing things that aren’t necessarily motivated on fact and science, their trust in politicians is already wearing thin’.”

“…Jensen then told Ingraham that under the CDC guidelines, a patient who died after being hit by a bus and tested positive for coronavirus would be listed as having presumed to have died from the virus regardless of whatever damage was caused by the bus.”

“…Jensen also reacted to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s response to a question about the potential for the number of coronavirus deaths being ‘padded,’ in which the NIAID director described the prevalence of ‘conspiracy theories’ during ‘challenging’ times in public health.”

“’I would remind him that anytime health care intersects with dollars it gets awkward,’ Jensen said.”

Here is where everything Scott Jensen is saying can turn very grim—

As I’ve reported [2], New York ER doctor, Cameron Kyle-Sidell [3], has made public statements about the misuse of ventilators with supposed COVID-19 patients. He’s stated that some of these patients actually have functioning lungs. Their immediate and dire life-threatening situation is straight oxygen deficit, as if they have high-altitude sickness. But pressure on the lungs, applied by the use of ventilators via standard rigid protocols, he says, can cause damage, and even death.

Imagine what would happen if another way—NOT ventilators—was found to usefully and safely deliver oxygen to these patients.

The hospitals wouldn’t get their huge $39,000 payout for each Medicare patient put on a ventilator.

What do you think a hospital would say…what decision would the hospital make…would the hospital allow a better and safer and necessary delivery system for oxygen? For every labeled “COVID-19 patient” whose desperate emergency is a straight deficit of oxygen?

Would the hospital forego all those huge Medicare coverage payouts?

SOURCES:
[1]: Minnesota doctor blasts ‘ridiculous’ CDC coronavirus death count guidelines
[2]: COVID and a 5G connection?
[3]: Dr Cameron Kyle Sidell. E R & Critical Care Dr From NYC

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


Jon Rappoport

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

The post My conversation with State Senator and doctor who exposes Medicare payouts for COVID-19 patients appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.