Category Archives: Science Fraud

Creating a genetic monster

by Jon Rappoport

March 31, 2011

(To join our email list, click here.)

(July 2013 update: For TruthStreamMedia.com’s article entitled “DARPA to Genetically Engineer Humans by Adding a 47th Chromosome“, click here. For a pdf copy of the DARPA solicitation entitled “Advanced Tools for Mammalian Genome Engineering“, click here. See also Manipulating evolution from now on. How deep does this story go?.)

In the Jan./Feb. 2004 issue of Mother Jones, Mark Dowie recounts how Dr. Stuart Newman decided to test the willingness of the US Patent Office…

Newman applied for a patent to create a chimera, a monster.

The application was turned down. Newman pushed his claim to see how far he could go, and the Patent Office remained firm. Newman wanted to raise awareness of what some genetics scientists were willing to do—and how wrong it would be to allow it.

Dowie writes: “Newman’s patent application is for an intriguing biotechnological contrivance called a chimera [ki-mir-a]. According to Greek mythology, a chimera was a part-lion, part-goat, part-serpent creature that terrorized Lycia until it was slain by the hero Bellerophon. If biotech continues to run amok, warns Newman, such inventions of legend and allegory could actually be invented.

“A biological chimera is a way to hybridize two or more species that won’t cross sexually. The exact results are largely unpredictable except for the certainty that the chimera will contain cells of each species proportionate to the numbers placed in the embryo. A creature made from an equal number of cells from two species could look like one species but contain the genes, organs, and intelligence of the other.

“Newman [sought] to patent ‘chimeric embryos and animals containing human cells’…taken to its most extreme but not necessarily impossible end, the technology could be used to manufacture soldiers with armadillolike shielding, quasi-human astronauts engineered for long-range space travel, and altered primates with enough cognitive ability to ride a bus, follow basic instructions, pick crops in 119 degrees, or descend into a mine shaft without worrying their silly little heads about inalienable human rights and the resulting laws and customs that demand safe working conditions.”

Well, three years earlier, as reported in The Telegraph (Sep.27, 2001, “Boy’s DNA implanted in rabbit eggs,” written by Roger Highfield), scientists had begun to walk down that road:

“Scientists in China have inserted a boy’s DNA into empty rabbit eggs and grown hybrid embryos, it is reported today. A team at the Sun Yat-Sen University of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, are trying to overcome a practical limitation…Today’s issue of Nature reports [about]…Dr Chen Xigu at Sun Yat-Sen…In some of the 100 or so successful transfers to a rabbit egg stripped of chromosomes, an embryo developed to the morula stage, the compact ball of cells that forms after about three days of development. For stem cells to be isolated, the embryos must be coaxed into developing further. In Britain, the Government plans to ban the creation of hybrids.”

Also in 2001, there was another ambitious experiment:

BBC Online (May 4, 2001): “Scientists have confirmed that the first genetically altered humans have been born and are healthy.

“Up to 30 such children have been born, 15 of them as a result of one experimental programme at a US laboratory…

“Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year-old children confirm that they contain a small quantity of additional genes not inherited from either parent.

“The additional genes were taken from a healthy donor and used to overcome their mother’s infertility problems.

“…The additional genes that the children carry have altered their ‘germline’, or their collection of genes that they will pass on to their offspring…[Note: This means the new abnormal configuration of genes will spread out into the general population, over time, with unknown effects.]

“Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers say that this ‘is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children.’”

The superhighway into a genetically designed future isn’t just a science-fiction fantasy. Stones on that highway have already been laid down.

The Matrix Revealed

Jon Rappoport

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

Official Science: The Big Medical Con Game

Official Science: The Big Medical Con Game

by Jon Rappoport

December 4, 2009

The recent scandal surrounding fake climate–change science, and the scandal around Swine Flu, are both reflections of the same premise:

There are official scientists; everyone else is irrelevant.

This is a game that works, but in the age of the Internet, the walls are coming down. More and more independent researchers and investigators are challenging officialdom.

This challenge is not only aimed at exposing the con game in which some scientists hold power regardless of their ability; no, it’s more than that. It’s exposing the fake science itself.

And it’s catching on.

But in order to take the next step forward, people have to realize that, regardless of their training, they can recognize certain aspects of fake science.

For example: Where is the evidence that a mere trace of a virus can cause illness?

You see, these days, when a so-called new virus is found, it’s automatically assumed it is the cause of some illness.

So the question is: Who says so?

Where is the proof for that assumption?

Asking the question is already planting a dagger in the heart of disease research.

None of the standard tests for Swine Flu determine how much H1N1 virus is in the patient. If evidence exists that any amount of H1N1 is present, researchers assume it’s the cause of flu.

This is a lie.

I’ve approached several scientists with this issue, and they have all begged off. They say they don’t know “all the facts.” That’s a diversion.

All traditional research is based on the common-sense notion that, in order to contribute to disease, many millions of a particular germ have to be present in the patient’s body. You need an army.

About 30 years ago, this standard was thrown out the window. No reason was given.

If you think about it, this change opened the door to saying any old or new germ is causing disease.

That’s like saying any increase in the level of sun spots, no matter how tiny, can destroy the Earth.

It makes no sense.

And people everywhere can understand that, if they leave behind the foolish idea that “the experts must know what they’re doing.”

If some piece of science makes no sense to you, there’s a decent chance that it’s made-up science.

That’s how I got into medical reporting. I just started asking questions. If an idea seemed weird to me, I asked people about it, and I kept digging. Most of the time, what sounded weird to me turned out to be fraudulent.

Inner circles of official science don’t like that approach. They have their arcane language and their computer models and their projections all dressed up in obscure formulae—and they protect that territory. They don’t want intrusion.

“We know. You wouldn’t be able to understand it. Let us do our work.”

That used to fly, but not so much anymore.

The walls are coming down.

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is the complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

Jon Rappoport

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

Cancer: Fraud Across the Board

Cancer: Fraud Across the Board

by Jon Rappoport

November 27, 2009

Let’s start with this…

ScienceDaily (May 13, 2009), 29 Percent Of Cancer Studies Report Conflict Of Interest:

Nearly one-third of cancer research published in high-impact journals disclosed a conflict of interest, according to a new study from researchers at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The most frequent type of conflict was industry funding of the study, which was seen in 17 percent of papers. Twelve percent of papers had a study author who was an industry employee. Randomized trials with reported conflicts of interest were more likely to have positive findings.

“Given the frequency we observed for conflicts of interest and the fact that conflicts were associated with study outcomes, I would suggest that merely disclosing conflicts is probably not enough. It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties,” says study author Reshma Jagsi, M.D., D.Phil., assistant professor of radiation oncology at the U-M Medical School.

The researchers looked at 1,534 cancer research studies published in prominent journals. Results of this current study appear online in the journal Cancer.

“A serious concern is individuals with conflicts of interest will either consciously or unconsciously be biased in their analyses. As researchers, we have an obligation to treat the data objectively and in an unbiased fashion. There may be some relationships that compromise a researcher’s ability to do that,” Jagsi says.

For example, she says, researchers might design industry-funded studies in a way that’s more likely to produce favorable results. They might also be more likely to publish positive outcomes than negative outcomes…

Methodology: The researchers looked at all original clinical cancer research published in five top oncology journals and three top general medical journals in 2006. The journals included were the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Lancet Oncology, Clinical Cancer Research and Cancer…

(end Science Daily clip)

So the researchers are bent. They are bent in the direction of their “non-scientific associations” and connections.

Then we have this, from Boston.com:

Flaws are found in validating medical studies

Many see need to overhaul standards for peer review

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 15, 2005

WASHINGTON — …after a study that sent reverberations through the medical profession by finding that almost one-third of top research articles have been either contradicted or seriously questioned, some specialists are calling for radical changes in the system.

…Rennie’s journal published the study, which said that subsequent research had found that almost one-third of the top papers that appeared in top journals over a 13-year period from 1990 to 2003, had been either contradicted or found to have potentially exaggerated results. All the articles had undergone vigorous peer review, leading to questions about whether problems should have been caught by reviewers.

…Under the system of peer review, a researcher submits findings to a journal for publication. Along with a review by editors, the article is sent to several specialists in the field.

These reviewers are not paid for their time, their names are usually not published, and their comments usually remain secret. They are usually not allowed to contact the researchers directly to ask questions, and they do not try to replicate the research.

The system has often had successes; many journal editors say peer review has saved countless prominent scientists from publishing seriously flawed work, and has spared the public from following mistaken medical advice.

But peer review also lacks consistent standards. Procedures vary among the world’s 10,000 or so journals. A peer reviewer often spends about four hours reviewing research that may have taken months or years to complete, but the amount of time spent on a review and the expertise of the reviewer can differ greatly, especially at lesser-known journals.

“It has been bandied about as a sort of ‘Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval’,” said Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. “It is only as good as the peer reviewers and editors.”

…Ioannidis, the author of the study on flawed research (“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”), said he had examined articles from top journals published from 1990 to 2003, and had found that 16 percent of those studies were later contradicted, and that another 16 percent were not found to have had as strong a result in subsequent research.

…PLOS Medicine also encourages peer reviewers to reveal their identity, but it does not demand it.

The journal’s senior editor, Barbara Cohen, said some reviewers want anonymity out of concern about retribution, which she described as “you trashed my paper at Nature, now I’m trashing yours at Science,” referring to two leading journals.

Cohen also said she is sympathetic to younger peer reviewers who fear that providing criticism of a senior person in the field will hurt their career. This is a common complaint among reviewers.

…Armstrong, the professor who has read dozens of studies on peer review, cited numerous embarrassing incidents that he said had called the peer review process into question.

In one study, for example, researchers submitted a plagiarized paper to 110 journals, but only two publications recognized the problem.

In another study, researchers examined 18 papers that had been published in peer-reviewed journals by a person who later admitted scientific fraud; they found that 16 of the papers had an average of 12 errors each.

One such error was that “the father in one family had his first child at age eight and the next at age nine,” Armstrong wrote.

(end Boston.com clip)

But who in the fold of worshipers of medical authority want to hear such things? Much better to pretend all is well. And that is pretty much what the leading medical journals do. They make a few changes now and then, but mostly they glide along burnishing their own reputations and admiring themselves in the mirror.

For us, though, this kind of news is different.

The Matrix Revealed

(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 free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.