The Roman Church: a betrayal of trust

by Jon Rappoport

November 16, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

I am not unfriendly to true Catholics who practice their religion with fervor and honor. But I must say this:

Down through history, NO true man of faith, who appeared as a teacher and prophet, was bent on establishing a HUGE ORGANIZATION to house his vision of God.

Such an idea would be unthinkable. A true prophet would immediately know the corruption that inevitably comes with building an empire to house his Word. Indeed, an empire that at points in its history would wield power over entire nations.

Stories of such “passings of the torch” and “keys to the Kingdom” are misinterpreted. Jesus was not urging what amounts to articles of incorporation and the founding of highly complex organizational structures.

For anyone who wants to look, the history of the Roman Church confirms how corrupt a religious empire can become. Declarations of heresy; torture; executions; pedophilia; broad censorship.

These cannot be excused as exceptions to the rule. They are intrinsic to gigantic organizations and how those organizations are run from the top.

The example I’ve been citing recently—the murder of a live infant, removed from its mother’s womb, to obtain kidney tissue for a cell line that would be employed in COVID vaccine testing (article archive here)—is a perverse illustration of the Church hierarchy blinding itself to a crime; a crime that should have made it oppose the vaccine with all its strength. But didn’t.

Instead, the Pope and his closest minions have enthusiastically and authoritatively supported secular authorities all over the world who are promoting the highly destructive vaccine and are mandating it through force.

By what stretch of fantasy is this Papal support representative of the Kingdom of God?

I believe the man known as Jesus was envisioning many small churches who would spread his messages in clear and unmistakable form. There would be no need for volumes of sophisticated canons; no need for frequent edicts; no need for ex cathedra pronouncements. Ceremonies would be few.

The emphasis would be: faith against all risks, even death. And THAT would imply standing up against secular authority seeking to eradicate freedom and impose slavery. Also known as individual CONSCIENCE.

However, in time, the burgeoning organization of the Church exerted a hypnotic effect on its congregation. That duty of conscience was pacified. Standing up became sitting down. Sitting down became bending the knee—and not just to the Christ and God, but to the Church itself. And to secular authority and force.

It is clear that Jesus was speaking about two Kingdoms. One of the Earth, and one of The Greater Life. He certainly did not come forward to bolster the power of the Earthly one. Nor was he saying the two Kingdoms were equal.

In prosaic Earthly terms, he was an explorer who had returned from distant shores. He had found a place whose essential quality offered a gateway into a revolution of the soul, an ultimate rescue from the suffering of the familiar land of every-day life.

But in order to make that journey to the new land, a voyager would have to resist the efforts of familiar leaders to hold him in check.

Was Jesus really saying that by having faith in Him alone, a human could gain a salvation that would then eliminate the need for any action in the world whatsoever?

If He were walking the Earth today, would He support the Pope’s message to take the COVID vaccine under coercion from the State, because “faith alone is enough?”

Might he recite to His followers—those who have been pacified by the Church to the point of hypnosis—the words from Revelation 3: 15-16? “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

Frankly, this is what I believe happened: In ancient days past, the leaders of the sagging Roman Empire looked at their unsustainable foreign conquests and internal corruptions, which were eating the Empire down to tattered cloth and bone.

Over a period of decades, a new strategy for Roman conquest was formed, beyond the budding ecumenical councils: a mega-religion poaching on the teachings of a single man, Jesus of Nazareth. Its goal of capturing the human mind could be achieved, with enough persistence, and with the right people in charge. It could wield power over nations.

Eventually, through the centuries, a merging of banking interests, organized crime, and elite families spawned that totalitarian empire—the Church—vastly superior to any ancient Roman Army.

Millions and millions of humans, seeking The Greater Life, invested their faith in this Church, and the priesthood reflected the power of that faith back at the flock and called it The Word of the Church.

“You hand us your soul, and we’ll return it to you with a bill for services.”

Yes, and also in that return, one element was removed: truly authentic CONSCIENCE. The conscience that provokes men and women to TAKE ACTION against oppressors who destroy freedom and enthrone slavery.

And make no mistake about it, that conscience is naturally present in all individuals, before they’re subverted.

Separate and apart from many good and honorable priests, and separate and apart from millions of good and honorable and devoted worshippers, THAT perversion was being installed.

So now there is a need for a vast revolution. It will not come from Church leaders. It will come from within the ranks of the billion members of the congregation. And by necessity, it will involve far-reaching decentralization:

The founding of MANY small Catholic churches, wholly independent of the central Church and its hierarchy.

For those who fear that such a breaking away would sever the connection to Jesus Himself and His Church—how could it? Why wouldn’t the breaking away strengthen that connection?

Was Jesus secretly a CEO of an IBM or a Walmart? Is that what He was looking to build? If He walked into the Vatican today, and attended the highest level secret meetings, would he really see a reflection of His teachings? Would He merely suggest a new Pope or a readjustment of certain rules, in order to re-establish His Father’s representative on Earth in honorable form?

I think He would bring thunder.

And after exiting the Vatican, I think He would preach new sermons for the ages.


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From 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 free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

A billion Catholics, COVID vaccines, and the duty to refuse injection

Unless fear and comfort are the true pillars of the Church

by Jon Rappoport

November 8, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Let me start by saying, everybody acts from faith. Faith in something, no matter what it is.

A billion Catholics are not the Vatican.

The Vatican, through the Pope, has made its position clear: take the COVID vaccines.

But then there are the consciences of a billion of the faithful.

In prior articles in this series (archive here), I’ve made it clear that COVID vaccines have, in fact, relied on a fetal-tissue cell line, HEK 293, for testing, and the cell line was originally obtained via an abortion.

Moreover, the evidence points to an abortion in which the infant was delivered from her mother’s womb, alive, and then was killed by a doctor removing her kidneys for fetal tissue. Infanticide. Murder.

Does it matter whether the abortion and the murder were committed yesterday, or in a room in a hospital in the Netherlands, in 1972? Are a billion Catholics willing to say, “It was so long ago, it doesn’t have meaning anymore”?

Is that a reasonable position of Faith?

My understanding is this: Catholics believe Jesus commanded the founding of His Church, which is their Church. Does that count now? Is it wrong to contemplate what He would advise? As opposed, for example, to what Anthony Fauci would advise?

I also understand the Pope, in telling Catholics to take the vaccine, was not claiming to speak from a position of infallibility. Doesn’t that leave the door open to the consciences of the billion members of the Church?

Is it archaic to speak about conscience? Is religious membership really an elaborate charade, a social stage play?

Suppose a high member of the Vatican said to the world: “There are many medical experiments that are used to develop and test vaccines and drugs. In these experiments, which have been performed for a hundred years, doctors remove an infant from his mother’s womb, ALIVE, and then take his kidneys or make a hole in his skull and vacuum out his brain, or cut out his heart. These killings are very real. Those of our faith should think deeply about whether they want to receive the medicines and vaccines associated with these murders…”

What would happen?

Suppose this esteemed member of the Vatican made this announcement, replete with details, every day for a month?

What would happen?

Suppose this esteemed priest decided to keep making the announcement until sufficient members of the congregation, worldwide, stepped forward, visibly, and made their voices heard and refused the vaccine?

What would happen?

As some people are reading this, they will answer, “This esteemed priest would be murdered.”

Yes? And? So?

Don’t the sacred vows of a priest go beyond loyalty to this world? Isn’t his conviction to his faith a thing larger than his life on Earth?

Would you expect or want a priest, who serves as a pipeline to God for his congregation, to be a materialist, a person inextricably bound to his comforts and duties here?

If by joining the Church as a member, a person comes closer to God, is he asked to pay no price for that gift? Is he asked to incur no risk in his life?

The Church is, in fact, founded on matters of life and death. That is where faith encounters a reckoning. And this is true of all religions.

But at their most profound pinnacle of teaching, where “the outer garments” are cut away, religions guide the individual soul to come to his own decision about what his faith means, and how far he will go in standing with it.

One person, a billion people.

The Power is always there.

One step across the threshold.

~

George Fox, the fiery 17th century preacher who founded the Quakers movement in England, traveled the countryside exhorting thousands of people to find Christ and God for themselves: “Why should any man have power over any other man’s faith, seeing [that] Christ Himself is the author of it?”

At the time, there were laws forbidding “unauthorized worship.” Fox constantly broke them. He was frequently arrested—at least twice for blasphemy, and on one of those occasions it was suggested he should be sentenced to death. Parliament intervened on his behalf.

He performed many healings and wrote a book listing and describing them. The book disappeared, and no copies ever surfaced.

Thinking about George Fox and his courage as background and example…

Now, in 2021, should believers grasp a destiny that outdistances the fear of being banned from Facebook; being “attacked” online for expressing an opinion about an election audit; being fired from a job; being “canceled” for telling a joke?

Has the need for security and comfort expanded to such a degree that people of faith are willing to abandon their beliefs on a moment’s notice?

~

If today you picked a few thousand people of faith and sent them back to the time of Moses, to live as Egyptians under the Pharaoh; it’s quite possible that when God loosed the 10 plagues against them—“water turning to blood, frogs, lice, flies, livestock pestilence, boils, hail, locusts, darkness and the killing of firstborn children”; the Pharaoh would simply say: “The only adverse effects are minor pain and swelling at the injection site and transient fatigue”; and these people would believe him.

How much faith is required in order to open one’s eyes?

And having opened them, to have a voice and make that voice heard?

And to endure against the consequences, because faith is not ultimately invested in material things?

~

Book of Revelation: “And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks…”

For those who believe these words, the majestic scope of these words, who take them as truth—

What will they do now?

Will they sit still, or will they rise up and take action?


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From 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 free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Murdering infants to obtain fetal tissue for vaccine research

An interview with AnnaMaria Cardinalli

by Jon Rappoport

November 4, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

For my recent series of articles on the murder of infants to obtain fetal tissue for vaccine testing and research, I gained key information from investigative reporter AnnaMaria Cardinalli’s article, “Catholic Conscience and the COVID-19 Vaccine,” in Crisis magazine.

AnnaMaria agreed to do an interview on this and related subjects. The interview speaks for itself—and it should provide people a VERY fundamental reason for rejecting the COVID vaccine.

Q: It seems you’ve lived at least several lives side by side. You’ve earned a lofty worldwide reputation as an operatic contralto and classical guitarist; you’re a licensed private investigator; you carried out extensive research for the US military in Afghanistan; you own a private security firm; you donate all your earnings to a Catholic order which wants to start an orphanage for exploited children. And I’m not covering all the bases. It’s rather mind-blowing. Before we dive into the subject at hand, can you speak to this variety and achievement?

A: Ha! Your question is very flattering and I’m hardly at issue here, but I’ll be happy to answer. The variety of work I’ve been involved in is so wildly unlikely that I could have never sat down and come up with it as a plan! The one factor underlying all it is my incredible fortune to have been raised soundly in the Catholic Faith by my mom, so despite my own many failings, I knew enough to put my life completely at the disposal of God’s will from an early age. I find utterly astounding the adventures on which He’ll lead a soul when He’s given that freedom. Making music was always my personal hope, but the rest came as a natural consequence of responding to circumstances around me with whatever capacities I had the ability to respond. That’s the very definition of responsibility (“response ability”), and a real means by which God guides our lives, don’t you think?

Q: In your wide range of experiences, did medical issues ever pop up on your radar?

A: Medical issues arose in two ways. On one hand, when I worked for the FBI and was embedded with the Joint Special Operations Command In Iraq, I received truly fantastic, cutting-edge training in a collateral duty as a Tactical Operational Medic. Later, in Afghanistan, I participated in medical missions to help assess rural tribal community needs—particularly the medical needs of women and children. Through these military experiences, I found a passion for emergency medicine. I recently re-certified as an EMT to better assist my community’s current medical mission to the homeless (sosvan.org), and I continue to pursue more advanced certifications.

On the other hand, I do not approach the issue of the cell line origins as a practitioner or any sort of medical expert, but as an investigative journalist, simply seeking out the facts and holding them to the light of common logic. My thinking is that the factors necessary to understand the nature of what we put into our bodies must be, at least on a basic level, accessible and comprehensible to the general population, and one need not be a medical expert to grasp them. Otherwise, how could most of us make an informed decision? We can’t allow clear, critical truths to be obfuscated by the statement, “You’re not an expert. You wouldn’t understand.”

Q: How did you become interested in the very specific origin of the fetal cell line, HEK 293? What made you think it might be important?

A: I was led to interest in HEK 293 via a long path. My experience in Afghanistan imparted to me a particular investigative focus on Human Trafficking. I’ve written and worked extensively on the issue, and the more I learn, the more I am overwhelmed by its prevalence, both internationally and on our own soil. In recent years, while the China Tribunal brought the harvesting and sale of organs belonging to unwanted citizens into clear focus overseas, the Planned Parenthood expose by David Daleiden [more on that expose — covered by investigative journalist Celia Farber, here and here] and others brought the same practice to light in the US. Both these developments solidified the trafficking issue in my mind not only as one of forced labor or sexual exploitation but of the complete commoditization of the human person—the viewing of the human being as a mere collection of occasionally useful parts, lacking any other value. This should frighten every person, regardless of their faith background or lack of one, because history shows us over and over again that it’s when we fail to recognize our common humanity that atrocities prevail.

With regard to HEK 293 specifically, for Catholics like myself, it is a grave moral responsibility to examine whether any action one takes participates in, perpetuates, or encourages such evil. We are bound to inform our own individual consciences and act in accordance with them. So, when the COVID vaccine became available, I sought to find out all I could about the nature of its origins and was led right back into the human trafficking concerns that plague me. It was in this research that I came across the work of the biologist and vaccine developer Pamela Acker [author of “Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective”; more here]. Her public acknowledgement of the necessary procedure for ensuring the viability of Human Embryonic Kidney (HEK) cells coincided with what medical professionals had shared with me privately.

For me, this was enough to raise concern that warranted further investigation before taking the vaccine. Sadly, the more the matter is investigated, as it was by the courageous, thorough, and insightful author of the Gateway Pundit article, the more evidence arises supporting my worst fear—that a perfectly innocent living child, a healthy little girl, born alive and outside the womb, was killed for and by the harvest of her organs, and that this is a practice that may underlie great parts of the research industry. Believe me, I am longing to find firm and indisputable confirmatory evidence that this nightmare scenario is NOT the case. However, your in-depth coverage of the subject following the Crisis and Gateway Pundit articles seems to continually contribute direct, expert-based medical evidence of the horrifying truth. Saddening as it is, I truly appreciate what you are accomplishing.

Q: The HEK (Human Embryo Kidney) 293 fetal cell line has been used to test COVID vaccines. That makes its origin vividly important now. How did you become convinced that the evidence pointed to the removal of an alive infant from her mother’s womb, and then the killing of that infant, in 1972, in the Netherlands, in order to harvest her kidneys—which would be used to create the HEK 293 cell line?

A: I reiterate that I had to be convinced by simple logic that anyone, not medical researchers exclusively, could follow. In fact, the more specialized the language describing a medical moral issue becomes, the more it can be used to obscure the facts. I would almost laugh, if not for the gravity of the issue, at hyper-euphemistic descriptions one finds in the medical literature. It discusses, for instance, situations like the finding of electrical impulses in the cardiac tissue of the POC.

First of all, “POC?” Product of conception? What a way to talk around an issue! I’m a proud product of conception and have never met anyone who wasn’t! Electrical impulses in the cardiac tissue? With fewer keystrokes, that could be called “a heartbeat.” So, I’m a POC with intact electrical impulses in my cardiac tissue or, if anyone were looking to save on ink, “alive.” Please, though, forgive my digression.

I worked to write very carefully in the Crisis article the simple facts that concerned me about the origins of the HEK 293 cell line. Rather than try to summarize that argument in this interview and thus potentially miss a critical component—may I please direct interested readers to the article at the link below?

Catholic Conscience and the COVID-19 Vaccine

I became further convinced of the reality following the publication of the Gateway Pundit exclusive which offered some insightful analysis taking into account the recent Pfizer whistleblower revelations. I’d also like to direct anyone interested to that great article with a link below.

Exclusive: Pfizer’s Nervousness About Its COVID Vaccine’s Origins Conceals a Horror Story

It’s not that I don’t want to answer the question, it’s that I want it to be answered as accurately as possible.

Q: When I read conventional medical literature that describes research on aborted fetuses, I see no mention of taking the infant from the mother’s womb, alive, and then killing him/her. Is this a research “open secret” that is held back from the public and even many doctors? I read a 1975 federal report on medical research using fetuses. It went on for a hundred pages, and there wasn’t one reference to killing infants in the process of removing their organs.

A: I think the first issue here is the extremely removed language typical of the descriptions of these procedures that I reference above, along with its tendency to state actions separate from their obvious consequences. It’s a linguistic tendency that may well reflect the thinking and training of researchers and abortionists. In Dr. Kathi A. Aultman’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on March 15th 2016, which you excerpted in your incredibly revealing post of October 27th [see here; more here], the doctor describes her initial fascination with the cellular perfection of the little bodies she dissected, and explains that it was only years later that was she able to overcome her scientific dissociation to make the intellectual connection that the tiny perfect bodies were those of people whose lives she had ended.

I worry our society has removed death so far from life that we don’t even recognize it, and that is a scary thing. Our grandparents die in facilities away from home rather than with their hands held in ours. Our food arrives packaged and devoid of any reminders of the animals from which it came. Fido moves to a faraway farm, while we play immersive games where graphically taken lives merely “reset.” Therefore, unlike any generation prior to ours, most of us can go through life without regularly witnessing the reality of death, which makes for a very unnatural understanding of it—one far from the Catholic motto of memento mori. It’s an understanding that might even allow a scientist to admire a human body on which she performed a procedure that ended the function of its “cellularly perfect” organs without grasping that she was its killer.

I suspect this kind of thinking in turn produces academic writing in which it is almost impossible to see anything untoward. Perhaps most authors themselves can’t see it, aside from the presumably rarer instances of dedicatedly evil individuals who do see things clearly and actively choose to obfuscate the reality. Either way, this is why the literature will never say, as you had difficulty finding, “in the next step, kill the newborn,” even if it is the obvious consequence of the procedure described.

If the doctors involved were capable of that kind of cause-and-effect thinking, perhaps they would have to first write, “in the next step, first anesthetize, then kill the newborn.” If some of those doctors believed themselves Christians, they would have to write “in the next step, first baptize, then anesthetize, and then kill the newborn.” Even if they believed themselves merely in possession of basic mammalian instincts, they would at least have to write “in the next step, first cuddle and comfort the crying newborn, then anesthetize and kill him.” Of course, they can’t go there without recognizing the child’s humanity, so instead, the scientific dissociation of cause-and-effect remains in place.

This critical thought barrier is evidenced particularly in the literature when we see organs harvested from living children outside the womb referred to as fresh “fetal” or even “embryonic” tissue. The biomedical research companies requisitioning the tissue make the same linguistic error and it goes constantly uncorrected. No. The medical term for a delivered fetus in its first moments and days of life outside the womb is a neonate. A newborn. Most of these people went to medical school and know the difference, but they persist in the error.

Perhaps if we could only require them to accurately use the language of “fresh neonatal tissue” in their requisitions and reports, some would be unable to proceed. Requesting a “heart of newborn” for the development of whatever a researcher might be concocting in the lab might finally sound to the ears of many too much like procuring the ingredients of a witch’s brew belonging to horror fiction. It certainly makes “eye of newt” sound resoundingly tame.

Other than the issue of logic and language, however, I don’t think the practice of infanticide by vivisection is particularly secret among those working closely in the arena of biomedical research, and it’s certainly known among the abortionists who supply the needs of the industry, although I agree with you that it’s not something that doctors whose scope never intersects the arena are aware of any more than most of us are. It’s simply not brought to our attention in the media. We focus where the media points us, and there appears some decided silence on the issue.

A breakthrough in public awareness of the direct killing of living unwanted newborns for the sake of biomedical research, which, almost incomprehensibly, generated far less media attention and public outcry than it should have, occurred with the David Daleiden hearings. There many doctors and scientific procurement company representatives spoke openly of the practice, though often in the detached terms that would require careful listening. For instance, the CEO of Stem Express admitted dryly that “fetal hearts were perfused using a Langendorff apparatus.”

A Langendorff apparatus serves to preserve the functional viability of hearts ex-vivo (which means, literally, outside of a living body). That is, to specify the use of the Langendorff apparatus is to know that a heart requiring this preservation was, in fact, taken from a living body. To state the painfully obvious cause-and-effect reasoning generally left out here, the removal of a functioning vital organ from a living person (without the replacement of its function) is the direct killing of that person. No example is clearer than that of a beating heart. Ask an Aztec.

Dr. Theresa Deisher, a Stanford University School of Medicine researcher heavily involved with the use of adult stem cells, describes exactly how that killing must take place in order for the Langendorff perfusion to function. Both in her September 19th, 2019 testimony at the Daleiden trial and in a same-day interview with Lifesite News, she explained that the individuals performing the vivisection would necessarily “cut open the baby’s chest and they would take the heart out beating and drop it in a buffer with potassium. She went on to state with rare clarity, “of course, if the heart isn’t beating, they can’t get any of these cells. Nobody wants a stopped heart.” [more, here]

At another point in her testimony she explained again that, “some of the babies had to have beating hearts when they were harvested.” Logic alone dictates this fact, as she explained “once the heart goes into contraction, you can’t get it to come out of that position.” It “has to be beating and be arrested in a relaxed position” to be of use for research purposes.

Again, just with the use of basic reason, it goes without saying that not only are breathing hearts being removed, but that these procedures occur on living children outside the womb, not within it. The people doing the dissection are not opening the chest of the child in the sort of incredibly rare and highly specialized in utero surgery that might be done to repair a fetal heart condition. The cost and specialization would be astronomical and nonsensical, as they intend to destroy the child, not save it.

So, just by using the single example of hearts on the Langendorff apparatus, which is to say nothing of the “embryonic” kidney cells, (which may more accurately be called “neonatal” kidney cells) used in the COVID vaccine testing and development, I think I can answer your question by saying there is no “open secret” regarding infanticide for medical research. There is no secret at all. I am not revealing anything that is not already obvious, even to a non-expert, given to looking at the simple facts.

The shocking thing, at this point, is not that this is happening, but that we have yet to react, as a whole, in opposition to it. In fact, we accept it by welcoming into our lives the “benefits” of the tortuous murders of innocent children. If we are doing this unknowingly, then perhaps it is because we have bought into the suspension of cause-and-effect reasoning like that to which the researchers subscribe.

Your question leads me, however, to one more point, which I hope provides a wake-up point if nothing else has. Even more shocking than our acceptance of this evil is the fact that it is entirely unnecessary. We could have the same or perhaps greater benefits by other means, but we don’t pursue the course of action that has proven successful in halting unethical bioresearch before and redirecting the course of the industry.

Why don’t we do for our own species what we have succeeded in doing for animals? Most people recognize that animal advocacy and speaking with our wallets through the boycotting of unethically-produced products is genuinely critical because lab animals are innocent creatures who cannot speak for themselves. Isn’t that true of human “lab babies” too?

Also in the expert testimony cited above, Dr. Deisher made the point that using human fetal tissue for research has become more prevalent because increasing regulations on the welfare of animals have made the use of humans more convenient. More convenient! In a way, while horrifying, this is also wonderful news, because it means that animal activists successfully changed things, albeit with a terrible unexpected outcome. However, it means that we can do the same for our species too!

Does that mean that the kind of beneficial research advances which have previously come from the study of neonatal tissue need to stop? Do we have to decide on a sacrificial trade off, with improvement in the lives of those with debilitating illnesses on one hand and the murder of human babies with less compassion than lab rats on the other? Is that how science must proceed—in sanitized facilities behind closed doors that, just in case we become personally in need of its “benefits,” we prefer not to give much thought?

Here’s another shocker. Not at all. Adult pluripotent stem cells, obtained with adult consent and with no need for tortuous murders, actually negate the necessity of the use of fetal organs for stem cell research, because they can be cultured into any type of body cell. This technology exists now, but its use is more costly and less common than the worn-in ease of the baby butchering business. However, like any emerging technology, the more its use expands, the lower its costs become.

We can be the drivers of the expansion of its use, by making unethical research the expensive and inconvenient option. When I was a little girl, I was horrified to learn that lipsticks were tested on mistreated lab rabbits and resolved to never condone that practice with my purchase. So did every little girl I knew. Now cruelty-free cosmetics are the expected and affordable norm. Please, if we could ban together as a caring society to save the bunnies, what should we be willing to do to save the babies?


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.

If I were an atheist materialist biological machine

by Jon Rappoport

November 1, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

If I were an atheist materialist who believed all humans were nothing more than biological machines, the practice of delivering an infant whole and alive, through Caesarean Section, and then cutting out his heart and removing tissue for medical research would still make me turn away and want to forget I had ever heard this was happening in the world. (My series on medical infanticide, here [1])

Because a click would go off inside me.

I wouldn’t know what the click was, or why it happened, but I would feel something. And if I were a creature living in Huxley’s Brave New World, I would know the feeling was a signal I should go to the medical dispensary and obtain the drug Soma, which would put me in a pleasant forgetful state…

And yet in our world, there are doctors and nurses and technicians and researchers who don’t even experience the click. They participate in the murders of the infants. They do the work. [2]

They are backed up by bureaucrats and elected officials and ethicists and pharmaceutical executives and medical school teachers and deans and medical journal editors and medical journalists and even religious leaders.

How is it that people of faith, billions of them, are not standing up together against this establishment?

Obviously, something has gone wrong with religion. That is the only conclusion.

In organizing itself, it has become concerned with perpetuating itself. It has built a wall between its people and what faith means.

Jesus threw the money changers out of the Temple, but what happens when the money changers ARE the Temple?

What happens when pastors fail to inspire their congregations to take action in the world and stand up against their oppressors?

Vaccine companies used fetal cell line HEK 293 to test their COVID vaccines. That cell line was surely obtained through the medical murder of an infant, in 1972, in the Netherlands. Her kidneys were removed for the tissue, killing her.

Religious people can say that’s none of their business. They can say anything that will close them off from action.

But ABIDING FAITH is supposed to triumph over society and government, the “things of this world.” That’s one of the sacred points of faith. It’s supposed to allow a person to go to the wall for his beliefs.

A Pope carrying all the accoutrement of the Roman Church can issue a statement supporting the COVID vaccine. This tells you how much of the material world the Pope pays homage to. How much he has sold of himself. He is not an illustration of the test of faith.

If I were an atheist materialist who believed all humans were biological machines, there are churches and temples I could walk into; and feel at home.

The Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute “is a 501 (c)3 non-profit organization with a mission to end human trafficking and exploitation for the purposes of biomedical research and commercial products. Our President and Founder, Theresa Deisher Ph.D., has over 30 years of pharmaceutical research and leadership experience. She discovered adult cardiac derived stem cells, has worked on their therapeutic uses as an alternative to human fetal DNA, and leads a team of scientists at AVM Biotechnology dedicated to changing what a diagnosis of cancer, autoimmunity, or chronic infectious disease means to patients and their loved ones. As a result of this work, Dr. Deisher is named as an inventor on over 47 patents.” [3]

I’m going to give you a few important quotes from their published material. Wherever “fetal cells” and “cell line” are mentioned, this indicates material obtained from an aborted fetus. Were these infants removed from their mothers’ wombs, alive, and then murdered? Except in one instance, this is not covered. However, Sound Choice founder, Dr. Deisher, in a devastating interview with Robert Kennedy [4], makes it clear that the practice of removing infants, alive, from the womb, extracting their tissue to make cell lines, and killing them is a widespread practice.

In the first 15 minutes of the interview [4], Deisher discusses infants in the womb for 20 weeks, even 32 weeks, being taken out alive, with their blood supply functioning (essential) and then killed by cutting out their hearts or their brains. This is what is done in order to obtain tissue that will be turned into fetal cell lines.

At the top of the interview, Kennedy said he didn’t want to get into the moral aspect of fetal cell lines. But after listening to Deisher, he was shaken. He said so. He said they would have to cover the moral aspect.

Here are Sound Choice Institute statements: [5]

“Today, more than 23 vaccines are contaminated by the use of aborted fetal cells. There is no law that requires that consumers be informed that some vaccines are made using aborted fetal cells and contain residual aborted fetal DNA. While newer vaccines produced using aborted fetal cells do inform consumers, in their package inserts, that the vaccines contain contaminating DNA from the cell used to produce the vaccine, they do not identify the cells as being derived from electively aborted human fetuses.”

“The United States government has known about the dangers of human DNA from aborted fetal cell-lines since at least 2005. They set guidelines which are supposed to keep the DNA at a specific limit, which they hypothesize will not cause cancer. There is no monitoring of vaccines by our government agencies to ensure those limits are adhered to. Vaccines (MMR, Varicella, and Hepatitis A) sent for independent analysis have consistently shown levels of human fetal DNA that are far beyond the ‘established safety limits’.”

“Instead of conducting safety studies the FDA regulated the amount of human DNA that could be present in a vaccine to no greater than 10ng.”

“Unfortunately, the Sound Choice team discovered that the fetal DNA levels ranged anywhere from 142ng – 2000ng per dose, way beyond the so-called ‘safe’ level.”

“Human fetal cell lines are used to culture some vaccines. They are listed on the CDCs Vaccine Excipient list as [cell lines] WI-38, MRC-5, HEK293, PERC.6.

* WI-38 is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of an aborted female fetus.

* MRC-5 (Medical Research Council cell strain 5) is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of a 14-week-old aborted male fetus.

* Human embryonic kidney cells 293, also often referred to as HEK 293, HEK-293, 293 cells, or less precisely as HEK cells, are a specific cell line originally derived from human embryonic kidney cells grown in a tissue culture.

* PERC.6 cell line was derived from human embryonic retinal cells taken from an elective abortion.

* The newest cell line created in 2015 for vaccines: WALVAX 2 is taken from the lung tissue of a 3-month gestation female who was ultimately selected from among 9 aborted babies. The scientists noted how they followed specific guidelines to mimic WI-38 and MRC-5 in selecting the aborted babies, ranging from 2-4 months gestation. They further noted how they induced labor using a ‘water bag’ abortion to shorten the delivery time and prevent the death of the fetus to ensure live intact organs which were immediately sent to the labs for cell preparation.” (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25803132/)

“Human Diploid Cells (aborted fetal material) provide the ‘cell culture’ in which vaccine formulas are often grown or nurtured. Current vaccines in circulation which were manufactured using aborted fetal material include:

* Polio vaccine (inactivated/IPV) & Oral Polio (live virus) drops : Sanofi Pasteur recently announced they are discontinuing the use of aborted fetal cells in the manufacturing of Poliovax, Pentacel, and Quadracel polio vaccines. Ask before receiving these vaccines as it will take some time for the ethically available options to be widely available.

* Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccine/MMR (Rubella component)

* Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Poliomyelitis vaccine (DTaP/TdP)

* Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccine & Shingles (zoster) vaccine

* Hepatitis A and Hepatitis A & B vaccines

* Rabies vaccine

* Shingles

* Some Coronavirus vaccines”

VACCINE REFUSAL AND RESISTANCE ARE ACTS OF CONSCIENCE, SCIENCE, AND FAITH.


SOURCES:

[1] blog.nomorefakenews.com/tag/medical-infanticide/

[2] blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/10/27/the-abortion-culture/

[3] https://soundchoice.org/about/

[4] https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/robert-f-kennedy-jr-q-a-with-dr-theresa-deisher/

[5] https://soundchoice.org/vaccines/


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.

Open letter to a billion Catholics; cc to everyone else; here is the Pope verbatim

by Jon Rappoport

October 29, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Vatican News: “Press conference on the flight back from his Apostolic Journey in Southern Africa.”

Read these astounding words from Pope Francis:

“I would like to repeat what the Doctrine of the Church says about this: When we acknowledge international organisations and we recognise their capacity to give judgment, on a global scale – for example the international tribunal in The Hague, or the United Nations. If we consider ourselves humanity, when they make statements, our duty is to obey. It is true that not all things that appear just for the whole of humanity will also be so for our [Vatican] pockets, but we must obey international institutions. That is why the United Nations were created. That’s why international courts were created.”

Choose one of the following: The person making that statement is a) utterly naïve; b) a blind secular ideologue; c) surrendering his power and his Church to Earthly authority; d) combining his power and the power of his Church with elite Globalists; e) what?!?!

And don’t sidestep these choices with, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

If those words of Jesus described His ultimate position, His surrender to the authorities and His Crucifixion would have no more meaning than a man paying his taxes, albeit with a great deal more pain.

I guess the days of a Pope concealing a broad secret agenda are over. Francis comes right out in the open, as if he were a city council member supporting the local shut down of a factory smokestack, in accordance with a UN climate-change policy.

Except that’s not who the Pope is.

He’s an Argentine Jesuit with “the keys to the Kingdom.”

And to you, his followers, he’s infallible.

Unless you decide otherwise.

This would be a good time to reassess his status in your eyes.

I keep hammering on this point: Jesus served God, not the State.

The institutions the Pope insists all Catholics must obey are the State, in its widest and most powerful form.

Therefore, it makes perfect sense that he would say Catholics should line up and take the COVID vaccine, even while acknowledging fetal tissue from abortions has been used in testing those vaccines.

What’s next? A Vatican treaty with Planned Parenthood?

The Pope has cast a long shadow on attempts to gain religious exemptions from vaccination. Obviously, he and his secular partners wanted to shrink that loophole.

The diabolical plan to stick a needle into 8 billion arms, delivering an experimental genetic treatment, whose documented effects have been catastrophic…that plan can’t achieve wide success if a billion of those people—Catholics—believe the shot is founded on a sin.

The planning for the (false) pandemic had to include Pope Francis. And he was agreeable. Remarkably so.

Let’s take one more step down the rabbit hole. The reference here is a May 2021 article at The Tablet: “Pope joins global [financial] elite to plan for world after COVID.”

An unpublicized conference, “Dreaming of a Better Restart,” had already been held at the time of publication. It was sponsored by the Vatican. It took up climate change, economic inequality, and hunger.

Then we have this from the Tablet article. Buckle up: “Prominent population control advocate and supporter of Chinese Communist Party president Xi Jinping, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, led the group discussion that followed. Sachs has extolled Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road initiative, that aims to extend CCP influence across Asia to Europe, as ‘one of the most important economic development initiatives in the history of contemporary economics’. He is a frequent collaborator with Bishop Sorondo, who in a February 2018 interview said, ‘right now, those who are best implementing the social doctrine of the Church are the Chinese’.”

“Rockefeller Foundation president Raj Shah was one of the leaders of the general discussion that followed. Along with its humanitarian projects, the Foundation has for years funded worldwide contraception programmes and abortion providers. Shah worked for USAID during the presidency of Barack Obama, and before that served in a range of leadership roles in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.”

If all that doesn’t make your head spin, I can’t help you.

This is your Church. This is your Pope.

They represent Jesus on Earth.

Well, actually, the Pope is a stage magician performing a simple trick of hypnosis—otherwise known as the bait and switch.

You’re sitting at home eating dinner with the family and the phone rings. You look at the screen. There is no number printed on it. You pick up.

A voice says, “Hello, friend. I want to tell you about a special offer. Jesus in a bottle. $49.95. If you order now, we’ll send you two. And you can move to China. Or wait a year and the Chinese system will come to you. But that’s not all. As a bonus, one absolutely free abortion for a member of your family. You’re Catholic, we’re the improved Catholic Church, so give me your card numbers and your future in all of Eternity.”


The Matrix Revealed

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


SOURCES:

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-09/pope-francis-inflight-press-conference-full-text.html

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/14153/pope-joins-global-elite-to-plan-for-world-after-covid


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.

Murdering millions of newborn calves for vaccines and other medical research

Cc: Vegan Hollywood celebrities and animal rights advocates who are taking the COVID vaccine

by Jon Rappoport

October 28, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

In my recent series of articles on the murder of aborted live human infants for vaccine research, I made no mention of animal research.

Now I will.

The product is called Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS). It is used all over the world.

How is it obtained?

Slate News: “FBS, as the name implies, is a byproduct made from the blood of cow fetuses. If a cow coming for slaughter happens to be pregnant, the cow is slaughtered and bled, and then the fetus is removed from its mother and brought into a blood collection room. The fetus, which remains alive during the following process to ensure blood quality, has a needle inserted into its heart. Its blood is then drained until the fetus dies, a death that usually takes about five minutes. This blood is then refined, and the resulting extract is FBS. Millions of fetuses are slaughtered this way.”

Think about that.

—Medical research, vaccine research, and a blood-soaked landscape. The murder of living human infants for their tissue; the murder of newborn calves for their tissue.

Slate: “FBS is also special because it is a universal growth medium. You can take almost any cell type, toss it into a petri dish with FBS, and the cells will grow. The use of the serum is extensive, with FBS being cited in more than 10,000 research papers…”

Was FBS used in the development of COVID vaccines? Yes and no statements proliferate.

However, if you take the research and development back far enough into the virology lab, the answer would be an unqualified yes.

Cell cultures in dishes are starting points for all vaccines. Virologists believe they are isolating viruses in those dishes. The purported viruses are the reasons, in the first place, for all vaccines—including COVID.

Those cell cultures in dishes need a substance that promotes the growth of the cells. Enter Fetal Bovine Serum as that substance.

In medical literature and news media, you’ll find many euphemisms and generalities that obscure the murdering of newborn calves. Animal-derived products; serum; organisms in development; growth factor; universal medium; humane treatment.

“Don’t tell the children.” In this case, everyone is supposed to be a child kept in ignorance.

And medical murder is supposed to be a special scientific procedure. Separate, remote, sanitized.

It is—until people find out what’s actually going on.

The devil is in the details.


SOURCES:

(forthcoming)


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.

The Abortion Culture

by Jon Rappoport

October 27, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

From Worldometers.info: “According to WHO [World Health Organization], every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.”

“In the USA, where nearly half of pregnancies are unintended and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion, there are over 3,000 abortions per day. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies in the USA (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.”

In researching my current series of articles on abortionin which infants are removed, alive, from the womb, and their organs cut out, killing them—for medical research—I’ve come across information about what I would call the culture of abortion.

In this article, I’m just going to quote others and make no comments.

Investigate Magazine, Ian Wishart, 3/7/12: “[Abortion clinic technician Dean] Alberty told of seeing babies wounded but alive after abortion procedures, and in one case a set of twins ‘still moving on the table’ when clinicians from AGF began dissecting the children to harvest their organs. The children, he said, were ‘cuddling each other’ and ‘gasping for breath’ when medics moved in for the kill.”

The following quotes are collected at clinicquotes.com, an astonishing resource (for starters, see this link):

A Year in the Life of an Abortion Clinic, Peter Korn, 1996: “Although the operation is over, the fetus is still a matter of concern…Rhonda, a medical assistant who also works for a biological supply company, takes the surgical tray in another room where she uses a plastic colander to strain out the blood, leaving only the separated parts of the fetus. These she places in a glass dish, taking a moment to measure one of the feet against a transparent plastic ruler to establish exact gestational age. Earlier in the day she received her regular fax detailing what body parts are needed by which researchers around the country. The researchers specify preferences for age and, in some cases, sex. Liver, spleen, pancreas, and brain are the organs most often requested.”

Is Abortion Good for Women, Rachel MacNair, Angela Kennedy; Swimming Against the Tide: Feminist Dissent on the Issue of Abortion, 1997; from abortion worker Judith Fetrow, who worked for Planned Parenthood:

“When I started at Planned Parenthood, I saw two types of women working at the clinic. One group were women who had found some way to deal with the emotional and spiritual toll of working with abortion. The second group were women who had closed themselves off emotionally. They were the walking wounded. You could look in their eyes, and see that they were emotionally dead. Unavailable for themselves, or for anyone else.”

Abortion at Work: Ideology and Practice in a Feminist Clinic, Wendy Simonds, 1996; quoting an abortion clinic employee: “It’s just—I mean it looks like a baby. It looks like a baby. And especially if you get one that comes out, that’s not piecemeal. And you know, I saw this one, and it had its fingers in its mouth…it makes me really sad that that had to happen, you know, but it doesn’t change my mind. It’s just hard. And it makes me just sort of stop and feel sad about it, the whole necessity of it. And also….it’s very warm when it comes into the sterile room because it’s been in the mother’s stomach. It feels like flesh, you know…”

Interview of Joy Davis done by Life Dynamics in 1993; Joy Davis, a former abortion worker, wrote about her fellow clinic workers: “We don’t have conversations. Sometimes the employees faint. Sometimes they throw up. Sometimes they have to leave the room. It’s just problems that we deal with, but it’s not talked about…If you really dwell on it, and talk about it all the time, then it gets more personal. It gets more real to you. You just don’t talk about it, try not to think about it…If [the abortionist] ever caught you discussing something like that, he’d fire you.”

Sadja Goldsmith “Second Trimester Abortion by Dilation and Extraction (Evacuation) [D&E]: Surgical Techniques and Psychological Reactions”; Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians in Atlanta, Georgia Oct 13-14 1977; In a paper on the D&E abortion method, which at the time was new, an abortionist wrote: “The fetus was extracted in small pieces to minimize cervical trauma. The fetal head was often the most difficult object to crush and remove, because of its size and contour. The operator kept track of each portion of the fetal skeleton….”

“Selective Abortion, AKA Pregnancy Reduction.” New England Journal of Medicine, April 21, 1988; Two abortionists describing selective abortions done on multiple pregnancies: “Using ultra-sound to locate each fetus, the doctors would insert a needle into the chest cavity of the most accessible fetus and place the needle tip directly into the heart of the baby. Potassium chloride was then injected into the heart and the heart was viewed on the ultrasound screen until it stopped beating. Even at 9 weeks, 3 of the 12 fetuses selected for elimination presented problems. The heart continued to beat and the procedure had to be repeated.”

Kenneth Paul Fye, PhD, Obvious Murder: The March From Abortion to Infanticide (May 30, 2016) 253; Jewish former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson [who had performed thousands of abortions] said to an audience in Canada, where he was speaking: “I’m going to set it against my Jewish heritage and the Holocaust in Europe. The abortion holocaust is beyond the ordinary discourse of morality and rational condemnation. It is not enough to pronounce it absolutely evil… The abortion industry is a new event, severed from connections with traditional presuppositions of history, psychology, politics, and morality…This is an evil torn free of its moorings in reason and causality, and ordinary secular corruption raised to unimaginable powers of magnification and limitless extremity.”

Written Testimony of Kathi A. Aultman, MD Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing March 15th 2016:

Chairman Grassley, I would like to thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing today. I have spent my entire career as a women’s advocate and have a keen interest in issues that impact women’s health. I come to you as someone who has done 1st and 2nd trimester abortions and who has treated women with the medical and psychological complications of abortions. I have cared for women and their babies throughout normal pregnancies, medically complicated ones, and those with fetal anomalies. I have taken care of women who decided to keep their unplanned pregnancies and those who aborted them. I have given birth vaginally twice and I have had an abortion. I also have a cousin who survived an abortion. I have testified on issues related to abortion in state courts and legislatures, and before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

At the time I entered medical school I believed that the availability of abortion on demand was an issue of women’s rights. I felt that a woman should have control over her body and not be forced to bear a child she didn’t want. My commitment to women’s issues was strengthened as I was exposed to the discrimination inherent in medical school and residency at that time, and to the plight of the indigent women we served in our program. I also believed it was wrong to bring unwanted children into an overpopulated world where they were likely to be neglected or abused.

During my residency I was trained in 1st trimester abortions using the D&C with suction technique. I then sought and received special training in 2nd trimester D&E procedures during which the fetus is crushed and removed in pieces. After each procedure I had to examine the tissue carefully to account for all the body parts to make sure nothing was left to cause infection or bleeding. I was fascinated by the tiny but perfectly formed intestines, kidneys, and other organs and I enjoyed looking at their amazing cellular detail under the microscope. I realize it is hard to imagine someone being able to do that and be so detached but because of my training and conditioning a human fetus seemed no different than the chick embryos I dissected in college. I could view them with strictly scientific interest devoid of any of the emotions with which I would normally view a baby. I wasn’t heartless I just had been trained to compartmentalize these things.

If I had a woman come in with a miscarriage or a still birth and she had wanted the baby I was distraught with her and felt her pain. The difference in my mind was whether the baby was wanted or unwanted.

After my first year of training I got my medical license and was able to get a job moonlighting at a women’s clinic in Gainesville, Florida doing abortions. I reasoned that although the need for abortion was unfortunate, it was the lesser of two evils, and I was doing something for the wellbeing of women. I also could make a lot more money doing abortions than I could make working in an emergency room. I enjoyed the technical challenges of the procedure and prided myself on being really good at what I did. The only time I experienced any qualms about what I was doing was when I had my neonatal care rotation and I realized that I was trying to save babies in the NICU that were the same age as babies I was aborting, but I rationalized it, and was able to push the feelings to the back of my mind. My last year in residency I became pregnant but continued to do abortions without any reservations.

The first time I returned to the clinic after my delivery, however, I was confronted with 3 cases that broke my heart and changed my opinion about abortion. In the first case I discovered that I had personally done 3 abortions on a girl scheduled that morning. When I protested about doing the abortion, I was told by the clinic staff that it was her right to choose to use abortion as her method of birth control and that I had no right to pass judgment on her or to refuse to do the procedure. I told them it was fine for them to say but that I was the one who had to do the killing. Of course she got her abortion and despite my urging she told me she had no desire to use birth control. The next situation involved a woman who when asked by her friend if she wanted to see the tissue she replied “No! I just want to kill it!” I was taken aback by her hostility and lack of compassion towards the fetus.

The last case brought me to tears. This was a mother of four who didn’t feel she and her husband could support another child. How I hurt for that mother. What a terrible decision to have to make. She cried throughout her time at the clinic and that was the end of my abortion career. I had finally had made the obvious connection between fetus and baby.

I found out later that few doctors are able to do abortions for very long. Physicians are taught to heal, not harm. OB/GYNs especially, often experience a conflict of conscience because they are normally are concerned about the welfare of both their patients but in an abortion they are killing one of them.

Although many people view an abortion as just removing a blob of tissue, the abortionist knows exactly what he or she is doing because they must count the body parts after each procedure. Eventually the truth sinks in and if they have a conscience they can no longer do them.

My views also changed as I saw young women in my practice who did amazingly well after deciding to keep their unplanned pregnancies and those who were struggling with the emotional aftermath of abortion. It was not what I expected to see.

I will never forget one woman who had gone to the Orlando area for a late term abortion. She had not recovered from the horror of delivering her live 20+ week baby boy into the toilet. Her agony was compounded by the fact that her baby brother had died by drowning.

Another woman told me that she was seeing a psychiatrist because although she strongly believed in a woman’s right to choose abortion she couldn’t cope with the realization that she had killed her child. Some of my patients didn’t express any remorse until they realized they would never get pregnant either because of medical problems, advancing age, or personal issues. I personally didn’t have any concern or remorse about having had an abortion until after I had my first child. It was then that I mourned the child that would have been.

As a society we have shifted our priorities from basic human rights to women’s rights and have taught our young women that nothing should interfere with their right to do whatever they want with their bodies, especially when it comes to pregnancy. We have also done a good job of sanitizing our language to make abortion more palatable. We don’t speak about the “baby”, rather we talk about the “fetus”. The abortionist “terminates the pregnancy” rather than “killing the baby”. As medical doctors and as a society we have moved away from the idea that life is precious and closer to the utilitarian attitudes which wreaked so much havoc during the last century. In most ethical dilemmas we must weigh the rights of one person against the rights of another.

Even for the most staunch abortion supporter there is a line somewhere that they feel shouldn’t be crossed. I would agree that we need to give a women as much choice as possible in determining her future and what she does with her body but we must also recognize the truth that there are at least 2 people involved in a pregnancy and that at some point the rights of the weaker one deserve some consideration. Some people believe life begins at conception when the egg and sperm meet and should be safe guarded at that point. Others feel it isn’t until it is safely implanted it its mother’s uterus that it deserves protection. Many feel it should have some rights once it is viable or old enough to live outside the womb. Yet there are some who feel that the baby has no rights even in process of being born. Should a baby that can live outside the womb be given no consideration, no protection, and no rights, just because it is unwanted? Should we not at least have compassion on babies at 20 weeks gestation when their nervous systems are developed enough for them to experience pain and protect them from the excruciating pain of being dismembered or killed in other ways?

Hopefully we all agree that a mother should not be able to kill her 3 year old child; but what about an infant? There are some who advocate that a mother should have the right to euthanize her infant up until 3 months of age because there may be a defect that didn’t express itself at birth. I think most Americans would say that once a baby is born there is no question it should be protected and yet there are those who say that if it is unwanted but managed to survive an abortion it does not qualify for the same care that any other baby would get at the same gestation and it is OK to kill it. Is it the child’s fault that it is unwanted? Should it lose its rights simply for that reason? Doesn’t the government have a responsibility to protect that child even if its parents won’t? What if a baby is defective when it is born? We have laws to protect people with disabilities. Are we going to exclude babies, our most vulnerable citizens, from that protection? The problem is where does it stop? Where does a civilized society draw the line?

As legislators you have the burdensome task of writing the laws that govern our society and that the majority of people will accept. At the same time you must protect the most vulnerable among us. You are ultimately the ones who will determine where that line is drawn. It’s a difficult job. We are a people of many religions and traditions with different needs and wants.

In making your decision you should not forget that abortion generates a lot of money. Much of the power and influence behind the drive to prevent any restriction on abortion comes from those who make a profit on it and I am sad to say they have used a distorted view of women’s rights as a cover.

I have always thought of myself as a good person but at one point I was horrified by the realization that I had killed more people than most mass murderers. Today when I meet young men and women that I delivered, the joy of meeting them and knowing that I played a part in bringing them into the world safely, is clouded by the thought of all the ones I will never meet because I terminated their lives. I would not want to be in your shoes and have the burden of knowing that I could have prevented the deaths of thousands even millions and did nothing. I would encourage you to vote for both of these bills.


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.

If you were a pregnant mother and smiling doctors came to you with murder on their minds

by Jon Rappoport

October 26, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’ve been writing a series of articles demonstrating that much medical research rests on the murder of infants.

In particular, vaccine research.

Several key cell lines are derived from fetal tissue. And doctors obtain that tissue by removing fetuses from pregnant mothers; the fetuses are alive; the doctors then kill the fetuses by cutting out their kidneys or their brains or hearts.

How were (and are) these pregnant mothers approached by doctors?

Are the mothers provided with anything resembling informed consent? Do the mothers sign agreements to keep quiet about what the doctors are going to do to their babies? How many of the mothers have no idea what is about to happen? Are the mothers paid?

There are mothers out there who can speak up. They should.

If YOU were a pregnant mother, what would you say if a doctor told you: “We understand you don’t want your baby. Fine. We want to plan your abortion and schedule it. We’ll be there. You can contribute to medical research by allowing us to remove your infant from your womb, fully intact, and alive. Then we will take your infant’s kidneys, to obtain tissue for research on vaccines. By removing your baby’s kidneys, we will be killing him or her. He or she will be on the table, breathing, heart beating, and we will kill him or her.”

What would you say?

How many mothers in the past hundred years do you think were informed in this way—after which they gave their consent? Zero?

THIS is what my series of current articles is about.

The fetal cell line called HEK 293 has been used to test COVID vaccines. The available evidence, and obvious physiological factors, point to the murder of a female baby to harvest her tissue for HEK 293.

I’ve emphasized, and will continue to emphasize, that this horrific serial murder of infants surely demands all people of faith reject the vaccine.

But of course, I’m not just talking about the 5 billion people in the world who claim to be religious. I’m talking about everybody. Everybody with a shed of conscience has a compelling and urgent reason to turn away from the vaccine. A vaccine which, by the way, is demonstrably destructive.

The doctors who have performed these abortions and carried out these murders have many allies who are protecting them. Medical, political, media, and religious allies, who tap dance, lie, obfuscate, deny, confuse the uninformed.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of others, the internal advice at pharmaceutical companies to stay away from talking about fetal tissue research comes down to wanting to hide murder.

That’s the secret at the bottom of the putrid “science.”

So when you hear government officials attacking vaccine refusers and piling blame on them, and saying the unvaccinated are keeping the world from solving the “pandemic”; when you hear the US Attorney General ordering his FBI troops to investigate parents who come into school board meetings and protest, among other issues, a vaccine mandate targeting their children; when you hear suggestions that these parents might be “domestic terrorists”; KNOW WHERE THE TRUE HORRIFIC CRIME IS TO BE FOUND.

See something; say something. Keep saying it.


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.

People of faith and the COVID vaccine

Refusing the COVID vaccine should be a personal mandate

Vaccines, live infants, and fetal tissue research: shedding light on the darkness

by Jon Rappoport

October 25, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Well, I mean, sure, maybe some of the research behind the COVID vaccine involved aborted fetuses, but that was a long time ago, and really, I can’t think about that, I need to take the vaccine to protect myself, and besides, abortion is legal…”

Read on.

Today, I’m featuring the work of journalist Monica Seeley, and her stunning article, “Exploring the dark world of vaccines and fetal tissue research, Part 1,” published at catholicworldreport.com.

Seeley had considerable help, as she details, from investigative reporter, Pamela Acker. Acker has weathered attacks from several quarters—including critics within the Catholic Church structure.

She has stood firm, and deserves high praise for her seminal work on fetal tissue research, vaccines, and medical murder.

It turns out that much of the best analysis of fetal tissue research, medical abortions, vaccines, and the medical killing of infants comes from writers publishing at independent Catholic outlets. Just to mention one website—Children of God For Life.

These writers and their publishers obviously take their faith seriously. They’re not bent on compromise or adjustment to trends of the times. Unlike the Vatican hierarchy, they have no qualms about exposing deep medical crimes.

I’m going to quote from Monica Seeley’s article and add my own comments along the way. I strongly urge you to read her whole piece.

You should understand that researchers who extract tissue and organs from aborted fetuses are using those parts for the development of drugs and vaccines—including the COVID vaccine.

Abortion is a religious issue of conscience for many people. When the fetus is extracted alive, from the mother’s womb, then murdered in the process of removing his/her organs, the crime is so horrific that people who have very little conscience at all should be shocked to the core.

Since these crimes form a significant part of the research-basis for many vaccines, refusing the vaccines as a matter of conscience and conviction should be a personal decision for ANYONE.

And now, to Monica Seeley’s article. She reveals these medical crimes stretch back in time:

“…newspapers reported matter of factly on fetal vivisection, as in this article from the San Francisco Chronicle, April 19, 1973, entitled ‘Operations on Live Fetuses’:”

“’Dr. Jerald Gaull in periodic trips to Finland injects a radioactive chemical into the fragile umbilical cords of fetuses freshly removed from their mothers’ wombs in abortions. The fetus in each case is far too young to survive, but in the brief period that its heart is still beating, Gaull, chief of pediatrics research at the New York State Institute for Basic Research in Mental Retardation on Staten Island—then operates to remove its brain, lung, liver and kidneys for study’.”

In other words, Gaull tortures and murders the infant. But of course, the Chronicle article doesn’t explore this fact. It’s all “medical,” you see. So it must make sense. Somehow.

Seeley: “A 1976 report by drug manufacturer Batelle-Columbus Laboratories acknowledged the role of live fetal research in four medical advances: amniocentesis, respiratory distress syndrome, and, significantly for this article, the rubella and Rh vaccines: ‘It is apparent from a study of the development of the four selected cases… that research on living human fetuses played a significant role in each.’ The report recommended against restrictions on such research.”

The term “living human fetuses” doesn’t register with many people. And they certainly don’t realize these infants have been taken alive, from their mother’s womb, and then stripped of their body parts for research—killing them. Or if death is not immediate result, the murder is committed by cutting out their hearts or vacuuming their brains from their skulls.

Again, the ensuing research contributes to the development of vaccines and drugs—including the COVID vaccines (as I’ve covered in previous articles).

Seeley: “…seeing a report on cardiac stem cell research in which human fetal hearts were hooked up to a Lagendorff assembly—which can keep a heart beating artificially outside the body—I did not at first realize that these hearts must come from live subjects.”

Yes. The report, on first reading, comes across as neutral and technical and medical. But then—WHAT? The heart was taken from the infant while he/she was ALIVE. —Aborted, alive, then killed by taking the beating heart.

Seeley: “A 1988 article in the Hastings Journal assumed that tissue removal from live, nonviable fetuses was already taking place:”

“[The Hastings Journal:] ’Perhaps the most pertinent federal restriction is the ban on research of any kind on a live nonviable fetus ex utero that would prematurely terminate the fetus’ life. This ban may be significant because the procedure required for removing fetal brain tissue transplantation would hasten the death of a live fetus. Thus, if a similar restriction were imposed on fetal tissue transplants, it would prohibit the removal of fetal brain tissue and, potentially, other types of tissue, from live nonviable fetuses’.”

The above quote is crucial. By non-viable, the article means a live fetus removed from the womb that will die very soon. In that short span of life remaining, researchers want to be able to torture the infant in many ways, by cutting out parts of the body, killing him/her. And don’t assume that a 1988 ban on this “research” stopped what was happening and still happens in closed labs.

Given the (planned) ignorance on the part of the public, people will say, “But we need all this vital medical research so our doctors can treat us…”

To reply, I’ll cite one study out of several I have written about many times in these pages:

Author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a respected and revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”; Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000:

Starfield concludes that, every year in the US, the medical system kills 225,000 people. 106,000 as a result of the administration of medical drugs, and 119,000 from medical errors and mistreatment in hospitals.

That adds up to 2.25 million deaths per decade.

When I interviewed Dr. Starfield, she said her estimate of deaths was conservative, and succeeding studies put the number higher.

Her shocking finding becomes more understandable, when we realize a significant amount of underlying medical research comes from professionals who murder infants.

Why would we expect the work of these people to be useful and valuable?

Why would we expect their drugs and vaccines to be safe?


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.