A world waking up: damage after vaccination
It’s no longer an “anecdote”
by Jon Rappoport
April 25, 2016
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
The medical cartel has a puzzle palace. Inside this structure, words are woven in secret, to confuse, distract, and evade.
The most important wing of the palace is engaged in explaining away the cartel’s own crimes.
Here is an example of how their gnomes operate. Follow the circular pattern closely: “We never call vaccine damage by that name. No. We say that, in order to prove damage, people must show a vaccination led to an official disorder. Well, we own all the disorders. We define them. So, when we want to, it’s easy for us to ‘prove’ that vaccination doesn’t lead to a disorder. Therefore, we can say the damage never happened.”
If you’re confused, you’re supposed to be. It’s stage magic.
Meanwhile, in reality…
Despite massive efforts to keep the lid on, more and more people are waking up to the brutal fact of severe and sudden damage after vaccination.
Bob Wright, the former CEO of NBC, just gave it voice in his new book—in his account of what happened to his grandson. Robert De Niro, who has an autistic son, is now pushing people to see the film, Vaxxed (trailer). De Niro isn’t just talking theory. Obviously, he knows his son suffered life-changing injury from vaccination.
Other parents have been speaking out for years. Their true stories are now taking on new urgency.
Of course the parents know. They were there. They knew their children. They knew what they were before and after vaccination. They saw the tragic change. It’s no mystery.
Wherever there are honest reporters, it’s time for them to step up and do what they once believed was their mission.
We are in a shift away from the morbid lies of the medical profession and its allies. They’ve been acting as agents of deception. They’ve been performing as actors in a grotesque play. It’s time to close that play down.
Whether you call vaccine damage autism or encephalopathy or developmental delay or some other cooked-up name, the central event is the same: a child was vaccinated; the child was severely injured. The child’s brain and nervous system took a heavy, heavy blow.
There are no mitigating circumstances or clever terms to cover up the fact.
The children and the parents are the living evidence of harm.
Don’t let this go. Don’t let the truth slip away.
Under the surface of daily life, there are many, many of these children and parents.
The media ignore them and will ignore them as long as they can. But the media day of doom is dawning. They censored the truth. They protected the crimes and criminals. They pretended to know “science.”
When I began working as a reporter, in the early 1980s, one of the first sources I went to was a doctor in Los Angeles. As we talked, the subject turned to vaccines and the claim they strengthened the immune system. I asked him how he could possibly believe vaccinating a baby, whose immune system had hardly begun to develop, could produce protection. And how could he imagine giving vaccines to people barely hanging on to life in poverty-stricken countries—their immune systems disabled and on the verge of collapse—would provide protection against disease.
He sat and stared at me.
Obviously, he hadn’t ever considered these questions.
Finally, he said, “This is science. It isn’t a common-sense subject.”
That was an illumination.
I suppose, if he were suddenly confronted with a group of mothers, who knew their children’s brains had been damaged by vaccination, who had been there at the moment it happened, he would say the same thing.
And his answer would reek of the lunacy of a madman on the loose.
Let me suggest a parallel to the breakout film, Vaxxed, which exposes deep fraud at the CDC, where the connection between the MMR vaccine and autism was covered up. Vaxxedwas recently censored at two film festivals—-it was labeled “dangerous speech.”
You’re standing under an awning on a rainy street at night. You’re looking for a cab. You see, 20 feet away, under a streetlight, a man killing another man—and you quickly take out your cell phone and film the murder.
A police car pulls up, two officers get out, put the dead victim in the trunk, and usher the killer into the front seat of the car. The car moves away.
The next day there are no stories in the press about a murder. You visit a police station and report what you saw and where. You’re told nothing happened. There was no killing.
You go home. You think about it. You visit the biggest newspaper in the city and sit down with a reporter and show him what you filmed.
Without pause, he says, “You’re endangering lives. You’re attacking the reputation of the police. They protect the citizens of the city. If people lose faith in law-enforcement, there’ll be nothing but chaos.”
“But what about this?” you say, pointing to your cell phone.
The reporter shrugs. “It’s easy to fake footage. People do it all the time. Don’t bother taking it to a television station. They’ll never show it. They censor false images, and they should.”
You spend the next few days looking at the face of the killer in your film and searching online for that face.
Finally, you find it.
It’s the face of the most prominent doctor in the city.