If you have "no place to go," come here!

Are (Deep State) US Government "Connected" Assassins Whacking Doctors Who Are Curing Autism?

metamars's picture

I'm not going to defend this proposition, not having looked closely at it. Unfortunately, though, I'm leaning towards believing there's foul play going on. I'm posting this partly to make assassination more problematic for the evil doers. If it amounts to a bunch of "coincidences", and the evil doers are imaginary, well, my intentions were good.

In a nutshell, there's a substance called "GcMAF" which has "has an astonishing success rate (over 80% in some trials) and works by activating the body's own immune system to destroy tumors of all kinds.

It's legal in Japan but the FDA considers it a criminal substance and they're trying to destroy all knowledge of this extraordinary substance before the U.S. public finds out how easily and inexpensively cancer can be treated!"

This brings to mind a diary I read, years ago, at, which was about the biological samples used to incubate an extremely promising treatment for AIDS going "missing", soon after knowledge of their remarkable success gained traction. No murders, there, but the 'principle' was similar. Actually curing people, at affordable prices, is bad for some businesses, and probably also bad for some globalist agendas.

You can read more, here

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

I also believe that "deep state" is a really sloppy concept that ends up growing like kudzu all over everything. See here. "Ruling class" will do perfectly well.

Further, whenever you see the phrase "connect the dots," your antenna should go up. It is not sufficient to "connect dots"; the relationship between the dots must be made clear, by typing the relationship. "See this video to connect the dots" is classic CT stuff. It's crap.

Please do not link to Natural News again.

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

I also believe that "deep state" is a really sloppy concept that ends up growing like kudzu all over everything. See here. "Ruling class" will do perfectly well.

I disagree, based on my hearing and reading of Peter Dale Scott (and not what any less intellectual borrowers of the phrase may have used it for) but as per recent posts of mine, with the looming disaster of the TPP vote in the Fall (and apparently early Fall, at that), I'm not up for any debate on the usefulness of the "deep state" concept.

Please do not link to Natural News again.

OK, but NN is by Mike Adams, not Mercola. (No idea if that matters, to you.)

Regarding "conspiracy theories", I'm not sympathetic to demonizing the term (no matter how many fruitcase conspiracists that are out there), and highly recommend reading and listening to Michael Parenti (a genuine lefty, FWTW) on the subject.

Perhaps the most interesting work of Parenti has to do with the motivation for the conspiracy to kill Julius Caesar ( a horrible man, who nevertheless was behind many populist initiatives - land distribution, rent control, debt cancellation, luxury taxes -, earning him the fatal ire of the Roman elite); he also makes a case for what I'll call a 'conspiracy of culture' (involving self-censorship, not overt censorship), attempting to explain why the common histories of Caesar clash with the characterization given by Parenti.

Many Parenti lectures are free, here, including "Conspiracy and Class Power"

(He was also interviewed on his JC book on booknotes, though I haven't heard it, yet.)

V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

@ metamars:
FWIW, I agree with your response; I first came across Parenti in the very early 90's and he's earned high credibility revealing "deep state" activities. He is excellent at exposing the myths generated by the propaganda machine of the U.S.
Here's a link to an excellent site;

I think you will enjoy it. It's is now run by an Oregon State University professor Robin Upton; lots of good stuff...

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

with the looming disaster of the TPP vote in the Fall (and apparently early Fall, at that),

Thankfully, I got this wrong, based on an article by no less an authority than Lori Wallach. Final vote will likely be at the end of 2015, if not 2016.

I still don't want to get into a discussion of the usefulness of the "deep state" concept, though...

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

Thankfully, I got this wrong

Ran across the Wallach article, again, here. As per Maui, TPP can't be passed this year. In my world, that leaves lots of time to a) educate the public b) develop credible electoral threats.

During the last election cycle, over 90% of incumbents were re-elected. Meanwhile, according to my "research", close to 90% of the public have no idea what TPP is. Based on their past performance, it'd be foolish to expect activists to cause either 90% figure to drop to 50%.

Nevertheless, I can hope..... More than hope, in my particular case. I have been creating design artifacts for web application to facilitate firing bad incumbents (not just a requirements document, as was my intention at the beginning of the week). Hope to post it next week.

Submitted by lambert on

Do you imagine that I didn't purchase and read Peter Dale Scott's book before critiquing it?

It is an ill-defined concept, sloppily defined, a poor model of the state, so vacuous as to have no boundaries as to its application, and therefore profoundly disempowering to those who use it.

I don't want "deep state" crap, Mercola crap, or CT crap here. Deal with it. This isn't open to debate.

paintedjaguar's picture
Submitted by paintedjaguar on

My journalistic heroes include Michael Parenti, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Greg Palast, Bev Harris, Gary Webb -- conspiracy theorists every one. Also see Gulf of Tonkin, Tuskeegee Experiment, CIA drug and radiation tests on civilians, Cambodian bombing, Iran-Contra, Business Plot against FDR, Enron fixing California energy prices, anthrax attacks after 9/11, Watergate, Nixon's Paris Peace Talks sabotage (ditto Reagan's Iranian hostage deal), Teapot Dome, General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy, and if you ask me, the Constitutional Convention of 1789. That's just off the top of my head.

It's hard to maintain skepticism when it's a fact that conspiracies happen all the time, although often enough they are of the "hide in plain sight" variety.

V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

Yes actually; most everybody, here, who thinks the coming elections can change anything by voting; pure myth; supported by no evidence.
I love your 12 point program; but who even knows it exists? Further; what party will run on that set of values? None, IMO...
Look at the reality of what's actually a day to day fact; and the Trumps and Walkers rule the press. Even the H.Clinton campaign is in the dust of the rush down the hiway to 2016. Sanders? Maybe but I seriously doubt it.
Biden? Okay, but what change would he represent? Status quo, IMO: There is no second coming...
2016 will be a signature event determining the future of the U.S.; it will not end well...

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

Well, Chomsky doesn't much belong on the list (if at all). Although he's "normally" brilliant, he spews logical fallacies (such as arguments from incredulity) regarding conspiracies. Parenti has verbally spanked him, on this score.

In Chomsky's world, "planning" is a better descriptor, even if the "planning" was for grossly illegal and/or immoral activities that were hidden from the public, at the time the evil doing was going on.

paintedjaguar's picture
Submitted by paintedjaguar on

I'll grant you that Chomsky is not always given to strict chains of evidence and argumentation. I get the impression that he doesn't have the patience. Although he does talk about specific facts, he often assumes that his audience already knows the score, is in on the joke, so he doesn't bother with constructing a background argument against the polite but fictitious conventional wisdom. Maybe this is a failing, but it's also refreshing sometimes.

Incredulity, unfortunately, is often justified. It's not always necessary to know all the facts in order to recognize that you're being fed a line of BS. That isn't the same as proving a case, but real life is messy that way.

Submitted by lambert on

Of course "conspiracies" however defined happen all the time; it's a natural state of affairs for all humans "breathing together" and especially those in the ruling class.

That doesn't make CT a sufficiently powerful model of the state or ruling class power, which is why CT is disempowering.

Again, I don't want CT here, and I'll hack it out at once where found.

NOTE Claiming Howard Zinn as a conspiracy theorist is ludicrous. Not amazing, but ludicrous.

paintedjaguar's picture
Submitted by paintedjaguar on

About Howard Zinn -- potayto, potahto. Regardless of my opinion, which is probably similar to yours, there are plenty of Zinn's detractors who would put him in that category.

athena1's picture
Submitted by athena1 on

Zinn provided information from original sources (Columbus's diary, for example) and information about how you can obtain the material and read it for yourself. Conspiracy theorists take personal speculations and claim that they're "discovered, hidden truths", or wildly misinterpret original sources to spin a completely false, shocking narrative.

Both Mike Adams and Mercola are both full blown conspiracy theorists at best, and con artists at worst.

blues's picture
Submitted by blues on

In roughly the last thirty years or so, professors at colleges and universities have lost 95% of the very significant power that they once held over academic policy-making to a cadre of very highly payed "administrators." So the emergence of a quasi-ironical emphasis on "empowerment," over the honorable and traditional truth-seeking agenda should come as no surprise. Hence the rise of thought-terminating cliches. Consider:

University of Texas Press -- Conspiracy Theory in America -- By Lance deHaven-Smith -- April 2013

Conspiracy Theory in America investigates how the Founders’ hard-nosed realism about the likelihood of elite political misconduct—articulated in the Declaration of Independence—has been replaced by today’s blanket condemnation of conspiracy beliefs as ludicrous by definition. Lance deHaven-Smith reveals that the term “conspiracy theory” entered the American lexicon of political speech to deflect criticism of the Warren Commission and traces it back to a CIA propaganda campaign to discredit doubters of the commission’s report.

The intellectual subordination of truth to empowerment constitutes a most radical departure.

And the ultimate truth, which is seldom understood, is that there will be absolutely no empowerment whatsoever for average people until we attain the only thing that could possibly be of use. That thing could only be a machine-free strategic ultra-simple score voting system.