By Jon Rappoport

February 16, 2012


For some time, I’ve been wanting to do a complete seminar on vaccines, since I’ve investigated that territory on and off for the last 20 years.


Well, finally it’s done. My friend and colleague, radio host Robert Scott Bell, and I put together 10 hours of audio and accompanying online text. On my site, you’ll see the box to click, to order it.


My idea was to present a kind of hologram on vaccines that you could walk around and examine and see from a number of points of view.


Such as:


What arguments do mainstream medical people use to promote and defend vaccines? Do these arguments hold up? Are they fallacious? If so, why?


What are the hidden assumptions about vaccines that need to be probed and picked apart?


Is vaccination basically a good practice if the vaccines are protected from contamination? Or is the whole concept false?


Exactly how are vaccines supposed to immunize people from disease?


What’s the actual track record of vaccination?


What studies prove they’re safe and effective?


What’s the relationship between vaccines and a person’s own immune system?


And so on and so forth.


I wanted to be able to arm people with information they can use to make a TRULY informed choice.


I wanted to raise and examine the big questions and provide big answers—and also get very specific.


I’m happy to say Robert and and I have fulfilled those objectives.


You know, the idea and practice of political correctness today reaches far beyond social issues and words that can be said and can’t be said. It extends especially to medical issues, because the promotion of medical solutions to everything under the sun has become more widespread and more relentless.


The medical cartel seeks to drive all opposition underground into small marginalized spaces.


The notion of intelligent debate on medical solutions is off-limits, because we have a government-medical partnership that exceeds any Constitutional intent. It is a racket. Profits for pharmaceutical companies are, in many areas, guaranteed by government edict, and government is basically claiming that medical pronouncements are golden Truth that can’t be argued against.


Say and think what you want to about government-controlled health insurance. Up the road, we are looking at a form of fascism, where you will be able to access only those treatments the government decides you can. Doctors who discover you’re “into natural health” will relegate you to the back of the line. You’ll be told you’re a “non-compliant patient” and you need to accept the mainstream and only the mainstream treatments and prescriptions.


In fact, this future is the main reason why the national health insurance bill was pushed through Congress. Behind the Congressional wrangle sit the real benefactors of such a system: the drug companies, and the insurance companies who can muscle their way to the money table where the big profits are handed out.


The plan is to “streamline” health care in America, so the millions of people who are seeking help in the natural arena will be forced to give in and accept new limitations.


Among these limitations? Take your vaccines when you are told to, and give them to your children without objection. “We know what’s good for you.”


That’s the new and improved definition of freedom. Accept the Truth as the government shapes and defines it.


But this master plan has flaws. It isn’t a done deal. The future can be changed. People can change it. The natural health revolution has legs. When it comes to vaccines, my objective with this seminar was to provide you with your very own “PhD” on the subject, so you could make a decision you could STAND ON, with confidence.


Medical freedom” and “health freedom” aren’t empty terms. They reflect CHOICE. Your choice. The powers-that-be are banking on the prediction that you’ll eventually give in and go along with the tide. You’ll decide they really are the experts.


For every supposed medical condition and solution, there are hundreds or even thousands of studies that purport to explain WHAT REALITY IS. The sheer weight of the details is supposed to make you throw up your hands and surrender. Because that’s what doctors do, after all. They don’t have time to read everything, and they go along with their own system—and then they manage to sound like they’re wizards when they tell you what’s needed and what you should do.

When I was running for a seat in Congress in 1994, against one of the staunchest defenders of the medical apparatus (Henry Waxman), my launching issue was health freedom, your right to make your own choices, no matter what the experts or the government tells you. In that regard, nothing has changed for me. Except this aspect of freedom has, in the interim, become more and more a co-opted part of the political correctness universe.


Which means people need better information, and they need to stand on it.


A lot of what I read these days doesn’t make it into print in my articles, because I have my own subjects backed up from here to the moon. But I have to tell you (and I know this doesn’t come as a shock) the sheer mass of criminal behavior in our society is increasing geometrically, from top to bottom. From the White House and Congress and boardrooms all the way down to the street.


No matter at what level the crimes are being perpetrated, the criminals have all sorts of stories to explain their actions. Reasons, excuses, denials. And they have colleagues who rally to their “cause,” who will lie at the drop of a hat.


The idea that a person should be responsible for his own actions seems to be on the way out.


One of the greatest repositories of such crimes and such irresponsibility is the medical system. Children are being shoved into debilitating drugs for imaginary reasons, and they’re being changed for the worse. They’re being drafted into ongoing-patient status. They’ll receive new diagnoses and new harmful drugs for the rest of their lives. And they’ll become crippled and incapable on many levels. And doctors and their masters will NEVER admit fault.


Those of us who can still think and reason need to understand this wholesale transformation that is taking place before our eyes.


Being nice about the whole thing” as a “spiritual stance” isn’t an answer at all. It’s bizarre and it’s useless. It’s another form of surrender.


I continue to work from the premise that people have eyes and they can see, and if they can see they can make choices and stand up for those choices. They can go against the tide, if necessary, and protect their own. They can refuse all the temptations to sacrifice their freedom and give in. They can become more intelligent and better informed, and they can operate in the world with confidence and even power.


They can share what they know. They can achieve victories.


When I was growing up, I was given one vaccine for smallpox. That’s it. The Centers for Disease Control now recommends 16 different vaccines for chkldren. According to, a child can receive 21 vaccines before the age of six and six more before the age of 18. Some vaccines, like the DtaP, are delivered more than once. DtaP is given five times. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia states that a child is given 24 shots by the age of two and five shots in one visit. If you think this incredible medical intervention needs no rational and extensive debate, you’re whistling in the dark.


Jon Rappoport





AUGUST 8, 2011. The truth has finally surfaced. The members of the Rawesome buyer’s club are all addicts, and their drug of choice is raw milk.


The raid on their shooting gallery in Venice was just a prelude to a much larger bust, which will no doubt require the cooperation of the Mexico state police.


How many tons of raw milk are coming up through the Tijuana border?


And how many kids outside schools in LA are being given little pints of milk, as a come-on, to reel them in?


There’s a rumor circulating, at local hair dressers and nail emporiums, that a bunch of soccer moms are supplementing their income with “floating SUV” operations in Beverly Hills and Encino.


They say it’s the separated cream at the top of the bottle that really creates the addiction.


The symptoms to watch for are: temporary euphoria; improved hair luster; and skin sheen.


Long-time observers of the scene believe top Hollywood celebrities are fleeing town to avoid questioning and possible arrest.


Early this morning, I was told the actual reason CBS interceded to fire popular actress Maura West from The Young and the Restless was her raw milk habit, which was peaking at two quarts a day.


And stories about Frank McCourt, embattled owner of the LA Dodgers, suggest a raw-milk laundering operation was at the heart of his troubles.


A reliable source, who recently kicked at the Malibu Promises rehab compound, told me, “Shit, the whole city’s floating on raw milk. If they cut the pipeline, a lot of people are going to be hurting. Plus, the economy will collapse overnight. How do you think all those movies get financed? Illegal raw-milk profits.”


The FBI is in town. They’re swarming over the Ramparts station and interviewing LAPD detectives about the removal of large quantities of raw milk from evidence lockers. Apparently, on the street, the product is being stepped on numerous times, with 2%, non-fat, and distilled water. Denizens simply call it RAW, which also, in the vernacular, stands for “runaway wonderful.”


Several local banks are being investigated for receiving large amounts of cash from illegal raw milk sales. Authorities in Panama and Geneva have been contacted.


Sports Illustrated is preparing a major story on the sudden lapse of LA Laker star Pau Gasol in the playoffs this spring. Gasol was cut off from his raw milk supply when his dealer was detained by authorities, after a car accident near Staples Center. Several cases of raw milk fell out of the dealer’s trunk during a collision with a catering van. By the time police officers reached the scene, all but a few bottles of milk had been stolen by neighborhood residents.


LA Police Chief, Charlie Beck, states, “At least one drive-by shooting this year, in Bel-Air, was milk-related. Normally, these people keep their business to themselves. They’re well organized. But things got out of control last February, and two yuppies in a milk truck opened fire on a house on Roscomare Road. One of the bullets hit a huge container of milk in the front living room, and the whole place went up in a fireball.”




…Jamie Oliver, star of the ABC television series, “Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution,” is being investigated by the DEA… Pursuant to a federal warrant, footage of his shows and outtakes has been confiscated, to see if any mention of “raw milk” was made…Oliver was stopped at LAX yesterday, as he was about to board a plane for London…


…FBI Director Robert Mueller announced today that a new test for raw milk has been developed at the Bureau’s main lab… It can analyze and identify “residue on the skin or clothing, and in some cases a colonoscopy can ferret out the presence of RAW in the lower tract…”


…LAPD officers have broken up a ring staging private parties in the exclusive upper reaches of Benedict Canyon…RAW is consumed in great amounts at the gatherings, resulting in what’s called “trampoline orgies”…a UCLA professor of Zoology and his wife, a divorce attorney, have been taken in for questioning…


Jon Rappoport







AUGUST 7, 2011.


I won’t keep you in suspense.




Why is that dirty? Because while FDA is clucking about raw milk, it is continuing to hide THE LARGEST CRIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY.




Yes, you heard that right.


The citation on this is: Barbara Starfield, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”


I have interviewed Dr. Starfield, and she has confirmed that since her paper was published, the FDA has made no contact with her to enlist her help in remedying the situation (the ongoing crime). There has been no remedy.


(See Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, and, click here to read my interview with Dr Starfield.)


Add it up. Over each decade, the medicines the FDA certifies as safe kill a million Americans. A MILLION. PER DECADE. LIKE CLOCKWORK.


The FDA is the gatekeeper. It is the single government agency responsible for protecting the public from dangerous pharmaceuticals.


And they are worked up about raw milk.


In 1994, while I was running for a seat in the US Congress, I made many statements urging the nutritional industry and allied natural health interests to form and fund a true PR wing that would attack the FDA for its unconscionable crimes, that would get accurate stories about this in the press, come hell or high water.


I was met with apathy, excuses, and fear. It was disgusting.


WITH SO MANY LIVES LOST AND SO MANY MORE HANGING IN THE BALANCE, you don’t play this game by waiting. You play OFFENSE. You play to win. With the truth.


The FDA must be forced back against the wall, and feel the great need to admit its massive culpability and surrender to the criminal consequences.


That’s what I said in 1994, and that’s what I say now.


Let’s get real. If you knew that a federal agency was directly responsible for a million deaths per decade, wouldn’t you feel that agency should be disbanded, from the ground up, and rebuilt along moral lines, while its leaders and so-called executives are dealt severe and crushing criminal penalties?


Wouldn’t you?


Is anyone out there?


Is there a potato head at the LA Times with enough active brain cells and enough guts to take this on, while the FDA is raiding raw milk in your city?












AUGUST 7, 2011. In prosecuting the Rawesome defendants—if the case goes to trial—the feds may bring in their “science.”


They would focus on two points of attack. One, raw unpasteurized milk is inherently unsafe. And two, Rawesome and/or its suppliers were running an unclean operation that, even by conventional standards, broke safety laws.


Rawesome hopefully can stand on its record vis-a-vis the second charge.


Point one, the “inherent danger of raw milk,” will be adjudicated without permitting the defense team to introduce evidence showing pasteurized milk is unhealthy. Nor will the defense be allowed to cite instances where pasteurized milk was actually contaminated.


The Rawesome defense team presumably understands this. They would be very lucky if the judge gave them the green light to examine pasteurized milk in any way.


There are laws in California making it legal to sell raw milk. So on the face of it, an argument that raw milk is always dangerous wouldn’t seem to fly. But if this case is prosecuted on a federal level, all bets are off. For example, even though medical marijuana is legal in California, the feds insist it isn’t legal anywhere in the US. So a federal case against Rawesome could take on 10th Amendment implications, where the defense team is arguing for state jurisdiction, but the feds are insisting their own supremacy trumps that. Feds win.


Mike Adams, at, has received information that Rawesome defendants could be prosecuted for a wide range of “environmental crimes.” Mike states this is not certain. He’s keeping an eye on the situation.


What would these environmental crimes be? They would fall under the general category of endangering health. For example, by “spreading contagious germs” in the population, through the sale of milk that has not been licensed as safe by federal standards.


Sometimes—and I have seen this happen in an LA courtroom, in a federal trial where the issue was the sale of nutritional supplements—the whole procedure is a slam-dunk for the feds, because the ONLY issue allowed in evidence or debate is: did the defendant violate a federal law or regulation? If the answer is yes, the trial is over.


The defense team needs to figure out whether things will go this way. If so, they’ll have to find some very bright strategy before the judge opens the case.


One of the best defense tactics is public pressure, because sometimes the feds will back down in the face of it and settle the matter without a trial, on a lesser and minor charge, to save face and avoid blowing up the story beyond their ability to control it.


None of what I’ve detailed so far is fair, just, or rational. Those issues went into the wind the morning of August 3, when agents of the FDA, the US Dept. Of Agriculture, the CDC, and LA County sheriffs entered Rawesome and took the place apart.


The presence of the CDC and the Dept. of Agriculture indicates, of course, that there will be extensive lab studies done on the milk samples confiscated. And with lab tests, there is always the possibility of fraud or pseudo-science.


(At 1m33s into the video, a witness reports: “They’re leaving product out in the sun…. Our food is [now] technically contaminated by heat damage…. [Coolers have been left open by the agents since 7:15am. It is now 12:42pm]” (emphasis added)

(Another witness at 2m49s in the video, addressing what appear to be plain clothes FDA and USDA federal agents: “You know that food has been in the sun (*). You can’t test that food; it’s been in the sun. It’s ruined.” [(*) Note: The food became exposed to the sun for long periods due to the actions of the federal agents]. Continuing, another witness… “Yea, did you guys leave [(our) previously refrigerated food] [out] in the sun so that when you test it, it will test [as being] ‘bad'”?)


Fraud means the labs will report serious contamination where none existed. Pseudo-science means the tests used to determine whether there was contamination are generically deceiving—resulting in a conclusion of contamination based on irrelevant factors.


For example, the PCR test can be used to detect the presence of microbes, based on amplifying, to an extraordinary degree, tiny fragments of what may or may not be germs at all—blowing them up and then (incorrectly) claiming them as evidence of massive presence of infectious substance.


This was employed in the recent Swine Flu fraud, where such minute amounts of viral material (if it was viral at all) were grossly magnified and then pronounced as the cause of virulent illness. In fact, the original bits of material analyzed were insufficient to initiate any illness whatsoever.








These and other similar tag lines or headlines are what the defense should be ready for. (For example, see FDA spokewoman Siobhan DeLancey‘s statement regarding the safety of raw milk made to New York Times reporter Ian Lovett (published by the New York Times on 8/4/2011, “Raw Food Co-op Is Raided in California”))


They would do well to find California scientists who can explain, at trial, why there is a law in this state allowing sale of raw milk in the first place. In a jury trial, the jury can at least watch state experts pitted against federal experts.


It wouldn’t surprise me to see the feds, if the trial is delayed, begin to reassess its presumption of overwhelming victory, particularly if the defense team, through the press and public outcry, begins to make its case. Although federal prosecutors have good track records in courtrooms, they sometimes bulldoze cases beyond the boundaries of their evidence, because the pressure that forced them to bring the cases in the first place flowed from political interests above them. (See the Barry Bonds trial, as well as the strange ending of the Roger Clemens case.)


So far, one charge has been brought against James Stewart, the founder of Rawesome: processing and selling unlicensed raw milk. Stewart pled not guilty. If the feds want to make a full-blown example of Stewart, they will bring other charges as their lab tests come in.


But that first charge speaks to the strategy I mentioned above. “You violated a provision requiring licenses? Guilty.”


Now, unless we are dealt surprises, such as investigations of the financial records of Rawesome turning up irregularities, or any misrepresentation by Rawesome to its members, what I’ve described here pretty much covers the waterfront.


One can argue all day long about whether raw milk is safe, but the fact is Rawesome is a private club, and its members agree to buy the milk. If the feds decide to skirt that issue, chances are the judge will deny Rawesome the opportunity to argue that private clubs and their agreements take precedence over regulations governing businesses.


As I’ve said, the defense has to anticipate a quick and nasty verdict, based solely on a literal reading of regulations and laws and an accusation that Rawesome disobeyed them.


If you can lure him out of retirement in Wyoming, your man for a trial or for gaining press and public attention, is attorney extraordinaire, Gerry Spence. He’s an ultimate game changer.



Over the last 35 years, Jon Rappoport (site, twitter) has gained a reputation as one of the most relentless medical investigative reporters in the world.  Nominated early in his career for a Pulitzer Prize, Jon has written for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.  His is currently the associate producer on a film in progress, American Addict, detailing the effects of pharmaceuticals on the US population.







AUGUST 5, 2011. The federal raid on Rawesome Foods in Venice, California, is based on the insistence (with guns) that private citizens can’t make contracts with each other to buy and sell raw unpasteurized milk.


Some uninformed types believe the raid was solely focused on the fact that Rawesome doesn’t have a business license. But it is a private club, and the last time I looked, a club doesn’t need a license to carry on its activities.


Do private citizens have the right to form an association, by contract, and then engage in exchange of goods and services, among its members, regardless of the opinion of the State?


Well, if we return to the basic document, the Declaration of Independence, can we interpret the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without understanding that private contracts are fundamental to this pursuit?


In the case of Rawesome, the government believes it can garner wide public support, and therefore it feels confident its prosecution will make no one nervous. Whereas, if the product Rawesome club members were buying and selling was homemade oatmeal, the public might balk and see the intrusion on Rawesome as invasive and quite insane.


Speaking of which, the government is using what I call the The Crazy People Doctrine.


If more than, say, 60% of the American people believe Rawesome is crazy, the government is good to go in court. If that wide majority thinks raw-milk dealing would only be carried out by nutcases, then the whole issue of whether private contracts are inviolate can be set aside and dropped in the trash.


Well, we know government agencies have been warning the public about raw milk for at least 70 years, and claiming that pasteurized milk is wonderful and safe and scientific. So The Crazy People Doctrine seems like a slam-dunk here, regardless of how the specific charges against Rawesome’s owner are eventually worded.


He’s crazy, who cares whether we (the prosecutors) say he was doing business without a license or was selling a dangerous product or was making a contract he had no right to make.”


And the public will say, “Find him guilty, he’s a whacko. Nobody in his right mind would sell raw milk.”


As usual, I’ll resort to one of my extreme bizarro analogies:


Let’s say eight of us form a private club, and we buy and sell, among ourselves, little gold balls of plant matter which, when ingested, have been shown, invariably, to cause severe one-hour headaches. The balls have been tested, over and over again, and amazingly, the verdict is precise across the board. Eat a gold ball of this plant substance, you get a one-hour headache.


And suppose the eight of us believe this activity of buying and selling and eating the gold balls is part of our pursuit of happiness. We’ll assume responsibility for the headache. Do we have the right to have our club and engage in our activity—or does the government have the legal power to destroy the club and prosecute us on a criminal charge?


The government says, “Gold balls are food products for sale. Therefore, they fall under our jurisdiction when it comes to the issue of safety. Period.”


The public says, “Put these crazies in jail, or in a mental institution, and drug them to the gills.”


Government says, “Citizens have no fundamental and overriding right to make private contracts among themselves. We can intercede at any moment we choose to. Any rule or law we make automatically trumps the so-called right to private contracts.”


If we accept this judgment, then we are admitting that private relationships are a thin illusion that can be swept away without notice.


If you and your friends own a piece of land and build a community vegetable garden there, and then exchange squashes and tomatoes and grapes and cucumbers with one another, from your individual plots, the government can send in a food safety inspector, he can walk on your land, and he can decide whether your vegetables are legal. Your contract with your friends is null and void and without meaning—and always was.


If I call in a friend to fix my car in my garage and he doesn’t have a license to do repairs, he could be arrested or cited with a fine.


If 50 of us form a health club, and buy and sell amino acids among ourselves, and if we happen to have printed a sheet, for internal distribution, claiming these products cure arthritis, the FDA could invade our office, confiscate the products, and charge us with practicing medicine without a license.


And if the public, by and large, believes we are “crazies,” the government feels confident it will escape blowback.


You now, perhaps, see one clear reason for government/media/science propaganda: “creating convenient crazies.”


Take, for instance, the arena of vaccines. If government succeeds in outlawing all claimed parental exemptions from the jabs, based on its own version of good science, how many people will rise up and revolt? Versus how many will say refusing vaccines was always just for Crazy People?


The Crazy People Doctrine, behind the scenes, is the standard of prediction that government employs—and propaganda is the tool it uses to manufacture perception about its targets…


So that the matter of private contracts is tossed into the garbage.









AUGUST 5, 2011. In a 2010 action filed against the FDA, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund sought to protect the freedoms and rights of family farms—particularly when it came to the right to ship raw milk across state lines.


The FDA responded to that filing in a most revealing way. In an astonishing way. Its position allows you to see into its bureaucratic/fascist soul, if an agency can be said to have a soul.


Read these words (from FDA) carefully, because they amount to a manifesto and a prediction about what is to come, if the people of this country don’t push back in overwhelming numbers:


Plaintiffs assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families,’ is simply unavailing because plaintiffs do not have any fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.”


And then the FDA made this assertion:


There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract.”


After you pick yourself up off the floor, think about why the FDA made the latter statement.


Small farms and consumers have been forming clubs in America, just like the club, Rawesome Foods, that was raided two days ago. These private groups are created to engage in contracts, agreements among themselves, about what foods they will buy and sell.


In the case of raw milk, in order to avoid interference by the government, the club members agree to take responsibility for their own health, and the consequences, if any, of drinking raw unpasteurized milk.


They are, in effect, saying, “We make the choice. The choice doesn’t involve the government, one way or another. This is a private contract.”


But the FDA steps in and issues their edict: you don’t have a fundamental right to a contract. You especially don’t have a right to a contract that contravenes one of our regulations. You are under US. We decide, not you.


Those are the battles lines. They have been drawn in stark terms. The federal government isn’t going to change. It needs to be able to obliterate any private agreement in order to expand its control. It needs to be able to say, YOU ARE NOT A GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE, YOU ARE A PEOPLE BY THE GOVERNMENT.


In these FDA comments, which deserve to be communicated far and wide so people can understand what is being done to them, the federal government has let its share-and-care mask drop, and has shown its face.


Look at it.







by Jon Rappoport


I was amazed

when they dismissed the charges

against my neighbor


they cited her

for growing a full vegetable garden


swallowing enveloping MANGLING

her front yard


I mean,

have you ever looked at




up close?

my children were traumatized

we had to take them to a therapist

the way tomatoes

cling to the vine

they dreamed

reptilian arms


wrapped around their necks

in the dark house

some objects are only meant to be seen on shelves and bins

or sliced

on a plate in a well-lit dining room

the whole family

gathered around the table

property values

the neighborhood

now if you’re presenting


plastic turf



vacuumed twice a week

creates a whole different impression

ordered mind


then and only then

and if by chance federal inspectors

carrying out a routine sweep


that smooth surface

they will know who lives here


under the sun

illusion 48-i-16

bought and paid for

sweat of brow

every right

to maintain it

without reminders

of a darker time


on this we make our stand

in the

bald universe

to which we pray














by Jon Rappoport


We may have

Sold a few thousand automatic weapons

To Mexican drug cartels,

Helping them murder and maim,


But this time

We’re launching a pinpoint operation against…






Hands up! Vacate the store!


Dump the milk,

Clear the shelves,

Take the cash,

Steal the records,

Cuff that mother,

Take him downtown

And book him, Danno!


Don’t worry your pretty little head,

John Q Android, we’ve got it covered.



Raw milk!

More dangerous than Fukushima!


At dawn,

Intrepid agents

Of the government,

Cloaked in black,


Fully weaponized,

Held their final briefing.



They went over blueprints

Of the Venice

Private club

On Rose,

Checked their loads,

And swept out to their vehicles.


The enemy is clear this time.

This ain’t no Iraq or Afghanistan.

It’s milk!


The raw breast of cow.


A few hundred citizens dared

To form a private group


Outside federal rules and regs.

They cared nothing for the sacrament

Of Pasteurization!


They defiled the word and the holy process!


Destroy them!
























We are the black armor and the white coats of the lab, the corporate farm, the genes, the pesticides, the nutritional denominations of the sacred pyramid. We enact our wrath from a homogenized apex of power.


Wipe that raw mustache off your lip!


Get on your knees!


This is the new day!


The mask is off. We are the gods of sustenance. From our edicts alone flow the dispensations of the natural world.


What may pass into your bodies, in this paradise of planning, is by OUR decision.


Nothing defiled may enter your mouths!












And now by the power vested in us, by the cracked and shattered Constitution of the United States of America, we arrest you. You have the right to remain astonished. You have the right to defend yourselves against an army of prosecutors. You have the right to speak along the narrow channel of what regulations permit you to enter as evidence. You have the right to


Realize the composition of the new world


Understand who and what is god


Pass through the valley of confusion and resistance


into the light of the all knowing brain


in the machine of justice


and regain your soul


at last


through the terms of your punishment.


Redemption is a hard road.


Life is pain


All the way up to the moment


Of illumination.




















Inch of cream from the top.






















JANUARY 24, 2010.  This is another in a series of articles on the nutritional detective work of Laura Thompson.

My wife, Laura, owns The Southern California Institute of Clinical Nutrition.  She works with many patients by telephone.

Implicit in everything Laura does for patients is ENERGY—increasing it, awakening it, expanding it, making it more available on many levels.  After all, this is what people want—more positive and sustained energy they can rely on as they work toward the objectives that excite them.  They want to feel they have a large and buoyant reservoir of forward-looking energy that will sustain them through thick and thin.    

In order to achieve that, several areas need to be addressed.

Here is a Q&A with Laura on the subject:

Q:  When do nutritional programs fail in providing more energy?

 A:  There are two basic reasons for that.  The energy might be delivered in a form that produces an upsurge and then a let-down.  That would be useless.

 Q:  Give me an example of that.

 A:  A person takes an herb because he’s heard or read that it gives energy.  And it does.  But only for a short time.  The other reason is more interesting. 

 Q:  What’s that?

A:  Underlying situations in the body won’t permit the energy to “take hold.”  It drains away.  It fades.  As quickly as you replenish energy, it dissipates.

 Q:  And these underlying situations are?

 A:  This is where the detective work comes in.  Suppose the person has immune-system weakness.  That would, in a sense, capture energy and try to use it to fight battles it isn’t suited for.  The person would experience this “capture” as fatigue or exhaustion.

 Q:  So you would need to shore up the immune system.

 A:  Yes.  Correct nutrients delivered together can help greatly.  Then there are hormone imbalances.

 Q:  We discussed that in a previous interview.

 A:  Right. You see, if the hormones are not in balance and the levels are insufficient, you are going to run out of energy.  Because hormones are intimately involved with energy production.  The adrenal glands are an obvious example.  You can feed all the fuel you want to, to an engine, but if the engine is firing on two cylinders rather than eight, it’s not going to work.

 Q:  What about brain function?

 A:  We do neurotransmitter tests on patients.  The tests tell us about the levels of these chemicals in the body, and we can then achieve a good neurotransmitter balance with proper nutrients.  Cognitive processes are a key to energy.  If your thoughts are slowed down and become fuzzy, you can’t utilize energy.  With good neurotransmitter levels, your thought processes become sharper.

 Q:  And, of course, there is digestive function.

 A:  This is greatly overlooked.  Everything that happens in the digestive tract has to do with the eventual production of energy.  When necessary, I devote a lot of attention to bringing digestive function into a good range.  It’s absolutely vital.  The body processes food so it can deliver energy.  That has to happen smoothly and effectively.

 Q:  From all of this, I can see why the society runs on stimulants.

 A:  Of course.  You can try to substitute one kind of stimulant after another for the energy you should naturally have, but it won’t work.  You need to deal with and correct the situations that are weakening the foundations.  Good nutrition can do that.  But good nutrition isn’t just walking into a health-food store and grabbing a product off the shelf.  It’s much more sophisticated.  You need to go much deeper.  That’s what I’ve learned in the last 14 years.  You have to explore situations with each patient, and each patient is different and unique in important ways.  I recognize that.

(If you’re interested in becoming a client, contact Laura’s clinic at 800-608-5602.)


A reporter responds: Suzanne Somers’ June 4th blog

A reporter responds: Suzanne Somers’ June 4th blog

by Jon Rappoport

June 5, 2009





Ms. Somers begins her blog entry, “Two Scariest Women on the Planet–Oprah and Suzanne,” with this:

“Have you seen this week’s Newsweek magazine? Here we go again! They have a new article on how Oprah is giving ‘dangerous’ advice by having uninformed guests give false information to the public.” (more rebuttal on the Newsweek article here)

Ms. Somers is referring to information about bio-identical hormones–a subject that has raised considerable controversy.

For the last 30 years, I’ve seen that “dangerous information” tag thrown around. It’s usually employed against scientists or reporters who question mainstream consensus, who don’t line up with authorities on a scientific or medical topic—such as bio-identical hormones. In this case, the label is being applied to Oprah and Somers.

People who control large amounts of official power hurl the “dangerous” tag, to try to maintain their positions as the top experts in a given field.

My interest is in heading off a rising threat to free speech. You see, “dangerous,” used as a label, is close to an accusation that a crime is being committed. It’s an attempt to derail the First Amendment.

In this age of science, there are surprising numbers of people who believe that, once a proof of something has been offered, there should be no more conversation. The deal is closed.

These terminally confused people don’t understand what free speech is.

Then, we have the obvious factor of false proofs. There are scientists who want to declare “case closed,” when they submit their papers to journals. They want immediate and universal acceptance. They want to stifle debate about their findings.

There are many examples where proofs are incomplete, false, or fraudulent. Stifling free speech about the proof makes the matter worse.

Finally, there is a rising tide of opinion in this country that “ordinary people” need to be protected from any information that could possibly lead them to make harmful choices. This is a slippery slope, to say the least. And there is no perfect solution. People who are gullible must disabuse themselves of the tendency.

Of course, I understand there are reasonable laws against malicious fraud. But if officials aren’t willing to pursue a legal case, then those who could be bamboozled need to wake up.

I happen to believe bio-identical hormones are useful. But that’s beside the point here. To accuse Somers or Oprah of being dangerous is an obvious clue: the detractors don’t want to engage in a fair and complete debate of the relevant issues. They want to defame and discredit, and make the public afraid. They want to do this and only this. They want to protect their own turf.

Somers and Oprah, like everyone else, have the right of free speech. They also, in this case, have information. That information, if it’s going to be challenged, should be examined through reasonable debate. That’s not about to happen. Somers and Oprah are willing to bring scientists forward on their own behalf, but the experts aren’t ready. There’s too much to lose. So they just say “it’s dangerous,” and they assume a guise of wanting to protect everyone—from freedom.

This country doesn’t work that way.

There are arrogant high-IQ idiots who think it does, but they’re wrong.

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.