By Jon Rappoport

July 13, 2012


Melinda Gates has just unrolled her new program to reduce population in Africa and South Asia. Speaking at the Family Planning Summit in London, the other half of the Gates-Messiah operation pledged to bring contraception to millions of women and girls in the Third World.


Flying under the radar, however, is the partnership between The Gates Foundation and drug giant, Pfizer, and therein lies the dirty little secret.


The method of choice to prevent births? Injectable Depo-Provera (Medroxyprogesterone), long known as a highly dangerous drug. It actually carries a black-box warning on its label, stating that severe bone loss is a consequence of its use. It also thins the vaginal lining, and research is ongoing to investigate the possibility that it increases the risk of breast cancer.


Here is the relevant black-box quote: “Women who use Depro-Provera Contraceptive Injection may lose significant bone mineral density. Bone loss is greater with increased duration of use and may not be completely reversible.” and several other groups are petitioning the US Congress to cut all federal funding for Depo-Provera.


Despite cheerful PR about education of women on the benefits of contraception, and the need for informed consent, these programs have a way of turning into something else out in the field, where the needle meets the body.


Depo-Provera also happens to be a drug of choice for the “chemical castration” of male sex offenders. That fact testifies to its powerful impact on the body.


Nobody at the London Family Planning Summit was talking about Depo-Provera and its severe effects. The conference sponsors, the UN Population Fund, the USAID, and The Gates Foundation, are far more interested in population control.


If millions of girls and women in Africa and South Asia are crippled by the Depo-Provera injections, well, that’s just collateral damage. Several years from now, we’ll no doubt see studies claiming an unexplained epidemic of osteoporosis in the Third World, which will lead to the application of some other highly toxic drug as the treatment of choice.


Pfizer, the maker of Depo-Provera, happens to make such a drug: Fablyn (Lasofoxifene). So far, the FDA has withheld approval, but the EU gave it the green light in 2009. Fablyn has a serious problem. It causes blood clots in veins, which can be life-threatening.


Watch out, Africa. Melinda’s coming with Pfizer. You should ask her why she doesn’t supply money to clean up contaminated water supplies, install rudimentary sanitation, provide real nutrition, and help restore stolen fertile land to local farmers.


But you see, those actions aren’t in line with the elite agenda. They make things better. The agenda is dedicated to Worse.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.




By Jon Rappoport

February 17, 2012

This is a big, big one. And I’m going to build up to it, so have patience, because I want to make several absolutely vital points.

I’ve had many requests for a reprint of my 2009 interview with Dr. Starfield. And in the last few weeks, we’ve had an influx of new readers who aren’t aware of this vital chapter in the annals of US medical crime. Yes, crime. I don’t say that lightly.

There are vast implications in the substance of the late Dr. Starfield’s writings. At the top, I want to mention an implication that escapes most people.

US newspapers are dying. The internet is crushing them. And yet, if the NY Times and the Washington Post and the LA Times wanted to resuscitate themselves, they could do it with stories like this. The American people would be motivated to the hilt to read about the true extent of medically caused death.

I’m not just talking about a one-day headline. I’m talking about a Watergate-like investigation that pounds and pounds on corruption day after day, month after month—only much, much bigger. Because once Dr. Starfield’s findings hit page one, and after a few relentless reporters went on the hunt, corroborating witnesses would come out of the woodwork. Witnesses with impeccable mainstream credentials. And their stories would shock people to the core.

People would buy newspapers off the rack like they buy coffee and beer and video games and cell phones and gasoline and underwear and toilet paper and lipstick and fast food. The Times would have to schedule extra press runs just to keep up with the demand. Its financial bottom line would soon look like Christmas.

The floodgates would open, and the medical system in the US would take hit after hit. The alarming and staggering truth would break huge holes in the medical Matrix.

But that won’t happen.

Why? Because the great esteemed centers of American journalism are part of that Matrix. They are in the business of falsehood, omission, diversion, and obfuscation. They live by those hallmarks.

You could talk to the publisher of the New York Times and present him with an ironclad business plan for pulling his paper out of its deep financial trouble, based on covering true stories like Dr. Starfield’s, and you would find no joy, because he would rather go down with the ship than go against the Matrix.

The Times and other hoary media outlets live by the rule of limited hangout. In intelligence parlance, that means admitting a small piece of the truth in order to hide the rest.

So in the medical arena, it means running stories on the harmful effects of a pharmaceutical drug that has just been pulled off the market. BUT NEVER doing a full investigation of the effects of all medical drugs.

We’ll show you a tree in the forest, but not the whole forest.”

I know how it works, because as a reporter I’ve been there. I’ve approached editors of various media outlets with stories that crack the Matrix trance, and I’ve had those stories tossed back at me.

We’re just not interested,” they say. “This isn’t our kind of piece.” Or: “Well, we already covered that.” But they didn’t cover it. They did a limited hangout on it. They ran a story that exposed one tiny corner of the whole bloody mess.

I want you to keep all this in mind as you read what Dr. Starfield has to say in this interview. Until her death last year, she was one of those people with impeccable mainstream credentials. She was respected and revered by her colleagues. She was a woman who had set off an explosion TEN years earlier, in one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, and the media silence that followed was profound, eerie, and deafening.

If the mighty newspapers of our age had jumped in with both feet, Dr. Starfield would have become one of the most famous people in America. Her work would have shaken the medical cartel down to its foundations. She would have saved more lives and averted more suffering than anyone else in this nation. With no exaggeration, we would now be living in a different world.

I fully understand that media outlets black out stories that would endanger their own advertising dollars, and pharmaceutical ad dollars are extensive and precious. But that’s just the beginning of the true reason the major newspapers and television networks decline to run pieces that would once again make them gigantically successful.

To understand the true reason, you need to grasp something about the Matrix itself. It is a reality that maintains its power because it can engineer SILENCE. It can create EMPTY SPACE. Not only can it invent pictures that are false, not only can it pander to certain emotional links in people’s shrunken universes, it can make Swiss Cheese appear as if it has no holes in it. This is an art.

It’s the same art a man like David Rockefeller can deploy to make himself seem like an old man who is genuinely puzzled by accusations that he exercises vast power.

To see what the Matrix is and how it operates, you need imagination. You need to use that imagination to understand what COULD BE but ISN’T. You need to be able to project how the truth could actually storm the bastions of planned ignorance and impel people to create startling new realities beyond the dross of what we have now.

To illustrate what I mean, I’ll make a temporary sharp right turn and tell you a story. I was part of it, in a parallel world of academia, in the 1980s. I was working as a “technical staff member” at Santa Monica College, in California. I tutored remedial students in the Learning Center, which was located on the top floor of the new library. I tutored English and I directed students to programmed materials they could use to improve their reading skills.

Through the kind help of a colleague, I had just sold two paintings to the College, and they were hanging there in the Learning Center.

One day, not long after the sale, I became aware of an obvious fact. How could I have not seen it before? There were MILES of dead empty wall space in the corridors and classrooms and offices of the College. In a flash, I had idea. I would create and occupy a new position, a new job for myself: art consultant. I would scout out and visit the studios of hundreds of artists in Los Angeles, unknown artists, and I would offer them that wall space, and the College would take their works on loan, and we would have an influx of something quite new on campus. A vacuum would be filled. An empty space would come alive.

We would have group shows. Openings every two months. The press would come and cover them. Residents of the city would show up. Celebrities would appear. The College would become internationally famous as a home for art. It would be a bonanza on many fronts. Most importantly, artists and art would take front and center. I would make sure of that.

Successful, the idea would spread to other colleges and schools who, likewise, had their own miles of empty wall space. There would be a flood of art.

In our own way, we would crack the Matrix lie of ONLY ONE DEAD SPACE. Paintings are worlds, are universes. Paintings would proliferate. People would begin to realize the implications of imagination, invention, improvisation, the making of new realities in every field of endeavor.

So I sketched out a business plan and approached a high official of the College. We had a meeting. I spoke about the kind of future we could engender.

After a few minutes, I saw two things. The face of a bureaucrat. And the face of a selfishly small man. A man who wanted to be The Man. A man who felt my plan would push him into the background away from his prestigious perch in the pecking order.

He told me the problem was INSURANCE. We would need coverage for all the paintings, and we wouldn’t be able to get it. I told him I could find hundreds of artists who would sign waivers releasing the College from any liability if the paintings were harmed or stolen. He shook his head. Not possible.

At that moment, as clear as I’m seeing this keyboard right now, I saw a parallel future in which the triumph of art and artists at the College and beyond was THERE, floating in space and time, filling in the vacuum, destroying the “limited hangout” in which the College existed, expanding vistas in all directions, bringing fierce new originality and courage and daring to a moribund institution…

And then I saw the reality this high official of the College was fronting for. The one he was devoted to.

He prevailed.


That was his version of art. More importantly, it was his limited hangout, his way of saying, protectively, “See, we DO HAVE ART HERE. We are a progressive institution. You can’t criticize us or me. I’m in charge. I’ve done a wonderful thing. There was empty space, and now I’ve filled it…so move along.”

I hope you get the analogy to the main point of this article. You can take any fading institution under the sun and inject into it startling new truth and invention and recreate it as a tremendous and positive and wide-ranging force. And if that injection means the end of that institution as it was, because it was so harmful, so be it. You’ll make it entirely new and alive and free in a way it never was before. You’ll transform it. Or: you can go down with the ship.

So back to my original discussion about the media. I say this—partially as a boast and partially as simple fact. If I were the managing editor of the New York Times and I was given the corner office and free rein, I would have that paper back in the black in a year. I would have it roaring on all cylinders. I would have people fighting each other in the streets to grab the last copy off the newsstands. Every day. Journalism schools all over the country would close down in shame. Because we would be running stories that would crack the whole rotting edifice of cartel-control along many fronts, and we would be filling up the PLANNED VACUUM with something super-real.

All right. Now, read my intro to Dr. Starfield’s interview and then her words, and imagine this was above the fold on page one of the New York Times, on the first day of a all-out relentless campaign. You know, what they used to call, when the fairy tale was still promoted, JOURNALISM!


The American healthcare system, like clockwork, causes a mind-boggling number of deaths every year.

The figures have been known for ten years. The story was covered briefly when a landmark study surfaced, and then it sank like a stone.

The truth was inconvenient for many interests. That has not changed. “Medical coverage for all” is a banner that conceals ugly facts.

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock to the system, when one of its most respected public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America. Starfield was associated with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

The Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, came to the following conclusions:

Every year in the US there are:

12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000. 2.25 MILLION PEOPLE PER DECADE.

This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer.

The Starfield study is the most disturbing revelation about modern healthcare in America ever published. The credentials of its author and the journal in which it appeared are, within the highest medical circles, impeccable.

On the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, media reporting was rather perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, it seemed that those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this situation preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email.

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

My papers on the benefits of primary care have been widely used, including in Congressional testimony and reports. However, the findings on the relatively poor health in the US have received almost no attention. The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency). They, of course, would like an even greater share of the pie than they now have, for training more specialists. (Of course, the problem is that we train specialists–at great public cost–who then do not practice up to their training–they spend half of their time doing work that should be done in primary care and don’t do it as well.)

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?


Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society-which clearly unbalances democracy.

Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.)

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint–ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Do medical schools in the US, and intern/residency programs in hospitals, offer significant “primary care” physician training and education?

NO. Some of the most prestigious medical teaching institutions do not even have family physician training programs [or] family medicine departments. The federal support for teaching institutions greatly favors specialist residencies, because it is calculated on the basis of hospital beds.. [Dr. Starfield has done extensive research showing that family doctors, who deliver primary care-as opposed to armies of specialists-produce better outcomes for patients.]

Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

What was your personal reaction when you reached the conclusion that the US medical system was the third leading cause of death in the US?

I had previously done studies on international comparisons and knew that there were serious deficits in the US health care system, most notably in lack of universal coverage and a very poor primary care infrastructure. So I wasn’t surprised.

Has anyone from the FDA, since 2000, contacted you about the statistical findings in your JAMA paper?

NO. Please remember that the problem is not only that some drugs are dangerous but that many drugs are overused or inappropriately used. The US public does not seem to recognize that inappropriate care is dangerous–more does not mean better. The problem is NOT mainly with the FDA but with population expectations.

… Some drugs are downright dangerous; they may be prescribed according to regulations but they are dangerous.

Concerning the national health plan before Congress–if the bill is passed, and it is business as usual after that, and medical care continues to be delivered in the same fashion, isn’t it logical to assume that the 225,000 deaths per year will rise?

Probably–but the balance is not clear. Certainly, those who are not insured now and will get help with financing will probably be marginally better off overall.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

106,000 people die as a result of CORRECTLY prescribed medicines. I believe that was your point in your 2000 study. Overuse of a drug or inappropriate use of a drug would not fall under the category of “correctly prescribed.” Therefore, people who die after “overuse” or “inappropriate use” would be IN ADDITION TO the 106,000 and would fall into another or other categories.

‘Appropriate’ means that it is not counter to regulations. That does not mean that the drugs do not have adverse effects.


This interview with Dr. Starfield reveals that, even when an author has unassailable credentials within the medical-research establishment, the findings can result in no changes made to the system.

Yes, many persons and organizations within the medical system contribute to the annual death totals of patients, and media silence and public ignorance are certainly major factors, but the FDA is the assigned gatekeeper, when it comes to the safety of medical drugs. The buck stops there. If those drugs the FDA is certifying as safe are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the Agency must be held accountable. The American people must understand that.

As for the other 119,000 people killed every year as a result of hospital treatment, this horror has to be laid at the doors of those institutions. Further, to the degree that hospitals are regulated and financed by state and federal governments, the relevant health agencies assume culpability.

It is astounding, as well, that the US Department of Justice has failed to weigh in on Starfield’s findings. If 225,000 medically caused deaths per year is not a crime by the Dept. of Justice’s standards, then what is?

To my knowledge, not one person in America has been fired from a job or even censured as result of these medically caused deaths.

Dr. Starfield’s findings have been available for nine years. She has changed the perception of the medical landscape forever. In a half-sane nation, she would be accorded a degree of recognition that would, by comparison, make the considerable list of her awards pale. And significant and swift action would have been taken to punish the perpetrators of these crimes and reform the system from its foundations.

In these times, medical schools continue turning out a preponderance of specialists who then devote themselves to promoting the complexities of human illness and massive drug treatment. Whatever the shortcomings of family doctors, their tradition speaks to less treatment, more common sense, and a proper reliance on the immune systems of patients.

The pharmaceutical giants stand back and carve up the populace into “promising markets.” They seek new disease labels and new profits from more and more toxic drugs. They do whatever they can–legally or illegally–to influence doctors in their prescribing habits. Many drug studies which show negative results are buried. FDA panels are filled with doctors who have drug-company ties. Legislators are incessantly lobbied and supported with pharma campaign monies.

Nutrition, the cornerstone of good health, is ignored or devalued by most physicians. Meanwhile, the FDA continues to attack nutritional supplements, even though the overall safety record of these nutrients is excellent, whereas, once again, the medical drugs the FDA certifies as safe are killing 106,000 Americans per year.

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the whole literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.

Yes, that’s right. By Dr. Starfield’s published figures, FDA-approved pharmaceutical drugs kill over A MILLION Americans per decade.

Does that sound like a legitimate ongoing subject for journalism to you?

At its height, if I recall correctly, when I published this interview in 2009, Google entries ran to about 40,000. Other websites picked it up. I sent it to a well-placed CBS reporter. The overall major media response? ZERO.

You can take that as a reason to give up. Or you can press down harder on the gas pedal.

Jon Rappoport has worked as an independent investigative reporter since 1982. The LA Weekly nominated him for a Pulitzer Prize, for a interview he did with the president of El Salvador University, where the military had taken over the campus and was disappearing students and burning books. He has written for In These Times, Village Voice, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, CBS Healthwatch, Stern. He is the author of a new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, and the co-author, with Robert Scott Bell, of a new ten-hour audio seminar, VACCINES, ARMED AND DANGEROUS. His work can be found at





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?









by Jon Rappoport

August 7, 2011

(To join our email list, click here.)

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.

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.







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.