History proves vaccines are quite safe—really?

History proves vaccines are quite safe—really?

by Jon Rappoport

September 29, 2014


In 1987, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., I decided to look into vaccines as a cause of immune-system suppression.

I had never dug below the surface of that subject before.

Of course, the authorities and experts have been forever telling people how effective and safe vaccines are. They issue their remarks with great assurance.

Here are just a few of my findings, from 1987. They paint a different historical record.

“Smallpox, like typhus, has been dying out (in England) since 1780. Vaccination in this country has largely fallen into disuse since people began to realize how its value was discredited by the great smallpox epidemic of 1871-2 (which occurred after extensive vaccination).” W. Scott Webb, A Century of Vaccination, Swan Sonnenschein, 1898.

“… Barker and Pichichero, in a prospective study of 1232 children in Denver, Colorado, found after DTP [diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis vaccine], that only 7% of those vaccinated were free from untoward reactions, which included pyrexia (53%), acute behavioral changes (82%), prolonged screaming (13%), and listlessness, anorexia and vomiting. 71% of those receiving second injections of DTP experienced two or more of the reactions monitored.” Lancet, May 28, 1983, p. 1217

“Publications by the World Health Organization show that diphtheria is steadily declining in most European countries, including those in which there has been no immunization. The decline began long before vaccination was developed. There is certainly no guarantee that vaccination will protect a child against the disease; in fact, over 30,000 cases of diphtheria have been recorded in the United Kingdom in fully immunized children.” Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, CW Daniel Company, Ltd., p. 58.

“… the swine-flu vaccination program was one of its (CDC) greatest blunders. It all began in 1976 when CDC scientists saw that a virus involved in a flu attack outbreak at Fort Dix, N.J., was similar to the swine-flu virus that killed 500,000 Americans in 1918. Health officials immediately launched a 100-million dollar program to immunize every American. But the expected epidemic never materialized, and the vaccine led to partial paralysis in 532 people. There were 32 deaths.” U.S. News and World Report, Joseph Carey, October 14, 1985, p. 70, “How Medical Sleuths Track Killer Diseases.”

“At a press conference in Washington on 24 July, 1942, the Secretary of War reported that 28,585 cases of jaundice had been observed in the (American) Army between 1 January and 4 July after yellow fever vaccination, and of these 62 proved fatal.” Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization, Athone Press, University of London, 1967.

“Between 10 December 1929 and 30 April 1930, 251 of 412 infants born in Lubeck received three doses of BCG vaccine by the mouth during the first ten days of life. Of these 251, 72 died of tuberculosis, most of them in two to five months and all but one before the end of the first year. In addition, 135 suffered from clinical tuberculosis but eventually recovered; and 44 became tuberculin-positive but remained well. None of the 161 unvaccinated infants born at the time was affected in this way and none of these died of tuberculosis within the following three years.” Hazards of Immunization, Wilson.

power outside the matrix

“So far it is hardly possible to gain insight into the extent of the immunization catastrophe of 1955 in the United States. It may be considered certain that the officially ascertained 200 cases (of polio) which were caused directly or indirectly by the (polio) vaccination constitute minimum figures… It can hardly be estimated how many of the 1359 (polio) cases among vaccinated persons must be regarded as failures of the vaccine and how many of them were infected by the vaccine. A careful study of the epidemiologic course of polio in the United States yields indications of grave significance. In numerous states of the U.S.A., typical early epidemics developed with the immunizations in the spring of 1955… The vaccination incidents of the year 1955 cannot be exclusively traced back to the failure of one manufacturing firm.” Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, 1980, vol. 19, no. 4, “Story of the Salk Vaccine (Part 2).”

“Suffice it to say that most of the large (polio) epidemics that have occurred in this country since the introduction of the Salk vaccine have followed the wide-scale use of the vaccine and have been characterized by an uncommon early seasonal onset. To name a few, there is the Massachusetts epidemic of 1955; the Chicago epidemic of 1956; and the Des Moines epidemic of 1959.” Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, 1980 vol. 19, no. 4.

“Administration of KMV (killed measles vaccine) apparently set in motion an aberrant immunologic response that not only failed to protect children against natural measles, but resulted in heightened susceptibility.” JAMA Aug. 22, 1980, vol. 244, p. 804, Vincent Fulginiti and Ray Helfer. The authors indicate that such falsely protected children can come down with “an often severe, atypical form of measles. Atypical measles is characterized by fever, headache… and a diverse rash (which)… may consist of a mixture of macules, papules, vesicles, and pustules… ”

“Assistant Secretary of Health Edward Brandt, Jr., MD, testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, rounded… figures off to 9,000 cases of convulsions, 9,000 cases of collapse, and 17,000 cases of high-pitched screaming for a total of 35,000 acute neurological reactions occurring within forty-eight hours of a DPT shot among America’s children every year.” DPT: A Shot in the Dark, by Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fischer, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Yes, a different history. Is there a school anywhere which would dare teach it?

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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Arnold Schwarzenegger: a weapon of mass illusion

Arnold Schwarzenegger: a weapon of mass illusion

by Jon Rappoport

October 21, 2013


What happened when an actor wanted to launch a political career and become governor? The whole news division of a major network surrendered itself, for one ratings-busting night, to a talk show.

Now that ex-governor, Arnold, born in Austria, apparently wants to change the law so he’s qualified to become the next President of the United States.

As a resident of Kalifornia, my memory of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is dim. He got fatter. He confessed to cheating on his wife and fathering a child with the housekeeper. He mainly carried on in the fine tradition of sinking CA deeper into bureaucratic muck and insolvency.

Muck is a requirement of the job.

Each new governor is guided into a secret room where, among heavily armed androids, he’s told: “Your orders are to screw this whole state up worse or you’re dead, understand?”

Several years ago, I looked into how Arnold won the governor’s race. It all came down to his famous appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, where he announced that he was going to run.

I obtained a copy of show, watched it many times, and transcribed the dialogue and noted the audience reactions.

Breaking down the segments revealed what happens when news and entertainment and PR and political advocacy all blur together in a single wave.

The show had been hyped as the moment when Arnold would announce whether he was going to run in the recall election against California Governor Gray Davis.

The public anticipation was sky-high. No one seemed concerned that NBC was turning over its news division, for one night, to its entertainment division.

This was precisely the subject of the best movie ever made about television, Paddy Chayefsky’s Network. That didn’t register with the national media, either.

If Arnold decided to run, he wouldn’t be announcing it at a stale press conference at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, after a brief introduction from The Snoozer, LA Mayor Richard Riordan. No, Arnold would obtain a rocket boost from Jay Leno.

Keep in mind that talk shows warm up and prep their studio audiences to act and respond with amphetamine-like enthusiasm.

And then that audience transmits its glow and howling racket to the wider television audience, thereby blowing an artificially enhanced event across the landscape.

On the night of August 6, 2003, Tonight Show host Jay Leno devoted two six-minute segments to The Arnold.

Of course, it was more than an interview. Jay had been touting this night as the occasion for a key revelation in the comic play called the California Recall.

Arnold would say yes or Arnold would say no. He would run for governor or he would decline.

Bigger than conventional news, Arnold strode out on to Jay’s stage. A Tonight Show camera picked him up from a grossly complimentary low angle, making him appear even larger and more physically imposing than he is. Jay was positioned standing behind him, applauding, lending an affirmative gloss to the entrance. Already, it looked and felt political.

This was not a beginning; the impression was of something already in motion, a train to catch up with.

As the man of the hour sat down next to Jay, he commented that there was a big audience in the house (“Can you believe all these people here?”) and, capping his first gambit, he stated that every one of them was running for governor of California. Ha ha. (At one point, there were 135 gubernatorial candidates.)

Quickly, Jay gets down to business. The business of making the evening extra-special: “Now, I don’t think we’ve ever had this much press at The Tonight Show for any—[let’s look at] our press room—normally [the press] sit in the audience.”

Cut to a stark room, shot from above. About 40 reporters doing almost nothing at tables. Obviously, the room was set up for this event.

Jay cracks a couple of jokes about the press gaggle, lowers his voice and turns his full attention to Arnold: “…it’s been weeks…and people going back and forth…taken you awhile, and you said you would come here tonight and tell us your decision. So what is your decision?”

Arnold replies, “Well, Jay, after thinking for a long time, my decision is…”

The sound cuts off, and the TV screen displays an old PLEASE STAND BY notice. Thick white letters against a background of an ancient station test pattern from the 1950s. A mechanical tone plays for several seconds.

The audience laughs. There is applause, too.

Cut back to Jay and Arnold. Arnold says, “That’s why I decided that way.” Big audience laughter.

Jay, going along—as if Arnold had spilled the beans during a momentary technical malfunction—shouts, “Right, good, right! I tell you I am shocked! I can’t believe it! I can’t believe it!”

Jay then starts out from the bottom again. “[Whether you’re going to run has been] in my monologue…it’s been good for, like, a thousand jokes over the last couple of weeks…”

Once more, he gently poses the question. “What are you going to do?” It’s still too early for an answer, and Jay knows it.

Arnold wants another false start. He’s planned it.

Well, my decision obviously is a very difficult decision to make, you know…it was the [most] difficult decision that I’ve made in my entire life, except the one in 1978 when I decided to get a bikini wax.”

Laughter, applause, whistles.

The studio audience warms to the fact that Arnold glimpses an absurdity about the whole proceeding.

He’s our Arnie, laughing the way we laugh. Hell, all we’ve got are laughs in this life, and our boy isn’t going to go stuffed shirt on us.”

An absolutely important confirmation.

Arnold then gives his rehearsed political speech.

He reflects that California was a grand land of opportunity when he arrived in 1968. It was the greatest state in the greatest nation.

However, now the atmosphere in California is “disastrous,” he says. There is a “disconnect” (thank you, pop psych 101) between the people and the politicians.

The politicians are fiddling, fumbling, and failing.” Very big applause follows. The audience is doing its job.

Close by, off camera, we hear Jay thumping his own personal hand claps. The host is pumping his studio crowd and giving his seal of approval to a remark whose veracity is supposed to be tested by the recall election itself.

And there is a phalanx of teen-age girls screaming at a very high pitch in the studio. They’re adding a major element of hysterical enthusiasm. Where did they come from? Are they a legitimate Arnold demographic? Were they pulled out of a Valley mall to paper the crowd? Do they migrate from talk show to talk show? From this point forward, they’ll play a huge role in every audience outburst.

Arnold gathers steam. He tells one and all that the people of California are doing their job.

They’re working hard.

Paying their taxes.

Raising their families.

But the politicians are not doing their job.

Now he executes a decent blend around the far turn: “And the man that is failing the people more than anyone is [Governor] Gray Davis!”

The crowd goes wild. The girls scream as if they’re at a kiddie rock concert in the magic presence of four sixteen-year-old pretty boys. It’s eerie.

And now the audience is suddenly on edge.

They can handle the juice. The longed-for result.

Arnold senses it.

He lets the audience-hysteria roller coaster die down and then, taking it up to heaven, announces that, he, Arnold is…



Boom. Bang. Pow. Zow.

The studio audience cracks the ceiling. Wilder than wild. The girls are shrieking walls of sound way above high C. Undoubtedly, the show is flashing applause signs.

Jay shakes his head and grins like a pro hypster who’s just witnessed a very, very good variation on bait and switch. As if Arnold was supposed to say no, but now he’s saying yes.

The Tonight Show band lays down some heavy chords.

Jay shouts, “There you go! There you go! That woke ‘em up! That woke ‘em up!” We cut to the press room, and sure enough, the reporters are now on phones, typing at their keyboards. The story is live and good to go. A global event is underway.

Amid the roar and the music, Jay, smiling broadly and wisely, shakes his finger at Arnold and says to him, “You know something?”

It seems Jay’s about to utter, “That’s the best damn switcheroo I ever saw!” But he doesn’t do it. Instead, as the noise abates, he says it’s a good time to go to a break.

The band plows into a funk riff, under the applause, and the show cuts to commercial.

The Matrix Revealed

The sea has parted. The consecration has been performed.

The ax felled the tree in the forest, and everyone heard it.

Marshall McLuhan rolled over in his grave, sat up, grinned, lit a cigar, and sipped a little brandy.

After the commercials, in the next six-minute segment, Jay and Arnold attain a few more highs of audience madness.

High one: Arnold mentions that 1.6 million Californians have signed the recall petition and are saying, “We are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore!” Wowee.

No one notices or remembers this line was made massively famous in Network, the bitter satire on news as entertainment.

Is it remotely possible Arnold recalls the 1976 Paddy Chayefsky film and its newsman, Howard Beale, who survives a ratings dive by delivering a delirious populist message on air, and becomes, for a short time, the most revered man in America?

Is it possible Arnold knows the TV network portrayed in the film gave its news division to its entertainment division—exactly what’s transpiring right there, for the moment, on The Tonight Show?

High two: Arnold clarifies his message to all politicians everywhere. “Do your job for the people and do it well, or otherwise you’re out. Hasta la vista, baby!” Zowee.

High three: After telling the crowd they all know Gray Davis can run a dirty campaign “better than anyone”—and that Davis has been selling off pieces of California to special interests—Arnold says with conviction and confidence, “I do not have to bow to any special interests; I have plenty of money; no one can pay me off; trust me, no one.” Audience hysteria. They love that he’s rich.

High four: Arnold says of Davis, “Everyone knows this man has to go!” Huge roar.

High five: Arnold plays a final pun card. “I will pump up Sacramento!” Yet another roar.

The band takes it out with more funk. Jay stands up and goes over and hugs Arnold, in profile, near his desk, and follows him closely toward an exit at stage left. Jay starts to whisper something in Arnold’s ear, but pulls back and smiles and, still on camera, applauds Arnold along with the audience.

It’s show biz in a bottle. Jay, Arnold, the crowd, the band, bouncing off one another and yielding the effect of absolute (synthetic) thrill.

The Tonight Show provided the moment for a globally famous actor to decide to run for office in the same state where the show originates. In the entertainment capitol of the world. In front of the clear prime-cut admiration of the host.

And the studio audience, that specialized creature from whose maw instant credibility can be coaxed and birthed in seconds—was very, very ready to go. All along.

Imagine an advance man pre-selling this kind of PR stunt:

I know a guy who can introduce your message to the softest, wildest, water-cooler crowd this side of paradise.”

Oh yeah? How big a crowd?”

Only a thousand or two. But they’re instantly hooked up to, say, ten million people in the target area. It’s as infectious as Ebola.”

Come on.”

And that’s not all. I’ve got a host for that softest, wildest audience, and he has the whole world in the palm of his hand. When he exposes your message—for the first time anywhere—and when his audience goes nuts with glee, nothing will stand in your way. Your opponents will go down like bowling pins.”

Too good to be true.”

Wrong. And let me point out what I’m saving you from, you most fortunate of all mothers. If you tried to launch your message at a shopping center or a press club or a hotel ballroom or construction site or on a movie-studio sound stage, you could get laughed right out of town. Really. Because, let’s face it, you do have a pretty vapid message when you boil it down. You need a unique venue, where the joke and the camp and the craziness are all folded into the event itself, and the shock and surprise and hoopla are integrated. You need an audience that celebrates bad and good jokes as all good, and the host has the ability to marry up every shred of this bizarre happening and take his crowd to orgasm. Talking multiple.”

And the contagion factor?”

The audience in the television studio and the viewing audience at home are One. My boy, what stuns and delights the former incorporates itself into the living cells of the latter. The home audience is terrified of being left out. The host and his in-studio crowd give instant universal legitimacy to the moment. Believe me, it’s irresistible.”

Like that McLuhan thing. The audience becomes the actor.”


That is how it happened. That is how Arnold S obtained his billion-dollar ad on Jay Leno, on August 6, 2003, and that was when he won the recall election. There was no counter-strategy for it.

Gray Davis was left with his putz in his hand.

The announcement of Arnold’s candidacy was the end of the election.

Exit From the Matrix

In the aftermath, media pundits did not punch up this piece of mind control with any serious heat; nor did they immediately seek a heavy investigation of NBC’s ethics in allowing the Leno-Arnold event to take place.

The Tonight Show was a perfect killing ground: Arnold, the earnest and powerful and Germanically jolly and occasionally self-deprecating soul, aware of the comic-book component of his success; Jay, the jokester, who can work as a homer and straight man at the drop of a hat; and Jay’s audience, willingly propelled into the late-night nexus of “we’ll laugh so hard at any old damn thing we’ll make a cosmic celebration out of it.”

Something out of nothing.

GE (the owner of NBC): We bring good things to life.

An election campaign message was passed, hand to hand, mind to mind, adrenal gland to adrenal gland, from a concocted, groomed, cultivated, prepackaged television studio audience to every voter-district in California, and out to the whole world.

When people show up in the studio to see Leno in person, they soon understand the game. They’re not just there as happy onlookers. They’re drawn into the process. They’re offered a trade-off.

If they become active shills for the show right there in the studio, they’ll become part of the story. They’ll attain new status. Their laughs and squeals and shrieks and rebound guffaws, their revved-up salvational applause, at those moments when a guest segment or a joke is falling flat, will provide key segue and filler and affirmation and speed candy for the larger audience at home. It’s a group collaboration.

Who cares—except when a fading movie action hero trying to roll a seven on his latest film suddenly says he’s going to take over the reins of California?

In the television studio, and in millions of homes, the audience roared and helped Arnold go for his coronation. They experienced a reasonable facsimile of emotional torque and busted a move that showered sparks around Arnold’s head and pushed him through a porthole into an ozone that just might have been the closest thing they’d ever find to immortality.

On October 10, three days after Arnold scored number one in the recall vote count, The NY Times ran a piece by Bill Carter headlined, “NBC Supports the Politically Partisan Leno.”

It was merely about Jay, on the night of October 7, taking the stage in Los Angeles to introduce Arnold as the recall winner.

This was the issue? This was the barrier that Leno had crossed?

Jeff Zucker, head of entertainment at NBC, told Carter that he was aware Jay was going to introduce Arnold at the victory celebration. “I did not and do not have a problem with it,” he said.

Zucker noted that Jay was a private citizen with all the accruing rights of same.

Not a word about the propriety of Leno hosting Arnold’s campaign launch on August 6.

The Audience Party, on the night of August 6, 2003, fingered and chose and elected a governor of California.

Jay Leno has gone on to thousands of other jokes. But he’ll never forget that one.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

There WAS a recount on the Prop 37 vote, and it was stopped cold

There WAS a recount on the Prop 37 vote, and it was stopped cold

by Jon Rappoport

March 17, 2013


The relentless Brad Friedman of TheBradBlog ran this story down and broke it. There was, indeed, a recount of the Prop 37 vote.

Prop 37, the ballot measure that would have mandated labeling of all GMO food sold in California, went down to defeat last November, under suspicious circumstances.

So a small group, headed by Tom Courbat, former senior budget analyst for LA County, decided to challenge the vote.

In California, any voter can do that, if they’re willing to pay for it. And they have to pay for the recount county by county. They pick the counties they want to start with, they contact the county registrars, and they’re told what the price is. It’s different in each county.

So the group picked Orange and Sierra Counties. They paid the fee. The votes were recounted, and there was no appreciable change in the numbers.

The group decided Fresno County should be next. That’s when trouble came and whole thing blew up. The county clerk in Fresno, in charge of all voting processes, is Brandi Orth.

As The Brad Blog reveals, Orth came up with a staggering price for a vote recount. Here are a few of the details:

Orth stated there would be an up-front fee, due before the recount even started, of $18,000.

The cost per DAY of doing the recount? $4,000. This included five vote counters who would each be paid $46 an hour—to sit and count. Then there would be a three-person executive staff, each of whom would be paid an astonishing $92 an hour.

Note: In Orange County, the Prop 37 recount didn’t cost $4,000 a day. The fee? Only $600 a day!

But here is the best part. As Tom Courbat, the leader of the Prop 37 recount group, spoke with Fresno County Clerk, Brandi Orth, he suddenly learned he was being charged for the phone conversation—and also for Orth’s staff “getting ready” for a recount!

Understand this. No recount had begun. Courbat hadn’t given the green light for a recount. But, he was informed, he was already $4000 in the hole.

Courbat estimated a vote recount in Fresno County was going to cost his group $78,000 by the end of three weeks worth of work. They didn’t have the money.

The Fresno County recount was toast. And with it went any chance (even if one assumes a recount would be honest) that Prop 37 could be fairly reviewed in California.

At this point, I ran down a few facts about Fresno County. It’s the number-one county in the US for agricultural production; in 2007, $5.3 billion. Major employers? Kraft Foods, Del Monte Foods, Foster Farms, Zacky Farms, Sun-Maid. A local outfit, David Sunflower Seeds, is owned by the giant ConAgra.

Beginning to form a picture? Fresno is Big Agriculture, and the last time I looked, Big Ag isn’t rushing to support GMO labeling. They love Monsanto, crime boss of the GMO world.

Brandi Orth, who blocked the recount, was installed as Fresno county clerk a mere 10 months before Prop 37 went up before California voters. This happened, as The Brad Blog points out, because the previous county clerk, Victor Salazar, suddenly announced his retirement with three years left on his contract.

Who picked Orth as the new county clerk? The five members of the Fresno board of supervisors. I noticed that two of them, Phil Larson and Debbie Poochigian, were members of the Fresno County Farm Bureau.

That’s quite interesting, because in the run-up to the November Prop 37 vote, the Farm Bureau was one of the organizations that signed on to a large NO on 37 print ad.

The Matrix Revealed

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

Let’s recap. The recount on the Prop 37 vote is stopped cold in Fresno County (a major center of Big Ag), because the county clerk, Brandi Orth put up absurd, incredible, and arbitrary obstacles. Orth was selected for her job, in the first place, by a board of supervisors on which, at the very least, two of the five members were opponents of Prop 37.

Does the California state government and, in particular, the state attorney general’s office give this foul-smelling situation even a sniff? No.

Does the California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, who is in charge of all voting in the State, budge from her office and investigate, or better yet, go down to Fresno and personally install a fair and equitable and affordable recount of Prop 37? Of course not. She moves right along to other matters.

What does that tell you?

The stink from the blocked vote-recount goes all the way from Fresno up to the capital city of Sacramento and back down again.

Naturally, the major media give this story no play. They remain silent.

As I’ve detailed in other articles (under the ~/category/yeson37/ section of my blog), there are many reasons to reject the truth of the original Prop 37 vote in California, as well as any election in the State. But after these revelations, if you accept California vote-counts as real, you should check your sanity.

Source: The Brad Blog, “Forget About Fresno: How One CA County Clerk Stopped Prop 37’s Oversight ‘Recount’

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Breaking…Food Democracy Now calls Prop 37 election vote fraud!



by Jon Rappoport

December 9, 2012



The cat is jumping out of the bag.


Food Democracy Now is weighing in on Prop 37 vote fraud, having discovered that the California Secretary of State, in charge of all elections in CA, has stopped posting updates on the ongoing vote count.


From November 6 all the way to up to December 4, these updates were posted daily on the Secretary of State’s website. Then…blackout. No more updates.


Maybe it has something to do with this: On December 4, YES ON 37 votes climbed over the six-million mark: 6,004,628. Food Democracy Now reported it. Suddenly, the YES ON 37 votes reversed!


That’s right. They went back to the previously reported number: 5,986,652.


This is apparently a new wrinkle in vote counting. You can not only add votes, you can go backwards. You can lose 18,000 votes with the flick of a wrist or the blink of a digital operation.


Here’s a screen shot:




Now you see 18,000 Yes votes, now you don’t.


Here’s the latest Food Democracy Now article on vote fraud:




Note that mention is made of a team of independent statisticians, who have found “statistical anomalies” in the largest voting precincts of nine CA counties, including LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Alameda, and Orange.

The Matrix Revealed

So far, I haven’t found out who this team is. We’ll see what they come up with. They’re still working.


To anyone who has followed this debacle of an election, it’s clear that Prop 37 suffered a stunning setback in the early vote reports, on election night. No on 37 jumped out to a huge lead, shortly after the polls closed. Then, Yes on 37 began making up ground.


So it’s likely fraud occurred in that early period.


Also worth noting: I previously wrote about the Secretary of State’s “top-to-bottom” review (2007) of all electronic voting systems then in use in CA. This review discovered fatal flaws in all four systems…and then three of those systems were re-approved for use, after being disqualified.


In the review, it was mentioned that Alameda County (one of the counties the team of statisticians is now studying for fraud) had purchased voting machines that turned out to be counterfeits. They had been advertised as legitimate, but they weren’t.


I’m told the Yes on 37 campaign is alert to Food Democracy Now’s charges of fraud, and they are considering a petition for a recount. We’ll see.


Of course, no recount will expose electronic fraud unless very talented experts can examine the full range of electronic systems now in use in CA.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by shopping through Jon’s Amazon referral link.

Yes on Prop 37 was classic “controlled opposition”



by Jon Rappoport

December 5, 2012



Agricultural co-existence?” Huh? What does that mean? It’s an elite strategy. It means we accept different ways of growing food in America. It’s the big ag-corp message these days.


Co-existence is an idea that’s being sold. “Let’s be tolerant..” “Let’s have the free market decide what food is sold and isn’t sold.” On another level, it’s a yuppy fetish.


We have organic food over here, and then we have GMO food there, and then over here we have conventionally grown food with pesticides but no GMOs.”


And that is exactly and precisely what Prop 37 said. We can co-exist as long as we know what kind of food we’re buying. As long as it’s labeled GMO if it’s GMO.


Okay? Keep all this in mind, because the punchline will be big.


Researching the whole Prop 37 debacle has proved to me, one more time, that Web journalists are miles ahead of the mainstream press.


In particular, I call your attention to an explosive piece written by Nick Brannigan. It just arrived by email. The title: “Is ‘Just Label It’ Controlled Opposition?” Read it here:




Brannigan reveals the approach of Gary Hirshberg, the renowned CEO of Stoneyfield. Hirshberg, like several major players in the YES ON 37 campaign, opts for co-existence.


In other words, it’s assumed that GMO food is here to stay, and we need to inform consumers they have a choice, and then the free market will decide our future. GMO? Organic? Conventional with pesticides but no GMOs? The consumer will pick the winning horse in the race.


The labeling campaigns, like YES ON 37, aim at just that. “You have a right to know what’s in your food, and when you do, you can make a choice.”


I revealed, in past articles, that this was the whole message to voters in California during the run-up to Election Day. YES ON 37 wasn’t about spelling out the health dangers of GMOs. It wasn’t about showing how Monsanto, through patents, is going after control of the world’s food supply. It wasn’t about demonstrably false Monsanto science or government collusion to allow GMO crops into the US food supply.


Brannigan presents some very vital information, in his article, about an organization called AGree. Gary Hirshberg of Stoneyfield is a co-chair. Partners in this organization include, Brannigan states, the omnipresent Bill and Melinda Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.


You should visit the AGree site and read through their literature.




To me, it resembles a man talking with his mouth full of marbles. The language is dense, but you’ll find proposals for multi-faceted types of agriculture to fit different areas and needs—including GMOs.


In other words, AGee is talking about co-existence. They’re spreading that message, and their co-chair, Gary Hirshberg, who also supported YES ON 37, is fine with the message.


And if co-existence can be sold, then Monsanto wins. They absolutely win. They spread their genes through the food supply, from one end to the other.


Well, you say, how can we have anything but co-existence? How is that possible? How can we get GMO crops out of America? They’re everywhere.


Well, not quite everywhere.




South Australia has banned them. So has Switzerland. Ditto for Japan, New Zealand, Ireland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Medeira.


Germany has banned the growing or sale of GMO maize. Three counties in California have banned GMO crops: Mendocino, Trinity, and Marin.


And this is the whole point. Monsanto and its allies want to stop the ban from happening in the US. That’s their bottom-line. Above all, there must not be a ban on GMO crops in America.


A ballot proposition that mandates labeling of foods? Not the best thing, Monsanto says, but it’s tolerable. If the Prop loses, then that sets back the anti-GMO forces, and they have to re-group and try again elsewhere.


That gives Monsanto more time to spread more GMO crops across America. If Prop 37 wins, Monsanto can live with that. They’ll come up with a Plan B to deal with the loss.


Monsanto already did that in the UK, after the European Union ruled that labeling of GMO foods was mandatory, in 1997. Monsanto supported labeling. They could do that now in American states that pass ballot measures.


Well, we were against labeling, sure. We thought it was unnecessary. But now that it’s passed, the people have spoken. We will do everything we can to support this decision, and we’re confident that our food meets the highest standards…” Blah-blah.


But Monsanto doesn’t want a ban on GMO crops. No. And they certainly don’t want a strong movement in America to insist on a ban.


Solution? Promote the idea of agricultural coexistence, just as AGree is doing. Divert anti-GMO forces into campaigns for labeling. Let those folks spend all their time, money, and energy trying to get labeling. Make sure the movement doesn’t turn into a powerful force demanding a ban.


Look at it this way. “Agricultural coexistence” is a soft stance. It covertly claims that choice is always a good thing, as if we’re debating which lamp to buy or which flashlight.


What’s left out of that equation? One of the flashlights happens to emit a powerful and invisible toxic cloud every time you turn it on.


But let’s not discuss that. No. Let’s just “let the market decide.”


Get it? It’s all based on the notion that GMO foods are here to stay in America, and therefore we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads about it. We should just insist that we have the right to know whether there are GMOs in the food we buy. That’s all.


It’s a smokescreen. And it’s promoted to keep us from flat-out saying, “Hey, wait a minute. GMO food is toxic. Monsanto has committed multiple crimes and they should be prosecuted. We should BAN GMO food.”


I know what the proponents of Prop 37 are going to say, and I want to take up their argument. They’re going to say, “No. If we gain the right to know what’s in our food, millions of people in California are going to stop buying GMO food, and this refusal is going to spread, and then we’ll win. We’ll starve Monsanto. The free market will win. From state to state, new ballot measures will win for labeling, and the resistance to GMO food will grow…”


However, that argument depends on consumers caring. Will consumers really give a damn that they’re buying GMO food?


Monsanto will continue to introduce new GMO crops into the American landscape, like apples and salmon. Monsanto will put more and more GMOs into food products. They’ll fight a war of attrition, and in the end, they stand a very good chance of winning…because most consumers won’t care, any more than they care when they enter a public building and see some ridiculous sign on the wall about carcinogenic compounds being present in the building.


Monsanto will bet that, after a time, GMO labels on food products won’t bother most people. Monsanto will spend untold millions of dollars claiming that GMO food is identical to non-GMO.


And again, the most important thing for Monsanto is: there won’t be a ban on GMO crops in America.


Monsanto won’t be prosecuted for crimes by the US Dept. of Justice.

The Matrix Revealed

And even if, say, in the state of Washington, where the next Prop 37-type ballot measure is about to be mounted, the campaign involves educating people about GMOs, will that really make a difference? Will there be an all-out attack on GMOs and Monsanto? Or will it be a soft attack?


I ask this because I believe the leaders of Prop 37 don’t want to make serious waves. They are dedicated to “the right to know what’s in your food” proposition, above all. They are satisfied with that. They have no intention of really going after the people who make that flashlight that exudes clouds of poison when it’s turned on. And those leaders of Prop 37 are pulling along, behind them, many, many people who might otherwise back a real campaign to have GMO crops banned in America.


A civilization does not survive when elites can commit grave and ongoing crimes with impunity. And that’s exactly the situation we have. Monsanto is the chief criminal.


Am I saying the YES ON 37 campaign was entirely useless? No, it educated some people. But in the long run (and Monsanto is in this for the long run), it functioned as a diversion away from the main event: BANNING GMO CROPS.


There is no powerful movement in America to ban GMO crops and prosecute Monsanto for heavy crimes.


Instead, we have groups led by businessmen who want the free market to decide, and who want labeling. In the long run, that’s a loser.


Monsanto knows this.


Look at the legal adviser for the California Right to Know Campaign, Joe Sandler. Sandler has been very active, over the years, working at high levels for the Democratic Party. He’s a beltway attorney. He takes a hand in steering the GMO-labeling ship. There is no way he is going to step out front and say, “Let’s ban the whole mess. Let’s turn this into a war against Monsanto and ban all GMO crops in America.” You could wait for several hells to freeze over before that happens.


Look at Gary Hirshberg or Grant Lundberg or another lawyer in the YES ON 37 mix, Andy Kimbrell. No way they’re going to go all the way. They’re going to demand labeling and that’s it.


And Monsanto can live with that. Obama can live with that.


Monsanto can sit back and say, “It’s a very good thing there is no powerful movement in America to ban GMO crops. We like that. We like that a lot.”


Which is exactly what they’re doing and saying right now.


Did Monsanto fight against YES ON 37? Did they employ dirty tricks? Of course they did. But that was on the minor stage. That wasn’t the big time.


On the big stage, they’re already winning.


They’re winning, in part, because a handful of natural-food entrepreneurs and their lawyers are in charge of the anti-GMO movement in America, and are selling the idea that mandatory labeling is going to grow into a tsunami against GMOs. That’s their mindset and that’s their bet.


They’re “realists.” They don’t take a clue from those countries that have, in fact, banned GMOs. They work from the premise that, in America, we need to co-exist. We need to bow to the free market and let the chips fall where they may.


Yeah, well, many of those chips are going to be GMO.


Most of the growing land in America is going to be GMO.


And the Monsanto genes are going to drift and drift into the whole food supply, and the huge tonnage of toxic pesticide sprayed on GMO crops is going to drift and settle into the soil…as we coexist.


So let’s not bullshit each other, okay?


Let’s not wave a few flags and claim we’re winning against Monsanto, when the fact is we don’t have a powerful movement in America to ban GMO crops.


Don’t label the bastards. Ban them.


My advice to the ground troops who are fighting to get mandatory GMO labeling in various states around the country? Talk to your leaders. Tell them that, instead, you want an all-out fight against Monsanto and GMOs. You want a ban. And if they refuse, get rid of those leaders. Start your own organization.


Stay in it for the long haul. Don’t go for the partial solution. Yes, it makes the battle harder, but it’s the only battle that counts.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by doing your shopping through Jon’s Amazon referral link.

Why it’s not too late to win Prop 37



by Jon Rappoport

December 3, 2012



An email written and sent to me by Natalia Lee Gardener has offered a basic strategy for winning Prop 37, even at this late date. (chakra.yoga.bridge@gmail.com)


Of course, it will take some persistence and a few smarts. I’m sure the lawyers who worked for the YES ON 37 campaign have thought of it.


Basically, it goes this way: the NO ON 37 campaign committed fraud in their ads. They also committed fraud in statements they made in the California Voter’s Guide, which is a felony.


Another felony? Misappropriating the FDA seal and using it in their ads below a statement they falsely claimed was made by the FDA.


NO ON 37 was lying front to back. Read all about it here:




Therefore, the election should be overturned. Voters were defrauded by false information. Votes were made against 37 based on lies spread by the NO ON 37 campaign.


A new special election should be held.


I know what you’re going to say. “If every election filled with lying statements were overturned, we’d be re-voting for every job from president to dog-catcher from now until the sun burns out.”


Perhaps. But let’s focus on the Prop 37 election.


The strategy of YES ON 37 is: let’s move on to other states and other ballots; we educated a whole lot of people in California; let’s take our fight elsewhere now.


Who says you can’t do two things at once? Go ahead to Washington state and mount a new GMO labeling campaign. But your lawyers? They can launch a legal campaign here in CA.


As Gardener pointed out to me in her email, chiropractors engaged in a long hard battle to gain proper recognition. They went all the way to the Supreme Court. They fought against very heavy odds. They played hardball. They won.


So why can’t the GMO-labeling forces do that?


And if they lose in court? They make a lot of noise and they appeal. They stir the pot. If the appeal loses, they appeal higher. They make a big deal out of this because it is a big deal. They kick ass. They act tough because they are tough. If they are.


I can’t tell you how many times important health-freedom issues have been lost because the people leading the good guys folded up their tents and walked away.


That’s always a losing strategy.


Why play nice with criminals? Why?


Being an idealist doesn’t rule out going into battle.


The issue is clear. The NO ON 37 forces committed fraud and felonies in their campaign. Therefore, many people voted against 37 because they bought the fraud and didn’t recognize the crimes. Therefore, we need a new Prop 37 election.


It’s like this. A guy sells you a bottle of medicine. He says the FDA approved the medicine. He says even the police favor the medicine. He says Stanford University and other esteemed scientific groups have praised the medicine.


These are all lies. But because you believe this guy, you buy the medicine. Then later, you find out he was lying wall to wall. So you take him to court.


Let me defuse another argument. It goes this way: “We’re succeeding. We’ve educated millions of people in CA about GMO labeling. Let’s build on that momentum and take the fight to other states and other ballot measures. If we suddenly challenge the Prop 37 election in a CA court and make a big stink about it, if we act nasty, we’ll drive away people in other states who would be on our side…”


Yeah, well, this makes no sense at all. Did millions of angry people in the streets during the Vietnam war have anything at all to do with ending that war? Should they have stayed home and eaten organic candy bars?

The Matrix Revealed

If the YES ON 37 lawyers show people everywhere they won’t back down from a fight, that they’ll take this all the way, they’ll gain allies. They’ll wake people up. They’ll add a new dimension to this war. A good dimension.


Forget all the pseudo-mystical nonsense about being nice and the universe being nice right back to you, or whatever it is that keeps people in a state of internally imposed slavery. A) The universe doesn’t work that way and B) it’s just an excuse to stay passive. In other words, it’s pure bullshit.


Forget the legal niceties and hair splitting over what the CA election law says about what constitutes fraud. Forget some carefully reasoned argument about why YES ON 37 stands no chance in court challenging the election.


That’s not the point. Don’t be a moron.


The point is what’s right and what’s true and what justice is.


Fight on that basis, and publicize the fight from one end of the planet to the other. Hold live streaming press conferences on the Web every week. Bring in Jeffrey Smith and other experts who will spell out all the dangers of GMO food, who will spell out all the lies Monsanto and the government have told about GMO food.


Get it?




Double down on the Prop 37 election.


USE the fraud to score victories.


If I’m reading the tea leaves correctly, the lawyers connected to YES ON 37 don’t want this fight. They absolutely don’t want it. (Joe Sandler, Andrew Kimbrell) But I believe some other lawyer can step up on behalf of the voters of CA and gain standing and go to court. How about you, Gerry Spence? Or do we need Bill Kunstler to rise out of his grave and start raising hell?


In 1982, I interviewed Bill Perry, who was the chief PR man for Lawrence Livermore Labs, where they design nuclear weapons. Bill told me the nuclear freeze campaign, which was getting off the ground, wasn’t an issue for him…until one day he saw that the protestors at the Lab fence came from all walks of life.


They were hippies, guys in suits, housewives, lawyers, doctors, office workers, long hairs, short hairs, no hairs. Then, he said, he knew he was on the wrong side.


That’s what the GMO issue can be. People from everywhere, all kinds of different people, standing together on this issue. When that is reflected on television and computer screens, then others will realize it’s a universal situation.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by doing your shopping through Jon’s Amazon referral link.

Was the YES ON 37 campaign undermined by its allies?


Was the YES ON 37 campaign undermined by its allies?

By Jon Rappoport

November 19, 2012



Before you decide I’m just making this stuff up, answer this question: do you really think food sellers like Whole Foods wanted to see hundreds, maybe thousands of their store products suddenly say “GENETICALLY ENGINEERED” on them?


Are you kidding?


Well, that’s exactly what would have happened if YES ON 37 had won.


With that prologue, let’s begin.


I’m not talking about the workers for the YES ON 37 campaign. There is no doubt the ground game was fought by honest people. But at the top level, a few “suits” relied on advice from professionals who told them there was only one way to win the vote:


Focus on the consumers’ right to know what was in their food.


That’s it. That was the biggest message.




Because the other message would have exposed the natural foods industry. And that other message was:


GMOs are horrible. GMO food is destructive to health, to the soil, to farmers…and, by the way:


The natural foods industry, which is big business in California, sells tons and tons of GMO food.


It’s labeled “natural.” But in a huge number of cases, “natural” contains GMOs.


Get it?


Without all that “natural” food ringing cash registers, big health-food sellers would go belly up.


If YES ON 37 had gone all in on a campaign to educate the people of California about the dangers of GMOs, this would have inevitably revealed that the “natural” food that people were already buying and eating was contaminated to the hilt with GMOs.


And that would have been bad for business.


There were many people at lower levels of the YES ON 37 campaign who wanted to educate the people of California about the dangers of GMO food. But they were rebuffed.


Face it, some big natural food sellers in America have accepted the presence of Monsanto and other GMO crocodiles as permanent fixtures in the landscape. These food sellers reason this way:


We sell organic food, which is free from all but small traces of GMOs. That’s what we offer to those who don’t want GMOs. All our “natural” products? That’s GMO territory, and there is nothing we can do about it.”


In any election campaign, you go after the undecided vote. Everybody else has already made up their minds. In California, the undecided people were on the fence because they didn’t know why labeling GMO food was necessary. They needed to be taught.


But that wasn’t the major thrust of the YES ON 37 campaign.


People needed to know they should want labeling because eating GMO food is dangerous.


The people of CA didn’t get that message loud and clear. It wasn’t delivered with great energy and power.


And that helped the natural food industry. It helped them a lot.


They can continue to sell thousands of food products with “natural” labels on them, and consumers won’t know they’re eating GMOs, and consumers won’t know why that’s a very bad thing.


People who already understand the GMO issue and what Monsanto is doing to the planet assume millions of other people know, too. They see the YES ON 37 campaign as the first big wedge into other states and other campaigns.


They don’t realize how many Americans don’t have a clue about GMOs and Monsanto.


The big-shot suits from the YES ON 37 campaign better take a long hard look at the pollsters and advisers they’re using. When those pollsters tell them, again, in other states, to focus only on “the right to know what’s in your food,” they should stop and ask themselves:


Whose side are these pollsters really on?


And the non-organic “natural food” sellers? Whose side are they on?


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com