The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: VACCINES INTERVIEW  (Read 2164 times)

Offline esecallum

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
VACCINES INTERVIEW
« on: 18/10/2005 09:20:06 »

SUMMARY   ...no long-term studies are done on any vaccines.
    Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way.  Why?  
    Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not
    cause problems.  So why should anyone check?  On top of
    that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad
    reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is
    given. But that does not make sense... Because the vaccine
    obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after
    it is given.  A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can
    be gradual.  Neurological problems can develop over time.
    They do in various conditions...


Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher


Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of
good medicine.

A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say
which ones.  

Q: Why not?  

A: I want to preserve my privacy.  

Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into
the open?  

A: I believe I could lose my pension.  

Q: On what grounds?  

A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing
you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one
or two people who were put under surveillance, who were
harassed.  

Q: Harassed by whom?  

A: The FBI.  

Q: Really?  

A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come
calling too.  

Q: So much for free speech.  

A: I was "part of the inner circle."  If now I began to name
names and make specific accusations against researchers, I
could be in a world of trouble.  

Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?  

A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines
are the ultimate justification for the overall "brilliance" of
modern medicine.  

Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose
whether they should get vaccines?  

A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people
need information, so that they can choose well. It's one thing
to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies,
how can you choose?  Also, if the FDA were run by honorable
people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They
would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.  

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall
decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.  

A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.  

Q: Why?  

A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the
business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on
continuing that work.  

Q: And then?  

A: I did my own investigation.  

Q: What conclusions did you come to?  

A: The decline of disease is due to improved living
conditions.  

Q: What conditions?  

A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher
food.  A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but
when you are healthy, you don't contract the diseases as
easily.  

Q: What did you feel when you completed your own
investigation?  

A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a
collection of lies.  

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?  

A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a
vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same
vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.  

Q: Why?  

A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a
process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually
cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause
other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.  

Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that
vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out
diseases?  

A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful.
If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like
measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But,
under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system
itself. And if it causes other diseases -- say, meningitis --
that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine
can do that. The connection is overlooked.  

Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in
England.  

A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get
another picture.  

Q: Which is?  

A: There were cities in England where people who were not
vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where
people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And
smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was
introduced.  

Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false
history.  

A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that
has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are
invariably safe and effective.  

Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.  

A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing
facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not
true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of
debris introduced into vaccines.  

Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio
vaccine.  

A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The
SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made
by using monkey kidneys.  But I'm talking about something
else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless
errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors -- that
was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted
part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys,
you open the door to germs which you don't know are in those
kidneys.  

Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different
types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you
find in your many years of work with vaccines?  

A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and
I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a
partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various
chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba,
which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba.  

Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in
the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine.
Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found
potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines.
Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian
leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR
vaccine.  

Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which
don't belong in the vaccines.  

A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these
contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know, because no
testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of
roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know
that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep
A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal
tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments
and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time -- which
may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for
contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that
IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't
know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was
a very small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I
have found what can only be called "foreign protein," which
could mean almost anything.  It could mean protein from
viruses.  

Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.  

A: How do you think I felt?  Remember, this material is going
into the bloodstream without passing through some of the
ordinary immune defenses.  

Q: How were your findings received?  

A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this can't be helped. In
making vaccines, you use various animals' tissue, and that's
where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not
even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde,
mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines.  

Q: This information is pretty staggering.  

A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological
contaminants. Who knows how many others there are?  Others we
don't find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue
from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible
germs can be in that tissue?  We have no idea. We have no idea
what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.  

Q: And beyond the purity issue?  

A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about
vaccines.  That they intricately stimulate the immune system
to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is
the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is
supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer
protection against disease. However, the immune system is much
larger and more involved than antibodies and their related
"killer cells."  

Q: The immune system is?  

A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune
system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle
of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.  

Q: So the level of general health is important.  

A: More than important. Vital.  

Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?  

A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people
who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with
hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call
liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then,
you've concealed the root cause of the problem.  

Q: And that happens?  

A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors
automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come
down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected
from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's
circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault.
No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against
hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the
automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the
disease.  

Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how
many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were
a problem?  

A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they
were doing. But they would never go public, even within their
companies.  

Q: What was the turning point for you?  

A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.  

Q: Did you investigate?  

A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely
healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his
death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course,
I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a
bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was
not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral
of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate.
I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not
tested in a scientific way.  

Q: What do you mean?  

A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines.
Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why?  
Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not
cause problems. So why should anyone check?  On top of that, a
vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said
to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not
make sense.  

Q: Why doesn't it make sense?  

A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long
period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual.
Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can
develop over time. They do in various conditions, even
according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be
the case with vaccines?  If chemical poisoning can occur
gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which
contains mercury?  

Q: And that is what you found?  

A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time.
Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose
children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year
period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to
spark off an intense investigation.  

Q: Has it been enough?  

A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.  

Q: Which is?  

A: The people doing the investigation are not really
interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the
vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they
invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines.  They
say, "This vaccine is safe."  But what do they base those
judgments on?  They base them on definitions and ideas which
automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.  

Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has
failed.  Where people have come down with the disease against
which they were vaccinated.  

A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence
is simply ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they
say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation,
but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you
add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have
occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations.  

Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with
colleagues,  when you were still working in the vaccine
establishment?  

A: Yes I did.  

Q: What happened?  

A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear
that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a
few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid
me. They felt they could be labeled with "guilt by
association."  All in all, though, I behaved myself. I made
sure I didn't create problems for myself.  

Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?  

A: First of all, there is no "if."  They do harm. It becomes a
more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in
those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing
with the kind of research which should be done, but isn't.
Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or
flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body
from the moment they enter. This research has not been done.
As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and
discuss all the reasons. As you've said many times, at
different layers of the system people have their motives.
Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points,
prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking
habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical
cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a
weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to
accept, but it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest
level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to
weaken them.  To kill them.  At one point in my career, I had
a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government
position in an African nation. He told me that he was well
aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these
depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say,
in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly
trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people
knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been
used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make
them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the
opportunity to speak with several of these people from this
network.  

Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the
situation?  

A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not
utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realizing the whole
truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the
AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He
also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the
vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough
trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.  

Q: This network you speak of.  

A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about
vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going
to be mounted?  For these people, that is a difficult issue.  

Q: And in the industrialized nations?  

A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is
diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to
question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to
take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these
coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefare germs are
going to win out. This is an important time.  

Q: The furor over the hepatitis B vaccine seems one good
avenue.  

A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine
-- and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets
hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles -- is a
ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover
themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get
hep B every year from "unknown causes," and that's why every
baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and
the so-called studies that back it up.  

Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link
between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from
his job in a London hospital.  

A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations
between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know
that Tony Blair's wife is involved with alternative health.
There is the possibility that their child has not been given
the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press
interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to
invasive questioning of his "personal and family life."  In
any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if
given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to
all the families who have come forward and stated that their
children were severely damaged by the MMR.  

Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.  

A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with
her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a
great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told
she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the
level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get
into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national
security.  

Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the
medical cartel.  

A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation.
It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning
these vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop
questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in
the Catholic Church.  

Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he
will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.  

A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel.
There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an
actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he
says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration
against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors
spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard
pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against
the medical cartel.  

Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood,
what is the basic frame of mind?  

A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing
they think about is challenging the status quo. They are
already in an intramural war for that money. They don't need
more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on
the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very
successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in
any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might
therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think
about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If
five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting
of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to
know what real health benefits have been conferred on the
public from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that
facility, something might start.  A spark might go off. You
might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out.
Researchers -- a few -- might start leaking information.  

Q: A good idea.  

A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the
police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits,
mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of
people.  

Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of
vaccines given to babies these days?  

A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of
any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption
is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of
vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is,
vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage
increases when you give many of them in a short time period.  

Q: Then we have the fall flu season.  

A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to
the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it
happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October,
it is the flu.  

Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine
field?  

A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a little
less.  And I work in other ways. I give out information to
certain people, when I think they will use it well.  

Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?  

A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and
efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and
license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is
not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed
long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to
interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about
their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You
need all these things.  The things that are not there.  

Q: The things that are not there.  

A: Yes.  

Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review, once more,
the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases,
how that happens.  

A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful
outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine.
He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect
him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the
vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn't get THAT disease,
but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he
develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine.
That condition could be autism, what's called autism, or it
could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become
mentally disabled.  

Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these
different outcomes?  

A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If
you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children
who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how
many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no
reliable answer. That is what I'm saying. Vaccines are
superstitions. And with superstitions, you don't get facts you
can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to
enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we
can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very
disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real,
and it can be deep and it can mean death.  The harm is NOT
limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe. In the
US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about
autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and
standing up at meetings. They are essentially trying to fill
in the gap that has been created by the researchers and
doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.  

Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston
and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he
exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he
didn't get the measles vaccine, what would be his health
status compared with the average child in Boston who eats
poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles
vaccine?  

A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet
on the better health status for the first child. If he gets
measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it
will be much lighter than the measles the second child might
get. I would bet on the first child every time.  

Q: How long did you work with vaccines?  

A: A long time. Longer than ten years.  

Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say
that vaccines are successful?  

A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last thing I would
allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had
to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my
family. I'm not saying it would come to that. There are ways
to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act.
There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on
religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove,
I would go on the move.  

Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines
and appear to be healthy.  

A: The operative word is "appear."  What about all the
children who can't focus on their studies?  What about the
children who have tantrums from time to time?  What about the
children who are not quite in possession of all their mental
faculties?  I know there are many causes for these things, but
vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no
reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to
allow the government to have the last word. Government
medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in
terms. You get one or the other, but not both.  

Q: So we come to the level playing field.  

A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow
the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said
earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is
strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have
parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy
dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from
the DPT shot?  What information did his parents act on?  I can
tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.  

Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the
hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen
if their kids don't get shots.  

A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They
equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better
information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities.
And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person's
responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes
that bet. It is betting that the fear will win.  

_______


Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher who
worked for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical
houses and the US government's National Institutes of Health.  

Mark retired during the last decade. He says he was "disgusted
with what he discovered about vaccines."  

As you know, since the beginning of nomorefakenews, I have
been launching an attack against non-scientific and dangerous
assertions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.  

Mark has been one of my sources.  

He is a little reluctant to speak out, even under the cover of
anonymity, but with the current push to make vaccines
mandatory -- with penalties like quarantine lurking in the
wings -- he has decided to break his silence.  

He lives comfortably in retirement, but like many of my
long-time sources, he has developed a conscience about his
former work. Mark is well aware of the scope of the medical
cartel and its goals of depopulation, mind control, and
general debilitation of populations.  




 

Offline Simmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
    • View Profile
Re: VACCINES INTERVIEW
« Reply #1 on: 19/10/2005 21:22:13 »
I think that "Dr Randall"'s astonishing revelation would be more convincing if supported with some evidence. An anonymous person making an unsupported statement doesn't stack up against published work that anyone can read and check.
 

Offline esecallum

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: VACCINES INTERVIEW
« Reply #2 on: 21/10/2005 21:53:53 »
quote:
Originally posted by Simmer

I think that "Dr Randall"'s astonishing revelation would be more convincing if supported with some evidence. An anonymous person making an unsupported statement doesn't stack up against published work that anyone can read and check.


The evidence already exists if you bother to look for it.This is explained above but your ingrained mindset blinds you to it.This excusable since you cannot help this.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: VACCINES INTERVIEW
« Reply #2 on: 21/10/2005 21:53:53 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length