- "If I had a child now, the last thing
I would allow is vaccination."
- -Retired Vaccine Researcher to Jon Rappoport
-
- Editor's Note -- This interview was posted by Jon Rappoport
in early January 2002. You will discover by reading it that the very issues
we now face of FORCED vaccination of a laboratory-created vaccine to "protect"
us against a laboratory-created "disease" (Swine Flu, Bird flu,
etc.) was set into motion a long time ago.
-
- The vaccine researcher quoted here flat out says that
the World Homicide Organization, WHO, is driven by a DEPOPULATION agenda,
and that many African leaders know full well that the explosive spread
of HIV and AIDS in Africa was caused by WHO-sponsored vaccinations of the
1970s.
-
- This former pharmaceutical insider also debunks the widespread
ASSUMPTIONS of vaccine "safety" promoted by orthodox medicine,
the CDC, the National Institute of Health, state health departments, and
their compliant media propagandists who are all parroting SUPERSTITIONS,
rather than FACTS. --Ken Adachi
-
- From Jon Rappoport (www.nomorefakenews.com)
-
- http://educate-yourself.org/cn/rappoportinterviewvaccineresearcherjan2002.shtml
-
- January 2002
-
- Retired Vaccine Researcher to Jon Rappoport: "If
I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination." (Aug.
6, 2009)
-
- Jon Rappoport (Q) Interviews a Retired Vaccine Researcher
(A) (given the pseudonym of "Dr. Mark Randall")
-
- 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 hepatits 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.
|
