Vaccines

[Guest guest]

Seems like a flawed concept no matter how you look at it Micki...

This whistleblower explains best.

Steph

http://drbenkim.com/articles-vaccine-risks.htm

Home » Common Health Concerns » Health Warnings

Jon Rappoport Interviews a Retired Vaccine Researcher

By Dr. Ben Kim on May 24, 2006

* Health Warnings

* Children's Health Issues

* Healthy Pregnancy

Preface:

One of our newsletter subscribers sent me the following interview that

a journalist named Jon Rappoport did with a retired vaccine researcher

a few years ago. Many thanks to Jon for giving us permission to share

this interview with our subscribers.

- Ben Kim

***

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.

Note from Ben Kim: Please don't overlook this point: when you

inject any substance into your circulation via muscle tissue or blood

vessel, your body's primary defense mechanisms are bypassed. These

mechanisms include your skin, hair in your nasal passageway, adenoid

tissues that line your pharynx (tonsils), and specialized membranes

that line your nose, digestive tract (including your mouth and anal

region), genitourinary tract, and vaginal canal.

All of these mechanisms exist to protect you against harmful

substances and pathogens. This is why it's not wise to remove tonsils

without first looking to address the food and lifestyle choices that

contribute to a chronic cough and sore throat. This is why you should

not dry out the mucosal linings of the vaginal tract or anal region

with soap - plain water is adequate. And this is why you must do

everything that you can to promote a healthy digestive system if you

want to have a strong first line of defense against harmful substances

and pathogens.

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.

Note from Ben Kim: if you would like to read my take on HIV and

AIDS, view the following article: AIDS: The Biggest Medical Mistake of

All Time?

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: 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.

To learn more about Jon Rappoport and his work as a journalist, you

can visit his site here: NoMoreFakeNews.com. Thank you once again to

Jon for giving us permission to share this interview on our website.

If you haven't already done so, you can read a true story of one

family's loss due to a lethal vaccine infection here: Death By Lethal

Vaccine Injection

> > >

> > > Oh my!.....

> > >

> > >

> > > Thank you very much for the link.

> > >

> > EXACTLY!!!! And that's why i've encouraged speaking about vaccines on

> > this group as i do believe they are causing most all the pschy

> > problems we are dealing with. They are creating this ever growing

> > problem with thinking disorders WITH THE VACCINES!!!!!!!!!!!!! They

> > know exactly what their doing and their doing it on purpose! One

> > recent discovery of mine is the ingredient in the vaccine that i

> > believe pushed my son over the edge. I think it was the DPT or the DT

> > vax, but it has polysorbate 80 or something like that and what this

> > does is help the toxins in the vaccines to bust through the blood

> > brain barrier reeking havoc on the central nervous system, which

> > translates into BRAIN DAMAGE and BIG $$$$$$ for you know who!

> >

> > Connie

> >

>