A video and an interview

[Guest guest]

I found this interview, and I have no idea who this person is, but the

things he said are things I have confirmed some of them from other

sources. It is from a few years ago.

http://avropa.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5F6877002CEECEB3!1964.entry

Here is a video from Dr Maurice Hilleman. He died in 2005. I'm passing

it along because it's interesting. He was an immunologist who worked

for Merck and found a monkey virus in the polio vaccine called SV40. Is

that the same virus that aids came from?

Here is a copy of the interview:

Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher.

JON RAPPOPORT <http://www.whale.to/w/rappoport.html>

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 vaccine.

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: 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.

<http://www.whale.to/v/rapp.html>

http://www.whale.to/v/rapp.html

1:12:25 PM | View trackbacks (0)

<http://avropa.spaces.live.com/blog/cns%215F6877002CEECEB3%211964.entry#trackbac\

k>

| Blog it <javascript:BlogIt('cns!5F6877002CEECEB3!1964');>