Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Jon Rappoport Interviews a Retired Vaccine Researcher
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
Nov 29, 2009, 2:24:26 AM11/29/09
to
On Nov 28, 9:33 pm, Richard Moore <r...@quaylargo.com> wrote:
> http://drbenkim.com/articles-vaccine-risks.htm
>
> Jon Rappoport Interviews a Retired Vaccine Researcher Posted By Dr.
> Ben Kim<http://drbenkim.com/users/dr.-ben-kim> on May 24, 2006
> 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<http://drbenkim.com/articles-foods-good-digestion.htm> 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?<http://www.drbenkim.com/articles-aids.html> 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.
>
> 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<http://www.nomorefakenews.com/jonbio.shtml>.
>
> 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<http://drbenkim.com/articles-vaccine-infection.htm>
>
> ___________________________ subscribe mailto:
>
> newslog+...@googlegroups.com<mailto:newslog+...@googlegroups.com>
>
> websites:
>
> http://www.governourselves.org/http://escapingthematrix.org/http://thecreditbankdevelopmentmodel.blogspot.com/http://cyberjournal.org
>
> archives:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/newslog/topicshttp://groups.google.com/group/cyberjournal/topics
>
> Moderator: r...@quaylargo.com<mailto:r...@quaylargo.com> (comments
> welcome)
>
> __._,_.___
>
> Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings
> via the
> Web<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnZW9rc2F2BF9TA...
> Dc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTUzOTc2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncw
> RzdGltZQMxMjU5NDU3MjAy> (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via
> email: Switch delivery to Daily
> Digest<mailto:newslog-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Dige
> st> | Switch to Fully
> Featured<mailto:newslog-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Deliver
> y%20Format:%20Fully%20Featured> Visit Your Group
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog;_ylc=X3oDMTJla2pkczR0BF9TAzk3ND...
> GdycElkAzIwMTUzOTc2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMT
> I1OTQ1NzIwMg--> | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe
> <mailto:newslog-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> __,_._,___
> http://drbenkim.com/articles-vaccine-risks.htm
>
> Jon Rappoport Interviews a Retired Vaccine Researcher Posted By Dr.
> Ben Kim<http://drbenkim.com/users/dr.-ben-kim> on May 24, 2006
> 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<http://drbenkim.com/articles-foods-good-digestion.htm> 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?<http://www.drbenkim.com/articles-aids.html> 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.
>
> 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<http://www.nomorefakenews.com/jonbio.shtml>.
>
> 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<http://drbenkim.com/articles-vaccine-infection.htm>
>
> ___________________________ subscribe mailto:
>
> newslog+...@googlegroups.com<mailto:newslog+...@googlegroups.com>
>
> websites:
>
> http://www.governourselves.org/http://escapingthematrix.org/http://thecreditbankdevelopmentmodel.blogspot.com/http://cyberjournal.org
>
> archives:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/newslog/topicshttp://groups.google.com/group/cyberjournal/topics
>
> Moderator: r...@quaylargo.com<mailto:r...@quaylargo.com> (comments
> welcome)
>
> __._,_.___
>
> Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings
> via the
> Web<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnZW9rc2F2BF9TA...
> Dc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTUzOTc2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncw
> RzdGltZQMxMjU5NDU3MjAy> (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via
> email: Switch delivery to Daily
> Digest<mailto:newslog-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Dige
> st> | Switch to Fully
> Featured<mailto:newslog-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Deliver
> y%20Format:%20Fully%20Featured> Visit Your Group
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog;_ylc=X3oDMTJla2pkczR0BF9TAzk3ND...
> GdycElkAzIwMTUzOTc2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMT
> I1OTQ1NzIwMg--> | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe
> <mailto:newslog-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> __,_._,___
0 new messages