Jon Rappaport
interviews an ex-vaccine worker
"Dr
Mark Randall".
Disclaimer: Any information
obtained here is not to be construed as medical OR legal advice. The decision
to vaccinate and how you implement that decision is yours and yours alone.
Q: You were once certain that
vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.
A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say which ones.
Q: Why not?
A: I want to preserve my privacy.
Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?
A: I believe I could lose my pension.
Q: On what grounds?
A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing you problems,
when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put
under surveillance, who were harassed.
Q: Harassed by whom?
A: The FBI.
Q: Really?
A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.
Q: So much for free speech.
A: I was "part of the inner circle." If now I began to name names and
make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of
trouble.
Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?
A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate
justification for the overall "brilliance" of modern medicine.
Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should
get vaccines?
A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information,
so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say
choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose?
Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be
granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.
Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses
was not due to vaccines.
A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.
Q: Why?
A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of
developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.
Q: And then?
A: I did my own investigation.
Q: What conclusions did you come to?
A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.
Q: What conditions?
A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you
are healthy, you don't contract the diseases as easily.
Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?
A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies.
Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?
A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some
lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As
far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.
Q: Why?
A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that
tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are
supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are
supposed to prevent.
Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been
tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?
A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful.
If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone
assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can
harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases -- say,
meningitis -- that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can
do that. The connection is overlooked.
Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.
A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.
Q: Which is?
A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not
get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced
smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine
was introduced.
Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history.
A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that has been cooked
up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.
Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.
A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the
cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the
time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.
Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.
A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The SV40 got into the
polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I'm
talking about something else. The actual lab conditions.
The mistakes. The careless errors.
SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors -- that was what I would call a
structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If
you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don't know are in
those kidneys.
Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different types of
contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of
work with vaccines?
A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll also give you
what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses.
In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a
so-called "brain-eating" amoeba. Simian
cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus
in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the
MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax
vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several
vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella
vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine.
Pestivirus
in the MMR vaccine.
Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in
the vaccines.
A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can
cause, well, we don't really know, because no testing has been done, or very
little testing. It's a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most
people don't know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted
human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and
poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time -- which may have come from that
fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with
material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know
exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was a very small
"fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can
only be called "foreign protein," which could mean almost anything.
It could mean protein from viruses.
Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.
A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the
bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.
Q: How were your findings received?
A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this can't be helped. In making vaccines,
you use various animals' tissue, and that's where this kind of contamination
enters in. Of course, I'm not even mentioning the standard chemicals like
formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines.
Q: This information is pretty staggering.
A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows
how many others there are? Others we don't find because we don't think to look
for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many
possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea. We have no idea what
they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.
Q: And beyond the purity issue?
A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the
conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It
doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies
which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system
is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer
cells."
Q: The immune system is?
A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all
immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an
epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.
Q: So the level of general health is important.
A: More than important. Vital.
Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?
A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received
the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep
B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can
change the diagnosis. Then, you've concealed the root cause of the problem.
Q: And that happens?
A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that
people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now
supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's circular
reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a
person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other
disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the disease.
Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you
encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?
A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But
they would never go public, even within their companies.
Q: What was the turning point for you?
A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.
Q: Did you investigate?
A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before the
vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That
started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a
bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was
not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that
increased over time. I continued to investigate. I
found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific
way.
Q: What do you mean?
A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term
follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption
is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top
of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to
occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.
Q: Why doesn't it make sense?
A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time
after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual.
Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions,
even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be the case
with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn't that be
the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?
Q: And that is what you found?
A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time. Correlations are
not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered
neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this
should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation.
Q: Has it been enough?
A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.
Q: Which is?
A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at
the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do
investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They
say, "This vaccine is safe." But what do they base those judgments
on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a
condemnation of the vaccine.
Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people
have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.
A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply
ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall
the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine
campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realize that these are
NOT isolated situations.
Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when
you were still working in the vaccine establishment?
A: Yes I did.
Q: What happened?
A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go
back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear.
Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labeled with "guilt
by association." All in all, though, I behaved myself. I made sure I
didn't create problems for myself.
Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?
A: First of all, there is no "if." They do harm. It becomes a more
difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to
show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be
done, but isn't. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or
flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment
they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could
sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you've said many times,
at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of
losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion,
misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of
the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening
of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it's true. The
medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to
harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point
in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high
government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of
this. He told me that WHO is a front for these
depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made
up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor.
This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have
been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe
for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with
several of these people from this network.
Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation?
A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but
he is on the way to realizing the whole truth. He already knows that HIV is a
hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system.
He also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he
will be branded a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS
issue.
Q: This network you speak of.
A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question
is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted?
For these people, that is a difficult issue.
Q: And in the industrialized nations?
A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question medicines.
However, if the choice issue [the right to take or reject any medicine] does
not gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefare germs are going to win out. This is an
important time.
Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one
good avenue.
A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine-and then in the
next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from
sexual contacts and shared needles -- is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical
authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the
US get hep B every year from "unknown
causes," and that's why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that
20,00 figure and the so-called studies that back it
up.
Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine
and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.
A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the
vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blair's wife is
involved with alternative health. There is the possibility that their child has
not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press
interviews, and made it seem that he was simply
objecting to invasive questioning of his "personal and family life."
In any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the
chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to all the families who have
come forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR.
Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.
A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her husband to
keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of good if she breaks her
promise. I have been told she is under pressure, and not just from her husband.
At the level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get into the act.
It is thought of as a matter of national security.
Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel.
A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation. It zealously
guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these vaccines is on the same
level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the
Eucharist in the Catholic Church.
Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a
vaccine is committing career suicide.
A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several
reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge
amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your
demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke
against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor
who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.
Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the
basic frame of mind?
A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is
challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money.
They don't need more trouble. This is a very insulated
system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very
successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast
doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last
place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is
true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the
actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health
benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars
funneled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You
might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers -- a
few -- might start leaking information.
Q: A good idea.
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
Source: http://www.alternative-doctor.com/vaccination/rappaport.htm