A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Vaccine Dangers and Vested Interests



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 7th 06, 06:50 PM posted to misc.kids.health
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Vaccine Dangers and Vested Interests

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/article...esearcher.html

INTERVIEW WITH A FORMER VACCINE RESEARCHER

Q (Jon Rappoport): You were once certain that vaccines were the
hallmark of good medicine.
A (Dr Mark Randall): 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: 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 honourable people, these vaccines would
not be granted licences. 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 realised I was working in 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.
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.

Vaccine contamination
Q: Now, you worked in labs where purity is 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 tumours...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, hep[atitis] A and measles
vaccines have been made with aborted human foetal tissue. I have found
what I believed were bacterial fragments and polio virus in these
vaccines from time to time, which may have come from that foetal
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
defences.
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 [aluminium]
which are purposely put into vaccines [as preservatives].
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.

False assumptions about vaccine safety
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 that this has 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 [researchers working within drug companies]
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 child died after a DPT shot.
Q: Did you investigate?
A: Yes, informally. I found that this child 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 child had got 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 proper long-term studies are done on any vaccines
using a control group. Part of what I mean is, no correct and deep
follow-up is done, taking into account the fact that vaccines can
induce, over time, various symptoms and serious problems which fall
outside the range of the disease for which the person was vaccinated.
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
judgements 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 realise that these are not
isolated situations.

Competing interests
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
labelled 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...
Q: The furore over the hepatitis 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 hepatitis 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 20,000
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...
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 funnelled to that facility, something might start. A spark
might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of
fallout. 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
is 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 into 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.

Burden of proof and the need for studies on vaccine safety
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 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[/her] mind.
The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will
win.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
August 24 DC Protest - Vaccine-Autism Activists Join In Ilena Rose Kids Health 78 September 7th 05 02:45 PM
The Not-So-Crackpot Autism Theory Ilena Rose Kids Health 31 February 12th 05 02:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.