Vaccine Whistleblower - Insider story of the vaccination industry.

[Guest guest]

Zeus <info wrote: " Zeus " <info

" Zeus Subscribers " <info

Vaccine Whistleblower

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:17:21 +0100

 

 

Former Pharma Employee Speaks out about Vaccines

Interview - 9th January 2002.

 

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.

 

-----------------------

 

 

JON RAPPOPORT

http://www.nomorefakenews.com/

 

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 20,000 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. 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.

_______________

 

forwarded by

Zeus Information Service

Alternative Views on Health

www.zeusinfoservice.com

All information, data and material contained, presented or provided herein is

for general information purposes only and is not to be construed as reflecting

the knowledge or opinion of Zeus Information Service.

Subscribe Free/Un: info

Feel free to forward far and wide....

 

 

 

 

 

 

for Good

Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.