Fw: [LiesOfOzzy] Fw: [Healing Circle] Interview with the vaccinator

[Guest guest]

 

And I usta think the pigmys that drank "magic potents" from their tribal witchdoctors were ignorant idiots beyond understanding. Now it turns out the sophisticated so called intelligencia middle and upper classes of Americans are just as stupid as the aborgine pigmies that blindly followed some pretentious shaman. At least when it comes to their own physicial well being anyway.

But, ha, ha, both the medical profession and the witchdoctors, they both hide behind masks do they not?

 

How disgusting to realize that people are unable to descern truth from all of the bs everywhere told for selfish profit of a few.

 

It will be a bad day for them when those who have lost children, or suffered themselves, when they finally wake up to the magnitude of betrayal that they have been subjected to, and so unwittingly and unwillingly accepted all these years. Therefore, no doubt, there will be much resistance to this story as it circulates, yet the story needs to be told nevertheless......

 

 

 

 

 

- Vic

damnimpissed

Cc: deface_the_nation ; 3 Healthy ; inthehole ; Lies ; Propaganda_Matrix ; Rainbow_Tribe ; Vegi Cir ; Boulder Barter

Monday, October 20, 2003 8:14 PM

[LiesOfOzzy] Fw: [Healing Circle] Interview with the vaccinator

 

Sending this out to all my list.

Please read and forward.

 

 

JON RAPPOPORT> http://www.nomorefakenews.com/>> Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of goodmedicine.>> A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say whichones.>> Q: Why not?

 

A: I want to preserve my privacy.>Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into theopen?

 

A: I believe I could lose my pension.

 

Q: On what grounds?

 

A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causingyou problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or twopeople 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 comecalling too.

 

Q: So much for free speech.

 

A: I was "part of the inner circle." If now I began to name namesand make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in aworld of trouble.

 

Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?

 

A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines arethe ultimate justification for the overall "brilliance" of modernmedicine.> Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whetherthey 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 saychoice 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 wouldnot be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch oftheir lives.

 

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall declineof 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 thebusiness of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing thatwork.

 

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. Fresherfood. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you arehealthy, 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 acollection of lies.

 

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?

 

A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of avaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far asI'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.

 

Q: Why?

 

A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in aprocess that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause thedisease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases thanthe ones they are supposed to prevent.

 

Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccineshave been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?

 

A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. Ifa vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles,everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, thevaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes otherdiseases -- say, meningitis -- that fact is masked, because no one believes that thevaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.

 

Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox inEngland.

 

A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you getanother picture.

 

Q: Which is?

 

A: There were cities in England where people who were notvaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who werevaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on thedecline 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 thathas been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe andeffective.

 

Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.

 

A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturingfacilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contaminationoccurs 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 SV40got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkeykidneys. But I'm talking about something else. The actual lab conditions.The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found incancer tumors -- that was what I would call a structural problem. It wasan accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkeykidneys, 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 typesof contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in yourmany years of work with vaccines?

 

A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'llalso give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. Inthe Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. Inpolio 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 potentiallydangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbitviruses 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 whichdon'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 notesting has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of roulette. Youtake your chances. Also, most people don't know that some polio vaccines,adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been madewith aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed werebacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time --which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminantsin vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You knowit shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. Ihave found what I believed was a very small "fragment" of human hair andalso human mucus. I have found what can only be called "foreignprotein," 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 intothe bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immunedefenses.

 

Q: How were your findings received?

 

A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this can't be helped. Inmaking vaccines, you use various animals' tissue, and that's where thiskind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not even mentioning thestandard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which arepurposely put into vaccines.

 

Q: This information is pretty staggering.

 

A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biologicalcontaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don't find becausewe don't think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used tomake a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have noidea. We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could haveon 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 theconditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn'twork that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly,offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is muchlarger 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 immunesystem, 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 whohave received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well,hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. Youcan change the diagnosis. Then, you've concealed the root cause of theproblem.

 

Q: And that happens?

 

A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automaticallyassume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseasesthey are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly whatdoctors assume. You see, it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admitsno 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 manydoctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?

 

A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they weredoing. 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 healthybefore. the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except thevaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that thebaby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into thisfurther, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawninto a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued toinvestigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not testedin 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 whyshould anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined sothat 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 longperiod of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deteriorationcan be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do invarious conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So whycouldn't that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occurgradually, 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 whosechildren have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period afterhaving a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intenseinvestigation.

 

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 inlooking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, whenthey do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of thevaccines. They say, "This vaccine is safe." But what do they base thosejudgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automaticallyrule 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 theywere vaccinated.

 

A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence issimply ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they say anythingat all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccinehas been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaignswhere damage and disease have occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolatedsituations.

 

Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here withcolleagues, 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 thatI should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a fewoccasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt theycould be labeled with "guilt by association." All in all, though, I behavedmyself. 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 amore difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those peoplewho seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of researchwhich should be done, but isn't. Researchers should be probing todiscover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do inthe 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 allthe reasons. As you've said many times, at different layers of thesystem people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desireto win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism,unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medicalcartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of theimmune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it's true. Themedical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is outto harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversationwith 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 frontfor these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall wesay, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying tochange 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. Ihave had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from thisnetwork.

 

> Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of thesituation?

 

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. Healready knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisonswhich destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he speaks out, inany way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He hasenough 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?Forthese 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] doesnot gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefaregerms 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-andthen in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexualcontacts and shared needles -- is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medicalauthorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in theUS get hep B every year from "unknown causes," and that's why every babymust have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and the so-called studiesthat back it up.> Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link betweenthe MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a Londonhospital.

 

A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlationsbetween the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that TonyBlair's wife is involved with alternative health. There is the possibilitythat their child has not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it seem that he was simplyobjecting to invasive questioning of his "personal and family life." In anyevent, 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 comeforward 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 withher husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great dealof 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 Britishhealth authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a matter ofnational security.> Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medicalcartel.

 

A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation.It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning thesevaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity ofthe sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

 

Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he willnot 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 isfamous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, Iwas present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown LosAngeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would behard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against themedical 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 theythink about is challenging the status quo. They are already in anintramural war for that money. They don't need more trouble. This is a veryinsulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicineis very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in anyarea is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think thatNIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. Butjust the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demandingan accounting of the actual benefits of that research system,demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the publicfrom the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that facility, somethingmight start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations,all sorts of fall-out. Researchers -- a few -- might start leakinginformation.

 

> Q: A good idea.

 

A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as thepolice will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers andbabies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.

 

> Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number ofvaccines given to babies these days?> A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of anydepth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made thatvaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together aresafe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore thepotential 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 theUS 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 vaccinefield?

 

A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certainpeople, 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 andefficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them forpublic use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proofyou need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers sayabout their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need allthese 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, thedisease 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 thedisease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, someversion of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn'tget THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not,he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. Thatcondition could be autism, what's called autism, or it could be some otherdisease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.> Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of thesedifferent outcomes?> A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If youask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get ameasles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop otherproblems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I'msaying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don't getfacts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed toenforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piecetogether a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. Peoplehave 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 tobelieve. In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying aboutautism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up atmeetings. They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has beencreated 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 andyou raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised everyday 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 inBoston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measlesvaccine?

 

A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet onthe better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, ifhe gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter thanthe measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first childevery 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 thatvaccines are successful?

 

A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last thing I wouldallow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I wouldchange the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I'm notsaying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system withgrace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, inevery state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came toshove, I would go on the move.> Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines andappear to be healthy.> A: The operative word is "appear." What about all the childrenwho can't focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrumsfrom time to time? What about the children who are not quite inpossession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for thesethings, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see noreason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow thegovernment 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. Allowthe dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, thereis no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And whenbabies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parentsneed a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died fromthe DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you itwas heavily weighted. It was not real information.

 

Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hellout of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kidsdon't get shots.> A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equateit with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It isalways a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whetherto do it. It is every person's responsibility to make up his mind. Themedical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win. _______________>> Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher whoworked 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 "disgustedwith what he discovered about vaccines.">> As you know, since the beginning of nomorefakenews, I have beenlaunching an attack against non-scientific and dangerous assertions about thesafety and efficacy of vaccines.>> Mark has been one of my sources.>> He is a little reluctant to speak out, even under the cover ofanonymity, but with the current push to make vaccines mandatory -- withpenalties like quarantine lurking in the wings -- he has decided to break hissilence.>> He lives comfortably in retirement, but like many of my long-timesources, he has developed a conscience about his former work. Mark is wellaware of the scope of the medical cartel and its goals of depopulation, mind> control, and general debilitation of populations.