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 hepatitis 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
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 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.
