Are Vaccines Really Safe?

[Urib2007]

[center][img]http://img.timeinc.net/time/covers/1101020121/images/vaccine.jpg[/img] [/center]

[color="#000099"]My data indicates that the studies used to support immunization are so flawed that it is impossible to say if immunization provides a net benefit to anyone or to society in general.[/color]

John B.Classen, M.D.

[color="#000099"]It is apparent that critical medical decisions for an entire generation of American children are being made by small committees whose members have incestuous ties with agencies that stand to gain power, or manufacturers that stand to gain enormous profits, from the policy that is made.[/color]

Jane Orient, M.D.
Testimony given to the U.S. House of Representatives

[color="#000099"]Most infants have been receiving up to 15 doses of mercury-containing vaccines by the time they are 6 months old. It is almost inconceivable that these heavy burdens of foreign immunologic materials, introduced into the immature systems of children, could fail to bring about disruptions and adverse reactions in these in these systems.[/color]

Harold Buttram MD


[color="#000099"]Approximately one-half of the hundreds of parents who call our office each month report that their child became autistic shortly after receiving a vaccination.[/color]

Portia Iverson
Cure Autism Now foundation in Los Angeles

[color="#000099"]"If an average 5 kg-infant received all thimerosal-containing vaccines at his two-month visit, his exposure that day would be 62.5 mcg ethyl mercury--125 times as great as the EPA guideline."
"Repeated, vaccination exhausts the immune system. It gives a false sense of security and, in doing so, it opens the door wide to all kinds of illnesses."[/color]

Guylaine Lanctot, M.D


[color="#000099"]"Doctors are the priests who dispense holy water in the form of inoculations” to ritually initiate our loyalty into the larger medical industry."[/color]

Dr. Robert Mendelsohn


[color="#000099"]It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpox with vaccines, when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated.[/color]

Dr. Glen Dettman


[color="#000099"]The medical authorities keep lying. Vaccination has been a disaster on the immune system. It actually causes a lot of illnesses. We are changing our genetic code through vaccination.[/color]

Guylaine Lanctot M.D.


[color="#000099"]It is actually normal for a properly nourished and nurtured child to grow up in good health, and when there is no administration of toxic substances, as in non-vaccinated children, the children tend to remain healthy.

"What is surprising is that the appropriate animal and laboratory testing was not done on the vaccines containing thimerosal (and aluminum) before the government embarked on a mandated vaccine program that exposed infants to the levels of thimerosal that occurred."[/color]

Boyd E. Haley, PhD


[color="#000099"]"Every day new parents are ringing us. They all have the same tragic story. Healthy baby, child, teenager, usually a boy, given the DPT or DT, or MMR booster followed by a sudden fall or slow, but steady decline into autism or other spectrums disorder."[/color]

The Hope Project (Ireland)

[size=3]Cancer and Vaccines:[/size]

[color="#000099"]In the last 30 years, the increase in vaccine shots has
coincided with childhood cancers rising to become the #1 disease
from which children under the age of 14 are dying.

The following comments are intended to be a heads up to parents and potential parents about the risks of the Hepatitis B vaccine (HBV)

"My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the United States each year are related to one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given children. The pertussis vaccine is the most likely villain, but it could also be one or more of the others."[/color]

Dr. Mendelsohn, M.D.

[KnightofChrist]

How many people would die if there were no vaccines? A risk using Vaccines? Yes of course. But many people who are alive now would not be without vaccines. You being one of them.

[goldenchild17]

This is something I actually agree with. I have become increasingly less supportive of vaccines of late.

[KnightofChrist]

Well partly I agree but over all I do not. Where I would agree is vaccines made from the cell lines of Aborted Babies. They should never be used, or taken... they would be "evil."

[Urib2007]

[center] [color="#FF0000"][size=4]Full Vatican support for vaccine-aid plan [/size] [/color]
[/center]
Feb. 9, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) strongly endorsed programs that will make vaccines available to needy countries, as he met on February 9 with finance ministers from Italy, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Russia.

The government ministers-- accompanied by Queen Rania of Jordan and Paul Wolfowitz of the World Bank-- were in Rome to introduce the “Advance Market Commitment” initiative, which will underwrite the distribution of vaccines in underdeveloped countries.

Addressing the group in English, Pope Benedict said that the program should “help resolve one of the most pressing challenges in preventative healthcare, one which particularly affects nations already suffering from poverty and serious needs." Vaccines are “urgently needed” to prevent millions of deaths, he said.

At a time when the globalization of the marketplace makes so many material goods available throughout the world, the widening gap between rich and poor societies is a source of growing concern, and efforts to repair the inequality are needed.

“I encourage your efforts,” the Pope told the leaders of the Advance Market Commitment program, adding that they could count on “the Holy See’s full support of this humanitarian project.”

[KnightofChrist]

And what would you do Urib let the people die without a cure? As long as these vaccines do not come from aborted babies, it is a good thing.

Urib lets say you have a baby girl the chances of her becoming infected with polio are 100% she will become infected with polio if she does not get the vaccine. What would you do? Watch her die? Get her a Iron Lung? Or give her the Vaccine?

[Urib2007]

[center] [color="#CC0000"][size=4]Bill to require HPV vaccine stirs concern [/size][/color]
[/center]
Some believe making California schoolgirls get inoculated against the sexually transmitted virus would violate parental rights.

[color="#666666"]By Adrian G. Uribarri, Times Staff Writer
February 12, 2007[/color]

[color="#000000"]George Warren didn't mind getting his 9-year-old daughter vaccinated against chickenpox. He didn't object to any of the 10 or so inoculations that California requires.

But a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts? For a preteen girl? "She's not gonna need it," said Warren, a 30-year-old land surveyor from Rescue, Calif., about 28 miles from Sacramento. "I'm a good parent. I tell her what's right and wrong."

A bill in the state Legislature would require such shots for girls entering the sixth grade. And parents such as Warren are decrying what they consider an incursion on parental rights.

"I'm insulted by them trying to tell me what's right for my children," he said.

Written primarily by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber (D-Mountain View), the bill mandating vaccinations against the human papilloma virus, a sexually transmitted disease that causes 70% of cervical cancers, is still in its infancy.

Its prospects are uncertain, but one thing already is clear: This is a controversial issue.

Texas' Republican governor, Rick Perry, angered social conservatives in his party recently when he mandated HPV vaccines for girls by executive order. Parents there can opt out of the requirement for reasons of conscience — as they would be able to do in California.

Since the vaccine was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last year, states have been wrestling with the questions it raises. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 26 have initiated legislation.

Parents or their advocates have raised a chorus of objections, saying that mandating the vaccine may encourage promiscuity and that it is too early to tell whether the vaccine is safe, particularly for young girls.

Last month, Maryland's Democratic state Sen. Delores Kelley withdrew her vaccination bill, saying she was responding to parents and teachers worried about excessive inoculation requirements.

In California, the bill is still in a legislative committee. Lieber, who recently drew criticism for introducing an anti-spanking bill, has since dropped her sponsorship. She cited a potential conflict of interest because her husband's family trust includes about $14,000 of stock in Merck and Co., the maker of Gardasil, the only available HPV vaccine.

Edward Hernandez (D-Baldwin Park), a freshman assemblyman who sits with Lieber on the Health Committee, agreed to carry the bill.

"What brought me to the table is the fact that I have a 16-year-old daughter," he said. "I'm looking at it from the public health standpoint of reducing cancer."

At least 50% of sexually active people will get HPV at some time in their lives, according to federal statistics.

Among women with HPV, the vast majority do not develop cervical cancer. But the American Cancer Society estimates that this year, about 11,150 women will be diagnosed as having HPV and 3,670 women will die from the disease. As a result, many public health experts endorse vaccinating girls before they become sexually active.

Scott Folsom, president of the Los Angeles 10th District Parent-Teacher-Student Assn., said mandating the vaccine makes it more likely to be widely used.

"PTA was a great advocate for the polio vaccine in the '50s," said Folsom, who has encouraged his own 16-year-old daughter to get the HPV shot. "This is another opportunity to perhaps make that difference."

But opponents say HPV is not like polio, or most other diseases prevented by vaccines. State Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster) said HPV is the result of lifestyle decisions, not contagion.

"Is there a more productive way for us to spend the money that may help someone who's in a health situation that has nothing to do with their personal choices?" he asked. "Where do you want to focus your resources?"

The vaccine is relatively expensive. It requires three doses within about six months, each dose costing about $120. It is covered by some major insurers and, in the case of women between the ages of 19 and 26, Medi-Cal will pick up the tab. Girls as young as 9 can qualify for free doses under the federal Vaccines for Children program.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a public stand on the bill, which could change before reaching his desk, but his proposed budget for the 2007-08 fiscal year includes $11.3 million for HPV vaccines.

The California Department of Health Services has already distributed 60,000 doses of the vaccine to healthcare providers, and it is in the process of providing 45,000 more this month.

The Los Angeles Unified School District already offers the vaccine at its clinics. Female students are eligible to receive Gardasil with parental consent.

Ron Prentice, director of the California Family Council, said he does not object to having the vaccine on the market. But he wants a bill that would grant parents the greatest possible latitude for exemptions.

"Am I concerned that people may suffer from cervical cancer? The answer is yes," he said. "But the ultimate decision should remain with the parents, not the state."[/color]

adrian.uribarri@latimes.com

[KnightofChrist]

So you will not answer the question? What would you do with your baby girl?

Give her the vaccine for Polio or not? Let her live or watch her die?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Urib2007' post='1192496' date='Feb 12 2007, 02:29 PM']
[center] [color="#FF0000"][size=4]Full Vatican support for vaccine-aid plan [/size] [/color]
[/center]
Feb. 9, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) strongly endorsed programs that will make vaccines available to needy countries, as he met on February 9 with finance ministers from Italy, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Russia.

The government ministers-- accompanied by Queen Rania of Jordan and Paul Wolfowitz of the World Bank-- were in Rome to introduce the “Advance Market Commitment” initiative, which will underwrite the distribution of vaccines in underdeveloped countries.

Addressing the group in English, Pope Benedict said that the program should “help resolve one of the most pressing challenges in preventative healthcare, one which particularly affects nations already suffering from poverty and serious needs." Vaccines are “urgently needed” to prevent millions of deaths, he said.

At a time when the globalization of the marketplace makes so many material goods available throughout the world, the widening gap between rich and poor societies is a source of growing concern, and efforts to repair the inequality are needed.

“I encourage your efforts,” the Pope told the leaders of the Advance Market Commitment program, adding that they could count on “the Holy See’s full support of this humanitarian project.”
[/quote]

Urib, just because vaccines may be (I would say: are) useless and even harmful, doesn't really mean anything significant for this. Maybe their pope is supporting something useless and maybe medically harmful. I'm not convinced they're doing this particular thing on purpose though. The pope is no doctor and probably doesn't know exactly everything about this particular topic. And he surely, if he was really pope, would not be protected from making a mistake in this area as it doesn't deal with theology in any way. Unless of course it started to involve vaccines made from unborn children. Then it would be a moral issue.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1192501' date='Feb 12 2007, 02:44 PM']
And what would you do Urib let the people die without a cure? As long as these vaccines do not come from aborted babies, it is a good thing.

Urib lets say you have a baby girl the chances of her becoming infected with polio are 100% she will become infected with polio if she does not get the vaccine. What would you do? Watch her die? Get her a Iron Lung? Or give her the Vaccine?
[/quote]

This is quite hypothetical. IF this were to happen and IF the vaccine were to work and not make it worse (which is what I dispute) then of course I would get her the vaccine. But it's because I don't believe the vaccine is of any use and because I believe the vaccine could quite likely cause even more damage that I would likely opt not to do it. Of course if her chances REALLY were 100%, then I might consider it because at this point it doesn't even matter any more and why not?

[Urib2007]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1192501' date='Feb 12 2007, 11:44 AM']
And what would you do Urib let the people die without a cure? As long as these vaccines do not come from aborted babies, it is a good thing.

Urib lets say you have a baby girl the chances of her becoming infected with polio are 100% she will become infected with polio if she does not get the vaccine. What would you do? Watch her die? Get her a Iron Lung? Or give her the Vaccine?
[/quote]

If I had a baby girl, I wouldn't give her any type of vaccine. I know my response is very controversial, but a lot of studies have been done to showcase that vaccines are actually worse for you. After the introduction of vaccines, mortality decline remained basically the same as pre vaccine.
There are about 12,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines per year. FDA estimates this is about 1 in 10 of total, other studies say 1 in 40, a manufacturer of vaccines says 1 in 50 and CDC has suggested it may as little as 1 in 100 of the total.
Thus we have a minumum of 90,000 and a maximum of about 900,000 with the typcial 'conservative' estimate being 300,000 serious adverse reactions per year due to vaccines.
No vaccine on the market has ever been subjected to a truly adequate scientific test proving it is EFFECTIVE and SAFE.
The government 'insurance agency' pays $50,000,000 per year to claimants for vaccine damage. This is only 1/4 of applicants. Applicants are only a fraction of the total potential claimants.

The decline to disease is due to improved living conditions:
1) Cleaner Water
2) Advanced Sewage Systems
3) Nutrition
4) Fresher Food
5) A decrease in poverty

Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don't contact the diseases as easily. Vaccines are dangerous because it involves messing up the immune system. Vaccines actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent.

[Mateo el Feo]

Just to be clear, the HPV vaccine and the Pope's support for vaccinations are two separate topics.

Anyway, the Autism-vaccination connection quote was about 8-9 years old. Here's the update ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine"]link[/url]) :[quote]In the UK, the vaccine was the subject of controversy after a 1998 paper by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, which claimed to have found a possible link between MMR and the onset of autism in children. [u]Numerous peer-reviewed studies have since failed to show any correlation[/u]. Since its publication, this conclusion of the study has been retracted by ten of Wakefield's twelve co-authors, and his call for parents to boycott the vaccine in favor of single injections one year apart, has been heavily criticized, both on scientific grounds and for triggering a decline in vaccination rates.[/quote]

If you'd to turn the conspiracy theory upside down (i.e. that drug companies put their profitability above patient welfare), consider this twist:[quote]In February 2004, it emerged that when Wakefield had published The Lancet report, [u]£55,000 funding was received by the Royal Free Hospital from lawyers seeking evidence of any link between autism and the MMR vaccine[/u]. According to a Sunday Times investigation, several of the parents quoted as saying that MMR had damaged their children were also litigants. Although Wakefield maintains the funding was properly disclosed from the outset, allegations have been made that the funding was not revealed to either The Lancet or Wakefield's co-researchers. On February 20, 2005, [u]The Lancet said it should have never published Wakefield's study, which was "flawed" because Dr Wakefield had "a fatal conflict of interest."[/u] Several of Dr. Wakefield's co-researchers also strongly criticised the lack of disclosure.[/quote]So, there's a possibility that the only research which claims a connection between autism and the vaccine was funded by lawyers who wanted to sue the drug companies on behalf of families with autistic children.

[MissScripture]

I think you have to go on a case-by-case basis as to what the vaccination is for and weigh the risks associated with that vaccine with the benefits of it.
Since you don't like Kinght of Christ's senario, let's pick another one. Let's say that your child has been playing in the woods and got a cut from some rusty barbed wire. There is a good chance the child is going to get tetnus. Will you let the child get the tetnus shot, or are going to watch the child die as every muscle in the childs body tenses to its full potential?

[KnightofChrist]

It would not be so hypothetical in 1952, the height of the epidemic. The Vaccine may not be as much of a use today as it was then, but it did work then. Vaccines do work for the most part, its just a fact. Risks yes, but in most cases the risks are out weighed by the benefits.

Edited February 12, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Urib2007' post='1192527' date='Feb 12 2007, 02:09 PM']

Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don't contact the diseases as easily. Vaccines are dangerous because it involves messing up the immune system. Vaccines actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent.
[/quote]
Vaccines don't "mess up" the immune system and they don't "cause" the disease. They are giving your body a chance to see the disease, so that it can identify it later on should exposure to the disease happen. And vaccines are made from weak or dead strains of the disease so that the body can see the antigens and create antibodies for those antigens. They are really working WITH your immune system.

[Urib2007]

[size=4][color="#FF0000"]Vaccine Dangers and Vested Interests [/color][/size]

[color="#000066"]A retired vaccine researcher goes public on what the pharmaceutical industry and the health authorities don't want us to know: that vaccines are unsafe, untested and one of the greatest frauds of our time.[/color]
----------------

Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 13, Number 2 (February - March 2006)
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor@nexusmagazine.com
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com

by Jon Rappoport © October 2004-January 2006
Email: rappoport.jon@hotmail.com
[url="http://www.nomorefakenews.com"]http://www.nomorefakenews.com[/url]
-------------------

[color="#000000"]"Dr Mark Randall" is the pseudonym of a former vaccine researcher who worked for many years in the laboratories of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government's National Institutes of Health. He is now retired and has reluctantly agreed to speak out. In my opinion, his testimony matches all the other claims that I have studied in past years.
This interview that follows is important not only because of Dr Randall's intimate knowledge of vaccine dangers but for his testimony about the inside workings and cover-ups between government and the vaccine industry—the two sources that keep trying to assure Americans that they can be trusted. This major excerpt is perhaps the best single written summary of the back-up evidence for the case against immunisations.[/color]

[b][size=3]INTERVIEW WITH A FORMER VACCINE RESEARCHER[/size][/b]

Q (Jon Rappoport): You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.
[color="#990000"]A (Dr Mark Randall): Yes, I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say which ones.[/color]
Q: Why not?
[color="#990000"]A: I want to preserve my privacy.[/color]
Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?
[color="#CC0000"]A: I believe I could lose my pension.[/color]
Q: On what grounds?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: Harassed by whom?
[color="#CC0000"]A: The FBI.[/color]
Q: Really?
[color="#990000"]A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling, too.[/color]
Q: So much for free speech.
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.
[color="#990000"]A: I know. For a long time I ignored their work.[/color]
Q: Why?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: And then?
[color="#990000"]A: I did my own investigation.[/color]
Q: What conclusions did you come to?
[color="#990000"]A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.[/color]
Q: What conditions?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?
[color="#990000"]A: Despair. I realised I was working in a sector based on a collection of lies.[/color]
Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: Why?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.
[color="#990000"]A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.[/color]
Q: Which is?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history.
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]

[size=2]Vaccine contamination[/size]

Q: Now, you worked in labs where purity is an issue.
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
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?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines.
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.
[color="#990000"]A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defences.[/color]
Q: How were your findings received?
[color="#990000"]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].[/color]
Q: This information is pretty staggering.
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]

[size=3][b]False assumptions about vaccine safety[/b][/size]

Q: And beyond the purity issue?
[color="#990000"]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. [/color]
Q: The immune system is...?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: So the level of general health is important.
[color="#990000"]A: More than important. Vital.[/color]
Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: And that happens?
[color="#990000"]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. [/color]
Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: What was the turning point for you?
[color="#660000"]A: I had a friend whose child died after a DPT shot.[/color]
Q: Did you investigate?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: What do you mean?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: Why doesn't it make sense?
[color="#990000"]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?[/color]
Q: And that is what you found?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: Has it been enough?
[color="#990000"]A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.[/color]
Q: Which is...?
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]
Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed, where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.
[color="#990000"]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.[/color]

To read more of the interview, click here:
[url="http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/VaccineResearcher.html"]http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/VaccineResearcher.html[/url]

[color="#000099"]About the Interviewer:
Jon Rappoport has worked as a freelance investigative reporter for 20 years. He has appeared as a guest on over 200 radio and TV programs, including ABC's Nightline, PBS's Tony Brown's Journal and Hard Copy.
For the last 10 years, Jon has operated largely away from the mainstream. Over the last 30 years, his independent research has encompassed deep politics, conspiracies, alternative health, mind control, the medical cartel, symbology, and solutions to the takeover of the planet by hidden elites. In 1996, Jon started The Great Boycott against eight corporate chemical giants: Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, Hoechst, Rhône-Poulenc, Imperial Chemical Industries and Ciba-Geigy. The boycott continues to operate today.
A graduate of Amherst College, Massachusetts, with a BA in Philosophy, Jon is sixty-three and lives with his wife, Dr Laura Thompson, in San Diego, California.
Jon's article "School Violence: The Psychiatric Drugs Connection" was published in NEXUS 6/05. His book Oklahoma City Bombing was reviewed in NEXUS 3/02.
Jon Rappoport can be contacted by email at rappoportjon@hotmail.com or via his website, [url="http://www.nomorefakenews.com"]http://www.nomorefakenews.com[/url].[/color]