Ahad, 29 Oktober 2006

Shaken babies or vaccination damage?

by Viera Scheibner, PhD

Many infants who suffer the so-called 'shaken baby syndrome' may be victims of undiagnosed vaccine damage.

Recently there has been quite an "epidemic" of the so-called "shaken baby syndrome". Parents, usually the fathers, or other care-givers such as nannies have increasingly been accused of shaking a baby to the point of causing permanent brain damage and death. Why? Is there an unprecedented increase in the number of people who commit infanticide or have an ambition to seriously hurt babies? Or is there something more sinister at play?

Some time ago I started getting requests from lawyers or the accused parents themselves for expert reports. A close study of the history of these cases revealed something distinctly sinister: in every single case, the symptoms appeared shortly after the baby's vaccinations.

While investigating the personal medical history of these babies based on the care-givers' diaries and medical records, I quickly established that these babies were given one or more of the series of so-called routine shots-hepatitis B, DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus), polio and HiB (Haemophilus influenzae type B)-shortly before they developed symptoms of illness resulting in serious brain damage or death.

The usual scenario is that a baby is born and does well initially. At the usual age of about two months it is administered the first series of vaccines as above. (Sometimes a hepatitis B injection is given shortly after birth while the mother and child are still in hospital. However, a great number of babies now die within days or within two to four weeks of birth after hepatitis B vaccination, as documented by the records of the VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] in the USA.) So, the baby stops progressing, starts deteriorating, and usually develops signs of respiratory tract infection. Then comes the second and third injections, and tragedy strikes: the child may cry intensely and inconsolably, may stop feeding properly, vomit, have difficulty swallowing, become irritable, stop sleeping, and may develop convulsions with accelerating progressive deterioration of its condition and mainly its brain function.

This deterioration may be fast, or may slowly inch in until the parents notice that something is very wrong with their child and then rush it to the doctor or hospital. Interestingly, they are invariably asked when the baby was immunised. On learning that the baby was indeed "immunised", the parents may be reassured that its symptoms will all clear up. They are sent home with the advice, "Give your baby Panadol". If they persist in considering the baby's reaction serious, they may be labelled as anxious parents or trouble-makers. So the parents go home, and the child remains in a serious condition or dies.

Until recently, the vaccine death would have just been labelled "sudden infant death", particularly if the symptoms and pathological findings were minimal. However, nowadays, with an alarmingly increasing frequency, the parents (or at least one of them, usually the father) may be accused of shaking the baby to death. The accused may even "confess" to shaking the baby, giving the reason, for example, that having found the baby lying still and not breathing and/or with a glazed look in its eyes, they shook it gently-as is only natural-in their attempt to revive it. Sometimes, ironically, they save the baby's life, only to be accused of causing the internal injuries that made the baby stop breathing in the first place, and which in fact were already present when they shook the baby to revive it.

No matter what the parents say or do, everything is construed against them. If they are crying and emotional, they will be accused of showing signs of guilt. If they manage to remain composed and unemotional, they will be called calculating and controlling-and guilty because of that.

In another scenario the distraught parents try to describe the symptoms to an attending doctor in hospital or a surgery but are totally at a loss to understand what has happened to their baby. To their shock and dismay, they later discover that while they were describing the observed symptoms, the doctor or another staff member was writing three ominous words in the medical record: shaken baby syndrome.

Many of these parents end up indicted and even sentenced to prison for a crime that somebody else committed. Some of these cases have been resolved by acquittal on appeal or have been won based on expert reports demonstrating vaccines as the cause of the observed injuries or death. However, only God and a good lawyer can help those parents or care-givers who happen to be uneducated, or have a criminal record, particularly for violence, or have a previous history of a similar "unexplained" death of a baby in their care, or, worse still, a vaccine-injured baby with a broken arm or fractured skull. More and more often, the unfortunate parents are given the option of a "deal": if they confess and/or plead guilty, they will get only a couple of years in prison; but if they don't, they may end up getting 20 years.

I was told by a social worker in the United States that many foster parents are rotting in US prisons. First, they are forced to vaccinate their charges, and then, when side effects or death occur, they are accused of causing them.

Inevitably the possibility exists that infanticide or child abuse is involved in some of the cases. However, there is no determinable reason why so many parents or other care-givers would suddenly begin to behave like this. It is incredibly insensitive and callous to immediately suspect and accuse the distraught, innocent parents of harming their own baby.


Let's now have a look at medical literature dealing with shaken baby syndrome and child abuse.

Caffey (1972, 1974)1,2 described the "whiplash shaken infant syndrome" as a result of manual shaking by the extremities with whiplash-induced intracranial and intraocular bleedings, linked with permanent brain damage and mental retardation. He referred to his own paper, published almost 30 years prior to the above-quoted papers, which described what he called "the original six battered babies in 1945". The essential elements in this description were subdural haematomas, intraocular bleedings and multiple traction changes in the long bones. These findings became a benchmark of the "evidence" that a child had been shaken before developing these signs.

Reece (1993)3 analysed fatal child abuse and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and considered the critical diagnostic decisions. He emphasised that distinguishing between an unexpected infant death due to SIDS and one due to child abuse challenges paediatricians, family physicians, pathologists and child protection agencies. On the one hand, they must report instances of suspected child abuse and protect other children in the family; and on the other, all agree that the knowledge in this area is incomplete and ambiguity exists in many cases.

Duhaime et al. (1992)4 wrote that "patients with intradural haemorrhage and no history of trauma must also have clinical and radiographic findings of blunt impact to the head, unexplained long-bone fractures or other soft tissue inflicted injury, in order to completely eliminate the possibility of spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage such as might rarely occur from a vascular malformation or a bleeding disorder".

While it is not disputed that some parents and care-givers may cause the above injuries by mistreating infants, one must take great care in interpreting similar pathological findings of injuries caused by other insults which have nothing to do with mechanical injuries and mistreatments of infants.

I shall never forget the father of a 10-month-old infant, who, after being acquitted on appeal of causing shaken baby syndrome, said words to the effect, "We still don't know what killed our baby". It did not occur to them and nobody told them that it was the vaccine that killed their baby.

So what else can cause brain swelling, intracranial bleeding, ocular retinal haemorrhages, and broken skull and other bones? Ever since the mass vaccination of infants began, reports of serious brain, cardiovascular, metabolic and other injuries started filling pages of medical journals.

Indeed, vaccines like the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine are actually used to induce encephalo-myelitis (experimental allergic encephalomyelitis) in laboratory animals (Levine and Sowinski, 19735). This is characterised by brain swelling and haemorrhaging of an extent similar to that caused by mechanical injuries (Iwasa et al., 19856).

Munoz et al. (1981)7 studied biological activities of crystalline pertussigen-a toxin produced by Bordetella pertussis, the causative agent in pertussis and an active ingredient in all types of pertussis vaccines whether whole-cell or acellular-in a number of laboratory experiments with mice. They established that minute amounts of pertussigen induced hypersensitivity to histamine (still detected 84 days after administration), leucocytosis, production of insulin, increased production of IgE and G1 antibodies to hen egg albumin, susceptibility to anaphylactic shock and vascular permeability of striated muscle. A dose of 546 nanograms per mouse killed 50 per cent of mice. Typically, the deaths were delayed. When a dose of five micrograms of pertussigen was administered, most mice did not gain weight and died by day five; the last mouse died on day eight. A one-microgram dose of one preparation killed four out of five mice. They first gained weight from days two to five, but then remained at nearly constant weight until they died. Even the one that survived for 16 days (it was then killed) experienced crises (stopped putting on weight) on the days when the others died. Had that one lived longer, it might have died on day 24. This is another of the critical days-identified by Cotwatch research into babies' breathing-on which babies have flare-ups of stress-induced breathing, or die, after vaccination.

Interestingly, when laboratory animals develop symptoms of vaccine damage and then die, it is never considered coincidental; but when children develop the same symptoms and/or die after the administration of the same vaccines, it is considered coincidental or caused by their parents or other carers. When all this fails, then it is considered "mysterious".

Delayed reactions are the norm rather than the exception. This has been explained as a consequence of an immunological intravascular complexing of particulate antigen (whole-cell or acellular pertussis organisms) (Wilkins, 19888). However, vaccinators have great difficulty with this, and as a rule draw largely irrelevant timelines for accepting the causal link between administration of vaccines and onset of reactions-usually 24 hours or up to seven days. However, most reactions to vaccines are delayed, and most cases are then considered unrelated to vaccination.

One only has to peruse a product insert of hepatitis B vaccine to see that besides local reactions, a number of neurological signs may occur, such as paraesthesia and paralysis (including Guillain-Barre syndrome, optic neuritis and multiple sclerosis).

Devin et al. (1996)9 described retinal haemorrhages which are emphatically being considered the sure sign of child abuse, even though these can be and are caused by vaccines. Goetting and Sowa (1990)10 described retinal haemorrhage which occurred after cardiopulmonary resuscitation in children.

Bulging fontanelle due to brain swelling was described by Jacob and Mannino (1979)11 as a direct reaction to the DPT vaccine. They described a case of a seven-month-old baby who, nine hours after the third DPT vaccination, developed a bulging anterior fontanelle and became febrile and irritable.

Bruising and easy bleeding is one of the characteristic signs of the blood clotting disorder, thrombocytopenia-a recognised side-effect of many vaccines. Its first signs are easy bruising and bleeding and petechial (spotlike) rash. Thrombo-cytopenia may result in brain and other haemorrhages (Woerner et al., 198112).

The convulsions which follow one in 1,750 doses of the DPT vaccines (Cody et al., 198113) can result in unexplained falls in bigger children who can sit up or stand, which may cause linear cracks of the skull and other fractures. When one considers that babies are supposed to get a minimum of three doses of DPT and OPV (oral polio vaccine), then the risk of developing a convulsion is one in 580, and with five doses the risk rises to one in 350. This means that a great number of babies develop convulsions after vaccination between the ages of two to six months, at about 18 months, and at five to six years. The convulsions often occur when the parent or another carer is not looking, and the child, while standing or sitting on the floor, simply falls backwards or onto its arm.

All these signs can be misdiagnosed as a result of mechanical injuries, particularly so because vaccinators simply refuse to admit that vaccines cause serious injuries, or they only pay lip service to the damage caused by the pernicious routine of up to 18 vaccines with which babies are supposed to be injected within six months of birth.

The court system should therefore be more open to the documented viable and alternative explanations of the observed injuries, and be more wary of the obviously biased statements of the provaccination "experts", that nothing else but vigorous shaking can cause retinal haemorrhages-even though such statements only reflect their ignorance. Such "experts" then go home and continue advising parents to vaccinate, and thus, with impunity, they cause more and more cases of vaccine-injured babies and children.


The term "Munchausen syndrome per proxy" has been used to identify individuals who kill or otherwise harm a child in order to attract attention to themselves. The term was used in many instances in the 1980s when earlier attempts were fashioned to explain some of the cases of sudden infant death.

According to Meadow (1995),14 "Munchausen syndrome per proxy" is flamboyant terminology originally used for journalistic reasons. It was a term commonly applied to adults who presented themselves with false illness stories, just like the fictional Baron von Munchausen who travelled on cannon balls. The term is now used to apply to parents of children who present with false illness stories fabricated by a parent or someone else in that position.

While the term may have some validity in describing this special form of child abuse in the documented cases of parents slowly poisoning their child or exposing it to unnecessary and often dangerous and invasive medical treatments, more recently it became a way for some doctors to camouflage the real observed side-effects of especially measles (M), measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and measles-rubella (MR) vaccinations in the UK. Many thousands of British children (up to 15,000 in my considered opinion) developed signs of autism usually associated with bowel symptoms after being given the above vaccines in 1994.

The Bulletin of Medical Ethics published two articles, in 1994 and 1995, dealing with this problem. The October 1994 article ("Is your measles jab really necessary?") stated that during November 1994 the UK Government would be running a mass campaign of measles vaccination with the intention of reaching every child between the ages of five and sixteen.

It claimed that the purpose of this campaign was to prevent an epidemic that would otherwise occur in 1995, with up to 200,000 cases and up to 50 deaths. The article also showed that since 1990 there have been only 8,000 to 10,000 cases of measles each year in England and Wales, and that coincidentally there was an epidemic of only about 5,000 cases in Scotland in the winter of 1993-94. Between May and August 1994 the notification rate in England and Wales dropped sharply, so there was nothing that clearly suggested an imminent epidemic.

The nine-page article in the August 1995 issue of BME stated among other things that on 14 September 1992 the Department of Health (DoH) hastily withdrew two brands of MMR vaccines following a leak to the national press about the risk of children developing mumps meningitis after administration of these vaccines. Both brands contained the Urabe mumps vaccine strain which had been shown to cause mumps meningitis in one in 1,044 vaccinees (Yawata, 199415).

Based on the epidemiology of measles, there was never going to be a measles epidemic in 1995 and there was certainly no justification for concomitant rubella vaccination. The mass campaign was planned as an experimental alternative to a two-dose schedule of measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. The UK Government knowingly misled parents about the need for the campaign and about the relative risks of measles and measles vaccination. The DoH broke the European Union's law about contracts and tendering to ensure that specific pharmaceutical companies were awarded the contracts to provide the campaign vaccines. All this must have been extremely fortunate for the drug companies in question, since the supplies of measles and rubella vaccines-which they'd been left with in 1992 and for which there was virtually no demand-were soon to go out of date.

The vaccination campaign achieved very little. Indeed, in 1995 there were twice as many cases of serologically confirmed rubella in England and Wales as in the same period of 1994: 412 cases against 217. Six cases of rubella in pregnant women were reported. The data indicate that more measles cases were notified in the first quarter of 1995 (n=11) than in the first quarter of 1994 (n=9). Despite this, there were several claims from government doctors that measles transmission had stopped among school children. Higson (1995)16 wrote that two DoH officials tried to justify the success of the measles and rubella vaccination campaign by using data that cannot be used to give year-on-year comparison for measles infections. Indeed, he wrote that the data collected by the public health departments on the measles notifications show no indication of benefit from the highly expensive campaign. The British government spent some £20 million purchasing the near-expiry-date measles and rubella vaccines.

Some 1,500 parents are now participating in a class action over the damage (most often the bowel problems and autism) suffered by their children.

Wakefield et al. (1998)17 published a paper in the Lancet in which they reported on a consecutive series of children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder which occurred 1 to 14 days (median, 6.3 days) after M, MMR and MR vaccinations. They also quoted the "opioid excess" theory of autism, that autistic disorders result from the incomplete breakdown and excessive absorption of gut-derived peptides from foods, including barley, rye, oats and milk/dairy product casein, caused by vaccine injury to the bowel. These peptides may exert central-opioid effects, directly or through the formation of ligands with peptidase enzymes required for the breakdown of endogenous central-nervous-system opioids, leading to disruption of normal neuroregulation and brain development by endogenous encephalins and endorphins.

A number of British parents approached me last year and complained that their children had developed behavioural and bowel problems after vaccination (as above), and that instead of getting help from their doctors they were told that they just imagined the symptoms or caused them in order to attract attention to themselves. The term "Munchausen syndrome per proxy" was used. It caused a lot of hardship and marital problems and did nothing for the victims of vaccination. Their stories were horrifying.


In summary, the trail of vaccine disasters is growing. Not only do vaccinations do nothing to improve the health of children and other recipients, they cause serious health problems and hardship for their families by victimising the victims of vaccines.

Parents of small children of vaccination age should use their own judgement and should educate themselves about the real dangers of this unscientific, useless, harmful and invasive medical procedure. No matter how much vaccines are pushed, vaccination is not compulsory in Australia (though the Liberal Federal Minister for Health has announced his plan to make it so in the near future-which, to me, sounded more like a threat at the time), and parents do not have to vaccinate their children. Those parents who think they are safe when they follow the official propaganda may be in for a rude awakening: they may be accused of causing the harm which resulted from vaccination.

I also urge medical practitioners to use their own judgement and observations and study the trail of disaster created by vaccination. They should listen when their patients and especially the parents of small children report side effects of vaccinations.

The inability to listen and observe the truth has created a breed of medical practitioners who inflict illness rather than healing, who become accusers rather than helpers, and who are ultimately just covering up-whether consciously or unknowingly, but with frighteningly increasing frequency-for the disasters created by their useless and deadly concoctions and sanctimonious ministrations. Maybe the term "Munchausen boomerang" should be introduced to describe those members of the medical profession who victimise the victims of their own harmful interventions (vaccines in particular).

I would like to remind those who may still think the risks of vaccine injury are outweighed by the benefits from vaccines, that infectious diseases are beneficial for children by priming and maturing their immune system. These diseases also represent developmental milestones. Having measles not only results in a lifelong specific immunity to measles, but also a non-specific immunity to a host of other, more serious conditions: degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, certain tumours, skin diseases and immunoreactive diseases (Ronne, 198518). Having mumps has been found to protect against ovarian cancer (West, 196619). So there is no need to try to prevent children from getting infectious diseases.

Moreover, according to orthodox immunological research, vaccines do not immunise, they sensitise; they make the recipients more susceptible to diseases (Craighead, 197520). It is the vaccinated children who suffer chronic ill health (asthma and constant ear infections being two of many vaccine side effects); who develop side effects to diseases like pneumonia or atypical measles (which carries a 12 to 15 per cent mortality risk); or who may have difficulty going through even such innocuous diseases as chicken pox because their immune system has been suppressed by vaccines.

In my closing remark, I urge parents to ask themselves a few questions. Have you noticed how much the vaccines are pushed by threats, coercion, victimisation and monetary punitive measures, with parents then being accused of causing what are clearly side effects of the vaccines? Would you succumb to the same type of pressure if any other product were pushed with the same vengeance? Wouldn't you be suspicious and ask what's wrong with the product if it has to be forced upon consumers? Why do so many informed parents, as well as many informed medical doctors, now refuse vaccination? Shouldn't you be suspicious of a medical system which forces itself upon you, which won't accept responsibility for vaccine injuries and unlawfully tries to take away your constitutional, democratic and legal right to have control over your own and your children's health without being hassled and victimised?


1. Caffey, J. (1972), "On the theory and practice of shaking infants", Am. J. Dis. Child 124, August 1972.

2. Caffey, J. (1974), "The whiplash shaken infant syndrome: manual shaking by the extremities with whiplash-induced intracranial and intraocular bleeding, linked with residual permanent brain damage and mental retardation", Pediatrics 54(4):396-403.

3. Reece, R. M. (1993), "Fatal child abuse and sudden infant death syndrome", Pediatrics 91:423-429.

4. Duhaime, A. C., Alario, A. J., Lewander, W. J. et al. (1992), "Head injury in very young children mechanisms, injury types and opthalmologic findings in 100 hospitalized patients younger than two years of age", Pediatrics 90(2):179-185.

5. Levine, S. and Sowinski, R. (1973), "Hyperacute allergic encephalomyelitis", Am. J. Pathol. 73:247-260.

6. Iwasa, A., Ishida, S., Akama, K. (1985), "Swelling of the brain caused by pertussis vaccine: its quantitative determination and the responsible factors in the vaccine", Japan J. Med. Sci. Biol. 38:53-65.

7. Munoz, J. J., Aral, H., Bergman, R. K. and Sadowski, P. (1981), "Biological activities of crystalline pertussigen from Bordetella pertussis", Infection and Immunity, September 1981, pp. 820-826.

8. Wilkins, J. (1988), "What is 'significant' and DTP reactions" (letter), Pediatrics 81(6):912-913.

9. Devin, F., Roques, G., Disdier, P., Rodor, F. and Weiller, P. J. (1996), "Occlusion of central retinal vein after hepatitis B vaccination", Lancet 347:1626, 8 June 1996.

10. Goetting, M. G. and Sowa, B. (1990), "Retinal haemorrhage after cardiopulmonary resuscitation in children: an etiologic evaluation", Pediatrics 85(4):585-588.

11. Jacob, J. and Mannino, F. (1979), "Increased intracranial pressure after diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis immunization", Am. J. Dis. Child 133:217-218.

12. Woerner, S. J., Abildgaard, C. F. and French, B. N. (1981), "Intracranial haemorrhage in children with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura", Pediatrics 67(4):453-460.

13. Cody, C. L., Baraff, L. J., Cherry, J. D., Marcy, S. C. and Manclark (1981), "Nature and rates of adverse reactions associated with DTP and DT immunizations in infants and children", Pediatrics 68(5):650-660.

14. Meadow, R. (1995), "What is and what is not 'Munchausen syndrome per proxy'?", Arch. Dis. Child 72:534-538.

15. Yawata, Makoto (1994), "Japan's troubles with measles-mumps-rubella vaccine", Lancet 343:105-106, 8 January 1994.

16. Higson, N. (1995), "Evaluating the measles immunisation campaign", British Medical Journal 311:62.

17. Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J. et al. (1998), "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children", Lancet 351:637-641, 28 February 1998.

18. Ronne, T. (1985), "Measles virus infection without rash in childhood is related to disease in adult life", Lancet, 5 January 1985, pp. 1-5.

19. West, R. O. (1966), "Epidemiologic studies of malignancies of the ovaries", Cancer, July 1966, pp. 1001-07.

20. Craighead, J. E. (1975), "Report of a workshop: disease accentuation after immunisation with inactivated microbial vaccines", J. Infect. Dis. 1312(6):749-754.

About the Author:

Viera Scheibner, PhD, is a retired principal research scientist with a doctorate in natural sciences. During her distinguished career she published three books and some 90 scientific papers in refereed scientific journals.

Since the mid-1980s when she helped develop the Cotwatch breathing monitor for babies at risk of cot death (sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS), she has done extensive research into vaccines and vaccinations and in 1993 published her book, Vaccination: The Medical Assault on the Immune System.

Dr Scheibner is often asked by lawyers to provide expert reports for vaccine-damage court cases, and she regularly conducts lectures. Her previous articles for NEXUS covered the SIDS/vaccines link (2/05) and the brain-eating bugs/vaccines connection (3/03)

Source: Nexus Magazine

Sabtu, 28 Oktober 2006

Vaccine Dangers and Vested Interests

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.

by Jon Rappoport © October 2004-January 2006

Statistics and Propaganda
How many Americans really die of the flu each year? Ask the American Lung Association. Better yet, read their own report from August 2004, titled "Trends in Pneumonia and Influenza/Morbidity and Mortality". This report comes from the Research and Scientific Affairs Epidemiology and Statistics Unit. At the bottom of the document, the source is listed as the National Center for Health Statistics, "Report of Final Mortality Statistics, 1979–2001".
Get ready for some surprises, especially since the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) keeps trumpeting flu-death annual numbers as 36,000. Like clockwork. Year in and year out, 36,000 people in the US die from the flu every year. Killer disease. Watch out! Get your flu shot. Every autumn. Don't wait. You might fall over dead in the street!
Here are the total influenza deaths from the report (from 1979 to 1995, the stats were released every two years):
1979: 604;
1981: 3,006;
1983: 1,431;
1985: 2,054;
1987: 632;
1989: 1,593;
1991: 1,137;
1993: 1,044;
1995: 606;
1996: 745;
1997: 720;
1998: 1,724;
1999: 1,665;
2000: 1765;
2001: 257.
Don't believe me? Here is the page: http://www.lungusa.org/atf/cf/%7B7A8D42C2-FCCA-4604-8ADE-7F5D5E762256%7D/PI1.PDF. Get there and go to page nine of the document. Then start scrolling down until you come to the chart for flu deaths as a separate category.

Recently, Tommy Thompson, head of US Health and Human Services, stated that 91 per cent of the people who die from the flu in the US every year are 65 and older. So you might engage in a little arithmetic and figure out how many people under 65 are really dying from the flu each year. But no matter. The raw all-ages stats are low enough. Quite low enough. Quite, quite.
Do you see what is going on here? You can go into my archive and read recent pieces on this subject and find my argument for those who blithely claim, "Well, harumph, you see, uh, ah, flu often leads to pneumonia and that's why we have to be so careful about the flu. Deaths from pneumonia are in large numbers, harumph, blah blah blah..."

It's a straight con, folks. The CDC is on a street corner with a little table, and there are shills walking around repeating the 36,000 deaths figure while the PR flacks at the table are working the vaccine angle. The crowd is getting restless. A man shouts, "Where is my flu shot? We're all going to die!" Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Congress is planning a measure that will guarantee vaccine manufacturers annual billion-dollar payoffs, no matter how many doses are left over unused.
Now that a much clearer picture emerges of the low number of flu deaths in the US each year, it's only natural to revisit the issue of vaccines. Minus the hysteria about "high numbers of flu deaths" and the "pressing need to get the vaccine", what we are really dealing with? The answer is PR. Propaganda is being used to artificially inflate flu statistics and thereby drive people into doctors' offices and clinics to get their shots. So what about vaccines? How safe and effective are they?
I have long warned about the dangers of vaccines, especially for babies and young children, whose immune systems are not capable of coping with the many contaminants and toxic preservatives in vaccines. There are other reasons why even adults should avoid them. Now, for the first time, a former insider from within the vaccine industry has agreed to talk about the dangers of vaccines.

"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.


Q (Jon Rappoport): You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.
A (Dr Mark Randall): Yes, I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say which ones.
Q: Why not?
A: I want to preserve my privacy.
Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?
A: I believe I could lose my pension.
Q: On what grounds?
A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once "part of the Club". I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.
Q: Harassed by whom?
A: The FBI.
Q: Really?
A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling, too.
Q: So much for free speech.
A: I was "part of the inner circle". If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.
Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?
A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honourable people, these vaccines would not be granted licences. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.
Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.
A: I know. For a long time I ignored their work.
Q: Why?
A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.
Q: And then?
A: I did my own investigation.
Q: What conclusions did you come to?
A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.
Q: What conditions?
A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy you don't contract the diseases as easily.
Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?
A: Despair. I realised I was working in a sector based on a collection of lies.
Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?
A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.
Q: Why?
A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent.
Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?
A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases—say, meningitis—that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.
Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.
A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.
Q: Which is?
A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.
Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history.
A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.

Vaccine contamination
Q: Now, you worked in labs where purity is an issue.
A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities, are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.
Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.
A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I'm talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumours...that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don't know are in those kidneys.
Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?
A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba. Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.
Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines.
A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella, hep[atitis] A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human foetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and polio virus in these vaccines from time to time, which may have come from that foetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that is puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was a very small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called "foreign protein", which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.
Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.
A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defences.
Q: How were your findings received?
A: Basically, it was "Don't worry; this can't be helped". In making vaccines, you use various animals' tissue, and that's where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury and aluminum [aluminium] which are purposely put into vaccines [as preservatives].
Q: This information is pretty staggering.
A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are. Others we don't find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea. We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.

False assumptions about vaccine safety
Q: And beyond the purity issue?
A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines: that they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer" cells.
Q: The immune system is...?
A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.
Q: So the level of general health is important.
A: More than important. Vital.
Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?
A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then you've concealed the root cause of the problem.
Q: And that happens?
A: All the time. It has to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines do not come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is that this has nothing to do with the vaccine.
Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?
A: None. There were a few [researchers working within drug companies] who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.
Q: What was the turning point for you?
A: I had a friend whose child died after a DPT shot.
Q: Did you investigate?
A: Yes, informally. I found that this child was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the child had got a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way.
Q: What do you mean?
A: For example, no proper long-term studies are done on any vaccines using a control group. Part of what I mean is, no correct and deep follow-up is done, taking into account the fact that vaccines can induce, over time, various symptoms and serious problems which fall outside the range of the disease for which the person was vaccinated. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.
Q: Why doesn't it make sense?
A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?
Q: And that is what you found?
A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations most of the time. Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation.
Q: Has it been enough?
A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.
Q: Which is...?
A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, "This vaccine is safe". But what do they base those judgements on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.
Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed, where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.
A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realise that these are not isolated situations.

Competing interests
Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: What happened?
A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labelled with "guilt by association". All in all, though, I behaved myself. I made sure I didn't create problems for myself.
Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?
A: First of all, there is no "if". They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn't. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you've said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives: money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on...
Q: The furore over the hepatitis B vaccine seems one good avenue.
A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine and then, in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hepatitis B from sexual contacts and shared needles is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from "unknown causes", and that's why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,000 figure and the so-called studies that back it up.
Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.
A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning...
Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity, stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine, is committing career suicide.
A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says anything. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.
Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?
A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don't need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise.
You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funnelled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fallout. Researchers, a few, might start leaking information.
Q: A good idea.
A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.
Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?
A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together is safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period.
Q: Then we have the fall flu season.
A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float into the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.
Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?
A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people when I think they will use it well.

Burden of proof and the need for studies on vaccine safety
Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?
A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed, long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things—the things that are not there.
Q: The things that are not there.
A: Yes.
Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause—which diseases, how that happens...
A: We are basically talking about two potential, harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from, because some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn't get that disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism—what's called autism—or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.
Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?
A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is no reliable answer. That is what I'm saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don't get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is not limited to a few cases as we have been led to believe.
In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings. They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.
Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents and he didn't get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine?
A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time.
Q: How long did you work with vaccines?
A: A long time. Longer than ten years.
Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?
A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I'm not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every State, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.
Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.
A: The operative word is "appear". What about all the children who can't focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both.
Q: So we come to the level playing field.
A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.
Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don't get shots.
A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person's responsibility to make up his[/her] mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win.

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.

Source: Nexus Magazine