PDA

View Full Version : Vaccine whistleblower



David Guyatt
06-29-2009, 12:19 PM
I was sent the following and post without comment - due to my dimness on scientific matters - but for discussion:

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=743


Vaccine Damnation: Retired Vaccine Researcher Speaks Out on Vaccine Dangers
Jon Rappaport recently interviewed a vaccine researcher who developed a conscience and quit his profession. Now he is willing to speak out. Read what he has to say and spread the word. While youíre spreading it, let folks know that they can sign up for the free Health Freedom eAlerts (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=187) published by the Natural Solutions Foundation for this, and other helpful, potentially life saving, information and meaningful action steps.

The Natural Solutions Foundation works hard to keep you posted on all health freedom issues. There is no where else you can so for such wide ranging, objective and clear information on all of the health freedom assaults. When you make a recurring donation, you become eligible to join the Health Freedom Heroes Forum! Become part of the inner circle and help make strategic decisions on the focus and activities of health freedom at home and abroad.

Thanks for your support! Remember, disseminate, disseminate, disseminate!

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org

Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher

Jon Rappoport Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.

Dr. Mark Randall A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I wonít 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 donít 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 ďpart of the inner circle.Ē If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.

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

A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall ďbrillianceĒ of modern medicine.

Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?

A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. Itís one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.

A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.

Q: Why?

A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.

Q: And then?

A: I did my own investigation.

Q: What conclusions did you come to?

A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.

Q: What conditions?

A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you donít contract the diseases as easily.

Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?

A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies.

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?

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

Q: Why?

A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.

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

A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases ‚Äď say, meningitis ‚Äď 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 youíre saying that we have been treated to a false history.

A: Yes. Thatís exactly what Iím saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.

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

A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.

Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.

A: Well yes, that happened. But thatís not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But Iím talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors ‚Äď 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 donít know are in those kidneys.

Q: Okay, but letís 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. Iíll give you some of what I came across, and Iíll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Hereís a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called ďbrain-eatingĒ 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. Iíve 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 donít belong in the vaccines.

A: Thatís right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we donít really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. Itís a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people donít know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time ‚Äď which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldnít be there, but you donít know exactly what youíve got. I have found what I believed was a very small ďfragmentĒ of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called ďforeign protein,Ē which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.

Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.

A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.

Q: How were your findings received?

A: Basically, it was, donít worry, this canít be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animalsí tissue, and thatís where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, Iím not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines.

Q: This information is pretty staggering.

A: Yes. And Iím just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we donít find because we donít think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea. We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.

Q: And beyond the purity issue?

A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesnít work that way. A vaccine is supposed to ďcreateĒ antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related ďkiller cells.Ē

Q: The immune system is?

A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. Itís 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, youíve 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, itís circular reasoning. Itís a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the 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 who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.

Q: What was the turning point for you?

A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.

Q: Did you investigate?

A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way.

Q: What do you mean?

A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.

Q: Why doesnít 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 couldnít that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldnít 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, ďThis vaccine is safe.Ē But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.

Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.

A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. Itís discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations.

Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?

A: Yes I did.

Q: What happened?

A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labeled with ďguilt by associationĒ. All in all, though, I behaved myself. I made sure I didnít create problems for myself.

Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?

A: First of all, there is no ďifĒ. 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 isnít. 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 youíve said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but itís true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network.

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

A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realizing the whole truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.

Q: This network you speak of.

A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue.

Q: And in the industrialized nations?

A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefare germs are going to win out. This is an important time.

Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one good avenue.

A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine-and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles ‚Äď 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 ďunknown causes,Ē and thatís why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,000 figure and the so-called studies that back it up.

Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.

A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blairís wife is involved with alternative health. There is the possibility that their child has not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to invasive questioning of his ďpersonal and family life.Ē In any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to all the families who have come forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR.

Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.

A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national security.

Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel.

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

Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.

A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.

Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?

A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They donít need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers ‚Äď a few ‚Äď might start leaking information.

Q: A good idea.

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

Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?

A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period.

Q: Then we have the fall flu season.

A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.

Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?

A: Yes. But after this interview, Iíll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well.

Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?

A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there.

Q: The things that are not there.

A: Yes.

Q: To avoid any confusion, Iíd 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 doesnít 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, whatís called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.

Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?

A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what Iím saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you donít 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 didnít 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 canít. 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. Iím 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 ďappearĒ. What about all the children who canít 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 donít 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 personís responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher who worked for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the US governmentís National Institutes of Health.

Mark retired during the last decade. He says he was ďdisgusted with what he discovered about vaccines.Ē

Jan Klimkowski
06-29-2009, 05:51 PM
David - this is a very important article.

Some of the T's may not be perfectly crossed nor the I's perfectly dotted, but the overall thesis is shared by many other medical insiders I've spoken with.

The whole edifice of vaccination may very well be a house of cards built on a phoney assumption, supported by a fake history to create a giant and recklessly dangerous money making machine.

"Dr Mark Randall" is correct in asserting that for a mainstream figure to challenge the efficacy of vaccinations is a national security matter, that will bring down the full weight of the national security state on the person trying to challenge the official version.

I know this to be true.

When I was researching the material that became the BBC2 Horizon film, The Human Laboratory

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=620&highlight=human+laboratory

I worked with researchers who knew the inside story of the disgrace that is the infant testing of Edmonston Zagreb (EZ) measles vaccine. We didn't run the story because it didn't quite fit the Horizon documentary, but I spoke to enough insiders and was shown enough documentation to have no doubt that the development of High Dose EZ was a complete disgrace:

A brief introduction is below:

http://www.whale.to/v/ez2.html


High dose Edmonston Zagreb (EZ) measles vaccine (quotes)
EZ vaccine

(1996 USA) Outrage! How babies were used as guinea pigs in a LA county vaccine experiment. The Conscious Rasta Report Vol3, Issue 6, Aug 1996-Keidi Obi Awadu

"From 1989 to 1991, Kaiser Permanent along with the L.A. County Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), injected over 700 "mostly minority" babies with unlicensed experimental vaccines with fraudulently-obtained consent from the parents. One of the vaccines used, Edmonston-Zagreb high-titer, had already obtained a notorious reputation overseas for killing almost one out of every 13 babies in closely controlled studies in the Third World. In particular, use of the vaccine had been closely associated with an increased death rate among infants in Senegal, Guinea Bissau and Haiti before their second birthday. At least one baby in the L.A. County experiment died within this same two year window. When the final story is told, this will likely be one of the most scandalous affairs in the history of human experimentation to rival or exceed that of the German Nazis, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study or the DOE radiation exposure experiments."---Keidi Obi Awadu (Outrage, The Conscious Rasta Report, Aug 1996)

"In an experiment to find out of they could give high-potency Edmonston Zagreb (EZ) measles vaccine to babies as young as four months old [completing disregarding developmental neurology and lack of myelinization in the nervous system of babies] in order to overwhelm their natural maternal antibodies and replace them with vaccine-induced antibodies, medical "researchers" at the CDC and Johns Hopkins University injected thousands of babies in the Third World with the experimental vaccine that reportedly caused chronic immune suppression and the deaths of an unknown number of babies. Also, in the United States, with the help of Kaiser Permanente, more than 1500 six-month old black and Hispanic babies in inner city Los Angeles were "enrolled" in the experiment starting in June 1990. [ During the administration of president and ex-CIA director George Bush.] The study was halted in October 1991, after more than one year of genocidal activity, after repeated reports from vaccine trial sites in Africa that girl babies were dying in higher than expected numbers six months to three years after injection. [ A less-than-admirable population control effort.] "--Leading Edge http://www.cco.net/~trufax/vaccine/0696.html Based on NVIC Vaccine Report 0696 Rec 9/3/96

"Using kids as guinea pigs in potentially harmful vaccine experiments is every parents' worst nightmare. This actually happened in 1989-1991 when Kaiser Permanente of Southern California and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) jointly conducted a measles vaccine experiment. Without proper parental disclosure, the Yugoslavian-made "high titre" Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccine was tested on 1,500 poor, primarily black and Latino, inner city children in Los Angeles. Highly recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), the high-potency experimental vaccine was previously injected into infants in Mexico, Haiti, and Africa. It was discontinued in these countries when it was discovered that the children were dying in large numbers.
Unbelievably, the measles vaccine caused long-term suppression of the children's immune system for six months up to three years. As a result, the immunodepressed children died from other diseases in greater numbers than children who had never received the vaccine. Tragically, African girl babies in the experiment were given twice the dose of boys, and therefore suffered a higher death rate. The WHO pulled the vaccine off the market in 1992.
Ironically, the E-Z measles vaccine tested by Kaiser on minority babies was supposed to increase immunity in younger infants. Instead, the vaccine produced the opposite effect. A Los Angeles Times editorial (June 20, 1996) assured readers that "none of the 1,500 was injured by the unlicensed vaccine" and called upon the CDC to ensure that experiments like the E-Z measles vaccine could never occur again."--Alan Cantwell MD

"Worth Coolie Prost of Arlington, Virginia, is a biomedical research consultant and medical ethicist who terms what happened with the EZ measles vaccine a "silent tragedy." She reminds us that human experimentation has been performed on vulnerable populations throughout history, with informed consent standards being repeatedly ignored, despite laws designed to prevent this from happening. .........It is very unlikely that any of those deaths would ever have been linked to the vaccine ("high titre" Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccine), since deaths were delayed. They didnít begin until six months after vaccination and they continued up until four years after vaccination. Additionally, the deaths were not from measles. Babies died of infections, diarrhea, malnutrition, and all the other things that Third World babies usually die of, because what the vaccine did in some babies, particularly girls, was cause a broad immunosuppression."---Worth Coolie Prost (Gary Null vaccine report)

In the 1980s, the World Health Organization declared measles a life-threatening illness in Third World countries. To lower infant mortality rates, they recommended that the high-titer EZ measles vaccine be used on infants younger than 15 months old. ......Not only did the experiment prove ineffective, it had disastrous consequences. Says Prost: "In 1987, four large Ďstudiesí - .... using the very-high-titer EZ measles vaccine were sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Johns Hopkins University, and their Department of International Health. These studies used concentrations of the EZ vaccine in doses 10 to 500 times the standard in babies as young as four months old. Studies were done in Haiti, Senegal, Mexico, and Guinea-Bissau." Prost refers to this incident as a huge, silent disaster for Third World countries and inner city USA. Had the experiment not been stopped - largely through the efforts of one person - consequences would have been far worse, as deaths were not clearly associated with the vaccine. She elaborates: "It is very unlikely that any of those deaths would ever have been linked to the vaccine, since deaths were delayed. They didnít begin until six months after vaccination and they continued up until four years after vaccination. Additionally, the deaths were not from measles. Babies died of infections, diarrhea, malnutrition, and all the other things that Third World babies usually die of, because what the vaccine did in some babies, particularly girls, was cause a broad immunosuppression... Itís important to point out that, at least in Haiti, the study was done on a population that included a number of HIV-positive infants. So there were children given this very-high-dose vaccine who were already known to be immunocompromised."
In the beginning, Prost notes, results of the experiment were glowing, but once the data were analyzed this presumption changed. "The study was deemed a success, and by October 1989 WHO was recommending the high-titer EZ vaccine to Third World children as young as six months. They were posting a contract for 250 million doses. By January of 1990, just three months later, the directors of one of the two African sites notified WHO and CDC of a possible link between increased mortality in the babies who were given the high-titer vaccine versus babies who got the regular vaccine. In April of that year, Dr. Goran, director of the Senegal site, re-analyzed his data and found the same thing. He alerted WHO to the problem and was essentially ignored.
"In January of 1991, there was an international meeting of the vaccine team. Dr. Goranís mortality data was presented in full. Going into the meeting, he had believed that once the rest of the team saw the figures they would say, ĎOh my God, yes, heís right, the vaccine is causing deaths.í But he was astounded to see his data set aside. The studies were to continue."
Prost goes on to say that, at that point, Goran decided that the only ethical thing to do was to publish his data independently..........."Dr. Goranís article appeared in The Lancet, one of the gold-standard medical journals, in October 1991. By that time, the Johns Hopkins team that had been doing this research in Haiti had gone back and collected mortality data, and thought that Dr. Goran might be right. WHO called for an independent analysis of mortality to be presented at a meeting in June 1992."
By this time, EZ measles vaccine studies were already taking place in the U.S. "Fifteen hundred mostly black and Hispanic six to nine-month-old, inner city Los Angeles babies were enrolled in a study that used the high-titer vaccine. Parents were not told that the vaccine was experimental, only that their children were in a study comparing two different kinds and schedules of measles vaccine to see which one worked better. The parents did sign something, but the paper left off a little key fact about this being, number one, an experimental vaccine and, number two, associated with increased mortality.
"In October 1991, the Los Angeles program was halted, and in June 1992, Dr. Goranís position was vindicated as it became clear that the EZ measles vaccine was significantly associated with increased mortality. The vaccine was withdrawn internationally. By then, the vaccine had been used in about two dozen countries, from Bangladesh to Zanzibar, in Ďstudiesí involving at least 15,000 children. Not all of them received the high-titer EZ, but many certainly did. Nobody knows how many of those children died."
Prost feels strongly that had it not been for the actions of one man, Dr. Goran, we may have had a tragic and unnecessary loss of life of almost unparalleled proportions. And the press never reported the enormity of the incident. She asks people to look back at the Tuskeegee study, which went on for 40 years, and reminds us that it was not the Public Health Service (PHS) or the CDC that exposed that to the public in 1972, but rather the press. "A journalist, Jean Heller, began a series of articles after a social worker, employed by the PHS in California, had been writing to the PHS and the CDC for years with no results. He questioned the ethics of denying a diagnosis and treatment of syphilis to people in the interests of science. Finally, the material was turned over to a reporter who covered it, causing an immediate end to the experiment. That went on for 40 years, and it only stopped because the press covered it."
Prost contrasts that to the situation with the EZ measles vaccine. "The press hardly covered this issue," she says. "A reporter had an article that ran... in the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and the Philadelphia Inquirer in which CDC director Dr. David Sacher [now Surgeon General] said that he was shocked to discover that parents in the LA study hadnít been told the vaccine was experimental and that they were very, very sorry and would never do that again. They ignored the fact that the vaccine had caused deaths in Third World countries. That was stated, but in such a way that it was glossed over; [it was] sort of an afterthought, a given, if you will. CDC and Kaiser maintained that there was only one death, and it was unrelated to the vaccine."
While some international media and U.S. progressive media have covered the experimental measles vaccine story, our mainstream media have not. Says Prost: "We should be very alarmed about this for two reasons in particular, the first being that if the mainstream press hadnít touched Tuskeegee we never would have known about it. And secondly, we should be alarmed because precisely the same government agencies, research institutions, and very often even the same researchers are... doing AIDS vaccine research in Third World countries and in the United States. The same folks who did the EZ measles vaccine - this non-story - are doing HIV vaccine research. Thereís been no accountability, no disclosure... Why should we expect different behavior now? And if the press doesnít cover it, how will we know when things go wrong?"

David Guyatt
06-30-2009, 08:26 AM
Thanks Jan, I very much appreciate your input and intimate knowledge of these subjects.