>Subject: MUST READ: Sobering interview of an ex-vaccine researcher
>who has become a whistle-blower on the vaccine industry
>"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. ....the truth is, vaccines are not
>safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many
>of them in a short time period."
>
>....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."

>
>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
>won't say which ones.

>Q: Why not?

>A: I want to preserve my privacy.

>Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?

>A: I believe I could lose my pension.

>Q: On what grounds?

>A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing you
>problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two
>people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.

>Q: Harassed by whom?

>A: The FBI.
>Q: Really?

>A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.

>Q: So much for free speech.
>
>A: I was "part of the inner circle." If now I began to name names
>and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a
>world of trouble.
>
>
>
>Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?
>
>
>
>A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are
>the ultimate justification for the overall "brilliance" of modern medicine.
>
>
>
>Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether
>they should get vaccines?
>
>
>
>A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need
>information, so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say
>choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you
>choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these
>vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated
>to within an inch of their lives.
>
>
>
>Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline
>of illnesses was not due to vaccines.
>
>
>
>A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.
>
>
>
>Q: Why?
>
>
>
>A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the
>business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on
>continuing that work.
>
>
>
>Q: And then?
>
>
>
>A: I did my own investigation.
>
>
>
>Q: What conclusions did you come to?
>
>
>
>A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.
>
>
>
>Q: What conditions?
>
>
>
>A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher
>food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you
>are healthy, you don't contract the diseases as easily.
>
>
>
>Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?
>
>
>
>A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies.
>
>
>
>Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?
>
>
>
>A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a
>vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As
>far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.
>
>
>
>Q: Why?
>
>
>
>A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a
>process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause
>the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other
>diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.
>
>
>
>Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines
>have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?
>
>
>
>A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a
>vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles,
>everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the
>surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it
>causes other diseases ­ say, meningitis ­ that fact is masked,
>because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The
>connection is overlooked.
>
>
>
>Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.
>
>
>
>A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.
>
>
>
>Q: Which is?
>
>
>
>A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated
>did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were
>vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already
>on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.
>
>
>
>Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history.
>
>
>
>A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that has
>been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe
>and effective.
>
>
>
>Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.
>
>
>
>A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing
>facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not
>true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of
>debris introduced into vaccines.
>
>
>
>Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.
>
>
>
>A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The SV40
>got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using
>monkey kidneys. But I'm talking about something else. The actual
>lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which
>was later found in cancer tumors ­ that was what I would call a
>structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing
>process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs
>which you don't know are in those kidneys.
>
>
>
>Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different types
>of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in
>your many years of work with vaccines?
>
>
>
>A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll
>also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial
>list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken
>viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a
>so-called "brain-eating" amoeba.
>
>
>
>Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the
>rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various
>micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially
>dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and
>rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the
>flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.
>
>
>
>Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't
>belong in the vaccines.
>
>
>
>A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these
>contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know, because no
>testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of
>roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know that
>some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and 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 ­ which may have come from that
>fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can
>come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be
>there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. I have found
>what I believed was a very small "fragment" of human hair and also
>human mucus. I have found what can only be called "foreign protein,"
>which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.
>
>
>
>Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.
>
>
>
>A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into
>the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.
>
>
>
>Q: How were your findings received?
>
>
>
>A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this can't be helped. In making
>vaccines, you use various animals' tissue, and that's where this
>kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not even mentioning
>the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum
>which are purposely put into vaccines.
>
>
>
>Q: This information is pretty staggering.
>
>
>
>A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological
>contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don't
>find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue from, say,
>a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in
>that tissue? We have no idea. We have no idea what they might be,
>or what effects they could have on humans.
>
>
>
>Q: And beyond the purity issue?
>
>
>
>A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about
>vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to
>create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad
>premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to
>"create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against
>disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more
>involved than antibodies and their related "killer cells."
>
>
>
>Q: The immune system is?
>
>
>
>A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune system,
>you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an
>epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.
>
>
>
>Q: So the level of general health is important.
>
>
>
>A: More than important. Vital.
>
>
>
>Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?
>
>
>
>A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who
>have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with
>hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver
>disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you've
>concealed the root cause of the problem.
>
>
>
>Q: And that happens?
>
>
>
>A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically
>assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the
>diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is
>exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's circular
>reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible
>fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets
>hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is,
>this had nothing to do with the 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 doesn't it make sense?
>
>
>
>A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period
>of time after it is given. A reaction can be
>gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can
>develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to
>a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be the case with
>vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn't
>that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?
>
>
>
>Q: And that is what you found?
>
>
>
>A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the
>time. Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents
>whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year
>period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark
>off an intense investigation.
>
>
>
>Q: Has it been enough?
>
>
>
>A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.
>
>
>
>Q: Which is?
>
>
>
>A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in
>looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So,
>when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations
>of the vaccines. They say, "This vaccine is safe." But what do
>they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and
>ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.
>
>
>
>Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has
>failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which
>they were vaccinated.
>
>
>
>A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is
>simply ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they say
>anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but
>overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up
>all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred,
>you realize that these are NOT isolated situations.
>
>
>
>Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with
>colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?
>
>
>
>A: Yes I did.
>
>
>
>Q: What happened?
>
>
>
>A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I
>should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few
>occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They
>felt they could be labeled with "guilt by association". All in all,
>though, I behaved myself. I made sure I didn't create problems for myself.
>
>
>
>Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?
>
>
>
>A: First of all, there is no "if". They do harm. It becomes a more
>difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people
>who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of
>research which should be done, but isn't. Researchers should be
>probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows
>exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they
>enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given,
>we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As
>you've said many times, at different layers of the system people
>have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win
>brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism,
>unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the
>medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a
>weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept,
>but it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out
>to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill
>them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a
>man who occupied a high government position in an African
>nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that
>WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an
>underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials
>who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network
>of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been
>used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them
>ripe for takeover by globalist powers I have had the opportunity to
>speak with several of these people from this network.
>
>
>
>Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation?
>
>
>
>A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly
>convinced, but he is on the way to realizing the whole truth. He
>already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are
>poisons which destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he
>speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded
>a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.
>
>
>
>Q: This network you speak of.
>
>
>
>A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about
>vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be
>mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue.
>
>
>
>Q: And in the industrialized nations?
>
>
>
>A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is
>diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question
>medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to take or
>reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these coming mandates
>about vaccines against biowarefare germs are going to win out. This
>is an important time.
>
>
>
>Q: The furor over the 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 ­ 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. Perhaps you know that
>Tony Blair's wife is involved with alternative health. There is the
>possibility that their child has not been given the MMR. Blair
>recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it
>seem that he was simply objecting to invasive questioning of his
>"personal and family life." In any event, I believe his wife has
>been muzzled. I think, if given the chance, she would at least say
>she is sympathetic to all the families who have come forward and
>stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR.
>
>
>
>Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.
>
>
>
>A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her
>husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of
>good if she breaks her promise. I have been told she is under
>pressure, and not just from her husband. At the level she occupies,
>MI6 and British health authorities get into the act. It is thought
>of as a matter of national security.
>
>
>
>Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel.
>
>
>
>A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation. It
>zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these
>vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop questioning the
>sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.
>
>
>
>Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will
>not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.
>
>
>
>A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There
>are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is
>famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In
>1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in
>downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the
>FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor
>who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.
>
>
>
>Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what
>is the basic frame of mind?
>
>
>
>A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they
>think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an
>intramural war for that money. They don't need more trouble. This
>is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and
>large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To
>admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole
>enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place
>one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse
>is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an
>accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding
>to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public
>from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that facility,
>something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with
>further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers ­ a few
>­ might start leaking information.
>
>
>
>Q: A good idea.
>
>
>
>A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police
>will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and
>babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.
>
>
>
>Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines
>given to babies these days?
>
>
>
>A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any
>depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made
>that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given
>together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not
>safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many
>of them in a short time period.
>
>
>
>Q: Then we have the fall flu season.
>
>
>
>A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US
>from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in
>April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.
>
>
>
>Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?
>
>
>
>A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a little
>less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain
>people, when I think they will use it well.
>
>
>
>Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?
>
>
>
>A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy
>of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for
>public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or
>me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You
>need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay
>attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to
>them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that
>are not there.
>
>
>
>Q: The things that are not there.
>
>
>
>A: Yes.
>
>
>
>Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review, once more, the
>disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.
>
>
>
>A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful
>outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He
>gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him
>from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to
>begin with. Or two, he doesn't get THAT disease, but at some later
>time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition
>which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism,
>what's called autism, or it could be some other disease like
>meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.
>
>
>
>Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these
>different outcomes?
>
>
>
>A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you
>ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a
>measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop
>other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable
>answer. That is what I'm saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And
>with superstitions, you don't get facts you can use. You only get
>stories, most of which are designed to enforce the
>superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece
>together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing
>things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be
>deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases,
>as we have been led to believe. In the US, there are groups of
>mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood
>vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at
>meetings. They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has
>been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on
>the whole thing.
>
>
>
>Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you
>raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every
>day and he was loved by his parents, and he didn't get the measles
>vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average
>child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day
>and gets the measles vaccine?
>
>
>
>A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the
>better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he
>gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter
>than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the
>first child every time.
>
>
>
>Q: How long did you work with vaccines?
>
>
>
>A: A long time. Longer than ten years.
>
>
>
>Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that
>vaccines are successful?
>
>
>
>A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow
>is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would
>change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I'm
>not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the
>system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you
>can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic
>views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.
>
>
>
>Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and
>appear to be healthy.
>
>
>
>A: The operative word is "appear". What about all the children who
>can't focus on their studies? What about the children who have
>tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not
>quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are
>many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would
>not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And
>frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last
>word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a
>contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both.
>
>
>
>Q: So we come to the level playing field.
>
>
>
>A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the
>dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there
>is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And
>when babies are involved, you have parents making all the
>decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about
>the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information
>did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It
>was not real information.
>
>
>
>Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out
>of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids
>don't get shots.
>
>
>
>A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it
>with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is
>always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide
>whether to do it. It is every person's responsibility to make up
>his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that
>the fear will win.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>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
>government's National Institutes of Health.
>
>
>
>Mark retired during the last decade. He says he was "disgusted with
>what he discovered about vaccines."
>
>
>Page 10 ­ Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher
>
>
>
>As you know, since the beginning of nomorefakenews, I have been
>launching an attack against non-scientific and dangerous assertions
>about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
>
>
>
>Mark has been one of my sources.
>
>
>
>He is a little reluctant to speak out, even under the cover of
>anonymity, but with the current push to make vaccines mandatory ­
>with penalties like quarantine lurking in the wings ­ he has decided
>to break his silence.
>
>
>
>He lives comfortably in retirement, but like many of my long-time
>sources, he has developed a conscience about his former work. Mark
>is well aware of the scope of the medical cartel and its goals of
>depopulation, mind control, and general debilitation of populations.
>
>
>http://www.whale.to/v/rapp.html
>