All Episodes
Previous Next
March 20, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
01:05:59
Interview with Dr Suzanne Humphries about vaccines
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome, everyone.
This is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger with naturalnews.com with a special announcement and a special guest today about vaccines.
Our guest is Dr.
Suzanne Humphreys who holds certifications in internal medicine and nephrology.
In other words, she's a kidney health expert.
We're going to be talking about that today.
She is involved in this new document that's been released by the International Medical Council on Vaccination called Vaccines Get the Full Story.
It's been signed by perhaps over 100 physicians and medical experts.
The number keeps rising.
We'll get into that here.
Welcome, Dr.
Humphreys, to this interview.
It's good to have you on.
Thank you, Mike.
Thank you for having us on, and thank you for posting the document with us.
It's a pleasure.
This document is quite amazing.
This is being signed by so many health professionals and practicing physicians, and it warns people about the dangers of vaccines.
But where is this really coming from?
In other words, in your practice, well, first of all, can you describe your practice and your background and what you do?
And then we'll get into why you got concerned about vaccines.
Sure.
Well, I'm a kidney specialist and I generally do kidney.
I'm 100% consultative so I do kidney care and dialysis.
I have an education in internal medicine and I went on to specialize.
And over the years, I haven't actually had a lot of involvement in vaccination because mostly, you know, dialysis patients are vaccinated through policies that are derived through the dialysis units and the doctors pretty much just sign off.
So I haven't really had a lot to do with it as much as, say, a pediatrician would.
However, I've had my doubts about vaccines for several years just on intuitive grounds and understanding immunology and seeing a lot of autoimmune disease problems.
Come through my door in highly vaccinated populations and just always wondering if that could have anything to do with it.
About, I guess it was two years ago, it was in the winter of 2009, we had several people present to our hospital in fulminant kidney failure after previously having normal kidney function and this was in some cases up to six weeks after having both their seasonal influenza vaccine and their H1N1 vaccine.
Some of these patients recovered.
Many of them required dialysis and some of them are still on dialysis.
We had two of them die.
So you noticed a possible correlation but of course not proof at that point.
So did you decide to start investigating or how did you move forward?
That's exactly it because we couldn't figure out what caused the problem in these people.
We had pretty much ruled out everything.
And generally, Mike, when that happens, we say that it's idiopathic.
And in my opinion, I think the term idiopathic is an umbrella term that really could have something to do with vaccination, not just with the flu vaccines, but I think with many other entities that I see, allergic reactions within kidneys and so on and so forth.
And we know that many of the compounds and agents Chemicals within vaccines can cause allergies.
Just for those listening, the term idiopathic usually means of unknown origin.
Exactly.
And that term is used really across the board.
It's one of my favorite terms in medicine because it's really the Latin version of saying we don't know.
Exactly.
It just means that nobody has either looked or nobody has figured it out.
Okay, sorry to interrupt you there.
I just wanted to clarify that.
Right.
So that's how it began to really increase in momentum for me, was in noticing this and starting to read what the components were, starting to go online, reading more about the other side, quote, other side, than what I had been handed to and pretty much believed, which were CDC recommendations and Medical Association recommendations.
The National Kidney Foundation has recommendations for vaccination.
And then I started doing my own research about safety and effectiveness, which is not the same as efficacy.
So after looking at all this and spending just about every night for the past year and a half, two years, reading about vaccines, I've come to the determination that We need to be doubting the safety and effectiveness of all of the vaccines at this point,
that there are many unanswered questions, that there is the potential for contamination in vaccines, that there have been contaminations historically in vaccines at times which have been covered up and sometimes they've been publicized.
Sometimes it's taken 20 to 30 years for the truth to come out about certain contaminations, carcinogenic contaminations, And it's my belief, and it's the belief of the International Medical Council on Vaccination, that the vaccine program needs to be questioned insofar as saying that vaccines are safe, effective, and harmless.
Okay, now, hold on.
Let me counter this with the logic of those who are really in favor of vaccines, who say vaccines save lives That vaccines are crucial for stopping the spread of infectious disease.
And most importantly, they point to the history of smallpox and polio, which they say both of those pandemics essentially were eradicated through vaccines alone.
What would you say to that kind of answer to what you've just said?
Well, the truth is that I at one point believed that to be so myself.
That's certainly what all doctors are taught in medical school, and we have no reason to doubt that unless we have a reason to start doubting any of the information that we're told about vaccines.
And the truth is that when one is to go back and read about the history of the smallpox epidemics that happened in Europe and England, Back in the 1700s and how that vaccine was developed and what was in it.
And the reports of outbreaks happening in highly vaccinated populations, the reports of the death rate and the smallpox rate actually increasing in vaccinated populations and decreasing as the vaccinations were in certain counties and cities in England rejected,
that the smallpox rate plummeted When you realize that the smallpox vaccine doesn't even have the virus that causes smallpox in it, it actually has the virus that causes cowpox, which is not the same virus, it's genetically different,
then we have to start questioning the reasoning and the logic behind saying that a vaccine that has orthopox, if I can remember the name, it's orthopox vaccinium in it, can protect against Smallpox,
which is orthopox variola, and indeed there are many reports in the United Kingdom of supposed prevention of smallpox happening after being vaccinated with cowpox, but there are also many reports which have been suppressed over the years that speak to highly vaccinated populations still developing smallpox, and indeed people who have even had cowpox developing smallpox later.
So this cowpox It has not been proven to prevent smallpox.
And in fact, by the CDC's own admission, you can find this online.
It says, quote, authorities are uncertain what levels of antibodies are necessary to protect against smallpox infection.
And they also go on to admit, quote, in fact, it has never been proven that the vaccine is effective against smallpox at all.
So those are statements that you can find online that there have...
There have not been adequate studies to prove That the Calpox vaccine is highly protective against smallpox.
Okay, but let me answer that with this criticism.
The issue here is that you're trying to approach vaccines from the point of view of logic and reason and based on the evidence.
I mean, that's not the way the vaccine industry works.
It's magic and wishful thinking and leaving things out and so on.
You can't possibly think that we have to approach this with logic and reason, can you?
Obviously, I'm being a little bit facetious here, but isn't that the truth of the situation?
Well, the truth is that the people that want to argue with us, the people that are for vaccines, want us always to have logic, reason, proof, evidence, data to support our claims.
Yet the pro-vaccine side has yet to do a study that compares vaccinated to unvaccinated children or adults.
Right.
And when you really do start to look at their research, you see how flimsy it is.
You see that when they call something a placebo.
Now, in the good old days, a placebo would be something that's inactive.
It would be something like a sugar pill or a saline injection.
And when you look at vaccine studies, what they're using as placebos are either An injection of aluminum, which is kind of the background agent of a vaccine, or just the background chemicals of a vaccine, or my favorite placebo, which was the hepatitis A vaccine, which was used to test influenza vaccines up in Canada on Amish children.
Unbelievable.
Yes.
Alright, so they refuse to test vaccines in a truly randomized, placebo-controlled study that would use unvaccinated children, let's say, as a control group.
Why do they refuse to do that?
Well, they say that it would be unethical.
At times, that's one of the arguments they use, that it would be unethical to not give the unvaccinated group any kind of protective vaccine, when indeed you could be.
That's the biggest excuse that I hear why there's not an unvaccinated versus vaccinated formal study done in that way.
There was actually one which we do refer to in our flyer here.
It's called the Cal Oregon study, but that was done by a private group, and it did indeed show an enormous difference in the health of the children that were unvaccinated, and you can go and read about that if you look at the reference on the flyer that we're putting out.
Okay.
What about this issue of every time there's a local outbreak of seasonal flu, for example, or sometimes measles?
You'll read about local outbreaks of measles in certain cities and all the health experts will get on the radio and TV and they will say, well, if more children had just been vaccinated, this outbreak wouldn't have happened.
What's your answer to that?
Well, their logic, which is devoid of scientific proof, is to just keep giving more vaccine.
Maybe there weren't enough doses given, or there was one unvaccinated person in a group, and that was all that you need.
But the real truth is that when you go and look at these populations, the recent, as you mentioned, the mumps outbreak in New York and New Jersey, is that those kids were They were differently vaccinated.
Some of them had all the vaccines and some of them just had one or two, but all in all, They were at least 60% highly vaccinated populations.
There's another report in Illinois from back in 1984 where 100% of the high school students who developed measles were vaccinated, fully vaccinated for the measles.
There were some children below 15 months of age that were unvaccinated in that town, but the high school students We're 100% vaccinated for measles and still develop the outbreaks.
Now, this is not uncommon.
In fact, live vaccines are known to spread the diseases that they're being vaccinated for, including chickenpox and their other live viruses.
There are some influenza viruses that are live and can also, the package insert, say, to stay away from immunosuppressed people, and they basically list the symptoms and side effects of the vaccine, which sounds like influenza.
So with measles and mumps, There certainly are, and pertussis is the other one.
Pertussis outbreaks, which we're hearing a lot about these days, come in waves naturally, just like most infectious diseases do.
They come in waves over the years.
Well, there have been outbreaks lately, but if you look at the vaccine literature, you will see many reports of highly vaccinated populations developing pertussis.
People don't tend to, I should say, doctors don't tend to look for the diagnosis in a patient who is vaccinated.
They did a prospective study, and it's published in the British Medical Journal on children who developed cough, and they looked at all those children, and of all of them who had pertussis, they then went to look to see if they were vaccinated.
Indeed, 86% of the children who developed pertussis were fully vaccinated.
Well, this is one of the areas that the vaccine researchers and companies really won't talk about, which is what I call the reinfection rate.
For example, those who are vaccinated against seasonal flu each year They appear to have a much higher likelihood of actually getting sick with the flu that year.
We don't know the exact numbers, but the reason we don't know is because no one will do the research.
It's like they really don't want to look too closely at that issue because they're afraid the numbers are going to show that vaccines just don't work.
Well, not only does they don't work, but one of my concerns about them is that could they actually be immunosuppressing?
Could that be why we see influenza or other, you know, there are many adults who get vaccinated for pneumonia.
Whenever I get consulted on a case, of an adult with pneumonia I always ask them if they got their vaccine and almost a hundred percent of them say that they did and when I say this to my colleagues they say oh but that only protects against X number of strains but it must have been a different strain and there's always been an argument there's always a reason why this happens back to smallpox in the day in the day of smallpox in the UK that the reports show that people who were vaccinated for smallpox And later developed smallpox had a higher mortality rate than people who were unvaccinated
and later were infected with smallpox.
So we have to wonder if these vaccines are immunosuppressing and there are certainly a lot of very valid scientific reasons that the toxins that are in vaccines could potentially be immunosuppressing.
Let's get to that in a little bit.
I really want to ask you about the contaminants and specifically the ones that you think are the most dangerous.
But I want to get back to something you mentioned a minute ago about how many vaccines have actually been shown to spread the very disease that they were claiming to protect against.
And I've seen this too.
I've seen this documented in many cases.
A lot of times they were...
Vaccine batch mistakes that ended up having live viruses that were just highly infectious and very aggressive and so on.
And they were injecting these into people and causing the very disease that they claimed to defend against.
But isn't this a really clever marketing model?
You know, if you can convince people that the vaccines protect them and then you create this scare by injecting the first batch of people and then the disease starts to spread.
Now, I'm not saying that it may not spread through some other natural mechanism, but the vaccines could add to it.
They could actually make the pandemic worse, so to speak.
Then you have more fear, and then you get more people vaccinated, and it just snowballs until you've sold $10 billion worth of vaccines and created the very disease that you were supposed to defend against.
Do you think that that is happening at any level?
Absolutely, I do.
We know that the polio vaccines in the past, when they were live, were spreading the disease.
We know that there have been problems with If you're not aware of this, there's something called the Cutter Incident, which happened in the beginning back in the 1940s when the original polio vaccines were being developed and tested.
They all passed their initial tests when they were being standardized by the government, but then when the vaccine company...
What happens is the government decides what's safe and how to make the vaccines, and then they basically recommend to the vaccine companies how it should be done.
And sometimes the vaccine companies can't live up to those standards.
And there was an incident by what was called Cutter Labs where the polio was supposed to be inactivated because this was the injected inactivated vaccine, the original one.
And what happened was that the polio wasn't all inactivated.
And so not only did the people who were injected with it develop paralysis in the limb that it was injected in, And many of them developed more than that paralysis.
Some of them died.
But also people that were exposed to them developed polio and symptoms of polio.
So they really did seed the pandemic.
That's right.
And there are reports from the CDC online of people traveling to Costa Rica, Americans traveling to Costa Rica and being exposed to a child who had recently received a live polio virus and then the American developed polio.
So we certainly see it with that happening.
We see shingles outbreaks in children who are being vaccinated for chicken pox.
So certainly the live vaccines have the potential to do this.
Absolutely.
And yet, the other element that's really disturbing about all of this is that this evidence gets thrown out in conventional circles, in the medical journals, in the minds of most conventional physicians, not all, but most, in medical schools and in the mainstream media.
They simply they selectively choose to ignore all evidence that would show their vaccines to be potentially risky.
It's it's as if even asking the question, is there risk associated with the vaccine?
But that question alone puts you in that they put you in a box of a kook or a nut job just for merely asking the question.
So we see an across the board abandonment of scientific principles of of data discovery and analysis.
And I mean.
How much damage do you think is being done to the institution of science because of this?
Well, I think there's huge amounts of damage being done, and I couldn't have said it better myself that the medical institutions for years now have really been It's been contributed heavily to by the pharmaceutical industry and I believe that that's now the case with most of the medical journals.
We know that they sponsor the, if you look at a medical journal, there are many ads for pharmaceutical companies in them.
Certainly the doctors that are writing pro-vaccine articles, there was one that came out recently that I've just written a rebuttal with.
With Jennifer Craig, who wrote Jabs, Jenner, and Juggernauts, and we've written a rebuttal to this New England Journal of Medicine article, which basically has a couple of references, but even my conservative medical partner admitted that they didn't have any ammunition with their article.
But if you look at their conflicts of interest of the two people who wrote this article, that they both personally accepted money from At least 10 different vaccine companies and drug companies and that they've accepted money from drug companies for their institutions.
We see that across the board almost.
Right.
And the medical journals themselves.
For example, when you had the British Medical Journal going after Dr.
Wakefield claiming that he falsified the data for his studies, That journal did not bother to say that, oh, hey, all of our salaries are essentially paid by the vaccine companies because that's who our advertisers are.
That's right.
Well, to me, the shining issue with that case, which I prefer not to get into too in-depth because I think that's been covered adequately very well in a lot of other places.
You may have even covered it.
But to me, the shining light with that is that they woke up to a 12-year-old case report that was sitting in that journal right about the time that Dr.
Wakefield was about to publish an article showing how vaccinated Some infant monkeys performed so much more poorly than their unvaccinated counterparts.
Some of them lost their suckling reflexes.
It was going to be a very damning study to the vaccine industry if it was published.
In fact, other people have validated his findings.
So I find the timing of when they dredged this up to tell the whole story really.
Yeah, well, there's been breaking news.
I don't know if you've even seen this because we're talking a few days before this is airing, but as of this morning, Dr.
Wakefield has posted new documents proving his innocence, establishing his innocence, and calling for a retraction from the British Medical Journal.
And these documents show that a separate team of investigators had analyzed and documented These problems with many of the same children that were in the 1998 Lancet study and that this predated Dr.
Wakefield's research by about 14 months.
And so his findings were replicated and they were independently documented by someone else.
And that refutes the British Medical Journal's claims that he fabricated the data.
Yes.
I do believe in the end that this whole case is going to turn against the vaccine industry.
I really do.
And we'll just wait to see.
I agree with you.
And I think that the vaccine industry, they are hurting themselves in this because their desperation really shows now.
It's like, well, if vaccines were really so safe, why would they have to go through all of this trouble to lie and distort and destroy the reputations of people just to try to cover up vaccines?
That's right.
And why wouldn't you have a public that was more believing that you wouldn't have to, you know, start mandating and considering forcibly vaccinating, which has been done in parts of the world and could easily be done again now if we don't start to do something about it?
Exactly.
And as you mentioned earlier, why wouldn't they test vaccines versus unvaccinated children?
I mean, that's sort of that's like high school science class, isn't it?
Well, there's so much of this that's so incredibly outrageous that you do just have to laugh about it.
Even if you look at the Dr.
Wakefield case, even if you just listen to that man talk, I mean, the integrity just leaks out of him and his story makes complete sense and the pharmaceutical story doesn't make any sense to me.
It makes sense why they're doing what they're doing but it's so very transparent.
And it's at times so outrageous how they claim to have evidence and proof of safety and efficiency or efficacy of their vaccines.
And in fact, nobody has really done a long-term placebo-controlled prospective study to show that any vaccine is safe.
What they do is they look at one little thing for a vaccine.
Do people die within 48 hours?
Do they get the disease?
I'm sorry, do they have to develop antibody?
They don't look even at most of the time to see if they develop the disease that they've been vaccinated for.
And the problem that bothers me the most is that they don't look at the full picture.
So what if you've stopped chickenpox from happening?
At what expense are we doing this?
The cancer rates in our country have soared.
We have the number seven cancer rate in the world.
Highly vaccinated countries have the highest Now, is that because of environmental problems?
Shouldn't we at least ask the question, could they be related to vaccines?
But even questioning that puts one in the category of heretic.
I've worked in academia, I've got a spotless record, and now people are starting to look at me sideways as if I may have a mental disorder because I'm doubting vaccines and because I'm upset about how they're being forced upon hospital staff and patients of mine who happen to be Very, very ill who I don't want vaccinated.
Hospitals will come along and vaccinate them if I don't write an order not to.
Wow.
Well, this all gets back to the structure of medical authority and even scientific knowledge, I think.
This is a really big issue.
For example, most conventional physicians are very, very busy people.
I mean, I know many of them.
I'm actually friends with many, many general practitioners, and they're extremely busy.
You know, they're doing the rounds and they're dealing with patients and they're on call and so on.
And so they don't have time to do the research themselves on any subject, really.
So what they do is they rely on medical journals and specialists and others who are essentially aggregators of knowledge who then declare, you know, this is the conclusion based on all this research I've done.
And as a physician, you're forced by the limits of human time To accept those views if you believe, if you think that the whole institution has credibility.
But what you're hinting at here and what we're seeing with vaccines is that there is a crack or a giant chasm, actually, in the credibility mythology of conventional medicine.
Because now we see that those who are in positions of authority are fronting obvious falsehoods that are then widely believed and widely embraced by doctors who frankly should know better.
Absolutely.
Well, if doctors truly want to do no harm, then they need to see that we are at a critical time period right now where in the past maybe we could have sat back and taken recommendations, but we're at a time when this vaccine debate is very heated up.
And in my opinion...
No matter how busy a doctor is, I believe it is their responsibility to pick up a book.
There are books that are only 100 pages long.
There's no excuse now not to go and try to see both sides of the story and come to our own determination and that is the task that I hold physicians to do.
It's not that much work.
We shouldn't let them off the hook in this day and age given what's going on.
It's their duty and responsibility given that thousands of people and their lives and their safety are at their hands that they need to know exactly what they're doing to people.
They need to know what's in the injections that they're giving.
They need to know the side effects and moreover they need to learn to make the connection between side effects and And new diseases that come up that maybe are not idiopathic.
And I hold physicians responsible to do this.
Maybe the physicians in the middle and the bottom can do this.
Maybe there are people at the top that are making rules and are corrupt.
I don't know.
But I'm telling my peers and the people around me that now it has become, given the political scenario that we're living in, our responsibility no matter how busy we are.
Doctors have experience with being up all night, with lack of sleep, with being driven to do hard work.
This is not that hard of a thing for doctors to do.
Alright, let's talk about some of these things, the vaccine contaminants.
Now you mentioned earlier that you began to see a correlation between flu vaccines and kidney failure and you even mentioned that a couple of those patients Died after that.
I'm not saying that the vaccine necessarily was the cause, but you observed this potential correlation.
Can you get into, just review very quickly, what kinds of side effects that you are seeing that may be correlated to vaccines?
And then let's get into the contaminants themselves.
Okay, sure.
Well, let me just first start out by a disclaimer by saying that I have not proven and I have not determined the absolute cause of the kidney failure in my patients.
What I will say is that in many cases it is temporarily related to vaccines, not just influenza vaccines, but I've seen recently a gentleman be admitted into the intensive care unit with extremely high blood pressure and a change in his thinking two days after receiving a tetanus vaccine that, in my opinion, he actually didn't even need.
So we have these events happening and some people are already sick and what I see happening is that they're getting sicker and sometimes they get sicker with what they've already had going on and sometimes they develop something new and what I've been charting and keeping track of over the past two years are patients that I've been caring for who have inflammatory kidney disorders.
Meaning that their kidney function is impaired, that they're spilling protein into their urine, and in many of these cases, we know what it looks like under the microscope, and we try to hold it at bay with certain drugs.
And in many of these cases, we've successfully been able to hold these disease entities at bay using certain drugs, only to see that a few weeks after receiving a vaccine that the condition deteriorates.
And in some cases, we're able to get them back into remission, But in many other cases, we're not able to do that.
So that's one whole class of people.
And the argument that I'm given is that, well, there's a huge denominator, Dr.
Humphreys.
So many people are being vaccinated.
In fact, almost everybody's being vaccinated.
So how can you say that this is what's causing it?
That's some fascinating logic, by the way.
Well, this is doctor logic.
This is the doctor logic that's given back to me.
And the problem is that, you know, the truth is doctors don't really know in depth much of what They are practicing.
They don't know the contents of many of the injections that are given.
By that logic, I mean, if the vaccines are harmful and they harm everyone equally, then it's not the fault of the vaccines.
Well, the thing is it doesn't appear to harm everyone equally.
In fact, there are many children who go through the entire vaccination program and seem to be okay.
The problem with that is it's probably attributed to their impeccable immune system and detoxification functions, but when at what point will those systems be overwhelmed?
And at what point will the vaccine tip them over the scale?
And what's going to happen to them as they grow older as any potential carcinogens or what we call oncoviruses, cancer-producing viruses, could have been injected into them, which can take up to 20 to 30 years to manifest.
Nobody is looking for any association between long-term cancer rates after vaccination.
And there are a lot of reasons, in my opinion, for that.
The cancer industry is a very, very lucrative industry.
Indeed it is.
All kinds of money to be made there.
We've talked about that in the past.
But I think you're right here that once these vaccines are given, no one is tracking the long-term potential for harm.
In fact, a typical vaccine clinical trial, let's say, for seasonal flu vaccines, and they may only look at patients for two to four weeks and a very small number at that.
That's right.
Quite outrageous actually.
They're always small numbers and the four weeks is the longest I've seen one of the studies done for and that's it's just not enough.
In fact I've seen people show up up to six weeks later with temporarily related Kidney problems after vaccines.
I believe that when we're causing inflammation and elevations, inflammatory mediators, things that we can actually measure that are documented in conventional literature that something called CRP, which is a measurement of inflammation, is known to be elevated for up to a week or two after vaccines.
Cholesterol levels can be altered after vaccines, so wouldn't you think that could potentially set somebody up who has a stable plaque and maybe one of their coronary arteries to lodge loose, become inflamed, and have a heart attack?
And in fact, I have seen people present with heart attacks and worsening of their congested heart failure temporarily related to a vaccine.
Well, you're right on track here, and I think this gets us right to the contaminants.
In the vaccine, in addition to typically the weakened live viruses, there are also all of these other elements, adjuvants and so on.
For example, what could be causing elevated C-reactive proteins or some of these immunosuppression effects that you're seeing?
Well, to me, some of the most alarming information that I've encountered about vaccines are the ones that are made in animal cultures, and they are different animals.
Most people believe that a vaccine is a nice, clear, sterile water with some inactive, sterile particles of a germ that when you're injected with, you'll develop an immune response and be protected, but that couldn't be farther from the truth.
So in order to make a vaccine you have to be able to grow the pathogen or the bacteria or virus that you're wanting to vaccinate with somewhere.
Over the years they've used monkey kidneys, they've used monkey testicles.
Now monkeys are very related to us as we all know genetically.
So viruses that can live in monkeys cannot cause disease in monkeys, yet when they're put into our bodies can cause disease, can cause cancer and we see this in the kidney transplant population.
It's documented in the kidney transplant population.
We know that the simian virus 40 SV40 virus that came in the polio virus is potentially up to 1999 and potentially still to this day.
If old vaccine lots are being used for seed cultures.
So we know that these viruses have happened in this way.
Okay, so now we're culturing disease matter on animal cells.
So we're using chickens, cows, and monkeys are still being used to this day.
Not the same kind of monkeys that they used back then.
They've actually even used chimpanzees, which was a big no-no back in the day.
So the cell cultures are the base where things start.
So anything that this animal could have been harboring, that could have been harmless to them, can potentially be in the vaccine cultures.
And the kicker is that it won't be discovered unless there's a special test In other words, you have to know that it's there.
You have to care to look for it.
You have to have developed a test to look for it.
So in effect, every vaccine that's grown on an animal culture has the potential to have a surprise virus in it that could do All sorts of myriad things to human beings, including mutate into new viruses.
We've seen viruses hybridized.
We've seen an adenovirus hybridized with an SV40 virus.
We know that some of the DNA particles from this disease matter can get into our DNA and alter us.
And in my opinion, these vaccines are turning us into genetically modified organisms.
Whoa, mutants.
We're like cross-species mutants.
That's right.
I'm not making fun of you, by the way.
I'm expressing genuine concern, but I also want to set the scene here.
You're talking about...
I want to make sure people get this picture in their heads because...
We're talking about essentially rows and rows of monkeys inside little cages.
Imagine the scene in the Matrix, and they're inoculated with infectious disease.
You said some of these viruses are grown in monkey testicles.
That's right.
And so you have these...
Animals and monkeys, which I believe, by the way, are conscious beings.
Absolutely.
They are intelligent mammals with high intelligence, high social interaction, memories and everything.
So they are being infected and diseased by the vaccine companies.
And then those diseases are allowed to fester in the bodies of these monkeys.
That's right.
We don't even know how much pain is involved.
We don't know at what point are the monkeys euthanized and then their tissues are harvested.
People don't get this.
You're injecting yourself with dead monkey balls that have been infected.
The average person has no clue that this is what's going on.
That's right.
I mean, the suffering, in my opinion, it's absolutely heartbreaking.
There are several books that I've tried to read and they're so heartbreaking with what happens from taking these monkeys out of their native lands to caging them in inhumane conditions.
And monkeys do not want to be put in cages.
They do not want to be test subjects.
They're vicious.
They will bite.
They've killed their captors at times.
And the conditions that they've been kept in, and some of them have had things injected into their brains.
They've had, of course, disease matter inflicted into them.
Their children, their young are taken away from them for more experiments.
It's just horrific, and I absolutely, not just that monkeys are conscious beings, but they all are.
Cows are too, but up the hierarchy of consciousness, monkeys are right there below us.
And indeed, all of these disease cultures and the torture and just awfulness that happens to the animals that are being used really needs to be known by people that are accepting vaccines wholeheartedly without questioning.
This brings up an idea.
I'm going to ask for your help.
Would you help me write a script for what we'll do?
We'll release an animation.
And we have our animators.
And I'll narrate the script.
But we need a script to tell this story.
And then we'll animate it.
And maybe we could call it How Vaccines Are Really Made.
Absolutely.
And we actually, we animate it.
We show the monkeys in the cages.
We show the monkey testicles.
We show the monkey bodies festering with these viruses.
We show how they're harvested.
We show how it's turned into a vaccine.
Then we show it being injected in little children.
I mean...
Absolutely.
I've already got it done.
I actually am working on a PowerPoint presentation with just this because to me it's been the most horrifying part of my vaccine discovery is the animals, the cells, the contaminants, and just as you're putting it out there.
Could we adapt then your presentation?
And of course, with credit, we would give you credit, of course, but could we adapt your presentation and maybe turn it into an animation script?
Sure.
When I'm finished with it, I'll give it to you and you can do what you'd like with it.
Okay.
All right.
Then definitely hang on after this interview.
I'll give you my direct email address so we can keep in touch on that.
I find that not only the average person on the street is completely ignorant of vaccines.
I don't mean they're unintelligent or stupid.
What I mean is they just don't know the facts.
It's trusting.
It's blind faith.
Exactly.
But physicians are in the same boat.
I can't tell you how many times I've been talking with a physician, a practicing physician, a friend or someone who's at an event and I'm meeting them and they do not know this.
Right.
Well, that's true of most of the people that I speak to, and it was true of me up until two years ago.
Basically, in medical school, things have changed a little bit now.
Now there's some education, but it's only to educate medical students how to talk to people like me.
But in the old days, there was no education about vaccines, and basically, when you did your pediatric rotation, you were given the vaccine schedule.
And you were told what it was, and we all believe that Salk and Sabin, who developed the polio vaccines, were a couple of heroes that saved all the children in the 1940s and 50s from paralysis.
And we bought it hook, line, and sinker.
And now there's been a lot of light thrown onto the topic, and a lot of questions are being asked after 200 years.
Well, it's about time.
Now, let's get on to the contaminants here.
What would you say are the three most potentially dangerous chemical additives in vaccines?
Okay.
Well, what I would want to say is, you know, toxicology is kind of one of my areas of interest as a nephrologist.
And my gestalt at this point is that what we've done is created the perfect storm with a lot of little bits of different things that we don't know what the interactions are.
So not only can we just say, well, this X contaminant or X adjuvant or X preservative It's known to be toxic, but then when we start combining them together, I think that the added toxicity is humongous.
So I think that mercury and thimerosal have been spoken about ad nauseum, and we've all been told, don't worry, we've taken that mercury out of the pediatric vaccines.
Well, what they've done is they've taken the large doses out, but there are still trace amounts that can be left in, mostly, I believe that it can be bound to the proteins that are They remain bound to it, which can be released and can settle to the bottom of a vaccine vial.
So if you're the last kid to get your vaccine, you could potentially get a nice whopping dose of mercury still to this day.
They did not take it out of all of the influenza vaccines.
In fact, more than half of the influenza vaccines for adults and children still have between 12.5 and 50 micrograms of mercury, therisimerosal, mostly for adults.
It's in the 25 microgram range.
They have now manufactured some without the mercury.
But this is one of the things that the vaccine proponents keep screaming about.
They say there's no more mercury.
It's all been taken out.
They say there's no more, and they also say that it's really not that bad, that we're breathing it, we're eating it, it's in tuna, you shouldn't worry.
And we say, well, that's right, but when you're eating it, your entire, you know, your enterohepatic detoxification system has direct access to that as it's being digested, whereas when you're injecting it into a muscle system, The system doesn't have the same access to it, and in fact, it can then have access to passing through the blood-brain barrier and causing all sorts of havoc.
In fact, if you put mercury in a cell culture, the cells will die.
Cells can't live with mercury in the presence of it.
I mean, it was an antibiotic for hundreds of years.
And it was a toxin that was used actually as a diuretic because how it worked is that it poisoned the kidney tube bills so that the sodium and the water couldn't be reabsorbed.
So mercurials were also used as diuretics back in the day and they poisoned the kidneys to do that.
There's a whole fascinating history of actual conventional doctors using mercury vapors as medicine.
I think we're going to say the same thing.
Untested drugs are not a new entity.
But now that we have the ability to test things and we have the scientific technology that we have, we can look back and be able to tell a completely different story.
Okay, so we have the mercury, which goes, for most of us who believe that vaccines are dangerous, that's a no-brainer.
But we're still at odds with the pro-vaccination camp situation.
It's literally a no-brainer because it destroys neurological function.
And then we have aluminum hydroxide, which is used as an adjuvant in vaccines.
And an adjuvant is something that basically revs up the immune system at the site of the injection so that maybe you don't have to use as much of the disease matter as you would have.
You can save money.
It's one of the reasons, or because people don't respond well to the initial injection, so let's put this quote adjuvant.
That always sounds such a happy word to me, isn't it?
But it's really quite a toxic thing that goes in there.
So aluminum hydroxide is a metallic substance.
It's actually, if you look at it microscopically, shaped like tiny little microscopic needles.
And so these needles basically get absorbed by the body as much as possible and tie up our macrophage system, which is another part of our immune system that's now tied up by taking care of this aluminum.
But we also know that aluminum is, we know this, this is not even a subject for debate, that aluminum is toxic to brains, it's toxic to bone marrow.
It's just toxic.
It's toxic to kidneys as well.
And it also has a cumulative effect, and there can be large amounts of aluminum depending on how many vaccines a child would receive.
Before you move on, so far we have mercury and aluminum, and it doesn't take a genius to look at the periodic table of elements.
That's right.
And figure out some of the toxicity on these things.
But the industry always says, no, it's safe at these doses.
That's right.
And you see this in the dentistry, by the way, when they're putting mercury fillings in babies' mouths and those fillings are cracking and off-gassing and there's mercury vapor being absorbed.
They say, oh, well, you know, the body can handle a certain amount.
It's no big deal.
That's right.
But what you're talking about is now we have a combination.
We have a multiplication and we have a long-term cumulative effect of these metals on the body.
That's right.
And they do say it's only a tiny bit, but if you actually look at the concentrations that are in, that's what you want to look at.
You want to look at micrograms per volume or per ml.
And if you look at the concentrations and you change that, you convert them over to parts per million, and then you look and see what the EPA considers toxic.
All of what we're talking about here far exceeds, sometimes two to three times, or even more than that, what the EPA deems toxic.
And we're directly injecting it right in.
So we're not breathing it.
We're not diluting it in air.
We're directly injecting it into our body.
And what the pro-vaccine people say is, well, you know, but it's into your body, which is a mass of its own.
It doesn't have aluminum in it, and it will be diluted, and then the concentration will fall.
But until that concentration falls and until our detoxification mechanisms have access to it, it's toxic.
Well, I think it's fascinating how the vaccine apologists, let's say, they have all these fairy tales.
They have their own mythology.
They have these stories.
And, you know, much of human knowledge has actually been passed down in the form of stories for, you know, many, many tens of thousands of generations.
And stories are what people turn to to be able to make these explanations.
But yet, we're talking about science now, where the story needs to be backed up by something, and it isn't.
Nevertheless, the story keeps being repeated over and over and over again, hoping that enough repetition will make it truthful.
The story is repeated and it's also, you know, bent to suit the needs of medical historians, pharmaceutical profiteers, ill-informed government officials.
The stories tend to be, you know, you can describe, for instance, how antibodies work has to be described differently for smallpox than what we're telling everybody about.
about influenza vaccines, the science there just doesn't pan out.
It doesn't match up to their story.
So you're absolutely right and I say this all the time that this is fantasy, that these are stories, that these things have not been proven with science and cold hard fact data.
Even if you believe that that really tells that much because I believe that science is actually very limited and that It's one of many pathways to knowledge.
It's a tool is what it is.
It's a tool to describe creation which is indescribable.
I'm with you on that.
There are many other pathways to gaining understanding about who we are and the world around us.
But these stories, I just have to throw this in here.
Even at the veterinarian, I took my dog to the vet and they said, has your dog been vaccinated this year?
I said, well, what do you mean this year?
I said, well, they have to be vaccinated every year.
I'm like, well, wait a minute.
I thought the whole mythology around these is that once you get a vaccine, then you create antibodies and the antibodies last a lifetime.
I mean, your body has that database of antibodies.
So why do you need the same exact vaccine for the same viral strain year after year after year?
And imagine the cumulative toxicity of all the mercury.
If you look at somebody getting vaccinated from when they're six months of age until they're, hopefully if they live long enough to be into old age, the amount of mercury accumulation over time is just absolutely absurd.
Exactly, exactly.
And their response to all that was, the vaccines wear out.
That's right.
They wear out.
Well, the thing is, you know, we can check titers and there are vets with a consciousness, but unfortunately, many vets have fallen to the same forces that the medical doctors have, is that it's become a business and they've been handed the doctrine and many of them believe it.
I actually have found a vet that doesn't believe it.
And there are vets out there that are willing to do antibody titers, which is basically if you were to see what the concentration of antibody is to rabies, then your pet won't need a rabies vaccine.
So I recommend that people get titers.
I recommend that humans get titers if they're being forced to be vaccinated against something for some reason for a job.
But pets only, I believe by law, the pets are only required to get the rabies vaccine.
They're not required to get any of the other ones.
And my dog has had titers now for eight years without needing to be revaccinated.
And it actually can be very harmful to revaccinate a dog or a human or anyone who already has high titers of something.
So the vaccines wear off, whereas if you were to have a natural infection with something, in many cases, i.e.
for pertussis, whooping cough, we would maintain our immunity for 18 to 20 years.
For chicken pox, the same thing.
And part of why we're seeing so much epidemic of shingles right now is because as adults, we're not being exposed to children with chicken pox.
And so being exposed to a child with chickenpox essentially is like a mini-vaccination, a natural mini-vaccination.
And so natural immunity by far and away, in my opinion and the opinion of many educated professionals, is that natural immunity is a whole different ballgame.
If you look at how the T cells and the B cells function for natural immunity than what happens after a vaccine, and natural immunity actually builds the immune system to be stronger, whereas a vaccine can actually degrade the immune system.
Absolutely.
And I got to throw this in too.
I remember when we were covering the H1N1 pandemic a year ago or so, a year and two years ago, they would say that some people might have natural immunity to it because they survived the influenza pandemic of 1968 or even some if they were very old going back to 1918.
And this was commonly said in the press that they might have natural immunity.
But then at the same time, they say, oh, well, you know, you've got to get vaccinated every year for all these different strains.
But then another story comes out that says, well, by the way, if you were infected with H1N1 and you survived it, which almost everybody did, then you have superimmunity.
Superimmunity that can make you immune to potentially thousands or tens of thousands of different strains of influenza in the years ahead.
So even their own stories are inconsistent.
That's right.
Well, you can see their own stories that are inconsistent if you just go on the CDC's websites and read on the dangers of these vaccines, but certainly this information speaks to that as well.
And Dr.
Sherry Tenpenny wrote a fantastic book.
It's one of my favorite books, and it's called Foul Bird Flu.
It's Not What You Think.
And it's along with what you're talking about is...
It explains where potentially these flus come from, ice, swine flu, bird flu, what the real history is behind it.
And then really, she questions and I also question, why are we not checking titers on people before we're giving them influenza vaccines full of mercury, formaldehyde, phenol, whatever is in it?
Why are we not doing that?
All right.
Sorry, I get off track here, but we've got to get back to the third contaminant that you were about to mention.
Well, now I just kind of...
I had another one pop in, but okay, so I was going to say phenol, but now I have to say formaldehyde is my third one.
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and toxin.
It's embalming fluid.
And it's in many...
I believe it's in just about all of the influenza vaccines.
And it's also been in...
I don't have a list of them in front of me at the current time, but I believe it's also in some of the other measles, mumps, rubella vaccines.
And they need these substances.
This is the thing is that they need preservatives, antibiotics and things like that in vaccines because of the potential contamination of them.
So isn't that interesting?
They need stability agents because they can, you know, destabilize.
So that's why we have to have them.
It's not just because they could rot on the shelf.
It's because of what could potentially be in them.
So formaldehyde, again, I like to translate this into everyday language for people.
This is the stuff, when you were in your high school biology class and they had the human brain or the frog preserved in the vat of liquid, that's formaldehyde.
That's right.
And in most labs, you need a ventilated area to work in if you're working with formaldehyde.
I must have gone to a ghetto high school because we didn't have any venting.
When people passed out, we just...
That's right.
It's noxious.
I mean, I remember in gross anatomy my first year, it was really hard to take a deep breath.
It's a very noxious substance.
And in fact, the chief of anatomy and physiology died of lymphoma while I was there.
No kidding.
It's a very toxic carcinogenic substance.
It's known to be liver toxic.
There's no doubt about it.
And it's in FARCs.
It exceeds the concentrations that the EPA says is safe.
And it's in the vaccines.
It's in all the flu vaccines, except, I believe, for the inhaled flu vaccine.
And this gets to the point of the skin, the human skin, the largest physical organ on the body.
And obviously the whole point, well, one of the major functions of the skin is to protect the internal ecosystem from the external ecosystem.
That's right.
And vaccines directly bypass that with substances that you mentioned earlier when I think you mentioned enterohepatic processes.
That's right.
That's right.
Help remove, which by that you mean digestive and liver processes to detoxify stuff that you swallow versus stuff that gets injected directly into your muscle tissues.
That's I mean, this is like shooting up with toxic heavy metals.
That's right.
There's no way you can promote health by putting a needle and an injection, especially a vaccine, into them.
It breaches everything, all of the natural, healthful integrity of the human being.
In fact, our bodies are designed to wall off things in nature that do this to us, to form abscesses and try to reject them.
But what the vaccine does is basically just bypasses even all that walling off.
It actually invites an inflammatory response.
There are chemicals in it to invite an inflammatory response.
At the same time, there are chemicals in it that can impair white blood cell function.
So while it may recruit cells into that area, it impairs them and they don't function normally.
It's just an absolute abuse to the integrity of health.
Given the immunosuppressive properties of these vaccines, which you've already talked about, would you agree with the assessment that mass vaccination is actually setting us up, setting up humanity for extreme vulnerability to a very aggressive pandemic in the future?
Absolutely.
I think it's setting us up for potential pandemics.
I also think it's setting us up for lots of chronic degenerative diseases that are now accepted as just part of getting older.
I think they're responsible for a lot of the childhood diseases that we see that are just looked at as bad luck.
And now if there's someone that's healthy, they're actually looked at as that it's odd that someone is so healthy.
You're not on any drugs.
You're 47 years old.
How can that possibly be?
And it is a problem.
And you know, last night on the State of the Union Address, which you may not have heard but our president said that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny and it's my opinion that paralyzing brains and paralyzing immune systems with vaccines impairs that chance and it speaks against what our president said is a priority for this country and it's setting us up for all kinds of trouble in the future.
I think that a lot of the meningitis that we're seeing We have to question why a teenager, why a child is susceptible.
To me, it's about susceptibility.
This is why people get sick.
And over time, there have been a handful of things that lead people to susceptibility, which is why these outbreaks happen.
And what they are, poor sanitation, war, homelessness.
Overcrowding.
Those are some of the big ones that we see that set people up for susceptibility.
So now if we're impairing immune systems with environmental toxins, injectable toxins, pharmaceutical drugs, then susceptibility goes very high.
And we also have widespread nutritional deficiencies on top of that.
That's right.
And lots and lots of toxicity from the food.
We're getting into a situation here where so many people are sick, and you hinted at this, that it's now considered normal.
These degenerative diseases that are appearing sometimes in people's 30s and 40s when they used to maybe appear in people's 70s and 80s, these diseases are now considered normal diseases of aging.
Everything's happening at a younger and younger age, but it's considered normal.
I remember I walked into a chiropractor's office a couple of months ago for the first time as a new patient because I enjoy chiropractic care for my spine.
I do a lot of preventive type of therapy.
So I walked in there and I'm not in especially great shape or anything.
I just...
To take basic care of my health and eat well.
And his first comment was, wow, you're really healthy for someone in their 40s.
And I'm like, are you kidding me?
I mean, I was way healthier five years ago in terms of fitness, but I guess the idea that I just wasn't obese and I wasn't on 10 medications and I didn't have terrible skin from the side effects of toxic food and so on, that alone qualified me as being healthy in this office.
It astonished me.
That's right.
And it will get even more pronounced as you grow older and maintain your health, that that's even looked like as more of an anomaly.
What they say is, you know, when I see people that are that healthy, when I hear what people are saying about them, oh, they must have just had really good genes.
Well, the fact is that we're altering our genes right now and we're altering our immune systems to the point where, like you said, it has started to look normal.
And I actually know many people over the age of 70 and 80 that I pray that when I'm their age I look and act like them and I think it's completely possible and we have to get the things that don't belong in us out of us and we have to keep the things that should never be in us And that's why that we believe that refusing vaccination is a personal right that should be legislatively guaranteed so that we have the ability to maintain our good health into old age.
We believe that we should have access to organic produce.
We believe that we should have access to the supplements, the nutrients that we need to replace the things that we're not getting in this day and age of commercial produce and commercial food.
So there you have it as far as growing older gracefully, which is very possible.
It's been done in other cultures in the past and we're seeing it less and less in these advanced technological societies that are basically become debilitated and dependent on the state and on the pharmaceutical industry.
Absolutely.
And we're coming up on an hour here, so we're going to wrap this up.
But what you just mentioned reminded me that when drug companies run clinical trials these days, those trials are almost never being run on a healthy population.
Not only are they not being run on a healthy population, but what's happening now is that thousands of them are being done in poor nations to people who really don't know what they're signing up for and the results are reported to be altered.
The FDA is reported to be overlooking, say, maybe 48 studies out of, I believe it was 5,600 done in the past year overseas.
So what's happening overseas is where the studies are taking place.
And yes, we're looking at healthy people when we're doing the tests in general.
Not always.
There are studies and vaccines that are looked at in unhealthy people.
I have seen that.
But then we're translating the results of the trials into people who have all kinds of diseases, which is one of the things that I've experienced.
Have been contentious about is that none of these vaccines have really been tested for safety and efficacy.
I shouldn't say none of them.
They've done some testing with influenza vaccine on what they call efficacy, which means antibody production, but they haven't looked at whether people are actually getting influenza.
And so if you've got kidney failure, if you've got heart failure, if you're in your first day of hospitalization, Having congestive heart failure and you're an adult, you will get a pneumonia vaccine and a flu vaccine if you say that it's okay, if you don't have a reason to say no, which most people don't understand enough to say no.
Yeah.
Well, everybody's been hoodwinked by this and they've been able to steamroll over the facts and dismiss any evidence that they don't like and ignore the real scientific approach to a search for understanding.
And I think that's the great casualty in all of this.
It's not just...
It's not just the monkeys whose lives are being sacrificed to produce the vaccines, even though that's a crime against nature in my view.
It's not just those things.
It's also that through these revelations of how much the vaccine industry has distorted science and taken over the medical journals and lied about people like Dr.
Wakefield, that now we are seeing the world's...
The reputation of science eroding.
That's right.
And it's not that I'm an all believer in the cult of scientism, let's say.
But I believe that science is one of the valuable methods through which we can gain an understanding about our world and our universe if we approach it with integrity.
And that reputation is being destroyed by, in large part, the vaccine industry.
That's right.
Well, you know, they've got vast sums of money.
I mean, to me, unimaginable amounts of money.
And with that money, they've been able to influence globally the media.
They've been able to hire people to argue with us on the Internet, these people that can work full time.
You know, it seems like they're almost around the clock, some of them, arguing.
Well, they are, because a lot of them are in those developing nations where they actually run the vaccine trials.
And you can hire those people to spam the Internet.
Yeah, we've seen that, too.
That's right.
And so there's a lot of money being poured into this.
And so far, their effort has paid off for them.
But I'm really optimistic that in future years, the tide will change, the truth will come out, and people will start to finally say no to vaccines and say no to drugs.
There are alternatives, as you point out, on a daily basis, and I hope they all listen to you.
Well, let's get to your website information, Dr.
Suzanne Humphries.
What URLs would you like to share with our listeners?
Well, I would like to say that any practitioners who would like to be added as signatories for future versions of our document or would like to join our group to send an email to sayno at vaccinationcouncil.org and that the International Medical Council on Vaccination, which is an association of medical doctors, registered nurses, and other qualified medical professionals, our purpose is to counter the messages asserted by the pharmaceutical companies, government, medical agencies that vaccines are safe, effective, and harmless.
And our website is www.vaccinationcouncil.org.
You can see us there.
You can see our webinars that are listed and archived.
You can see articles by Dr.
Sherry Tenpenny, Dr.
Mayor Eisenstein, by many other doctors, Dr.
Joseph Mercola.
All those people are on there posting articles, posting information, spreading the truth, and please join us there.
All right, well said.
And we will put that URL up on the video throughout this interview so people can check that out.
Great.
Thanks for joining me today, for taking this time to share your thoughts and your concerns about vaccines.
Well, thank you very much for the opportunity.
▲
Export Selection