[Flu vaccine] [Dr Snead]

Interview of Dr Eva Snead by Gary Null

GARY NULL: One of the most outspoken, intelligent and absolutely determined physicians on public health issues that’s Dr Edith Snead. Nice to have you with us today.

DR EVA SNEAD: Nice to be with you. I appreciated all that flattery.

Well you deserve it. That’s because I wouldn’t give it if it’s not deserved. Let’s talk quickly, we have about eight minutes to talk about this latest phenomenon of everybody running out to get their flu shot and they can do that, I‘m not suggesting that they should not do that, that’s their choice but I’d like a different perspective so at least they have something to counterbalance their existing information. Why don’t you share what you consider the pros and cons of the flu vaccine?

Well we have talked about vaccines and that they are all totally unsafe. Now talking about the flu vaccine itself it’s prepared on chicken embryo, which mean unborn chicken which means that people who are allergic to these products like egg and chicken can become seriously ill and on the other hand the injection of these proteins into other humans will render them in a large percentage allergic to chicken and egg which means that people who were not allergic before will now become allergic.

The other problem is that all viral vaccines contain not only the particular virus but they also contain traces of leukaemia virus, cancer producing viruses etc. These are not completely removable, they exist in the chicken from which these eggs are taken and although they claim that they are like 98% purified, 2% of several billion viruses is still an awful lot of cancer and leukaemia dangers.

Another fact is that to separate cells we also may have to use a pork product which is made from raw pork stomach. This is an enzyme that separates the cells called pork trypsin and a lot of people who would not ingest or take pork products for religious reasons are seduced without knowing it into violating their convictions so there you have in a nutshell the beginning of why it is not very wise to take influenza vaccines.

OK. Why don’t you give us some of what you have found in the literature, some of the problems with the flu vaccine and also they’re claiming all this success. I question whether they can prove the success because you cannot disprove a negative.

That’s correct. Imagine, Gary, the gullibility of a public that not only believes that these companies give them a safe and effective product but that they give them the credence of a god that two years in advance when they start making these serums they know which particular kind of influenza is going to be causing the epidemic two years later. I mean you know these people have the utter gall to tell people that they can do it because they can’t. This is based on computer predictions and so on which are totally inaccurate. Now, you may remember the horrible epidemic of neurologic illness that we had in ’76 and although the present day vaccines don’t have that high an incidence even the package insert tells me that there’s a higher incidence of Guillaine Barre which is a sort of euphemism for a variety of polio in all people under fifty that take the influenza vaccine. So imagine the risk you are running aside from the viruses, the cancer, the leukaemia. Two or three years ago there was a rash of positive HIV and hepatitis patients in Baltimore among people who would otherwise not be expected to have a positive test. When studied all of these people had received the influenza vaccine four to six weeks prior and this was rapidly covered up by the press as you were saying in your beautiful new article that told that the press in uninquisitive today.

Do you have an example of some of the guaranteed safety vaccines that we have been given over the years only later to find out that the guarantees were unsupported by any credible science and actually were deleterious?

There is no science, credible or otherwise, this is all guess work. I mean you can’t test for something that hasn’t happened and you can’t test compared to what? I mean you don’t know that there would have been an epidemic and certainly if you put a certain variety of viruses in the public then you will find they will say "Oh we were right. Virus A or B, Australian or South American or whatever you may call it will be endemic this year". Well you know you become a self-fulfilling prophesy because you created the particular problem and not only that but the other thing that is very, very important that nobody has brought up to my knowledge is about forty years ago a study was done in England on problems with the nervous system in new born and unborn foetuses that were aborted and they discovered that the majority of children who had birth defects in the nervous system particularly and encephalus had been exposed to the flu virus. Flu virus, of course, being now in all the vaccines that people are vaccinated. In the south of Texas we are having a tremendous rash of these particular neurologic problems. Children born without a brain or part of a brain and everybody is telling the public "Oh we have not a clue of what could cause this". Well, we do have a clue, we’re just lying to the public.

Why do you think there’s such an interest in getting people to get the flu vaccine. I realise that this is subjective and giveus subjective answer.

Well the manufacturer makes money. I mean that a very simple thing. They’re seen as a wonderful product because they get the endorsement of government and health affiliations. He produces serum that costs you basically not that much to produce. You seduce the public into needing it and you sell millions and millions of doses so there’s an awful lot of money to be made. Now from the point of view of public health, again there’s money and grants to be made. I mean there are many people employed in persuading the public this problem exists and persuading them that they need it. And then of course, as you well know, we may suspect that there are other reasons that could be political or genocidal because the product is administered to large amounts of older people and as you well know in nursing homes where they receive flu vaccines there are many, many cases of flu shortly after the vaccination effort which indicates a total association and from a very crude point of view the perpetuation of life in older people particularly in nursing homes is not desirable to those that handle the funds. So of course we cannot prove this but it certainly presents a seductive hypothesis.

Again, that’s a little too seductive for my taste. I haven’t been able to make any such association but I would suggest that for them to tell us that the flu vaccines are both necessary ... I have not seen that they have either part of that scenario on hand. Dr Eva Snead thank you very much. Nice to always have you with us.