From: jad@Turing.ORG (John DiNardo)
Subject: Part 2,  U.S. Government Practices Germ Warfare on U.S. Population
Followup-To:  alt.conspiracy
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Keywords: U.S. Government Practices Germ Warfare on U.S. Population
Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:11:39 GMT

        I made the following transcript from a tape recording 
        of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station
               WBAI-FM (99.5)
               505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
               New York, NY 10018       (212) 279-0707

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
                        (continuation)
GARY NULL:
Well, in November 1986, when the story first broke, most of the
attention was focused on moral issues, since, according to the
Times, most experts did not consider that there was any real danger
to the Public or to the environment. Now why wouldn't they think
that there was any danger?  Why, simply because most media accepts
what any institute says or what any authority figure says who is
associated with an institute. Hence, orthodoxy cannot be wrong! 
For decades, virtually every major institution in this country 
has used the media as a propaganda vehicle.                               

And rarely, if ever, do you find any of these institutions challenged
on the fact that they have repeatedly been shown to have given
incorrect information.  Just look at the National Cancer Institute.
And it is unique in that it lies.  It simply gives misinformation.
And it has been challenged and caught on it's lies. It has been
brought to attention by the General Accounting Office and the 
Office of Technology Assessment that the National Cancer Institute
fabricates its figures. It falsifies data.  Dr. Bailey of Harvard
also found the same thing.  Well, if an organization consistently
lies, then how, in good faith, can you quote that organization 
on any of its policies without, at least, making sure that you've
done your homework to see that they're not lying this time?

And yet, anyone who challenges that, who has never been shown 
to have lied, who has never misinformed, is never given any
credibility in the media. That shows the schizophrenic nature of
how issues are determined in this country. It's like the American
Medical Association, an organization that has repeatedly been found
guilty of violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and of monopolistic
practices. The Anti-Trust laws are important.  Now, when you're 
found guilty of violating them, it shows that you did things that 
were illegal. And yet, instead of doctors saying: "I don't want to
participate in an organization that has, for so long, tried to
restrain trade by unfair competition in using its power and
influence to denigrate, ridicule and destroy anything that would
compete with its power,"   the Media, the Government, universities,
accrediting agencies, all continue to look at the AMA as if it has
never done anything wrong.

That's why I suggested that once you're a part of the Inner Circle
of Power, you're teflon-clad. Nothing sticks!  No matter what crime
you commit, no matter how many times you're found guilty, you get
right back up in the Public eye and smile as if nothing happened.
And nothing WILL happen. Just look at Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical
company that gave us DES.

   [JD:  DES is diethyl stilbestrol, a synthetic livestock-fattening
    hormone, long proven to be a severe carcinogen. Every time you 
    eat meat, you are being poisoned with DES, among other toxins.]
  
Eli Lilly was found guilty in court, in the Joyce Bickler lawsuit,
and they had to pay restitution for [injuries caused by their] DES.
Then Eli Lilly turned around and they gave us Oraflex, which caused
the deaths of people. And they were found guilty of having hidden 
the information on those deaths from the Food & Drug Administration.
And they had to pay a fine. Now, Eli Lilly is involved in the Prozac
case. (And I'll be giving you an in-depth investigative report on
Prozac within the next few weeks.)  Yet, not a single institition,
not a single member of the Media has challenged Eli Lilly.

Although health officials and scientists in this country downplay
the significance of these infections, other observers of the
Argentina tests were not as blas'e. For instance, there is -- and
thank goodness there is -- Jeremy Rifkin of the Foundation on
Economic Trends. That's a public interest concern that has been
closely following the development of the bio-technology industry in
this country. I spoke with Rifkin. He said:

   "The incident points to potential dangers from genetic
    engineering and the problems associated with American 
    researchers conducting trials overseas -- sometimes to escape
    regulation."

With the entry of Science and Medicine and Industry and Government 
into the rapidly expanding field of genetic engineering, the
American Public will be compelled to face the types of moral and
ethical issues, presented by the Argentina experiment, with
increasing frequency, because there is little doubt that there are
currently underway COUNTLESS other secret experiments of which we
will never know.

In fact, I presented on an earlier program, in the Hidden Agenda
series, the scientific rationale and documentation where we could
prove that HIV, as a virus -- not as the cause of AIDS -- WAS
genetically engineered; and that the HIV virus was either
intentionally engineered or accidentally engineered. But, CLEARLY,
it is a product of genetic engineering. But who in the World, at
this point, would take credit for that?

Genetic engineering is a new frontier. It's neither good nor bad.
But rather, based upon its application and its safety and efficacy,
it could be life saving and life enhancing, and it could serve a
very important function. And in some cases I'm sure it does. But 
you have to be very selective. You have to look at it from a very 
objective point-of-view. If it's possible to cure cancer or AIDS
using genetically altered material, that's fine. And I think that
everyone wants to see progress made in all areas. But we have to 
ask: At what cost?

Do we want cows that produce more milk? Do we want plants that emit
their own pesticides, or that are pesticide-resistant? Now think of
the implications. Right now, in production, there are plants that 
you are eating that are pesticide-resistant. When you go to buy
those plants in the market, you'll see a healthy looking plant.
What you will not see is evidence that the plant was genetically
engineered and, as a result, they could apply ANY amount of
pesticide to it and it wouldn't kill the seedling nor the plant.
You could be ingesting five, ten or a HUNDRED times more pesticide
because of the genetic engineering factor. Well, if we already know
that pesticides are dangerous, do we want to have a whole series of
species of crops on which you could put ANY amount of pesticide,
and it won't kill the plant? What is it doing to we humans who eat
these plants?   It's not on the label!

   [JD: The question comes to mind: Why would they want to spray
    crops excessively with pesticides?  My own personal feeling is
    that the intertwining relationship between the corporate farming
    industry and the corporate pesticide industry makes the two
    symbiotically profit-motivated to spray heavily and pass the
    excess cost on to the consumer. After all, agri-business today
    operates with no serious pricing competitors.
    
    But I can think of one way by which consumers can cease planting
    the seeds of cancer within themselves. That is, to go to your
    telephone directory, go to your librarian, contact your state 
    acricultural department, and find out where there are small
    farms that grow certified organic produce. Start a fruit and
    vegetable buying cooperative among friends and neighbors. You
    can enlist participants by frequenting health food stores.
    Call Gary Null in New York City at 1(212) 799-1243, and ask him
    to advise you on how to approach this.]
    
                       (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
        
        If you agree that this information is vital to the defense and 
        the preservation of our free society, please help to disseminate
        it by posting it to computer bulletin boards and by posting
        hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.
        The Usenet newsgroup, "alt.bbs.lists" provides dial-in 
        numbers of BBSs.

           John DiNardo


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc