From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)
Subject: Part II,  Doctors Secretly Inject Cancer Cells Into Patients
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:11:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Keywords: Dr. Mengele, human medical experimentation


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

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
                        (continuation)
GARY NULL:
Now here's the paradox. Why would you give cancer cell injections
if you were absolutely of the belief that they would be rejected?
There would be no purpose to the study. So, if you're trying to see
if they're going to be rejected and you've already said: "Well
they're going to be rejected,"  then what's the purpose of
experimenting on people?  Clearly, there was no data that was
absolutely firm that cancer cells would be rejected because there
had been no scientific studies when this study was done, that I
could find (and I researched the literature carefully) that
showed that an immune suppression would automatically cause immune
over-stimulation and rejection of foreign bodies. At a certain
point, when the body is debilitated, it does not have the same
rejection capability. Now, today we know that, and back then they
should've known it, or they should've at least allowed for that.
But they didn't. 

And now he's saying that the only drawback of using [injecting]
cancer cells is somehow a "phobia and ignorance that surrounds the
word `cancer'"?  That's like saying that environmentalists are 
phobic about acid rain and the ozone layer; what "ignorant and
phobic" people.  Oh, really?  There is not a scientist in the world
who can accurately tell you anything about anything, because we
don't know anything. We only suppose, because there are no absolutes.
There are so many things dumped into the ocean, and dumped into
our bodies, and dumped into the Earth, and dumped into the air,
that the best we could do -- and people with some sense of humility
will -- is to, at least, acknowledge that there's more of what we
don't know than what we do. Therefore, we must keep an open mind. 
And therefore, for people who would offer some sense of caution 
about cancer .... to call them ignorant or merely phobic is to deny,
intellectually, their right to have an opinion. And, of course, it
immediately sets up as a target anyone who would challenge the idea.

As an example, why is it that no one in the history of Memorial
Sloan-Kettering [Hospital], to my knowledge, has ever had ANY
success comparable to Doctor Joseph Issels with a 17 percent cure
rate for terminal cancer. I believe, unless I'm mistaken, Sloan-
Kettering's cure rate with terminal cancer is less than 1 percent.
Well, if Doctor Joseph Issels, the greatest living cancer expert in
the world, or to my knowledge, the greatest that the world has ever
seen ..... if he's able to have that kind of cure rate with TERMINAL
cancer of all types, from mesotheliomias to astercytomas[?] to
lymphomas (and it's been independently documented in three separate
reviews of his work: one by Professor Anderson, and another one by
Doctor Autier[?] at Leyden[?] University, and a third by a medical
team from the BBC. These were studies done over a period of twenty
years. And his files have been opened, and are methodical) then you
would think that a man who has got a different understanding of
cancer -- that it's a WHOLE body process, and not a localized tumor;
and that it's caused on two different levels: the primary immune
and what is called the cellular immune. He gets rid of local
infection -- primarily, local foci infection.
                                                                 
None of these other institutions have the slightest idea of this
approach. They see cancer as up to two hundred different types of 
diseases, each cancer being a different cancer. So, you certainly
should leave the assumption open that ignorance in the understanding
of cancer -- until you've cured it, until you've reduced its
incidence -- must be shared by everyone.

And for anyone to write or to presuppose that THEY should be the
people guiding the war on cancer, when they have not decreased the
incidence, which the Cancer Establishment has NOT done, and they
have not decreased the mortality rate, which is still rising ....
It makes you wonder how these are the people running our war on cancer!
I'll continue. And I quote:

   "I have no hesitation in suggesting these studies, since our
    experience to date includes over three hundred healthy
    recipients and over three hundred cancer patients. And for two
    years, we have been doing the tests routinely on all post-
    operative patients on our gynecology service as a measure of
    their immunological status."

Now think of this. He's already saying that he's not going to
hesitate in doing this because he's already done six hundred people,
three hundred of whom were healthy people. And he's been giving
women these injections after surgery. Then he asks the following --
and this is the catch. I'm reading verbatim:

   "You asked me if I obtained permission from our patients before
    doing these studies. We do not do so at Memorial or James Ewing
    Hospital, since we now regard it as routine study. We do get 
    signed permits from our volunteers at Ohio State Penitentiary,
    but this is because of the law-oriented personalities of these 
    men rather than any medical reasons."

By the way, that's not the case today. It's necessary, by law, to
get informed consent. But that gives you an idea that we had, not
that long ago, people who could have injections without their
knowledge -- without their consent to what they were getting --
as "routine" [practice].  I'm going on:

   "Collaboration in this research effort would involve no expense
    to the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital or its patients, since
    these studies are supported by a grant from the United States
    Public Health Service and the AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY."

I think it is important that, before you offer money to the American
Cancer Society, you ask them: Are you the organization that creates
a black-list called "The Unproven Methods of Cancer [Treatment]
Black-List", to which you've added Doctor Revici and Doctor
Berzinsky[sp] who just published two important scientific papers in
an international cancer syposium on polypeptides and neopeptides,
and who is getting very good results in anti-HIV activity, and who
has published over a hundred papers, and who is now into stage-three
clinical trials under an I.N.D. application; are you the American
Cancer Society which wrote a devastatingly INACCURATE and terribly
biased tirade against Doctor Joseph Issels; you, an organization
that sets itself up as higher than high, you're an organization
that FUNDED the implantation of live cancer cells in people ??

Think of that.  Well that's a matter of FACT.  The American Cancer
Society should be held morally responsible for the acts of its past
because it has never apologized for that. And it still maintains
its "Unproven Methods Black-List", which I consider reprehensible
in the extreme, and I would never support the American Cancer
Society on any level, because of that. It is denying us freedom of
choice by being dishonest about who is making the greatest advances.
And the greatest advances have not come from Sloan-Kettering; they
have not come from Memorial; they have not come from M.D. Anderson.
They make an honest effort. And I'm sure they do. But the best
advances have come from people like Doctors Burton, Berzinsky,
Livingston, and others whom they would ridicule. 
                       (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

      If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,
      please assist in its dissemination by reposting it to other
      networks, and by posting hardcopies in public places,
      both on and off campus.

      John DiNardo