From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Part III,  Doctors Secretly Inject Cancer Cells Into Patients
Keywords: shades of Dr. Mengele,  human medical experimentation
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:55:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep10.164338.3461@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) writes:

>experiments out of the public domain. The results of these
>experiments are not kept secret per se. They are written up and
>sent to professional journals for publication, since prestige and
>recognition within the Medical Establishment is, at least in part,
>dependent on how frequently a given researcher has published. But
>the articles either frequently appear in obscure scientific journals
>or, if in the major publications, are worded so strategically as to
>draw attention away from the more distasteful aspects of the study.

Tell me, how many copies of Discover would be sold if detailed
medical-science papers were published?  Have you ever read one?  If
you're not a scientist, it's not worth trying to read.  If you are
one, you probably get the "obscure scientific journals" that their
published in.

>During the 1950s, a series of unprecedented experiments were taking
>place.  I would say that militarily, and in the world of espionage,
>in the world of corporate manipulation -- the 1950s had to have been
>our dark era. I mean, it was a really bad decade that people have
>somehow overlooked. The public was kept focused on simplistic [TV
>unrealism] such as Ozzie & Harriet, and the schmaltzy technicolor
>films. They didn't see what was going on behind the scenes. And, as
>a result, hundreds of Americans were being injected with live cancer
>cells, most of them without their knowledge or consent. At the
>forefront of the experiments was a man at Memorial Sloan-Kettering.
>He was the author of the letter which I just read. In addition to
>his full-time staff membership at the prestigious Sloan-Kettering
>Hospital -- which, to date, is still revered as one of the nation's
>leading cancer research institutions ..... and again, I'm sure there
>are many good people there doing the best they can. But I just want
>to show you that this man was in a policy-making position in the
>Scientific Establishment there. He was also associated with James
>Ewing Hospital in New York City, and he was an associate professor
>at Cornell University Medical School. I have an affidavit, by the
>way, to that effect. I've done my research on this very methodically.
>He was a prolific writer, and between the years 1943 and 1976 he
>published almost two hundred articles, many of them appearing in
>well respected journals like Science & Cancer. In short, this man,
>from the criteria of mainstream medicine, was as prominent and
>respectable in research and as a physician as you can get. In fact,
>he was so well regarded by his peers that his reseach on the
>homotransplantation of cancer cells was endorsed, not only by
>Sloan-Kettering Institute, but also by such key Government agencies
>as the National Cancer Institute and the United States Public
>Health Service.  I also have that in documentation from court
>affidavits. A quote from the annals of the New York Academy of
>Science:
> 
>    "Induced Immunity to Cancer Cell Homographs in Man",
>       Volume 73, Page 635 to 652.  At page 635:
>
>    "N. Levin and Arthur Gee, et al."
>[JD: above name might, instead, be Arthur, G.]
>   
>    "Rejection of Cancer Homeoplants by Patients With Debilitating
>     Non-Neoplastic Diseases",  the annals of the New York Academy
>     of Science, Pages 410 to 423. at [quoting from] page 410.

Hardly an "obscure scientific journal"

>Now, this physician began his work on, quote: "the relationship
>between immunological responses and cancer, back in 1954. Over a
>period of many years, three hundred patients with cancer and three
>hundred healthy people from different areas were used. The tests
>involved injecting a tissue-culture cancer cell transplant into the
>test subjects, in their thighs, and monitoring the patients to see
>how they rejected it. Even at this early stage in this man's
>research, gaps in his reasoning, and oversights of ethical
>considerations were becoming apparent.  From an article written by
>him on the results of these experiments, he seems to feel that he
>was making substantial progress in the areas of cancer immunology.
>The article starts by explaining the basic principles of immunlogy.
>Quote:
>
>   "The term `induced immunity' is used to designate a heightened 
>    capacity of an individual for a reaction against a foreign 
>    material that follows, and is the result of prior exposure to
>    that specific material. The term is used in contra-indication
>    to natural immunity or natural resistance, which may be defined
>    as the sum of those defense mechanisms that are available to an
>    individual upon first exposure to a foreign material."
>
>But even if this man was on the way to proving that an immunity to
>cancer could be induced by a vaccine or by other means, how could
>he or his colleagues justify using human beings as guinea pigs ??

In the '50's, military medical experiments did go on.  But why do you
think they are still going on now?  Your article mentions nothing
recent, whatsoever.  And a quote from a medical journal that says
nothing other than providing a background on the immune system doesn't
do anything to prove your point.

Tell me, if the "victims" are unsuspecting, how are the scientists
going to gather results?  Meaningful results don't get compiled
without a few months (or sometimes, years) of follow-up visits.  These
people would have to be volunteers, and they would have to know.
Otherwise, there wouldn't be any useful data collected.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:10627 alt.activism:16301 alt.society.civil-liberty:5873 alt.individualism:5421 alt.censorship:7507 talk.politics.misc:45492 misc.headlines:6334 soc.culture.usa:7295