From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)
Subject: Part I, Doctors Secretly Inject Cancer Cells Into Patients
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:48:39 GMT
Followup-To: soc.rights.human
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

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
GARY NULL:
On today's program, we'll be continuing with our series on Hidden
Agendas -- examining what occurs just beyond the purview of the
public consciousness, but which affects everyone. Yesterday I
talked about the impact of low-level radiation, and the fact that
the Government -- meaning probably hundreds and hundreds of
individuals in various bureaucratic and policy-making positions,
scientists, of course, and statisticians -- over a period of nearly
forty-five years has systematically covered up the fact that low
levels of radiation had been emitted, by accident and intent, into
the environment where there was a known, or at least a reasonable
supposition that health consequences would occur to the American 
Public exposed to this. Those risks were kept from the American
Public. Even to this day -- with the exception of acknowledgements
found in correspondence and in the actual published data that had
been obtained through Freedom of Information Act documents and from
individuals who participated, and which was independently         
corroborated by scientists -- the Government STILL does not
acknowledge the responsibility for hundreds of thousands of people
who have cancer or leukemia today, or gross immune [system] defects
due to their exposure to this radiation.                           

But then again, the Government, to this day, has never acknowledged
complicity in allowing U.S. servicemen in Vietnam to be exposed to
Agent Orange. It only acknowledged that a problem existed. It did
not make itself responsible for the problem, and it set up a
relatively small ..... I don't know what it figures out to per
person, but it's certainly not adequate to cover all the damage
done to those Vietnam veterans. I think, what was it, six or seven
thousand dollars in compensation per person -- a very very tiny
amount. And think of how many people -- NOT including those
suffering from post-war trauma syndrome and who have had adverse
psychological effects -- who are having  physiological effects. 

After the program I received a few calls from people who said that
it wouldn't be possible to deceive that many Americans over that
period of time, and that, clearly, this was a subjective point of
view. These people could not believe that normal Americans, as
distinguished from something other than a normal American, would
participate in any act that would cause harm to others. And I said:
Fine. I respect that you have that view. But on today's program,
I'll be even more specific, and I will share with you an in-depth
investigation that I've completed. This is an original investigation.
To give you an idea that not only have a great many members of our
Government -- and I'm not referring to a few dozen or a few
hundred. I'm referring to what easily should amount to ten to twenty
thousand, as you will see -- have participated in intentionally
using the American Public as guinea pigs. Now, you may think: 
How is that possible?  We have checks and balances.
On paper, we may.  In reality, we do not.
 
Let me read the following excerpts from a PRIVATE communication
discussing a research collaboration between one of the nation's
most famous and prestigious cancer research institutions and another
lesser-known hospital. Now, for reasons that will become
self-evident, the letter was never meant to be made public. And
again, this is directly from private communication. I want you to
know what goes on behind the sacred walls. Now this happened some
time ago. It is not current. But I could give you more cases, and I
will, that are not only current, but are right up until the modern
day. We like to think that all these things simply were little
references to the past; little indiscretions. They are not. There
has been a systematic campaign by major institutions, and by many
of the individuals within those institutions, to look at the
American Public as a bunch of fools; as people for their 
experimental models. 

But you cannot separate private institutions from Government
facilities because the very same scientists who are on the boards
of review, scientific oversight, peer review, financial review,
academic review, frequently are also those special consultants who
will oversee Government projects. Frequently, the Government will
do a research project that involves human experimentation AT one of
these private facilities. So just try to understand that we're not
dealing with two separate [entities] where the academic community,
the teaching hospitals which have the high integrity, which take
the high road, would never consider using human beings as
experimental models, whereas a few rotten apples in the Government
would. I'm saying that the ENTIRE apparatus itself is flawed at the
policy-making level. Though, certainly, there are compassionate,
sensitive and very dedicated people within both of those
institutions who would not tolerate it if they knew what was going
on. But those are not the people making the decisions.

I'm quoting directly from the letter now:

   "The study we discussed would permit evaluation of the
    immunological status of patients with chronic non-neoplastic 
    diseases as revealed by promptness of rejection of sub-cutaneous
    cancer cell homographs."

Unqote.  Now, let me put that into lay language. Here is an
individual talking about wanting to do a study that would allow
them to evaluate what happens to a person's immune system when they
give this person ..... by the way, this is a person who has a
chronic disease state ..... what happens when the body trys to
reject a sub-cutaneous [under the skin] cancer cell injection.
In other words, they're injecting cancer cells into people who do
not have cancer to see what would happen to their immune systems.
And these are people who have some form of immune suppression.
I'll go on to the next [passage]. Quote:

   "Clinical research on this phenomena is quite new. To date, the
    studies carried out by me with numerous collaborators here and
    at Ohio State University Medical School have revealed that 
    healthy persons reject the cancer cell homographs completely.
    But many patients with widespread cancer have a delayed 
    rejection."

Unquote.  And again, let's go over this. "Clinical research on this
phenomena is quite new. To date, the studies carried out by me ...."
So already a man is saying that he has carried out studies on
humans, with numerous collaborators. That means there are many
different people involved in this. And that's at Ohio State
University Medical School, one of the most prestigious in the
country. And now they're saying that healthy persons reject the
cancer cells completely. First of all, how do they know?
  "But many patients with widespread cancer had delayed rejection."
Well how delayed is it? And how do you know that it was all
rejected? Because there is no way to determine, in many people,
if all cancer cells are gone. There is simply no scientific way to
evaluate that.  Quote:

   "There is a gap in our data in that we have not yet studied this
    reaction in people who do not have cancer. I would expect that
    the homograph rejection reaction would be normal or near-normal
    in such patients. We do not have patients with debilitating
    diseases, other than cancer at Memorial or James Ewing Hospitals.
    And, therefore, we are seeking collaboration in some hospital
    with a large population of such patients."

Meaning patients with debilitating diseases. Now think about that
for a moment. Let me show you the absurdity of what I've just read.
Here is a top scientist stating that we don't have patients with
debilitating diseases. We just have patients with cancer.
You could have fooled me! I thought that cancer IS a debilitating
disease. Now clearly, someone is not viewing cancer as a
debilitation of the immune system as compared to other diseases.
They're making it, somehow, a unique and distinct disease entity.
It goes on.  Quote:

   "The Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital was suggested to me, as a
    hospital which had not only the patients, but also an interest
    in medical teaching and research. The procedure, as I explained,
    requires simply the hyperdermic injection of a suspension of 
    tissue-cultured cells at two sites on the anterior thigh or arm.
    These cells are of two or more cancer cell lines. It is, of 
    course, inconsequential whether these are cancer cells or not,
    since they are foreign to the recipient, and hence, are rejected.
    The only drawback to the use of cancer cells is the phobia and
    ignorance that surrounds the word, `cancer'."

Unquote.  Now let me review this again -- what I just read. And
this is a rare, rare, rare, almost never, never viewed insight into
how science is actually conducted; and what goes on in the mind of
a scientist when they're not in front of a television camera, and
offering a more calm and dispassionate view towards what they're
doing.  This is a man who would never know that this piece of
personal correspondence would ever be read on the radio. And he's
saying the following:  We're going to take a hyperdermic needle and
we're going to give an injection, in the anterior part of the thigh
or the arm [of an unsuspecting patient], of live cancer cells of 
two different kinds of strains.
                       (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
        
Newsgroups: sci.med