From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Part III,  Doctors Secretly Inject Cancer Cells Into Patients
Keywords: shades of Dr. Mengele,  human medical experimentation
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:43:38 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


        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 the experiment described in the letter that I just read to you,
I'll discuss in more detail because I think it provides a good
example of the manner in which human experimentation is practiced
within the Medical Establishment.  It is not uncommon. In fact,
recently, I corresponded, both in-person and over the phone with a
man who is a member of the Seventh Day Adventists and who was a
member of what were called "the White Coat Experiments". Now these
were ongoing experiments over a number of years. These people were
volunteering for Army experiments. And they participated in the
Dunway Experiments and also in the Fort Dietricks Experiments where
they were given all kinds of vaccines.  Now why haven't we learned
about this?  And why did they have all these members of the Seventh
Day Adventists?  It was interesting. I said: "How did this happen?"
He said: "Well, we knew what we were doing, and we were patriotic.
And they knew we were patriotic. They knew we would volunteer and
not talk about it."  There was no follow-up. And he was talking
about some of the problems that their members had, and the health
consequences of some of these experiments.  More on that on another
program when he and others who participated will be giving their views.

Now you have to contrast the experiments done in the Medical
Establishment with the covert military tests which are shielded
from public scrutiny by the top secret classifications. Medical
practices and experiments of a dubious ethical nature are often
surrounded by a shroud of scientific and medical mumbo-jumbo which
does an equally effective job of keeping the gist of these
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.

One of the best examples of this is in terms of medical practices
and psychiatrists' marketing of lobotomies to the American Public
as a viable and effective treatment for mental disorders. Now once
people began to understand just exactly what psycho-surgery was,
they began to question its use. But for a good fifteen years, until
this unveiling took place, the Medical Community, by glorifying the
operation with scientific jargon, had us believing that lobotomy
was a valid medical procedure. Now I'll give you a case that
illustrates how scientific rhetoric is utilized by the Medical
Establishment to detour attention away from aspects of their
experimentation that might draw public criticism. And this case is
NOT an isolated event, and it should not be viewed as such. It is,
in fact, typical of the ongoing abuses taking place within aspects
of the Medical and Scientific Communities whenever ethical
considerations give way to political and economic considerations.

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.

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 ??
                       (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
        
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:10466 alt.activism:15959 talk.politics.misc:43920 phl.misc:228 pa.general:288