Article 13067 of alt.individualism: Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa Path: cbnewsl!jad From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) Subject: Part II, Doctors Secretly Inject Cancer Cells Into Patients Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Distribution: North America Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:11:26 GMT Message-ID: <1992Sep9.121126.7307@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> Followup-To: alt.conspiracy Keywords: Dr. Mengele, human medical experimentation Lines: 144 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