Article 15643 of alt.conspiracy:
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.usa,alt.censorship
Path: cbnewsl!jad
From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)
Subject: Part I, Doctors Secretly Inject Cancer Cells Into Patients

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: North America
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:53:38 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Sep8.125338.25073@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Keywords: Dr. Mengele, human medical experimentation
Lines: 181


        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.

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. 

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 ??

On the other hand, the truth of the matter is that the results of
this man's experiments were relatively trite, and did not even come
close to proving that people could be immunized against cancer.
They merely showed that healthy people have a capacity to reject
cancer cell transplants more easily than the already debilitated
cancer patient. In his own words, the summary of the study was 
that, quote:

   "Human volunteer recipients showed a marked difference in their
    natural resistance to subcutaneous homeotransplanted cancer
    cells according to whether they are normal healthy adults or 
    patients with advanced debilitating neoplastic disease."

Unquote. That's from his own study conclusions.

Well, how would you feel if you were a person who had cancer and
you were struggling to remain alive, and someone injected you with
more cancer, which caused a severe immune reaction?  There's no way
in the world for ANYONE, even today, to determine what would happen
to your body. There's not a man or a woman on the face of the Earth
who could make, with certainty, a statement that that would not
adversely affect you. No human being could make that statement.
As a scientist, I'm telling you it's not humanly possible. This man
played God. This man today is the head of one of the largest, if
not the largest bio-technology research center in the world. But
more on that tomorrow when I tell you about what his lab, his
private foundation released into the environment with their genetic
engineering. You see, some people don't like to change their ways,
as I will show you. But, aside from that -- aside from the
exaggerated importance that he placed on his work -- there is
another problem with his research. The whole idea of treating
people, quote:

   "is, of course, inconsequential whether these are cancer cells
    or not, since they are foreign, and rejected."

Unquote.  He hadn't seemed, from my perspective, to have the
slightest respect for what the human body is dealing with when it
is under severe immunological stress. This doctor and his colleagues
were so sure about their theory of rejection of the cancer cells
that, in a letter to the Director of Medicine at the Jewish Chronic
Disease Hospital, he openly admitted that, quote:

   "For two years, we have been doing [these] tests routinely on
    all post-operative patients on our gynecology service as a
    measure of immunological status. You asked me if I obtained
    consent from our patients before doing these studies. We do not
    do so at Memorial or James Ewing Hospitals ....."

Unquote.  However, suggesting that informed consent was irrelevant
in medical matters, he said, quote:

   "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 for any medical reasons."

Unquote.  In a letter to a doctor, this researcher felt that there
was a gap in his research in that he had thus far only studied
cancerous and non-cancerous patients, and had not tested his
theories on patients with other debilitating diseases. Now, since
the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital specialized in the treatment of
these patients, he wanted a collaborative effort that would, quote:

   "permit evaluation of the immunological status of patients with
    chronic non-neoplastic diseases, as revealed by promptness of 
    rejection of subcutaneous cancer cell homeographs."

Unquote.  Then he said that it wouldn't cost them [the patients]
anything. Now, the director over there at that particular research
department agreed to the collaboration between the Jewish Chronic
Disease Hospital and the scientist who was representing [Memorial]
Sloan-Kettering [Hospital] in this study. Other physicians at the 
Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital, however, did not view the injection
of their patients with live caner cells with equal favor. At about
the same time that one of the scientists received this researcher's
letter proposing collaboration, a Doctor David Leichter, a
coordinator of medicine who was in charge of cancer therapy and
research at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital was speaking to
this other doctor who had agreed to the experiment. [The other
doctor] described the proposed experiment to Leichter. And,
according to Leichter, asked him to, quote:

   "discuss taking over this project."    Unquote.

with this other researcher's associate from Sloan-Kettering --
a Doctor Arthur Levin. I also have that affidavit.  Far from being
enthusiastic about the project, Doctor Leichter told this other
doctor, quote:

   "Such a project would certainly require the informed consent of
    the patients on whom it would be done. And until such prior 
    informed consent was obtained, there was absolutely no reason 
    for me to meet with these doctors from Memorial Hospital; and
    further, that I did not believe that such consent could be
    obtained."

Unquote.  By informed consent, Leichter explained he meant, quote:

   "discussing the project with the patient, advising him/her of 
    the dangers, if any, informing him/her of the agent to be used
    -- in this case, live cancer cells. It also means to me that
    the patient on whom the experiment is to be made must be
    mentally competent and aware of the full extent and dangers of
    such a project; and that such consent, to be legal and proper,
    would have to be obtained in writing."

Unquote.  Well, the problem of obtaining informed consent from the
patients was also foremost in the minds of two other hospital
coordinators who were approached by the one doctor who agreed to
the experiment. A Doctor Fersko [or Frisco], echoing Doctor Leichter,
told this other doctor there that, quote:

   "Since this project would require the prior informed consent of
    each patient, I thought that the project would never get off the 
    ground because such consent, once the patients were informed
    of the nature and potential danger involved, would be impossible
    to obtain."

Unquote.  Again, I have an affidavit from Doctor Fersko for
[attesting to] that quote.  And a Doctor Aver Cagan[sp] was also
approached. According to Doctor Cagan, he was asked if he, quote:

   "would be interested in actually administering the injections 
    into these chronically ill patients."

Unquote.  That's according to Doctor Cagan's affidavit. Cagan too
expressed doubts as to whether informed consent could be obtained, 
and he said that the doctor at Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital who
wanted to do it with Sloan Kettering Hospital then asked him to
consider the study and, quote:

    ".... how the department could get credit for it."

When Doctor Cagan was informed a few days later that his superior
had assigned the project to another doctor, Cagan replied that he
was, according to his affidavit, quote:

   "glad to have nothing to do with it (the experiment), even if  
    we could get such consents, which I doubted."

Unquote.  Well, despite the opposition of these three doctors and
the obvious problem of obtaining informed consent by chronically
ill patients to injections of live cancer cells, the experiment
was commenced. At this time, twenty-two patients at the Jewish
Chronic Disease Hospital (now remember, this was many years ago)
were injected in their thighs with specially prepared suspensions
of human cancer cells. By later accounts, the doctor from
Sloan-Kettering who created this whole thing injected the first two
or three patients as a demonstration. Then the person who was
assigned to do the job did the rest. There were some conflicts as
to exactly how consent had been obtained. No one seems to know.
One thing is certain, however. No written consent was obtained from
any patient. None. Zero.  Consequently, the only proof that such
consent was given at all comes from the statements of the doctors
participating in the administration of the injections. And this, of
course, raises quite a few questions. Did the doctors fully inform
each and every patient that they were being injected with live
cancer cells in an experiment TOTALLY unrelated to their normal
course of therapy? And, if so, were these chronically ill patients
mentally competent to understand the nature of the experiment and
the risks involved?  Well with Sloan-Kettering's scientist's
awareness of, quote:

   "the phobia and ignorance that surrounds the word `cancer'"

unquote, and with his admitted failure to obtain consents in
previous experiments because he considered them, quote, "routine",
unquote, how realistic is it to expect him to inform the chronically
ill patients at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital that they were
being injected with live cancer cells?
 
In addition to the issue of informed consent, there was equal
controversy about the secretive and surreptitious manner in which
the experiment was conducted. Again, the doctor who was the head of
all cancer research at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital was
Doctor Leichter. And he was strongly opposed to the experiment.
Now, under normal hospital protocol, any experiment involving
cancer would have required his consent and approval. And furthermore,
all the people utilized for the experiment were patients in the
Blumberg Pavilion which was, at that time, and had been since 1956,
under the supervision of a Doctor Rosenfeld. That's according to
Doctor Rosenfeld's affidavit. Doctor Rosenfeld, who was responsible
for the patients in his ward, should also, under normal protocol,
have been informed of the experiments. Instead, according to the
affidavit of Doctor Rosenfeld, he first learned of the experiment
on his patients in his ward after the experiment was in process.
When he was making his usual rounds of the Blumberg Pavilion,
accompanied by another physician, quote:

   "A ward patient stopped me, complaining bitterly of pain. He told
    me that he was injected under the right thigh and that the area
    was now swollen. He said that he had not been sick at the time
    that he received the injection, and he stated further that he
    knew that I had not ordered anything for him."

Unquote. That's according to his affidavit.  Puzzled by his patient's
complaints, Doctor Rosenfeld asked another physician if he could
explain this matter, at which time that other physician told him
that he was doing experimental injections on the orders of one of
the top directors of the hospital. A few days later, Rosenfeld was
approached by one of the doctors who had been approached, and who
had refused to participate in the experiment. That was Doctor Cagan.
Cagan told Rosenfeld about the experiment and expressed his
opposition to it, as well as that of Doctors Leichter and Fersko.
Well, Doctor Rosenfeld was angry, not only because he was never 
consulted, but also because of the violations of protocol which now
appeared to be showing up in a number of situations. He said, quote:

   "I felt that it was my duty to inform the administration of my 
    findings, as all new projects involving experimental drugs
    or agents, prior to their being used on patients, had to be 
    approved by the research committee. This had not been done, nor
    had the project received the approval of Doctor David Leichter,
    even though this was a cancer project. In addition, it was being
    performed on patients for whom I am responsible in the Blumberg
    Pavilion, which patients had not been advised of the nature of 
    the project, had not been told of the potential dangers, had not
    given their prior written consent, and had not given their oral
    consent. There were eighteen patients in my ward who received 
    these injections, and many of them were mentally incapable of 
    giving their consent. In my opinion, this project was, therefore,
    both illegal and immoral, and it has been conducted
    surreptitiously without my knowledge or consent."

Unquote.  That's from Doctor Rosenfeld's affidavit. 
By mid-August, the hospital was abuzz with rumors surrounding the
experiment. [The rumbling] reached such a proportion that the
executive director of the hospital, a Doctor Solomon Siegel, cut
his Florida vaction short and returned immediately to New York in
order to investigate the source of the uproar. Siegel talked with
Rosenfeld, Leichter and Cagan separately and asked each of them
separately what they knew. Each told him about the experiment and
expressed their uneasiness about its taking place under the auspices
of the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital. According to Leichter, he
told Siegel at that time that he felt that the project was, quote:
"immoral and illegal without the written prior informed consent of
each and every informed patient."  Unquote.  

Leichter also expressed concern about the danger that cancer cell
injections were being given to hospital patients, and he warned
Siegel of, quote: "the tremendous damage it could do to the
reputation of the hospital and to its standing in society." Unquote.

Discussing the potential malpractice suits which could result from
adverse reactions to the test patients, Siegel asked Leichter if he
thought Doctor Mandell, who authorized the experiment, could lose
his license as a result. Doctor Leichter said that he could not
answer that with certainty, but said, quote: "It was a serious
matter."

Doctor Siegel and the hospital administration were facing big
trouble. Not only were key members of the hospital staff disgruntled
over the experiments, but rumors were also starting to spread
outside of the hospital. According to Doctor Hyman Strauss, an
attending physician in the Gynecology Department at Jewish Chronic
Disease Hospital, quote:
                                                                   
   "An abundance of rumors found their way into medical circles.
    My first knowledge of this affair about cancer experimentation
    on patients known to be free of malignant disease, without their
    fully informed written consent, came from conversations at two
    other hospitals in this borough. I next heard from a professor 
    at The State University of New York, and finally from a top-
    ranking investigator at Sloan-Kettering. A man with an 
    international reputation discussed this with me on the phone.
    I have also been questioned by laymen and clergymen not 
    connected with our hospital."

By the way, that's a letter from Doctor Hyman Strauss to the medical
board of the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital, sent to the Division 
of Professional Conduct, The New York State Education Department,
[expressing] concern about the gossip surrounding the hospital with
which he was affiliated. Then he approached Leichter and Siegel to
see if the rumors were valid. According to Strauss, Siegel refused
to make any statement one way or the other, but asked Strauss what
he had heard. Strauss said that he would not do so until Siegel
either confirmed or denied the experiment. Then Strauss said, quote:

   "Since he [Siegel] refused to make such a statement, I left his 
    office with the feeling that nothing could be gained, and that
    the conspiracy of silence was continuing."

It turned out that Strauss's feelings were well-founded. A veil of
secrecy descended upon the hospital, and concerted efforts were made
to cover up the whole thing. According to Doctor Rosenfeld, toward
the end of the summer, he was approached and advised that he was
scheduling a meeting of inquiry for the following day. But that was
just the beginning of what would be an effort to downplay it and to
turn everything away from public or professional criticism. The
people who refused to participate in the experiment, ironically,
were people who were later judged harshly. That meeting, quote:

   "was a sham from the outset. First of all, the chairman of the
    committee was not even present, since he had only been informed
    on the preceding day that the meeting would be held, and was 
    unable to attend on such short notice. The rest of the attendees
    were hand-picked, and excluded were all those who had expressed
    any opposition to the project, even though the resignations of
    Doctors Cagan, Fresko and Leichter were one of the only two
    items up for debate at the meeting. And these resignations were
    directly related to the other item. They too were excluded.
    Instead, the meeting focused on the testimony of Doctor Siegel,
    which essentially trivialized any concern over the experiment,
    and made those who were concerned appear to be alarmists and
    trouble-makers. For instance, rather than inviting Doctor
    Rosenfeld, whose patients were being experimented on, whose
    pavilion it was where they were being conducted, who had never
    been informed, who was opposed to the whole thing ... instead of
    inviting him to testify as to his feelings about the experiment
    and any actions he may have taken in that regard, the Grievance
    Committee minutes, citing Siegel, read, quote: `Mr. Siegel told
    Doctor Rosenfeld he intended to interview all the persons named,
    and advised him that Doctor Mandell was on vacation, and that he
    [Siegel] did not feel that any conclusions could be drawn 
    without discussion of the problem with Doctor Mandell.'"

Anyhow, it's a long investigation. It's a long report. I'm not even
one-half of the way through it. I'll just summarize.

Over a period of months, nothing came from this. People began
denying any responsibility. They denied any problems. They talked
about their very important contribution to the knowledge of cancer.
One spokesperson for the hospital publicly said the tests showed
that, quote:

   "Like normally healthy persons, the chronically ill who do not 
    have cancer have a rejection mechanism that throws off planted
    cancer cells."

There were charges and allegations back and forth, but the general
public was kept out of the issue. And later on -- irony of ironies 
-- some of the people who opposed this were the ones who were 
challenged at the State Medical Board.

I want to get into some great depth about this whole issue of state
medical boards and how they frequently are used to attack any doctor
who uses any therapy that is not considered proven; and how, as 
I've mentioned before, there is a very small elitist group that
controls most of what occurs in science and in funding of projects.
And they seem to be untouchable. But those people who CHALLENGE them
are frequently the ones who get thumped. As if it's an unspoken rule:

   Once you belong to the club and you give us your loyalty and
   you play by our insider rules, we'll protect you. We can control
   the Press. We certainly control the Judicial System. We know 
   which judges are bought. We can control prosecutors. Don't worry
   about that. They're political. We know which ones we own. We can
   control everything. And we'll see to it, financially, that no one
   ever has a problem. We're recession-proof. We're depression-proof.
   BUT, you've got to keep your mouth shut. Once inside, like the
   Mob, you can't get out; like selling your soul.

And the attraction is very real. There are a lot of things that
these people gain. And over the years, of these investigations, the
people who instigate these operations continue to ALWAYS stay above
it. They are NEVER brought down. They go from one institution or
from one place to another. They never seem to lack for financial or
political resources. But whistle-blowers, on the other hand, are
frequently denigrated, fired, ridiculed and shipped off to remote
locations.

That's the system. And, quite frankly, no one -- and I mean no one
-- in political office is capable of changing it; nor do I know of
anyone who would even try. When a person tried to reform the IRS,
he was hounded, audited, and, needless to say, he was found guilty
of a violation of the tax rules. As one man said: "In New York State,
they can indict a ham sandwich."   They have it on their side. 

For years and years, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover sent out a message
-- and it was a very powerful message: 

   "Get on my wrong side, and you'll never have a right side."

And every legislator knew that. The people who dared to challenge
him, the two Kennedy brothers, suffered substantially for that. 
As powerful as they were, they weren't as powerful as he. There is
a standing Establishment, and it is in every area: media,
manufacturing, banking; it is certainly in all of the farming
industry, all of the bio-technologies. Now I want to make it clear
-- this is not the same as stating that these industries, per se,
or everyone associated with them, per se, has some nefarious
activity going on. That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that 
the policy-makers and the people who control industries control
institutional policy. These people all belong to the same club. 
It doesn't matter if they're separate network people or separate
anchors. They're all still members of the same network. That will
not change. When you control everything, who is to challenge you?
With one phone call, they can discredit or destroy any person 
who tries.

Just to let you know.  And for the people who called in yesterday,
including the two who were SO SURE that no real institution of any
respect could allow anything to go on that wasn't completely ethical
..... I just cited you the affidavits which were sworn under oath.
And I have over sixteen hundred papers from the state hearings that
I went to, plus personal interviews. It took almost two years to
pull together this investigation.

And this was an event that happened many years ago. But as you will
hear, these events are happening today in our institutions. They
don't change their ground rules just because we're in another decade.

I'm Gary Null. 
                           (end of report)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

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

      John DiNardo