NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/environm/5333

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-04 | 7.3 KB

Xref: sparky talk.environment:5333 sci.environment:14265 sci.med:23423 sci.research:1389 soc.culture.jewish:24547 soc.rights.human:4722
Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!caen!uvaarpa!murdoch!Turing.ORG!jad
From: [e-mail] (John DiNardo)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.med,sci.research,soc.culture.jewish,soc.rights.human
Subject: Part 1,  U.S. Government Practices Germ Warfare on U.S. Population
Keywords: U.S. Government Practices Germ Warfare on U.S. Population
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:34:35 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host
Lines: 138


        I made the following transcript from a tape recording
        of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station
               WBAI-FM (99.5)
               505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
               New York, NY 10018       [phone]

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
                        (continuation)
     [JD: I missed the first few minutes of this broadcast.]

GARY NULL:
..... also would say that they would go to Argentina, and they would
work with farm workers, and they would allow people to consume milk
without any evidence that it was safe. No one can verify that
something is going to be safe in everyone who consumes something
when you have no long-term studies. Why wasn't it done in America?
And how do we know that other organizations have not done tests on
Americans? And what groups or populations do they choose? Not once
was there any comment, editorially, in any of the media -- that I'm
aware of, at least -- that questioned the idea that you could take a
group of people: South Americans, a sub-group: farmers, and use
them as human guinea pigs.

Now think for a moment, just on a moral level.  Do we have the right
to assume that a minority person from another country is any less
valuable, as a human being, than an American?  That's for each of
you to decide for yourself. From my perspective, I think it's
important to respect all life, and therefore, I couldn't imagine
doing an experiment on a Mongolian child or a Sudanese family --
and not because the world wouldn't know what I had done, but because
they are part of the human spirit.  But that wasn't questioned!

And Secondly, what do we know about the Wistar Institute? If it had
done THIS deed -- and it did, indeed, do this deed -- then what else
has it done? What other politics has it engaged in? The fact that
it was associated with the Pan American Health Organization is VERY
serious for me because I remember, long before this episode,
finding that the Pan American Health Organization and one of its
individuals had made a very, very aggressive and assertive effort
to destroy the reputation, the background and the credibility of
one Doctor Lawrence Burton of the Bahamas. And it was upon the
recommendation of that Pan American Health Organization -- claiming
that Burton's therapy didn't work and that they had come in and
investigated his work -- that the Bahamian Government was willing
to, in effect, close down Burton's clinic. I remember writing
extensively -- after I went down to the Bahamas, and followed up on
THEIR work, and interviewed people from their organization -- that
they had done sloppy work. And their work was unscientific, when it
concerned Burton, and it should never have been given credibility.
I considered it scandalous. And I wrote about it. And I wrote about
the people involved.

But, here they were, going along with the Wistar Institute.
And no one asked: Who is on their [Wistar's] board of directors?
What other organizations are they involved with? What other boards
are THEIR board members associated with?  No one wanted to track it
back. And no one did.

Now in the United States, concern over the moral implications of
this experiment also was questioned, particularly since a large
portion of the funding for the development of the vaccine was
provided by the Federal Government. Now, according to the New York
Times:

 (quote)
   "Federal officials and scientists in the United States said it
(meaning the testing)
    raised questions about the adequacy of a new Reagan
    Administration program to regulate products of bio-technology
    research."
 (unquote)

What is especially disturbing about the incident of Wistar's
insistence that it had not done anything wrong was:

 (quote)
   "because Argentina has no rules governing the bio-technology
    industry, and the United States rules did not apply."
 (unquote)

Now think of that for a moment. Just think of that.  Because a
country has no rules governing bio-technology, and we do, that is
to assume that those rules, which we have held are important here
(for obvious reasons), wouldn't apply to another country?  I'm sure
if you went to Bali, you wouldn't find any rules on bio-technology.
Does that mean that you should go there and test the subjects of
that country?  Of course not!  Who ARE these people at Wistar? Why
aren't they investigated? Why hasn't 60 MINUTES done a piece?  Why
hasn't 20/20 done a piece on them? I think it's reprehensible
journalism, when there are so many red flags, and this kind of
logic is used, and it is not followed through on.

While commenting on the Wistar Institute's conduct in the matter,
the New York Times cites Doctor David Kingsbury[sp], Assistant
Director of the National Science Foundation, who was instrumental
in the creation of the current regulations governing the testing
of genetically-engineered products. He said:

 (quote)
   "I'm not bothered by the idea of the United States Research
    Institute and companies going abroad for testing. But I am a
    appalled that they did it without the knowledge of that
    country. Given the volatility and concern on this issue, you
    just don't do things like that."
 (unquote)

I would challenge Doctor Kingsbury. I find it appalling that we
would assume that we could go abroad to do testing if other
countries don't have the knowledge of the conseqeunces of testing.
If they had been given an opportunity to determine the pros and
cons, then, fine. Let someone test. But what if they are innocent
in not knowing anything about what's being done.

Nor was the Wistar Institute the only party involved to see this
done, and in using obscure loopholes. The National Institutes of
Health, which provided Government funds for the development of the
vaccine, denied any responsibility for the failure to properly
oversee the experiment

 (quote)
   "because the actual trial itself did not use Government money."
 (unquote)

That was according to Warren Leary on a report titled "Argentines
Report Infection by Altered Farm Virus" on January 22, 1988. That
was later.
                       (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

        If you agree that this information is vital to the defense and
        the preservation of our free society, please assist in its
        dissemination by posting it to computer bulletin boards and by
        posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.
        The Usenet newsgroup alt.bbs.lists provides dial-in numbers
        of BBSs.

           John DiNardo