Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0/Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0 (L0pht Heavy Industries, Inc.)(1997).ISO/tezcat/Health/Health_Cancer_Expose.txt

Internet Message Format | 1996-07-08 | 46KB

From the Radio Free Michigan archives

ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot

If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to
[e-mail].
------------------------------------------------

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 [phone]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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.

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.

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 ??

GARY NULL: 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 state ment 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."

GARY NULL: 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 affidav it. 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.

GARY NULL: 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)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Radio Free Michigan site by the archive maintainer.

 All files are ZIP archives for fast download.

 E-mail [e-mail])