The True Story of the Polio Vaccine

[Guest guest]

>> If you are interested in finding out why there is an epidemic of cancer >> in>> this country you will take the time to read this. And hold on to your >> hat as you will think you are in the twilight zone of monsters and >> vampires.>> >>>>>> http://www.healthsa lon.org/193/ 193/>>>> SV40 Virus, Vaccinations, Cancer and Virus,Your Government and The>> Poisoning of the People for a Buck!>> 4th April 2007 by Arrowwind Posted in Disease>> <http://www.healthsa lon.org/category /disease/> , Cancer>> <http://www.healthsa lon.org/category /cancer/> , Infections>> <http://www.healthsa lon.org/category /infections/ > , Politics and Health>> <http://www.healthsa lon.org/category /politics- and-health/>>>>>>>>>>> Dr Hulda has stated that most of the population now carries the>> SV40 virus. The virus has found ways to move in the population outside>> of contraction through the polio vaccine.Here is an article telling the>> history of SV40 (also known as SMV40) contamination of the polio vaccine>> and exactly what the government and pharmaceutical industry did about>> it. Actually, I have conjoined two articles so that you get the full>> historical pictureâ?¦â?¦â?¦â?¦â?¦â ?¦â?¦.Arrow>>>> A mystery with enormous implications has stumped some of the

smartest>> minds in cancer research. How, might a cancer-causing monkey virus, wind>> up in human tumors? The mystery began in 1988 with Dr. Carbone.>> He found the SV40 virus in 60% of the human lung tumors he was studying,>> (SV40 stands for Simian Virus the 40th virus found). Eventually, sixty>> different labs confirmed the results.>>>> http://www.theatlan tic.com/issues/ 2000/02/002bookc hin.htm>> <http://www.theatlan tic.com/issues/ 2000/02/002bookc hin.htm>>>>> In the same year in Boston, two researchers stumbled onto something>> disturbing. Dr. Garcea and his assistant, Dr. Bergsagel,>> were using a powerful new tool called polymerase chain reaction, or PCR,>> to look for

a pair of common human viruses in childrenâ?Ts brain>> tumors. But a different DNA footprint kept popping up in more than half>> the tumors. They finally realized they were seeing SV40. For more than a>> decade, scientists had reported sporadic findings of SV40-like proteins>> in human tumors. But the earlier tests were primitive and the results>> suspect. PCR, however, is capable of amplifying infinitesimal fragments>> of DNA, which makes detections far more credible. The findings were>> troubling. The researchers noted in their published report that the>> children were too young to have received the contaminated vaccine. But>> somehow the virus had infected them and embedded itself in their tumors.>>>> PCR unleashed a wave of SV40 discoveries. By the end of 1996, dozens of>> scientists reported finding SV40 in a variety of bone

cancers and a wide>> range of brain cancers, which had risen 30 percent over the previous 20>> years. Then, Italian researchers reported finding SV40 in 45 percent of>> the seminal fluid samples and 23 percent of the blood samples they had>> taken from healthy donors. That meant SV40 could have been spreading>> through sexual activity, from mother to child, or by other means, which>> could explain how those never inoculated with the contaminated vaccine,>> such as the Boston children, were being infected.>>>> The Oral Sabin Polio vaccine is cultured in monkey kidney tissue.>> Vaccine makers insist every batch of Polio vaccine is screened for>> contaminants such as SV40. But a lawyer involved in a recent Polio case>> just published a report claiming the contamination continues.>> â?oMany here voice a silent view that the Salk

and Sabin Polio>> vaccine, being made of monkey kidney tissue has been directly>> responsible for the major increase in Leukemia in this country,â?�>> states Dr. Frederick Klenner Polio Researcher, USA. This disease hardly>> occurs in the West anymore. However, it seems the days of Polio are>> still with us. Not in the form of acute viral outbreaks of fever and>> paralysis, but in the unexplored statistics on the long-term effects>> from the viral contaminated Polio vaccines given to countless children>> and adults three decades ago. What other undetectable monkey viruses>> have been transmitted in the vaccine batches lately? These unanswered>> questions continue to resurface in todayâ?Ts research and still>> riddle retired scientist Ben Sweet. As a senior research scientist for a>> major pharmaceutical company from 1959 to 1964,

Dr. Sweet was one of>> those responsible for the research, development and field-testing of the>> killed Polio virus vaccine. As many as twenty six of the Simian>> contaminants were readily detected but still other viruses, like SV40>> slipped past rigorous quality control testing procedures available at>> that time.>>>> Four years after the development of the Salk vaccine, Bernice Eddy of>> the National Institutes of Health discovered the contamination of the>> vaccine with SV40. she noticed something strange while looking through>> her microscope. Monkey kidney cells, the same kind used to make the>> vaccine. were dying without apparent cause. So she tried an experiment.>> She prepared kidney extracts from eight to ten rhesus monkeys and>> injected tiny amounts under the skin of twenty-three new born hamsters.>>

Within nine months, â?~large, malignant, subcutaneous>> tumorsâ?T appeared on twenty of the animals. On July 6, 1960,>> concerned that a monkey virus might be contaminating the polio vaccine,>> Eddy took her findings to Dr. ph Smadel, chief of the NIHâ?Ts>> biologics division. Smadel dismissed the tumors as harmless>> â?~lumps.â?T The same year, however, at a Merck laboratory in>> Pennsylvania, Dr. Maurice Hilleman and Dr. Ben Sweet isolated the virus.>> They called it simian virus 40, or SV40, because it was the 40th virus>> found in rhesus kidney tissue.>>>> In the aftermath of the debacle, Bernice Eddy was taken off of polio>> research and transferred to the influenza section by the thankless NIH>> management. She shared her frustrations with a small group of women>> scientists who ate brown-bag lunches on the

steps of one of the>> laboratories. There, Eddy met a tenacious woman scientist named >> , who was waging her own battle against the official paradigms of>> bureaucratic medicine. Bernice Eddy and became close>> friends. â?Ts name remains virtually unknown today>> despite her huge contribution to modern medicine. Not only did she prove>> that some cancers were caused by viruses, but subsequent research on the>> virus she discovered led o the discovery of DNA recombination, which is>> the most powerful tool in medical research today. From the beginning,>> promoted the idea that cancer was caused by viruses. Due>> to this, she was not well accepted by the NIH or NCI staffs who>> described her as â?~an eccentric ladyâ?T determined to prove>> her theory was right. â?~No one believed

her .â?T Finally, she>> was given access to an NCI laboratory in Bethesda where she could try to>> prove her theories. In 1953, she almost succeeded, but her work was not>> accepted by the ruling crowd at NIH. They found her methods sloppy and>> objected to the fact that she did not culture her viruses. So in 1956,>> her lunch partner Bernice Eddy showed how to grow her>> viruses in a culture of mouse cells. She now had all the ingredients she>> needed and began a series of experiments which are called>> â?~classicâ?T by modern day NIH researchers. In 1957, >> and Eddy discovered the polyoma virus which produced several types of>> cancer in a variety of small mammals. Polyoma proved that some cancers>> were indeed caused by viruses. Her discovery officially threw open the>> doors of cancer virology. As Rabson

phrased it, â?~Suddenly, the>> whole place just exploded after found polyoma.â?T It was the>> beginning of a new era of hope. But it raised some dark questions about>> earlier deeds. Before long Yaleâ?Ts laboratory discovered that the>> polyoma virus that had produced the cancer in â?Ts mice and>> hamsters turned out to be virtually identical to Simian Virus #40>> (SV-40). In October 1960, Eddy gave a talk to the Cancer Society in New>> York and, without warning NIH in advance, announced that she had>> examined cells from the monkeys kidneys in which the polio virus was>> grown and had found they were infected with cancer causing viruses. Her>> inference was clear: There were cancer-causing monkey viruses in the>> polio vaccine. She warned an epidemic of cancer in America was in the>> making. When the word got back to

her NIH bosses, they exploded in>> anger. When the cussing stopped, they crushed Bernice Eddy>> professionally. Any mention of cancer-causing monkey viruses in the>> polio vaccine was not welcomed by NIH. They took away her lab, destroyed>> her animals, put her under a gag order, prevented her from attending>> professional meetings, and delayed publication of her scientific paper.>> In the words of Shorter, author of The Health Century,>> â?~Her treatment became a scandal within the scientific>> community.â?T Later, it became the subject of a congressional>> inquiry. In the words of Dr. Lawrence Kilham, a fellow NIH researcher>> who wrote a latter of protest to the Surgeon Generalâ?Ts office,>> â?~the presence of a cancer virus in the polio virus vaccine is the>> matter demanding full investigation.>>>>

Eddy continued to worry. In 1959 she took matters into her own hands.>>>> She went back unauthorised to put the Salk polio vaccine through more>> tests. She was horrified to find that, when she injected its growth>> medium into 23 hamsters, 20 of them grew large cancer tumours. She>> investigated further and ***found the Salk preparation [used only by the>> US/UK] had infected the hamsters with a monkey virus. ***>>>> This would be named Simian Virus 40 (SV40) as it was the 40th monkey>> virus discovered. Again her boss would react with fury, and ordered her>> to remain silent.>>>> This time she didnâ?Tt.>>>> In 1960, at a meeting of the New York Cancer Society, she told them what>> happened when she had tested the Salk vaccine. She was immediately>> demoted by the National Institutes of

Health.>>>> They took her laboratory from her and delayed publication of her>> research. [in other words, the Salk monkey-based vaccine was a carrier>> intentionally of dangerous monkey based viruses, used only by the US/UK:>> a covert Anglo-American depopulation program from the beginning they>> wanted to maintain as covert: selling â?~cureâ?T socially,>> getting the acolades, as they were actually worse than the Nazis in>> delivering an open air biological death sentence, from day one.]>>>> Meanwhile the Salk vaccine was proving ineffective. Children vaccinated>> with it were still coming down in hundreds with polio. The Journal of>> the American Medical Association would carry an article admitting, `It>> is now generally recognised that much of the Salk vaccine used in the US>> has been worthless.â?T

(2)>>>> By 1959, preparations had begun to replace it with its main rival, the>> Sabin oral vaccine.>>>> Behind the scenes, news of Eddyâ?Ts unauthorised research had>> reached Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, who were then manufacturing both the>> Salk and Sabin vaccine. They put two scientists, Ben Sweet and Maurice>> Hilleman, on to checking to see if her research on the Salk vaccine also>> applied to the Sabin. They found it did. In a 1960 paper they reported>> the `Sabin live polio virus vaccine was contaminatedâ ?T and `SV40>> has oncogenic [cancer-causing] properties in hamsters.â?T>>>> They added that this `raises the important question of the existence of>> other such viruses.â?T>>>> Asked many years later why they had not warned the public, Hilleman>> replied; `Because you could

start a panic. They had already had>> production problems with people getting polio. If you added to that the>> fact that they found live virus in the vaccine, there would have been>> hysteria.â?T [and no one would have been endangered: thus a>> beneficial normal hysteria since they were being murdered by the doctors>> and the vaccines, as opposed to a quiet ongoing epidemic that they>> allowed to happen.]>>>> But their reports led the giant Merck Corporation [which from 1947, did>> isolate for the US military mycoplasmas for biowarfare] to decide that>> both the Salk and the Sabin vaccines were much too dangerous for it to>> continue to make them.>>>> And despite being begged by the US Surgeon General to continue, they>> declined, writing in December 1960 , `having again reviewed our decision>> in the

light of your letterâ?¦ Our scientific staff have emphasized>> to us that there are a number of serious scientific and technical>> problems that must be solved before we could engage in large-scale>> production of live poliovirus vaccine. Most important among these is the>> problem of extraneous contaminating simian viruses that may be extremely>> difficult to eliminate and which may be difficult if not impossible to>> detect at the present stage of the technology.â? T (3)>>>> But again none of this disquiet was made public.>>>> This letter and decision would only be disclosed some thirty years later>> through a legal action brought by the parents of an allegedly>> vaccine-damaged child.>>>> The implication of what Merck said to the Surgeon General was that both>> the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines had

been released and given to>> children by the million despite their manufacturers being unable to>> remove from them their monkey virus contamination.>>>> Whilst Merck honourably withdrew from doing this, other companies would>> irresponsibly continue.>>>> The UK and US Health Departments, and the World Health Organisation,>> likewise irresponsibly continued to endorse the safety of these>> vaccines, which were known to be contaminated. [because it was the cover>> for depopulating places via â?~vaccineâ?T that challenged>> US/UK corporate imperialism. ]>>>> Privately, among the scientists involved, a joke circulated. The Sabin>> vaccine had just been tested on some 80 million Soviet citizens.>>>> The joke was that they had made sure the Russians would not be able to>> compete at the

coming Olympics - as they would be riddled with cancers!>> (4)>>>> The Merck letter did not lead to the health authorities withdrawing the>> polio vaccines. They continued to distribute them until, in 1961, a>> doctor in Scotland, who presumably had read Sweet and Hillemanâ?Ts>> report, decided to test the children to whom he had just administered>> the Salk vaccine.(5)>>>> He was shocked to find that half the children were contaminated with>> SV40.>>>> He immediately reported this to the Lancet medical journal.>>>> This exposure led to instant but secret action.>>>> The authorities in the US and UK stopped distributing the [dead>> virus/monkey virus] Salk vaccine and replaced it with the [live>> virus/monkey virus] Sabin vaccine. But none of the contaminated

vaccine>> distributed was to be withdrawn.>>>> The authorities didnâ?Tt want to alarm the public. It would take>> two years before all the contaminated stocks of Salk vaccine were>> exhausted.>>>> In self-defence the US health authorities have since repeatedly claimed>> that the measures they took in March 1961 ensured that the polio vaccine>> was totally clear of SV40 from then on.(6)>>>> But this would be exposed as a lie when the private correspondence>> between government and vaccine manufacturers became public in the course>> of litigation by parents.>>>> In 1961, the *** governmentâ?Ts man in charge of vaccine safety, a>> Dr Murray, secretly authorised Lederle Inc (the major Sabin polio>> vaccine maufacturer in the US) to use SV40 contaminated vaccine.(7)* **>> [thus

knowingly infecting people with the monkey virus under guise of>> the â?~vaccination for polioâ?T programme.]>>>> On top of this, the same internal memo revealed that the company was not>> only using the SV40-free African Green Monkeys to make the vaccine but>> was `harvesting kidneysâ?T from a monkey species from the>> Philippines, the carcopithecus, that did carry SV40.>>>> And another memo forced out into the open revealed that Lederle had>> totally ignored the FDA regulation that bound manufacturers to ensure>> `each seed virus used in the manufacture shall be demonstrated to be>> free of extraneous microbial agentsâ?T.>>>> Lederle had not even bothered to check to see if they were. [because>> this was a depopulation programme from the startâ?"it was meant to>> be deadly carrier of the monkey

virus under guise of the>> â?~vaccinationâ ?T programme.]>>>> This was supported in a US government memo, which recorded; `It should>> be made clear that Lederle did not test the original Sabin seeds for>> extraneous agents or neurovirulenceâ ?T.(8)>>>> In 1976, with the withdrawal of Pfizer, Lederle became the only>> manufacturer of the Sabin vaccine in the US, and that same year,>> researchers at the US Bureau of Biologics found its polio vaccine>> contained between 1,000 and 100,000 simian viruses per millilitre of>> vaccine.>>>> In 1978, , Director of the Viral Oncology Laboratory at the>> US governmentâ?Ts Bureau of Biologics inspected the samples of>> polio vaccine held at his lab. He reported: `There was a lot of>> extraneous DNA (sic) in the

vaccineâ?T.(9)>>>> LEDERLE PART OF THE U.S. BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAMME, AND THEY HAD THE>> MONOPOLY TO MADE THE INTENTIONALLY CONTAMINATED â?~POLIOâ?T>> VACCINE, CONTAMINATED WITH THE MONKEY VIRUS>>>> But he was told to do nothing about it, since a protest might cause>> Lederle to stop production and `vaccine manufacturing was an essential>> component of industry, this countryâ?Ts protection against>> potential biological warfareâ?T.>>>> would later discover in damaged human brain cells another>> monkey virus, SCMV.>>>> He found this was from the African Green Monkey, the same species that>> are currently used to make the polio vaccine .>>>> Thus monkey viruses and DNA fragments continued to be administered to>> hundreds of million of children under the

guise of the polio vaccine.>>>> The consequences are now coming out in scores of scientific papers. The>> first human cancers containing SV40 were discovered around 1970. One of>> these was that of Mark Moreno. He had a large brain tumour removed in>> 1970, and has since had several operations. His tumour was riddled with>> SV40. (He is currently suing for compensation. ) Many similar cases have>> since been found. [Presently, childhood brain cancers are skyrocketing>> in their instance worldwide.]>>>> Yet in 1988 the UK Health Minister would assure Parliament that,>> although the polio vaccine was once (sic) contaminated with SV40,>> American research had showed SV40 to be harmless.>>>> Is the Current Polio Vaccine Safe?>>>> Steward, Professor of Immunology at the London School

for>> Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, headed a team working on new vaccines, so>> I asked him about children who fell severely ill shortly after taking>> vaccines based on living viruses.>>>> One of my questions was: `Could their parents possibly be right in>> suspecting the vaccine?â?T His reply was: `What else would you>> expect?â?T I expressed surprise. He continued, `We all know the>> current living viral vaccines are dangerous - that is why I am heading a>> team to try to develop safer vaccines.â?T (10)>>>> Quite simply we still do not have the technology available to completely>> purify these vaccines; at least at a price the manufacturers are willing>> to pay.>>>> WHO instead has set a `recommendedâ ?T level for maximum vaccine>> contamination. It recommended in the mid 1990s that `the

amount of>> cellular DNA biological products should be limited to 100 picagrams>> [100,000 billionths of a gram] per doseâ?T.(11)>>>> This limit however seemingly proved `unrealistically lowâ?T.>>>> So the recommended maximum was increased ten thousand fold to 10>> nanograms (ten billionths of a gram). However, a safety-supervising>> scientist admitted in 1999 that `for live viral vaccines, â?¦ it may>> not be possible to limit the total amount of DNA to ten>> nanogramsâ?T.>>>> In case this level of contamination seems inconsequential, I believe>> ***ten nanograms is greater than the approximate weight of 250 million>> polioviruses or 200 million SV40.*** [so nothing has changed, more>> statistical juggling and legitimation of the same programme through>> another way to talk about

it.]>>>> The seriousness of this level of contamination is still undetermined,>> but it has been noted that the presence of a single SV40 virus, or a>> piece of free DNA, in a cell, may suffice for that cell to be damaged,>> and possibly made cancerous.>>>> And we still do not know what effect this vaccine cocktail of monkey>> viruses, DNA debris, nanobacteria and toxins, and the possible resultant>> re-combinations and mutations of viruses, has had on the some four>> billion children to which the contaminated polio vaccine has been given>> in repeated doses through their most vulnerable years.>>>> The evidence seems to lead to the inescapable conclusion that the polio>> vaccine has been an unmitigated disaster. It was made to stop epidemics>> of infantile paralysis but they are still happening, and

mistakenly>> tried to do so by targeting a virus that, given the evidence, is most>> likely never to have been the principal cause of this disease.>>>> Instead [the â?~polio vaccineâ?T programme ahs been used in a>> different manner:] it has spread monkey viruses and other contaminants>> around the world, perhaps causing far more serious illness than the>> poliovirus ever did. [i note that only the US/UK intentionally chose>> infected monkeys to do this. Other countries knew the dangers, its just>> that the US/UK were interested in expanding the dangers while other>> countries were interested in alleviating them.]>>>> At the root of this disaster as always, lies money. The drug companies>> made the choice for the UK and much of the rest of the world. They chose>> to continue to use monkey kidneys instead of safer

cells since it was>> for them a few pennies cheaper a dose, despite knowing that these>> kidneys carried monkey viruses into the vaccine, despite knowing from>> early on that at least one of these was linked to cancers.>>>> They have thus knowingly and dangerously contaminated our children ->> and, tragically, are still doing so.>>>> Making the vaccine>>>> To mass vaccinate, the [uS/UK] vaccine scientists had to produce a>> stable `seed-stockâ? T of poliovirus from which they could breed the>> huge amounts of virus needed for the vaccine. The process they used was>> crude and very liable to viral contamination.>>>> They made a suspension in water of diseased spinal tissue from polio>> victims, and injected this into the living brains of monkeys. They>> believed that the more times they

repeated this the larger, more stable>> and purer the seed-stock of polioviruses produced for the vaccine would>> become.>>>> Salk thus injected the diseased tissue into the brains of 14 monkeys one>> after the other. Each time he would extract fluid from the infected>> brain and then re-inject this into another. Finally he poured the>> virus-rich fluid from the last monkey into a vessel containing minced>> monkey testicles. The viruses grew in number.>>>> The fluid from this was then poured onto more testicles where the virus>> multiplied further. This viral-rich fluid was then filtered, spun and>> roughly purified, before being put into bottles labelled as the Salk>> vaccine seed.>>>> Salk then sent his patented vaccine `seedâ?T to various>> manufacturers where it would be mixed with vast

quantities of minced>> monkey kidney [only in the US/UK] on which the virus would multiply a>> million-fold - before being killed by poisoning with formaldehyde prior>> to being put into bottles of his vaccine.>>>> Six manufacturers would thus make up 27 million doses of his vaccine in>> 1955, in absolute confidence that it would be officially approved.>>>> SABINS OPV>>>> As Sabin wanted to use a `liveâ?T polio virus, he needed to weaken>> or `attentuateâ? T the virus, in much the same way as one could>> weaken a plant if it were rapidly and repeatedly moved from one type of>> soil to another.>>>> Hence, the poliovirus was weakened by mutation, brought about through>> rapidly transplanting it up to 51 times from one lot of monkey kidneys>> to another.>>>> It was

also weakened by having to adjust to growing in different species>> of monkey cells.>>>> Both Indian Rhesus and African Green monkeys cells were employed - thus>> giving the vaccine `seedâ?T every opportunity to become>> contaminated with incompatible viruses from two continents before being>> bottled as the patented `Sabin Original Merckâ?T polio virus seed>> lot. This was `safety testedâ?T by being injected into the brains>> of about one hundred chimpanzees.>>>> A leading scientist, Leonard Hayflick, wrote in 1958: `Monkey kidneys>> were notorious for their content of unwanted viruses, potentially>> dangerous viruses.â?T>>>> He said the Sabin vaccine was grown on `constantly contaminated monkey>> kidneys.â?T>>>> Lederberg of Stanford University would warn `crude

virus>> preparations, such as those in common use at the present time, are>> vulnerable to frightful mishaps of contamination and>> misidentification.â ?T>>>> We now know the polio virus seed lots they produced were a virtual>> maelstrom of monkey and human viruses, all circulating among great>> numbers of DNA fragments and much cellular debris, all potentially>> highly dangerous. This was inevitable, given Salk and Sabinâ?Ts>> choice of production methods and the technology available to them.>>>> The case against SV40>>>> In 1988, a review of a study conducted between 1959 and 1965 on 58,807>> pregnant women12, discovered that the risk of brain tumours among>> offspring of mothers who had received the Salk vaccine was 13 times>> higher than the risk among offspring of mothers who had

not.>>>> The conclusion was that the cancers were probably caused by a>> still-unidentified infection originating in the polio vaccine, which>> (according to the reviewers) was known to have been contaminated with>> numerous simian viruses.(13)>>>> Also in 1988, Michele Carbone, a researcher in Chicago, found SV40 in>> around 85 per cent of the cancers associated with asbestos. It appeared>> to make this toxin more dangerous. He found it switches off a key human>> gene, the p53, which helps to protect us from cancers.>>>> In 1997 I attended a National Institutes of Health emergency workshop in>> Washington called, because laboratories worldwide had found SV40 in over>> 33 per cent of all the human bone cancers tested and in over 85 per cent>> of the childhood brain tumours.>>>> The FDA

that same year also reported: `The discovery in 1960 that a DNA>> tumour virus, designated simian virus 40 (SV40), was an inadvertent>> contaminant of rhesus monkey cellsâ?¦it confronted the scientific>> and regulatory community with the very problem that they had sought to>> avoid in vaccine developmentâ?¦â ?T (14) [if that is so, then why>> did the US Special Virus Cancer program take off from there in the>> 1960s? It is most certainly a bald faced lie since the US Special Virus>> Cancer program was making use of this knowledge of the interaction>> between toxins and viruses to â?okey activiateâ?� them,>> leading, from there, into the top secret 1960s biowarfare, depopulation,>> and eugenics research.]>>>> Late in 1999 an extensive study in China reinforced those results. It>> found SV40 in common brain tumors

among children.>>>> It also found the virus in 33 to 90 per cent of five other kinds of>> brain tumour examined.(15)>>>> In 1998 SV40 was found for the first time in English cancers. At that>> time no laboratory in England was equipped for such a search. It was>> only found because I went looking for it with colleagues while working>> on a documentary for Channel 4â?Ts Dispatches. Our team used a>> laboratory in Italy to test about 20 cancer samples from English>> patients. We found SV40 present in a bone cancer and in a terminal case>> of mesothelioma.>>>> Two very recent studies, from Finland and Turkey, found no SV40 in>> domestic mesothelioma (cancer caused by asbestos) samples but did find>> it in American and Italian samples.>>>> Neither Turkey nor Finland used SV40- contaminated

vaccines, while Italy>> and the US did.>>>> Today [of course, because of this] Finland has one of the lowest rates>> of mesothelioma in the Western world.>>>> In the last few years the SV40 [delivered in the polio vaccines of the>> US/UK] has been linked to more and more cancers, such as>> Non-Hodkinâ?Ts lymphoma, the fifth most common cancer in the US and>> one that has been rapidly increasing since the contaminated polio>> vaccine was released.>>>> A recent German study found that if one put SV40 into lactating female>> rats they all got breast cancer, (as did 70 per cent of the>> non-lactating) but the SV40 did not stay in the tumours it helped>> create. Could this explain the growth in human breast cancer? (16)>>>> NIH researcher Dr. Jeffery Kopp has also uncovered a link between

SV 40>> and a new and deadly form of kidney disease. Prior to 1980 so-called>> `collapsingâ? T renal disease was unknown. Since that time, however,>> it has been rapidly increasing. Fully 60 per cent of those with the new,>> virulent `collapsing varietyâ?T showed evidence of SV 40.>>>> It seems from all the research that SV40 is dangerous because it is>> badly adjusted to living in us, perhaps because it only recently>> infected humans and has not yet adapted to us.>>>> It attaches to our cells in such a way that it disables two key immune>> system defences. It also damages our chromosomes by adding or deleting>> whole sections.>>>> Once inside a cell, ph Testa reported, `it looks as if somebody set>> off a bomb inside the cellâ?Ts nucleus.â?T>>>> POLIO: the virus and the

vaccine - References>>>> 1 www.polioeradicatio n.org>> 2 Cooke, : Treatise of Nervous Diseases, 1824>> 3 CK Mills; [boston M & S J]; 108: 248-250; 15 March 1883>> 4 Vulpian, A.: Quoted by R. W. Lovett, Ref. 5 below.>> 5 CK Mills; [boston M & S J]; 108: 248-250; 15 March 1883>> 6 CS Caverly; Yale Med J.; 1:1; 1894>> 7 WL Aycock; Ant J Hyg; 7: 791-803; November 1927>> 8 Australian Medical Gazette; 24 August 1897.>> 9 K Landsteiner; Wein Klin Wchnschr; 21: 1830; 1918>> 10 S Flexner and PA ; The Journal of the American Medical>> Association; 33: 639; 13 November 1909>> 11 S Flexner; ; 78:924-926; 19 November 1910. R Scobey; â?~Is the>> public health law responsible for the poliomyelitis mystery?â?T>> Archive Of Pediatrics; May 1951>> 12 www.chronicillnet. org/articles/

paralyticpolio. pdf>> 13 J Toomey; Journal of Pediatrics; 19:103; 1941>> 14 CW Jungeblut; Journal of Pediatrics; 37: 109; July 1950. R Scobey;>> Archives of Pediatrics; April 1952>> 15 Also see R Scobey; â?~Is human poliomyelitis caused by an>> exogenous virus?â?T; Science; (5) 51: 117; 1954>> 16 G Dalldorf and GM Sickles; â?~An unidentified, filterable agent>> isolated from the faeces of children with paralysisâ?T; Science;>> 108: 61; 1948>> 17 JF Enders et al; â?~Cultivation of the Lansing strain of>> poliomyelitis virus in cultures of various human embryonic>> tissuesâ?T; Science; 109: 85; 1949>> 18 Lancet (1 8April 1953; page 777) stated that monkeysâ?T>> testicles as well as their kidneys were used as sources of the cells>> that form the culture-medium for the polio virus>> 19 T Francis Jr;

â?~An evaluation of the 1954 poliomyelitis vaccine>> trials summary reportâ?T; American Journal of Public Health; 45:>> 1-63; 1955>> 20 M Beddow Bayly; â?~The story of the Salk anti-poliomyelitis>> vaccineâ?T; www.whale.to/ vaccine/bayly. html>> 21 The Lancet; 8 April 1950>> 22 Medical World Newsletter; June 1955>> 23 www.cdc.gov/ ncidod/dvrd/ revb/enterovirus /viral_meningiti s.htm>> 24 Walene ; www.vaccinetruth. org/polio_ vaccines. htm>> 25 Ibid.>> 26 The Koch Postulates are taught in every foundation course of>> virology. They can be found on Indiana Universityâ?Ts Introductory>> Virology webpage at>> http://www.bio. indiana.edu/ courses/M430- -virology/ history.html>> 27 GN Callahan; â?~Eating dirtâ?T; Emerging Infectious>>

Diseases; August 2003; www.cdc.gov/ ncidod/EID/ vol9no8/03- 0033.htm>> 28 RR Rueckert; â?~Infection: a rare eventâ?T; Fieldâ?Ts>> Virology; page 635; 1996.>> 29 R Scobey; â?~Is human poliomyelitis caused by an exogenous>> virus?â?T Science; (5) 51: 117; 1954>> 30 MS Biskind; Statement on clinical intoxication from DDT and other new>> insecticides, presented before United States House of Representatives to>> investigate the use of chemicals in food products; Journal Of Insurance>> Medicine; May, 1951>> 31 AB Sabin; The Journal of the American Medical Association; June 1947>> 32 D Dresden; Physiological Investigations into the Action Of DDT; GW>> Van Der Wiel & Co; Arnhem; 1949>> 33 MS Biskind and I Bieber; â?~DDT poisoning: a new syndrome with>> neuropsychiatric manifestationsâ ?T; American Journal Of>>

Psychotherapy; page 261; 1949>> 34 I.S. Eskwith; American Journal of Diseases of Children; 81: 684-686;>> May 1951>> 35>> www.seanet.com/ ~alexs/ascorbate /199x/landwehr- r-j_orthomol_ med-1991- v6-n\>> 2-p99.htm>> 36 MS Biskind; â?~Public health aspects of the new>> insecticidesâ ?T; American Journal of Digestive Diseases; 20: 330;>> 1953>> 37 Ibid.>> 38 MS Biskind; Statement on clinical intoxication from DDT and other new>> insecticides, presented before United States House of Representatives to>> investigate the use of chemicals in food products; Journal Of Insurance>> Medicine; May, 1951 - Also Archive Of Pediatrics; April 1952. Also Dr>> Ralph R. Scobey The Poison Cause of Poliomyelitis Archives of>> Pediatrics, vol. 69, p172 (April 1952). Also Emersonâ?Ts report on>> the 1908 epidemic in

Massachusetts.>> 39 FM Burchet and AV ; â?~Poliomyelitis: the significance of>> neutralising antibodies in human seraâ?T; Journal of Experimental>> Biology; page 261; 1939>> 40 Public Law 518; Federal Statutes; 1954>> 40 Public Law 905; Federal Statutes; 1956>> 41 http://www.who. int/vaccines/ casecount/ case_count. cfm.>> 42 A Arturo Leis et al; â?~West Nile poliomyelitisâ ?T;>> Reviewed in The Lancet, 1 January 2003>> 43 Tom et al, West Nile encephalitis, British Medical Journal,>> April 19th, 2003.>> 44 http://www.who. int/vaccines/ casecount/ case_count. cfm.>> 45 WHO Polio Lab Network Vol IV, no 3, 1998>> 46 Helen Pearson; â?~Polio vaccine may spawn diseaseâ?T;>> Nature, 17

November 2003.>> 47 Rand and Llang; â?~Effects of pesticides on the immune>> systemâ?T;>> 48 http://www.geocitie s.com/noxot/>> 49 WJ Rea et al; â?~The environmental aspects of the post-polio>> syndromeâ?T;[ www.aehf.com/ A56.htm ]>>>> Poisonous Vaccines Article>>>> 1 Manchester Guardian April 27>> 2 Journal of the American Medical Association February 25, 1961>> 3 Letter from T. Conner of Merck & Co. to Dr. Leroy Burney, Surgeon>> General of the United States, dated 12/16/60 - Plaintiffâ?Ts>> Exhibit No. 54 - In Re Sabin Polio Vaccine Litigation, MDL 780,>> U.S.D.C., MD - Baltimore, land Second International Conference on>> Live Poliovirus Vaccines, Pan American Health Organization and the World>> Health

Organization, Washington, DC 6-7 June, 1960, pp 79-85>> 4 Dr. Sabin stated: â?oThe three types of the large lots produced>> by Merck Sharp & Dohme in Rhesus monkey kidney cell cultures contained>> SV40.â?� WHO Report 1969>> 5 It is unclear why this doctor thought to test for SV40. He may well>> have read the report made by Hilleman and Swee>> 6 Federal Register, Saturday, March 25, 1961 at page 2565-2568, Sec.>> 73.110, et seq>> 7 Lederle Interoffice Memo, Re Presence of SV40 in vaccine lots 8>> November 1961>> 8 1992 Lederle internal memo, 14 March 1979 Re Request of information>> for Australian Bureau of Health.>> 9 ,1992.>> 10 Interview by author with Professor Steward for the>> â?~Independentâ ?T newspaper, London, 1996>> 11 Hilleman MR. History, precedent, and progress in the development

of>> mammalian cell culture systems for preparing vaccines: safety>> considerations revisited. J Med Virol 1990 May;31(1):5- 12. PMID 2198327.>> 12 F W, Sever J L, Madden D L. Absence of antibody response to>> simian virus 40 after inoculation with killed-poliovirus vaccine of>> mothers of offspring with neurologic tumors. N Engl J Med 1988; 318:>> 1469.>> 13 F W, Sever J L. Madden D L. Response to: Neurologic tumors in>> offspring after inoculation of mothers with killed-poliovirus vaccine. N>> Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1226.>> 14 M. Jr., M. Egan, Office of Vaccine Research and>> Review, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug>> Administration as published in â?~Simian Virus 40 (SV40) A Possible>> Human Polyomavirusâ ?T, NIH, Betheseda, land, USA, 1997].>> 15

Published in November, 1999, in Cancer.>> 16 A December 1996 paper in Oncogene by a German team headed by a>> Santarelli, reporting research partly carried out by them at the US>> National Institutes of Health, stated that â?oSV40 T-antigen>> induces breast cancer formation with a high efficiencyâ?� in 100%>> of lactating and 70% of virgin animals. They further noted that it was>> indicated that â?oimmortalisation of mammary cells by SV40>> T-antigen is a hit and run mechanismâ?� in that not all the cells>> affected by SV40 remain SV40 positive.>>>>>>>>>>