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.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>