[no-forced-vaccination] gmo --??--The True Story of the Polio Vaccine

[Guest guest]

Subject: RE: [no-forced-vaccination] The True Story of the Polio Vaccine

To: no-forced-vaccination

Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008, 10:04 AM



I posted this info to the no-genetically- modified-foods site earlier on. In

animal cloning the SV40 virus is used as a promoter for genetic engineering and

then happily consumed by the unsuspecting consumer since the Fraud and Drug

Administration considers cloned meat perfectly safe! 

Ingrid

 

Large questions remain over the propriety, safety, ethics of creating cloned

prionless cows

One co-author, Robl, chief scientific officer of Hematch of Connecticut,

told the New Scientist in 2004 that the US company had only created the cell

lines lacking the prion gene, and denied that cloned cows would be produced for

food [15]. He said that the aim of the work was to use BSE-free cows to produce

pharmaceutical products such as human antibodies, but that these cows were

unlikely to end up on the dinner plate. That turned out to be a smokescreen, as

we point out, there is no guarantee that hazardous experimental cloned

transgenic cows will not enter the human food chain if transgenic and cloned

animals are approved for human consumption [3, 4].

The project raises the question of whether it is proper science to devote such

Herculean efforts to creating prionless cows, as it would merely perpetuate an

intensive, industrial animal husbandry regime that created BSE in the first

place. According to the UK Soil Association, which certifies organic

agricultural produce [16], “there has never been a recorded case of BSE in an

animal that was born in an organic herd where full organic management was in

place throughout the animal's life.†This claim could not be refuted by

subsequent investigations carried out as part of the UK government's BSE

enquiry.

Prionless cows are both transgenic and cloned, and hence subject to the

potential hazards and also the questionable ethics of both the transgenic and

the cloning processes, regardless of whether they are intended for our dinner

plate or for producing pharmaceuticals. Cloning creates massive deaths and

suffering for failed foetuses and calves and also for the numerous surrogate

dams required, and transgenesis in combination with cloning increases the number

of cloning steps, and hence multiplies deaths and suffering.

It is not clear whether the calves still carry antibiotic resistance markers

with loxP sites, the enhanced promoter from the SV40 virus, the Cre recombinase,

or indeed, the diphtheria toxin A gene integrated at non-target sites in the

genome. All of these dangerous genes could be subject to horizontal gene

transfer and recombination, and in the process, trigger cancer (if transferred

to human cells in the case of the strong viral promoter), and create and

recreate viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics [4]. Cre-recombinase

is known to scramble genomes (see Box 1).

In conclusion cloned transgenic animals should not be approved for commercial

use, nor should public research funding go to support such projects. Cloned

transgenic animals are far from safe on existing evidence, and certainly not

ethical in terms of animal welfare.

http://www.i- sis.org.uk/ Cloned_BSE- Free_Cows. php

 

>> 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.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>