Prev: Research Study on CVID
Next: electrical cancer treatment
From: JOHN on 23 Sep 2008 08:35


"But this 'Manhattan project' was slow to bring results. It commenced in the
1890s and by 1950 little had been achieved. The most famed of the poliovirus
experiments reveal, when read in detail, that sixty years of this hunt
failed to isolate any virus proved to cause polio. What were being
experimented with, and named as polioviruses, were fluids from cultures,
filtered extracts from diseased tissues and even from the excrement of sick
children. In other words, they were still working with toxic fluids they
called viruses and it was these that they were testing to see if they caused
polio."

Lesson 10, Part 27R - What then can cause Polio?

Trouble with poliovirus

Written by Janine Roberts
Wednesday, 27 August 2008 13:08

What then can cause Polio? an extract from the book "Fear of the Invisible"
by Janine Roberts



Robert Koch taught in the late 19th century that there was one causative
germ per disease. His doctrine has ever since dominated much of virology.

But, in 1951 the vaccine scientists reported that to their surprise they
could not find the designated poliovirus, a gut virus, in many polio
victims! This should have stopped the vaccine trials dead. If the virus were
not there, the vaccine would be useless. Even worse was to come. They found
a different virus might be present, such as the Coxsackie, and speculated
this also might cause polio. This news was grimly received. The Koch
Postulates state that an agent could not be claimed to cause an illness if
it is not present in all cases.

Salk and Sabin could not stomach the idea that they might have got the wrong
cause. They were still wed to the idea that the cause had to be a virus -
but if other viruses could cause polio, this was disastrous to their hopes
of success with their vaccine. It meant that their vaccines would not give
the protection promised against all forms of polio. AL Hoynel reported in
the journal The Medical Clinics of North America that there was 'some
feeling of dismay ... [it] added one more problem to the nebulous conditions
surrounding poliomyelitis... the more we learn about poliomyelitis, the less
we know,' An editorial in the Lancet stated this discovery brought 'a crop
of new snags' to developing a vaccine. If other viruses were involved, the
vaccines in development would at best diminish, not stop, the polio
epidemics

But, from all that I have read, that the health authorities then promptly
resolved this dilemma by forgetting about it, for I could find no trace of
any subsequent attempts to develop vaccines for these other polio-causing
viruses. It must have been hoped that no one would notice. This was indeed
likely. At that time polio cases were diagnosed by clinical symptoms, as
with other diseases. This meant in diagnosis the poliovirus was presumed to
be present and not actually looked for.

With the other viruses seemingly obliterated from memory, from now on
finding the poliovirus in the excrement of victims became essential to
diagnosing polio, This diagnostic rule still applies and is on the World
Health Organization's website. They demand that samples of two turds from
each victim of infantile paralysis be sent to their laboratories. If no
poliovirus is found in these, the cases are declared not to be polio, even
if these children are suffering from the same severe paralysis symptoms and
pain as found in the worst cases of polio during the American epidemics.

When I discovered this, I thought this was an insane way to prove the
illness was caused by the poliovirus. They were excluding by fiat all cases
where another virus is present! Also, surely the absence of the poliovirus
in such cases suggests it might be misidentified as a major cause of this
disease?

All this made me sit back and think. If the nominated viruses were not
present in all polio cases - could the disease be caused by a toxin or
environmental factor that worked with several viruses? I went back to
reading the accounts of the doctors who treated the polio cases during the
great epidemics, hoping that their research might shed some light on this.

I soon found that, outside the hothouse of virological research, there were
doctors treating the casualties of the polio epidemics who had very
different ideas about what caused polio, based on their observations during
clinical diagnosis. I found they were inclined, from the evidence they
observed, to blame the polio epidemics on toxins rather than on viruses.

The germ theory is so well established that I did not feel I had any right
to reject it - but I now wondered if there might be a compromise? Even if
one accepted that poliovirus had a major role in causing polio, could some
other factor be needed to make this virus dangerous? Could an environmental
factor affect the victims' immune systems,' making children susceptible to
this virus? Might bacteria also be involved? Could toxins produced by
bacteria or coming from other sources make the suspected viruses more
virulent, and thus help create these epidemics?

I soon found that the doctors who blamed toxins had precedents to draw on.
It is now mostly forgotten that environmental factors were frequently blamed
for causing epidemics before the 20th century. Several epidemics were
successfully brought to an end simply by the provision of clean water and
better sanitation.

Most of us are thus unaware of the historical importance of the hunt for the
poliovirus during the first half of the 20th Century. It was the
decades-long 'Manhattan' project of virology; the project that established
this science in the pattern that it has followed until today. It set out to
prove a virus caused a major disease and took forty years to do so. It
effectively removed from consideration other possible causes of epidemics.
It would make vaccine provision a prime responsibility of governments, given
this priority in practice over the provision of good water supplies and
adequate nutrition.

Before this it had been bacteria that featured in the 'germ theory' of
disease. A virus was then either Jenner's cowpox pus or a theoretical
entity, a liquid containing invisibly small bacteria that might explain the
spread of disease when no bacterial infective agent could be found.

But this 'Manhattan project' was slow to bring results. It commenced in the
1890s and by 1950 little had been achieved. The most famed of the poliovirus
experiments reveal, when read in detail, that sixty years of this hunt
failed to isolate any virus proved to cause polio. What were being
experimented with, and named as polioviruses, were fluids from cultures,
filtered extracts from diseased tissues and even from the excrement of sick
children. In other words, they were still working with toxic fluids they
called viruses and it was these that they were testing to see if they caused
polio.

Before the invention of the electron microscope, the identifying
characteristics of a virus, according to published research, was to be
invisibly present in finely filtered fluid taken from laboratory cell
cultures, or sick humans. They were thus identified as 'filterable agents.'
It was presumed that invisibly small mini-bacteria had gone through the
anti-bacteria filter - as the resulting fluid was still pathogenic. Their
final defining feature was that these particles could 'replicate'. This
meant in practice that cells made ill with this noxious brew, seemed to
produce more of this brew.

But we now know there are many things smaller than viruses that might pass
through the same filter and still be potentially hazardous - such as DNA and
RNA fragments, proteins, prions, enzymes - and chemical toxins. There was
also the 'alien' factor. Human material was being put into monkeys or other
animals, and since this was alien to them, this might be what was poisoning
them.

Scientists tried to exclude these possibilities by 'passaging' samples of
their culture from one animal to another to another, as in the monkey
experiments described in another article on this site. They mostly picked
monkeys, as these were most like to humans. They hoped the repeated
'passaging' though monkey tissues would remove anything in their fluid that
was not being reproduced, or 'replicated.'

In the early stages of polio research they had no idea how their postulated
viruses might be reproducing themselves. As the poisonous liquids seemed to
be passed from one individual to another without losing virulence, they
presumed these must contain dangerous mini-bacteria, able to divide and
reproduce themselves.

It was not until the 1930s that electron microscopes made it possible to see
tiny particles that might be the sought after viruses. These were apparently
too simple in construction to be able to reproduce themselves, but since
they were observed to be produced by cells and to be going into cells, it
was postulated that the cells' massive reproductive chemistry must be
'hijacked' by them in order to preserve their viral species.

These viruses were presumed nearly equal to bacterial cells in aggressive
ability, but we now know that the genetic codes of viruses are vastly
smaller than that of bacteria. The former averages around 500 million base
pairs long, while that of a typical virus is around ten thousand long.

The scientists engaged on this hunt had to establish that these particles
caused the illness in question. This in itself was a long and difficult
process. According to Koch, they should be given to an animal, to see if
they caused the same illness. Logically they should have been given to a
human. This was rarely done. It was clearly unethical without informed
consent.

To help in this work, they developed a technique called 'plaque
purification.' This involved diluting a filtered sample of the culture to
the point when to dilute it further would stop a drop of the culture from
killing some of the cells grown in laboratory cultures. But, to tell the
truth I could see flaws in this process. What if many things could be
present and contributing to the cells' deaths - as Koch himself said of
septicaemia? What if something else than the designated virus was present
and doing this damage? The cellular culture used could easily contain a
multitude of things. We now know, for example, that SV40 was in it
undetected.

What of toxins? Could they be present? What also of cellular waste
products - could these pass on illnesses? Comparatively little scientific
work seems to have been done to exclude this possibility. Also, could
viruses be a natural product of poisoned cells? Again I could find little
research on this possibility. But, I thought it was unlikely that toxins
were involved, for how could toxins have caused the massive summertime polio
plagues? Surely the cause had to be something infective?

I went back to the first medical reports on the polio outbreaks. They were
from Vermont in New England and issued by the Government Inspector, Dr
Charles Caverly. He noted the families affected did not know each other, so
his report explicitly ruled out it being a 'contagious' disease (much to my
surprise). He also noted without comment that some parents told him their
children fell ill after eating fruit.

His official report surprisingly stated that the outbreaks of infantile
paralysis 'usually occurred in [a single child from] families of more than
one child, and as no efforts were made at isolation it was very certain it
was non-contagious.' He thus concluded the paralytic outbreak was probably
caused by a toxin, and not by a microorganism. Reading this, I wondered if
the vaccine scientists had ever bothered to consult with him?

What toxin could it be? There was an outstanding candidate. Jim West had
noted, on his well-documented website, that this report was dated 1892, just
two years after lead arsenate pesticide started to be sprayed many times
every summer to kill the codling moth on apple crops. Vermont was a major
apple-growing region - and its polio epidemics started shortly after this
pesticide came into widespread summer use.

It seems Caverly's report had rung alarm bells among other doctors than
virologists. Some remembered that metal workers had suffered for centuries
from a seemingly identical paralysis caused by the lead and arsenic in
metals they were processing - the very same 'heavy metals' that were sprayed
up to 12 times a summer over apple orchards. The pesticide was made of
neurotoxins that paralysed - for that was how they killed the moths. The
toxins suffocate the moths by attacking the nerves that go to the muscles
that enable them to breathe - the very same nerves that are damaged in
humans in the worse cases of polio, that forced patients to use iron-lungs
to breathe! Seemingly, no one seemed to have thought that what was done to
insects might also affect humans.

The paralytic effect of these metals had been observed as far back as 1824,
when the English scientist John Cooke observed: 'The fumes of these metals,
or the receptance of them in solution into the stomach, often cause
paralysis.' The common name for this illness then was 'palsy,'� short for
paralysis. This was an ancient disease � - there is evidence that the
ancient Egyptians suffered from it (see leg in picture) - but I do not know
if there it were among their metal workers.

In 1878 Alfred Vulpian had experimentally established that lead damages the
motor-neurone cells of dogs. This is the same damage that is found in
children with infantile paralysis. Then in 1883 the Russian Popow discovered
the same damage could be done with arsenic.

They had completed their research while Koch was developing the germ
theory, but his focus was on epidemics. These heavy metal poisoning cases
involved no general epidemic. They were only then among metal workers.

Perhaps if their work had been better known in the West, lead arsenate would
never have been used as a pesticide? The spraying was in summer and autumn -
so this would explain why polio epidemics struck in summer and autumn. It
would also explain why the first of these epidemics occurred in orchard-rich
New England - for that is where lead arsenate was widely introduced from
1892. It would also explain why some New England children went down
immediately after eating fresh fruit. This was making much sense. None of
these observations were explained by the poliovirus theory.

Lead arsenate was not the only new pesticide then coming into wide use. In
1907 calcium arsenate was introduced primarily for use on cotton crops and
in cotton mills. A year later in a Massachusetts town with three cotton
mills and apple orchards 69 children suddenly fell ill with infantile
paralysis. This was apparently the world's second outbreak of epidemic
polio.

Other cases were linked to milk supplies. At that time formaldehyde was
added to milk to prolong its 'shelf life.' This might also have been
responsible for some cases of polio. In 1897 The Australian Medical Gazette
reported that formaldehyde in milk had caused several cases of paralysis.
Lead arsenate was also used in the cow dip.

The UK banned apple imports from the States because they were so heavily
polluted with lead arsenate. Today many former US apple orchard sites are
listed as heath hazards, on which no building can take place without the
total removal of poisoned soil.

A toxic cause for polio would crucially explain why farmyard chickens and
animals were reported as suffering paralysis at the same time as the
children. This should not have happened, according to the virologists, for
their poliovirus can only infect humans.

I had never before questioned if the poliovirus were responsible for polio.
I had taken it as a given fact - so I was extremely surprised at finding
this research. It was fascinating to find evidence that so challenged
established theories. It stretched my mind, helped me think laterally. But I
said to myself, none of this explained why a polio vaccine stopped the
epidemics. Surely this by itself finally proves the poliovirus causes the
illness, that the vaccine scientists, despite many blunders, had eventually
got things right? If they had not - why were there now no polio epidemics?

The answer was none too clear to me. Again I thought, perhaps it was that
the virus and the toxins were co-factors; that the toxins weakened the
immune systems to allow the virus to attack?

I read how Dr. D. Bodian of Baltimore found in 1954 that injecting a
'poliovirus sample' into the hearts of monkeys made half of them paralysed.
But he had then found, if he injected them first with toxins or irritants,
including penicillin or DPT vaccine, the number paralysed went up to 80 per
cent and the paralysis frequently occurred in the limb injected!

This raised the issue for me of whether the DPT vaccine could also be a
factor. I knew that UK doctors had observed paralysis occurring in some of
the arms vaccinated. This vaccine was also introduced around the time of the
polio epidemics.

Once I started on this line of inquiry, the evidence poured in like a flood.
I learnt other pesticides could also cause paralysis. In the mid 1940s
powerful neurotoxin pesticides were introduced, including the organochlorine
DDT. A local polio epidemic in the UK town of Broadstairs, Kent, was linked
to a dairy where the cows were washed down with DDT. It ended when the dairy
was stopped from supplying milk. Apparently local doctors discovered this
toxin link.

Albert Sabin, a major developer of polio vaccines, had earlier reported some
crucial evidence, the significance of which he did not seem to fully
appreciate. He discovered that poliomyelitis was the major cause of sickness
and death among the American troops based in the Philippines at the end of
the Second World War, while the neighbouring Philippines settlements were
not affected. US military camps in the Philippines were sprayed daily with
DDT to kill mosquitoes.

But stronger evidence came, to my surprise, from the great American national
laboratories. The National Institutes of Health reported in 1944 that DDT
damaged the same anterior horn cells that are damaged in infantile
paralysis.

However these reports did not prevent DDT from making its way into shops to
be sold as a common household pesticide - or from being advertised as 'good
for you.' DDT after the Second World War rapidly replaced lead arsenate as
the pesticide of choice. By 1950 the number of cases of infantile paralysis
had increased nearly threefold over those of 1930. On the right: an
advertisement of the time.

Endocrinologist Dr Morton Biskind found in 1949 that DDT causes 'lesions in
the spinal cord resembling those in human polio.' In Germany in that same
year, Daniel Dresden found acute DDT poisoning produced 'degeneration in the
central nervous system' seemingly identical to that found in severe cases of
infantile paralysis. Both DDT and the new more powerful organochlorine
pesticide DDE were found to penetrate the blood-brain barrier that protected
the central nervous system.

Then two years later in 1951 the US Public Health Service reported: 'DDT is
a delayed-action poison. Due the fact that it accumulates in the body
tissues, especially in females, the repeated inhalation or ingestion of DDT
constitutes a distinct health hazard. The deleterious effects are manifested
principally in the liver, spleen, kidneys and spinal cord.' Again, I noted
that the spinal cord was where the damage was done that caused polio
paralysis.

Dr. Biskind, a practitioner and medical researcher, also came to the
conclusion that pesticides were the major cause of the polio epidemics. He
presented the evidence to the US Congress, but the medical establishment
ignored it. The germ theory of polio had captured its attention - and nearly
all the available funding. He lamented: 'Despite the fact that DDT is a
highly lethal poison for all species of animals, the myth has become
prevalent among the general population that it is safe for man in virtually
any quantity. Not only is it used in households with reckless abandon so
that sprays and aerosols are inhaled, the solutions are permitted to
contaminate skin, bedding and other textiles.' Children's bedrooms were
'protected' against the suspected poliovirus by having their walls covered
with wallpaper pre-soaked in DDT.

His words made me stop and think. Surely it was mostly the middle-class
households that used pesticide sprays with such abandon? Working-class
households had less money to spray - and would instead have clouted flies
with rolled up newspapers - or so I surmised. Could this be why the middle
classes suffered from polio so much more?

They sprayed because they were terrified of the widely reported, but
scientifically still undiscovered, poliovirus. Posters everywhere asked
parents to stop the virus by keeping their kids clean. No medical help was
available. They begged and begged the authorities to find a cure. Yet for
decades the only advice the health authorities had for these distraught
parents was to wash hands, disinfect doorknobs, keep the children clean,
indoors and away from public swimming pools - all for fear of the unknown
poliovirus.

These scary posters were distributed by the 1938-founded National Foundation
for Infant Paralysis, and designed, not just to educate, but to motivate
people to fund the hunt for the poliovirus - which in the 1950s consumed
$200 million dollars raised in the 'March of Dimes.' Other medical research
was neglected

Many middle class parents went further to protect their children. They
feared the invisible virus as if it were hunting their children. They turned
their homes into sterile zones by constantly spraying insecticides and
washing down the walls with disinfectants. Their fear became contagious and
their zeal fanatic, encouraged by health authority posters showing giant
flies attacking children. Parents literally hid their children from all
strangers lest they might infect them.

Their excessive use of household pesticides made the argument that
pesticides were to blame for these epidemics seem ever more plausible - but
I still thought, if pesticides were involved, how then could the success of
the polio vaccines be explained?

Biskind of course was doing his research before a vaccine was released and
so was not affected by such doubts. He was not primarily a laboratory
scientist but a doctor treating the victims of polio. He thought pesticides
caused their illness so treated them as victims of poisoning. The first step
in such a treatment is to remove the toxin from their food and environment.
He did so and found many recovered, especially when contaminated milk
products were also stopped. He tested butter purchased in New York and found
high concentrations of DDT. The government ignored his important discovery,
so he wrote in anger: 'Although young animals are much more susceptible to
the effects of DDT than adults, so far as the available literature is
concerned, it does not appear that the effects of such concentrations on
infants and children have even been considered.'

Other doctors reported success in treating polio patients with dimercaprol,
an anti-toxin still used in hospitals to treat poisoning. In 1951 Dr Irwin
Eskwith reported he thus cured a child with most severe form of polio,
bulbar paralysis. I was surprised also to read that a Dr. F. R. Klenner had
reported in the July 1949 issue of the Journal of Southern Medicine and
Surgery that he had cured 17 acute cases of polio with large doses of
another anti-toxin, ascorbic acid! He reported: "In the poliomyelitis
epidemic in North Carolina in 1948, 60 cases of this disease came under our
care. ... In 15 of these cases the diagnosis was confirmed by lumbar
puncture. ... The treatment employed was vitamin C in massive doses every
two to four hours. The initial dose was 1,000 to 2,000 mg, depending on age.
.... Children up to four years received the injections intramuscularly ...
All patients were clinically well after 72 hours.'

But this remarkable news left the government totally unmoved. This led to
angry and extremely frustrated complaints. These medical professionals could
not understand why government health officers would not question the viral
theory of polio despite it providing no cures. Why was their work ignored,
when they had solved the enigma and provided a cure? Yet public health
officials stubbornly ignored their reports as 'illogical and impossible.'

Nevertheless, Biskind in 1950 gained an invitation to present his evidence
to a US Congressional Hearing. By now he was by no means alone. Dr. Ralph
Scobey had found clear evidence of poisoning when analysing the blood of
polio victims: 'There are two abnormal findings in cases of poliomyelitis
that point strongly to poisoning as the cause of this disease. One consists
in the appearance of increased amounts of porphyrin in the urine; the other
is the presence of increased amounts of guanidine in the blood. It is a
well-known fact that porphyria can follow poisoning by a number of
chemicals. Guanidine has been found in increased amounts in the blood in
arsenic, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride poisonings.'

I had not heard of this before. However, on checking, I found his work is by
no means out-dated. Today it is established in toxicology that certain kinds
of poisoning can be measured by analysing the amount of the chemical
porphyrin in a patient's urine.

Dr. Scobey was invited to testify at Congress in 1951. That year also the US
Public Health Service reported: `DDT is a delayed-action poison. Due to the
fact that it accumulates in the body tissues, especially in females, the
repeated inhalation or ingestion of DDT constitutes a distinct health
hazard. The deleterious effects are manifested principally in the liver,
spleen, kidneys and spinal cord... DDT is excreted in the milk of cows and
of nursing mothers.' For a while it even seemed just about possible that
Scobey and Biskind might succeed, and that the virus theory of polio would
be abandoned.

But it seems the medical establishment was so wedded to the viral theory of
polio that it was adamant that this theory could not be questioned. Instead
some doctors subjected their ideas to ridicule. This made Biskind absolutely
fume. He angrily reported, in a 1953 paper published in the American Journal
of Digestive Diseases: 'It was known by 1945 that DDT is stored in the body
fat of mammals and appears in [their] milk... Yet, far from admitting a
causal relationship [between DDT and polio] that is so obvious, which in any
other field of biology would be instantly accepted, virtually the entire
apparatus of communication, lay and scientific alike, has been devoted to
denying, concealing, suppressing, distorting and attempts to convert into
its opposite this overwhelming evidence. Libel, slander and economic boycott
have not been overlooked in this campaign.'

but - if the vaccine stopped the epidemics - it surely must be a virus that
causes polio? This was an enigma that I must investigate - read 'the
Hidden Epidemic' here


CS Caverly; Yale Med J.; 1:1; 1894. I obtained this report from Mr Jim West,
a researcher who maintained an extensive online library on the relationship
between polio and pesticides - and on the West Nile Virus - at a website
Images of Poliomyelitis. This is not currently online (April 2008) but his
highly recommendable work can also be found at
http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/pesticides_polio.html

Cooke, John: Treatise of Nervous Diseases, 1824

Vulpian, A.: Quoted by R. W. Lovett, Ref below.

CS Caverly; Yale Med J.; 1:1; 1894. Also CK Mills; [Boston M & S J]; 108:
248-250; 15 March 1883

Australian Medical Gazette; 24 August 1897

Bodian D. (1934) .Amer. Jour. Hygiene. 60, 339.

Albert Sabin in The Journal of the American Medical Association. June
1948

I am grateful to Jim West's website, 'Images of Poliomyelitis' for
unearthing these posters.

D Dresden; Physiological Investigations into the Action Of DDT; GW Van Der
Wiel & Co; Arnhem; 1949

MS Biskind and I Bieber; 'DDT poisoning: a new syndrome with
neuropsychiatric manifestations'; American Journal Of Psychotherapy; page
261; 1949

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

I.S. Eskwith; American Journal of Diseases of Children; 81: 684-686; May
1951

Pages 211-212.

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

Dr Ralph R. Scobey The Poison Cause of Poliomyelitis Archives of Pediatrics,
vol. 69, p172 (April 1952).

For example, from the Oxford Journal 'Previous studies from this
laboratory have described metal-specific changes in the urinary porphyrin
excretion pattern (porphyrin profile) associated with prolonged exposure of
animals and humans to low levels of mercury, arsenic, lead, and other metals
(reviewed in Woods, 1995
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/61/2/234

MS Biskind; 'Public health aspects of the new insecticides'; American
Journal of Digestive Diseases; 20: 330; 1953




From: Citizen Jimserac on 24 Sep 2008 10:50
On Sep 23, 8:35 am, "JOHN" <j...(a)nospam.com> wrote:
> "But this 'Manhattan project' was slow to bring results. It commenced in the
> 1890s and by 1950 little had been achieved. The most famed of the poliovirus
> experiments reveal, when read in detail, that sixty years of this hunt
> failed to isolate any virus proved to cause polio.  What were

I do NOT agree with this nor with other aspects of this posting
and the polio virus has been not only discovered but several years
ago, if my aging memory serves me correctly, the first synthetic polio
virus was created from the genomic information and it did infect and
cause lab animals to have polio.

However, other aspects of the book seem quite intriguing and I have
therefore added it to my reading list as the investigative
journalist author appears to have done a good job in uncovering a
NUMBER of interesting and little known facts regarding vaccinations
and other topics.

From the Amazon description of the Book:
http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Invisible-Janine-Roberts/dp/0955917727

quoted from Amazon book review of the book
"Fear of the Invisible" by Janine Roberts:

" The author, an investigative journalist who has researched and
produced investigative films for the BBC, American and Australian
television, was asked by parents whose children had fallen severely
ill after vaccination to discover if the medical authorities might be
hiding anything from them. She agreed, but had no idea how long this
search would take or how it would change her ideas."

"She expected at best to uncover a small degree of vaccine
contamination. But, on the ensuing journey of discovery, she found top
government scientists reporting alarmingly, at meetings between
scientists, that it is impossible to purify vaccines. They stated that
the childhood vaccines of today are contaminated with viruses from
chickens, humans and monkeys, with RNA and DNA fragments, with
"cellular degradation products," and possibly "oncogenes and prions.""

end quote from Amazon book review.
Citizen Jimserac

From: D. C. Sessions on 24 Sep 2008 12:21
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
> On Sep 23, 8:35�am, "JOHN" <j...(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>> "But this 'Manhattan project' was slow to bring results. It commenced in
>> the 1890s and by 1950 little had been achieved. The most famed of the
>> poliovirus experiments reveal, when read in detail, that sixty years of
>> this hunt failed to isolate any virus proved to cause polio. �What were
>
> I do NOT agree with this nor with other aspects of this posting
> and the polio virus has been not only discovered but several years
> ago, if my aging memory serves me correctly, the first synthetic polio
> virus was created from the genomic information and it did infect and
> cause lab animals to have polio.

Cello J, Paul AV, Wimmer E (2002). "Chemical synthesis of poliovirus
cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template".
Science 297 (5583): 1016?8

However, you missed the really classic Scudamoreism here: he draws
the line before 1950 and pretends that nothing in virology has
been accomplished since then.

Well, actually, he also just plain lies. Popper and Landsteiner
isolated poliovirus in 1909.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> -+
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Research Study on CVID
Next: electrical cancer treatment