Vegetarian Discussion: Safer Medicines - Didn't Penicillin Come From Animal Experimentation?

Safer Medicines - Didn't Penicillin Come From Animal Experimentation?
Posts: 41

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)

Old Codger
2008-04-24 02:17:33 EST
Didn't penicillin come from animal experimentation?
http://www.curedisease.net/faqs/faq07.shtml
Actually, it's a fact that animal tests significantly sidetracked
development of this important drug. In 1929, Alexander Fleming
observed penicillin as it killed bacteria in a Petri dish. Intrigued,
he administered the compound to bacteria-infected rabbits, hoping it
would do the same thing.

"And it almost didn't come at all."
Unfortunately, penicillin was ineffective against the rabbit's
infection. Disappointed, Fleming set the drug aside for a decade, as
the rabbits had "proved" the drug was useless as a systemic
medication.

Years later, he administered the drug in desperation to a dying
patient, for whom all other treatments were ineffectual. The
penicillin performed a miracle, and the rest is history.

Fleming might have thrown penicillin away had he done his initial
tests on guinea pigs or hamsters, as it would have killed those
species. Fleming later admitted that misleading results from animal
testing almost prevented discovery of the entire field of antibiotics.

Weren't lab animals responsible for the discovery of diabetes and
development of insulin?

Pro-animal experiment contingencies always cite the development of
insulin as support for continued animal testing, asserting that
insulin harvested from slaughterhouses saved the lives of many
diabetics. This is true. But the use of animals in the search for the
cause of diabetes has been overwhelmingly counterproductive.

Diabetes affects in excess of 125 million people worldwide and is a
leading cause of blindness, amputation, kidney failure and premature
death. Physicians in the late 18th century first linked the disease
with characteristic changes in the pancreas seen at autopsy. As this
was difficult to reproduce in animals, many scientists disputed the
pancreas' role in the disease. When they removed the pancreas from
dogs, cats, and pigs, the animals became diabetic. But their symptoms
led researchers to conjecture that diabetes was a liver disease,
throwing diabetes research off track for decades. In 1922, outraged
scientists spoke out against the animal experiments that many were
claiming had proven the existence of insulin:

"The production of insulin originated in a wrongly conceived, wrongly
conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of [animal]
experiments."[14]

They pointed out that human autopsy had in fact shown the pancreas to
be the vital organ in diabetes, and that in vitro research had
isolated insulin - not animal experiments.

Scientists later modified the in vitro process they had used to
isolate insulin, successfully mass-producing pig and cattle insulin
reaped in slaughterhouses. This animal-derived insulin indeed saved
lives, but not without complications. It also created allergic
reactions and exposed patients to serious health risks. Had they
recognised these dangers, scientists would have hastened to develop
human insulin.

Insulin is only a treatment for diabetes, not a cure. The exact
biochemical process through which insulin regulates blood sugar is yet
to be discovered. If the funds devoted to studies had gone to human
research, would we still have this plague?

RESULT: Lab animal tests threw diabetes research off track for
decades.

How will we combat AIDS without animal experimentation?

Over the last 20 years, billions have been spent fruitlessly trying to
infect animals with AIDS. Given the inability to produce an adequate
animal model, it is foolish to assume that animal experimentation will
lead us to a cure. Many in the AIDS community - with their lives on
the line - actively demonstrate against animal experiments as a waste
of precious time and money.[15]

Blood from those infected with HIV remains our most illuminating
research material to date. Humans who do not progress from HIV to AIDS
offer excellent insight to possible ways of countermanding the
disease. [16]

Through epidemiology and in vitro research, scientists have already
isolated the human gene believed responsible for their immunity.[17]
Though proponents of animal testing claim AZT and other preventative
medications for AIDS were developed through animal research, existing
human data and computers were in fact responsible. [18]

AIDS kills humans at the cellular level, so that is where it needs to
be studied. Mindlessly investing valuable research funding in animal
experiments only keeps AIDS patients ill.[19-22]

Aidsvax was tested on 8,000 high-risk volunteers because it protected
chimpanzees from HIV infection. Unfortunately for the volunteers, it
afforded them no protection whatsoever.

If not with animals, how can we ever hope to cure cancer?

Cancer has now overtaken heart disease as the number one killer in the
UK. One major reason we have not yet stemmed mortality from cancer is
this: animal cancer is not the same as human cancer.

Cancer is not one disease. It is many. In humans, there are over 200
different forms of cancer afflicting different organs, tissues, and
cells. Though comparable animal organs, tissues, and cells may become
cancerous, the cancers are never identical to human carcinomas.

Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species.
Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats
were not carcinogenic in mice. [23] If species as closely related as
mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it's not
surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused
cancer in animals. [24]

The US National Cancer Institute treated mice growing 48 different
"human" cancers with a dozen different drugs proven successful in
humans, and in 30 of the cases, the drugs were useless in mice. Almost
two-thirds of the mouse models were wrong. Animal experimentation is
not scientific because it is not predictive.

The US National Cancer Institute also undertook a 25 year screening
programme, testing 40,000 plant species on animals for anti-tumour
activity. Out of the outrageously expensive research, many positive
results surfaced in animal models, but not a single benefit emerged
for humans. As a result, the NCI now uses human cancer cells for
cytotoxic screening.[25]

Dr. Richard Klausner, as director of the US National Cancer Institute,
plainly states:

"The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in
the mouse... We have cured mice of cancer for decades - and it simply
didn't work in humans."

Didn't all Nobel Prize winners in Medicine and Physiology experiment
on animals?

Yes, most did. But it doesn't follow that the discoveries would not
have occurred without animals. It only means that the market for lab
animals was thriving and accessible.

>From the second half of the 19th century onward, experimenting on
animals became part of all medical curricula. Therefore researchers
were obliged to perform animal experiments to earn their degrees.

In the instances wherein animals were used for the Nobel Prize-winning
results, they were not necessary. Though animal tissue research was
the convention, human tissue was available and more viable - as many
Nobel Prize winners have since remarked.

The discovery of the DNA double helix, arguably the 20th Century's
most important medical breakthrough, would have been impossible
without the non-animal methods of technology and in vitro research.

Don't all doctors support the concept of animal experimentation?

We commissioned a survey of 500 General Practitioners, conducted by
global market research organisation TNS Healthcare in 2004. The
results revealed a staggering level of distrust in results obtained
from animal experiments:

82% were concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to
humans
only 21% would have more confidence in animal tests for new drugs than
in a battery of human-based safety tests
83% would support an independent scientific evaluation of the clinical
relevance of animal experimentation
Clearly, a silent majority of doctors today are aware that animal
tests are not the safety net the public and the medical profession are
frequently assured they are by the government and the pharmaceutical
industry.

A paper published in the British Medical Journal on 28th February 2004
asked "Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?" If
such evidence cannot be found, the practice should cease. Patients
will benefit because they will no longer be damaged by misleading
data, and also because the resources currently pouring into animal
research will be freed for clinical research.

Today, medicine is much more evidence-based and it is time to weigh
the real harm from animal experiments against the alleged benefits. An
independent, transparent evaluation of the scientific value of animal
experiments is long overdue. Incredibly, the government "has not
commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of
animal experiments and has no plans to do so" (Home Office, April
2004).



Rudy Canoza
2008-04-24 13:01:16 EST
pete the forging shitbag lied:
> Didn't penicillin come from animal experimentation?
> http://www.curedisease.net/faqs/faq07.shtml
> Actually, it's a fact that animal tests significantly sidetracked
> development of this important drug.

It is an absolute, uncontested fact that animal research was crucial to
the development of polio vaccines.

Boulder
2008-04-24 17:19:53 EST
Rudy Canoza explained :
> pete the forging shitbag lied:
>> Didn't penicillin come from animal experimentation?
>> http://www.curedisease.net/faqs/faq07.shtml
>> Actually, it's a fact that animal tests significantly sidetracked
>> development of this important drug.
>
> It is an absolute, uncontested fact that animal research was crucial to the
> development of polio vaccines.

does anyone give a shit ??



Rudy Canoza
2008-04-24 17:20:42 EST
boulder wrote:
> Rudy Canoza explained :
>> pete the forging shitbag lied:
>>> Didn't penicillin come from animal experimentation?
>>> http://www.curedisease.net/faqs/faq07.shtml
>>> Actually, it's a fact that animal tests significantly sidetracked
>>> development of this important drug.
>>
>> It is an absolute, uncontested fact that animal research was crucial
>> to the development of polio vaccines.
>
> does anyone give a shit ??

Yes, fuckwit. It is a standard lie of "animal rights" extremist liars
that medical research on live animals is worthless. The demonstration
that they are lying must be done repeatedly.

B*@gmail.com
2008-04-24 19:13:05 EST
On Apr 24, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> pete the forging shitbag lied:
>
> > Didn't penicillin come from animal experimentation?
> >http://www.curedisease.net/faqs/faq07.shtml
> > Actually, it's a fact that animal tests significantly sidetracked
> > development of this important drug.
>
> It is an absolute, uncontested fact that animal research was crucial to
> the development of polio vaccines.


Rudi is not correct; vivisection delayed a cure for
at least 20 years. We been thru all this.

Rudy Canoza
2008-04-24 19:41:24 EST
B*e@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 24, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>> pete the forging shitbag lied:
>>
>>> Didn't penicillin come from animal experimentation?
>>> http://www.curedisease.net/faqs/faq07.shtml
>>> Actually, it's a fact that animal tests significantly sidetracked
>>> development of this important drug.
>> It is an absolute, uncontested fact that animal research was crucial to
>> the development of polio vaccines.
>
>
> Rudi is not correct; vivisection delayed a cure for
> at least 20 years.

No, it did not. You are a liar - you are intentionally lying.

Frederick Robbins, speaking for himself and Thomas Weller, two of the
three Nobel prize winning researchers who isolated the polio virus,
explicitly rebutted your claim:

“The statement that animal experimentation delayed the ‘fight against
polio’ is totally wrong. Indeed, all we learned about the disease
came from studies with animals, primarily monkeys. We learned that
there were three types of polio virus, a crucial piece of
information. It was shown that monkeys could be immunized and that
the portal of entry for the virus was the gastro-intestinal tract.

“Inoculation of monkeys was the only way that one could demonstrate
the presence of the virus. Later, one strain of polio virus was
adapted to mice, but it was only one type (2). In our early tissue
culture experiments, it was necessary to inoculate animals to
demonstrate virus in the cultures. Far from misleading us, animals
led us to the truth and made possible the eventual solution."

http://www.fbresearch.org/education/MythPolio.htm


This is not in credible dispute. The use of animals did /not/ delay the
discovery of a polio vaccine; it was crucial to obtaining it.

Pearl
2008-04-25 07:25:47 EST
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:1KCdnaV047ePhozVnZ2dnUVZ_h6hnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> BooBoolane@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >> pete the forging shitbag lied:
> >>
> >>> Didn't penicillin come from animal experimentation?
> >>> http://www.curedisease.net/faqs/faq07.shtml
> >>>
> >>> Actually, it's a fact that animal tests significantly sidetracked
> >>> development of this important drug.
> >>>
> >> It is an absolute, uncontested fact that animal research was crucial to
> >> the development of polio vaccines.
> >
> > Rudi is not correct; vivisection delayed a cure for
> > at least 20 years.
>
> No, it did not. You are a liar - you are intentionally lying.
>
> Frederick Robbins, speaking for himself and Thomas Weller, two of the
> three Nobel prize winning researchers who isolated the polio virus,
> explicitly rebutted your claim:
>
> \ufffdThe statement that animal experimentation delayed the \ufffdfight against
> polio\ufffd is totally wrong. Indeed, all we learned about the disease
> came from studies with animals, primarily monkeys. We learned that
> there were three types of polio virus, a crucial piece of
> information. It was shown that monkeys could be immunized and that
> the portal of entry for the virus was the gastro-intestinal tract.
>
> \ufffdInoculation of monkeys was the only way that one could demonstrate
> the presence of the virus. Later, one strain of polio virus was
> adapted to mice, but it was only one type (2). In our early tissue
> culture experiments, it was necessary to inoculate animals to
> demonstrate virus in the cultures. Far from misleading us, animals
> led us to the truth and made possible the eventual solution."
>
> http://www.fbresearch.org/education/MythPolio.htm
>
> This is not in credible dispute. The use of animals did /not/ delay the
> discovery of a polio vaccine; it was crucial to obtaining it.

'Sabin himself made an impressive argument against vivisection when
he testified to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs in 1984 saying:
"Work on prevention [of polio] was delayed by an erroneous conception
of the nature of the human disease, based on misleading experimental
models [of polio] in monkeys".
..'
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/faq.html#6
[A. Sabin, statement before the subcommittee on Hospitals and Health
Care, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of Representatives,
April 26, 1984 serial no. 98-48 . ]

'Although those who promote vivisection often cite the polio vaccine
to support animal experimentation, the truth is more complicated.
The most important advance in the development of a polio vaccine
came in 1949 when Enders, Weller and Robbins showed that the
polio virus could be grown in human tissue. They were awarded the
Nobel prize for this discovery.

Despite this breakthrough, Salk and Sabin - who are usually credited
with the polio vaccines - continued their reliance on traditional animal
models and the use of monkey tissues. They feared that human tissues
would harbor dangerous human viruses. In fact, we now know that
monkey cells harbor many viruses, some of which have been shown
to infect humans, and are probably at least as dangerous as human
tissue, if not more so. [A]
...'
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/faq.html#6

'The first major breakthrough in the study of polio was the
discovery of its infectious nature through epidemiological studies
conducted in Sweden in 1884 and the investigation of an epidemic
in Sweden in 1887 by Medin. One of Medin's pupils, Wickman,
demonstrated that not only was polio infectious, but that less severe
cases of polio acted as important carriers of the disease. He also
identified the incubation period in humans. Other researchers went
on to inject infected tissues from human cadavers into monkeys,
but as Dr. Paul wrote in his major historical overview, "History of
Poliomyelitis", "in the end no amount of experimentation on the
monkey could upset the fundamental clinical epidemiological
truths that Wickman discovered."

['The theory involving the digestive tract was established in the
very early 1900s by Ivar Wickman who studied in detail two polio
epidemics in Sweden. He found that polio affects throat, stomach,
and intestines, and he suggested that the gastrointestinal system
might be the initial site of infection.[4]
The correct theory was resisted in the face of strong supporting
evidence, because animal data did not agree. In 1938 when the
theory was challenged, the real route of infection was identified.
This route is via the mouth and digestive tract, as suggested by
the clinical researchers.[5]
http://web.archive.org/web/20060303111949/http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/vin13.html ]

Acceptance that polio was an infectious disease led to the search
for its causes. For almost 25 years, animal researchers searched
for a bacterial cause, but their experiments were in vain as polio is
caused by a virus. Several sets of subsequent animal experiments
gave conflicting results. Landsteiner eventually abandoned the
study of polio because of the reliance on a monkey model of the
disease which was proving to be inadequate. A blizzard of
inconsistent information was generated using different species
and strains of virus with no indication as to which experiments
were of any relevance to the human situation.

Back in 1909, Wickman had concluded that infection was via the
intestinal route. This was followed by the autopsy studies of
Kling and his colleagues from 1911 to 1913.
...'
http://marcussternum.tripod.com/facts.htm

' The widespread lymphoid hyperplasia found consistently in
gross and microscopic autopsy examinations in cases of
human poliomyelitis never has been explained on the basis of
a virus infection. There is involvement of Peyer's patches and
the solitary follicles of the gastro-intestinal tract, mesenteric
and retroperitoneal lymph nodes, peribronchial lymph nodes,
thymus, malpighian corpuscles of the spleen, tonsils, adenoid
tissue of the nose and throat, and the lymph nodes of the neck,
axilla, groin, and other parts. Burrows78 (1931) in a series of
about fifty autopsies, noted that the maximum amount of
lymphoid hyperplasia was in Peyer's patches and the solitary
lymph follicles of the gastro-intestinal tract and the mesenteric
lymph nodes. He felt that the nerve tissue changes were
secondary to those existing in the lymph channels of this tissue.
<
Experimental Animal Poliomyelitis In Human Beings

Once the poliomyelitis virus is recovered from human and
extrahuman sources many diversified experiments can be
carried out in the laboratory with experimental animals. The
unfortunate thing, however, is that these laboratory experiments
on animals are interpreted as being applicable to the human
disease from whence the virus was obtained and that unjustified
conclusions are drawn. Realizing that an animal will develop
experimental poliomyelitis from a virus introduced into its body
in an abnormal manner, one can expect that a human being also
can develop poliomyelitis of the experimental animal type under
the same conditions. Thus, there is to be found in the medical
literature reports of the development of poliomyelitis in
technicians117-120 working in laboratories with concentrated
forms of the poliomyelitis virus. In these cases the portal of
entry of the virus is doubtless an abrasion, scratch, laceration
or needle prick. A case of poliomyelitis in a technician118,
which followed the contamination by a virus of a scratch, failed
to show at autopsy the pathological lesions characteristic of
human poliomyelitis arising in a natural manner. It is significant
that in this case the gastro-intestinal tract revealed no lesions
and no virus was present in the intestinal contents. Over the
past 40 years these are the only reported cases of poliomyelitis
developing in laboratory workers.
<
Incubation Period Of Human Poliomyelitis Versus
Experimental Animal Poliomyelitis

Agreement regarding the incubation period of cases of human
poliomyelitis has been based almost entirely on the results of
animal experiments with the virus of the disease. It is a well
known fact that cases of human poliomyelitis in a home,
institution or community occur almost simultaneously and are
often described as explosive in character. This fact is typical
of the effects of poisoning. On the other hand, where
experiments on animals in the laboratory are carried out with
the virus, a definite incubation period can be established
according to the manner in which the virus is administered,
its concentration, and the species of animal that is employed.
It has always been difficult to reconcile the fact that human
poliomyelitis has a short incubation period of one to three days.
according to Wickman55 and others, where the virus would
necessarily have to traverse the natural barriers in order to set
up infection in the central nervous system and an incubation
period of as long as nine or more days in the experimental
disease, where the virus is inoculated directly into the central
nervous system.

Incubation period in humans is 1 to 3 days, yet more than
9 days in lab animals.

http://www.geocities.com/harpub/scobexog.htm

'It is noteworthy that the appearance of neutralizing antibodies in the
blood after the injection of the poliomyelitis virus is very uncertain
evidence of parallel immunity to the natural disease81. This fact was
shown clearly by Kramer82, in 1936. He vaccinated a group of children
with vaccine and two months later found that 50 per cent had developed
neutralizing antibodies. However, in a parallel uninoculated group of
children, 41 per cent had also developed antibodies. Kramer's results
were in essential agreement with those of Aycock and Hudson83,
who found an increase of 28.6 per cent of immunes among the
vaccinated children in their series as compared with an increase of
22.8 per cent of inimunes in the unvaccinated control group. Neither
of these writers considered the small difference of any practical value
in favor of the vaccinated group.

No significant difference in antibody formation between vaccinated
and control groups.
..
If humans are injected with a concentrated form of active virus, it is
natural to expect that they would develop the same type of poliomyelitis
that occurs in experimental animals following the injection of the virus.
Actually, this did occur in 1935, when some children who received a
poliomyelitis vaccine prepared with the virus obtained from
experimental animals developed poliomyelitis; half of them died.121
Significant facts of great importance in these cases were that the
incubation period of 6 to 14 days following the injections corresponds
with the incubation period of experimental animal poliomyelitis; the
fact that the level of the spinal cord first affected corresponded with
the extremity in which the injection was made. i.e., the same limb or
the contralateral limb parallels recent observations. It is now known,
for example, that poliomyelitis con occur following the injection of
toxic antigens during the summer months, i.e., pertussis vaccine and
diphtheria toxoid and that the paralysis occurs in the same limb or
the contralateral limb where the antigen is injected.

Injections create a highly abnormal situation. Injections of many
things, such as cellular material or peach skin can cause disease.

http://www.geocities.com/harpub/scobexog.htm

'..there is ample evidence in the scientific literature that serious
viruses, bacteria; or components and toxins there from; as
well as foreign animal or cancer-related proteins and DNA are
finding their way into the commercial vaccines intended for
humans, pets, and agricultural animals. [...]

In the production of viral vaccines on a commercial scale, the
virus of concern must be reproduced in large quantities. Viruses
cannot survive or reproduce without being introduced into cells
that nourish them, which enables the viral reproductive activity.
In that sense all viruses can be considered parasitic on other cells.
Living cell types commonly used to reproduce viruses in the lab
include monkey kidney cells, chicken embryos, as well as other
animal and human cells. These cells must also be nourished with
food, and are most often fed with a nutrient mix containing in
large part, bovine (cow) calf serum (usually, serum extracted
from fetal calf blood). This product can carry many types of
bovine blood-borne viruses, and is one of the primary sources
of vaccine contaminants. A journal article states, "a potential risk
associated with the production and use of biological products is
viral contamination. This contamination may be present in the
source material, e.g. human blood, human or animal tissues,
cell banks, or introduced in the manufacturing process through
the use of animal sera..."(1)

..1990. A scientist in the field writes, "The present concern is for
safety of vaccines made using transformed or neoplastic
mammalian cells that may contain endogenous contaminating
viruses or integrated gene sequences from oncogenic viruses.
There is also concern for use of plasmid vectors employing
promoter elements from oncogenic viruses. The principal concern
for safety lies with retention of residual DNA in the vaccine,
*especially since induction of cancer is a single-cell phenomenon,
and a single functional unit of foreign DNA integrated into the host
cell genome might serve to induce cell transformation* as a single
event or part of a series of multifactorial events. Current proposed
standards for vaccines would permit contamination with up to
100 pg [picograms] of heterologous DNA per dose. This is
equivalent to about 10(8) 'functional lengths' of DNA. Total
safety would seem to require complete absence of DNA from the
product."(31)

Please note that 10(8) means 10 to the power of 8, or *100,000,000
"functional lengths" of DNA are allowed per dose of vaccine.* Is
there something wrong with this picture? How long will the general
public be subjected to these vaccine products that according to
this information, are nowhere near safe?
...'
http://www.industryinet.com/~ruby/vac_coming_thru.html

'.. 1973, Prof. Clausen, Director of the Institute of Preventative
Medicine at the University of Odense, Denmark, warned the
medical establishment:

"Millions of people have been inoculated with anti-polio vaccine
contaminated with tumoral SV40 virus." (Present in the green
monkey cells ground to produce the vaccine.) "It is possible that
it will take 20 or more years before the eventual harmful effects of
the vaccine will manifest itself."

"All the major medical historians of our century agree that the
decline of the epidemics which had wrought havoc in the Middle
Ages was not due to the introduction of vaccination, but of
hygiene, for they had diminished long before large-scale
inoculations had begun. And hygiene, in the broadest sense of
the word, physical, mental and alimentary, is the only key to
health. The overwhelming majority of people vaccinated all over
the world against polio have been inoculated with potentially
carcinogenic substances. i.e. theoretically capable of producing
cancer." (Hans Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent.)

And in Naked Empress by the same author:

"There is crushing evidence that polio has not been eliminated by
vaccination, but on the contrary has experienced a resurgence or
an initial increase wherever mass inoculation was introduced."

"The first polio vaccine, the Salk, caused polio epidemics in the
U.S.A., Canada, Hungary, Israel, Japan and Australia. In Brazil,
vaccination... unleashed the severest polio epidemic the world
had ever known."

"Polio, and a great many other diseases, are now on the increase
in the third world thanks to mass vaccination campaigns."

"Paralytic polio was virtually unknown before the mass vaccination
campaigns began in the late 19th century. The polio virus, which
is present but dormant in most people, is activated and mutates to
it's paralytic form after vaccination."
...'
http://www.health.org.nz/polio.html

' Ignoring SV40 for so long was a mistake, according to Carbone
and other cancer experts. "There is no doubt that SV40 is a
human carcinogen," says Carbone, who has studied the virus
closely for more than ten years. "SV40 is definitely something
you don't want in your body." Yet that is exactly where the virus
is showing up. Since the mid-1990's, SV40 has been found not
only in the type of brain cancer that afflicted Alexander Horwin,
and the mesotheliomas studied by Carbone and other
researchers, but also in a variety of other brain tumors and
bone cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas.

Many of these tumors have increased in incidence dramatically
since the 1950s and early 1960s-the period when the polio
vaccine was contaminated with SV40. Malignant mesothelioma,
for instance, was virtually unheard of prior to 1955; today it
afflicts and kills about 2,500 Americans each year and many
more people in Europe. Brain and central nervous system
tumors increased in incidence by more than 30 percent in just
one twenty-year period from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s.
Bone tumors are also on the rise. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma,
the disease that killed Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Jordan's
King Hussein, has also skyrocketed in incidence, increasing by
3 percent annually since the 1970s. It now strikes 54,000 new
victims each year. Another 30,000 Americans are afflicted
every year with acute or chronic leukemia.
..'
http://www.thevirusandthevaccine.com/readanexcerpt.html

'108th Congress House Hearings
..
Sep 10 2003
...
.. the Institute of Medicine and highly credentialed
nongovernment scientists in multiple labs around the world
continue to identify SV-40 in human brain and lung cancers
of children and adults and are finding that SV-40 is also
associated with bone cancers and non-Hodgkins lymphomas.
The majority of these independent scientists have concluded
that, yes, SV-40 does cause human cancers.

Up until this hearing to date the world scientific community
has assumed that the only polio vaccine that was contaminated
with SV-40 and released for use by millions of Americans was
Jonas Salk's killed polio vaccine, which stopped being used
in 1963 because it was replaced by Albert Sabin's live polio
vaccine. Why? Because the oral polio vaccine manufacturer
and Federal health agencies have told everyone that while the
Salk vaccine was made using the SV-40 infected rhesus
monkey kidney tissues after 1963 the oral polio vaccine was
made using African Green monkeys, which are rarely infected
with SV-40. The vaccine manufacturer and government officials
have insisted that the switch from rhesus monkeys to African
Green as well as testing protocols to detect SV-40 prevented
SV-40 from contaminating oral polio vaccine after 1963.

However, you will be presented with evidence today that
suggests, one, the original seed stocks of oral polio vaccine
were made using the rhesus monkey and were contaminated
with SV-40; two, the major oral polio vaccine manufacturer
did not adequately test their master seed stocks which
reportedly contained SV-40 but used them to produce vaccine
released for use by American children from the 1960's through
the 1990's; and, three, Federal regulatory agencies either did
not know or knew and did not do anything about evidence
that SV-40 contaminated oral polio vaccine was released for
use by the public from the 1960's to the 1990's.

If SV-40 contaminated rhesus monkeys were used to produce
original oral polio vaccine stocks, and if these seed stocks
were used to produce oral polio vaccine that was swallowed by
American children through the 1990's, and if SV-40 does cause
human brain, lung and bone cancers, then this could explain why
children today, who were not born before 1963 and never got
SV-40 contaminated Salk vaccines, are now sick and dying from
cancerous tumors containing DNA from a monkey virus that was
in those vaccines. Pediatric brain cancer, once rare, rose during
the past few decades, according to the National Cancer
Institute. But we don't know how many of these children had or
have SV-40 in their brain tumors because nobody checks, how
many of these children are sick and dying because the
manufacturer of oral polio vaccine did not follow the rules and
government health agencies did not enforce the rules.

Since 1999, the United States has discontinued use of the
live oral polio vaccine and American children are now getting a
killed vaccine that is reportedly SV-40 free. So why is it
important today to find out whether or not the oral vaccine
used to eradicate polio was in fact contaminated with the
cancer causing monkey virus and that the vaccine manufacturer
knew it and government health agencies looked the other way?

It is important because if it's true, then a precedent has been
set and that precedent may well be affecting decisions being
made by government health agencies today about what kinds
of animal tissue cultures vaccine manufacturers will be allowed
to use to make new vaccines and what kinds of tests will be
required to ensure that the vaccines do not contain animal
viruses or other contaminants.

I've just ended a 4-year term as the consumer voting member
of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory
Committee. My service on that committee gave me a new
appreciation for the dedicated work of a number of fine
scientists employed by the FDA who take their regulatory duties
very seriously and are working hard to regulate the vaccine
industry with very limited resources and limited support within
and outside of the government. But there are legitimate concerns
which I and others have voiced in the past and continue to have
about whether government standards for requiring vaccine
manufacturers to prove the safety and efficacy of vaccines are
high enough and whether the tests used by the manufacturers and
the government to ensure the safety of vaccines are good enough.

I urge this committee and other congressional committees to
carefully review the transcripts of meetings of the FDA Vaccines
and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, specifically
those which were held in 1998, 2000 and 2001 and dealt with
adventitious agent contamination of vaccines. Vaccine
manufacturers are asking the FDA for permission to use cells
from human and animal cancer tumors; that is, cancer cells, to
make HIV and other viral vaccines in the future that would be used
on a mass basis by the American population. There has been a
Federal ban on the use of cancer cells to produce vaccines since
1954. But active consideration is now being given to lift that ban
despite the acknowledged risks of contamination with adventitious
agents, including residual DNA and RNA.

There is frank admission that the limitations of technology and
lack of scientific knowledge means there can be no guarantee that
vaccines will not be contaminated with substances that could prove
harmful to humans 1 day. Nevertheless, there are discussions about
creating allowable thresholds for adventitious agent contamination
of vaccines being made out of cancer cells that could contain
residual DNA and RNA.
...'
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_house_hearings&docid=f:91047.wais



Pearl
2008-04-25 07:28:13 EST
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:88qdnYEEeeaIZ43VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@earthlink.com...
> boulder wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza explained :
> >> pete the forging shitbag lied:
> >>> Didn't penicillin come from animal experimentation?
> >>> http://www.curedisease.net/faqs/faq07.shtml
> >>> Actually, it's a fact that animal tests significantly sidetracked
> >>> development of this important drug.
> >>
> >> It is an absolute, uncontested fact that animal research was crucial
> >> to the development of polio vaccines.
> >
> > does anyone give a shit ??
>
> Yes, fuckwit. It is a standard lie of "animal rights" extremist liars
> that medical research on live animals is worthless. The demonstration
> that they are lying must be done repeatedly.

'Sabin himself made an impressive argument against vivisection when
he testified to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs in 1984 saying:
"Work on prevention [of polio] was delayed by an erroneous conception
of the nature of the human disease, based on misleading experimental
models [of polio] in monkeys".
..'
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/faq.html#6
[A. Sabin, statement before the subcommittee on Hospitals and Health
Care, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of Representatives,
April 26, 1984 serial no. 98-48 . ]

'Although those who promote vivisection often cite the polio vaccine
to support animal experimentation, the truth is more complicated.
The most important advance in the development of a polio vaccine
came in 1949 when Enders, Weller and Robbins showed that the
polio virus could be grown in human tissue. They were awarded the
Nobel prize for this discovery.

Despite this breakthrough, Salk and Sabin - who are usually credited
with the polio vaccines - continued their reliance on traditional animal
models and the use of monkey tissues. They feared that human tissues
would harbor dangerous human viruses. In fact, we now know that
monkey cells harbor many viruses, some of which have been shown
to infect humans, and are probably at least as dangerous as human
tissue, if not more so.
...'
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/faq.html#6

'The first major breakthrough in the study of polio was the
discovery of its infectious nature through epidemiological studies
conducted in Sweden in 1884 and the investigation of an epidemic
in Sweden in 1887 by Medin. One of Medin's pupils, Wickman,
demonstrated that not only was polio infectious, but that less severe
cases of polio acted as important carriers of the disease. He also
identified the incubation period in humans. Other researchers went
on to inject infected tissues from human cadavers into monkeys,
but as Dr. Paul wrote in his major historical overview, "History of
Poliomyelitis", "in the end no amount of experimentation on the
monkey could upset the fundamental clinical epidemiological
truths that Wickman discovered."

['The theory involving the digestive tract was established in the
very early 1900s by Ivar Wickman who studied in detail two polio
epidemics in Sweden. He found that polio affects throat, stomach,
and intestines, and he suggested that the gastrointestinal system
might be the initial site of infection.[4]
The correct theory was resisted in the face of strong supporting
evidence, because animal data did not agree. In 1938 when the
theory was challenged, the real route of infection was identified.
This route is via the mouth and digestive tract, as suggested by
the clinical researchers.[5]
http://web.archive.org/web/20060303111949/http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/vin13.html ]

Acceptance that polio was an infectious disease led to the search
for its causes. For almost 25 years, animal researchers searched
for a bacterial cause, but their experiments were in vain as polio is
caused by a virus. Several sets of subsequent animal experiments
gave conflicting results. Landsteiner eventually abandoned the
study of polio because of the reliance on a monkey model of the
disease which was proving to be inadequate. A blizzard of
inconsistent information was generated using different species
and strains of virus with no indication as to which experiments
were of any relevance to the human situation.

Back in 1909, Wickman had concluded that infection was via the
intestinal route. This was followed by the autopsy studies of
Kling and his colleagues from 1911 to 1913.
...'
http://marcussternum.tripod.com/facts.htm

' The widespread lymphoid hyperplasia found consistently in
gross and microscopic autopsy examinations in cases of
human poliomyelitis never has been explained on the basis of
a virus infection. There is involvement of Peyer's patches and
the solitary follicles of the gastro-intestinal tract, mesenteric
and retroperitoneal lymph nodes, peribronchial lymph nodes,
thymus, malpighian corpuscles of the spleen, tonsils, adenoid
tissue of the nose and throat, and the lymph nodes of the neck,
axilla, groin, and other parts. Burrows78 (1931) in a series of
about fifty autopsies, noted that the maximum amount of
lymphoid hyperplasia was in Peyer's patches and the solitary
lymph follicles of the gastro-intestinal tract and the mesenteric
lymph nodes. He felt that the nerve tissue changes were
secondary to those existing in the lymph channels of this tissue.
<
Experimental Animal Poliomyelitis In Human Beings

Once the poliomyelitis virus is recovered from human and
extrahuman sources many diversified experiments can be
carried out in the laboratory with experimental animals. The
unfortunate thing, however, is that these laboratory experiments
on animals are interpreted as being applicable to the human
disease from whence the virus was obtained and that unjustified
conclusions are drawn. Realizing that an animal will develop
experimental poliomyelitis from a virus introduced into its body
in an abnormal manner, one can expect that a human being also
can develop poliomyelitis of the experimental animal type under
the same conditions. Thus, there is to be found in the medical
literature reports of the development of poliomyelitis in
technicians117-120 working in laboratories with concentrated
forms of the poliomyelitis virus. In these cases the portal of
entry of the virus is doubtless an abrasion, scratch, laceration
or needle prick. A case of poliomyelitis in a technician118,
which followed the contamination by a virus of a scratch, failed
to show at autopsy the pathological lesions characteristic of
human poliomyelitis arising in a natural manner. It is significant
that in this case the gastro-intestinal tract revealed no lesions
and no virus was present in the intestinal contents. Over the
past 40 years these are the only reported cases of poliomyelitis
developing in laboratory workers.
<
Incubation Period Of Human Poliomyelitis Versus
Experimental Animal Poliomyelitis

Agreement regarding the incubation period of cases of human
poliomyelitis has been based almost entirely on the results of
animal experiments with the virus of the disease. It is a well
known fact that cases of human poliomyelitis in a home,
institution or community occur almost simultaneously and are
often described as explosive in character. This fact is typical
of the effects of poisoning. On the other hand, where
experiments on animals in the laboratory are carried out with
the virus, a definite incubation period can be established
according to the manner in which the virus is administered,
its concentration, and the species of animal that is employed.
It has always been difficult to reconcile the fact that human
poliomyelitis has a short incubation period of one to three days.
according to Wickman55 and others, where the virus would
necessarily have to traverse the natural barriers in order to set
up infection in the central nervous system and an incubation
period of as long as nine or more days in the experimental
disease, where the virus is inoculated directly into the central
nervous system.

Incubation period in humans is 1 to 3 days, yet more than
9 days in lab animals.

http://www.geocities.com/harpub/scobexog.htm

'It is noteworthy that the appearance of neutralizing antibodies in the
blood after the injection of the poliomyelitis virus is very uncertain
evidence of parallel immunity to the natural disease81. This fact was
shown clearly by Kramer82, in 1936. He vaccinated a group of children
with vaccine and two months later found that 50 per cent had developed
neutralizing antibodies. However, in a parallel uninoculated group of
children, 41 per cent had also developed antibodies. Kramer's results
were in essential agreement with those of Aycock and Hudson83,
who found an increase of 28.6 per cent of immunes among the
vaccinated children in their series as compared with an increase of
22.8 per cent of inimunes in the unvaccinated control group. Neither
of these writers considered the small difference of any practical value
in favor of the vaccinated group.

No significant difference in antibody formation between vaccinated
and control groups.
..
If humans are injected with a concentrated form of active virus, it is
natural to expect that they would develop the same type of poliomyelitis
that occurs in experimental animals following the injection of the virus.
Actually, this did occur in 1935, when some children who received a
poliomyelitis vaccine prepared with the virus obtained from
experimental animals developed poliomyelitis; half of them died.121
Significant facts of great importance in these cases were that the
incubation period of 6 to 14 days following the injections corresponds
with the incubation period of experimental animal poliomyelitis; the
fact that the level of the spinal cord first affected corresponded with
the extremity in which the injection was made. i.e., the same limb or
the contralateral limb parallels recent observations. It is now known,
for example, that poliomyelitis con occur following the injection of
toxic antigens during the summer months, i.e., pertussis vaccine and
diphtheria toxoid and that the paralysis occurs in the same limb or
the contralateral limb where the antigen is injected.

Injections create a highly abnormal situation. Injections of many
things, such as cellular material or peach skin can cause disease.

http://www.geocities.com/harpub/scobexog.htm

'..there is ample evidence in the scientific literature that serious
viruses, bacteria; or components and toxins there from; as
well as foreign animal or cancer-related proteins and DNA are
finding their way into the commercial vaccines intended for
humans, pets, and agricultural animals. [...]

In the production of viral vaccines on a commercial scale, the
virus of concern must be reproduced in large quantities. Viruses
cannot survive or reproduce without being introduced into cells
that nourish them, which enables the viral reproductive activity.
In that sense all viruses can be considered parasitic on other cells.
Living cell types commonly used to reproduce viruses in the lab
include monkey kidney cells, chicken embryos, as well as other
animal and human cells. These cells must also be nourished with
food, and are most often fed with a nutrient mix containing in
large part, bovine (cow) calf serum (usually, serum extracted
from fetal calf blood). This product can carry many types of
bovine blood-borne viruses, and is one of the primary sources
of vaccine contaminants. A journal article states, "a potential risk
associated with the production and use of biological products is
viral contamination. This contamination may be present in the
source material, e.g. human blood, human or animal tissues,
cell banks, or introduced in the manufacturing process through
the use of animal sera..."(1)

..1990. A scientist in the field writes, "The present concern is for
safety of vaccines made using transformed or neoplastic
mammalian cells that may contain endogenous contaminating
viruses or integrated gene sequences from oncogenic viruses.
There is also concern for use of plasmid vectors employing
promoter elements from oncogenic viruses. The principal concern
for safety lies with retention of residual DNA in the vaccine,
*especially since induction of cancer is a single-cell phenomenon,
and a single functional unit of foreign DNA integrated into the host
cell genome might serve to induce cell transformation* as a single
event or part of a series of multifactorial events. Current proposed
standards for vaccines would permit contamination with up to
100 pg [picograms] of heterologous DNA per dose. This is
equivalent to about 10(8) 'functional lengths' of DNA. Total
safety would seem to require complete absence of DNA from the
product."(31)

Please note that 10(8) means 10 to the power of 8, or *100,000,000
"functional lengths" of DNA are allowed per dose of vaccine.* Is
there something wrong with this picture? How long will the general
public be subjected to these vaccine products that according to
this information, are nowhere near safe?
...'
http://www.industryinet.com/~ruby/vac_coming_thru.html

'.. 1973, Prof. Clausen, Director of the Institute of Preventative
Medicine at the University of Odense, Denmark, warned the
medical establishment:

"Millions of people have been inoculated with anti-polio vaccine
contaminated with tumoral SV40 virus." (Present in the green
monkey cells ground to produce the vaccine.) "It is possible that
it will take 20 or more years before the eventual harmful effects of
the vaccine will manifest itself."

"All the major medical historians of our century agree that the
decline of the epidemics which had wrought havoc in the Middle
Ages was not due to the introduction of vaccination, but of
hygiene, for they had diminished long before large-scale
inoculations had begun. And hygiene, in the broadest sense of
the word, physical, mental and alimentary, is the only key to
health. The overwhelming majority of people vaccinated all over
the world against polio have been inoculated with potentially
carcinogenic substances. i.e. theoretically capable of producing
cancer." (Hans Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent.)

And in Naked Empress by the same author:

"There is crushing evidence that polio has not been eliminated by
vaccination, but on the contrary has experienced a resurgence or
an initial increase wherever mass inoculation was introduced."

"The first polio vaccine, the Salk, caused polio epidemics in the
U.S.A., Canada, Hungary, Israel, Japan and Australia. In Brazil,
vaccination... unleashed the severest polio epidemic the world
had ever known."

"Polio, and a great many other diseases, are now on the increase
in the third world thanks to mass vaccination campaigns."

"Paralytic polio was virtually unknown before the mass vaccination
campaigns began in the late 19th century. The polio virus, which
is present but dormant in most people, is activated and mutates to
it's paralytic form after vaccination."
...'
http://www.health.org.nz/polio.html

' Ignoring SV40 for so long was a mistake, according to Carbone
and other cancer experts. "There is no doubt that SV40 is a
human carcinogen," says Carbone, who has studied the virus
closely for more than ten years. "SV40 is definitely something
you don't want in your body." Yet that is exactly where the virus
is showing up. Since the mid-1990's, SV40 has been found not
only in the type of brain cancer that afflicted Alexander Horwin,
and the mesotheliomas studied by Carbone and other
researchers, but also in a variety of other brain tumors and
bone cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas.

Many of these tumors have increased in incidence dramatically
since the 1950s and early 1960s-the period when the polio
vaccine was contaminated with SV40. Malignant mesothelioma,
for instance, was virtually unheard of prior to 1955; today it
afflicts and kills about 2,500 Americans each year and many
more people in Europe. Brain and central nervous system
tumors increased in incidence by more than 30 percent in just
one twenty-year period from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s.
Bone tumors are also on the rise. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma,
the disease that killed Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Jordan's
King Hussein, has also skyrocketed in incidence, increasing by
3 percent annually since the 1970s. It now strikes 54,000 new
victims each year. Another 30,000 Americans are afflicted
every year with acute or chronic leukemia.
..'
http://www.thevirusandthevaccine.com/readanexcerpt.html

'108th Congress House Hearings
..
Sep 10 2003
...
.. the Institute of Medicine and highly credentialed
nongovernment scientists in multiple labs around the world
continue to identify SV-40 in human brain and lung cancers
of children and adults and are finding that SV-40 is also
associated with bone cancers and non-Hodgkins lymphomas.
The majority of these independent scientists have concluded
that, yes, SV-40 does cause human cancers.

Up until this hearing to date the world scientific community
has assumed that the only polio vaccine that was contaminated
with SV-40 and released for use by millions of Americans was
Jonas Salk's killed polio vaccine, which stopped being used
in 1963 because it was replaced by Albert Sabin's live polio
vaccine. Why? Because the oral polio vaccine manufacturer
and Federal health agencies have told everyone that while the
Salk vaccine was made using the SV-40 infected rhesus
monkey kidney tissues after 1963 the oral polio vaccine was
made using African Green monkeys, which are rarely infected
with SV-40. The vaccine manufacturer and government officials
have insisted that the switch from rhesus monkeys to African
Green as well as testing protocols to detect SV-40 prevented
SV-40 from contaminating oral polio vaccine after 1963.

However, you will be presented with evidence today that
suggests, one, the original seed stocks of oral polio vaccine
were made using the rhesus monkey and were contaminated
with SV-40; two, the major oral polio vaccine manufacturer
did not adequately test their master seed stocks which
reportedly contained SV-40 but used them to produce vaccine
released for use by American children from the 1960's through
the 1990's; and, three, Federal regulatory agencies either did
not know or knew and did not do anything about evidence
that SV-40 contaminated oral polio vaccine was released for
use by the public from the 1960's to the 1990's.

If SV-40 contaminated rhesus monkeys were used to produce
original oral polio vaccine stocks, and if these seed stocks
were used to produce oral polio vaccine that was swallowed by
American children through the 1990's, and if SV-40 does cause
human brain, lung and bone cancers, then this could explain why
children today, who were not born before 1963 and never got
SV-40 contaminated Salk vaccines, are now sick and dying from
cancerous tumors containing DNA from a monkey virus that was
in those vaccines. Pediatric brain cancer, once rare, rose during
the past few decades, according to the National Cancer
Institute. But we don't know how many of these children had or
have SV-40 in their brain tumors because nobody checks, how
many of these children are sick and dying because the
manufacturer of oral polio vaccine did not follow the rules and
government health agencies did not enforce the rules.

Since 1999, the United States has discontinued use of the
live oral polio vaccine and American children are now getting a
killed vaccine that is reportedly SV-40 free. So why is it
important today to find out whether or not the oral vaccine
used to eradicate polio was in fact contaminated with the
cancer causing monkey virus and that the vaccine manufacturer
knew it and government health agencies looked the other way?

It is important because if it's true, then a precedent has been
set and that precedent may well be affecting decisions being
made by government health agencies today about what kinds
of animal tissue cultures vaccine manufacturers will be allowed
to use to make new vaccines and what kinds of tests will be
required to ensure that the vaccines do not contain animal
viruses or other contaminants.

I've just ended a 4-year term as the consumer voting member
of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory
Committee. My service on that committee gave me a new
appreciation for the dedicated work of a number of fine
scientists employed by the FDA who take their regulatory duties
very seriously and are working hard to regulate the vaccine
industry with very limited resources and limited support within
and outside of the government. But there are legitimate concerns
which I and others have voiced in the past and continue to have
about whether government standards for requiring vaccine
manufacturers to prove the safety and efficacy of vaccines are
high enough and whether the tests used by the manufacturers and
the government to ensure the safety of vaccines are good enough.

I urge this committee and other congressional committees to
carefully review the transcripts of meetings of the FDA Vaccines
and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, specifically
those which were held in 1998, 2000 and 2001 and dealt with
adventitious agent contamination of vaccines. Vaccine
manufacturers are asking the FDA for permission to use cells
from human and animal cancer tumors; that is, cancer cells, to
make HIV and other viral vaccines in the future that would be used
on a mass basis by the American population. There has been a
Federal ban on the use of cancer cells to produce vaccines since
1954. But active consideration is now being given to lift that ban
despite the acknowledged risks of contamination with adventitious
agents, including residual DNA and RNA.

There is frank admission that the limitations of technology and
lack of scientific knowledge means there can be no guarantee that
vaccines will not be contaminated with substances that could prove
harmful to humans 1 day. Nevertheless, there are discussions about
creating allowable thresholds for adventitious agent contamination
of vaccines being made out of cancer cells that could contain
residual DNA and RNA.
...'
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_house_hearings&docid=f:91047.wais



Old Codger
2008-04-25 07:53:49 EST
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:28:13 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie>
wrote:

>"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:88qdnYEEeeaIZ43VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> boulder wrote:
>> > Rudy Canoza explained :
>> >> pete the forging shitbag lied:
>> >>> Didn't penicillin come from animal experimentation?
>> >>> http://www.curedisease.net/faqs/faq07.shtml
>> >>> Actually, it's a fact that animal tests significantly sidetracked
>> >>> development of this important drug.
>> >>
>> >> It is an absolute, uncontested fact that animal research was crucial
>> >> to the development of polio vaccines.
>> >
>> > does anyone give a shit ??
>>
>> Yes, fuckwit. It is a standard lie of "animal rights" extremist liars
>> that medical research on live animals is worthless. The demonstration
>> that they are lying must be done repeatedly.
>
>'Sabin himself made an impressive argument against vivisection when
>he testified to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs in 1984 saying:
>"Work on prevention [of polio] was delayed by an erroneous conception
>of the nature of the human disease, based on misleading experimental
>models [of polio] in monkeys".
>..'
>http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/faq.html#6
>[A. Sabin, statement before the subcommittee on Hospitals and Health
>Care, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of Representatives,
>April 26, 1984 serial no. 98-48 . ]
>
>'Although those who promote vivisection often cite the polio vaccine
>to support animal experimentation, the truth is more complicated.
>The most important advance in the development of a polio vaccine
>came in 1949 when Enders, Weller and Robbins showed that the
>polio virus could be grown in human tissue. They were awarded the
>Nobel prize for this discovery.
>
> Despite this breakthrough, Salk and Sabin - who are usually credited
>with the polio vaccines - continued their reliance on traditional animal
>models and the use of monkey tissues. They feared that human tissues
>would harbor dangerous human viruses. In fact, we now know that
>monkey cells harbor many viruses, some of which have been shown
>to infect humans, and are probably at least as dangerous as human
>tissue, if not more so.
>...'
>http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/faq.html#6
>
>'The first major breakthrough in the study of polio was the
>discovery of its infectious nature through epidemiological studies
>conducted in Sweden in 1884 and the investigation of an epidemic
>in Sweden in 1887 by Medin. One of Medin's pupils, Wickman,
>demonstrated that not only was polio infectious, but that less severe
>cases of polio acted as important carriers of the disease. He also
>identified the incubation period in humans. Other researchers went
>on to inject infected tissues from human cadavers into monkeys,
>but as Dr. Paul wrote in his major historical overview, "History of
>Poliomyelitis", "in the end no amount of experimentation on the
>monkey could upset the fundamental clinical epidemiological
>truths that Wickman discovered."
>
>['The theory involving the digestive tract was established in the
>very early 1900s by Ivar Wickman who studied in detail two polio
>epidemics in Sweden. He found that polio affects throat, stomach,
>and intestines, and he suggested that the gastrointestinal system
>might be the initial site of infection.[4]
>The correct theory was resisted in the face of strong supporting
>evidence, because animal data did not agree. In 1938 when the
>theory was challenged, the real route of infection was identified.
>This route is via the mouth and digestive tract, as suggested by
>the clinical researchers.[5]
>http://web.archive.org/web/20060303111949/http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/vin13.html ]
>
>Acceptance that polio was an infectious disease led to the search
>for its causes. For almost 25 years, animal researchers searched
>for a bacterial cause, but their experiments were in vain as polio is
>caused by a virus. Several sets of subsequent animal experiments
>gave conflicting results. Landsteiner eventually abandoned the
>study of polio because of the reliance on a monkey model of the
>disease which was proving to be inadequate. A blizzard of
>inconsistent information was generated using different species
>and strains of virus with no indication as to which experiments
>were of any relevance to the human situation.
>
>Back in 1909, Wickman had concluded that infection was via the
>intestinal route. This was followed by the autopsy studies of
>Kling and his colleagues from 1911 to 1913.
>...'
>http://marcussternum.tripod.com/facts.htm
>
>' The widespread lymphoid hyperplasia found consistently in
>gross and microscopic autopsy examinations in cases of
>human poliomyelitis never has been explained on the basis of
>a virus infection. There is involvement of Peyer's patches and
>the solitary follicles of the gastro-intestinal tract, mesenteric
>and retroperitoneal lymph nodes, peribronchial lymph nodes,
>thymus, malpighian corpuscles of the spleen, tonsils, adenoid
>tissue of the nose and throat, and the lymph nodes of the neck,
>axilla, groin, and other parts. Burrows78 (1931) in a series of
>about fifty autopsies, noted that the maximum amount of
>lymphoid hyperplasia was in Peyer's patches and the solitary
>lymph follicles of the gastro-intestinal tract and the mesenteric
>lymph nodes. He felt that the nerve tissue changes were
>secondary to those existing in the lymph channels of this tissue.
><
>Experimental Animal Poliomyelitis In Human Beings
>
>Once the poliomyelitis virus is recovered from human and
>extrahuman sources many diversified experiments can be
>carried out in the laboratory with experimental animals. The
>unfortunate thing, however, is that these laboratory experiments
>on animals are interpreted as being applicable to the human
>disease from whence the virus was obtained and that unjustified
>conclusions are drawn. Realizing that an animal will develop
>experimental poliomyelitis from a virus introduced into its body
>in an abnormal manner, one can expect that a human being also
>can develop poliomyelitis of the experimental animal type under
>the same conditions. Thus, there is to be found in the medical
>literature reports of the development of poliomyelitis in
>technicians117-120 working in laboratories with concentrated
>forms of the poliomyelitis virus. In these cases the portal of
>entry of the virus is doubtless an abrasion, scratch, laceration
>or needle prick. A case of poliomyelitis in a technician118,
>which followed the contamination by a virus of a scratch, failed
>to show at autopsy the pathological lesions characteristic of
>human poliomyelitis arising in a natural manner. It is significant
>that in this case the gastro-intestinal tract revealed no lesions
>and no virus was present in the intestinal contents. Over the
>past 40 years these are the only reported cases of poliomyelitis
>developing in laboratory workers.
><
>Incubation Period Of Human Poliomyelitis Versus
>Experimental Animal Poliomyelitis
>
>Agreement regarding the incubation period of cases of human
>poliomyelitis has been based almost entirely on the results of
>animal experiments with the virus of the disease. It is a well
>known fact that cases of human poliomyelitis in a home,
>institution or community occur almost simultaneously and are
>often described as explosive in character. This fact is typical
>of the effects of poisoning. On the other hand, where
>experiments on animals in the laboratory are carried out with
>the virus, a definite incubation period can be established
>according to the manner in which the virus is administered,
>its concentration, and the species of animal that is employed.
>It has always been difficult to reconcile the fact that human
>poliomyelitis has a short incubation period of one to three days.
>according to Wickman55 and others, where the virus would
>necessarily have to traverse the natural barriers in order to set
>up infection in the central nervous system and an incubation
>period of as long as nine or more days in the experimental
>disease, where the virus is inoculated directly into the central
>nervous system.
>
>Incubation period in humans is 1 to 3 days, yet more than
>9 days in lab animals.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/harpub/scobexog.htm
>
>'It is noteworthy that the appearance of neutralizing antibodies in the
>blood after the injection of the poliomyelitis virus is very uncertain
>evidence of parallel immunity to the natural disease81. This fact was
>shown clearly by Kramer82, in 1936. He vaccinated a group of children
>with vaccine and two months later found that 50 per cent had developed
>neutralizing antibodies. However, in a parallel uninoculated group of
>children, 41 per cent had also developed antibodies. Kramer's results
>were in essential agreement with those of Aycock and Hudson83,
>who found an increase of 28.6 per cent of immunes among the
>vaccinated children in their series as compared with an increase of
>22.8 per cent of inimunes in the unvaccinated control group. Neither
>of these writers considered the small difference of any practical value
>in favor of the vaccinated group.
>
>No significant difference in antibody formation between vaccinated
>and control groups.
>..
>If humans are injected with a concentrated form of active virus, it is
>natural to expect that they would develop the same type of poliomyelitis
>that occurs in experimental animals following the injection of the virus.
>Actually, this did occur in 1935, when some children who received a
>poliomyelitis vaccine prepared with the virus obtained from
>experimental animals developed poliomyelitis; half of them died.121
>Significant facts of great importance in these cases were that the
>incubation period of 6 to 14 days following the injections corresponds
>with the incubation period of experimental animal poliomyelitis; the
>fact that the level of the spinal cord first affected corresponded with
>the extremity in which the injection was made. i.e., the same limb or
>the contralateral limb parallels recent observations. It is now known,
>for example, that poliomyelitis con occur following the injection of
>toxic antigens during the summer months, i.e., pertussis vaccine and
>diphtheria toxoid and that the paralysis occurs in the same limb or
>the contralateral limb where the antigen is injected.
>
>Injections create a highly abnormal situation. Injections of many
>things, such as cellular material or peach skin can cause disease.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/harpub/scobexog.htm
>
>'..there is ample evidence in the scientific literature that serious
>viruses, bacteria; or components and toxins there from; as
>well as foreign animal or cancer-related proteins and DNA are
>finding their way into the commercial vaccines intended for
>humans, pets, and agricultural animals. [...]
>
>In the production of viral vaccines on a commercial scale, the
>virus of concern must be reproduced in large quantities. Viruses
>cannot survive or reproduce without being introduced into cells
>that nourish them, which enables the viral reproductive activity.
>In that sense all viruses can be considered parasitic on other cells.
>Living cell types commonly used to reproduce viruses in the lab
>include monkey kidney cells, chicken embryos, as well as other
>animal and human cells. These cells must also be nourished with
>food, and are most often fed with a nutrient mix containing in
>large part, bovine (cow) calf serum (usually, serum extracted
>from fetal calf blood). This product can carry many types of
>bovine blood-borne viruses, and is one of the primary sources
>of vaccine contaminants. A journal article states, "a potential risk
>associated with the production and use of biological products is
>viral contamination. This contamination may be present in the
>source material, e.g. human blood, human or animal tissues,
>cell banks, or introduced in the manufacturing process through
>the use of animal sera..."(1)
>
>..1990. A scientist in the field writes, "The present concern is for
>safety of vaccines made using transformed or neoplastic
>mammalian cells that may contain endogenous contaminating
>viruses or integrated gene sequences from oncogenic viruses.
>There is also concern for use of plasmid vectors employing
>promoter elements from oncogenic viruses. The principal concern
>for safety lies with retention of residual DNA in the vaccine,
>*especially since induction of cancer is a single-cell phenomenon,
>and a single functional unit of foreign DNA integrated into the host
>cell genome might serve to induce cell transformation* as a single
>event or part of a series of multifactorial events. Current proposed
>standards for vaccines would permit contamination with up to
>100 pg [picograms] of heterologous DNA per dose. This is
>equivalent to about 10(8) 'functional lengths' of DNA. Total
>safety would seem to require complete absence of DNA from the
>product."(31)
>
>Please note that 10(8) means 10 to the power of 8, or *100,000,000
>"functional lengths" of DNA are allowed per dose of vaccine.* Is
>there something wrong with this picture? How long will the general
>public be subjected to these vaccine products that according to
>this information, are nowhere near safe?
>...'
>http://www.industryinet.com/~ruby/vac_coming_thru.html
>
>'.. 1973, Prof. Clausen, Director of the Institute of Preventative
>Medicine at the University of Odense, Denmark, warned the
>medical establishment:
>
>"Millions of people have been inoculated with anti-polio vaccine
>contaminated with tumoral SV40 virus." (Present in the green
>monkey cells ground to produce the vaccine.) "It is possible that
>it will take 20 or more years before the eventual harmful effects of
>the vaccine will manifest itself."
>
>"All the major medical historians of our century agree that the
>decline of the epidemics which had wrought havoc in the Middle
>Ages was not due to the introduction of vaccination, but of
>hygiene, for they had diminished long before large-scale
>inoculations had begun. And hygiene, in the broadest sense of
>the word, physical, mental and alimentary, is the only key to
>health. The overwhelming majority of people vaccinated all over
>the world against polio have been inoculated with potentially
>carcinogenic substances. i.e. theoretically capable of producing
>cancer." (Hans Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent.)
>
>And in Naked Empress by the same author:
>
>"There is crushing evidence that polio has not been eliminated by
>vaccination, but on the contrary has experienced a resurgence or
>an initial increase wherever mass inoculation was introduced."
>
>"The first polio vaccine, the Salk, caused polio epidemics in the
>U.S.A., Canada, Hungary, Israel, Japan and Australia. In Brazil,
>vaccination... unleashed the severest polio epidemic the world
>had ever known."
>
>"Polio, and a great many other diseases, are now on the increase
>in the third world thanks to mass vaccination campaigns."
>
>"Paralytic polio was virtually unknown before the mass vaccination
>campaigns began in the late 19th century. The polio virus, which
>is present but dormant in most people, is activated and mutates to
>it's paralytic form after vaccination."
>...'
>http://www.health.org.nz/polio.html
>
>' Ignoring SV40 for so long was a mistake, according to Carbone
>and other cancer experts. "There is no doubt that SV40 is a
>human carcinogen," says Carbone, who has studied the virus
>closely for more than ten years. "SV40 is definitely something
>you don't want in your body." Yet that is exactly where the virus
>is showing up. Since the mid-1990's, SV40 has been found not
>only in the type of brain cancer that afflicted Alexander Horwin,
>and the mesotheliomas studied by Carbone and other
>researchers, but also in a variety of other brain tumors and
>bone cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas.
>
>Many of these tumors have increased in incidence dramatically
>since the 1950s and early 1960s-the period when the polio
>vaccine was contaminated with SV40. Malignant mesothelioma,
>for instance, was virtually unheard of prior to 1955; today it
>afflicts and kills about 2,500 Americans each year and many
>more people in Europe. Brain and central nervous system
>tumors increased in incidence by more than 30 percent in just
>one twenty-year period from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s.
>Bone tumors are also on the rise. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma,
>the disease that killed Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Jordan's
>King Hussein, has also skyrocketed in incidence, increasing by
>3 percent annually since the 1970s. It now strikes 54,000 new
>victims each year. Another 30,000 Americans are afflicted
>every year with acute or chronic leukemia.
>..'
>http://www.thevirusandthevaccine.com/readanexcerpt.html
>
>'108th Congress House Hearings
>..
>Sep 10 2003
>...
> .. the Institute of Medicine and highly credentialed
>nongovernment scientists in multiple labs around the world
>continue to identify SV-40 in human brain and lung cancers
>of children and adults and are finding that SV-40 is also
>associated with bone cancers and non-Hodgkins lymphomas.
>The majority of these independent scientists have concluded
>that, yes, SV-40 does cause human cancers.
>
> Up until this hearing to date the world scientific community
>has assumed that the only polio vaccine that was contaminated
>with SV-40 and released for use by millions of Americans was
>Jonas Salk's killed polio vaccine, which stopped being used
>in 1963 because it was replaced by Albert Sabin's live polio
>vaccine. Why? Because the oral polio vaccine manufacturer
>and Federal health agencies have told everyone that while the
>Salk vaccine was made using the SV-40 infected rhesus
>monkey kidney tissues after 1963 the oral polio vaccine was
>made using African Green monkeys, which are rarely infected
>with SV-40. The vaccine manufacturer and government officials
>have insisted that the switch from rhesus monkeys to African
>Green as well as testing protocols to detect SV-40 prevented
>SV-40 from contaminating oral polio vaccine after 1963.
>
> However, you will be presented with evidence today that
>suggests, one, the original seed stocks of oral polio vaccine
>were made using the rhesus monkey and were contaminated
>with SV-40; two, the major oral polio vaccine manufacturer
>did not adequately test their master seed stocks which
>reportedly contained SV-40 but used them to produce vaccine
>released for use by American children from the 1960's through
>the 1990's; and, three, Federal regulatory agencies either did
>not know or knew and did not do anything about evidence
>that SV-40 contaminated oral polio vaccine was released for
>use by the public from the 1960's to the 1990's.
>
> If SV-40 contaminated rhesus monkeys were used to produce
>original oral polio vaccine stocks, and if these seed stocks
>were used to produce oral polio vaccine that was swallowed by
>American children through the 1990's, and if SV-40 does cause
>human brain, lung and bone cancers, then this could explain why
>children today, who were not born before 1963 and never got
>SV-40 contaminated Salk vaccines, are now sick and dying from
>cancerous tumors containing DNA from a monkey virus that was
>in those vaccines. Pediatric brain cancer, once rare, rose during
>the past few decades, according to the National Cancer
>Institute. But we don't know how many of these children had or
>have SV-40 in their brain tumors because nobody checks, how
>many of these children are sick and dying because the
>manufacturer of oral polio vaccine did not follow the rules and
>government health agencies did not enforce the rules.
>
> Since 1999, the United States has discontinued use of the
>live oral polio vaccine and American children are now getting a
>killed vaccine that is reportedly SV-40 free. So why is it
>important today to find out whether or not the oral vaccine
>used to eradicate polio was in fact contaminated with the
>cancer causing monkey virus and that the vaccine manufacturer
>knew it and government health agencies looked the other way?
>
> It is important because if it's true, then a precedent has been
>set and that precedent may well be affecting decisions being
>made by government health agencies today about what kinds
>of animal tissue cultures vaccine manufacturers will be allowed
>to use to make new vaccines and what kinds of tests will be
>required to ensure that the vaccines do not contain animal
>viruses or other contaminants.
>
> I've just ended a 4-year term as the consumer voting member
>of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory
>Committee. My service on that committee gave me a new
>appreciation for the dedicated work of a number of fine
>scientists employed by the FDA who take their regulatory duties
>very seriously and are working hard to regulate the vaccine
>industry with very limited resources and limited support within
>and outside of the government. But there are legitimate concerns
>which I and others have voiced in the past and continue to have
>about whether government standards for requiring vaccine
>manufacturers to prove the safety and efficacy of vaccines are
>high enough and whether the tests used by the manufacturers and
>the government to ensure the safety of vaccines are good enough.
>
> I urge this committee and other congressional committees to
>carefully review the transcripts of meetings of the FDA Vaccines
>and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, specifically
>those which were held in 1998, 2000 and 2001 and dealt with
>adventitious agent contamination of vaccines. Vaccine
>manufacturers are asking the FDA for permission to use cells
>from human and animal cancer tumors; that is, cancer cells, to
>make HIV and other viral vaccines in the future that would be used
>on a mass basis by the American population. There has been a
>Federal ban on the use of cancer cells to produce vaccines since
>1954. But active consideration is now being given to lift that ban
>despite the acknowledged risks of contamination with adventitious
>agents, including residual DNA and RNA.
>
> There is frank admission that the limitations of technology and
>lack of scientific knowledge means there can be no guarantee that
>vaccines will not be contaminated with substances that could prove
>harmful to humans 1 day. Nevertheless, there are discussions about
>creating allowable thresholds for adventitious agent contamination
>of vaccines being made out of cancer cells that could contain
>residual DNA and RNA.
>...'
>http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_house_hearings&docid=f:91047.wais
>

Eat that Jonny no hope!



Rudy Canoza
2008-04-25 10:36:31 EST
pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:1KCdnaV047ePhozVnZ2dnUVZ_h6hnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> BooBoolane@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Apr 24, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>>>> pete the forging shitbag lied:
>>>>
>>>>> Didn't penicillin come from animal experimentation?
>>>>> http://www.curedisease.net/faqs/faq07.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, it's a fact that animal tests significantly sidetracked
>>>>> development of this important drug.
>>>>>
>>>> It is an absolute, uncontested fact that animal research was crucial to
>>>> the development of polio vaccines.
>>> Rudi is not correct; vivisection delayed a cure for
>>> at least 20 years.
>> No, it did not. You are a liar - you are intentionally lying.
>>
>> Frederick Robbins, speaking for himself and Thomas Weller, two of the
>> three Nobel prize winning researchers who isolated the polio virus,
>> explicitly rebutted your claim:
>>
>> “The statement that animal experimentation delayed the ‘fight against
>> polio’ is totally wrong. Indeed, all we learned about the disease
>> came from studies with animals, primarily monkeys. We learned that
>> there were three types of polio virus, a crucial piece of
>> information. It was shown that monkeys could be immunized and that
>> the portal of entry for the virus was the gastro-intestinal tract.
>>
>> “Inoculation of monkeys was the only way that one could demonstrate
>> the presence of the virus. Later, one strain of polio virus was
>> adapted to mice, but it was only one type (2). In our early tissue
>> culture experiments, it was necessary to inoculate animals to
>> demonstrate virus in the cultures. Far from misleading us, animals
>> led us to the truth and made possible the eventual solution."
>>
>> http://www.fbresearch.org/education/MythPolio.htm
>>
>> This is not in credible dispute. The use of animals did /not/ delay the
>> discovery of a polio vaccine; it was crucial to obtaining it.
>
> 'Sabin himself made an impressive argument against vivisection when
> he testified to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs in 1984 saying:
> "Work on prevention [of polio] was delayed by an erroneous conception
> of the nature of the human disease, based on misleading experimental
> models [of polio] in monkeys".

That doesn't say that animal research _per se_ delayed the discovery of
a vaccine, you lying deliberately misleading cunt.

[snip shit hemorrhage]

It's settled: the isolation of the virus and the discovery of the
vaccines depended *crucially* on animal research. No amount of lying by
the science-illiterate "ar" crowd will change that.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron