VIVISECTION...THE CAT'S PYJAMAS? PART2/2
jpranger at Direct.CA
Fri Jul 7 00:16:44 EST 1995
THE CANCER RACKET
"There are still people who feel that the rat will guide us
to the perfect diet, me, I think it merely guides us to the garbage
heap." (Dr. Franklin Bicknell, The English Complaint, Jan, 1956).
"It must first be realized that the output to work on cancer
research is enormous. It may be true that from this mountain of
labour nothing so far has emerged but a cancer-bearing mouse."
Every half-hour, 30 people die of cancer in America, one
every minute. Every day, 1400 people die of cancer in America.
Every year, almost 500,000 people die of cancer in America.
Approximately 900,000 Americans will learn this year that they
have cancer. Of those, only 40% will be alive in 5 years. (Critics
of the national cancer program say only 20-25%.)
THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY DOES NOT TELL THE TRUTH
"Cancer is one of the most curable of the
major diseases in this country"
-American Cancer Society booklet
"They (ACS) lie like scoundrels."
-Dr. Dean Burk, Ph.D., 34 years at the
National Cancer Institute
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a
fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are
derelict in their duties to the people who support them."
-Linus Pauling, Ph.D., two time Nobel Prize winner, in
Outrage, Oct/Nov 1986
"Between 1962 and 1982, the numbers of people who contracted
or died of cancer both increased. Cancer deaths rose 8.7%... The
bottom line is that despite all the billions of dollars, and the
promises and the claims of success, more people are dying of
cancer than ever before..."
-Dr. John C. Bailer III, biostatistician, Harvard University
School of Public Health. Co-author of Report on Cancer in the New
England Journal of Medicine, May 1986.
"...the simple unadulterated truth is that they are neither
winning the fight against cancer nor are they about to find a
cure. They have been claiming that a cure is just around the
corner for a good 50 years or more, but the sad fact remains that
in spite of the countless millions being collected, cancer in its
most serious forms - in the lung, breast and bowel - is no nearer to
being beaten today than it was at the turn of the century.
Indeed, in some cases - breast cancer for example - the exact
opposite is true; the scientists are actually losing the fight."
- Cancer Control Society, Great Britain,
in Outrage (magazine), Oct/Nov, 1986
The answer is simple. The cancer industry, including
treatment and research, is conservatively estimated to be an
annual $50 billion to $75 billion industry (in the U.S. alone). It
is a powerful monster out of control that government officials and
media barons fear to confront. Hospitals blithely install multi-
million dollar radiation devices, knowing they will profit from
them while ignoring their murderous effects. Surgeons cut and cut
and cut, with meagre results, but high fees. Chemotherapists
promote more expensive and more toxic cancer "cocktails" which
have little effect, as detailed research proves. The few voices of
protest are lost in the huge, obscene feeding of the cancer
According to Arizona State University professor Edward J.
"The physical plant of what is called the University of
Texas (UT) System Cancer Center here covers two million square
feet... Current investment in the building is $152 million. The
operating budget, separate from physical-plant cost, was
$254,389,314 ($254 million!) ... for fiscal 1984-85... All for
cancer. The UT System Cancer Center treats no other disease...
A noted cancer specialist in Boston said he believed that
if some simple and inexpensive replacement for chemotherapy for
the treatment of cancer were found tomorrow, all U.S. medical
schools would teeter on the verge of bankruptcy, so integral a
part of their hospital revenues is oncology, the medical specialty
of cancer treatment."
-Dread Disease, 1972
In 1989 the average cost per cancer patient was $50,000-
$75,000 (US) and rising. Yet many die of the treatment! As is
admitted by a few of the more courageous physicians and
As early as 1956, Hardin Jones, Ph.D., a professor of
medical physics and physiology at the University of California,
Berkeley, argued that orthodox cancer treatment (radiation,
surgery and chemotherapy) was suspect. In 1969, Jones declared
that, according to his carefully researched statistics, the cancer
patient who received no treatment lived four times longer than the
patient who underwent the orthodox regimen of "therapies".
"For a typical type of cancer, people who refused treatment
lived an average of twelve and a half years. Those who accepted
surgery and other kinds of treatment lived an average of only
three years. I attribute this to the traumatic effect of surgery
on the body's natural defence mechanism. The body has a natural
kind of defence against every type of cancer."
Hardin Jones, A Report on Cancer, University of California,
During the 1970's period, the ACS collected more than $1 billion
from the American public. At one point, the California branch of
the ACS had accumulated over $8 million which was collecting
interest in California banks. At another point, the national ACS
had over $200 million invested in New York banks. Its emergency
fund for hot research projects was a "big" $5 million! Yet every
year the drum is rolled out and two and a half million volunteers
go forth to beg for more money for this "relief charity". The
spectacle is sickening.
Samuel S. Epstein, professor of preventive medicine and
community health at the University of Illinois Medical Society in
Chicago described how the "War on Cancer" began:
"The cancer lobby, headed by the late Sydney Farber,
politically astute director of the Children's Cancer Research
Foundation, Boston, and including the American Cancer Society and
Mary Lasker, a New York philanthropist who had close contacts with
the administrations of successive Presidents, exerted a powerful
influence on Congress and the public. Both were exhorted by hard-
sell techniques (to believe) that the cure for cancer was just
around the corner, and only needed more support and funding for
the American Cancer Society and NCI. In the naive search for the
'magic bullet,' the NCI financed a huge and ill-conceived Cancer
Chemotherapy Program for mass-screening of hundreds of chemicals,
selected on tenuous pretexts, for anticancer activity in tissue
culture and 'animal tumour systems'."
A full page ad was put in the New York Times on December 9,
1969 to start the "War on Cancer" campaign. It read, "We are so
close to a cure for cancer. We lack only the will and the kind of
money and comprehensive planning that went into putting a man on
Four or five months later, Mary Lasker [whose advertising tycoon
husband had made his fortune with the Lucky Strike commercials]
contacted her friend Mathilde Krim (now in control of the 'fight against
AIDS'...hold on to your wallet, America), a research biologist
(vivisector) at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and also
politically-connected through her friendship with ex-President Lyndon
Johnson. Together Lasker and Krim went off to Washington and soon
had a Senator interested in the "war on cancer". An outside panel,
composed mainly of people associated with the American Cancer
Society, was assigned to draft a report. Mathilde Krim became
fascinated with Interferon during her preparation of a major portion of
Once the report was completed, a bill was offered in the
Senate. Then the newspaper advice columnist Ann Landers joined the
crusade. (Landers, whose husband is a doctor, has ever since
published an annual pro-vivisection column for the benefit of her
millions of naive readers.) Soon a public groundswell was created.
Many scientists in cancer research were opposed to the notion of
billions of dollars going to cancer. They rightly surmised that
most of it would be wasted (on vivisection). But Mary Lasker never
paid much attention to the scientists. At the end of 1971,
President Nixon signed the "war on cancer" into law. Mary Lasker's
public relations campaign had succeeded. Now the public funds were
in the water and the sharks moved in for the feast.
Lucy Eisenberg provided the following insights in a November
1971 article in Harper's:
"The so-called Conquest of Cancer Act is the product of a
high-powered PR campaign and a rather deceptive one at that...
Mrs. Lasker's opinions on research policy do not always
coincide with those of many research scientists or even top NIH
(National Institute of Health) officials, but when they don't, it
is often Mrs. Lasker's that prevail...
She arranged to have a Senate panel appointed to study
cancer... Most of the panel members, it turned out, were past or
present members of the American Cancer Society board."
Maryann Napol's 1982 book, Health Facts, reported:
"According to Washington-based observers of the medical
politics scene, the NCI has both the money and the prestige within
the scientific community, and the ACS has the political clout.
The American Cancer Society's political clout is exercised
via the extremely influential ACS board members - some of the
country's leading PHILANTHROPISTS, BANKERS AND
CORPORATE EXECUTIVES - who also sit on key committees
at the NCI. The ACS is the largest private 'philanthropic' institution
in the United States." (emphasis added)
But remember Mathilda Krim?...in February 1985, France's biggest
publishing house, Hachette, brought out Les Mensonges de la
Medecine (The Lies of Medicine), by Roger Dalet, M.D., who filled
228 pages with what he defines as "lies" propagated as truths by
the medical establishment. We shall cite here just one single item;
on page 40, Dr. Dalet recalls the Interferon bluff, which we remember
made the title page of Time, Newsweek etc., and consequently also
of most European publications. Dr. Dalet writes:
"The word gets around. Some experiments seem hopeful. Rats,
to which Interferon had been administered, healed of their cancer.
The media spread the news that the miracle was imminent, that
cancer would soon be defeated. There was a rush on this new
substance... Numerous drug manufacturers pitched into the
production of Interferon to fill the orders from the USA,
Switzerland, Japan etc....
But suddenly, the crash! Interferon doesn't keep its
promises... And then... the tops, the bubble bursts. France's
medical journal, Quotidien du Medicin (No 3671, April 21, 1982, p.
11) reports: An American doctor, Shelby Berger, of the NCI,
announces that Interferon, rather than retarding the development
of cancer, favours its growth..."
"It is not possible to apply to the human species
experimental information derived from inducing cancer in animals."
-Dr. Kenneth Starr, of the New South Wales Cancer Council,
reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, April 7, 1960
"Experts often assert that it is senseless to compare a
tumour which has been artificially provoked in an animal with a
tumour that has spontaneously developed in a human being."
-Dr. Peter Schmidsberger, Medical Correspondent of the
German weekly Bunte, No. 21, 1982.
Prof. Hasting Gilford, surgeon, in The Lancet, 1930:
"That research into the cause and nature of cancer is making
no headway is obvious to everyone who has followed its drift since
the movement began with the beginning of this century.
And now, after thirty years of research, all that it has
to show is a prodigious heap of facts and inductions got by much
industry from animal sources, but, so far as man is concerned, no
better than a tumour - an innocent tumour - useless to man, and
most decidedly of no use to mice... Laboratory cancer research has
gone on for so many years, contentedly grinding out data and
spinning inductions, without attention being drawn to the fact
that it never produces any useful results. And now, after a
quarter of a century of research, we can see to what a deplorable
waste of energy and ability and money this academic, aimless toil
may lead. One useful, if negative, conclusion, however, emerges;
which is that the problem of the causation of human cancer is not
to be solved by experiments on lower animals in laboratories."
"Over a 25-year period, the United States National Cancer
Institute screened 40,000 species of plants for anti-tumour
activity and, as a result, several proved sufficiently safe and
effective on the basis of animal tests to be included in human
trials. Unfortunately all of these were either ineffective in
treating human cancer or too toxic to consider for general use.
Thus, in 25 years of this extensive programme, not a single
anti-tumour agent safe and effective enough for use by patients has
(N.R. Farnsworth and J.M. Pezzuto, paper presented at the
University of Panama workshop sponsored by the International
Foundation for Science, 1982. Reproduced in The Cruel Deception by
Dr. Robert Sharpe, 1988.)
Dr. Irwin D.J. Bross, PhD, (fired) Director of Biostatistics,
Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Buffalo,NY,
in Fundamental and Applied Toxicology. Nov. 1982:
"Animals in Cancer Research: A Multi-Billion Dollar Fraud"
"...From a scientific standpoint, what is pertinent is that
what are called "animal model systems" in cancer research have
been a total failure.
...The tens of millions of animals killed in the mass-
screening for new cancer drugs died in vain. The hundreds of
millions spent by the National Cancer Institute on this futile
effort were diverted from genuine cancer research that might have
provided useful drugs.
When NCI enthusiastically supported the mass-screening using
animals there was plenty of good evidence that the mass-screening
program would fail. There was almost no factual evidence to
suggest that it was going to succeed. The money was spent and the
animals were killed for two main reasons. First, it was a highly
profitable undertaking for certain medical schools and research
institutes that were incapable of doing any genuine cancer
research. Second, it was sustained by a superstitious belief in a
grossly unscientific notion: that mice are miniature men...
Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model
systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to
double talk in technical jargons...
.... From the standpoint of current scientific theory of
cancer, the whole mystique of animal model systems is hardly more
than SUPERSTITIOUS NONSENSE...
The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit
of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove ANYTHING -
no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be.
There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model
systems that there is always SOME system that will "prove" a
point. Fraudulent methods of argument never die and rarely fade
away. They are too useful to promoters...
The moral is that animal model systems kill not only
animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence
to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the
prevention or cure of a single human cancer." (emphasis added)
"Various species of animals react differently to the same
drug. Not only do the variations in the metabolism of a drug make
it difficult to extrapolate results of animal experiments to man
but they CREATE A SERIOUS OBSTACLE to the development of
new therapeutic drugs." (emphasis added)
-Dr. Barnard B. Brodie in Clinical Pharmacology &
Dr. Herbert Ley, former FDA Commissioner, in the San
Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 2, 1970
"People think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the
FDA is doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as different
as night and day.
First, it is providing a means whereby key individuals on
its payroll are able to obtain both power and wealth through
granting special favours to certain politically influential groups
that are subject to its regulation. This activity is similar to
the 'protection racket' of organized crime: for a price, one can
induce FDA administrators to provide 'protection' from the FDA
Secondly, as a result of this political favouritism, the FDA
has become a primary factor in that formula whereby cartel-
oriented companies in the food and drug industry are able to use
the police powers of government to harass or destroy their free-
And thirdly, the FDA occasionally does some genuine public
good with whatever energies it has left over after serving the
vested political and commercial interest of its first two
activities." (quoted in Medical Dark Ages, by R.Hovnavian)
"There have already been many cancer cures, and all have
been ruthlessly and systematically suppressed with a Gestapo-like
thoroughness by the cancer establishment. The cancer establishment
is the not-so-shadowy association of the American Cancer Society,
the leading cancer hospitals, the National Cancer Institute, and
the FDA. The shadow part is the fact that these respected
institutions are very much dominated by members and friends of
members of the pharmaceutical industry, which profits so incredibly
much from our profession-wide obsession with chemotherapy...
The health field is the only field where inequity, conflict
of interest, and gross public deception can remain unchecked.
After all, the people in the FDA and in all the branches of
government that deal with health come from the same orthodox
school of thought as the heads of the AMA...
The damage done to the body by an unsuccessful course of
chemotherapy is often so great that the patient's immune system
never recovers sufficiently for him to stand a fighting chance...
Chemotherapy, when it has no chance, or only a remote
chance, to work is at best stupid and at worst criminal."
- Dr. Robert C. Atkins, Amygdalin Therapy, 1972
Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., a prominent biochemist from San
Francisco, co-discoverer of vitamin B-17 (commonly called
'Laetril' ), and discoverer of vitamin B-15 (pangamic acid),
speaking before a seminar in Newark, New Jersey, in 1988, said:
"Chemotherapy and radiotherapy will make the ancient method of
drilling holes in a patient's head to permit the escape of demons
look relatively advanced....
Toxic chemotherapy is a hoax. The doctors who use it are
guilty of pre-meditated murder, and the use of cobalt and other
methods of cancer treatment popular today effectively closes the
door on cure."
In November 1985, Dr. John Cairns of the Harvard School of
Public Health, wrote in Scientific American that chemotherapy was
useful for only a few RARE cancers. Dr. Cairns found no
significant gains against the PRIMARY cancers since the 1950's. He
estimated that of the almost half-a-million Americans who die of
cancer each year, only 2% to 3% were being saved by chemotherapy
treatment! Dr. Cairns wrote:
" It remains a depressing truth that fewer than 50% of
cancer patients can be cured by surgery... It is not possible to
detect any sudden change in death rates for any of the major
cancers that could be credited to chemotherapy... Those who
organize cancer centers and supervise the many clinical trials of
chemotherapy look for ways to circumvent these relentless
statistics.... A six or twelve month course of chemotherapy not
only is a very unpleasant experience but also has its own
intrinsic mortality... treatments now avert... perhaps 2 or 3 per
cent... of the 400,000 deaths from cancer that occur each year in
Not only have health officials ignored such findings, but,
they encourage treatments which are questionable. In 1987, Dr.
Vincent DeVita, Jr., the head of the National Cancer Institute
(NCI) from 1980 to 1988, "issued a controversial recommendation to
13,000 cancer specialists in North America to give chemotherapy
and surgery to all women with breast cancer, regardless of whether
it has spread." (Lawrence Surtees, "Getting Nowhere", Globe and Mail,
Toronto, June 11, 1988)
DeVita was a chemotherapy specialist. As such, he
conveniently ignored the evidence against his speciality.
There were lots of facts which ought to have got in the way
of 13,000 cancer specialists recommending to millions of women,
"on the highest medical authority," that chemotherapy was needed
and in their best interest. Dr. Alan Levin of the University of
California San Francisco put the argument against DeVita bluntly:
"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy...
Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. The
fact has been documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use
chemotherapy for these tumours... Women with breast cancer are
likely to die faster with chemotherapy than without it."
(Quoted in Gary Null, Medical Genocide, Part 16, Penthouse,
British doctor Dick Richards agreed with California doctor
Levin. The following statements of Dr. Richards demonstrate the
criminal culpability of the director of the National Cancer
"The real truth is that the orthodox treatment of cancer of
the breast in the year 1980 offers no significantly better chance
of survival than it did in the year 1900...
I challenge anyone to show sound evidence that, for example,
a random group of advanced breast tumour patients do better when
considered as a whole, or even live longer, on surgery, deep x-
ray, and chemotherapy, than they do when left totally untreated.
In my experience they don't."
- Dr. D. Richards, The Topic of Cancer: When the Killing Has
to Stop. (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1982)
Then in 1988 a Swedish study found that mammograms (X-rays
of the breasts) and early detection of breast cancer did not
reduce death. Dr. Lars Janzon of Sweden's Malmo General Hospital
studied 42,000 women before concluding in an October 1988 British
Medical Journal that mammograms should be restricted. An official
of the American Cancer Society immediately dismissed the report
when questioned by the Wall Street Journal.
And now a 10 year Canadian National Breast Screening study
has shown a 52 percent increase in breast cancer in those women
undergoing annual mammography . The X-rays are, predictably,
producing another iatrogenic epidemic: (See I.D. Bross, M.D.,
Scientific Fraud vs Scientific Truth, Metatechnology Press, New
York, 14226, 1991).
However, all sorts of excuses are made for these results, as
usual, and rather than a halt being called to such dangerous
practices, the mammography screening programs are being
pushed on women at every opportunity and touted as "preventive"
(See e.g. Annual Report, B.C. Cancer Agency, 1991-1992)
"Economics and politics simply intertwine in shaping
conventional medicine's approach to cancer. Very simply put,
treating disease is enormously profitable, preventing disease is
(The British Cancer Control Society), Outrage, Oct/Nov,
Eustace Mullins is an ardent foe of what he calls the
"Medical Monopoly and its international-banking masters". He
considers it a death threat to the American Nation's freedom and
democratic institutions, and identifies Memorial Sloan-Kettering
as the linchpin of the New York-based cancer conspiracy. Mullins
writes, in Murder by Injection: The Story of The Medical
Conspiracy Against America (Staunton PA, 1988).
"The Temple of the modern method of cancer treatment in the
United States is the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute in
New York. Its high priests are the surgeons and researchers at
The governing board of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Institute, called the Board of Managers, reads like a financial
statement of the various Rockefeller holdings....
The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center continues to be
the most 'fashionable' charity among the New York socialites...
This institution receives $70 million a year from various
tax exempt foundations... which means the American taxpayer is
subsidizing all of this research. One hundred and thirty full-time
scientists are doing research at the Center, all 345 physicians at
the Center are also heavily involved in research. And what are the
results of all this activity? A continued reliance on the now
antiquated 'poison, slash and burn' techniques...
While wedded to the ritual observation of these expensive,
painful and futile procedures, the 'Scientists' at Sloan-Kettering
maintain a resolute phalanx of opinion denouncing various
"Bruce Halstead, M.D..... was given a five year jail
sentence... The crime? Dr. Halstead prescribed and sold to several
of his cancer patients some herbal remedies... a rather onerous
California law forbids a doctor to treat a cancer patient with
anything other than chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery."
-Patrick McGrady Jr., (25 years senior editor at the
ACS.) Cancer Scandal video.
New York is the same.
"The definition of malpractice in New York state, as it is
in many other states in this country, is to operate outside the
mainstream of medical oncology. You can be convicted. You can be
fined. You can lose your license. You can go to jail. People can
bring malpractice suits against you even if releases have been
IT IS NOW ILLEGAL TO FIND A CURE FOR CANCER."
David Rorvik suggested the unspoken motive in an article
which appeared in the June 1976 issue of Harpers ( "A Defense
"The American Cancer Society, designated by charter as an
'emergency' organization which must disband the day a cure is
found, has enjoyed its emergency status since 1913 and, by every
indication, is determined to be its beneficiary still in the year
Pat McGrady, Jr. (in Cancer Scandal video):
"The American Cancer Society collects around $400 million a
year... I have yet to see a single breakthrough that has resulted
from this colossal collection of money. Surely the answer is that
they have misspent it... Of the money ACS spends to 'fight
cancer', 61 percent goes for staff salaries, executive travel,
office supplies and other expenses; less than 5 percent is
allocated to assisting patients."
"Maybe the raising of millions of dollars of funds for
charitable projects has become a 'racket'... Maybe we should
investigate the American Cancer Society's operations."
U.S. Representative Roland Libonati, as quoted in Medical
On March 26, 1975, an article by the NEA-London Economist
News Service, titled "Is Cancer Research Worth Cost?" appeared on
the editorial page of The Galveston Daily News. It said in part:
"The sums that are being spent (on cancer research) are
enormous: $600 million in the present financial year - and the fear
of getting the disease universal.... One million Americans have
it. Recently Dr. James Watson, who is listened to because he
helped to discover the molecular structure of life's genetic
material, derided the national cancer program as a fraud. Dr.
Watson said that the government's newly created cancer research
centers around the country are institutions that are 'starting
out lousy and will stay lousy'."
" The facts continue multiplying that refute the barbaric
practice of animal experimentation in the name of human health and
longevity. Yet the efforts by the medical establishment to
justify this practice continues unabated.... The medical
establishment threatens us with dire consequences if animal
experimentation is stopped. This is a shame, a weapon being used
to ensure continued funding to the tune of $6 billion a year by the
National Institutes of Health and Mental Health to the nation's
(From an article by Murray J. Cohen, M.D., in the Chicago
Tribune, April 8, 1986.)
"At the time when millions are starving in the world, and
our economy is in great trouble, Congress is allocating billions
of dollars annually in grants for "basic", no-goal research on
living animals. Careers in torture are as financially rewarding as
they are morally bankrupt. Reports in the medical journals
recorded by the experimenters themselves are indisputable
indictments of their gross inhumanity."
Barbara Schultz, a member of the Attorney General Louis
Lefkowitz's advisory committee on the treatment of animals in New
York State, writing in Newsday, July 12, 1974)
Med. Dr. Ottokar Hanel, general practitioner, Neu-Bydzow
"The learned lawyers of earlier centuries also considered
torture to be absolutely necessary for obtaining evidence!"
(October 4, 1909)
Herbert Gundersheimer, M.D., member, PCRM (Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine), Baltimore, Maryland, 1988:
"Results from animal tests are not transferable between
species, and therefore cannot guarantee product safety for
humans...In reality these tests do not provide protection for
consumers from unsafe products, but rather they are used to
protect corporations from legal liability."
-Declaration, 1988, calling for an end to the use of the crude
and barbaric LD-50 test, in which animals are administered a test
substance until 50% are dead (poisoned). This sort of madness
is foisted onto an unsuspecting public as "good science"!
"...Moreover, the tests deceive the very consumers whom they
are supposed to protect, by certifying as safe household products
and cosmetics that cause nearly 200,000 (U.S.) hospital-recorded
poisonous exposures annually."
Paula Kislak, D.V.M., Sherman Oaks, California, PCRM.
"It is incomprehensible how parties with vested interests
repeatedly assert the necessity and purposefulness of animal
experiments, paying no regard to the views of many who think
otherwise, and at the same time conceal the fact that the defence
used against claims for damages resulting from side effects caused
by extensively used animal-tested medicaments and chemical
substances is precisely that the animal-test results could not be
applied to the human organism."
Dr. med. Werner Hartinger, Specialist in General and
Accident Surgery, in a lecture entitled "Vivisection - False Path of
Medicine?", on October 4, 1985, at the Kunsthaus in Zurich.
Prof. Gianni Tamino, biologist, Padua University, a
Congressman in the Italian Parliament, in Gazzettino, Venice, Oct
"The growing opposition to vivisection is understandable
both on ethical and biological counts. However, a certain
'scientistic' culture says they serve to save human lives. But
reality is quite the opposite. Let's take the case of the
pesticides. These dangerous products, used in agriculture, are
classified according to their acute toxicity, graduated with the
LD 50 test. This represents not only a useless sacrifice of animals,
but it's an alibi that enables the chemical industry to sell products
which are classified as harmless or almost, but are in reality very
harmful in the long run, even if taken in very small doses. Many
pesticides classified as belonging to the fourth category, (meaning
they can be sold and used freely) have turned out to be carcinogenic
or mutagenic or capable of harming the fetus. Also in this case,
animal tests are not only ambiguous, but they serve to put on the
market some products of which any carcinogenic effect will be
ascertained only when used by human beings - the real guinea-pigs
of the multinationals. And yet there are laboratory tests that are
cheaper and quicker than animal tests, 'in vitro' tests on cell
cultures or bacteria, which have been proving their worth for years
already. But the interests of the chemical industries which foist on
us new products in all fields may not be questioned."
The Oily "Free" Press
"Human nature is contradictory, so that we are not only
endowed with irrational instincts or feelings that may land us in
some metaphysical impasse, as happens to the deeply religious,
but we can also be rationalizing in the extreme, especially when
it comes to satisfying another characteristic of our nature: the
miser's rapacious inclinations, a thirst for riches, which can
become addictive, and, once born, seldom stops growing.
Of this, almost everybody is well aware. But very few realize
to what extent their own minds are constantly being manipulated
by the gigantic, venal interests that mold public opinion and
influence the decisions of science at top levels.
As related in Naked Empress, some 90 percent of commercial
advertising, the wherewithal of the mass media, derive from the
petrochemical combine and its business partners. And the media
manipulate public opinion according to the interests of their main
clients. Not so much through the seductive display ads, which only
serve to sell products, but much more determinantly through
editorials, articles, reports, even letters-to-the-editor, which
serve to sell ideas and to justify government policies.
Most of the big petrochemical combines use animals as
testing material. Are those animal tests necessary? Indeed they
are, but not for the reasons generally stated. They don't serve to
reveal the dangerousness of the tested products but, on the
contrary, to conceal it.
What if there were no animals? Then the industry would have
to test its products in some other way, with some SCIENTIFIC
method, using human cell cultures, for example, or any of the more
than 400 other SCIENTIFIC methods available, which would quickly
reveal the products' noxiousness. If such methods had been used,
all-encroaching world pollution would not be what it is today."
From the Preface, by Hans Ruesch: 1,000 Doctors (and many
more) Against Vivisection. Hans Ruesch, editor. CIVIS
"Animal Rights" Fakery
"Of course, it would be the animal welfare organizations'
task to draw the public's attention not only to the cruelty of
animal testing, but principally to the damages deriving from a
fallacious system of research. But this, most of the big
organizations fail to do, being no less infiltrated by commercial
interests than the media and governments.
There is indeed nothing easier than to infiltrate an animal
protection society. The wolf always arrives in sheep's clothing,
the devil always knocks at the door flashing smiles and a golden
halo of sainthood: so that the overworked, sometimes underpaid and
more often unpaid animal-welfare workers in the big societies will
sooner or later be glad to relinquish their post to the genial newcomer,
who seems to have even more enthusiasm and energy and no pecuniary
This explains such a phenomenon as that of the largest,
richest animal-welfare society in the world, the RSPCA, whose
patron is Her Gracious Majesty the Queen; RSPCA propagandizes the
necessity of vivisection, never advertises the damage deriving to
the people from this false method of research, and has invested
most of its huge assets in bonds and stocks of industries that
- From the Preface, by Hans Ruesch: 1,000 Doctors (and many
more) Against Vivisection.
AIDS: Only The Latest Plague From The Animal Labs
"In a deliberate effort to expand the market for their products,
drug companies are literally creating new diseases."
-Joel Lexchin, M.D., The Real Pushers, New Star Books, p.207
"Truth is usually simple. Yet the AIDS virus theory has
entered a realm of scientific obfuscation. OUR ADDICTION TO ANIMAL
RESEARCH provides us with faulty information about AIDS and drugs
intended for humans, who differ physiologically from other
species." (Emphasis supplied)
Laurence E. Badgley, M.D., July 1988, in his Foreword to
AIDS, Inc., by John Rappoport, Human Energy Press, San Bruno, CA.
John Seale, M.D., world renowned specialist in venereal
diseases and AIDS in Great Britain, explained in a long conference
(parts of which he had previously published in London's Sunday
Express in 1986), how AIDS was inadvertently created in the
vivisection laboratories. He thus confirmed what French Dr.
Gustave Mathieu had already announced in the summer of 1985, and
what West Germany's Dr. med. Holger Strohm had reconfirmed in
books, articles and conferences up to 1988... AIDS is a product of
the animal laboratories.
The renowned British AIDS specialist, Professor Peter
Kernoff, also supports the theory that the virus was artificially
Dr. Seale, published an article in the British Medical
Journal stating that the AIDS factor is derived from a combination
of the la visna (sheep) virus and the virus of la leuceumie des
bovins (cow leukemia).
(Excerpts from an article in the Mid-Devon Advertiser
incorporating Mid-Devon Times, Dec. 2, 1988):
"A preventative vaccine for AIDS is unlikely to be found, a
leading world expert on the disease told this newspaper in an
exclusive interview this week... In the paper, Crossing the
Species Barrier, which he was presenting yesterday in London, Dr.
Seale stressed that most viruses that affected one species did not
affect another species. Dogs did not have cat diseases, and vice
versa. The fact that the AIDS virus has such a structure is
indicative to Dr. Seale that it is not a natural virus, but one
induced artificially in the laboratory, perhaps accidentally, by
biologists using new techniques in virology, in which monkeys are
used... 'It could not have happened naturally', Dr. Seale said.
'It has been artificially altered'."
Dr. Theodore Strecker investigated the development of the
AIDS epidemics and established that the National Cancer Institute,
in cooperation with the WHO (World Health Organization),
created the AIDS virus in the laboratories of Fort Detrick
(U.S. Army biological laboratories). They combined the viruses of
a sheep disease and bovine leukemia and injected them in human
tissue culture. The result was the AIDS virus, the first
retrovirus known that appears to be 100% deadly to man.
The AIDS virus causes a fatal disease which damages the
brain and destroys the body's immune system, rendering futile all
the body's attempts to combat sickness. The tragedy is that the
virus appears in numerous forms. Some cause decomposition of the
brain (like the sheep disease), others cause leukemia (like the
cow's virus), and there are numerous other results. Apparently the
virus will continue to change and cause different symptoms,
because it is in fact artificial.
A very well argued document by Dr. William Campbell Douglas,
entitled 'WHO Murdered Africa', states that the (WHO) World Health
Organization killed the African continent with the AIDS virus, by
means of the smallpox-vaccination program there. This is a brave
and provocative accusation against the organization, and it is
supported by the WHO's own statement made in its 1972 bulletin:
"An attempt should be made to see if viruses can in fact exert
selective effects on immune functions. The possibility should be
looked into that the immune response to the virus itself
may be impaired if the infecting virus damages, more or less
selectively, the cell responding to the virus." This clearly shows
that WHO wanted to test viruses that might be able to destroy the
human T-cell, thus, causing immune deficiency. Who needs such
tests? The discovery of such a virus, as the World Health
Organization has proposed, would ultimately create terrible and
fatal infectious viruses beyond the strength of the human immune
system, which could destroy the human race.
The Sunday Express of November 2, 1986, examined Soviet-
American cooperation in the area of AIDS.
One of the important people of the Fort Detrick laboratory,
Carlton Gajdusek, said: "The scientists and research associates
working in one of our buildings are mostly from China and the
Soviet Union. They have free access to all the laboratories where
Americans work. Even the army's infectious disease unit is loaded
with foreign workers of not always friendly nationalities. I can
assure you that the creation of the AIDS virus was not just a
diabolical exercise that got out of hand. It was a cold-blooded
successful attempt to create a killer virus, which was then used
in a successful experiment in Africa. So successful, in fact, that
most of Central Africa may be wiped out. It was not an accident.
It was deliberate."
A famous virologist insists that the AIDS virus originated
in the Central African green monkey and was transferred by a bite.
But the disease began to occur simultaneously in the United
States, Haiti, Brazil and Central Africa, and it is quite
improbable that four green monkeys could have bitten people in
four different countries on three different continents at
approximately the same time. Secondly, genetic testing has
proved that the natural transfer of the AIDS virus from monkeys
to humans is impossible; thirdly, even if we accept the
possibility of such a transference, this cannot explain the
enormous numbers of people infected, which doubles every fourteen
months. In comparing the first case of the disease with the
present number of cases, it is obvious that great numbers of
people were infected at the same time. If the first case was
indeed caused by a green monkey in 1972, the doubling
described above would have produced somewhere around
fourteen thousand victims and not the actual several millions.
How was this deadly virus transferred to the United States
to literally decimate the homosexual population? It is true that
in some cases the virus was transferred by homosexuals from Haiti
to the United States, but this does not reveal the entirety of the
problem and cannot explain the number of infected people in the
country today. Until 1978 the virus was still not present in the
States. This year a Hepatitis-B vaccine was introduced, and thanks
to this vaccine the epidemiology of the disease can be examined.
In 1981 the Center for Disease Control announced that four percent
of all those who received the hepatitis vaccine were infected
with AIDS. In 1986 they admitted that the number of infected
vaccine recipients was actually as high as sixty percent. Nowadays
they abstain from all estimates, because they refuse to admit that
all one hundred percent of those who received the vaccine are
infected with AIDS.
From the above discussion, it becomes clear that the deadly
virus did not come here from Africa, but has been spread by an
anti-hepatitis vaccine, while the African epidemic was caused by a
vaccine against smallpox. Both vaccines were infected with the
AIDS is one of the greatest threats we face today. It might
eventually force many countries into bankruptcy. In 1985, this
deadly disease cost the United States about 5 billion dollars. In
1987 the cost rose to more than 10 billion. At the end of 1991 it
cost about 65 billion. Because of the staggering cost, many
African nations are on the brink of financial catastrophe.
Homosexuality, unsterile needles and blood transfusions have
already infected from ten to twenty percent of the population in
some countries. It is assumed that the rapidly spreading epidemic
will depopulate some areas of Africa. South America and some other
countries also live with the same fear.
There is no money to be made from healthy people. This is
why the medical and research establishments are not in the least
interested in true prevention (practically all diseases are
preventable). The criminal refusal to remove the known causes of
so many human ailments guarantees a situation where practically
everyone is sick or will eventually get sick (the flat refusal to
educate people about the vital need to adopt a vegetarian diet is
a prime example). Once millions upon millions of people are sick
and dying and pronounced "in need" of drugs, tests, radiation,
surgeries, transplants, and all kinds of medical attention and
intervention, the expenditures connected with "health care"
skyrocket accordingly. In 1991 alone, the United States spent 750
billion dollars on what should more appropriately be called
"sickness care". It is conservatively estimated that by the year
2000, annual "health care" costs in the United States will have
increased to at least 1.5 trillion dollars ($1,500,000,000,000).
Needles to say, such astronomical expenditures (which have made
countless doctors, surgeons, pharmaceutical companies, and all
kinds of institutions rich) have already broken the financial back
of the country. It is clear that prevention, and not "health care
reform", is the real cure.
"Human experimentation has become a major industry in
America." Millions of baffled Americans heard this statement on
the hour long NBC Report T.V. program that Robert Rogers wrote,
produced and narrated on prime time of the evening of May 29, 1973.
In Mental Hygiene, Peter Roger Breggin, M.D. wrote:
"Lobotomy and psychosurgery are upon us again! In
Philadelphia a black man dies of an overdose of heroin, and a
reporter notices peculiar scars on his head. A portion of his
brain has been burned out in an experimental attempt to cure his
addiction. The neurosurgeon is located by the reporter and admits
that his monkey experiments were inconclusive before trying his
operation on human addicts."
On June 22, 1977 a news item from Cape Town reported that a
25 year old Italian woman had died at Cape Town's Groote Schuur
Hospital two and a half hours after heart-juggler Dr. Christian
Barnard had implanted a baboon's heart (excised without a shade
of anaesthtetic) into her chest, hitching it to her own heart:
"Barnard's latest operation is rather disconcerting,
especially in view of the fact that the Italian patient was
entrusted to his care for the implantation of a heart valve, which
is a routine operation even in this poor Italy of ours..."
"Clinical nonsense", were the words with which France's
authoritative Le Monde dismissed Barnard's wild experiment.
On December 4, 1977 two German psychiatrists, Dr. Herbert
Stiller and Dr. Margot Stiller, wrote a letter to the Hamburger
"Too much consideration has been paid up to now to Dr.
Barnard's sensitive, applause-hungry soul. It is well-known that
he is seized by asthma attacks whenever he gets criticized...We
would suggest that one should be somewhat less concerned about
Prof. Barnard's tender sensibilities, and a bit more about all his
potential, unsuspecting patients."
Dr. med. Albert Eckhard (Chairman of the animal welfare
society "Tierfreund", Hanover, and the Association of
Antivivisectionist Doctors, Germany):
"...The objection that one must carry out animal experiments
in order not to have to make any experiments on humans also does
not accord with the truth, for the cruel experiments on animals
have merely provided the foundation for the belief that one can
also make reprehensible experiments on human beings. The bad thing
is that they have performed the experiments on people, especially
on children, of poor folk, to whom they transmitted tuberculosis,
diphtheria, syphilis and other horrible diseases, and did not even
shrink back from conducting experiments on dying children. Several
thousands were involved in these experiments, often with the most
serious consequences for the "guinea pigs" concerned. The fact
that many doctors are hardly any longer aware of their unsocial or
really criminal way of thinking is apparent from the report of a
doctor who wrote as follows about his attempts to inject smallpox:
"Perhaps I should have first conducted experiments on animals, but
the suitable animals, i.e. calves, were difficult to obtain and to
keep due to the cost, and so, with the kind permission of the
Senior Physician, I began my experiments on children at the
General Foundling Hospital."
(Tierrecht und Tierschutz, No. 9, 20 September 1932)
Prof. Pietro Croce, M.D., pathologist, Italy, Vice-President
of The International League of Doctors Against Vivisection
(ILDAV), 3rd Symposium, 1988:
"Atrocious medical experiments are being made on children,
mostly physically and mentally handicapped ones, and on aborted
fetuses, given or sold to the laboratories and raised to maturity for
experimental purposes. This is a logical development of the practice
of vivisection. It is our urgent task to accelerate its inevitable
Dr. J.D. Whittall, M.D., in his book People and Animals,
"If there had been no vivisection and reliance had been
placed on clinical research and observation for finding out about
the human body; and if there had been a real study of the human
being as a person rather than as a machine, we would doubtless not
now be threatened by science with such monstrous scientific goals
as head transplants, deep freezing of human beings and indefinite
prolongation of life, radical alteration of the human mind by
drugs and other means, remote control of humans by means of
electrodes implanted in the brain, the creation of man-animal
chimeras, etc... The world would not be saddened and threatened by
the increasing number of scientists and technologists who are
being conditioned by their laboratory employment to callous
disregard of animal suffering, leading inevitably to callous
disregard of human suffering. There would not now be a growing
number of people greatly distressed by the appalling cruelties
which they know go on in laboratories.
There would not now be a world-wide epidemic of torture
where techniques are used similar to those that have been used
on animals for many years.
There would not now be a predominantly experimental medicine
in the western world instead of a clinical medicine. There would
be less disease and greater happiness.
And perhaps this planet would not now be in greater danger
of destruction due to cruel and greedy exploitation of its
treasures by its human inhabitants than at any time since the
Some Last Words
Dr. med Ignaz Seidl, Vice-Chairman of the Austrian Society
of Antivivisectionist Doctors: "People were, out of reverence and
admiration for the results of medical science, accustomed - and a
certain portion of the Press does this deliberately - to consider
its representatives as demi-gods, whose actions were sacrosanct
from the ethical viewpoint, because their efforts were after all
serving suffering Mankind. We young medical students, who chose
the profession of doctor out of enthusiasm for its lofty ideals,
thought exactly the same. We had no idea that our revered
teachers, through their experiments on animals, were punching
ethics in the face and, through their cruelty and heartlessness
towards the innocent creatures, doing exactly the same as the
Druids did to the old Celts when they acted according to the law
which stated:'Prisoners of war shall be slain at the alters or be
cast into the flames...'
One shakes one's head in disbelief at the backwardness of a
culture that still makes use of such atrocities. We attend highly
aesthetic, philosophical and artistic lectures, we let ourselves
be pleased or shocked at the theatre or opera, listen to the
sublime soaring tones of the church organ, the solemn singing of
the choirs, go through the finest sensations of spiritual life
when we read an aesthetic book, admire a painting, wander happily
in the open air, are exhilarated by the enjoyment of Nature,
experience all the qualities of inner movement - but all this
time, in the basements of the University institutes and many
hospitals, the groaning dogs are biting in pain at the iron bars
of their cages after coming to from the anaesthetic, they are
writhing in unspeakable agony on their straw bedding, they are
dragging themselves whimpering to the water bowl so as to cool
their thirsting tongues, or are showing in their so-very-devoted
canine eyes the madness of despair when the cleverly placed
gadgets prevent them from easing the unbearable itching of their
wounds with parrying movements; other animals brood
apathetically, shuddering again and again with painful
convulsions, maimed, torn apart and poisoned, or must run day and
night, to the point of exhaustion, in the revolving drum, endure
frightful burn wounds, hunger and thirst, freezing and
asphyxiation experiments until they are often only finally
released from their suffering by a merciful death. Anyone who has
once seen this must, doubting in God, clench his fist at the most
vicious of all creatures, homo sapiens, and vow to help expose the
brutality of such a pitiless and hypocritical science with all his
might, and to help eradicate such a crime against civilization.
How empty and hollow must any honours and titles appear that are
striven for and achieved on the basis of such shamefulness! Where
can there be any excuse for such an abomination? Only the soul
blindness - not in the medical sense - of the doctors, only their
blindness of soul towards such a shaming of science and all
humanity, of true humanity, can excuse this or make it at least
However, as the defenders of this horrific means of research
are immunized against feelings of compassion and are deaf, I have
preferred to show, in their language and plain way of thinking,
what dangerous sources of error animal experiments are, how many
people have been killed because of them and how unnecessary they
now appear to be in the judgement of many doctors with modern
Prof. Andre Passebecq, M.D., N.D., D. Psy., of the Faculty
of Medicine of Paris, 13th District, at the ILDAV conference of
June 19, 1989 in Paris, after he had been elected as the new
President of ILDAV [ Intnl. League of Doctors Against Vivisection]:
"Man has developed awesome weapons of destruction, capable
of annihilating our entire planet at the push of a button. But
there are also other kinds of destruction. Vivisection is one of
them. It causes not only severe damages in the biological area,
but also untold spiritual damages.
Experiments on animals lead inevitably to experiments on
people. They are senseless, one and all. As if an animal test
could ever predict the same result on a person. And as if an
experiment on one human being could enable us to foresee the
reactions of another human being, whose biology and metabolism are
different, whose blood pressure is different, whose lifestyle and
age and nourishment and sensitivity and genes and everything else
If we adopt a correct medical concept, based on an
understanding of the vital requirements of the cells; if we
understand the sense and purpose of the organism's natural
reactions, then we renounce all animal experimentation. Then we
recognize that each single organism, whether human or animal, has
its very own reactions; that it responds in its own particular,
individual way to the stimuli and attacks from the environment,
that it disposes of peculiar faculties of defense and regeneration
and self-healing powers.
Today's orthodox medicine and suppressive surgery don't
understand the purpose of disease and therefore don't know how to
treat it. A real doctor's experience derives from his natural
intuition coupled with his observation at the sickbed, but never
from invasive, violent experiments on people, and much less on
animals. But instead of vital hygiene, which aims at preservation
or reconstruction of health by natural means and shuns all use of
degrading, destructive chemicals, today's medical students are
taught to manipulate poisons and mutilate bodies. We demand that
this be changed.
Dr. med Max Bachem, Frankfurt am Main:
"The fight against vivisection is a matter of what is right
and of moral evolution, an ethical requirement, and as such a
question for the whole people."
"I hope that our nation will cleanse itself of this meanest
of all crimes.(vivisection)."
-Dr. John H. Clarke, London (from a discourse delivered at
the Church Congress in Folkstone on Oct. 6, 1892)
Nowadays and world-wide, some 4 billion (!) animals of every
description are tortured to death every year in the
industrial and medical laboratories...
Learn about the legalized fraud perpetrated by a profit-
oriented Medical Power in collusion with the Drug Trust, to the
detriment of public health. Discover the full truth about the
deadly cancer racket and those who keep it thriving. Read the
books by Swiss medical historian, Hans Ruesch, banned in
bookstores in the USA and Great Britain:
Slaughter of the Innocent - dissolves forever the misconception
that animal experimentation enhances human health. 480-page
paperback originally published by Bantam Books, reissued by
Naked Empress or The Great Medical Fraud - exposes the giant
financial interests that perpetuate vivisection and other harms.
260-page illustrated, large soft cover.
1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection - doctors
express their opinions. 281-page large soft cover with end flaps,
introduced by Hans Ruesch.
Buchverlag CIVIS Publications,
Hans Ruesch Foundation
Via Motta 51
CH-6900 Massagno - Switzerland
or CIVIS/Civitas, Box 26, Swain NY 14884
jpranger at direct.ca
More information about the Womenbio