The Special Virus-Cancer Program (SVCP): Engineering an Abomination of Science and Public Health

Updated: Oct 20, 2020

By: A. W. Finnegan #Cancer #BiologicalWarfare #RecombinantDNA #GeneticEngineering #SpecialVirusCancerProgram #SVCP

Dr. Robert Sinsheimer, chairman of the Biology Division of the California Institute of Technology and chairman of the editorial board of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has warned that "what we are doing is almost certainly irreversible. Knowing human frailty, these structures will escape, and there is no way to recapture them." Erwin Chargaff, Professor Emeritus of Columbia University and a recipient of the National Medal of Science and other honors for this work on DNA, has written, "I should say that the spreading of experimental cancer may be confidently expected."

- New Strains of life or death: Scientists have learned to rearrange the basic genetic material of living things, and so have opened an exciting new research frontier. But, one biologist warns, 'the future will curse us for it.' - The New York Times, August 22, 1976 [1]

Biological Weapons: Antithesis of the Great Work
SVCP Report

From the late 1940s to the later 1960s, the United States began to increasingly concentrate much of their biological research in the realm of cancer and virus research, until it became a priority and program of its own. [2] Very few today are aware of the fact that many cancers are the result of viral infections and the reactivation of latent viruses turned against the body to produce severe illnesses and chronic disease. [3] Even many primary care physicians and health authorities today this author has spoken to are ignorant of the effects and extent of many common viral infections of the herpesvirus family reactivated into active form, serving as potent carcinogens and underlying causes of chronic disease. [4] Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) is one example of a common virus that causes cancers such as but not limited to nasopharyngeal carcinoma, lymphomatosis and leukemia. [5] These factors, however, were well-known in the high levels of public health since at least the 1950s. [6]

The Special Virus Cancer Program (SVCP) was an in-depth, far-reaching biological research program run by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), under cancer and vaccine research. [7] However, as history has shown us, cancer and vaccine research makes an excellent cover for so much of the detestable biological weapons work that no one wants to get caught working on. [8] I must add, however, that the United States was certainly not the only game in town. On the contrary, despite the common belief that the Americans had the elite program, the reality was a bit different when it came to biodefense preparation and any significant advancement over contending nations. [9]

However, the United States certainly had a well-funded program, but the research was likely being funneled out of the United States' interests and through the hands of corporations, NGOs, and academia. [10] I might add that foreign infiltration was rather extensive in the Cold War, and let's also not forget who put the Bolsheviks in power (Hint: for more on this, see my article, Book Review: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: 1905-1925, by Richard B. Spence). This same cozy partnership seems to have been playing out in this realm as well.

In November of 1969, President Richard M. Nixon, advised by men like Henry Kissinger, declared a so-called ban on the chemical and biological weapons, in an offensive capacity. [11] It was several years later that congress signed off on considerable funding to the SVCP through the National Cancer Act of 1974, when Nixon took this time to then declare the so-called 'War on Cancer.' [12] This may have been much less a war on cancer, but a war of cancer, when two bitter rivals feigning cooperation, were at their the height of tension. [13]

The buildings formerly used to run the U. S. biological warfare divisions at the Fort Detrick directive were quickly transferred out of military hands, and into the hands of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), along with the cooperation of academic and corporate special interests groups spanning throughout the academic, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and corporate firms who infested the U.S. scientific research and public health system by this time. [14]

However, the truth of the matter is that the biological warfare program never really ended. Rather, it ended in name only, taken out of military hands, while disguising itself as benign research and cloaked itself from international treaties, [15] and this was certainly not a new trick. Indeed, Nazi Germany hid their biological weapons programs under cancer, vaccine, and agricultural research. [16] The reason for such measures was due to the fact that when Germany used chemical weapons during the First World War, the country was forced to pay such extensive damage in reparations, that payments didn't stop until 2010. [17] For all time following the First World War, Germany disguised all of their special weapons research under the cover of something non-threatening or benign, and this set an example for other countries on the art of disguise and plausible deniability.

More interesting, however, is the fact that part of this 'war on cancer' declared by Nixon paved way for the US-USSR Health Agreement of 1972. [18] These two were, at the time, at the height of a bitter yet esoteric war, and the Soviet Union was allowed access to American research and public health data amassed by the achievements in the SVCP and beyond, done through a Telex line, which fed all the data on U.S. research into a database for the Soviets to view:

Especially noteworthy is the broad cooperative cancer effort that has taken root through the Joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. Health Agreement of 1972. One result of that agreement is the Telex-line, which I opened by agreement with the Soviet Minister of Health when I was in Moscow last year. That has enabled cancer scientists in the United States and the U.S.S.R. to communicate with each other daily since mid-October.

This system is used to exchange information on such things as the use of drugs, the exchange of scientists, and the shipment of materials. [19]

This was likely the beginning phases of Artificial intelligence software and data that now runs an autonomous arm of the U. S. public health system. [20] It was supposed to have been an agreement that gave the United States, in turn, reciprocated access to the Soviet Union's health and research data, but some reports indicate the end result did not turn out this way. [21] The year prior brought us the Biological & Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) of 1971, followed several years later with an agreement to prohibit the use of weather warfare, or weaponizing weather conditions against enemy countries, [22]

Following the BTWC of 1971, the biological warfare programs of the world took their activities underground, or rather, set them hidden in plain sight. From that point forward, any program had to operate under a “cover” or "blanket" of science, medical, agricultural, and environmental research. Academic institutions and the corporate sector became the de facto channels and this largely centered in agriculture, cancer, and vaccine research. The behavior, from that point forward, became more Orwellian, in the sense that the activities were always the exact opposite of what was promoted publicly, comparable to the Newspeak language of George Orwell’s classic novel, 1984, [23] and this was noted by Soviet bioweaponeer Igor V. Domaradskij, in his memoir, Biowarrior: Inside the Soviet/Russian Biological War Machine:

As I said in the previous chapter, my move to Rostov coincided with the transformation of that Institute, which at that point began to emerge as the leading institute in the plague control system on "Problem No. 5." My own deepening involvement- the Gateway from me into the world of biological weapons- began here at Rostov with problem No. 5. This odd-sounding code word stands for a Soviet program for the antibacterial protection of the population, or, in other words, the development of means of protection from biological weapons. Almost all civil microbiological Institutes of the USSR were involved in Problem No. 5. Since the early seventies, when the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention was signed by the Soviet Union, the United States, and as of (January 1, 2001) 144 other nations, the emphasis of Problem No. 5 shifted. It began to serve as a legend, or cover story, to hide the illegal an ultrasecret biological weapons program known as problem Ferment or "Problem F." With the signing of the BTWC, biological defense was no longer a priority; under cover of the treaty, and unknown to the rest of the signatories, a greatly expanded and ambitious bioweapons program would rapidly take root in the USSR.

Developing such a program became the main task of a supersecret group, the Interagency Scientific and Technical Counsel for molecular biology and genetics. Problem number 5 became little more than a smokescreen for these hidden and dangerous activities. It was used both by the Ministry of Defence, and by a new organization, Biopreparat, the "civilian arm" of the biological weapons program. [24]

The overall picture that begins to emerge is one in which biological weapons research started by respective countries and as military programs with some level of oversight were transferred from the military to special interest groups, foreign and domestic, integrated into a more global network, and some of these special interests from Wall Street were always in bed with the communists and Soviet Union. [25] The establishment of the United Nations (UN) and its public health and agricultural arm like the World Health Organization (WHO) saw increasing cooperation with these agencies and corporate firms. [26] This brought many vulnerabilities and opportunities for harm against the people of America and the West, to be attacked and targeted for bioterrorism and sabotage. [27]

To understand some of the atmosphere leading up to this era of new life and technology, we must back up and go back to the start of the SVCP, which had already been underway by the time it was given its official designation. As stated previously, the SVCP was more or less an extension of research programs and special committees already well-underway, joined to a more cohesive, planned and strategic platform. [28]

The 1960's saw an accompanying rise in virus and cancer research, as the connection between virus and cancer was strengthened and greatly expanded. However, there existed also interrelationships to pathogens that would greatly enhance if not bring on the cancer condition itself. [29] One microbe specifically studied for its broad-spectrum ability and unique biological makeup, was Mycoplasma. It was observed that Mycoplasma could induce the necessary immunosuppression and disseminated viral syndromes necessary to bring on the secondary opportunistics and cancers. [30] It was mechanisms like this that the SVCP sought to understand, simulate, and in some cases, exploit. [31]

Testing and research activities saw an acceleration in these years, especially after 1971, when the corporate drug firms helped to influence congress and pass legislation to allow free rein on the populations of the West and beyond. This occurred through both the privatization, with international cooperation, and the non-consensual field testing laws imposed on them through the legislation they were able to influence through congress. The drug firms and public health agencies were able to fully escape accountability and liability. This was successful through the passing of 50 U.S. Code § 1520, allowing for the authoritative use of testing chemical and biological agents on citizens without their knowledge or consent, and legally remained in place until 1997. [32] The 1997 law forbid experimental testing, [33] but the National Emergency and War Powers clause in Title 50 nullifies the restriction if deemed necessary, and we have been under some form of National Emergency for decades by that time. [34] [35]

The SVCP put genetic engineering and cancer research, which included the construction of new viruses and pathogens never seen before, in the hands of groups who demonstrated their care-free, reckless science in the years that followed. More than a few scientists were concerned about the activities taking place. In one edition of Science magazine from the late 70s, concern was addressed and expressed by members of the program, in Construction of Human Tumor Viruses?:

We recognize that at present there is no conclusive evidence for a viral causation of any human malignancy. However, it has been clearly demonstrated in all animal species so far examined that viruses manufactured in the laboratory can be oncogenic. It seems only reasonable to assume that humans may be similarly affected. Indeed, it is important to make sure that current experiments do not prove this assumption to be correct. Informed officials at the National Cancer Institute have stated that the above experiments were carried out in appropriate facilities. We ask whether any facility is adequate to meet the possibility, even if remote, of containing an artificially created virus that is potentially a human tumor virus.

Concern has been expressed in the scientific community about the safety of the construction of DNA's involving bacterial plasmids and segments of mammalian genomes. In this case, the danger rests on the possibility of inadvertently picking up and amplifying unwanted genetic information that might alter in some way the natural bacterial flora in man and somehow be transmitted into human cells. We believe that the biohazards resulting from such bacterial cloning experiments are minimal when compared to the apparent success in selecting for oncogenic viruses capable of producing tumors in a wide spectrum of primates. Therefore. we urge that all experiments involving cocultivation of known oncogenic viruses with primate viruses be immediately halted until the safety of such experiments are extensively exhausted. [36]

Mycoplasma: Microbial Blueprint for AIDS-Related Complexes (ARC)

The SVCP would not have been complete without the stealth addition of mycoplasma. The Immunosuppression seen in AIDS-like diseases are usually accompanied by the addition of a mycoplasmal component, a devious microorganism that thrives on stealth and immune dysfunction. [37] However, it needs to be pointed out that mycoplasma does not just infect the immunodeficient, it can also infect the perfectly healthy. [38] Mycoplasma also loves to grow around all things biological, and the filthier the better. This microbe is versatile and finds similarity to all of the organisms that cause disease. In some ways, mycoplasma can act like a virus, a bacterium, a parasite, and a fungus. [39] Mycoplasma is indeed fungal-like, which gave it its name: Myco- means “fungal,” and –plasma equates to “form” or “substrate” [40] Mycoplasma is perhaps the biggest thorn in the side of laboratory scientists and vaccine manufacturers, who cannot seem to keep this stuff out of their biological products and experimental material. [41] Toxic waste is the perfect home for mycoplasma and a vaccine is just as preferable. [42] In the same way that mold grows on food and damp, dark spaces, mycoplasma grows in toxic biological material. Its fungal nature gives it the perfect niche to evade the immune system while symbiotically increasing the secondary infections and virus reactivation, which can present a complicated picture. [43] [44]

Avian Mycoplasma (Wikipedia)

Since most of our biological makeup is made of water, invaders can likely be discovered and dealt with better when the immune cells come into contact with something that can be dissolved in water. Fungus is more a lipid or fatty material, think of how oil does not dissolve in water, but keeps fine lines of separation, and one begins to see that it can probably evade the immune system much better than a polysaccharide or sugar. [45] Other times, however, bits and pieces of mycoplasma or antigen can dissociate from its form and fuse with host cells, triggering a false alarm, where the so-called “auto-immune” comes into effect. [46] In the case of “auto-immune,“ however, it is not exactly an overactive immune system, it is a confused immune system, occurring simultaneously with immunosuppression and the secondary infections. [47]

Mycoplasma was first discovered by A.B. Frank but wasn’t widely termed as mycoplasma until about the 1950’s. It was also referred to as a pleuropneumonia-like organism (PPLO), [48] and in farm animals the more well-known form (Mycoplasma mycoides) was called contagious bovine pleuropneumonia. [49] The most commonly known mycoplasma in human infections are Mycoplasma fermentans and Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Mycoplasma gallisepticum is an avian mycoplasma that is known to cause serious losses in the poultry industry, as well as causing sinusitis, conjunctivitis, and serious respiratory infections for a wide range of birds. [50] Avian mycoplasma is in some ways like Mycoplasma fermentans, as both are known to ferment sugars and glucose from within the body, which can lead to a variety of diabetic-like conditions. [51] The immunosuppressive tendencies for mycoplasmal infections are commonly seen in the AIDS-like outcomes. [52]

Mycoplasma researcher and Defense Department pathologist, Dr. Shyh-Ching Lo, has repeatedly implicated mycoplasma in the condition of AIDS, as Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus triggers the outcome seen in the late stage of disease, and Dr. Lo has described the disease at length in several patents, implicated in AIDS and AIDS-Related Complexes (ARC) mentioned in a 1993 patent, Pathogenic Mycoplasma:

A high prevalence of M. fermentans incognitus infection has been found in patients with AIDS by using the polymerase chain reaction. The genetic material specific for M. fermentans incognitus has been isolated from spleens, Kaposi's sarcoma, livers, lymph nodes, peripheral blood mononuclear cells and brains of patients with AIDS.

Furthermore, M. fermentans incognitus infection has been found in previously healthy non-AIDS subjects with an acute fatal disease. The M. fermentans incognitus infection in these patients was directly identified in the necrotizing lesions in lymph nodes, spleens, livers, adrenal glands, heart and brain.

The pathogenesis of M. fermentans incognitus infection is unusual in that despite fulminant tissue necrosis, there is lymphocyte depletion and an apparent lack of cellular immune response or inflammatory reaction in the infected tissues. It is believed that infection of M. fermentans incognitus either has concomitantly caused damage to key components of the hosts' immune system, or this pathogen has special biological properties which enable it to elude immunosurveillance of the infected hosts.

Coinfection with Mycoplasma fermentans (incognitus strain) enhances the ability of human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1) to induce cytopathic effects on human T lymphocytes in vitro. Syncytium formation of HIV-infected T cells was essentially eliminated in the presence of M. fermentans (incognitus strain), despite prominent cell death. However, replication and production of HIV-1 particles continued during the coinfection. Furthermore, the supernatant from cultures coinfected with HIV-1 and mycoplasma may be involved in the pathogenesis of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) ...[53]

Dr. Garth Nicolson, Ph.D., also a mycoplasma researcher spent considerable time in the 90s at the University of Texas A&M and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center researching mycoplasma trying to help victims of Gulf War Illness, and cases of what came to be known as the Huntsville Mystery Illness, many of whom had infections of Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus, having some level of inhibition treating with the antibiotic Doxycycline. [54]

There had been testing programs for mycoplasma going back to the 1960’s in hospitals and prison systems under the SVCP. Experimental research was also being conducted through Baylor College of Medicine and facilities associated with the University of Texas A&M. Some of these tests took place under the supervision of James Watson, the author of the Double Helix, a widely-known scientist and Eugenicist from Cold Spring Harbor (CSH), who had been overseeing at least some of the tests occurring in the Texas prison system, some of which turned fatal. Immediately following these incidents, the reactions were covered up, especially after the infections began to spread to residents in the small town of Huntsville, just nearby the prison grounds. [55] Corrections officers were getting sick from the initial tests and bringing the infections home and spreading to family and friends, causing many deaths. [56]

A war of Mycoplasma

Dr. Nicolson and his wife Nancy Nicolson, Ph.D., told their story using fictional names in their book PROJECT DAY LILY: An American Biological Warfare Tragedy, detailing the disturbing activities of the SVCP while they were researchers at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, and Baylor College of Medicine, lecturing internationally. [57] Many of his colleagues and employees knew to some degree of the testing activities going on at the time as classified weapons research, but generally kept it to themselves. However, his colleague, Dr. Fred Conrad, may have been planning on going public, and in mid-December 1982, Dr. Conrad was mercilessly killed in his office in broad daylight, after a gunman walked into his office and shot him six times in the face and head:

HOUSTON AP — A gunman fired several times into the head of a respected cancer specialist Friday morning and then fled from the M.D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute while doctors tried unsuccessfully to revive the victim.

Dr. Fred G. Conrad. 59, The vice president for patient care at the University of Texas teaching hospital, was found dead at his desk in the first-floor office, police said.

"Evidently the doctor was surprised and was shot and the shooter fled the scene." Police detective Ted Thomas said. "We believe robbery was not the motive.

Detectives asked KTRK-TV staff artist Priscilla Coleman to sketch a man a witness saw waking briskly away from the scone minutes after the shooting, which occurred between 6:30 a.m. and 6:35 a.m. The man was described as about 5-foot-6, in his early 20s to mid-30s, wearing street clothes and short black hair, Thomas said. Police Lt. H.W. Kerston said Conrad was shot several times in the head with a pistol. Police spokesman Raul Corres said Conrad also may have been shot in the shoulder or neck.

Kersten said a clerk in a nearby office saw a man hurry from Conrad's office moments after the shooting. "We have no idea who it is. The employee did not know him," said Kersten.

He said the clerk said she had never seen the man before and did not see him enter the office. Kersten said no one else appeared to be in the room with Conrad and his killer. Hospital workers ran to the room after hearing the shots, but efforts to revive Conrad failed. The slaying stunned Conrad's colleagues, who said they knew of no reason why anyone would want to kill him. Police also said they knew of no motive for the killing. [58]

Dr. Conrad was likely thinking of going public, or reporting the illegal operations to the medical boards and ethics commissions. The facilitators of the programs could not let the word get out on what they were doing in the Texas prisons and, in the book, the Nicolson’s described shady business deals of chemical and biological weapons transfers taking place between Wall-Street, the Department of Defense, and Iraq, who were prepared to use them against Iran, but instead, used some of them against U.S. troops in Kuwait. [59] The experimental vaccines given to the soldiers around the time of the Gulf War and the events leading up to it, may have been acts of sabotage or reckless endangerment due to allowing profiteering to be prioritized before safety and National Security.

Some of the research done in the SVCP was used to make and test out experimental vaccines on the Gulf War soldiers, both deployed and non-deployed. [60] The fact remains that a biological attack by the Iraqis did not match the details completely. The use of weapons against troops on the field were more likely limited to chemical weapons like VX and sarin, but some other source was causing the onset of severe incapacitating conditions, because soldiers who had not yet been deployed to the front lines, some not even shipped overseas, started to exhibit similar problems; a chronic, relapsing disease, [61] and the culprits were most likely to be found in the toxic, experimental anthrax and smallpox vaccines that were given to the all the soldiers.

The anthrax vaccine was being produced by BioPort corporation, and smallpox vaccines were being manufactured by Tanox Biosystems, with Baylor College of Medicine carrying out the research phase. [62] The Mycoplasma tests on prisoners in in the Texas prison system was part of this research and must have been contaminated by the Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus, because Dr. Nicolson began to test the veterans for mycoplasma and found many of them reactive, or sero-positive. [63]

This unwanted attention caused the Nicolsons some problems, as they were being heavily pressured to stop the research and shut up about the mycoplasma. At one point, one of their colleagues allegedly spiked their desert with these microbes and Nancy fell severely ill. She was not completely able to recover, but improved periodically with the use of Doxycycline. At a separate event, Garth became ill as well, and they had numerous colleagues playing dirty tricks and keeping tabs on them for the medical center president, Dr. Charles LeMaistre, who helped the DoD run illegal research programs for military purposes. [64]

Mycoplasma research becomes one of the dark secrets of the SVCP, as it was a model organism to reactivate oncogenic viruses of the herpes family, such as Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV), just to name a few. Not only could be used as a weapon, it was often found contaminating standard lots of commercial vaccines. I covered the issue of contaminants in my article Tainted Immunity: Post-Vaccinal Encepahlitis and the Chronic Plague of Societal Degeneration. Many millions of civilians, mostly children, are permanently injured by these reckless vaccine practices each year, and it is being continuously covered up and ignored by the influence of profiteering and public health's failure to take accountability. [65]

Vaccine injuries with recombinant DNA and the new so-called non-infectious antigen vaccines were not only seen in the Texas Prison incident and Gulf War soldiers. It was likely a factor once again in the late 1970s and early 1980s when the hepatitis B vaccine was making its way through the clinical trials.

The official recognition of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) that made its appearance in the early 1980’s, gained an infamous reputation following the appearance of aggressive cancers and secondary infections in the gay communities of New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the rest of the United States. [66] Wolf Szmuness was put in charge of the Hepatitis B vaccine trials working at a lucrative blood center, with considerable press coverage and political backing. [67] Szmuness would later inherit much of the blame for AIDS, even though he may have been a unwilling participant, naïve and oblivious to the deeper context of potential Soviet operations and sabotage in America during the Cold War. [68] My research uncovers a much clearer picture of the HIV virus and the AIDS epidemic, but is beyond the scope of this article, and will come at a later time. The going theories are missing some of the crucial elements and the correct perpetrators have been obscured.

At any rate, many years earlier Wolf Szmuness approached the Red Army asking to fight against the Reich, after fleeing Poland, but the Soviets were suspicious of Szmuness and thought he was a double-agent of the Gestapo. [69] After being sent to a Siberian labor camp, Szmuness was viciously abused and tormented by his Soviet handlers. Perhaps a similar torment found overlap in America, haunting Szmuness, even in his rise to fame. [70] He was to facilitate the first ever large-scale trial for the Hepatitis B vaccine, and soon the vaccine trials were carried out, yet not without some serious problems. Soon trial participants began to fall ill with what they termed 'non-A non-B hepatitis’, and Szmuness became nervous, anxious that something had gone terribly wrong. The situation was described in June Goodfield’s 1985 work, Quest for the Killers, as the situation became more problematic:

Szmuness was anxious. Could the vaccine be provoking non-A non-B hepatitis, and worse, was there a similar pattern developing in the main trial that no one had yet noticed? He asked Saul Krugman, as a matter of urgency, to check out the occurrence of non-A non-B cases in the main trial, in all recipients. If he found that more people in the vaccinated group were succumbing, would he call immediately but tell Szmuness only that. Krugman was soon back with the figures: three hundred people had, by then, received injections, there were fourteen possible cases of non-A non-B hepatitis and of these eleven had occurred among vaccinated people, two among the placebos, and one diagnosis was dubious.

Szmuness considered this information carefully. Since half the main trial group was receiving the vaccine and half the placebo, on the surface the flare-up of non-A non-B hepatitis appeared to be a vaccine associated event. At this moment, he thought he faced disaster.

Was something wrong with the vaccine, possibly contamination- This was no theoretical fear, contamination having been suspected in one vaccine batch made by the National Institutes of Health, though never in Merck's. His instinct was to stop the trial. Stevens returned in the middle of the consequent uproar. Szmuness placed a conference call to all parties, the government in the form of the National Institutes of Health authorities, the producers of the vaccine, Merck, and the safety officers, Saul Krugman and Bob McCollum. He outlined the facts and everyone began talking, but eventually it came down to, "You're the principal investigator. Whatever you decide to do, we'll agree." [71]

New York Times 1982

Deeper into the story, it was said that upon further analysis of the figures from the trials, 160 cases of hepatitis B among the volunteers, were explained away as having contracted 'non-A non-B hepatitis':

Afterward Dr. Bob Purcell, of the National Institutes of Health, came up with an explanation for the scare. Clearly all the volunteers were being exposed to, and some were catching, both hepatitis B and the non-A non-B form. Since at the time there was no blood test for non-A non-B hepatitis, any blood sample from someone with both infections showed only B. Unprotected patients receiving the placebo were catching dual infections but showing only B in their blood tests. Because patients receiving vaccine were protected against B and so would only contract and show non-A non-B hepatitis, this form was bound to appear in higher numbers in the vaccine group. [72]

Upon review of the records of 160 cases of hepatitis in their volunteers, they found that the cases of hepatitis were not exclusively found in those who received their hepatitis B vaccine, but that these cases were claimed as more prevalent in the group receiving the placebo, and may have ditched the official statistical analysis:

Stevens sat down opposite Krugman, Szmuness opposite McCollum. Stevens had the assembled sheets of paper listing the code numbers of the people in the trial who had contracted hepatitis during its course. Krugman and McCollum had the same list too, but alongside their numbers was the word "vaccine" or the word "placebo." Stevens called off a number and the two men said "placebo." Then she called off another and again the chorus said "placebo"; yet another and once more "placebo."

"It got to be very, very monotonous," she recalls, "and then the more monotonous it got, the more exciting it got. Finally, we looked at each other and said, 'do you think we need bother with a statistical analysis?', it was so obvious what was going on."

They sensed that they were home and dry within five minutes. They felt that the litany "placebo, placebo, placebo" would never end, nor did it. As the excitement of Stevens and Szmuness mounted, the smiles of Krugman and McCollum broadened. In perhaps the most daring gesture of his scientific life, Wolf Szmuness had already bought the champagne, and Aaron Kellner was called in to help finish off the bottle. [73]

What is not typically understood by the general public, are the possibilities of tweaking the data in the trials to eliminate the apparent problem of a toxemic response specific to the Hepatitis B vaccine. But yet, how could one realistically present such a theory in light of their suggestive data showing hepatitis occurring in not just vaccine recipients, but mostly in the placebo group? How could the vaccine be responsible for cases of Hepatitis or AIDS when it struck the placebo group in much higher ratios than those who received the actual Hepatitis vaccine? It would appear to be a settled debate, if it weren’t for the deeper context, of what the placebo likely was.

It becomes more clear when it can be understood that the placebo is not just saline or some innocuous substance. Oftentimes these were other highly toxic vaccines, which could easily have been producing a similar or stronger toxemia in serologic respose to different but comparable vaccine antigen. Both were likely causing a similar toxemic response because they were both highly toxic, the hepatitis B vaccine and its so-called "placebo." The placebo reactions were strong enough and suspicious enough, that it warrants us to look into what vaccine trials actually use for placebos, when a large-scale trial such as that used in Hepatitis B vaccine and other high-profile trials with significant funding already given to large corporations and NGOs, not to mention, lots of press coverage. Its safe to say no one wants a trial like that to go awry. According to a paper published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), it turns out that so-called placebos were usually something comparable in terms of toxicity, rather than something insignificant like saline:

For intramuscular and subcutaneous vaccinations, injections of sterile normal saline may serve as placebos, but researchers frequently choose other comparative agents. A review of the most recently published trials involving vaccines for children found a variety of comparators that took the place of placebos in children. For example, a recent study of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine with nine serotypes (PCV-9) used as its comparator an active vaccine [9]. Specifically, the PCV-9 was reconstituted with the DTP-Hib vaccine. The comparator was vaccine-diluent mixed with the same DTP-Hib vaccine. In another study, a novel, bivalent, heat-killed, whole-cell oral cholera vaccine is compared to a similarly manufactured, heat-killed Escherichia coli K12 vaccine-a vaccine of no therapeutic benefit [10]. In a third, recent study of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine with seven stereotypes paired serially with a 23-valent, pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, the investigators used as the comparator hepatitis A or B vaccines [11] ... [74]

This is how vaccine trials and the data are tweaked to serve the drug firms and pull off successful trials with otherwise harmful vaccines and using the placebo effects as a reason to give the impression that the harmful reactions were not specific to their candidate vaccine. Tweaking data in this way demonstrates next to zero concern for safety. It is very likely that the Hepatitis B vaccine trial data was tweaked and the reality was obscured, but many suffered or died because of it.

The AIDS connection to the Hepatitis B vaccine trials would now become once again relevant, if the placebo group was actually receiving a vaccine just as problematic or complicated as the Hepatitis B vaccine since the antigens already had a problematic nature. [75] Furthermore, it was produced directly from human and animal blood infected with hepatitis B and other potential infections. [76] If the placebo vaccine had been something of the same order, the possibility of contamination for both groups becomes very plausible. [77] If contamination occurred, the vaccines may or may not have been contaminated with the HIV virus itself, but certainly a mycoplasma, and this could have occurred after the vaccines were tested and shipped out for the trial. [78]

Biological material, like food, spoils, and mycoplasma is the result. However, even if no contamination occurred, there is still the simple fact that that the hepatitis B antigen itself was problematic, [79] and would have been hard to tolerate for many recipients already teeming with subclinical viral infections. [80] The hepatitis B antigen, originally termed the “Australia antigen,” has already been associated with leukemia, [81] leprosy, [82] arthritis, [83] and the many systemic outcomes of immune tolerance. [84]

If commercial lots of Hepatitis B vaccine, along with the so-called placebo vaccine had been contaminated by mycoplasma, it would have kicked on some of the viruses already circulating in the blood of those receiving the vaccine and later it was revealed that donors and lab animals of the samples pooled for seed virus and subsequent extraction of antigen, unknown to the vaccine developer, in this case, Merck’s Maurice Hilleman, the blood was already teeming with HIV and other viruses:

Building on this research, a prolific vaccinologist named Maurice Hilleman proceeded to create one of the most controversial vaccines in history. He hypothesized that he could make an HBV vaccine by injecting patients with hepatitis B surface protein. In theory, this would be very safe, as these excess surface proteins lacked infectious viral DNA. The immune system, recognizing the surface proteins as foreign, would manufacture specially shaped antibodies, custom-made to bind to, and destroy, these proteins. Then, in the future, if the patient were infected with hepatitis B virus, the immune system could promptly deploy protective antibodies, destroying the viruses before they could do any harm.

To ensure a blood supply was brimming with hepatitis B surface proteins, Hilleman collected blood from gay men and intravenous drug users — groups known to be at risk for HBV infections. This was in the late 1970s, when HIV was silently snaking its way through these communities, unknown to medicine. In addition to the sought-after hepatitis B surface proteins, the blood samples were surely chock full of HIV. Hilleman devised a multistep process to purify this blood so that only the hepatitis B surface proteins remained. Every known virus was killed by this process, and Hilleman was confident that the vaccine was safe.

The first large-scale trials for the blood-derived vaccine were performed on gay men, considered to be an at-risk group. Later, Hilleman’s vaccine was falsely blamed for igniting the AIDS epidemic. But, as ghoulish as it might seem to manufacture a vaccine from purified blood, it was determined to have indeed been free of HIV. The purification process had destroyed all viruses — including HIV. [85]

However, this explanation means very little when there are no ways to effectively pick up latent, adventitious virus in the serum preparations. [86] To say the purification process destroyed all viruses is a gross underestimation, and cannot be concluded with any degree of certainty when the viruses can creep in, in latent form. This has been a continuous problem in vaccine manufacturing and becomes a vulnerable channel for bioterrorism and sabotage.

The Hep B vaccine may or may not have produced the viral HIV infection, but contamination with Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus would have turned on the AIDS condition in those harboring inapparent HIV viral infections and those that mirror the HIV complex, reactivated into active form. [87] It is very possible, even a good likelihood, to suggest that a large batch of those vaccines could have been contaminated, [88] either through sabotage or accidentally in the manufacturing and transport process, [89] and as it was given to a large number of predominately gay men in impoverished areas, the contamination-turned epidemic-transmission was able to jumpstart an even more rapid outbreak of disease through sexual contact and drug use. We know that Mycoplasma and HIV-like RNA viruses are common contaminants in vaccine material, which is not adequately tested for in any thorough manner during standardization, or mass production. [90]

Lessons Learned from the 'War on Cancer'

In conclusion, the American people, congress, and all the onlookers were being told that germ warfare was on its way out, and the war on cancer would be the new focus, in the hopes to find a cure and eliminate cancer. [91] Nothing like this ever happened, newer treatments may have come through, but were often as dangerous, or more so than the cancer itself. [92] Each year, millions of dollars were pouring into these channels and goals, and it produced very little result, and these millions of dollars put into the research never really accomplished the stated goal of eradication of cancer. [93] Rather, it all went to furthering profiteering through vaccine and recombinant DNA research, [94] which can be equally degenerative and, as we have seen, disease and cancer is exploding more today than it ever was in the 1960s. [95] It may be unsettling to suggest that the millions of dollars spent annually on these issues, may have actually exacerbated and created even more damaging problems.

The facilitators of the SVCP and drug firms using recombinant DNA technologies began to map out the litigation regarding genetic modification of pathogenic microorganisms on a wide-scale, starting in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s. [96] These were program that grew from earlier work by the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board (AFEB), the Commission on Acute Respiratory Diseases (CARD), the Commission on Epidemiological Survey (CES), [97] and the primary work of other outfits like the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and the U. S. Public Health Service (USPHS). [98] The genetically engineered vaccines and their pathogenic material was here to stay. [99] This was not put out with the interests of health as much as profiteering. [100]

The big question and concern from this author, is what extent of damage has and is being done to the planet as a result of reckless practices and research that has allowed for the accidental or in some cases intentional release of genetically engineered microbes and their effect on the planet and inhabitants? The forecast was already being foretold by many concerned scientists who felt that "the future will curse us for it," and "the spreading of experimental cancers may be confidently expected." [101]

By the year 2020, we are already decades into the implementation of recombinant DNA on a vast scale, [102] whether in vaccines, [103] food, [104] cloud seeding, [105] and the release of insects that spread experimental pathogens under the guise of protection and benign purposes. [106] Even genetically-modified mice are being considered for release in the environment, if its not already happened. [107] The large, corporate drug firms and academic communities have been making such unrestricted use into a channel for profiteering, and no state, local, or federal agency exerts even the slightest restraints on this activity or behavior. On the contrary, they greatly encourage and legitimize it, and the world is paying a hefty price for it... [108]

Endnotes and References

[1] “Oversight Hearing on Implementation of NIH Guidelines Governing Recombinant DNA Research : Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Fourth Congress, Second Session on Examination of NIH Guidelines Governing Recombinant DNA Research, September

22, 1976 : United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Subcommittee on Health.” Internet Archive, Washington : U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1 Jan. 1977,

[2] Breslow, Lester. “A History of Cancer Control in the United States, with Emphasis on the Period 1946-1971.” Internet Archive. Bethesda, Md. : Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Rehabilitation, January 1, 1977. , pp. 598

[3] Payne, Laurence Noel, et al. “Oncogenesis and Herpesviruses: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Christs College, Cambridge, England, 20 to 25 June 1971 ...” I.A.R.C. & World Health Organization (WHO), Oncogenesis and Herpesviruses: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Christs College, Cambridge, England, 20 to 25 June 1971 ..., 1972.

[4] The average Primary Care Physician or health authority has almost no understanding of the infectious etiologies of many diseases, instead they are trained to focus on specific portions of the body, and the myriad of complicated infections began to be classed into syndromes, disorders, allergies, and beyond. Even the infectious disease "experts," are only taught to consider acute infections, and only those slow-virus diseases that produce the noticeable antibody responses. Chronic, low-level neuro-inflammation of the Central Nervous System (CNS) is generally missed by clinical diagnosis, scans, and routine blood work.

[5] Payne, Laurence Noel, et al. “Oncogenesis and Herpesviruses: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Christs College, Cambridge, England, 20 to 25 June 1971 ...” I.A.R.C. & World Health Organization (WHO), Oncogenesis and Herpesviruses: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Christs College, Cambridge, England, 20 to 25 June 1971 ..., 1972., pp. 217-313

[6] MacDowell, E. Carleton (October 1952) First quarterly progress report of research carried out by Long Island Biological Association for the Biological Department, Chemical Corps, Camp Detrick. Project Report. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Cold Spring Harbor, New York.

[7] Breslow, Lester. “A History of Cancer Control in the United States, with Emphasis on the Period 1946-1971.” Internet Archive. Bethesda, Md. : Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Rehabilitation, January 1, 1977., pp. 598

[8] Case in point was Nazi Germany. See: “Hitler's Other Battlefield.” TimesMachine, The New York Times, 23 May 1999,

[9] This was a generally known fact, but to reiterate, the Germans had the best program, and they shared their program with the Japanese, who set up a well-funded program in China. The Soviets assimilated the best Reich programs and the best from Unit 731 at the end of World War II, thus taking the lead. Britain had been at the forefront of biological research in competition with Germany, so when Russia took the lead, Britain fell to second place. Canada was even more developed in germ warfare than the Americans. Americans were simply the last onboard.

[10] United States, Congress, “Special Virus Cancer Program: Progress Report #9.” Special Virus Cancer Program: Progress Report #9, National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1972.

[11] Naughton, J. N. (1969, November 26). NIXON RENOUNCES GERM WEAPONS, ORDERS DESTRUCTION OF STOCKS; RESTRICTS USE OF CHEMICAL ARMS; A UNILATERAL ACT Use of Defoliants in Vietnam War Will Be Continued Nixon Bars Use of Germs for Warfare. Retrieved October 06, 2020, from

[12] United States, Congress, Cong., Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. “National Cancer Act of 1974: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Ninety-Third Congress, Second Session on S. 2893, to Amend the Public Health Service Act to Improve the National Cancer Program and to Authorize Appropriations for Such Program for the next Three Fiscal Years, January 30, 1974.” Committee on Labor and Public Welfare., 93AD. 93rd Congress, 2nd session, bill S.2893.

[13] Hatch, Richard. Cancer Warfare. CovertAction. No. 39, Winter 1991-1992. pp. 14-19

[14] United States, Congress, Cong., Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. “National Cancer Act of 1974: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Ninety-Third Congress, Second Session on S. 2893, to Amend the Public Health Service Act to Improve the National Cancer Program and to Authorize Appropriations for Such Program for the next Three Fiscal Years, January 30, 1974.” Committee on Labor and Public Welfare., 93AD. 93rd Congress, 2nd session, bill S.2893.

[15] Hatch, Richard. Cancer Warfare. CovertAction. No. 39, Winter 1991-1992. pp. 14-19

[16] “Hitler's Other Battlefield.” TimesMachine, The New York Times, 23 May 1999,

[17] Blakemore, E. (2019, June 27). Germany's World War I Debt Was So Crushing It Took 92 Years to Pay Off. Retrieved October 06, 2020, from

[18] “SOVIET EXCHANGES VIRUSES WITH U.S.” TimesMachine, The New York Times, 19 Nov. 1972,

[19] United States, Congress, Cong., Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. “National Cancer Act of 1974: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Ninety-Third Congress, Second Session on S. 2893, to Amend the Public Health Service Act to Improve the National Cancer Program and to Authorize Appropriations for Such Program for the next Three Fiscal Years, January 30, 1974.” Committee on Labor and Public Welfare., 93AD. 93rd Congress, 2nd session, bill S.2893., pp. 18, Retrieved from:

[20] Jiang, F., Jiang, Y., Zhi, H., Dong, Y., Li, H., Ma, S., . . . Wang, Y. (2017, December 01). Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Past, present and future. Retrieved October 06, 2020, from

[21] Geltzer, A. In a Distorted Mirror. The Cold War and U.S.-Soviet Biomedical Cooperation and (Mis) understanding, 1956–1977. Journal of Cold War Studies

Volume 14. Issue 03. Summer 2012, p.39-63

[22] “Banning Germ Warfare.” TimesMachine, The New York Times, 3 Apr. 1971, & "U.S. and Soviet Offer to Outlaw Military Weather Manipulation." Retrieved October 06, 2020, from

[23] Orwell, George. 1984. Milano: Mondadori, 2009.

[24] Domaradskii Igor Valerianovich., and Wendy Orent. Biowarrior: inside the Soviet/Russian Biological War Machine. Prometheus, 2003., pp. 111-112

[25] Spence, Richard B. Wall Street and the Russian Revolution: 1905-1925. Trine Day. Walterville, Oregon. (2017)

[26] Payne, Laurence Noel, et al. “Oncogenesis and Herpesviruses: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Christs College, Cambridge, England, 20 to 25 June 1971 ...” I.A.R.C. & World Health Organization (WHO), Oncogenesis and Herpesviruses: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Christs College, Cambridge, England, 20 to 25 June 1971 ..., 1972.

[27] Kouzminov, Alexander. Biological Espionage: Special Operations of the Soviet and Russian Foreign Intelligence Services in the West. Manas Publications, 2006.

[28] Contracts and planning, see: United States, Congress, “Special Virus Cancer Program: Progress Report #9.” Special Virus Cancer Program: Progress Report #9, National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1972.

[29] Persing, David H. INFECTION, CANCER, AND THE IMMUNE RESPONSE. The Infectious Etiology of Chronic Diseases Defining the Relationship, Enhancing the Research, and Mitigating the Effects; Workshop Summary. National Acad. Press, 2004., pp. 154-173

[30] Lo, Shyh-Ching, et al. INVASIVE AND ADHERENT MYCOPLASMA. 9 July 1996.

[31] gzguilo. 2013. “Lecture given by Dr. Garth Nicolson - Weaponized Mycoplasmas.” YouTube. YouTube. July 29, 2013. Retrieved from: ""

[32] “50 U.S. Code § 1520 - Restrictions on Use of Human Subjects for Testing of Chemical or Biological Agents.” Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute, n.d.

[33] 50 U.S. Code § 1520a - Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents. (n.d.). Retrieved October 06, 2020, from

[34] “50 U.S. Code Chapter 33 - WAR POWERS RESOLUTION.” Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute, n.d.

[35] “50 U.S. Code Chapter 34 - NATIONAL EMERGENCIES.” Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute, n.d.

[36] Loeb, L. A., and K. D. Tartof. “Construction of Human Tumor Viruses?” Science, vol. 193, no. 4250, 1976, pp. 272–272., doi:10.1126/science.193.4250.272

[37] Lo, Shyh-Ching. Pathogenic Mycoplasma. 7 Sept. 1993.

[38] Ibid.

[39] The parasitism seen in protozoal, fungal, and viral disease is especially the case with Mycoplasma. With no cell wall, antibiotics have much less effect, similar to viral infections. It many times accompanies RNA virus infections, and this will be revisited later in the book. Protozoa also have a unicellular makeup, like Mycoplasma. As for it’s connection to fungi, it has been described as a fungal infection of plants by A. B Frank:

In his very extensive 1890 paper, Frank most explicitly defined mycoplasma as “fungus- infected protoplasma’ “Mykoplasma d.h. pilzbehaftetes Protoplasma ” (Frank’s italics), and presented several illustrations of mycoplasma in pea cells (1 3). (see Krass and Gardner 1973)

[40] KRASS, C. J., & GARDNER, M. W. (1973). Etymology of the Term Mycoplasma. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology, 23(1), 62–64. doi:10.1099/00207713-23-1-62

[41] Altman, Lawrence K. “THE DOCTOR'S WORLD; AIDS Epidemic Puts An Unusual Microbe Under New Scrutiny.” The New York Times, The New York Times, Retrieved from:

[42] Report of Program Activities : National Institutes of Health (U.S.). Division of Biologics Standard : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming. Internet Archive, [Bethesda, Md.], 1 Jan. 1972, Retrieved from:

[43] Klein NC, Petelin A, Cunha BA. Mycoplasma pneumoniae preceding Lemierre's syndrome due to Fusobacterium nucleatum complicated by acute Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infectious mononucleosis in an immunocompetent host. Heart Lung. 2013 Jan-Feb;42(1):74-6. doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2012.02.015. Epub 2012 Mar 28. PMID: 22464641.

[44] Rodríguez Y, Vatti N, Ramírez-Santana C, Chang C, Mancera-Páez O, Gershwin ME, Anaya JM. Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy as an autoimmune disease. J Autoimmun. 2019 Aug;102:8-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2019.04.021. Epub 2019 May 6. PMID: 31072742.

[45] This is a theoretical analogy based on common concepts added to the science of immunology

[46] Khan, Fahmi Yousef, , and Mohamed A.yassin. “Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Associated with Severe Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia: Case Report and Literature Review.” Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases. The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Contexto Publishing, February 2009.

[47] Schmidt, R. E., Grimbacher, B., & Witte, T. (2017). Autoimmunity and primary immunodeficiency: two sides of the same coin? Nature Reviews Rheumatology, 14(1), 7–18. doi:10.1038/nrrheum.2017.198

[48] Sabin, Albert B. “THE FILTRABLE MICROORGANISMS OF THE PLEUROPNEUMONIA GROUP.” Bacteriol. Rev., vol. 5, no. 1, Mar. 1941, pp. 1–67.,

[49] Webster, W. (1945). THE FIELD CONTROL OF CONTAGIOUS PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. Australian Veterinary Journal, 21(3), 64–67. doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.1945.tb04459.x


[51] Weisburg, W. G., Tully, J. G., Rose, D. L., Petzel, J. P., Oyaizu, H., Yang, D., … Van Etten, J. (1989). A phylogenetic analysis of the mycoplasmas: basis for their classification. Journal of Bacteriology, 171(12), 6455–6467. doi:10.1128/jb.171.12.6455-6467.1989

[52] Lo, Shyh-Ching, et al. INVASIVE AND ADHERENT MYCOPLASMA. 9 July 1996.

[53] Lo, Shyh-Ching. Pathogenic Mycoplasma. 7 Sept. 1993.

[54] Nicolson, Garth L., and Nancy L. Nicolson. Project Day Lily: an American Biological Warfare Tragedy. Xlibris, 2005.

[55] Brown, Candace. “Mycoplasma Experiments Conducted in Texas Prisons.” Journal of Degenerative Diseases 01, no. 1 (1999).

[56] September 13, 1976, Minutes Texas Board of Corrections, 350th Meeting

[57] though fictional names were used, the underlying story is claimed to be a true account by the Nicolsons.

[58] “Gunman Kills Cancer Doctor: Patients, Colleagues Remember Conrad.” The Odessa American, 18 Dec. 1982,