Carrel1278

French Version (as found), from Compte Rendu Hebdomadaires Society de Biologie (1925), p1278:

Un Sarcome Fusocellulaire
Produit Par L'Indol
Et Transmissible Par Un Agent Filtrant

Une Poule recut dans le muscle pectoral droit, 4 cc de pulpe embryonnaire contenant approximativement 1 p. 1,000 d'indol, et dans le muscle pectoral gauche la meme quantitie de pulpe contenant de 1 pour 1,250 a 1 p. 5,000 d'indol. On repeta cette dernjere injection sur deux autres Poules. Une quatrieme Poule recut dans chaque pectoral 4 cc de pulpe et d'indol aux concentrations de 1 p. 2,000 et de 1 p. 20,000. Chez la seconde et la troisieme Poule apparurent rapidement des tumeurs, qui envahirent en deux mois toute la paroi lateral du thorax. Les deux animaux moururent pendant l'ete a un moment ou l'autopsie ne put etre pratiquee. Quant a la quatrieme Poule, elle presenta deux turmeurs, l'une, moyenne, correspondnat a l'injection d'indol a 1 p. 2,000, et l'autre, volumineuse, correspondant a la solution la plus concentree. La premiere tumeur retroceda bientot tandis que la seoncde atteignait en 3 mois un volume considerable. Elle se composait surtout de kystes, d'os, et de cartilage. L'animal demeura en bonne sante.

L'histoire de la premiere Poule fut beaucoup plus interessant. Du cote droit, aucune tumeur ne se developpa. Du cote gauche, on apercut bientot une tumeur qui atteignit rapidement une longueur de 11 cm., une largeur de 9 cm., et une epaisseur de 5 cm. environ. Au bout de 26 jours, la Poule etait mourante. La parai thoracique etait infiltree par un tissu friable, ressemblant au sarcome de Rouse. Nous trouvames des metasteses dans les poumons, la rate, la foie et le peritoine. Les coupes montrerent quil s'agrissait d'un sarcome fusocellulaire. Des fragments de ce sarcome furent a plusieurs reprises cultives dans des flacons D-5. Ils s'entourerent rapidement de cellules amiboides a view courte. Ensuite des fibroblastes emigrerent dans le coagulum. Des zones de digestion se produisirent et la culture prit l'aspect caracteristique des sarcomes de Rous, du goudron et de l'arsenic.

La tumeur se propagaea facilement par transplantation. De juin a octobre, le sarcome subit 12 passages chez 54 Poules qui, sauf les deux dernieres, sont mortes porteuses de tumeurs volumineuses. On pratique l'autopsie de 30 Poules seulement. Tous les animaux, exepte deux, presentaient des metastases dans les poumons, le foie ou la rate, et parfois dans les trois organes simultanement. Les animaux ne survecurent pas longtemps a la transplantation. La tumeur primitive, qui tua l'animal en 26 jours, fut inoculee a 3 Poules qui moururent respectivement en 9 jours, 7 jours et 3 jours. La survie moyenne ne fut donc que de 6.3 jours. La survie moyenne des Poules qui recurent la tumeur a son 2^o passage fut de 12.2 jours. Quoique la tumeur soit encore tres maligne, elle n'a pas recupere l'activite qu'elle presentait a son premier passage.

Nouse recherchames ensuite si la tumeur pouvait etre transmise par un agent filtrant. Un extrait aqueux de la tumeur primitive fut filtre dans un filtre Berkefeld et inocule a 3 Poules qui furent atteintes de grosses tumeurs de la paroi thoracique et moururent au bout de 24 et 30 jours avec des metastases dans le poumon, la rate, le foie et le coeur. Cette experience fut repetee avec une des tumeurs du premier passage. Les 5 Poules inoculees survecurent respectivement 13 jours, 26 jours, 22 jours et 19 jours a l'inoculation, et l'autopsie montra la presence de grosses tumeurs locales et de metastases du poumon, du foie et du coeur. L'extrait filtre d'un des sarcomes du 3^o passage determina, chez la seule Poule a laquelle il fut injecte, une grande tumeur et des metastases dans le foie et la rate. La Poule mourut au bout de 25 jours. Tandis que l'extrait filtre du sarcome a toujours determine l'apparition d'une tumeur maligne chez les Poules, il n'a pas encore produit in vitro la transformation de monocytes normaux en cellules sarcomateuses, et il ne s'est pas multiplie dans le milieu de culture. L'insucces des onze experiences faites jusqu'a present ne prouve pas que l'agent filtrant soit incapable de determiner in vitro la transformation sarcomateuse des leucocytes. Les experiences sont encore en trop petit nombre et doivent etre reptees avant que nous poissions savoir si le sarcome de l'indol difere sur ce point des autres sarcomes d'origine chimique. Il faut remarquer que, dans un cas, Ebeling inocula de 'lextrait centrifuge et non filtre d'un sarcome de l'indol a des cultures de leucocytes, et que la transformation maligne se produisit.

Il est interessant de constater que l'indol, substance existant dans l'organisme normal et produite egalement par les microbes, est capable de determiner, dans certines conditions, la transformation maligne de tissus normaux. On concoit donc que grace a cetter substance ou a des substances analogues, un sarcome puisse aussi bien apparatre de facon spontanee dans l'organisme qu'etre engendre par des parasites ou des microorganismes varies. Ce fait etablit une relation precise entre les theories parasitaire et chimique de l'orine des tumeurs. La transmissibilite de ce sarcome par un agent filtrant vient a l'appui de l'hypothese que j'ai exposee dans une note precedente (1). Il este vraisemblable que la production du virus de Rous et du sarcome fusocellulaire par les tissus a des substances aussi differentes que l'arsenic et l'indol, de meme que l'inflammation banale est l'unique reaction de l'organisme a des agents tres heterogenes tels que le silicate de soude, le Staphylocoque et la terebenthine.

(1) A. Carrel., "Le principe filtrant des sarcomes de la Poule produites par l'arsenic." C. R. de la Soc. de biol., 1925, t. XCIII.

This topic, the arcane work of Nobel Laureate, Alexis Carrel during the mid-1920s, is profoundly important. It undermines conventional ideas of germ theory, vaccination, immunology and virology. Carrel's work was buried by Thomas Rivers, the world's most influential microbiologist. Rivers grossly and absurdly mischaracterized Carrel. Carrel, though famous and having performed his studies at Rockefeller Institute, was not published in English. He was published in French, however, and I translated his work here. Few, even the virologists, have read this, Carrel's study on sarcomas. I only found this upon reading the references of another buried, unreferenced, arcane author, Dr. Ralph Scobey. I had found Scobey as the final result of my having independently developed a toxicology of polio and surmising that dissident polio authors must have existed in the 1950s during the DDT campaigns.

One chicken received into the right pectoral muscle, 4 cc of chicken embryo containing approximately 1 part per 1,000 [1,000 ppm] indol and into the left pectoral muscle the same quantity of embryo pulp containing 1 part per 1,250 [800 ppm] to 1 part per 5,000 indol [200 ppm]. We repeated this last injection into two other chickens. A fourth chicken received in each pectoral 4 cc of embryo pulp and indol at concentrations of 1 part per 2,000 [500 ppm] and of 1 part per 20,000 [50 ppm]. In the case of the second and the third chickens, tumours rapidly appeared, which invaded, within two months, the lateral side of the thorax. The two animals died during the summer at a time when autopsies could not be made. Regarding the fourth chicken, she showed two tumours, one, average, corresponding to the injection of indol at 1 part per 2,000 [500 ppm], and the other, immense, corresponding to the solution of a greater concentration. The first tumour receded fairly soon, while the second attained in three months a considerable volume. She was composed mostly of cysts, bone, and cartilage. The animal remained healthy.

The history of the first chicken is more interesting. The right side in no way developed any tumour. The left side, it was soon perceived a tumour which attained rapidly a length of 11 cm and a width of 9 cm, and a thickness of 5 cm, approximately. Within 26 days, the chicken was dying. The thoraxic wall was infiltrated with a fragile tissue resembling the Rous sarcoma. We found the metastases in the lungs, the spleen, the liver, and the peritoneum. We examined a section which resembled a sarcoma tumour. The fragments of this sarcoma were several times cultivated in flask D5. They were rapidly surrounded by short-lived amoeboid cells. Subsequently the fibroblasts emigrated into the coagulant. Zones of digestion were produced and the culture assumed an appearance characteristic of the Rous sarcoma, by tar and by arsenic.

The tumour propagates easily by transplantation. From June to October, the sarcoma underwent 12 passages in 54 chickens which except for the two most recent, died carrying voluminous tumours. We autopsied only 30 of the chickens. All of the animals, except two, presented the metastases in the lungs, the liver, and the spleen, and sometimes in all 3 organs simultaneously. The animals did not survive a long time after transplantation. The first tumour, which killed the animal in 26 days, was inoculated in 3 chickens which died in 9 days, 7 days, and 3 days, respectively. The average survival period was therefore 6.3 days. The average survival period for the chickens which received the tumour in their second passage was 12.2 days. During the 3rd passage, the survival period attained was 14 days and during the 8th passage, 15 days. Though the tumour was still very malignant, it did not recover the activity which was presented at the first passage.

We subsequently researched the tumour's capability to be transmitted by a filtrate. An aqueous extract of the first tumour was filtered through a Berkefeld filter and inoculated into 3 chickens which attained large tumours of the thoraxic wall (peritoneum) and died within 24 and 30 days with metastases of the lungs, the spleen, the liver, and the heart. This experiment was repeated with one of the tumours of the first passage. Five inoculated chickens survived 13 days, 26 days, 22 days, and 19 days, respectively, after inoculation, and the autopsy revealed the presence of large localized tumours and metastases of the lung, the liver, and the heart. The extract filtrate, of one of the sarcomas of the 3rd passage, injected into only one chicken, produced a large tumour and metastases in the liver and the spleen. The chicken died within 25 days.

Whereas the extract filtrate of the sarcoma always determined the appearance of the malignant tumour in the chickens, it was not possible to produce in vitro the transformation of the normal monocytes into sarcoma cells, and it was not possible to multiply them in the milieu of the culture. The failure of these experiments does not, to the present, prove that the filtrate is incapable of determining in vitro the transformation of leucocytes into sarcoma cells. The experiments are still too small a number and must be repeated for us to know whether the sarcomas of indol differ on this point from other sarcomas of chemical origin. We need to stress that in one case, Ebeling inoculated a centrifuged extract (not filtered) of a sarcoma of indol into a culture of leucocytes, and thusly the malignant transformation was produced.

It is interesting to note that indol, a substance existing in normal organisms and also produced by microbes, is capable of determining, in certain conditions, the malignant transformation of normal tissues. We can then consider that because of this substance and analogue substances, a sarcoma could as well appear spontaneously in organisms, as they can as well be engendered by parasites or various microorganisms. This fact establishes a precise relationship between the parasite and chemical theories of the origin of tumours. The transmission of this sarcoma by a filterable agent is supportive of the hypothesis which I have noted previously (1).

It is reasonable that the production of the Rous virus and the fusocellular sarcoma in the tissues of the chicken constitute the only response that can be made by these tissues to substances as different as arsenic and indol, just as common inflammation is a unique reaction of organisms to heterogeneous agents such as silicate soda, staphylococci bacteria, and turpentine.

(1) A. Carrel., "The Principle Filtrate Of Chicken Sarcomas Produced By Arsenic" C. R. de la Soc. de biol., 1925, t. XCIII.

It is not well known even by modern day experts in the sarcoma field that Carrel had demonstrated that the classical laboratory proof for virus causation (for disease) also works for poisoned subjects. His experiments strongly question the pathological view of viruses, especially the Rous sarcoma virus. Hence, a theory of toxin adaption by subjects could be developed. Its seems very possible that even a theory that embraces the concept of symbiotic bonding of subjects to toxins could be developed.

Disease definitions which include symbiosis become stronger in view of Carrel and Fischer's apparently overlooked experiments. If the HARpub interpretation of Carrel is not mistaken then the germ theory view of viruses as predatory, disease-causing entities is further weakened and is therefore valid only as an effective media device to demand public support, obeisance, and funding, for research, profitable vaccination schemes, avoidance of industrial culpability, and the achievement of political or military objectives.

Carrel and Fischer: Toxicology Studies (1925-1926) Compared With Orthodox Laboratory Proofs For Virus Causation
Assuming Poison Exposure to Subject Animal in Both Studies
A. Carrel (1925) and A. Fischer (1924) and Hutchinson (1888)	Conventional Orthodox Viropathology
Experiment BEGINS.
Choose a healthy animal as the subject for a toxicology study.	A healthy animal exists inside or outside the laboratory.
Poison the subject animal with injection of dilute solution of arsenic or indol.	The animal may already be poisoned with pesticides, arsenic, antibiotics, hormones, error, etc., but toxicology is omitted.
Disease appears in this subject animal.	Disease appears in this animal.
	Experiment BEGINS.
	Obtain the diseased animal as subject for experiment.
	Avoid toxicology.
Extract fluid from diseased tissue. Filter the fluid through a Berkefeld filter.	Extract fluid from diseased tissue. Filter the fluid through a Berkefeld filter.
Obtain a new healthy subject.	Obtain a new healthy subject.
Inject filtrate into healthy subject.	Inject filtrate into healthy subject.
Disease appears.	Disease appears.
Repeat with, "Extract fluid from..." (above).	Repeat with, "Extract fluid from..." (above).

Conclusion (Carrel): "Rous virus and... sarcoma... constitute the only response that can be made... to substances as different as arsenic and indol, just as common inflammation... is [the only response to diverse] agents such as silicate soda, staphylococci bacteria, and turpentine." [A. Carrel., "The Principle Filtrate Of Chicken Sarcomas Produced By Arsenic" C. R. de la Soc. de biol., 1925, t. XCIII.] "An important phenomena: the formation in the tissues under the influence of a non-specific chemical substance, a principle which resembles a virus" These new facts have a profound significance. They show that the characteristics of the Rous sarcoma belong also to other tumors, and especially to coal tar sarcoma. Rous sarcoma can no longer be regarded as an infective sarcoma, or a peculiar disease differing from typical malignant tumors, as some pathologists still believe. There is no fundamental difference between Rous sarcoma and tar sarcoma cells. It is, then probable that the properties that we described as characteristic of the Rous cell are common to all sarcomatous cells. The nature of the filtrable substance of tar sarcoma is still unknown. But evidently it is not an ultramicroscopic organism. Neither is the Rous principle, as it has analogous properties. The filtrable agents of both Rous and tar sarcoma may be considered as originating from the cells themselves. Therefore, the mechanism of the formation of a tar sarcoma can be understood in the following manner: When coal tar, or a principle resulting from the action of tar on some constituents of the humors or tissues, affects cells in the process of division, such as embryonic cells or macrophages, a substance is formed which is analogous to that described by Rous. This substance, like the lytic principle of Twort, has the power of determining a special disease and eventually the death of certain cells, and at the same time of reproducing itself. [Journal Of The American Medical Association (June 13, 1925) vol 84, p1795] Possibly there is no other relation than an analogy between the two phenomena. But, like bacteriophage, the filtered extract of either Rous or tar sarcoma determines within the cells a phenomenon that reproduces itself indefinitely. Tar sarcoma appears to be a self-perpetuating disturbance of the metabolism created by the action on embryonic cells of a substance related directly or indirectly to coal tar. A similar phenomenon may bring about the formation of other tumors. It is possible that certain substances produced by bacteria and helminths, are resulting from roentgen-ray burns, tar, a disturbance that afterward propagates itself indefinitely. By a similar mechanism, the toxic substances normally present in the blood during adult life and old age might act on the dividing cells of an irritated area as does the serum of tar-injected chickens on embryonic pulp. This simple process might be responsible for the spontaneous production within the organism of malignant tumors.	Conclusion: Viruses cause transmission of disease. Thomas Rivers historically buries Carrel's studies by falsely claiming that he was merely trying to create spontaneous viruses, and failed.
I conclude by extension to a general theory of disease, that utilizes learning theory (behavioral theory) and hormonal memory and responses. Toxins, radiation, or stress usually are the cause of disease. These damage life, and trigger defense mechanisms, such as catharsis out, catharsis within, transformation of agents, and accelerated growth. Catharsis out, would be fever, sweating, vomiting, and diarrhea. Catharsis within, would be the capture and sequestration of xxx, metabolism and transformation of poisons to less hazardous states. This would include capture of agents and damaged material by macrophage and leukocyte related activity. Isolation is catharsis to would be cysts, pimples, , such as, the cellular SOS Response in which accelerated genetic recombination and attendant viral activity are normal. Tumours normally are organ augmentations and detox/metabolism centers. Malignancy occurs when trauma is high or the subject's susceptibility high. Injection is an artificial and extreme event, which does not occur in natural circumstances. Injection can occur in clinical settings such as hospitals, clinics, doctors office, or laboratory. Injection of substances from diseased animals transmits the context of toxic trauma and promotes an inflammatory response, which in the case of naive tissue can result in over-response. Experienced animals, tissue extract, or cells are said to be "immune".

Comparison of Laboratory Procedures Virus Causation Study (Orthodox) Versus Toxicology Study (A. Carrel)
Each study can be viewed as two phases, A and B.
	A. Carrel (1925) Toxicology	Conventional Orthodox Viropathology
	The only difference between these studies is how they begin, e.g., items A1, A2, A3, and the conclusions.
A1	Bring a healthy animal into the laboratory for a toxicology study.	Bring a diseased animal into the laboratory to determine virus causation.
A2	Poison the animal with injection of dilute solution of poison.	Avoid toxicology.
A3	Disease appears in the animal, identical to disease in an animal in an orthodox viropathological experiment.	Disease is found present in the animal, identical to disease in an animal in Carrel's toxicological experiment.
	At this point, both studies are physically equal. These studies now proceed identically.
B1	Extract fluid from diseased tissue. Filter the fluid through a fine filter to exclude cellular matter or bacteria.	Extract fluid from diseased tissue. Filter the fluid through a fine filter to exclude cellular matter or bacteria.
	The following is the standard "passaging" phase.
B2	Obtain a new, healthy subject.	Obtain a new, healthy subject.
B3	Inject filtrate into healthy subject.	Inject filtrate into healthy subject.
B4	Disease appears.	Disease appears.
B5	Repeat passaging several times, i.e., go to step B1.	Repeat passaging several times, i.e., go to step B1.
	Conclusions are vastly different.
	Conclusion, by Carrel: The disease is an example of tissue responses to poisonous substances. An agent (not a virus) such as hormones, originating in the diseased tissue, causes the continued transmission of the disease.	Conclusion: A virus caused the disease.
	The only difference between these two studies is that toxicology is omitted in the virus study. In the actual studies, for both Carrel and orthodoxy studies, the passages of non-poisons are as dangerous as the injected poison.

Carrel stated that these studies were profoundly important. About 22 similar studies during the same era confirm this study by Carrel, for a variety of poisons. The results are systematic, indicating a rule of behavioral response to poisons. The obvious theoretical direction of these studies did not survive beyond a few years because for one, they were not published in the English, though the studies were conducted at the Rockefeller Institute in New York State, they were almost never referenced in other publications, publications that did reference him were not referenced, and Ralph Scobey, a once well-published author, who did reference Carrel, was also unable to publish. The orthodox view of viruses continued by default without recognizing the existence of Carrel's work, or others such as Albert Fischer in Amsterdam xxx.

In a low-profile, yet published article in J.A.M.A., June 13th, 1925, Carrel writes clearly:

Carrel's position at The Rockefeller Institute may have been politically stressful, because his subsequent studies changed direction. They were done with Carrel as co-author with Thomas Rivers, who was one of the most powerful political figures in the history of virology. Rivers' influence, worldwide, routinely enforced the view that viruses were pathogens.

Rivers categorized Carrel's experiments as "attempts to create spontaneous viruses" in his seminal review of virology xxx. Obviously Carrel was not doing any such thing. Rivers historically buried Carrel's work, and I suspect, viciously. Carrel's work was not being published in English language, not in the country where his work was done, the U.S., though with one oddly presented exception in J.A.M.A. Carrel was well published in a French language publication xxx. In 1939, as World War II was beginning, Carrel moved (or was moved) to France, ostensibly to continue medical studies. Four years later xxx, at the end of the war, the Allies charged Carrel with treason and put him under house arrest. Charges were dropped a few weeks later after he reportedly killed?? himself (this should be 'heart attack'?). Important details are lacking.

[Thomas M. Rivers, "The Nature Of Viruses", Physiology Review., v12:423.452 (1932) [Approx date==>]

[References Carrel's work under chapters, "Spontaneous Generation Of Viruses", and "Cultivation Of Viruses". Rivers completely misstates Carrel's purpose, "The workers who believe that they have induced viruses to come into existence have not excluded the possibility of the preexistence of latent viruses or of small amounts of virus in the supposedly normal embryos, gonads, chickens, and bacterial cultures utilized in the experiments." Rivers' critique could also be applied to the "isolation" of any virus. The critique still does not effect this early discovery of the latent virus concept, and poison causation for virus associated disease. Carrel states that the relationship of poisons to tumors is so predictable that it is a rule, like the inflammatory effect of turpentine on skin. Would Rivers counter by saying that all inflammations could then be due to 'viruses'? Apparently he would like to make that claim. Much could be written about this, Rivers' logical fallacies.]

Carrel was a pragmatist, though not the subtle kind of pragmatist described in William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience".

His demise needs clarification. It is said he died of a "heart attack" while under house arrest.

It is said that his medical activities in Paris were "holistic", and he is quoted ~~ "science has removed the soul of humankind". ?

Carrel, with his heroic stature, performed the unthinkable, i.e., he tested virology against toxicology, and he may have paid a heavy price for conducting his experiments in a scientific manner. A parallel, in 1982, appears to be Peter Duesberg, who after proposing toxicological studies for the topic "HIV/AIDS", immediately lost his funding and nearly his employment as a tenured professor.

Carrel, the scientist, is most well-known for his belief in euthanasia applied to criminals and the insane, and with that attitude, he has been called a fascist. He was a proud, successful man and suffered great hubris, as evidenced by his political beliefs. His political views are actually beyond his scope of expertise, as they depend entirely the existence of true justice and true diagnostics. If my suspicions are correct, Carrel must have experienced few harsh lessons in irony, though too late to save his accomplishments and his life.

Since Carrel was not able to drive this topic more forcefully to what I believe are obvious conclusions, I'll integrate his findings into a modern alternative hypothesis (previously proposed in TLDP, 2000, for polio) as follows.

b) Radiation (transformer oscillation, high-voltage transmission wires, microwave transmissions, x-rays).

Germs and genetic responses (interpreted as viruses) would thus be the result, not cause, as bio-indicators for poisoning, etc, as scavengers, as opportunists, and/or as symbionts.

Stressors trigger the normal SOS Response in cells, by which occurs accelerated genetic recombination and attendant viral messenger activity. The viral activity can facilitate said genetic recombination. In the case of carcinogenic diseases, tumours and lymphomae would (under this hypothesis) be normal responses of last resort, that is, organ augmentations and centers for detoxification and energy support for surrounding tissue. This response is a survival mechanism, where the cell attempts to evolve its way out of the stress, in real-time. Cells do not necessarily need reproduction in order to evolve.

Malignancy occurs when the stress trauma (from pollution, pharmaceuticals or emotion) introduces excessive disease susceptibility by way of hormonal dysfunction.

Injection, as a delivery system, is dangerous because it is an artificial and extreme event, having little to do with normal disease transmission. Injection often occurs in clinical settings such as in a laboratory or a hospital.

During the passaging phase of a Carrel's study, injection of traumatized tissue extract, which contained extraordinary quantities of dysfunctional hormones, confused messenger viruses, and genes switched to emergency states, provided the context, i.e., the signals of impending fatal toxicity which causes morbid over-responses in tissue -- just as introducing burning bodies and smoke into a theater, while yelling "fire", would cause a tremendous over-response, more dangerous than real fire.

Injections can set the stage for over-responses. For example, in the case of naive tissue, injections could result in a cascading malignancy of cancer. Another example would be a cascading inflammatory response called anaphylaxis, or sepsis, resulting in death, paralysis, or permanent neurological dysfunction, as seen in the vaccination of children.

Learning theory (from the realm of behavioral psychology) can contribute to our understanding of "immunity". It can replace the concept of infective pathogens, when we realize that in the laboratory, experienced (learned) tissue, that has survived previous injections, is said to be "immune" to further injections.

The laboratory studies so often used to prove virus causation could easily explained in terms of learning theory and hormonal memory. Injecting hormonal memory from a sick person into a well person would perpetuate sick responses, i.e., disease symptoms. If a person survives that injection, then subsequent injections would be unable to trick the person, and disease responses would not occur. Orthodox laboratory studies are thereby reduced to what they are, parlour tricks, or, "laboratory artifice". Areas of study, which are founded on the viability of germ diseases, such as "immunology" would also need revision.

Criticism of this alternative hypothesis would meet obstacles, because the omission of toxicology in virus studies is an absolute given. Furthermore, viruses are rarely if ever actually isolated in order to properly prepare them for characterization studies. Thus, characterization studies are illogical, biased, and invalid.

Orthodox virologists need only conform to a corrupt definition of "isolation", that is a definition diluted by virologists. "Isolate" has been evolved to mean its opposite, i.e., a co-culture or mixture. Example from Hull's Virology (dictionary): "Isolate: A..." xxx

Examples: Microbiologist Howard Urnovitz found in 2001, "xxx polio isolates can be a mere suspension of feces". He could not find any study that came anywhere near to describing an isolated polio virus, though many studies claim isolation. Also, see my comprehensive study on DDT/polio in TLDP, year 2000 xxx, which reviews the virus concept, and polio toxicology.

Only by including toxicology in disease analysis could there exist a possibility of an orthodox defense -- and that won't happen. Viral diagnostics protect industry from liabilities and open up myriad doors of exploitation for Modern Medicine. The epidemiology of poisons are nearly impossible because in many cases, it is illegal for relevant toxicological information, such as spray amount/time/location to be disseminated (as of circa 1998, when this article was written). Shipping documents are allowed to be vague, governments, lobbied by industry, protect the pesticide industry (PANNA (1998)), studies are notoriously corrupt and biased regarding industrial culpability, and funding is lacking to properly regulate industry (Fagan and Lavelle, Toxic Deception (1996)).

This chart is based upon the work of Carrel et al, yet the fundamental concepts are very similar to Dr. Scobey's Chart #1.

We thus have additional context to contribute to a thesis regarding the omissions of toxicology from disease investigations by Modern Medicine. Duesberg has noted several of these omissions, such as the Congressional critique of the CDC's handling of Legionnaire's Disease, its investigations into AIDS, and the Japanese medical industry's investigations into SMON. When Duesberg communicated the thesis that AIDS had a toxic cause he lost his research grants. Attempts were made to have him fired from his tenured professorship. Nevertheless, it is of piqued interest that Duesberg's well established reputation rests upon his being the first to discover the Rous Sarcoma Virus cancer gene.

Chicken #	Indol Concentration	Results	Notes
One	1000 ppm right pectoral and 200-800pm in left pectoral xxx	Right side, no tumour. Left side, rapid development of large tumour.	Dying after 26 days. Tumours throughout the internal organs.
Two	200-800ppm in left pectoral xxx	Invasive tumours within 2 months.	Lateral side of thorax. Died.
Three	200-800ppm in left pectoral xxx	Invasive tumours within 2 months.	Lateral side of thorax. Died.
Fourth	500ppm in right pectoral and 50ppm in left pectoral	Two tumours, corresponding to concentration.	Smaller tumour receded fairly soon. Second tumour became very large within three months. Animal remained healthy.