FORUM OF THE PEOPLE
Nashville Banner, June 13, 1959
A FATHER ASKS: "ARE WE GUINEA PIGS?"
Editor’s Note: The Banner has carried reports of official actions in connection with the refusal of Ben Gamble, Edenwold Road, to allow his children to be inoculated with Salk vaccine. He has asked this newspaper for the privilege of stating his side of the case. His statement follows:
To the Editor of TheBanner:
"Are We Guinea Pigs?"
For the benefit of an uninformed public I would like to make my position, in refusing to have my children inoculated with the Salk vaccine, better understood.
I am not a belligerent person, neither am I a conformist. I try to obey the laws of the land, except where I think they infringe my individual rights.
My Bible teaches me that the Creator sealed our blood stream for specific reasons and with a lot more brains than the human race has today and that he did not intend it to be polluted with so-called serum.
Good health, in my book, can be defined in two simple words—assimilation and elimination. We are the product of what we eat. I live in the country, grow my own vegetables on organically fertilized soil and we have one cow from which we obtain pure milk. I have read where the U. S. is the most unhealthy nation in the world and the rejections made by the Armed Services seem to confirm this fact.
Doctoring has become one of the most profitable professions, simply because people have been brain-washed by clever advertising to think that most of the foods we buy in the stores is good for us, when in fact the reverse is quite true. Our soil is being ruined by chemicals and the foods we get in the store are all doctored with some form of additives to prolong shelf life.
I wish you could read the stacks of mail I am receiving from people in all walks of life who praise me for the stand I have taken against compulsory inoculation.
I think the following quotes from an article which appeared in the Tri-State Medical Journal, February, 1959, by Fred B. Klenner, M.D., should be of interest:
"In 1955 we were told by the National Foundation, the United States Public Health Service and ‘lesser’ Public Health Departments, Medical Societies through their political officers and appointees that ONE injection of the currently used polio vaccine would give prolonged, possibly life-time protection. In 1956 we were told, after those receiving the initial shot developed polio, that a ‘booster’ or second shot was necessary to raise the protective antibody level to a height whereby 90 per cent protection against paralytic infection would be assured. In 1957 we were told, after those receiving the second injection also developed polio, that a third ‘shot’ was imperative to effect absolute protection. For some this was their fourth and even fifth boosters. Now in 1958 we are told that a fourth shot is "Expedient."
Dr. Joseph L. Melnick, a professor at the Yale School of Medicine had this to say: "We are not happy at the prospect of inoculating children year in and year out with the Salk vaccine, for it contains monkey kidney protein which might (like the horse serum in Tetanus Antitoxin) produce allergic states if inoculated repeatedly over the years." All must remember that the present polio vaccine contains, besides monkey protein, horse serum, formaldehyde, streptomycin and penicillin as well as indicator dye and preservatives, some of which, are also allergens. Feinberg reported the possibility of primary sensitization to penicillin in very low concentrations and stated, "The amount of penicillin in polio vaccine is small, but judging by its activity as determined by us in tests of passively sensitized skin, it is sufficient to produce reactions in highly sensitive patients." Zimmerman reported on six cases of penicillin reactions to polio vaccine which were controlled with penicillinase. All physicians know that once an allergen is given to any individual the next dose, or the next might produce an allergic reaction—and such reaction could be fatal.
The PHS states that it is doing everything possible to encourage production of more potent vaccine, which is an admission that vaccine to-date has been weak and worthless. It means that millions have received ‘Ostrich’ shots believing themselves protected.
Dr. Henry W. Kumm, head of the National Foundation’s division of virology and epidemiology recently made the statement that the Salk vaccine for polio may soon be replaced by a pill. He stressed that "it (polio) isn’t nearly as finished as some people think. The number of cases in 1958 was larger than 1942 when we had no Salk vaccine." Dr. Kumm admitted that a live virus vaccine should be more efficient and should cost less. Dr. John J. Hanlon, director of public health services, city of Philadelphia, Pa., stated recently that "it is becoming clear that we must switch over to live-virus vaccine as soon as the scientists prove that it is completely safe and effective, and it looks as though this will happen in the near future."
Too long, now, has the medical profession only served as a medium in expressing the views of others. Politics and politicians have no place in medicine.
Misleading and seemingly deliberate false publication of figures and comments on the merit of the so-called Salk vaccine must forever be regretted. In North Carolina the Public Health Service was claiming advantage for the vaccine two years before such injections were inaugurated. The magic number of 90 per cent effectiveness for the assumed killed virus vaccine against paralytic polio has never been substantiated.
Polio is a complex infection. There is a definite reason which will explain why a person comes down with non-paralytic or paralytic disease or no disease at all. It is only natural for those interested in a specific program to think that their views alone prevail. Just why does a person, vaccinated triply or 16 times or not at all come down with paralysis. Who can at this moment say what the factors are that give protection to one group and not to another; paralytic disease on one side of a street and not on the other. The fact that the total number of paralytic cases increased in 1958 even though 52,000,000 had been triply vaccinated is important and significant. Paralytic disease in 1958 was up 43 per cent over 1957 in spite of the fact that approximately 25,000,000 more persons had received the injections.
There is an old saying "It isn’t the things we don’t know that bothers us —but the things which we know and which are not true."
I think J. H. Tilden, M.D., puts it about right, when he said—"It is exceedingly difficult to secure an honest hearing for any criticism of authority.
Established beliefs are well nigh invulnerable because they are accorded infallibility by the masses who are educated to believe that they will be damned for thinking, and because of this, few will tolerate opposition of any nature to anything they have been educated to believe. People who have their thinking done for them are always intolerant."
It is a truism that we are living in a time the like of which has never been seen before. We are front and center in a battle for men’s minds. Now as never before it is vital that we have the truth, and yet there is an active conspiracy not just to conceal the truth but even so change the facts. The communications media are concentrated in the hands of a few men who are thereby enabled to manipulate the emotions of the American public at will.
In our present day world of new political techniques and mass publicity leverages, the unknowing are at the mercy of the knowing as never before, and it is not at all impossible that a clique wholly alien in aims to the interests of the nation could gain the symbols and controls of power, masquerading as the "government" of the nation while, in reality, exploiting it as a colony for their own private aims.
This raises the question as to how far a man of integrity may be morally and patriotically bound to pursue a course he knows to be injurious to his well being.
If you saw the Sister Kenny picture on TV June 8th you’ll understand what I mean. Orthodox medicine has all but destroyed competitive methods of healing such as homeopaths, osteopaths, chiropractor and naturopaths. However, in spite of this people are getting relief from such methods. People should have the right to select the Doctor he thinks can serve him best. It’s not the people who are wrong—it’s the system.
BEN GAMBLE, Edenwold Road, Nashville, Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TENNESSEE IS TO HAVE ANOTHER MONKEY TRIAL
ONLY THIS TIME IT’S OVER MONKEY JUICE
BEN GAMBLE, Edenwold Road, Nashville, Tenn.
Well, it took the best legal talent the state could muster, at taxpayers’ expense, to defend their position while I, as a taxpayer, must pay my attorney to protect my children from having their blood polluted with this monkey juice which they say has been 80% effective in preventing polio.
On the face of it, you know that’s not true and the records show we have more polio this year than last.
I may be a "craggy" faced person as stated in June 28th issue of the Sunday Tennessean and I may even be one of the thousands of crackpots which Dr. Lentz mentioned in previous articles. However, I am a law-abiding citizen in what we all hope is free America and under the Bill of Rights of our Constitution I hope I still have this right to protect my children from having their blood contaminated with the organs from some poor unfortunate animal whose death and suffering must be heard by my God who promises to punish all who disobey his laws.
My case is attracting world-wide attention. I have received letters and a great many statistics from several foreign countries where the Salk and other poisonous serums have been outlawed.
Maybe a poor country man like me can’t expect to get his side of this dirty situation presented under the Iron Curtain laws which are worse than those of Hitler or Russia which are being used to drug and brainwash us into submission.
I may even have to go to jail because my rights as a free man have been taken over by a more powerful money grabbing group who have the means to crucify me on the cross of freedom.
This case will hurt Tennessee ar more than it will me.
People will hesitate to come here when they learn what their children must submit to before they can go to school here in Davidson County. I have received letters from all over this country praising my position in this matter and I wish to quote the following from a letter which I recently received from the health officer from one of the largest cities in this country:
"I am happy to see you challenge the constitutionality of the Salk Vaccine law in Tennessee. It seems to me that your basic defense should be along the following lines:
Public Health authority re communicable disease control is based on the right of people to be protected against an individual who has a communicable disease, and who is therefore a threat to them. Thus we have the authority to quarantine certain diseases e.g. tuberculosis or to require immunizations which are capable of preventing the spread of a disease if the person in question is to associate publicly with others e.g. smallpox and diphtheria immunizations. In the latter cases the immunizing agent not only prevents deleterious effects of the disease but more pertinently prevents the person from being infected with the disease which in turn makes him incapable of becoming a spreader of the disease. It is by preventing the infection that the deleterious effects of the disease is prevented. From a public health point of view, then, when we require quarantine or immunization it is primarily to protect the public at large from the individual and only secondarily to protect the individual. This we can contrast to a non-communicable disease program where our primary interest is to protect the individual e.g. we may advise yearly chest x-rays for the detection of lung cancer or periodic vaginal exams and testing for women to detect early cervical cancer. But our authority does not permit us to make this mandatory because of the non-communicability of the disease. It is for this reason that our most important work in health education is accomplished by education and not by regulation. Most states in the United States e.g. Illinois, also feel that even in the case of communicable disease control through immunization it is preferred that in a democracy this be accomplished by education rather than by law. (I can make available a quotation to this effect from the standard text on public health administration).
Now the Salk vaccine is a very peculiar immunizing agent. The Salk vaccine is only alleged to protect the individual from the paralytic effects of a polio infection in a given individual by blocking the virus in its passage from the alimentary tract to the nervous system through the circulating blood. The evidence is extensive at present (and I can give you the literature on this) that the Salk vaccine does not prevent the alimentary infection with the polio virus so that the child or adult vaccinated with the Salk vaccine still remains a threat to others by virtue of the continuing discharge of polio virus from his throat and from the intestinal tract even though he is alleged to be protected from the paralytic effects of the infection by stopping the spread from the intestinal tract to the central nervous system through the blood stream.
The Salk vaccine, then, is uniquely different from smallpox, and diphtheria immunizations because it does not prevent the spread of the infection and therefore it does not prevent the public from the polio infection but it only protects the given individual vaccinated (if it works) from the paralytic effect of the disease.
To require obligatory vaccination for the sake of the individual is radically different from requiring vaccination for the sake of the public or for the common good. It infringes on a basic right of an individual to freely accept or reject something that is being done to his body. This principle is quite obvious in surgery. A patent has a right to refuse what may even turn out to be a lifesaving measure. At any rate no patient is operated upon unless he voluntarily gives written permission. The same applies to medication. No person can be forced to take medication except under the special circumstances of being a threat to others. But even in the quarantine law for tuberculosis, where a patient refuses to undergo treatment which would make him non-communicable he still retains the right (intrinsic) to remain quarantined rather than accept treatment.
This I believe then should be your primary defense: the right of an individual to refuse a vaccination when the effect of the vaccine at best can only protect him and contributes no protection to the public at large. Smallpox and diphtheria do both: they protect the disease from spreading, and protect the individual from getting the infection and thereby the disease. The Salk vaccine does not effect the spread of the disease it only and allegedly protects the individual inoculated from the paralytic effects of the infection.
Your defense, however, should not stop here — for the following reasons:
1. Most experts will agree that enough time hasn’t passed as yet to really know whether the vaccine is effective. At present, our evidence is mostly circumstantially or statistically contrived.
2. The manufacturing process of the vaccine has not as yet been standardized.
a. Potency cannot be guaranteed, and much of the vaccine on the market since regulations were introduced trying to make the vaccine safe (May 1955 and Nov. 1955) have no potency or antigenetic capacity at all. (See Time Jan. 19, 1959). Medicine: Much of the material used in about 200,000 U. S. inoculations has been no good. As a result, an all-out effort to improve the commercially produced vaccine is now being made. Until this succeeds, individuals who have already had three injections should get a fourth.)
b. Safety cannot be guaranteed. Naturally the vaccine is safer to the degree that it has no virus (i.e. antigen or potency). However, the manufacturing process does not insure safety of the vaccine. Safety can only be determined by:
1. Safety tests after the manufacture of the vaccine. But the safety tests aren’t foolproof.
2. By surveilling its effect after it has been given to children.
The Salk vaccine is the only approved drug on the market which the USPHS constantly surveys in order to make sure that it is safe. If it were intrinsically safe there would be no need for this.
3. Finally part of the defense can well center around the fact that vested interests (drug houses, National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis) and overcommitted parties (USPHS, American Medical Association, mass communicators,) and for the most part, only those items which are favorable, get to the laity or the physicians. That which is unfavorable is repressed or screened out.
For instance, the vaccine failed in the Hawaiian epidemic of 1958. But the USPHS stopped reporting on this in their confidential reports when this was becoming evident. There is much testimony to this effect.
In this connection, two recent items will interest you: a. A four-line item in the Chicago Daily News, Tues., May 5, 1959 London (UPL): "Dr. Jonas Salk Tuesday defended his polio vaccine against attack by the World Health Organization." b. Chicago Daily News 5.28.59, Duluth, Minn. (UPI) "One of the developers of a new oral polio vaccine said Wednesday the recent use of Salk vaccine in Israel had ‘little if any effect.’ Dr. Herald R. Cox of Lederle Laboratories, which seeks to market the new vaccine, suggested the ineffectiveness of Salk inoculations during a round table discussion at the Minnesota State Medical Association convention. Cox said a confidential report on a polio epidemic showed 90% of children under 6 years old in Israel were given Salk shots. But the outbreak became an epidemic, he said. It is evident that the vaccine failed," Cox said.
The Israel epidemic occurred in 1958 prior to September. I have seen no reference to this epidemic in this country. There was an item on it in the Lancet (a British medical journal) in the Oct. 11, 1958 issue on page 766. This was a summary report on the Fifth European Symposium on Poliomyelitis held in Madrid on Sept. 3 8-300. Two reports are of interest:
1. "Dr. Payne reported that Israel had an epidemic of several hundred cases in 1958, affecting equally those unvaccinated and those vaccinated with Salk’s vaccine and technique. Three doses, but certainly not two doses, "perhaps" had a slightly beneficial effect."
2. Commercial vaccines were indifferent; and we wanted them three times, and in some instances six times more potent than they were, especially as regards Typell."
Aristotle suggests in his treatise on Politics that the electorate, like the medically educated layman, the "user", so to speak, may "turn" out to be a better "judge" than the experts, the statesmen and the political scientist on the one hand, and the practicing physician and the medical scientist on the other.
Two months ago at a polio meeting in N. Y., I found out that, in Israel 70% of the vaccine used to immunize the children under 6 was Lilly vaccine. In this country Lilly sells the most and has the worst, but they seem to have some kind of a tie-up with Salk, Basil O’Connor and the USPHS.
I am running out of time. Under separate cover I will send you all my published writings on the vaccine. Everything I have written in the past still holds. I am sorry that my work load has not permitted me to write more. But when I can get my hands on a $5,000 grant to facilitate matters I intend to do a book. I have managed to keep up on everything that has been going on.
If you need more help from me let me know. This Friday I leave for the meetings of the American Medical Association in Atlantic City and will be there for most of the week. Over the weekend I expect to visit family in N. Y. and will be back to my desk by June 17th. I will do what I can for you, circumstances permitting. To repeat, however, my work load gets heavy and pressing and I can’t always answer immediately. If it is urgent, however, I will manage to.
I do think, however, that the North Carolina and Tennessee law is both unconstitutional and unwise, and I do believe by demonstrating this in the court you will contribute a great service to science."
It was the obvious intent of the 1909 Private Act to compel immunization "shots" against communicable or contagious diseases. It has never been proven that polio is contagious. To be consistent Dr. Lentz should restrict the intermingling or association between the Davidson County residents and those from other areas. It might be interesting to know what the incidence of polio is in adjoining counties where shots are not compulsory and where a far less percentage in the 40 and under group who have availed themselves of this so-called protection.
Why is it that polio is on the increase in spite of the increased number taking the Salk shots. Why is it if Salk shots are 80% effective that there are repeated warnings and scare headlines suggesting the possibility of a polio epidemic.
I am very grateful to the Nashville Banner for the space they have given me to present my position in this important matter which really effects every family in our state and I am sorry to say that our other newspaper has not seen fit to give me the same privilege, however, at my trial I shall have witnesses from various parts of the country who have offered their services to testify in my defense and if the people can get the true facts, I’m sure that during this trial, a great many important facts shall be brought out and I am sure when it’s all over, justice will be done.
Ben Gamble
Edenwold Road
Madison, Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
"I believe, after a careful study, that the policies of the American Cancer Society are open to question.
"The American Cancer Society was organized in 1913 by a group of public-spirited physicians and laymen. In 1937 the Society launched its first annual drive to obtain funds from the public. It was an honest endeavor, and the activities of the Society during this period can be commended.
"In 1945 the Society was reorganized. A group of influential businessmen joined the Board of Directors, and a program of research was added to complement education and service to the cancer patient.
The new Board of Directors introduced two features into the activities of the Society: get more money from the public and have an exclusively layman’s society distribute funds for research.
"First, let us consider who were the ‘influential businessmen’ who, in 1945, joined the Board of Directors. Among the directors ‘elected’ to the new Board of the American Cancer Society were: Mr. Elmer H. Bobst (of William H. Warner Co.) who became Chairman of the Board, and Mr. James S. Adams (of Lazard Freres etc. Co., New York) who became the Treasurer.
"During the following ten years the team Adams and Bobst has influenced decisively the fate of cancer research in America. During this time, Bobst acted as the owner of the various Warner-enterprises (mostly dealing in pharmaceuticals) and Adams acted as the banker of the Warner-enterprises. (Warner-enterprises have recently been taken over by Lazard Freres etc. Co.)
"There is a record of Bobst’s activities prior to his election as the Chairman of the American Cancer Society. In the book of Mr. Wendel Berge, Assistant Attorney General of the U. S.: ‘Cartels, Challenge to a Free World’ (Public Affairs Press, Washington, D. C.) Elmer H. Bobst is mentioned among those who were prosecuted by the Dept. of Justice for violation of the anti-trust laws.
"On December 17, 1941, Bobst was found guilty by the Court, and fined $6,000.
"The violations of the law of which Bobst was found guilty, included ‘the hostility of cartel members toward a new product which endangers their control of the market. . . In the field of synthetic hormones the cartel control has been such as to be detrimental to our national interest’ (p. 81).
"Among the methods used by the cartels Mr. Berge quotes: ‘It has attempted to suppress the publication of scientific research data which were at variance with its monopoly interest. (p. 84). Research in U. S. has been seriously affected by restrictions imposed by foreign cartel members’. (p. 58).
"Methods to increase money collected from the public met with success. In 1938 the drive brought in $133,487; in 1950 this rose to $13,916, 396 and in 1955 to $24,427,102.
"When a cancer drive for contributions is put on, a scare and accomplishment campaign in the public press is put into effect. Scare slogans are used such as, ‘One in six will die of cancer,’ ‘Seven Danger Signals,’ ‘Woman has to learn to examine her breasts at regular monthly intervals,’ ‘Rapid progress is being made,’ ‘Startling discovery,’ ‘Knocking a hole in the tumor,’ ‘Crash attack on cancer.’ The scare publicity whips the public to a state of mass hysteria.
"In reality, about one in 500 dies each year of cancer and there have been no significant advances made by the organization-controlled researchers of any importance.
"Concerning the distribution of the money to the right, scientists, wasting it on sterile projects, or its use for corruption, the public has no chance to advise or to decide.
"The monopolizing of cancer research started immediately after the new Board was elected to the American Cancer Society. In time, it was perfected. The public accepted the new idea, not realizing that research money in the hands of laymen acting without real control, would easily be used by unscrupulous people to corrupt science.
"In 1947 a new institution called ‘The Damon Runyon Memorial Fund for Cancer Research’ was created. The Fund was successful. As of July 1954, $7,689,218 has been collected from the public.
"The main promoter of this Fund was the former radio-commentator Walter Winchell. Winchell was on radio time paid for by Warner Co. The funds of Damon Runyon Memorial were and are administered by the American Cancer Society. Large funds were also obtained from the U. S. Atomic Commission.
"There was an intertwining of institutions such as the Jane Coffin Childs fund, the Babe Ruth Foundation and others. Through this coordination the American Cancer Society was in complete control of public money spent for cancer research.
"Close relationship was created between the Society and the National Cancer Institute of the U. S. Public Health Service to which the Congress every year votes many millions of dollars for cancer research.
"Dr. John R. Heller, Director of the Institute, became a member of the Board of the American Cancer Society, and James S. Adams of the American Cancer Society became a member of the National Advisory Council of the Institute.
"It was now possible to monopolize this money for projects agreeable to the combine, and to deny it to outsiders.
"In spite of the financial domination of Adams-Bobst, who had every year about $50,000,000 to distribute, there are independent scientists who did not cooperate. A way was devised to annihilate them. The Society announced a new service, described by them as follows: This service assumes a "watch-dog’ responsibility concerning unscrupulous attempts to exploit the universal suffering of cancer in appeals for funds or in respect to ‘cures’ and unproved methods of treatment.
"They now stood with the angels, wrapped in virtue.
"Thus a layman’s society imposes a censorship, self-appointed, upon an important branch of science, promoting itself to a position of scientific authority. When this ‘service’ is consulted, it ‘warns’ people not to give money for projects to which the Society is hostile, or to try any treatment not approved by the Society.
"$1,500,000 in Advertising — In consequence, cancer patients, pronounced hopeless, are deprived of the opportunity of getting relief from newly discovered treatments, and, in addition, the ban of new procedures makes futile endeavors by independents to develop a new, successful method.
"It is surprising that these activities of the American Cancer Society, which are detrimental to the public health, are tolerated and even often supported by the American Medical Association. In late years, this Association has changed basically.
"While before, the Association acted as the promoter of public health and clinical medicine, now it behaves like a union of medical practitioners which exclusively promotes the welfare of its members without regard for the public interest. The Journal of the AMA, which is regarded as the mouthpiece of medical progress, publishes many articles in support of the American Cancer Society without careful investigation of their correctness.
"The American Cancer Society spends $1,500,000 in advertising. It is obvious that such a sum must bring results, publicity wise. On the other hand, anything critical of the Society is not accepted for publication. Money talks.
"The American Cancer Society is conscious of the danger of losing public support as it becomes clear that nothing of value is developed. Therefore, every year before the drive for money begins, the Society inspires reports of "tremendous" achievements in the press. Statistics are quoted showing cancer cures increasing.
"These statistics are fortified by statements issued by Federal Government Agencies.
"As a recent example, we quote the information wired on March 20, 1956. to newspapers: ‘Dr. Leonard A. Scheele, the Surgeon General of the U. S. Public Health Service, stated the rate of cure in cancer cases increased in the past ten years from 15% to more than 50%. These figures are unsupported. Statistics of the last ten years would indicate this claim to be absurd.
"After Scheele lost his position of Surgeon General, he became the President of Warner-Lambert Pharmaceutical Company, a corporation controlled by AdamsBobst.
"No action by the government was taken on the situation. Could the fact that Bobst was important in the Republican Party where he kept the purse as its Treasurer have had any influence? Bobst also made contacts with important people in the Democratic party.
"As a consequence, the problem of cancer is at an impasse, and one of the main stumbling blocks of progress appears to be the activities of the American Cancer Society and its affiliates.
"Cancer research requires money. The expense for chemicals, experimental animals, and for salaries of indispensable assistants and technicians, amounts to considerable sums which only rarely can be afforded by the research-conduction scientist. The independent researcher must have public support. Many prominent people, being convinced that they help fight cancer, have made sacrifices in time, work and money to assist the American Cancer Society.
"When an independent scientist applies to the American Cancer Society, or associated organizations, for funds, regardless of his background or reputation, he is often put through an agonizing experience. Needless to say, he does not get any help.
"Funds collected by these charity appeals, go for research and development to their friends. When a new, important development is announced, the drug monopoly, can, in this way, receive the benefit of the public money in the form of profits received from the products of their manufacture sold to the public.
"I believe in capitalism and democracy. I believe in the profit motive. I am bitterly opposed to Communism. I am also bitterly opposed, and always have been to monopoly. If a medical conspiracy exists, it would be particularly damnable as it would involve the matter of life and death." — Copyrighted article by David M. Kasson, taken from Issue #65, April, 1957 of The bidependent, ($3.00 yearly), 225 Lafayette St., New York 12, New York.
Reprinted by Special Permission of Lyle Stuart, Editor of the former, The Independent — now known as Expose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 12, 1959
Judge Homer B. Weimar
Court House
Nashville, Tenn.
Dear Sir:
Articles in the local papers relative to the polio inoculation program in Tennessee, have been very disturbing to me.
After years of being president, following my founding of Polio Prevention, Inc., and knowing the TRUTH about polio, this whole thing upsets me. I am sending you a book which you may keep, titled "The Poisoned Needle".
Dr A J Shadman, medical doctor, and perhaps the greatest, published the fact that there is no such thing as a "virus". Dr. Shadman documents this in his new book "Who Is Your Doctor And Why?"
Polio vaccine is based on a non-existent virus, therefore considered by all of us as fraudulent. I understand I am being called to testify at the hearing which I’ll gladly do because I’ve been in perhaps closer touch with polio situations than any other one man in this country.
I published over five million pieces of literature, not one word of which has ever been refuted or disproven.
When the truth is known, the people in Tennessee will be shocked beyond description to think that humans could stoop as low as they have in connection with this polio vaccine which has crippled and killed untold numbers of innocent children as well as adults.
I pray to our Creator that the sealed blood streams of the children of Tennessee will not be violated through fraud.
Respectfully yours,
Duon H. Miller
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nashville Banner, Thurs., July 9, 1959
SALK SHOTS BLAMED BY POLIO VICTIM’S FATHER
A State Penitentiary guard, whose eight-year-old son died of polio Saturday today vowed his daughter, seven months, would "never" be administered Salk anti-polio vaccine.
"I firmly believe those shots put the polio germ in my boy," said Davic Edwards, whose son, Billy Gene, had been vaccinated with a series of three Sail shots.
"I should have stuck to my feelings and never allowed him, or my other children, to be vaccinated," Edwards added tearfully.
His son, who would have been a third grader at Lipscomb School this September, died at General Hospital.
The boy was rushed there Friday after he began vomiting. His temperature also had soared, but he was released after treatment.
"Early Saturday morning he couldn’t even stand up," said Edwards. "We rushed him back to the hospital . . . he died several hours later."
The cause of death — paralytic bulbar polio — was determined after an autopsy. Result of the autopsy was revealed Wednesday, but Edwards said he has not received official word from the hospital.
"All I know is what I read in the paper ... that my boy died of polio. The doctor said I’d be the first to know after the autopsy, but he hasn’t called me yet," Edwards said.
Prior to death. Edwards said his son was apparently in a coma, had difficulty breathing and couldn’t talk.
"I’ve always been opposed to those shots," Edwards said. "My wife has, too. She never was for them. I didn’t want them to give the shots to my children, but my wife said she was told that if they were to go to school they’d have to have them, so I gave in.
"I guess I felt if I didn’t let the children take the shots and then one of them came down with polio . . . well, you know what people would say."
Edwards said he would not allow one of his daughters, Wanda Sue, seven months, to be given the Salk vaccine. He said his other six children, ranging in age from six to 14, all have been given three shots each. He said he would not allow them to be administered the fourth shot.
Dr. John J. Lentz, city-county health director, said he would not attempt to have the children given the fourth shot.
"We recommend the fourth shot, but that’s all," Dr. Lentz said.
Because Wanda Sue is not of school age, Dr. Lentz said there would be no attempt to administer the vaccine to her.
The death of Billy Gene was the third attributed to polio in Tennessee this year. said Dr. C. B. Tucker, in charge of the disease division of the State Health Department. Dr. Tucker added that Billy was the only one of the three that had been given the shots. One of the deaths was in January in Knoxville and the other was a Nashville Negro who died last month.
Six cases of polio have been reported in the state during 1959, Dr. Tucker added. All had at least one or more Salk shots.
Edwards, who resides with his wife and children at 178 Wharf Ave., had been a penitentiary guard for two years. His son was buried in Woodbury Sunday
afternoon.
Next month Ben Gamble, a Nashville Electric Service laborer, is to stand trial in Criminal Court on a charge of refusing to allow two of his school-age children to be vaccinated against polio.
A special venire will be called to select the jury to try Gamble before Judge Homer Weimar.
The jurist recently declared constitutional a little-known state law which requires children to be inoculated against various diseases.
Conviction on the charge is a misdemeanor.
Gamble of Edenwold has said he feels the anti-polio shots are "really more harmful than good."
"When a boy reaches 16 nowadays, his blood is half full of medicine," Gamble has commented.

   FAIR USE NOTICE  
  This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner - or on which copyright has expired. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, health, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.