Edward T. Haslam: Dr. Mary’s Monkey

[John Simkin]

Edward Haslam covers many different subjects in his book that may or may not be linked to the death of Dr. Mary Sherman. One of the most interesting pieces of information concerns a report published by the American Medical Association. Haslam quotes USA Today as saying: “Men born between 1948 and 1957 have three times as much cancer not related to smoking as men born in the late 1800s… The study’s researchers insist the increase cannot be explained by smoking, better diagnosis, or an aging population.” The article, published on 9th April, 1994, quotes U.S. Public Health Service official Devera Lee Davies as saying: “There’s something else going on.”

Haslam argues that the increase in cancer could be linked to the polio epidemic in the early 1950s. The first polio vaccine was developed in 1952 by Jonas Salk at the University of Pittsburgh, and announced to the world on April 12, 1955.

Haslam writes about a researcher called Bernice Eddy. She carried out an experiment where she injected the polio vaccine into monkeys. They immediately fell paralyzed in their cages. Eddy realized that the virus in the vaccine was not dead as promised, but still alive and ready to breed. Eddy reported her findings to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Her research received some publicity but the medical establishment insisted that the mass inoculation should go ahead. Dr. Alton Ochsner, Dr. Mary Sherman’s boss, joined in the debate by announcing he intended to inject his own grandchildren with the new vaccine. Eddy was roundly condemned for her comments and was taken off polio research.

However, Eddy was right, within a few days children all over America who had been given this vaccine fell ill with polio. Two of Ochsner’s grandchildren developed the disease. One died and the other one survived. The Secretary of Health, Oveta Hobby and the Director of the NIH were forced to resign.

The Salk vaccine was withdrawn and a second weaker vaccine developed by Albert Sabin was deployed instead. This new vaccine was used all over the world. I, like I suspect most members of this forum, received their injection while at school. In time, polio ceased to be a killer disease.

Meanwhile, Eddy continued her research. She joined forces with Dr. Sarah Stewart who worked at the National Cancer Institute. In 1957 they became the first people to identify the polyoma virus (SV40), which produced several types of cancer in a variety of small mammals and that it can be transferred from one individual to another.

In 1959 Eddy and Stewart began to look closely at the Sabin polio vaccine that was being given to children all over the world. The vaccine’s manufacturers had grown their polio viruses on the kidney’s of monkeys. They speculated that when they removed the polio virus from the monkeys’ kidneys, they also removed an unknown number of other monkey viruses. If they were right, the world had been inoculating an entire generation of Americans with cancer-causing monkey viruses?

In October, 1960, Bernice Eddy went public with their findings at the New York Cancer Society. The NIH immediately took steps to silence her. They took away her lab, destroyed the animals she was carrying out experiments on, put her under a gagging order and prevented her from attending professional meetings.

The research of Eddy and Stewart was backed up by that of Laurella McClelland working in Philadelphia. As McClelland was working for a vaccine manufacturer, this information was covered up at the time. However, on 26th July, 1961, the New York Times reported that two vaccine manufacturers were withdrawing their polio vaccines until they can eliminate a monkey virus. Seven months later another article in the New York Times suggested that there was a possibility of cancer in the polio vaccine. However, no one picked up on this information and the idea of children being vaccinated with cancer never entered the public consciousness.

Meanwhile the US government arranged for secret experiments to take place to produce a new polio vaccine that did not cause cancer. Haslam speculates that Dr. Mary Sherman was involved in this research and that her death might be linked to this. (I will explain this later).

Haslam does not mention that recent scientific develops have confirmed that Eddy and Stewart were right about their belief that there was a connection between the polio vaccine and the cancer epidemic. Scientists have discovered that the DNA of SV40 in monkeys is very similar to the DNA of cancer tumors in humans.

Haslam does not mention another important possible link with the assassination of JFK. If people like Dr. Alton Ochsner were aware as early as 1961 that it was possible to inject humans with SV40 in order to create a cancer tumor. Is it possible that this is what they did to Jack Ruby?

[Tim Gratz]

Well, John, that is speculation but I have to acknowledge the most interesting medical history in your post, a history most Americans of my age (i.e. senior citizens) will relate to. I remember well the polio scare of the mid-1950s. In fact my uncle had polio and died at an early age. Great post! Excellent research work.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Well, John, that is speculation but I have to acknowledge the most interesting medical history in your post, a history most Americans of my age (i.e. senior citizens) will relate to. I remember well the polio scare of the mid-1950s. In fact my uncle had polio and died at an early age. Great post! Excellent research work.

The main point in my posting that a large number of people have died because of this polio vaccine cover-up. I was one of those who received the early version of the polio vaccine. So did my wife who is currently dying of terminal cancer. Many of my friends have already died of this disease. Yet it would seem that the companies continued to carry out its vaccine program because they did not want to damage their profits. That is the real scandal of this story.

[John Dolva]

Well, John, that is speculation but I have to acknowledge the most interesting medical history in your post, a history most Americans of my age (i.e. senior citizens) will relate to. I remember well the polio scare of the mid-1950s. In fact my uncle had polio and died at an early age. Great post! Excellent research work.

The main point in my posting that a large number of people have died because of this polio vaccine cover-up. I was one of those who received the early version of the polio vaccine. So did my wife who is currently dying of terminal cancer. Many of my friends have already died of this disease. Yet it would seem that the companies continued to carry out its vaccine program because they did not want to damage their profits. That is the real scandal of this story.

In Australia:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/22/1098316861644.html

"A federal government agency knowingly released polio vaccine contaminated with a monkey virus in the 1960s that has since been linked to a range of cancers, including mesothelioma.

The virus contaminated at least four batches of vaccine totalling almost three million doses between 1956 and 1962.

Two of the batches were released after testing positive to contamination. The other two were released before tests could be done. An unknown number of earlier batches were also almost certainly contaminated.

An investigation by The Age has found documents from the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories which reveal bosses there released one batch of about 700,000 doses of contaminated vaccine in 1962 on the grounds that "much vaccine issued in the past was probably similarly contaminated".

Australia's leading experts on the virus, which is known as simian virus 40 or SV40, have found traces of it in human tumour cells and are calling for urgent funding to clarify the links.

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories knew from its own internal research that the monkey virus was a potential cause of cancer in humans. The research, which was never made public, was carried out in August 1962, while contaminated batches of vaccine were still being released. Tests carried out at the time also showed monkey virus contamination of some of the "seed" polio virus used to produce all Salk polio vaccines between 1956 and 1962. ..."

Edited August 24, 2007 by John Dolva

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Just noted that interest in this book seems to have taken off. It is now inside the Amazon top 1,000.

Is there much reliance on this book on Judith Baker?

[Michael Hogan]

Just noted that interest in this book seems to have taken off. It is now inside the Amazon top 1,000.

Is there much reliance on this book on Judith Baker?

Nathaniel,

In the Foreword to Dr Mary's Monkey, Jim Marrs writes: "In this new volume, Haslam brings forth the one thing missing from his previous work - a living witness.

The importance of this new testimony was summed up by consummate conspiracy debunker John McAdams, who stated, 'if Judyth Vary Baker is telling the truth, it will change

the way we think about the Kennedy assassination."

Haslam devotes Chapter 13 (The Witness) to Baker and begins by writing: "In 1995, on the eve of publication of Mary, Ferrie & the Monkey Virus, a fellow writer cautioned me:

You have everything except a witness." Haslam became aware of Baker's story in 2000, after being notified by 60 Minutes that they were planning a story on Baker.

One of the more interesting accounts is Haslam's description of meeting a different Judyth Vary Baker in New Orleans in 1972.

Haslam also discusses Baker's story in detail in the appendix of Dr Mary's Monkey.

As an aside, I met Ed Haslam shortly after the publication of Dr Mary's Monkey and asked him specifically about Baker's credibility. He described spending many hours with her

on the telephone and in person and by and large, he found her credible.

[John Simkin]

Robin Ramsay has reviewed Dr. Mary's Monkey in Lobster (Summer, 2008)

The Kennedy assassination literature has produced some oddities over the years but this takes the biscuit. A sense of this is conveyed by what must be one of the longest subtitles in publishing history:

"How the unsolved Murder of' a doctor, a secret laboratory in New Orleans and cancer-causing monkey viruses are linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, the JFK assassination and emerging global epidemics"

Kennedy assassination initiates will glimpse a little bit of the story from that subtitle. Cancer and New Orleans? Wasn't David Ferric keeping thousands of mice in his apartment? Yes, he was. And he was, apparently, doing cancer research on the mice. In his apartment when lie died was found an anonymous treatise on cancer. (Haslam thinks he has identified the author.) Skip to page 329 and the author provides a handy summary of his story so far:

"In the morning, the young cancer-researcher rides the bus to work with the "detector" who is about to be accused of assassinating the President. In the afternoon, she goes to the underground medical laboratory run by a known Mafia asset to develop a biological weapon. In between the two, she works at a cover-job under the supervision of an ex-FBI agent, who sends her on errands to deliver "envelopes" to the office of the Congressman who chairs the House Committee on Un-American Activities."

The "young cancer researcher" is Judyth Vary Baker who has claimed for years to have been the lover of Lee Harvey Oswald. The underground lab is "known Mafia asset" David Ferrie's mouse research where, says Baker, they were trying to develop a rapid-acting cancer with which to kill Fidel Castro (which is just - within the extant parameters of the attempts to kill him, not much crazier than some of the CIA's other wheezes). The "cover-job" was at the Reilly Coffee Company " where Lee Harvey Oswald also had a "cover-job".

A surprising amount of this is sort of stood up by Haslam but an awful lot of it hangs on the story of Baker, whose status in the JFK world is ambiguous at best; and there are a great many connecting suppositions between the bits Haslam has stood up and the wider thesis. This involves: the unsolved and very strange death (murder? freak accident?) of another cancer expert, Dr Mary Sherman; a particle accelerator at a nearby university lab which may or may not have been the cause of Sherman's death and which may or may not have been used to modify viruses; not to mention the final layer of the cake, the strange tale of the monkey-viruses in the polio vaccines and their possible links to the epidemic of soft tissue cancers in America.

Is this enormous thesis linking JFK's death to a rise in cancer America credible? No, it isn't. There are just too many places in the story where guesswork takes the place of evidence. But oddly fascinating this profusely illustrated account certainly is.

[Karl Kinaski]

Is this enormous thesis linking JFK's death to a rise in cancer America credible? No, it isn't.

Yes, this thesis is credible. There are two story's, developed and told independently by two individuals, who never met prior to their coming out ( except the strange event that Haslam met a false JVB in the seventies), and their story's fit perfectly...

The Haslam- story proves the Baker- story, and the other way around. Both, Haslam and Baker, provide an important piece to the big picture of the murder, once broken into thousand pieces by the conspirators...

Edited June 26, 2008 by Karl Kinaski

[Wim Dankbaar]

John Simkin,

You start a thread heralding Ed Haslam and his new book, but then you paint him as rather naive to "recruit" Judyth Baker into the story, since apparently you portray yourself as more able than Ed to judge that Judyth is not telling the truth, although you have never met with Judyth.

I find this approach rather arrogant and dubious towards Ed. Not to mention the fact that you use my belief of Judyth's story, as an added argument to break it down:

Along with Wim Dankbaar, who seems to be easily convinced by confessions, you are one of the few researchers who still believe in her story.

I dare to oppose both assertions in that quote as a blatant untruths. Now, could you tell me, John, do you at least accept that Judyth was a promising scientist in cancer research and worked in the same company as Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963?

Wim

[Guest David Guyatt]

I have just finished reading the book and found it more than interesting and have no hesitation in recommending it. I found it rather compelling and consider it provides greater insights into the world of LHO and the background to JFK with which I was not at all familiar.

Has anyone been able to factually demonstrate that Judyth Baker's testimony is incorrect, slanted or false?

[Wim Dankbaar]

Has anyone been able to factually demonstrate that Judyth Baker's testimony is incorrect, slanted or false?

No, but that doesn't matter. Many "researchers" believe they have factually demonstrated that the Warren Commission was incorrect, but they have a problem accepting the self-evident alternatives, if those conflict with their own cultivated theories, embraced and groomed for years.

Wim

[Guest David Guyatt]

Has anyone been able to factually demonstrate that Judyth Baker's testimony is incorrect, slanted or false?

No, but that doesn't matter. Many "researchers" believe they have factually demonstrated that the Warren Commission was incorrect, but they have a problem accepting the self-evident alternatives, if those conflict with their own cultivated theories, embraced and groomed for years.

Wim

Which goes a long way in favour of Judyth Baker's testimony being legitimate imo, as I am sure that were there weaknesses evident they would have been raised here.

In general it is my view that cherished theories should always be open to modification/reassessment when new evidence appears, as otherwise they simply stagnate/crumble over a extended period of time, which benefits no one.

[William Kelly]

Has anyone been able to factually demonstrate that Judyth Baker's testimony is incorrect, slanted or false?

No, but that doesn't matter. Many "researchers" believe they have factually demonstrated that the Warren Commission was incorrect, but they have a problem accepting the self-evident alternatives, if those conflict with their own cultivated theories, embraced and groomed for years.

Wim

"...but they have a problem accepting the self-evident alternatives, if those conflict with their own cultivated theories, embraced and groomed for years."

Yea, especially those who swollow the stories of James Files, Chauncey Holt and Judyth V. Baker, hook, line and sinker. - BK

Which goes a long way in favour of Judyth Baker's testimony being legitimate imo, as I am sure that were there weaknesses evident they would have been raised here.

In general it is my view that cherished theories should always be open to modification/reassessment when new evidence appears, as otherwise they simply stagnate/crumble over a extended period of time, which benefits no one.

David, are you serious?

Yea, JVB modifies her theories all right. Everytime she is shown to be incompatable with reality.

Please read the sane and sober revew of this book in Lobster by Robin Ramsey

http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/ .

Or even this pro JVB piece in DPE, which thankfully doesn't have the critical standards as Lobster or we'd never be able to read it, because it puts things in a chronological perspective that shows you the absurdity of her whole story.

And has anyone ever heard of John Delane Williams and Kelly Thomas Cousins. Are they new players?

Posted at Mary Ferrell:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...sPageId=1191673

Have you even looked at JVB's story?

First she says she met LHO in Cancoon, a decade before the city even existed.

Then she says she went to the movies with LHO to see From Russia With Love, which didn't premier in USA until 1964, and then changed her mind and blamed the translator when she was informed they conflicted with reality.

JVB's story is a beautiful love story, but it doesn't give us any information that will help us in understanding the assassination or lead to additional evidence or believable witnesses.

BK

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

How much of this book can hold up independent of JVB's narrative? Is she a lynchpin to the argument of the book or one of many equally important sources?

(Not meant to imply that her narrative is false-- I haven't researched it enough, but am wondering if this book is worth my time. There seems to be a lot of good research in it.)

[John Simkin]

How much of this book can hold up independent of JVB's narrative? Is she a lynchpin to the argument of the book or one of many equally important sources?

(Not meant to imply that her narrative is false-- I haven't researched it enough, but am wondering if this book is worth my time. There seems to be a lot of good research in it.)

The book is worth reading about Mary Sherman but goes rapidly downhill with the arrival of Judyth Vary Baker.