They were called Illuminati phi omega tau o s or illuminated ones on the assumption that those who were instructed for baptism in the Apostolic faith had received the grace of illumination in an enlightened understanding Clement of Alexandria speaks thus of such baptismal light This is the one grace of illumination that our characters are not the same as before our washing
Information about the Illuminati click here
Showing posts with label S. Show all posts
Showing posts with label S. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
They,were,called,Illuminati,phi,omega,tau,o,s,or,illuminated,ones,on,the,assumption,that,those,who,were,instructed,for,baptism,in,the,Apostolic,faith,had,received,the,grace,of,illumination,in,an,enlightened,understanding,Clement,of,Alexandria,speaks,thus,of,such,baptismal,light,This,is,the,one,grace,of,illumination,that,our,characters,are,not,the,same,as,before,our,washing
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Perhaps most disturbing of all was the fact that the extent of experimentation on human subjects was unknown. The records of all these activities were destroyed in January 1973, at the instruction of then CIA Director Richard Helms. In spite of persistent inquiries by both the Health Subcommittee and the Intelligence Committee, no additional records or information were forthcoming. And no oneno single individual — could be found who remembered the details, not the Director of the CIA, who ordered the documents destroyed, not the official responsible for the program, nor any of his associates. We believed that the record, incomplete as it was, was as complete as it was going to be. Then one individual, through a Freedom of Information request, accomplished what two U.S. Senate committees could not. He spurred the agency into finding additional records pertaining to the CIA's program of experimentation with human subjects. These new records were discovered by the agency in March. Their existence was not made known to the Congress until July.
THE CIA'S PROGRAM OF RESEARCH IN BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION
Wednesday, August 3, 1977 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Subcommittee on Health & Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources
Following is an excerpt of an opening statement from Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.).
Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We are delighted to join together in this very important area of public inquiry and public interest.
Some 2 years ago, the Senate Health Subcommittee heard chilling testimony about the human experimentation activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over 30 universities and institutions were involved in an "extensive testing and experimentation" program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens "at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign." Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to "unwitting subjects in social situations."
At least one death, that of Dr. Olsen, resulted from these activities. The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense. The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers. The test subjects were seldom accessible beyond the first hours of the test. In a number of instances, the test subject became ill for hours or days, and effective followup was impossible. Other experiments were equally offensive. For example, heroin addicts were enticed into participating in LSD experiments in order to get a reward-heroin.
Perhaps most disturbing of all was the fact that the extent of experimentation on human subjects was unknown. The records of all these activities were destroyed in January 1973, at the instruction of then CIA Director Richard Helms. In spite of persistent inquiries by both the Health Subcommittee and the Intelligence Committee, no additional records or information were forthcoming. And no oneno single individual — could be found who remembered the details, not the Director of the CIA, who ordered the documents destroyed, not the official responsible for the program, nor any of his associates.
We believed that the record, incomplete as it was, was as complete as it was going to be. Then one individual, through a Freedom of Information request, accomplished what two U.S. Senate committees could not. He spurred the agency into finding additional records pertaining to the CIA's program of experimentation with human subjects. These new records were discovered by the agency in March. Their existence was not made known to the Congress until July.
The records reveal a far more extensive series of experiments than had previously been thought. Eighty-six universities or institutions were involved. NeV instances of unethical behavior were revealed.
The intelligence community of this Nation, which requires a shroud of secrecy in order to operate, has a very sacred trust from the American people. The CIA's program of human experimentation of the fifties and sixties violated that trust. It was violated again on the day the bulk of the agency's records were destroyed in 1973. It is violated each time a responsible official refuses to recollect the details of the program. The best safeguard against abuses in the future is a complete public accounting of the abuses of the past.
I think this is illustrated, as Chairman Inouye pointed out. These are issues, are questions that happened in the fifties and sixties, and go back some 15, 20 years ago, but they are front page news today, as we see in the major newspapers and on the television and in the media of this country; and the reason they are, I think, is because it just continuously begins to trickle out. sort of, month after month, and the best way to put this period behind us, obviously, is to have the full information, and I think that is the desire of Admiral Turner and of the members of this committee.
The Central Intelligence Agency drugged American citizens without their knowledge or consent. It used university facilities and personnel without their knowledge. It funded leading researchers, often without their knowledge.
These institutes, these individuals, have a right to know who they are and how and when they were used. As of today, the Agency itself refuses to declassify the names of those institutions and individuals, quite appropriately, I might say, with regard to the individuals under the Privacy Act. It seems to me to be a fundamental responsibility to notify those individuals or institutions, rather. I think many of them were caught up in an unwitting manner to do research for the Agency. Many researchers, distinguished researchers, some of our most outstanding members of our scientific community, involved in this network, now really do not know whether they were involved or not, and it seems to me that the whole health and climate in terms of our university and our scientific and health facilities are entitled to that response.
So, I intend to do all I can to persuade the Agency to, at the very least, officially inform those institutions and individuals involved.
Two years ago, when these abuses were first revealed, I introduced legislation, with Senator Schweiker and Senator Javits, designed to minimize the potential for any similar abuses in the future. That legislation expanded the jurisdiction of the National Commission on Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research to cover all federally funded research involving human subjects. The research initially was just directed toward HEW activities, but this legislation covered DOD as well as the CIA.
This Nation has a biomedical and behavioral research capability second to none. It has had for subjects of HEW funded research for the past 3 years a system for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research second to none, and the Human Experimentation Commission has proven its value. Today's hearings and the record already established underscore the need to expand its jurisdiction.
The CIA supported that legislation in 1975, and it passed the Senate unanimously last year. I believe it is needed in order to assure all our people that they will have the degree of protection in.human experimentation that they deserve and have every right to expect.
Information about the Illuminati click here
L. Ron Hubbard created the Advanced Organization of Saint Hill with the worldwide headquarters in East Grinstead, Sussex, England (AOSH UK), the AOSH DK (Denmark), the AOSH EU (Europe) and the American Advanced Organization of Saint Hill was the fourth AOSH to be established. The Advanced Organizations of Saint Hill are the organizations who are qualified by the Church of Scientology to be an organization qualified to be “Professional Auditors”, “Professional Auditors” qualified to teach students learning “Auditing” using what is known to Scientologists as the “PC Clear”.
L,Ron,Hubbard,was,born,in,Tilstead,Nebraska,during,the,year,of,1911
picture,of.Mark,R,Rowe Information about the Illuminati click here
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Were these good things that scientists did from the 1910's through the 1980's?
The fact that the U.S. allowed human cloning, genetically engineered “designer babies”, sterilization of the mentally ill, mentally defective, the “feeble minded”, experimenting with dead bodies known as cadavers to attain accurate data for the mass production of seat belts, airbags, and windshield design, the mingling of blood and DNA used for creating the Human Genome Project, the cloning of various types of mammalian animals, the lifelong psychological experiment of one synthetically created male and in combination with another synthetically created female, having scientific eugenic roots based on the famous eugenics study of the Jukes and Kallikaks families that took place during the first half of the 20th century, also known within the biological and medical communities as “The Final Test of Eugenics”, are all things that the U.S. tried so hard to keep in the dark, since these things that were done in recent world history defy God, and have made God angry at the works of the men who conducted these types of science.
Does the U.S. still live by the same rules, laws, and principles that are contained within our U.S. Constitution?
Where have all the U.S. civil liberties and constitutional rights to privacy that protect the U.S. citizens from a government breaking the law, such as the taking of pictures by government employees from a remote location while at work of people that live in the U.S. via millions of American’s cell phones, tablets, or computers camera that is was only intended to be made by computer and cell phone makers for the use of the individual that owns this computer, cell phone or tablet, the monitoring of 100’s of millions of domestic phone conversations, the reading of millions of emails sent and received by U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens, the tracking, storing, saving, retrieval, analyzing, gathering, populating data into computer algorithms for automatic continuous real-time updates of cyber-patterns and behaviors of cyber-data known as “cookies” that the U.S. government has used to create an all encompassing data set profile (known as a meta-data list) on every single person that has at one point or another been inside the U.S. since the spring of 2003?
A brief history of L. Ron Hubbard
L. Ron Hubbard’s father was a commander in the U.S. Navy and was personal friends with former president Calvin Coolidge. In 1911 his first son was born in Tilstead, Nebraska, L. Ron Hubbard. Commander Hubbard his wife and his son, L. Ron Hubbard moved to Missoula, Montana in 1921 where L. Ron Hubbard befriended an Indian medicine man, became interested in reading western classic novels and developed an attraction to far eastern cultures beliefs, values and ideals, since his parents and him traveled frequently to Asia for vacations. In 1924 his parents and him moved to Manassas, Virginia where L. Ron Hubbard attended the Swaverly School for Boys, a private secondary school. In 1926 they moved to Northwest Washington D.C. where L. Ron Hubbard attended the private secondary college preparatory school called the Woodward Preparatory School. Upon graduating from Woodward Prep, he attended The George Washington University where he took one of the first Nuclear physics classes offered at an American university. It is not widely known if L. Ron Hubbard had successfully completed a college degree. With the outbreak of World War 2, L. Ron Hubbard served in five tours of war while in the U.S. Navy. During the 1930’s he developed the first deep sea underwater remote controlled camera system that took the very first pictures of plant and sea life on the ocean floor.
L. Ron Hubbard was critically injured during his fifth tour of war during World War 2, losing his ability to walk. Since he could not walk and had trouble with mobility, he took up a new profession, and that profession was writing.
His first book that he wrote was published in 1949; “Dianetics and the Church of Scientology, Technical Dictionary”. This book is based mostly on the book titled “Dianetics”, written by Fredrick Jones in Missoula, Montana during the 1930’s, SOS scientific journals, Human Betterment Association of American journals and publications, and the Diagnostic Standard Model of Mental Health. The second book that L. Ron Hubbard wrote and published was the book titled “The Modern Science of Mental Health”, published in 1950 in Los Angeles, California.
Before L. Ron Hubbard wrote these two best selling books in 1949, and 1950, he was a very popular and prolific writer writing for Hollywood television and film producers providing written scripts for dozens of Hollywood films that were published and seen at movie theaters during the 1940’s and early 1950’s.
Since L. Ron Hubbard’s creation of the Church of Scientology in 1948 hundreds of Church of Scientology missions were established on all five continents of the world with the highest numbers in the U.S., Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, and Denmark.
He created the Advanced Organization of Saint Hill with the worldwide headquarters in East Grinstead, Sussex, England (AOSH UK), the AOSH DK (Denmark), the AOSH EU (Europe) and the American Advanced Organization of Saint Hill was the fourth AOSH to be established. The Advanced Organizations of Saint Hill are the organizations who are qualified by the Church of Scientology to be an organization qualified to be “Professional Auditors”, “Professional Auditors” qualified to teach students learning “Auditing” using what is known to Scientologists as the “PC Clear” and other Scientology technology to control, brainwash and manipulate the human mind to the pre-defined standards of the current parameters that the Church of Scientology has set for that year for all “Professional Auditors”, and students studying to be “Professional Auditors” in every nation of the world where the Church of Scientology is established.
,In,1911,his,first,son,was,born,in,Tilstead,Nebraska,L,Ron,Hubbardand,was,personal,friends,with,former,president,Calvin,Coolidge
Sunday, April 6, 2014
You can't always expect to think that the general public with always have blind eyes to some truths in history, whether these truths are unattractive or attractive for the general public once the general public has knowledge of these new found truths
Did Western European nations and the U.S. think that negative public opinion and bad publicity of their Eugenics practices, sterilizations of the mentally ill, mentally defective, and feeble minded would never arise, and come back to haunt them, (that is, the policy makers, physicians, and law makers that created such a culture of hate and evil in the U.S. Germany, U.K.), or did they seem to think that their works would always go unnoticed with medical records forever remaining in the basements of medical universities and hospitals?
The answer to this question is simple: With the occurrence of modern computing technology as it is today and the internet at the size that it is, and the types of highly sophisticated computer hacks to many governments, institutions, universities, hospitals, corporations, --databases, once always safe and secure from leaks to the general public, are now continuously at risk, and many talented hackers have hacked many once classified databases that have secret or top secret records, and have published websites such as Wikileaks and the general public of the entire world has been enlightened to these top secret records and have been made aware of events that have occured from these document leaks, such as the practices of Dianetics, The Church of Scientology, Eugenics practices that occurred after World War 2 in not only Germany but with high numbers of cases in the United States with the last case of sterilization of a mental patient occurring in the year 1979.
The answer to this question is simple: With the occurrence of modern computing technology as it is today and the internet at the size that it is, and the types of highly sophisticated computer hacks to many governments, institutions, universities, hospitals, corporations, --databases, once always safe and secure from leaks to the general public, are now continuously at risk, and many talented hackers have hacked many once classified databases that have secret or top secret records, and have published websites such as Wikileaks and the general public of the entire world has been enlightened to these top secret records and have been made aware of events that have occured from these document leaks, such as the practices of Dianetics, The Church of Scientology, Eugenics practices that occurred after World War 2 in not only Germany but with high numbers of cases in the United States with the last case of sterilization of a mental patient occurring in the year 1979.
You know that you should be so ashamed of yourself, America, for the sterilization of innocent disabled children, the feeble minded, the mentally defective, and the mentally ill
Shocking as it may seem, U.S. government doctors once thought it was fine to experiment on disabled people and prison inmates. Such experiments included giving hepatitis to mental patients in Connecticut, squirting a pandemic flu virus up the noses of prisoners in Maryland, and injecting cancer cells into chronically ill people at a New York hospital.
Much of this horrific history is 40 to 80 years old, but it is the backdrop for a meeting in Washington this week by a presidential bioethics commission. The meeting was triggered by the government’s apology last fall for federal doctors infecting prisoners and mental patients in Guatemala with syphilis 65 years ago.
U.S. officials also acknowledged there had been dozens of similar experiments in the United States – studies that often involved making healthy people sick.
In June 25, 1945 , a doctor exposes a patient to malaria-carrying mosquitoes at Stateville Penitentiary in Crest Hill, Ill. A series of malaria studies at Stateville and two other prisons were designed to test antimalarial drugs that could have helped soldiers fighting in the Pacific during World War II.
An exhaustive review by The Associated Press of medical journal reports and decades-old press clippings found more than 40 such studies. At best, these were a search for lifesaving treatments; at worst, some amounted to curiosity-satisfying experiments that hurt people but provided no useful results.
Inevitably, they will be compared to the well-known Tuskegee syphilis study. In that episode, U.S. health officials tracked 600 black men in Alabama who already had syphilis but didn’t give them adequate treatment even after penicillin became available.
These studies were worse in at least one respect – they violated the concept of “first do no harm,” a fundamental medical principle that stretches back centuries.
“When you give somebody a disease – even by the standards of their time – you really cross the key ethical norm of the profession,” said Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bioethics.
Some of these studies, mostly from the 1940s to the ’60s, apparently were never covered by news media. Others were reported at the time, but the focus was on the promise of enduring new cures, while glossing over how test subjects were treated.
Attitudes about medical research were different then. Infectious diseases killed many more people years ago, and doctors worked urgently to invent and test cures. Many prominent researchers felt it was legitimate to experiment on people who did not have full rights in society – people like prisoners, mental patients, poor blacks. It was an attitude in some ways similar to that of Nazi doctors experimenting on Jews.
“There was definitely a sense – that we don’t have today – that sacrifice for the nation was important,” said Laura Stark, a Wesleyan University assistant professor of science in society, who is writing a book about past federal medical experiments.
The AP review of past research found:
-A federally funded study begun in 1942 injected experimental flu vaccine in male patients at a state insane asylum in Ypsilanti, Mich., then exposed them to flu several months later. It was co-authored by Dr. Jonas Salk, who a decade later would become famous as inventor of the polio vaccine.
Some of the men weren’t able to describe their symptoms, raising serious questions about how well they understood what was being done to them. One newspaper account mentioned the test subjects were “senile and debilitated.” Then it quickly moved on to the promising results.
-In federally funded studies in the 1940s, noted researcher Dr. W. Paul Havens Jr. exposed men to hepatitis in a series of experiments, including one using patients from mental institutions in Middletown and Norwich, Conn. Havens, a World Health Organization expert on viral diseases, was one of the first scientists to differentiate types of hepatitis and their causes.
A search of various news archives found no mention of the mental patients study, which made eight healthy men ill but broke no new ground in understanding the disease.
-Researchers in the mid-1940s studied the transmission of a deadly stomach bug by having young men swallow unfiltered stool suspension. The study was conducted at the New York State Vocational Institution, a reformatory prison in West Coxsackie. The point was to see how well the disease spread that way as compared to spraying the germs and having test subjects breathe it. Swallowing it was a more effective way to spread the disease, the researchers concluded. The study doesn’t explain if the men were rewarded for this awful task.
-A University of Minnesota study in the late 1940s injected 11 public service employee volunteers with malaria, then starved them for five days. Some were also subjected to hard labor, and those men lost an average of 14 pounds. They were treated for malarial fevers with quinine sulfate. One of the authors was Ancel Keys, a noted dietary scientist who developed K-rations for the military and the Mediterranean diet for the public. But a search of various news archives found no mention of the study.
-For a study in 1957, when the Asian flu pandemic was spreading, federal researchers sprayed the virus in the noses of 23 inmates at Patuxent prison in Jessup, Md., to compare their reactions to those of 32 virus-exposed inmates who had been given a new vaccine.
-Government researchers in the 1950s tried to infect about two dozen volunteering prison inmates with gonorrhea using two different methods in an experiment at a federal penitentiary in Atlanta. The bacteria was pumped directly into the urinary tract through the penis, according to their paper.
The men quickly developed the disease, but the researchers noted this method wasn’t comparable to how men normally got infected – by having sex with an infected partner. The men were later treated with antibiotics. The study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, but there was no mention of it in various news archives.
Though people in the studies were usually described as volunteers, historians and ethicists have questioned how well these people understood what was to be done to them and why, or whether they were coerced.
Prisoners have long been victimized for the sake of science. In 1915, the U.S. government’s Dr. Joseph Goldberger – today remembered as a public health hero – recruited Mississippi inmates to go on special rations to prove his theory that the painful illness pellagra was caused by a dietary deficiency. (The men were offered pardons for their participation.)
But studies using prisoners were uncommon in the first few decades of the 20th century, and usually performed by researchers considered eccentric even by the standards of the day. One was Dr. L.L. Stanley, resident physician at San Quentin prison in California, who around 1920 attempted to treat older, “devitalized men” by implanting in them testicles from livestock and from recently executed convicts.
Newspapers wrote about Stanley’s experiments, but the lack of outrage is striking.
“Enter San Quentin penitentiary in the role of the Fountain of Youth – an institution where the years are made to roll back for men of failing mentality and vitality and where the spring is restored to the step, wit to the brain, vigor to the muscles and ambition to the spirit. All this has been done, is being done … by a surgeon with a scalpel,” began one rosy report published in November 1919 in The Washington Post.
Around the time of World War II, prisoners were enlisted to help the war effort by taking part in studies that could help the troops. For example, a series of malaria studies at Stateville Penitentiary in Illinois and two other prisons was designed to test antimalarial drugs that could help soldiers fighting in the Pacific.
It was at about this time that prosecution of Nazi doctors in 1947 led to the “Nuremberg Code,” a set of international rules to protect human test subjects. Many U.S. doctors essentially ignored them, arguing that they applied to Nazi atrocities – not to American medicine.
The late 1940s and 1950s saw huge growth in the U.S. pharmaceutical and health care industries, accompanied by a boom in prisoner experiments funded by both the government and corporations. By the 1960s, at least half the states allowed prisoners to be used as medical guinea pigs.
But two studies in the 1960s proved to be turning points in the public’s attitude toward the way test subjects were treated.
The first came to light in 1963. Researchers injected cancer cells into 19 old and debilitated patients at a Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in the New York borough of Brooklyn to see if their bodies would reject them.
The hospital director said the patients were not told they were being injected with cancer cells because there was no need – the cells were deemed harmless. But the experiment upset a lawyer named William Hyman who sat on the hospital’s board of directors. The state investigated, and the hospital ultimately said any such experiments would require the patient’s written consent.
At nearby Staten Island, from 1963 to 1966, a controversial medical study was conducted at the Willowbrook State School for children with mental retardation. The children were intentionally given hepatitis orally and by injection to see if they could then be cured with gamma globulin.
Those two studies – along with the Tuskegee experiment revealed in 1972 – proved to be a “holy trinity” that sparked extensive and critical media coverage and public disgust, said Susan Reverby, the Wellesley College historian who first discovered records of the syphilis study in Guatemala.
By the early 1970s, even experiments involving prisoners were considered scandalous. In widely covered congressional hearings in 1973, pharmaceutical industry officials acknowledged they were using prisoners for testing because they were cheaper than chimpanzees.
Holmesburg Prison in Philadelphia made extensive use of inmates for medical experiments. Some of the victims are still around to talk about it. Edward “Yusef” Anthony, featured in a book about the studies, says he agreed to have a layer of skin peeled off his back, which was coated with searing chemicals to test a drug. He did that for money to buy cigarettes in prison.
“I said ‘Oh my God, my back is on fire! Take this … off me!’” Anthony said in an interview with The Associated Press, as he recalled the beginning of weeks of intense itching and agonizing pain.
The government responded with reforms. Among them: The U.S. Bureau of Prisons in the mid-1970s effectively excluded all research by drug companies and other outside agencies within federal prisons.
As the supply of prisoners and mental patients dried up, researchers looked to other countries.
It made sense.
Clinical trials could be done more cheaply and with fewer rules. And it was easy to find patients who were taking no medication, a factor that can complicate tests of other drugs.
Additional sets of ethical guidelines have been enacted, and few believe that another Guatemala study could happen today. “It’s not that we’re out infecting anybody with things,” Caplan said.
Still, in the last 15 years, two international studies sparked outrage.
One was likened to Tuskegee. U.S.-funded doctors failed to give the AIDS drug AZT to all the HIV-infected pregnant women in a study in Uganda even though it would have protected their newborns. U.S. health officials argued the study would answer questions about AZT’s use in the developing world.
The other study, by Pfizer Inc., gave an antibiotic named Trovan to children with meningitis in Nigeria, although there were doubts about its effectiveness for that disease. Critics blamed the experiment for the deaths of 11 children and the disabling of scores of others. Pfizer settled a lawsuit with Nigerian officials for $75 million but admitted no wrongdoing.
Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general reported that between 40 and 65 percent of clinical studies of federally regulated medical products were done in other countries in 2008, and that proportion probably has grown. The report also noted that U.S. regulators inspected fewer than 1 percent of foreign clinical trial sites.
Monitoring research is complicated, and rules that are too rigid could slow new drug development. But it’s often hard to get information on international trials, sometimes because of missing records and a paucity of audits, said Dr. Kevin Schulman, a Duke University professor of medicine who has written on the ethics of international studies.
These issues were still being debated when, last October, the Guatemala study came to light.
In the 1946-48 study, American scientists infected prisoners and patients in a mental hospital in Guatemala with syphilis, apparently to test whether penicillin could prevent some sexually transmitted disease.
The study came up with no useful information and was hidden for decades. Sponsored Links The Guatemala study nauseated ethicists on multiple levels. Beyond infecting patients with a terrible illness, it was clear that people in the study did not understand what was being done to them or were not able to give their consent. Indeed, though it happened at a time when scientists were quick to publish research that showed frank disinterest in the rights of study participants, this study was buried in file drawers.
“It was unusually unethical, even at the time,” said Stark, the Wesleyan researcher.
“When the president was briefed on the details of the Guatemalan episode, one of his first questions was whether this sort of thing could still happen today,” said Rick Weiss, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
That it occurred overseas was an opening for the Obama administration to have the bioethics panel seek a new evaluation of international medical studies. The president also asked the Institute of Medicine to further probe the Guatemala study, but the IOM relinquished the assignment in November, after reporting its own conflict of interest: In the 1940s, five members of one of the IOM’s sister organizations played prominent roles in federal syphilis research and had links to the Guatemala study.
So the bioethics commission gets both tasks.
To focus on federally funded international studies, the commission has formed an international panel of about a dozen experts in ethics, science and clinical research. Regarding the look at the Guatemala study, the commission has hired 15 staff investigators and is working with additional historians and other consulting experts.
The panel is to send a report to Obama by September. Any further steps would be up to the administration.
Some experts say that given such a tight deadline, it would be a surprise if the commission produced substantive new information about past studies. “They face a really tough challenge,” Caplan said.
Much of this horrific history is 40 to 80 years old, but it is the backdrop for a meeting in Washington this week by a presidential bioethics commission. The meeting was triggered by the government’s apology last fall for federal doctors infecting prisoners and mental patients in Guatemala with syphilis 65 years ago.
U.S. officials also acknowledged there had been dozens of similar experiments in the United States – studies that often involved making healthy people sick.
In June 25, 1945 , a doctor exposes a patient to malaria-carrying mosquitoes at Stateville Penitentiary in Crest Hill, Ill. A series of malaria studies at Stateville and two other prisons were designed to test antimalarial drugs that could have helped soldiers fighting in the Pacific during World War II.
An exhaustive review by The Associated Press of medical journal reports and decades-old press clippings found more than 40 such studies. At best, these were a search for lifesaving treatments; at worst, some amounted to curiosity-satisfying experiments that hurt people but provided no useful results.
Inevitably, they will be compared to the well-known Tuskegee syphilis study. In that episode, U.S. health officials tracked 600 black men in Alabama who already had syphilis but didn’t give them adequate treatment even after penicillin became available.
These studies were worse in at least one respect – they violated the concept of “first do no harm,” a fundamental medical principle that stretches back centuries.
“When you give somebody a disease – even by the standards of their time – you really cross the key ethical norm of the profession,” said Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bioethics.
Some of these studies, mostly from the 1940s to the ’60s, apparently were never covered by news media. Others were reported at the time, but the focus was on the promise of enduring new cures, while glossing over how test subjects were treated.
Attitudes about medical research were different then. Infectious diseases killed many more people years ago, and doctors worked urgently to invent and test cures. Many prominent researchers felt it was legitimate to experiment on people who did not have full rights in society – people like prisoners, mental patients, poor blacks. It was an attitude in some ways similar to that of Nazi doctors experimenting on Jews.
“There was definitely a sense – that we don’t have today – that sacrifice for the nation was important,” said Laura Stark, a Wesleyan University assistant professor of science in society, who is writing a book about past federal medical experiments.
The AP review of past research found:
-A federally funded study begun in 1942 injected experimental flu vaccine in male patients at a state insane asylum in Ypsilanti, Mich., then exposed them to flu several months later. It was co-authored by Dr. Jonas Salk, who a decade later would become famous as inventor of the polio vaccine.
Some of the men weren’t able to describe their symptoms, raising serious questions about how well they understood what was being done to them. One newspaper account mentioned the test subjects were “senile and debilitated.” Then it quickly moved on to the promising results.
-In federally funded studies in the 1940s, noted researcher Dr. W. Paul Havens Jr. exposed men to hepatitis in a series of experiments, including one using patients from mental institutions in Middletown and Norwich, Conn. Havens, a World Health Organization expert on viral diseases, was one of the first scientists to differentiate types of hepatitis and their causes.
A search of various news archives found no mention of the mental patients study, which made eight healthy men ill but broke no new ground in understanding the disease.
-Researchers in the mid-1940s studied the transmission of a deadly stomach bug by having young men swallow unfiltered stool suspension. The study was conducted at the New York State Vocational Institution, a reformatory prison in West Coxsackie. The point was to see how well the disease spread that way as compared to spraying the germs and having test subjects breathe it. Swallowing it was a more effective way to spread the disease, the researchers concluded. The study doesn’t explain if the men were rewarded for this awful task.
-A University of Minnesota study in the late 1940s injected 11 public service employee volunteers with malaria, then starved them for five days. Some were also subjected to hard labor, and those men lost an average of 14 pounds. They were treated for malarial fevers with quinine sulfate. One of the authors was Ancel Keys, a noted dietary scientist who developed K-rations for the military and the Mediterranean diet for the public. But a search of various news archives found no mention of the study.
-For a study in 1957, when the Asian flu pandemic was spreading, federal researchers sprayed the virus in the noses of 23 inmates at Patuxent prison in Jessup, Md., to compare their reactions to those of 32 virus-exposed inmates who had been given a new vaccine.
-Government researchers in the 1950s tried to infect about two dozen volunteering prison inmates with gonorrhea using two different methods in an experiment at a federal penitentiary in Atlanta. The bacteria was pumped directly into the urinary tract through the penis, according to their paper.
The men quickly developed the disease, but the researchers noted this method wasn’t comparable to how men normally got infected – by having sex with an infected partner. The men were later treated with antibiotics. The study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, but there was no mention of it in various news archives.
Though people in the studies were usually described as volunteers, historians and ethicists have questioned how well these people understood what was to be done to them and why, or whether they were coerced.
Prisoners have long been victimized for the sake of science. In 1915, the U.S. government’s Dr. Joseph Goldberger – today remembered as a public health hero – recruited Mississippi inmates to go on special rations to prove his theory that the painful illness pellagra was caused by a dietary deficiency. (The men were offered pardons for their participation.)
But studies using prisoners were uncommon in the first few decades of the 20th century, and usually performed by researchers considered eccentric even by the standards of the day. One was Dr. L.L. Stanley, resident physician at San Quentin prison in California, who around 1920 attempted to treat older, “devitalized men” by implanting in them testicles from livestock and from recently executed convicts.
Newspapers wrote about Stanley’s experiments, but the lack of outrage is striking.
“Enter San Quentin penitentiary in the role of the Fountain of Youth – an institution where the years are made to roll back for men of failing mentality and vitality and where the spring is restored to the step, wit to the brain, vigor to the muscles and ambition to the spirit. All this has been done, is being done … by a surgeon with a scalpel,” began one rosy report published in November 1919 in The Washington Post.
Around the time of World War II, prisoners were enlisted to help the war effort by taking part in studies that could help the troops. For example, a series of malaria studies at Stateville Penitentiary in Illinois and two other prisons was designed to test antimalarial drugs that could help soldiers fighting in the Pacific.
It was at about this time that prosecution of Nazi doctors in 1947 led to the “Nuremberg Code,” a set of international rules to protect human test subjects. Many U.S. doctors essentially ignored them, arguing that they applied to Nazi atrocities – not to American medicine.
The late 1940s and 1950s saw huge growth in the U.S. pharmaceutical and health care industries, accompanied by a boom in prisoner experiments funded by both the government and corporations. By the 1960s, at least half the states allowed prisoners to be used as medical guinea pigs.
But two studies in the 1960s proved to be turning points in the public’s attitude toward the way test subjects were treated.
The first came to light in 1963. Researchers injected cancer cells into 19 old and debilitated patients at a Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in the New York borough of Brooklyn to see if their bodies would reject them.
The hospital director said the patients were not told they were being injected with cancer cells because there was no need – the cells were deemed harmless. But the experiment upset a lawyer named William Hyman who sat on the hospital’s board of directors. The state investigated, and the hospital ultimately said any such experiments would require the patient’s written consent.
At nearby Staten Island, from 1963 to 1966, a controversial medical study was conducted at the Willowbrook State School for children with mental retardation. The children were intentionally given hepatitis orally and by injection to see if they could then be cured with gamma globulin.
Those two studies – along with the Tuskegee experiment revealed in 1972 – proved to be a “holy trinity” that sparked extensive and critical media coverage and public disgust, said Susan Reverby, the Wellesley College historian who first discovered records of the syphilis study in Guatemala.
By the early 1970s, even experiments involving prisoners were considered scandalous. In widely covered congressional hearings in 1973, pharmaceutical industry officials acknowledged they were using prisoners for testing because they were cheaper than chimpanzees.
Holmesburg Prison in Philadelphia made extensive use of inmates for medical experiments. Some of the victims are still around to talk about it. Edward “Yusef” Anthony, featured in a book about the studies, says he agreed to have a layer of skin peeled off his back, which was coated with searing chemicals to test a drug. He did that for money to buy cigarettes in prison.
“I said ‘Oh my God, my back is on fire! Take this … off me!’” Anthony said in an interview with The Associated Press, as he recalled the beginning of weeks of intense itching and agonizing pain.
The government responded with reforms. Among them: The U.S. Bureau of Prisons in the mid-1970s effectively excluded all research by drug companies and other outside agencies within federal prisons.
As the supply of prisoners and mental patients dried up, researchers looked to other countries.
It made sense.
Clinical trials could be done more cheaply and with fewer rules. And it was easy to find patients who were taking no medication, a factor that can complicate tests of other drugs.
Additional sets of ethical guidelines have been enacted, and few believe that another Guatemala study could happen today. “It’s not that we’re out infecting anybody with things,” Caplan said.
Still, in the last 15 years, two international studies sparked outrage.
One was likened to Tuskegee. U.S.-funded doctors failed to give the AIDS drug AZT to all the HIV-infected pregnant women in a study in Uganda even though it would have protected their newborns. U.S. health officials argued the study would answer questions about AZT’s use in the developing world.
The other study, by Pfizer Inc., gave an antibiotic named Trovan to children with meningitis in Nigeria, although there were doubts about its effectiveness for that disease. Critics blamed the experiment for the deaths of 11 children and the disabling of scores of others. Pfizer settled a lawsuit with Nigerian officials for $75 million but admitted no wrongdoing.
Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general reported that between 40 and 65 percent of clinical studies of federally regulated medical products were done in other countries in 2008, and that proportion probably has grown. The report also noted that U.S. regulators inspected fewer than 1 percent of foreign clinical trial sites.
Monitoring research is complicated, and rules that are too rigid could slow new drug development. But it’s often hard to get information on international trials, sometimes because of missing records and a paucity of audits, said Dr. Kevin Schulman, a Duke University professor of medicine who has written on the ethics of international studies.
These issues were still being debated when, last October, the Guatemala study came to light.
In the 1946-48 study, American scientists infected prisoners and patients in a mental hospital in Guatemala with syphilis, apparently to test whether penicillin could prevent some sexually transmitted disease.
The study came up with no useful information and was hidden for decades. Sponsored Links The Guatemala study nauseated ethicists on multiple levels. Beyond infecting patients with a terrible illness, it was clear that people in the study did not understand what was being done to them or were not able to give their consent. Indeed, though it happened at a time when scientists were quick to publish research that showed frank disinterest in the rights of study participants, this study was buried in file drawers.
“It was unusually unethical, even at the time,” said Stark, the Wesleyan researcher.
“When the president was briefed on the details of the Guatemalan episode, one of his first questions was whether this sort of thing could still happen today,” said Rick Weiss, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
That it occurred overseas was an opening for the Obama administration to have the bioethics panel seek a new evaluation of international medical studies. The president also asked the Institute of Medicine to further probe the Guatemala study, but the IOM relinquished the assignment in November, after reporting its own conflict of interest: In the 1940s, five members of one of the IOM’s sister organizations played prominent roles in federal syphilis research and had links to the Guatemala study.
So the bioethics commission gets both tasks.
To focus on federally funded international studies, the commission has formed an international panel of about a dozen experts in ethics, science and clinical research. Regarding the look at the Guatemala study, the commission has hired 15 staff investigators and is working with additional historians and other consulting experts.
The panel is to send a report to Obama by September. Any further steps would be up to the administration.
Some experts say that given such a tight deadline, it would be a surprise if the commission produced substantive new information about past studies. “They face a really tough challenge,” Caplan said.
Friday, April 4, 2014
The Scumbags from Vienna to London
The worst names in history include the following: Rene Descartes, Comte, Pavalo, William James, Wilhelm Wundt, B.F. Skinner, S. Freud, Comm. Thompson (Navy), L. Ron Hubbard, John B. Watson, Carl Jung and Timothy Leary.
Why are these people the worst people that ever lived? The short and simple answer is this: Eurocentricity is only exclusive to Europe, and not exclusive to any other region of the world including Africa, Asia, Asia Minor, and small islands that the British and French took and enslaved or exploited, and thus family and social norms are much different in European nations compared to Asian or nations within Asia Minor. The breakdown of the the European family occurs with extremely high frequencies and the breakdown of Asian and Asia Minor families rarely occurs since social and family values are focused on the importance of the family and the focus is not placed on only the individual, as this this the case in European nations and also in the U.S.
Since the breakdown of the family occurs so frequently in Europe and in the U.S., physicians and so called psychologists have attempted to create a remedy and a "counter balance" for this emotional breakdown that occurs in so many European and U.S. families, however this substitution for the lack of family togetherness for methods that only come from existential sources has never been an incomplete solution or a complete solution for this problem that European and American families have at the highest frequencies for any given sample population with normal population densities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)