In a secret program that is now admitted to be true, the United States government injected unknowing human ‘participants’ with highly toxic plutonium.
It sounds like a bizarre torture scenario that you’d expect to see blamed on illegal terror organizations, but the individuals behind this crime are actually doctors working for the United States government. Disregarding the health of innocent citizens, the government testers were eager to see how unknowing participants suffered as a result of secret plutonium injection.
It began in 1945, when an employee at the Oak Ridge Nuclear Facility was in a car accident. Ebb Cade survived, but was taken in as a human participant in a disturbing study he did not consent to.
Population should be forced to take experimental shots “for the greater good”
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Wednesday, January 18, 2012
An article published by the American Medical Association’s Virtual Mentor journal advocates making participation in vaccine trials mandatory, arguing that people should be forced to take experimental shots in a similar vein to how jury service is compulsory.
Concerned about the “distressing decline in the numbers of healthy volunteers who participate in clinical trials,” the piece argues that “Compulsory involvement in vaccine studies” should be considered for the “greater good of society.”
“Many societies already mandate that citizens undertake activities for the good of society; in several European countries registration for organ-donation has switched from “opt-in” (the current U.S. system) to “opt-out” systems (in which those who do not specifically register as nondonors are presumed to consent to donation) [10], and most societies expect citizens to undertake jury service when called upon. In these examples, the risks or inconvenience to an individual are usually limited and minor. Mandatory involvement in vaccine trials is therefore perhaps more akin to military conscription, a policy operating today in 66 countries. In both conscription and obligatory trial participation, individuals have little or no choice regarding involvement and face inherent risks over which they have no control, all for the greater good of society.”
Using the example of military conscription – the draft – to justify the idea of compulsory participation in vaccine trials, illustrates how the whole idea is completely rooted in authoritarian tendencies. The draft has its historical origins in slavery and has largely been abolished by developed nations.
And if you thought the use of the term “for the greater good of society” wasn’t downright creepy enough, the authors later propose tackling society’s reluctance to accept compulsory recruitment to vaccine trials by virtually advocating the arrival of a more deadly disease than swine flu in order to ensure “compulsory recruitment becomes a more palatable option.”
“Consider an infectious disease with a high transmission and mortality rate for which vaccine development were possible but limited by a shortage of volunteers willing to participate in clinical trials. Would mandatory participation in clinical trials then be an acceptable policy?” ask the authors, ruminating on how an “Increase (in) the severity of the disease in question,” would increase the likelihood of society accepting mandatory vaccine trials.
The authors conclude by bemoaning ethical considerations that would present a roadblock to the effort to force people to take experimental vaccines, proposing instead that a system of “mandated choice” be introduced to coerce people into agreeing to be given the shots.
Mandating that people take experimental vaccines is of course completely abhorrent, it violates the fundamental human right not to be forcibly medicated, and harks back to the dark days of eugenics, mandatory sterilizations, and episodes like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.
The very reason why less people are willing to volunteer for vaccine trials is the fact that vaccines, whether approved or experimental, have been responsible for deaths and injuries worldwide in increasing numbers. The United States, which administers the highest number of vaccines to babies, has the highest infant mortality rate out of all developed nations, a connection that is no coincidence according to a recent medical study published in a prestigious medical journal.
Indeed, earlier this month GlaxoSmithKline was fined $93,000 dollars for its role in an experimental vaccine program in Argentina that killed 14 babies between 2007 and 2008.
For this authoritarian premise to even be considered in the AMA’s ‘Journal of Ethics’ is shocking, but the increasing move towards making vaccines mandatory is a wider phenomenon.
Parents who try to remove their children from the ever-expanding list of “required” vaccine programs for school-age kids are being targeted by law enforcement. When Rachel Garmon told her doctor that she had taken the decision not to vaccinate her healthy 2 and a half year old son, she was subsequently visited by a Pennsylvania State Trooper who was tasked with investigating her “suspicious behavior,” despite the fact that Pennsylvania is one of the many states that allows vaccination exemptions on both religious and medical grounds.
The AMA article represents a shocking insight into the control freak tendencies of some of today’s most influential medical minds. Forcing people to take part in experimental vaccine trials that pose a serious risk to their health is totally contemptible and has no place in a free society.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
BHOPAL, India - Indian activists have reacted in anger after 12 doctors were fined just 5,000 rupees (S$122) each for conducting secret drug trials on children and patients with learning disabilities.
The Madhya Pradesh state government said the tests had not been cleared by health authorities, and it added that the doctors refused to disclose further details citing patient confidentiality laws.
Anand Rai, a doctor who acted as a whistle-blower over the case, told AFP on Tuesday he was angered and frustrated that the scale of the punishment would not deter future illegal trials.
"The Madhya Pradesh government has now slapped a nominal 5,000-rupee penalty on the 12 government doctors who were involved in the bizarre case," he said. "The penalty was for their failure to inform about the trials."
"All drug trials were performed on patients who had gone to these government hospitals for routine treatment. It's a criminal offence to put them under drug trials without their consent."
Ajay Singh, the leader of opposition in the Madhya Pradesh assembly, described the fine as "ridiculous".
The doctors, two of whom denied any wrong-doing to AFP, are alleged to have been paid by companies to conduct trials in the central city of Indore on drugs to treat sexual dysfunction and other problems.
Introduction by the Health Ranger: The United States claims to be the world leader in medicine. But there's a dark side to western medicine that few want to acknowledge: The horrifying medical experiments performed on impoverished people and their children all in the name of scientific progress. Many of these medical experiments were conducted on people without their knowledge, and most were conducted as part of an effort to seek profits from newly approved drugs or medical technologies.
Today, the medical experiments continue on the U.S. population and its children. From the mass drugging of children diagnosed with fictitious behavioral disorders invented by psychiatry to the FDA's approval of mass-marketed drugs that have undergone no legitimate clinical trials, our population is right now being subjected to medical experiments on a staggering scale. Today, nearly 50% of Americans are on a least one prescription drug, and nearly 20% of schoolchildren are on mind-altering amphetamines like Ritalin or antidepressants like Prozac. This mass medication of our nation is, in every way, a grand medical experiment taking place right now.
But to truly understand how this mass experimentation on modern Americans came into being, you have to take a close look at the horrifying history of conventional medicine's exploitation of people for cruel medical experiments.
WARNING: What you are about to read is truly shocking. You have never been told this information by the American Medical Association, nor drug companies, nor the evening news. You were never taught the truth about conventional medicine in public school, or even at any university. This is the dark secret of the U.S. system of medicine, and once you read the true accounts reported here, you may never trust drug companies again. These images are deeply disturbing. We print them here not as a form of entertainment, but as a stern warning against what might happen to us and our children if we do not rein in the horrifying, inhumane actions of Big Pharma and modern-day psychiatry.
Now, I introduce this shocking timeline, researched and authored by Dani Veracity, one of our many talented staff writers here at Truth Publishing.
Human experimentation -- that is, subjecting live human beings to science experiments that are sometimes cruel, sometimes painful, sometimes deadly and always a risk -- is a major part of U.S. history that you won't find in most history or science books. The United States is undoubtedly responsible for some of the most amazing scientific breakthroughs. These advancements, especially in the field of medicine, have changed the lives of billions of people around the world -- sometimes for the better, as in the case of finding a cure for malaria and other epidemic diseases, and sometimes for the worse (consider modern "psychiatry" and the drugging of schoolchildren).
However, these breakthroughs come with a hefty price tag: The human beings used in the experiments that made these advancements possible. Over the last two centuries, some of these test subjects have been compensated for the damage done to their emotional and physical health, but most have not. Many have lost their lives because of the experiments they often unwillingly and sometimes even unwittingly participated in, and they of course can never be compensated for losing their most precious possession of all: Their health.
As you read through these science experiments, you'll learn the stories of newborns injected with radioactive substances, mentally ill people placed in giant refrigerators, military personnel exposed to chemical weapons by the very government they served and mentally challenged children being purposely infected with hepatitis. These stories are facts, not fiction: Each account, no matter how horrifying, is backed up with a link or citation to a reputable source.
These stories must be heard because human experimentation is still going on today. The reasons behind the experiments may be different, but the usual human guinea pigs are still the same -- members of minority groups, the poor and the disadvantaged. These are the lives that were put on the line in the name of "scientific" medicine...[Full Article]
WASHINGTON (AFP) - At least 83 persons died in US medical experiments in Guatemala during the 1940s involving sexually transmitted diseases, a commission investigating the program concluded Tuesday.
Nearly 5,500 people were subjected to diagnostic testing, and more than 1,300 were exposed to venereal diseases by contact or inoculations, the commission found.
Within that group, "we believe that there were 83 deaths," said commission member Stephen Hauser.
Among the 1,300 exposed to STDs, "under 700 received some form of treatment as best as could be documented," Hauser added.
US President Barack Obama created the commission last year, after news of the experiments came to light...[Full Article]
(CNSNews.com) - The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), a division of the federal government’s National Institutes of Health (NIH), has spent $3,634,807 over the past decade funding research that involves getting monkeys to smoke and drink drugs such as PCP, methamphetamine (METH), heroin, and cocaine and then studying their behavior, including during different phases of the female monkeys’ menstrual cycles.
The study also uses “interventions” as “treatment models” for monkeys who have been taught to use drugs.
NIDA wins CNSNews.com's "What Were They Smoking Award"—symbolized by The Golden Hookah (see video)—for sponsoring an outrageous government spending program that sends taxpayer dollars up in smoke...[Full Article]
(NaturalNews) The highly controversial and potentially lethal anthrax vaccine may be tested on US children if the federal government gets its way. Although adverse event reports related to the vaccine among adult test subjects have included hospitalization, disability and even death, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is exploring the possibility of testing the vaccine on children.
Nicole Lurie, the assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the DHHS, recently requested that the National Biodefense Science Board submit an evaluation of safety issues related to testing the anthrax vaccine on children. The DHHS frames the possible testing as an issue of biodefense preparedness. However, the possibility of pediatric testing of the vaccine both ignores the vaccine's dangers, and raises the specter of class- and/or race-based selection of medical test subjects which has haunted US health agencies for over a century...[Full Article]
Henry Langlois was one of 38 soldiers who were told in 1955 that they were serving their country when they volunteered to inhale a biological agent that the government was testing.
A year later, inmates at the Ohio Penitentiary were told they were serving society when they volunteered to let researchers inject them with live cancer cells.
In the 1960s and 1970s, 15,000 Marines were told the same thing when Ohio State University scientists tested a pneumonia vaccine on them.
These and other government-funded experiments on military personnel, prisoners and mental patients are driving an investigation into the rules that are meant to protect people who volunteer for scientific studies...[Full Article]
ATLANTA -- 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.
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...[Full Article]
ATLANTA (AP) -- Experts say that the kind of unethical medical studies that occurred half a century ago could still happen again despite more than 1,000 rules and regulations that should prevent such abuses...[Full Article]
Pictures have emerged providing the shocking proof that U.S. government doctors once experimented on disabled American citizens 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.
Prison 'volunteers': In this 1966 picture, medical administrator Solomon McBride questions a clearly marked subject at Holmesburg Prison, Philadelphia. Questions have been rasied about whether inmates were coerced
The meeting was triggered by the government's apology last year 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 America - studies that often involved making healthy people sick.
A 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.
Captive guinea pigs: In 1945, army doctors exposed inmates to malaria-carrying mosquitoes in the malaria ward at Stateville Penitentiary in Crest Hill, Illinois. Prisoners were enlisted to help the war effort
It echoes the deadly and meritless experiments conducted on Jewish concentration camp detainees at the hands of Nazi doctors.
And it will undoubtedly be compared to the Tuskegee syphilis study, where 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.
Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics, said: 'When you give somebody a disease - even by the standards of their time - you really cross the key ethical norm of the profession.'
Most of the recently revealed studies, from the 1940s to the 1960s, 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.
Infect and observe: An army doctor watches as malaria-carrying mosquitoes bite the stomach of inmate Richard Knickerbockers, serving 10 to 14 years, in Stateville in 1945
Many prominent researchers felt it was legitimate to experiment on people who did not have full rights in society - people like prisoners, mental patients or the poor blacks.
Laura Stark, a Wesleyan University assistant professor of science in society - who is writing a book about past federal medical experiments - said: 'There was definitely a sense - that we don't have today - that sacrifice for the nation was important.'
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 victimised 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).
Survivor: Edward Anthony was experimented on while he was an inmate at Philadelphia's Holmesburg Prison. Shocking as it is today, doctors at the time did not find the experiments unethical
But studies using prisoners were uncommon in the first few decades of the 20th century, and were usually performed by researchers considered eccentric even by the standards of the day.
One was Dr LL 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.
One long-winded but otherwise cheery 1919 report in the Washington Post began: '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.'
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. One was a series of malaria studies at Stateville Penitentiary in Illinois 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 'unholy 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 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.
He spoke of his reaction to the experiment, saying: 'I said "Oh my God, my back is on fire! Take this ... off me".'
Mr Anthony recalled the beginning of weeks of intense itching and agonising 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.
Criminal experiments: Experiments by Dr Josef Mengele (second left) and others like him were internationally condemned as war crimes for their lack of merit
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.
Despite modern-day outrage, it has not stopped Tuskegee-style experiments continuing.
American-funded doctors in Uganda failed to give the Aids drug AZT to HIV-infected pregnant women, 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, 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.
The issue of American-led foreign studies was 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.
SHOCKING CATALOGUE OF MEDICAL STUDIES BY AMERICA... ON AMERICA
The AP review of past research found:
1) A federally funded study begun in 1942 injected experimental flu vaccine in male patients at a state insane asylum in Ypsilanti, Michigan, 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.
2) In federally funded studies in the 1940s, noted researcher Dr W Paul Havens Jnr exposed men to hepatitis in a series of experiments, including one using patients from mental institutions in Middletown and Norwich, Connecticut.
Dr Havens, a World Health Organization expert on viral diseases, was one of the first scientists to differentiate types of hepatitis and their causes.
3) Researchers in the mid-1940s studied the transmission of a deadly stomach bug by having young men swallow unfiltered faecal matter. 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 through ingestion. The study doesn't explain if the men were rewarded for this awful task.
4) 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 labour. Then 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.
5) 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.
6) Government researchers in the 1950s tried to infect about two dozen volunteering prison inmates with gonorrhoea using two different methods in an experiment at a federal prison in Atlanta. But the researchers noted their methods weren't comparable to how men normally got infected - by having sex with an infected partner. Too late for the men they had already infected.
The astounding revelation that U.S. medical researchers intentionally gave Guatemalans gonorrhea and syphilis more than 60 years ago is so horrifying that we want to believe that what happened then could never happen today. We want to believe that doctors are treating the poor, vulnerable and those outside the U.S. with more care and respect.
But are they? Have we really learned what we should have from the travesty of past medical experiments?
In recent years, there has been a steady shift of clinical research from testing in the U.S. and other developed nations to the developing world. A report from the United States Department of Health and Human Services noted that roughly 80 percent of drug approvals in 2008 were based in part on data from outside the U.S. Eight percent of drugs approved for use in the U.S. were only tested using subjects in foreign nations.
As more testing is outsourced to other nations, there is a very real moral worry that we are still exploiting the poor to serve as guinea pigs so we can improve our medical care.
As we keep learning, it has happened too many times in the past...
