Adele Edisen Wrote:

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Peter - I've been rereading sections of Acid Dreams as well.

The known record strongly suggests that the early LSD experiments were on subjects who could be monitored closely, and that LSD was being investigated as a truth serum. This is what is meant by the phrase "a more reliable speech-inducing substance" in the excerpt you include.

As per my posts above, the early LSD experiments were not designed to identify an incapacitant.

Interrogation of, to use Gordon Thomas's phrase, "expendable SS" POWs fits within the framework of human experimentation without ethical constraint. However, this was still science, albeit from the same stable as Strughold's terminal altitude and hypothermia experiments.

It was science without ethical constraint.

If Pont St Esprit was a Bluebird or Artichoke experiment, then it was not science in any sense.

It was simply an act of total recklessness, with no realistic prospect of any scientific knowledge being learnt.

Jan,

I agree with you. It was not an ethical or moral or humanitarian use of knowledge at Pont-St.-Esprit.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+Beyond+Within#/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+Beyond+Within&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3AThe+Beyond+Within

It would have been known quite early in investigations on LSD that when given the drug, recipients would sit quietly without moving very much because they would be "watching" the movie in their minds, the visual images being created and flying thoughts. So, they were incapacitated in most cases because their attention would be distracted by LSD effects.

And, yes, LSD could have been used as a "truth serum" because it makes the recipient very suggestible to hypnotically presented statements. So a criminal could confess to a crime very easily.

Click on URL above, in reference to a book by Sidney Cohen, THE BEYOND WITHIN, 268 pages, Antheneum Press, 1965. Cohen discusses the use of LSD in hypnotic suggestions.
There were reports in the medical literature of the use of LSD as a hypnotic agent before 1960, but very little had been revealed publicly in the earlier years..

We all know of the work done by a hypnotist at Harvard (?) who succeeded in unlocking the memory of Sirhan Sirhan, alleged RFK assassin, whose memory of events in 1968 had apparently been blocked by a hypnotist who substituted a memory of being at target practice instead of where he really was, in the Hotel Ambassador kitchen. Although many hypnotists had tried, Sirhan Sirhan had remembered nothing of being in the kitchen at the time RFK was killed, nor of being at target practice. Was LSD, or something similar, used on Sirhan Sirhan in 2011 to reveal his thoughts at the time RFK was killed, 43 years later? I have not seen anything on this matter.

Adele

Adele Edisen Wrote:The Scientific Method is a way by which knowledge may be gained by experimentation or observation, using inductive and deductive reasoning to develop hypotheses and then theories, and after that, laws (such as the Law of Thermodynamics) which are universally applicable. It does not necessarily have to be morally or ethically correct, but simply truthful. In that sense, Science is without morality; it is not moral nor immoral, but is AMORAL (without morality). What is scientifically true is true everywhere, in the US, UK, Canada, France, South America, Asia, Africa, Australia, Artica, Anartica, on the oceans and waterways, in the atmosphere, outer space, under identical conditions. Cultural, political, economic, social, religious, and other attitudes determine the usefulness or non-usefulness of scientific work as ethical or moral in human society.

The word "science" is derived from sciencia which means knowledge.

Adele

Magda Hassan Wrote:

Peter Lemkin Wrote:....Reading what you said above reminded me that once when I was researching some scientific literature I found a debate in that literature whether it was ethical to publish the work the Nazi 'scientists and doctors' did on concentration camp victims. In fact, most of it has made its way into the current literature [often not by the original 'experimenter' - although at times by them, especially when rehabilitated through Paperclip and similar], as it is considered so important scientifically/medically - this despite the ethics involved [actually the total lack of ethics!] .... As mentioned above much of the Nazi experimentation is still used - though it has been 'laundered' so to speak. Personally, I think it is unethical to publish such results - as unethical as the original 'experiments', but I'm obviously in a minority in the scientific world - or part of an unempowered majority.

I thought there was an international agreement or perhaps it was the professional bodies that decided that the findings and body of work of the Nazi and Japanese human experiments were not to be used in any future research? I am fairly certain that such a quaint idea has been abandoned in more recent time since 911 say but that was my understanding.

Adele Edisen Wrote:Here's a scientific and ethical questtion from current news:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2077232/Scientist-deliberately-created-Armageddon-bird-flu-virus-lab-says-publish-details.html

Should the method of creation of this deadly virus have been published?

Adele

Magda Hassan Wrote:Yes, I was referring to, I suppose, for lack of a better word, to main stream science. The military are a law unto themselves and in fact it was the military behind the Nazi and Japanese experiment as it was with Paperclip.

Seamus Coogan Wrote:I also like Ed he's a good guy but he lost a lot of cred when he teamed up with JVB IMO. Her book he edited is awful.

Adele Edisen Wrote:

Seamus Coogan Wrote:I also like Ed he's a good guy but he lost a lot of cred when he teamed up with JVB IMO. Her book he edited is awful.

Seamus,

Ed Haslam's first two editions of his work were self-published during the 1990s. These made no mention of Judyth Vary Baker at all. His initial investigations into the death of Dr. Mary Sherman were important. In addition, his examination of the relationship between the polio vaccines of Dr. Salk and Dr. Sabin, which were contaminated by a highly carcinogenic monkey virus, Simian Virus 40, because the vaccines required growing the polio virus in cultures of monkey kidney tissues, thus resulting in soft tissue cancer growths in animals and humans, and that became a major breakthrough in understanding the role of viruses in cancer research. This role was acknowledged some decades later by the National Insitutes of Health. At the time that the polio vaccines were being made, in the 1950s, viral causes of cancer tumor growth was not generally accepted in the United States, despite the fact that such had been studied and proven by Dr. Peyton Rous at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in New York City in the early 1900s. In the following years, work on many types of cancers did not seem to prove that every cancer was caused by a viral agent. At a 1955 International Cancer Conference held in Chile, Russian researches presented their work on viral causes of cancer and were booed by American scientists and medical specialists in attendance.

One of the sad "benefits" of the Cold War was ignorance. However, in current biological thinking it has been proposed that millions of years in the past during the earliest years of human evolution, humans were infected by an oncogenic (oncogenic = cancer-causing) virus which incorporated itself into our DNA, so that every time a new DNA molecule was duplicated, as in human reproduction, the attached oncogenic viral DNA also was duplicated, In other words, we all carry this genetic material with us. Whether this oncogenic virus can be activated, depends on exposure or lack of exposure to chemical and physical activators, whatever these might be. For example, benzene the chemical, is carcinogenic to humans, and exposure to this substance should be very limited in industrial work. Ultraviolet radiation from the sun may cause skin cancers through this mechanism.

Dr. Peyton Rous was awarded the Nobel Prize for his viral causation of cancer growth discovery in 1966, which he well deserved.

Ed believed JVB. He may have found a way to get his own book published in hardcover form after someone told him that he needed a "witness" and she provided that(?) I still do not understand why he felt he required a "witness", as his original work stood well on its own feet.

Adele