"Dr. Mary's Monkey"

[Peter Lemkin]

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...ond+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

There was quite a bit of study of the use of LSD [and similar substances] in combination with hypnosis. I believe it was found that the combination was very powerful. There is also a well-known effect in psychology/psychiatry called drug-dependant learning. When one learns something [trains neural pathways] while under the effects of almost any pychotropic drug; they are most easily recalled when again under the effects of that same drug - in some cases, the memory can ONLY be recalled under the effects of that same drug. This is true even for caffeine or amphetamines. So, if one studies for an exam under its influence, you will do better on the exam if one is also again under its influence. With mind-control cases such as Sirhan Sirhan I'd imagine it was a combination of drug-dependant learning AND hypnotic suggestion / memory replacement. Unlocking such a complex 'lock' would take someone who is an excellent 'locksmith' and knows the kind of tricks the black operatives used.

[Jan Klimkowski]

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

Adele - agreed, with caveats.

Earlier in this thread, I posted the phrase from Pynchon's masterpiece, Gravity's Rainbow:

a good rocket to take us to the stars, an evil rocket for the World's suicide, the two perpetually in struggle...

The Rocket has many potential uses. The scientists developing rocket technology cannot necessarily determine how The Rocket will be used.

However, they can make a moral choice that, in their judgement, the potential destructive use of a scientific development outweighs its potential beneficial uses, and thus choose not to contrbute to the process of scientific development. Some physicists made such a choice in the context of the atomic bomb.

Fundamentally, though, the manner in which scientific research is conducted is absolutely a moral matter.

Rocket scientists in Nazi Germany used slave and concentration camp labourers at research sites such as Peenemunde. This was criminal and immoral.

Similarly, I have made films exposing Big Pharma's use of "human guinea pigs" in developing countries in Phase III clinical trials of new drugs. These poverty ridden test subjects were exposed to an experimental drug without meaningful clinical oversight or medical support. In one of the trials some women died and others went blind. This information was then left out of the papers published in clinical journals, designed to give the new drug the all-clear for use across the world.

The conduct of these scientific experiments was criminal and immoral. In addition, science was not advanced because negative side effects (death and blindness) were not reported in the official reports of the trials.

So, to LSD.

It is clear that in the 1940s and 50s intelligence agencies across the world were using scientists to identify and develop truth serums. LSD was originally researched in this context.

If Gordon Thomas' memo to Eric Olson (posted above) is considered credible, and I do consider it credible, then it is likely that many of those early LSD interrogations were conducted on - to use Thomas' phrase - "expendable SS" types.

The doctors involved in those experimental truth serum interrogations which had ended in the death of the subject would have known that this was terminal human experimentation. They would have had to form a judgement was to whether the attempt to develop a truth serum for use in interrogation justified the death of a human being.

In my judgement, this was an immoral act.

It is clear that most of the "MK-ULTRA" (in the broad sense) scientific leaders made a different moral judgement, and considered terminal experimentation acceptable.

Frank Olson appears to have disagreed, and considered it immoral.

Frank Olson was therefore "suicided".

[Jan Klimkowski]

....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.

See my post #88 here on Hubertus Strughold.

Strughold and fellow Nazi scientists conducted terminal experiments where prisoners were exposed to extreme temperate and altitude, to test the absolute limits of human physiology.

Footage of some of those Nazi experiments survived.

In principle, the use of this "scientific data" is banned.

In reality, the Nazi Strughold was Paperclipped to the US where he became "the father of space medicine", and a key part of the NASA project.

Ultimately, the testing of human survival limits when exposed to extreme temperature or altitude does create new scientific knowledge, if the experiment is conducted within a framework of the Scientific Method.

As such it is Science.

It is a scientific experiment that many scientists would like to perform because it will increase the sum of scientific knowledge.

However, it would be both immoral and illegal to perform such experimentation.

Laws are routinely flouted by the military-industrial-intelligence complex.

So, leaving the law out of it, such scientific experimentation would also be completely immoral because there can be no informed consent to being killed in a medical experiment.

[Magda Hassan]

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.

[Adele Edisen]

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...tails.html

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

Adele

For those interested, from this morning's NY Times, front page:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/health...012&st=cse

Adele

[Adele Edisen]

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.

And this is the very crux of the problem, as Jan and Magda point out. Can clinical researchers, for example, predict the outcome of drug tests when a participant individual's biochemistry and physiological factors are mostly unknown? If they had this complete knowledge, they could, perhaps safely test new drugs on a given group and determine side effects and toxicity, without life-threatening harm. This why prior extensive animal testing must be done.

Does anyone here know that the first piece of legislation passed by the German Reichstag after Adolf Hitler and his party were ELECTED into power was a law forbidding the use of animals in biomedical research? Scientists all over the world condemned this law. Dr. Anton J. Carlson, "Father of American Physioloigists" vigorously fought against it and against Animal Rightists here in the United States.

Adele

[Jan Klimkowski]

I don't see any particular distinction between "mainstream science" and "military science", other than opportunity.

As I posted above, the scientfic leaders of "MK-ULTRA" and related programmes were all world leaders in their scientific fields:

Cameron was the first chairman of the World Psychiatric Association

West was head of department and director of the Neuropsychiatry Institute at UCLA.

Heath founded the Department of Psychiatry and Neurology at Tulane.

Rhodes Scholar Estabrooks was chairman of the Department of Psychology at Colgate University.

Orne was emeritus professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Harlow president of the American Psychological Association from 1958-1959.

Strughold was the "father of space medicine", and a tenured professor.

These scientists believed they could mould human behaviour ("behaviour modification") and determine the extremes of human endurance (altitude and temperate experimentation).

To test their hypotheses, they needed human guinea pigs. The military-industrial-intelligence complex provided the human test subjects, the funding, and the secrecy needed to perform science without ethical constraint.

When these human test subjects died, the military-industrial-intelligence-complex also provided the undertakers and suppressed the "negative data".

The same situation applies with the development of new drugs by Big Pharma. Testing on animals often proves very litte.

Big Pharma needs human guinea pigs, and if the human clinical trials may result in death or maiming, such experimentation is often conducted in the world's poorest countries: human laboratories such as Haiti, Indonesia, Panama and Bangladesh.

[Seamus Coogan]

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]

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

[Peter Lemkin]

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

Yes, interesting, that there are some cancers only caused by a virus and some others that seem [in part/mostly/entirely ?] are triggered by viral DNA incorporated into ours. Other factors in the immune system are at play, but too complex and not relevant to the thread enough to go into.

While this is interesting on the evolutionary level, and for medical cures of cancer, it also can be [and apparently has been] used for the creation [sometimes by error; sometimes by DESIGN] of oncoweapons! [An Oncoweapon would be a cancer-causing weapon]