From jad@ckuxb.att.com Tue Dec 15 15:57:56 1992 Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2) id AA10853; Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:57:53 -0500 Message-Id: <9212152057.AA10853@css.itd.umich.edu> From: jad@ckuxb.att.com Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:52 EST To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu Status: RO X-Status: Article 18066 of alt.conspiracy: Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,misc.activism.progressive Path: cbnewsl!att-out!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich From: jad@Turing.ORG (John DiNardo) Subject: Part VI, NAZI DOCTORS Directed by Government, Medicine and Academia Message-ID: <1992Dec10.203903.8631@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Followup-To: alt.conspiracy Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu Keywords: Nazi doctors directed by Government, Medicine and Academia Sender: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 20:39:03 GMT Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu Lines: 148 I made the following transcript from a tape recording of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station WBAI-FM (99.5) 505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl. New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (continuation) GARY NULL: The importance of follow-up is evident by a statement made the ERDA, in which it was noted that: (quote) "There is a need for continued medical surveillance of prisoners involved in both sets of experiments. Among the health effects that should be monitored is the possibility of testicular cancer occurring after a long latentcy period of twenty to thirty years." (unquote) But this follow-up never happened. Another method used to determine the effects of radiation was the release of radioactive gas into the environment. This type of experiment has been funded by the Atomic Energy Commission which INTENTIONALLY released radioactive iodine over a LARGE area designated as (quote) "hot pastures" (unquote). They did this on -- at least we know, up to this point -- SEVEN separate occassions; and just from one facility. And also, what they never told people was that human subjects were PURPOSELY exposed during three of these releases. The experiments were designed to trace radioactive iodine as it moved through the air and vegetation and the cow and the milk sequence of the human food-chain. Researchers felt that they wanted this information so that they could develop better "siting criteria". That means, where to locate a nuclear plant when building nuclear reactors. Monitors in the "pasture" determined when and how much of the radioactive iodine was deposited. A herd of cows was then led into the pasture to graze for several days. The cows were then milked and the milk was monitored for radioactive iodine. Perfectly healthy humans were PURPOSELY exposed by being given the milk to drink. And at one point, three people were placed in the pasture during the iodine release, even though radioactive iodine is known to be toxic. There was no medical follow-up, of any type, on those people. This again indicates to me that the purported objective of the experiment had little or nothing to do with the real purpose, about which we can only conjecture. This conclusion is borne out by the disregard for human safety and health apparent in the locating of nuclear reactors in densely populated areas. When reaactors are "sited" in less-populated areas, it is usually because of strong, organized community opposition, and not because of the Government's concern for public safety -- or because of experiments used to deteremine proper "siting" criteria. Now, while we're able to track down the names of the persons involved in almost all of the experiments documented in today's report .... because I've tracked them down for a year-and-a-half, and I have been reaching people at all levels, although it's not easy. But I will tell you about one person I spoke to: a professor of biology at a Texas university. At the time of the experiments, he was a young research biologist working for an organization funded by the Atomic Energy Commission. He told me -- and I have it on tape, and witnessed .... He affirms that serious ethical considerations were continuously raised about the nature of the experiments. He said -- and I am quoting him from my interview with him: (quote) "I attended several meetings where informed consent was a big issue. Supposedly, if you informed these people of what was happening to them, that made everything okay. I don't want anyone to think that ethics was not considered. But it happened that there were some people in the Atomic Energy Commission who thought that this was an important piece of work to do. And they thought that they had developed an avenue to do it. And they did it." (unquote) He said that he was told to work primarily on the tissue samples that he received from the experiments, and he admits that that may have been one of the reasons he left his job. [JD: Some scientific and medical researchers may twinge at this.] (quote) "I wasn't too happy doing that -- obviously, for ethical reasons. I raised ethical questions. In fact, I really didn't care to do the work myself. But, you understand? .... somebody tells you to go in and do something -- if you want to get a pay check, you go ahead and do it. I still feel uncomfortable that I did it. At the time, I got wrapped up. I was a young Ph.D. and I had my first job, and I didn't want to lose it. (unquote) He and other scientists who dare to question the ethics of their superiors are exceptions to the general rule of unconditional compliance that allows studies such as these to take place. Today, experiments like that would ethically create problems if they were publicly known. You have to get informed consent today. Has science suddenly become ethical? Ha! Hardly. Are researchers more concerned with the welfare of the Public than they were ten, twenty years ago? A recent PBS broadcast entitled "The Pentagon and the Professor" revealed that Pentagon spending for university research has increased by more than fifty percent in the past five years. Today, the Defense Department provides more than three quarters of ALL research funding available to universities. This militarization of science raises serious questions as to the independence of research at the recipient universities. This association between academia and the Pentagon is not new. It started with the Manhattan Project, and by the 1950s it was established as a fact. Many professors voiced concern that the ever increasing presence of the Government or special industries that, in effect, CONTROL the Department of Defense and other governmental agencies, are on American campuses, and it is resulting in a form of faustian bargaining. Not only do the universities need the money, but aspiring Ph.D.s need to conduct research in order to become full professors. And for their research they need grants. While the Pentagon insists that it is merely funding basic research, one professor I interviewed said: (quote) "Why is the Department of Defense funding these projects? Out of the goodness of its heart? It has a purpose in mind." (unquote) (to be continued) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * If you agree that this information is vital to the defense and the preservation of our free society, please help to disseminate it by posting it to other bulletin boards and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus. John DiNardo If we seriously listen to this "God within us" ["conscience", if you will], we usually find ourselves being urged to take the more difficult path, the path of more effort rather than less. .... Each and every one of us, more or less frequently, will hold back from this work. .... Like every one of our ancestors before us, we are all lazy. So original sin does exist; it is our laziness. M. Scott Peck THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED