A hairy, "evil-looking" creature with claws has washed ashore on a NSW beach and animal experts are unsure as to what it could be.

Surfers found the 60cm-long, dark-coloured animal on Little Diggers Beach at Coffs Harbour in September this year but a photographs of it have only emerged today, the Coffs Coast Advocate reports.

The image, taken by surfer Peter Atkinson, was published in the newspaper, sparking theories that the animal could be a monkey or a South American sloth.

But vets and senior curators at Sydney's Taronga Zoo say the decomposing animal is likely to be a brush-tailed possum because of its bushy tail.

PHOTOS: Weird and unexplained creatures

One of the women with Mr Atkinson said she did not believe the animal was a possum and described its appearance as "grotesque", "sloth-like" and "evil-looking".

"It was bizarre — it wasn't anything like I had seen ... it was a little stiff so it was obviously about 24 hours old," Lynn Sunderland told ninemsn.

"It was definitely an animal that didn't have hair at all on its face — it was not a possum."

Mrs Sunderland said she thought the animal may have been a monkey that had fallen off a passing ship and drowned before washing ashore.

She rejected claims the photograph was a fake saying the beach where the animal was found is difficult to get to.

"This was real — it wasn't made up at all, it was an actual animal ... it was some beasty thing," she said.
The group called a park ranger after finding the animal but it was washed back out to sea before he arrived.

Mrs Sunderland said she didn't touch the animal because she feared it may have had rabies or another exotic disease.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service said the animal was most likely local and was washed out to sea during recent heavy rains.

The discovery has drawn comparisons to the "Montauk Monster" — a hairless, dead creature that washed ashore on a beach in New York in July 2008.

Experts said the monster may have been a raccoon, based on dental patterns. ??????

what is the truth behind all this mess ?? what is going on ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwhdaW4wPeQ this is a link to the montauck monster is all this a hoax or something i say its realy creapy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPZpHGKWNOU&NR=1&feature=fvwp wtf is going on http://animal.discovery.com/videos/2008-the-year-in-animals-no-4-montauk-monster.html this might be some info behind all this crap i dont know what is going on behind the story but i intend to find out !!! (CREAPY)

'Montauk Monster' Mystery Gets More Mysterious

Friday, August 01, 2008

By Paul Wagenseil

Cryptomundo.com

The world's ugliest kidnapping, or perhaps dognapping, victim.

No, Lizzie Grubman's still alive. This is an actual monster, some sort of rodent-like creature with a dinosaur beak. A tipster says that there is "a government animal testing facility very close by in Long Island," but unless the government is trying to design horrible Montauk monsters that will eat IEDs and fart fire at bad Iraqis, we're not sure why they would create such an unthinkable beast. Our guess is that it's viral marketing for something. Ali Lohan's new album perhaps. Click thru for larger dino-damage.

Locals in a small Canadian town have been stumped by the appearance of a bizarre creature, which was dragged from a lake.
The animal, which has a long hairy body with bald skin on its head, feet and face, has prompted wild internet speculation that it is a more evolved version of the famous 'Montauk monster'. Original story
The creature was discovered by two nurses in the town of Kitchenuhmaykoosib in Ontario, Canada, while out on a walk with their dog.

President was invited to meet aliens on earth

When the dog began sniffing in the lake, the two women started investigating, before the dog pulled the dead animal out.
After taking some photographs of the odd animal, the nurses left it alone. When locals decided to go back and retrieve the body, it has disappeared.
The photographs have now been posted on a local website, with an explanation which reads: 'This creature was first discovered by Sam the Dog, a local dog.
'It was discovered first week of May in the creek section of town, hikers noticed Sam sniffing something in the water and they approached to see in what the Sam had detected and they noticed the creature in the water face down.
'The dog jumped in the lake and pulled the creature to the rocks and dragged it out for the hikers to see and these are the photos they took.
'The creature's tail is like a rat's tail and it is a foot long.'
There has been much speculation about what kind of species the animal is.
The body of the creature appears to look something like an otter, while its face - complete with long fang-like teeth, bears a striking resemblance to a boar-like animal.
Even the local police chief Donny Morris is baffled, saying: 'What it is, I don't know. I'm just as curious as everyone else.'
The pictures of the animal have caused mass speculation online, from bloggers who are all stumped as to what the creature could be.
One internet blogger wrote: 'That certainly is a face only a mother can love. It looks like some sort of otter, weasel-type thing.'
While another added: 'Some kind of mustelid - I thought otter first.
'Being in the water and bashed around has made the fur on the face and tail come off so clean like that.'
Many people have suggested the animal could be a new 'Montauk monster' - due to the similarities between these photographs and those of a different creature which washed up in Montauk, New York, in 2008.
The animal, which quickly earned the nickname the 'Montauk monster', thanks to the beach's location to a Long Island government animal testing facility, has never been officially identified - although the general consensus is that it was some kind of racoon.
However, other bloggers have speculated that the new creature discovered is a type of chupacabra, or 'goatsucker'.
The chupacabra is rumoured to inhabit parts of the U.S. , with many several hundred eyewitness accounts over the past few years.
But despite these sightings, the majority of biologists and wildlife experts believe the chupacabra is a contemporary legend.

24 comments on this story

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/montauk.asp

New Montauk Monster sighting? Bizarre creature washes up in small Ontario town

By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 10:39 AM on 21st May 2010

Locals in a small Canadian town have been stumped by the appearance of a bizarre creature, which was dragged from a lake.
The animal, which has a long hairy body with bald skin on its head, feet and face, has prompted wild internet speculation that it is a more evolved version of the famous 'Montauk monster'.
The creature was discovered by two nurses in the town of Kitchenuhmaykoosib in Ontario, Canada, while out on a walk with their dog.

The animal, which has a long hairy body with bald skin on its head, feet and face, has prompted wild internet speculation that it is a more evolved version of the famous 'Montauk monster'

The creature was discovered by two nurses in the town of Kitchenuhmaykoosib in Ontario, Canada, while out on a walk with their dog

'The dog jumped in the lake and pulled the creature to the rocks and dragged it out for the hikers to see and these are the photos they took.
'The creature's tail is like a rat's tail and it is a foot long.'
There has been much speculation about what kind of species the animal is.
The body of the creature appears to look something like an otter, while its face - complete with long fang-like teeth, bears a striking resemblance to a boar-like animal.
Even the local police chief Donny Morris is baffled, saying: 'What it is, I don't know. I'm just as curious as everyone else.'
The pictures of the animal have caused mass speculation online, from bloggers who are all stumped as to what the creature could be.
One internet blogger wrote: 'That certainly is a face only a mother can love. It looks like some sort of otter, weasel-type thing.'
While another added: 'Some kind of mustelid - I thought otter first.
'Being in the water and bashed around has made the fur on the face and tail come off so clean like that.'
Many people have suggested the animal could be a new 'Montauk monster' - due to the similarities between these photographs and those of a different creature which washed up in Montauk, New York, in 2008.
The animal, which quickly earned the nickname the 'Montauk monster', thanks to the beach's location to a Long Island government animal testing facility, has never been officially identified - although the general consensus is that it was some kind of racoon.
However, other bloggers have speculated that the new creature discovered is a type of chupacabra, or 'goatsucker'.
The chupacabra is rumoured to inhabit parts of the U.S. , with many several hundred eyewitness accounts over the past few years.
But despite these sightings, the majority of biologists and wildlife experts believe the chupacabra is a contemporary legend.

you tell me what you think is going on ?? ill be happy to here what you all think :)

There is probably no drug used to treat illness that does not also pose certain risks. One such risk, generally limited to drugs that have actions on the central nervous system, is that the drug will be misused or abused because of these effects. Drugs such as these are said to have abuse potential or abuse liability. If the drugs have important therapeutic use, they may still be made available, but they will be subject to certain legal controls under various federal and state laws (see CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT). Over the past fifty years, a number of methods have been developed to test new drugs to determine their abuse liability, so that both the public and the medical profession can be warned about the need for appropriate caution when using certain drugs. These methods involve both testing in animals (preclinical) and testing in humans (clinical).
Several important reasons exist for why testing with humans is useful and necessary in the development of safer and more effective pharmacological agents. The research on laboratory animals demonstrating greater or lesser degrees of the abuse liability of drugs must be validated with humans; this reduces the likelihood of error in assessing potential risks. Moreover, certain self-reported changes associated with the subjective effects of medicinal drugs can be more readily evaluated in the humans for whom they were developed. Human clinical studies are also important in determining appropriate dose levels and dosage forms to ensure safety and efficacy while minimizing unwanted side effects. Finally, comprehensive and effective testing with humans helps to reduce the availability of abusable drugs to those who are likely to misuse them and to provide for the legitimate medical and scientific needs for such pharmacological agents.

HUMAN VOLUNTEER SELECTION

One of the most important factors in drug-abuse-liability testing with humans is the way the volunteer subjects are chosen to participate in the assessment procedures. In most studies, the human volunteer subjects are experienced drug users, but wide variations exist in the nature and extent of their drug use and abuse. Some studies, for example, use students and other volunteers whose misuse and abuse of drugs has been mostly "recreational"; other studies involve people with histories of more intensive drug use and abuse over extended periods. Also, the settings in which the tests are conducted vary widely, from residential laboratory environments, where the subjects live for several days or weeks at a time, to laboratories, where the subjects do not remain in residence but continue their daily routine after drug ingestion. Variations also occur in the age of the subjects tested and the time of day that the drug is administered. Often subjects have been selected for certain human drug-abuse-liability tests on the basis of some special features (e.g., anxiety levels, level of alcohol consumption) to determine the extent to which such factors influence the outcome of the tests.
Convincing evidence now exists that many of these factors—particularly the prior experience of the subject with respect to drug and alcohol use and misuse—play an important role in the assessment of abuse liability. The obvious value in using such subjects lies in the fact that these individuals are similar to those most likely to abuse drugs with abuse liability—for example, drug abusers who help determine whether a new drug has a greater or lesser chance for abuse than the one they already know. It is also important to carry out abuse-liability testing with people who, for example, do not usually abuse drugs but are light social drinkers—to assess the likelihood of abuse of certain generally available medications, such as sleeping pills or appetite suppressants.

DRUG COMBINATIONS

The prediction of a drug's abuse liability, based on a wide variety of testing procedures with humans, is further complicated by the fact that drugs of abuse are often used in combination and simultaneously with other pharmacological agents. This creates some very difficult problems for the testing of abuse liability, because of the large number of possible drug combinations that need to be tested and their unknown, potentially toxic, effects. While it has long been known that drugs such as COCAINE and HEROIN or MARIJUANA and ALCOHOL are used simultaneously by drug abusers, few testing procedures have been developed for assessing their interactions. Even more puzzling is that some drugs with opposite effects (e.g., stimulants like the AMPHETAMINES and depressants like the BARBITURATES) are known to be used simultaneously by POLYDRUG ABUSERS, suggesting that unique subjective-effect changes may be important factors in such abuse patterns.

PRINCIPLES OF ABUSE-LIABILITY TESTING

Based on extensive research undertaken over the past several decades, some important general principles governing abuse-liability testing with humans have been established. In the first instance, for example, a meaningful assessment requires that the test drug be compared with a drug of known abuse liability to provide a standard for evaluation. Second, the assessment procedure must involve the indicated comparison over a range of doses of both the test drug and the standard drug of abuse. This permits both a quantitative and a qualitative comparison of the drugs, while guarding against the possibility of overlooking some unique high- or low-dose effects. Third, the testing procedures should include measures of drug effects in addition to those like drug taking in the lab, which directly predict the likelihood of abuse. With these additional measures, it is often possible to obtain reliable estimates of abuse liability by comparing test drugs with a drug of abuse across a range of effects as a standard for evaluation. Fourth, confidence in conclusions regarding the abuse liability of a drug compound can be enhanced by utilizing a multiplicity of measures and experimental procedures. This is the case because our present level of knowledge in this area does not permit a firm determination of the best or most valid predictor of the likelihood of abuse. Finally, a population of test subjects with histories of drug use appears to be the most appropriate selection for predicting the likelihood of abuse of a new test drug, since this is the population who might use such a drug in that way.

DEVELOPMENT OF ABUSE-LIABILITY TESTING PROCEDURES

The origins of assessing drug-abuse liability with humans can be found in some of the earliest writings of civilization, describing the subjective effects of naturally occurring substances, such as wine. Since the mid-nineteenth century, literary accounts of the use and misuse of opium, marijuana, and cocaine, among other substances, have emphasized their mood-altering effects and their potential for abuse. Only in recent years, however, have systematic methods for measuring such subjective effects been refined through the use of standardized questionnaires. Volunteers who are experienced drug users complete the questionnaires after they have taken a drug; their answers to the subjective-effects questions—how they feel, their likes and dislikes—readily distinguish between the various drugs and doses, as well as between drug presence or absence (i.e., placebo).
This basic subjective-effects methodology has been further refined in recent years by using a training procedure to ensure that the human volunteer can differentiate a given drug (e.g., morphine) from a placebo (i.e., nondrug). Then new drugs are tested to evaluate their similarity to the trained reference drug of abuse. This behavioral drug discrimination method permits the volunteer to compare a wide range of subjective and objective effects of abused drugs with those of new drugs. These highly reliable procedures have proven very useful in identifying drugs that may have abuse liability.
Among the most important factors in assessing abuse liability is the determination of whether humans will take the drug when it is offered to them and whether such drug taking is injurious to the individual or society. These cardinal signs of drug abuse have provided an important focus for laboratory animal self-injection experiments, but systematic studies in which humans self-administer drugs of abuse have been less common. Methods have been developed with humans, however, for comparing the behavioral and physiological changes produced by self-administration of a known drug of abuse with the changes produced by other self-administered drugs.
The measure that has proven most useful in this approach to human drug-abuse-liability assessment is the ability of a drug to reinforce and maintain self-administration behaviors much like the behaviors used to obtain food and water. Such reinforcing effects of drugs are an important determinant influencing the likelihood that a particular drug will be abused. Laboratory studies with volunteers who are experienced drug users, for example, have shown that they will perform bicycle-riding exercises to obtain doses of abused drugs (e.g., pentobarbital). There is a systematic relationship between the amount of exercise performed and the amount of drug available (i.e., higher doses and shorter intervals between doses produce more exercise behavior than lower doses and longer interdose intervals). When a placebo or a drug that is not abused (e.g., Thorazine) is made available for bicycle riding, on the other hand, the rate of self-administration declines to near zero.
Differences between drugs in abuse liability can also be assessed by determining whether humans prefer one drug of abuse to another. During a training period, for example, experienced drug users sample coded capsules containing different drugs or different doses of a drug. Then, during subsequent test sessions, they are presented with the coded capsules and allowed to choose the one containing the drug or drug dose they prefer. This "blind" procedure (i.e., the volunteers are not told what drugs the capsules contain) prevents biases that might be introduced by using the drug names. When neither the volunteer subject nor the person conducting the test knows what drug the capsules contain, the procedure is referred to as "double blind."
Not surprisingly, it has also been shown that the preference for one drug over another or one drug dose over another agrees well with ratings of "drug liking" made independently of the choice tests just described. In self-administration studies in which volunteers show a preference for one drug of abuse over another, subjective ratings of "liking" and positive mood changes were clearly more frequent for the preferred drug than for the drug chosen less often. Such self-reports have inherent limitations, however, because of variations in individual verbal skills, which make it necessary to confirm such findings with other measures.
In addition to the self-administration and subjective-effects measures of obvious value in testing the abuse liability of drugs in humans, other quantitative drug-effect measurements have proven useful. When, for example, observer ratings (e.g., nurses watching the patients) and performance tests (e.g., speed of movement) are measured after different drugs are administered to volunteers, the results can be compared to determine whether the behavioral changes produced by a test drug are the same as or different from those of a known drug of abuse. When a number of different performance tests (e.g., arithmetic calculations, memory for numbers and letters, speed of reaction) are given following such drug administration, it is possible to construct a behavioral profile showing the performance effects of different drugs. Comparisons between different drugs and test drugs with regard to the similarity of such profiles across their respective dose ranges increase confidence in assessments made of the abuse liability of unknown drugs.

EFFECTIVENESS OF ABUSE-LIABILITY TESTING

Because of the availability of procedures for abuse-liability testing in humans, it seems reasonable to ask how well they work. That is, has it been possible to predict from the results of these tests whether a new drug will be abused when it becomes generally available? The two major sources available for checking the effectiveness of human abuse-liability testing procedures are case reports by clinicians of patient drug abuse, and EPIDEMIOLOGICAL surveys of large numbers of individuals as well as of specific target sites (e.g., hospital emergency rooms). Both of these approaches have many shortcomings, since they lack the precision and focus that human laboratory testing can provide. But despite the draw-backs, they can detect abuse-liability problems in both specific groups of individuals and the population at large, in a manner that has generally validated the results of human laboratory-testing procedures.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

A number of codes and regulations agreed on by scientists and the lay public provide norms for the conduct of research and testing with human volunteers. In general, they require a clear statement, understandable to the volunteer, of the risks and benefits of the testing procedure, as well as an explicit consent document in written form. After it is clear that the participant thoroughly appreciates all that is involved and the potential consequences of participation, the volunteer signs the consent form in the presence of a witness who is not associated with the research. These required procedures ensure both the autonomy and the protection of volunteers for drug-abuse-liability testing.

(SEE ALSO: ; Research: Animal Model)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BRADY, J.V., & LUKAS, S. E. (1984). Testing drugs for physical dependence potential and abuse liability. NIDA Research Monograph 52. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
FISCHMAN, M. W., & MELLO, N. K. (1989). Testing for abuse liability of drugs in humans. NIDA Research Monograph, 92, No. 89-1613. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

JOSEPH V. BRADY

Part 1: H1N1 weapon of mass destruction vaccine and human experimentation

August 16, 2009 9:17 PM · Deborah Dupre' - Peace Studies Examiner

Global WMD human experimentation

This is Part 1 of a 2-part report on H1N1 weapon of mass destruction vaccine and human experimentation.
Letters leaked in the UK link the vaccine for the bio-engineered H1N1 flu not only to a deadly nerve disease and forced infertility, but also to global human experimentation.

UK Health Protection Agency (HPA) July 29 letter to about 600 senior neurologists alerted that the H1N1 'swine' flu vaccine could trigger Guillian-Barre Syndrome (GBS) brain disease causing paralysis and death. (Jo Macfarlane, Swine flu jab link to killer nerve disease: Leaked letter reveals concern of neurologists over 25 deaths in America, Daily Mail (Dailymail.com) 15 August, 2009)

Medical research
The Daily Telegraph reports that specialist doctors are urged to “report every case of Guillain-Barre syndrome to the Health Protection Agency so the circumstances of each patient can be investigated,” indicating research, despite advising that “experts are not expecting to spot any cases linked to the vaccinations.” (Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor, Doctors told to watch for Guillain-Barre syndrome during Swine flu vaccination programme, Daily Telegraph, August 16 2009)

Mike Penning, UK Shadow Health spokesman stated, “The last thing we want is secret letters handed around experts within the NHS… Why is the Government not being open about this? It’s also very worrying if GPs, who will be administering the vaccine, aren’t being warned,” according to the Daily Mail report.

Continually, released data suggests that secret non-consensual human experimentation has been more frequent and with greater impact than initially acknowledged, particularly military weapon testing. (Sklar, M. and The Coalition Against Torture and Racial Discrimination, Involuntary Human Scientific Experimentation found in Torture in the United States, World Organization Against Torture USA, 1998, p.93 drawn from 1995 submission to the Human Rights Committee by the Science and Human Rights Program of the American Association for the Advancement of Science included in the Status of Human Rights in the United States.)

All weapons require testing on humans. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are no different to personal weapons when it comes to testing them on humans, including “testing weaponized biological warfare agents on a large scale.” (Gary Null, Gulf War Syndrome-Killing Our Own (Trailer), April 2007)

The United States has a long history of testing WMDs on large populations. In one year alone, 1950:

U.S. Department of Defense developed plans to detonate nuclear weapons in United States desert areas to monitor downwind residents for medical problems and mortality rates;
U.S. Navy secretly sprayed from a ship a cloud of bacteria over San Francisco for biological research of subsequent infections, many residents suffering pneumonia-like symptoms;
U.S. mass mind control and structured behavior control weapon testing began with the then new Nazi-CIA merger, outcome of Operation PAPERCLIP Allen Dulles’s direction and Big Oil’s power;
U.S. research project BLUEBIRD used children for "controlling an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against such fundamental laws of nature as self-preservation."

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GOA) issued a report dated September 28, 1994 stating that between 1940 and 1974, Department of Defense (DoD) and other national security agencies studied hundreds of thousands of human subjects in tests and experiments involving hazardous substances, some in secret. (103d Congress, 2d Session, United States Senate, Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century, A Staff Report Prepared for the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, December 8, 1994)

The GOA revealed that the government sprayed entire cities such as San Francisco, St. Louis and New York City with bio-chemicals, obviously conducted secretly, without citizen consent.

Secret government testing of war weapons historically included large geographical areas, and the most powerless in institutions.

Secret test subjects include: society’s most vulnerable, isolated, and terminally ill; people confined, such as hospital patients, psychiatric patients; centers for people with disabilities; prisoners, accused double-agents, military personnel; victims of war and citizens in communities throughout the United States.

In recent years, the mandatory anthrax vaccine, MDPH-PA or AVA renamed BioThrax, administered to over 1,400,000 service members and some civilians since March, 1998. (Meryl Nass, MD, Diplomate, American Board of Internal Medicine, Mount Desert Island Hospital, Bar Harbor, Maine; also see Mass, M. No weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, but forced anthrax vaccinations are back anyway, January 20, 2007;)

This forced vaccine resulted in massive human suffering and death through betrayal. (video) (Scott Miller, “A Call To Arms” Movie Trailer.)

Government testing of war weapons historically included as test subjects: individuals, large geographical areas, and the most powerless in institutions.

These test subjects included: society’s most vulnerable, isolated, and terminally ill; people confined, such as hospital patients, psychiatric patients; centers for people with disabilities; prisoners, military personnel, accused double-agents; victims of war and citizens in communities throughout the United States.

In an age considered one of civilized living, electro-chemical-biological warfare program testing is legal today, evidenced in laws such as Public Law 95 that states:

"The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies" and "The Secretary of Defense conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological agents on civilian populations." (95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334 found in U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, and Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882 found in U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882)

The 1991 Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, the binding regulation on human-subject research for 17 federal agencies including military and intelligence agencies, outlines guidelines for informed consent and states, "Unless otherwise required by law, department or agency heads may waive the applicability of some or all of the provisions of this policy." (Cheryl Welsh, Outlaw nonconsensual human experiments now, 16 June 2009)

Experimentation with unknowing human subjects is morally and legally unacceptable.

Non-consensual human experimentation has nevertheless impacted over millions of Americans and others in the past and an untold number suffering effects of the tests today.

The world is facing unprecedented suffering and dying due to this bio-engineered, worldwide, military-big-pharma-based research program, potentially the greatest humanitarian catastrophy in history unless this campaign is halted.

Part II: Squalene laced H1N1 vaccination ‘pharmacological warfare’

August 18, 1:02 PM · Deborah Dupre' - Peace Studies Examiner

Part II of H1N1 weapon of mass destruction vaccine and human experimentation
The anticipated H1N1 squalene laced vaccine results include paralysis of the respiratory system, causing the victim to suffocate, symptoms of Guillain-Barre (GBS).

Female soldiers that received the Anthrax vaccine with squalene were advised to not become pregnant for 18 months due to pregnancy problems and birth defects. Soldiers injected with the vaccine comment:

“I’d rather have caught a bullet form a AK 47 than got injected with this stuff [Anthrax vaccine with squalene];”

“They’re criminals;” and

“It was worse than being raped ‘cause I was betrayed.” (Scott Miller, Call To Arms movie, Betraying our Heroes, Gulf War Syndrome - Anthrax Vaccine) ( video trailer)

Animals injected with squalene always develop painful, incurable, autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus according to investigative journalist Gary Matsumoto, former reporter for NBC and Fox News. (Gary Matsumoto, Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That's Killing Our Soldiers and Why GIs Are Only the First Victims, Basic Books, 2004)

Dangers of squalene have been known since 1956 when Dr. Jules Freund, creator of this oil-based adjuvant, warned that animals injected with his formulation developed terrible, incurable conditions: allergic aspermatogenesis (stoppage of sperm production), experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (the animal version of MS), allergic neuritis (inflammation of the nerves that can lead to paralysis) and other severe autoimmune disorders.

Squalene (MF 59) was added to the anthrax vaccine. This vaccine caused tens of thousands of U.S. Iraq Desert Storm soldiers to suffer permanent neurological damage called “Gulf War Illness.” (Jane Bergermeister, Adjuvants to be added to H1N1 vaccine by Baxter and WHO programme body for “endless loop of self-destruction, 2009)

Squalene (MF 59) enzyme is not approved for human consumption but waived for use in the H1N1 vaccine. It also potentially causes “undiscovered side effects” according to Jefferson, Mercola and others. (video)

“Adjuvants can break ‘tolerance,’ meaning they can disable the immune system to the degree that it loses its ability to distinguish what is ’self’ from what is foreign. Normally, the immune system ignores the constituents of one’s own body. Immunologists call this ‘tolerance.’ But if something happens to break tolerance, then the immune system turns relentlessly self-destructive, attacking the body it is supposed to defend.” (Idaho Observer, Squalene: The next wave of global pharmacological warfare, March 2005)

Results “could be anything because one of the additives in one of the vaccines is a substance called squalene, and none of the studies we’ve extracted have any research on it at all,” says Dr Tom Jefferson, co-ordinator of vaccines at Cochrane Collaboration, an independent research review group according to Macfarlane of the Daily Mail.
“What we’ve got is a massive guinea-pig trial,” reports Jackie Fletcher, founder of Jabs vaccine support group. The "trial" has been planned and developed over decades.

Professor Miller at the HPA stated, “This monitoring system activates pandemic plans that have been in place for a number of years. We’ll be able to get information on whether a patient has had a prior influenza illness and will look at whether influenza itself is linked to GBS.”

Long-term data collected could reveal fertility reduction, a depopulation strategy WHO of the UN has been encouraged to serve as catalyst by individuals such as David Rockefeller. ( video)

Reporting vaccine human experimentation findings for 9 months
The UK government is advising neurologists about anticipated serious health consequences of the human experimentation drug injected into test subjects and is asking them to report findings for up to nine months.

Professor Elizabeth Miller, HPA Immunisation Department head, calls the 9-month human experiment “enhanced surveillance” and “robust epidemiological analyses” in her letter reported to the Daily Mail:
“It is hoped this will help scientists establish why some people develop the condition [GBS] and whether it is directly related to the vaccine.”

The Daily Mail's Macfarlane reports that two confidential letters about the H1N1 flu vaccine were posted and sent together, one from Miller and the other, dated July 27, from the Association of British Neurologists written by Dr Rustam Al-Shahi Salman, chair of its surveillance unit, and Professor Patrick Chinnery, chair of its clinical research committee.

“The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use. GBS has been identified as a condition needing enhanced surveillance when the swine flu vaccines are rolled out. Reporting every case of GBS irrespective of vaccination or disease history is essential for conducting robust epidemiological analyses capable of identifying whether there is an increased risk of GBS in defined time periods after vaccination, or after influenza itself, compared with the background risk.”

The letter includes the false information about the H1N1 impact on humans ("has overtaken us") called Disinformation, a weapon of war, and highlighted by Chossudovsky and others:

“Traditionally, the BNSU has monitored rare diseases for long periods of time. However, the swine influenza (H1N1) pandemic has overtaken us and we need every member’s involvement with a new BNSU survey of Guillain-Barre Syndrome that will start on August 1 and run for approximately nine months.”

Disinformation is typically woven with truth, but systematically repeated to penetrate consciousness, therefore believed.

“Following the 1976 programme of vaccination against swine influenza in the US, a retrospective study found a possible eight-fold increase in the incidence of GBS.”

“Active prospective ascertainment of every case of GBS in the UK is required. Please tell BNSU about every case.”

Long history of genocidal experimentation lies and cover-ups to ‘accomplish mission’: global depopulation
The long sordid history of human non-consensual human experimentation is unknown by the public due to the oxymoron, “public safety,” and “public security.” In 1994, the U.S. Senate Committee on Veteran’s Affairs staff published a report on its investigation into using U.S. soldiers in federal research concluding:

"DOD incorrectly claims that since their goal was treatment, the use of investigational drugs in the Persian Gulf War was not research. DOD used investigational drugs in the Persian Gulf War in ways that were not effective. ... DOD has demonstrated a pattern of misrepresenting the danger of various military exposures that continues today." (emphasis added)

A declassified statement by CIA Inspector General in Assessing Benefits of Research included:

"Precautions must be taken not only to protect operations from exposure to enemy forces but also to conceal these activities from the American public in general. The knowledge that the Agency is engaging in unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of its mission."
The Idaho Observer warned in 2005 that squalene would be the “next wave of global pharmacological warfare.”

In this long, covert war, it is increasingly apparent that "enemy forces" are no other than “We the people.”

Learn more, take responsible action, and keep asking, "Why?" and "Why not?" Subscribe below and see Dupre's website. For more information H1N1 and about how you, your family and community can affect change by pressuring Congress to pass self-shielding legislation, see " Warning in the eye of the false flag storm" by Dupre. complete with community learning activities. Want to write for the Examiner? Please email Dupre for more information about this opportunity. Keep the peace through responsible action and accountability.
Copyright 2009 Examiner.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Author

Deborah Dupre' is an Examiner from the National Edition. You can see Deborah's articles at: " http://www.Examiner.com/x-10438-Peace-Studies-Examiner"

Looks at the history of radiation experiments done on innocent civilians, army personnel, and animals.

Written in 2004; 2,037 words; 10 sources; MLA; $ 64.95

Paper Summary:

This paper describes some of the horrific radiation experiments the U.S. government performed on members of its Armed Forces, private civilians, and animals in the name of research and science. The paper asserts that the government was not ignorant as to the effects of these experiments and that it continues to perform different, but equally hazardous, experiments on military personnel, as evidenced by the high rate of unexplained illnesses and diseases in soldiers returning from their tours of duty overseas.

From the Paper:

"Today it seems almost inconceivable --if not patently paranoid-- to think that less than fifty years ago Americans would have sat passively by while the government tested high levels of radiation on the captive population. Would we have really bought a line saying that it was safe to be downwind of nuclear explosions? Would we really have put up with government sponsored radiation tests run on the most vulnerable members of society? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Despite the fact that even back then any cautious look at the evidence would have demonstrated the risks of radiation, the very people with whom we entrust our daily survival -- doctors, scientists, and the elected government itself -- intentionally deceived the American public about the risks of radioactivity and the exposure rates which they would be experiencing

History Of US Testing
BioWeapons On Humans A few facts about biological agents the
government and media will never tell you about
Compiled By Curt Maynard
3-27-8

A case of smallpox

The following is a compilation of facts I extracted from a psychology thesis I wrote several years ago entitled "A STUDY FOCUSING ON THE FORMATION OF OPINION, AND THE KNOWLEDGE ASSOCIATED WITH ITS DEVELOPMENT."

The study itself is long and boring but there are some facts I'd like to bring to light about the United States government and the history of biological weapons and warfare, especially as it relates to the aforementioned government.

I want to make this absolutely clear, this particular article should not frighten the reader, the truth is that biological agents are very unpredictable and can harm those that unleash them just as it can those targeted. To sum it up neatly, after decades of research the United States government's conclusion concerning defense against biological agents is that there is no defense against them, a virus can be quickly and inexpensively "tweaked" so that all known vaccines are rendered ineffective, meaning that vaccine manufacturers would have to start all over from the beginning, which is quite time consuming and expensive, thus there really is no point if you get my meaning.

I wrote the above thesis back in 2002 when I still believed the government's "official version" of what happened on 9-11. When I still believed the government's "official version" of the anthrax letters. Needless to say, I no longer believe these lies.

What the United States government and for that matter, most western governments have more than proven of late, is that they cannot be trusted and are not representing their national populations. Just today I read where an entire Italian University was shut down to prevent Dr. Robert Faurisson from speaking there. For those of you unfamiliar with Dr. Faurisson, he's a notable "historical revisionist," that doubts the "official version" of the holocaust narrative. I ask you the reader, what is the University so frightened of? Have you ever heard of such a thing?

In any case, below I have included a number of facts the Zionist media and Zio-American government will never tell you about. All of them are cited/sourced in the bibliography of my thesis, so please, do not hesitate to investigate further.

1. Mathew Meselson a professor of molecular biology at Harvard, and American notable in the area of chemical and biological warfare, reinforces the fact that the United States government has extensively researched and developed biological weapons in the past. Meselson described an American facility, north of Terre Haute, Indiana, built in 1944 that would have produced 500,000 four pound anthrax bombs monthly once in full operation. Professor Meselson's notable achievements in the field of biological weapons research include being part of teams that proved the accidental release of anthrax at a Soviet facility in 1979, disproved charges of biological warfare in Laos and Cambodia in the late 1970s, and Meselson was a driving force behind popularizing the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1994 (Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1999).

The United States Government also concurs with the scientists, politicians and authors thus far noted, albeit in a more subdued, but equally certain stance. A Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) study conducted in 1993 ascertained that one hundred kilograms, or a mere two hundred and twenty pounds of anthrax could under optimal conditions, kill as many as three million residents of Washington D.C (Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress. 1993)In academic circles, the word "optimal" might stand out as a word reducing the true significance of the potential anthrax represents to Americans, but if one considers a reduction in the efficacy of said biological agent, and perhaps investigates a sub-optimal release with only a three or four percent total potential, then one must still grasp the fact that 90,000 to 120,000 people would still die.

2. In contrast to the killing capacity to weight ratio of anthrax, Peter Burgasov, former Chief Sanitary Physician of the Soviet Union, admitted to the Courier, a Russian newspaper in November 2001, that the Soviet Union had been testing smallpox as a weapon since at least the 1970's and described one particularly disturbing test conducted on an island in the Aral Sea "A research ship of the Aral fleet came within 15 kilometers away from the island (it was forbidden to come any closer than 40 kilometers) The lab technician of this ship took samples of plankton twice a day from the top deck. The smallpox formulation-400 grams of which was exploded on the island -"got her"- and she became infected." (House International Relations Committee, on Bioterrorism, 2001). The aforementioned OTA study focuses on what is to be expected immediately after an attack, and does not take into account the fact that anthrax spores will continue to represent a viable threat for decades as it would thoroughly contaminate the soil, and leave the entire area under quarantine for generations. An example of anthrax's longevity can be seen even today, from afar, on the Island of Gruinard off the coast of Scotland. The British conducted experiments with anthrax there during World War Two, and the entire area has been closed to the public since, and more than five decades later still represents a threat to human life despite the fact that the British government has attempted in every scientific way to make the area safe (Hersh, 1968; Alibek, 1999).

3. A former top-level Soviet scientist involved at the highest echelons with research on biological agents named Ken Alibek discloses in detail an incident that occurred in Sverdlovsk Russia in the late 1970s. Much of the incident was known about already through an investigation conducted by U.S. analysts, but the full details were not known until Alibek defected to the United States and told the entire story. In March 1979, a Soviet technician accidentally forgot to replace a vital filter in the anthrax production facilities ventilation system resulting in a release of anthrax into the surrounding community. Dozens of people died, a local communist party chief immediately ordered a cleanup, which disturbed the already settled anthrax spores, and re-infected people through secondary aerosols (Alibek, 1999).

Predictably, the Soviet government initiated a cover-up, and all the facts weren't known until 1993. The American Defense Intelligence Agency published a report in 1986 outlining what it knew about the accident at Sverdlovsk, and pointed out some significant facts about the attempts on the part of the Soviet government to decontaminate the area after the exposure. Incidentally, the Defense Intelligence Agency also emphasizes the fact that only twenty-two pounds, approximately ten kilograms was accidentally dispersed into the atmosphere. The following observations were noted in the report, demonstrating the fact that decontaminating an area contaminated by anthrax spores is difficult at best, and impossible overall (Defense Intelligence Agency report: 1986, Pp, 4-7).· Initial disinfection and decontamination procedures were largely ineffective.· The extraordinary efforts to clean up were inconsistent with the Soviet explanation.· The reported aerial spraying activity and disinfection with steam and hypochlorite, a bleach solution around the military installation are clear attempts to decontaminate areas affected by infectious aerosol.

4. Expert opinion on the need for a large infrastructure and bio-agent production

Osterholm and Schwartz (2000) argues that a fairly remedial background in biology is all that is necessary to produce significant quantities of anthrax in one's basement, completely countering the Federal Bureau of Investigations contention, as emphasized by the media, that a massive infrastructure, knowledge, scientific, and economic resources are necessary. An example of this belief can be found in the following article, alongside a most erroneous statement suggestive of the fact that the authors hadn't done their homework. "Militarized anthrax spores are so difficult to manufacture that only a handful of countries with large military-industrial establishments have ever developed the capacity"(Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). "There has never been a confirmed use of anthrax spores, anywhere, by anyone, in a military or terrorist attack" (Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). This report was indeed written prior to the anthrax letters to Daschle and various media representatives, but it was written more than fifty-years after known Japanese military use of anthrax in Manchuria during World War Two (Eitzen & Takafuji, 1997). The Japanese use of biological agents in warfare was cited by Osterholm and Schwartz (2000, p. 70), Alibek (1999, p. 36-37), and Hersh (1968, p. 12-18). In short, it was a fairly well known fact, and should not have been missed by the Department of Health and Human Services.The idea that bacterial growth and dissemination requires advanced technology and/or weapon systems is equally nonsensical, and is dismissed by Osterholm and Schwartz as well as other experts within the pages of their book on the topic (2000, p.112-117).

"One government analyst some years ago determined that $1,500 of nuclear killing power would set an anthrax assailant back by only a penny" (Osterholm & Schwartz, 2000, p. 8). Leonard Cole (1988) supports this by citing expert information provided to the United Nations in 1969 stating that a square kilometer of ground costs approx $2000 to take with conventional weapons, $800 with nuclear, $600 with nerve agent, and a single dollar with Biological agents.This would seem to cast some doubt on the governments position that a large economic base is essential, thus effectively ruling out a rogue individual, or loose knit terrorist organization. In fact, one encounters the experts differing from this line of thinking all together.

Kenneth Alibek stated clearly on October 24th, 2001, in response to the question, "is anthrax really that hard to get your hands on," "In my opinion, it's not very hard" (The Money Gang, October 24th). In another televised interview Alibek detailed the fact that there is an island in the Aral Sea completely contaminated with anthrax spores, and that if anyone wanted to acquire them, there were no guards, and that "it wouldn't be a big problem." The former Soviet scientist added the fact that the anthrax spores that could be found on this island were also genetically engineered, making them antibiotic resistant (48 Hours, 2001,October 19th).

5. Where would one acquire anthrax if so inspired? Prior to the recent terrorist attack associated with the anthrax letters sent to Daschle and various media figures, one could actually order it from labs across the country. It was in this manner that a gentleman named Larry Wayne Harris, associated with fringe elements in the political arena, acquired both plague samples and anthrax samples. He was dismissed as a threat by the government when this fact was exposed, because it was said that the strains he obtained weren't exceedingly virulent (Osterholm & Schwartz, 2000).

Perhaps the government wished to get the case out of the public's mind as quickly as possible because Harris obtained the plague samples through the mail simply by writing to the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) and requesting it. Essentially, luck played a role in his capture, and law enforcement officials were able to confiscate the bubonic plague sample from his glove compartment. According to congressional testimony provided by Representative John R, Kasich "what he (Larry Harris) did was not a crime," and at least in 1996, "the law currently treats the improper disposal of motor oil by a service station more severely than what Harris did" (Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1996, March 6). Harris is not the only example of someone acquiring lethal biological agents through the ATCC. Iraq also acquired their anthrax by mailing requests to the ATCC, as did a religious cult in Oregon who used their easily acquired bacteria to infect the town of The Dalles, in Oregon with a strain of salmonella in the 1980s (Miller, Engelberg, & Broad, 2001). When one considers these disturbing facts, one might conclude that perhaps the government, its analysts and experts have forgotten that bacteria's primary mission is to grow, and in anthrax's case encapsulate itself indefinitely when the environment proves too hostile to proliferate. Another unique quality, perhaps forgotten by the government, is bacteria's ability to mutate, and in many cases this mutation can be easily manipulated by using animals as incubators. Progress on the phenomena associated with mutations and bacteria was well developed by 1968, allowing for an increase in virulence, longevity, resistance, and a variety of other adaptations (Hersh, 1968).

By the early 1980s, mutation and DNA recombinant techniques had reached a point where at least one (Harris, 1982) author felt that "ethnic germs" or ethnically selective bacteria might be a possibility. Additionally, genetically engineered viruses affecting the way an immune system responds to infection were thought to also be under research. The author also asserts that such a germ may already have been developed by 1982 (Harris, 1982). Joshua Lederberg, a Nobel Laureate, Professor, and pioneer in the fields of genetic exchanges in bacteria, and microbial genetics also acknowledges the theoretical likelihood that "ethnic germs" are on the horizon (Miller, et all, 2001).Alibek (1999) details the fact that an accidental release of anthrax into a city sewer system in the Soviet Union exposed rats to anthrax, killing them. However, before they died some of the rats unwittingly participated in an incubation process that increased the virulence of the original strain. Soviet scientists proceeded to weaponize the new deadlier strain, calling it anthrax 836.

6. The Federal Government admitted in a study conducted in the 1960s, that biological warfare scientists concluded that an, "Attack with disease was possible, indeed terrifyingly simple". They further concluded that the United States was, "Highly Vulnerable," to a germ warfare attack (Harris, 1982).

Nearly forty years later, little has changed. The government is still unprepared to meet the challenges associated with a biological attack. In 1960 "the head of the Army Chemical Corp warned congress that a potential enemy could perhaps kill or perhaps seriously disable 30 percent of the American population by mounting a biological warfare attack with ten aircraft" (Hersh, 1968, Pp. 68).

The author Richard McCarthy also emphasized the fact that the American government had "no defense" against biological warfare in 1969 (McCarthy, 1967).In a Center For Civilian Biodefense Strategies (CCBS) report, the center revealed, "there are currently no atmospheric warning systems to detect an aerosol cloud of anthrax spores. The first sign of a bioterrorist attack would most likely be patients presenting with symptoms of inhalation anthrax" (CCBS, 2000). According to the same CCBS report, those presenting with symptoms of inhalation anthrax are most likely to die, reinforcing the fact that those who have developed symptoms will in ninety percent of cases expire. Additionally, the report then acknowledges a little known fact, "U.S. vaccine supplies are limited and U.S. production capacity is modest. There is no vaccine available for civilian use" (CCBS, 2000).

7. In fact, the United States Government should be exceedingly familiar with many scenarios involving biological agents, and possible consequences, perhaps more so than any other nation in the world. The U.S. government has sanctioned the exposure of its own population to various, allegedly benign, bacterial agents including serratia marcens, and bacillus subtilus. In the end these agents weren't entirely benign, and caused the deaths of American citizens submitted involuntarily to experiments conducted without their consent or knowledge (Cole, 1988).

As recently as 1996 the integrity and honesty of the United States government was called into question concerning American soldiers that had developed symptoms during the Gulf War that could not be explained. Patrick Eddington, a one-time CIA analyst, allegedly was fired by the agency for claiming it was covering up the fact that the Iraqis had actually used chemical weapons on U.S. soldiers during the war.

David Martin, a CBS reporter, interviewed Eddington asking him, "Would you call it a cover up?" Eddington responds by saying, "yes, I would describe that as a cover up." Eddington then concludes the interview by stating, "the culture of the CIA is one that does not really welcome those who rock the boat, who question prevailing assessments, who question prevailing views" (CBS Evening News, 1996, October 30). Two days later, the CIA came out with its official response to Eddington's accusations, stating in effect that the agency "continued to conclude that Iraq did not use chemical or biological agents during the Gulf War" (Slatkin, 1996, November 1).

8. The U.S. Army did subject the New York City population to an experiment in the 1960s concerned with measuring "saturation rates," or the amount of bacteria one would inhale at certain times, and in specific locations after the initial release. Light bulbs containing eighty-seven trillion bacilli each were dropped onto ventilation grates above the New York City subway system. It was deduced that within minutes exposed individuals were inhaling a million bacilli per minute, and were entirely unaware of it. Additionally, the subway trains created a vacuum of sorts that conveniently spread the bacilli throughout the system with little effort (Cole, 1988).

The implications of the New York subway system experiments are truly horrific. People breathing in a million bacilli per minute were not aware of it in any way. If government reports are accurate concerning the lethal dose of anthrax being in the neighborhood of eight thousand spores in total, which incidentally is in dispute in some scientific circles, then one might conclude that anthrax represents a serious threat today.

Bacillus subtilus is similar to anthrax in that it is a sporalating gram-positive rod bacterium, and aerosolizes, as would anthrax. If a light bulb can contain eighty-seven trillion bacilli, if filled with anthrax it would represent enough to kill the entire human population on terra firma more than twice over, with approximately 10,875,000,000 individual lethal doses, with eight thousand spores representing a lethal dose. This fact becomes especially frightening when one considers the Soviet Union always maintained a stockpile of hundreds of tons of anthrax at all times. In fact, according to Ken Alibek (1999) anthrax production at one facility alone could be as much as 500-600 kilograms daily.

9. One of the more frightening scenarios encountered in the research of this thesis was whether or not anthrax could be passed through currency. Certainly everyone is now familiar with the fact that it traveled rather nicely inside envelopes. On the issue of whether or not anthrax can be carried on currency, there is a great deal of contention among different sources. Ted Koppel admitted on Nightline, "the possibility is scaring me to death. Please tell me it's not possible." In response to Koppel's concerns the Department of Health and Human Services replied, "highly unlikely," "highly improbable," "almost impossible." The Treasury Department, in their apparent expertise, stated that, "there is no way to embed anthrax in the currency" (Nightline, 2001, October 17).

Oddly enough a study conducted in 1972 and reported in a Discover magazine article determined that staphylococci, micrococci, diptheroids, and propriobacteria, were present and viable on randomly tested bills of various denominations (Discover, 1998). A second study conducted in 1997 found that 3% of coins, and 11% of all bills tested were positive for bacteria. In 1998, another study conducted by the University of California at San Francisco found in 113 examples of currency samples that most of the bills grew "harmless bacteria" but 18% of coins, and 7% of bills manifested pathogenic bacteria, including E-Coli, and Staphylococcus Aureus (Discover, 1998).

Shirley Lowe, a microbiologist credited with conducting the study on behalf of the University stated that "half the money," she obtained from a doughnut shop grew Staphylococcus Aureus (Discover, 1998). I think the gist of this article, Filthy Lucre, is that money, especially currency with its 75% cotton, 25% linen composition is a more than suitable vector for bacteria.Also mentioned in the same article was the fact that bacteria can't live on the dry acidic surface of money forever, as it requires a moist warm environment to grow. This is very true with most bacteria, but untrue in respect to anthrax spores, as the spores themselves are nearly impervious to the environment, and when introduced into a receptive environment, will then proliferate.

Possibly the most significant aspect of this entire article devoted to money is not the revelation that bacteria can survive on currency, but that cocaine hydrochloride was known to cross-contaminate currency at the counting-sorting machines used in banks and at the Federal Reserve as early as 1997.

The article Filthy Lucre proceeds to mention that a study conducted at the Houston Advanced Research Center in Texas found that 70-80% of all currency had trace amounts of cocaine hydrochloride on them. In older bills that had been in circulation for some time, 90% had cocaine traces (p.82). The Journal of Forensic Sciences conducted a study in May 1998 that concluded that more than 93% of all bills tested had trace amounts of cocaine hydrochloride present.

In 1997 Tom Jourdan, chief of the Materials and Devices unit at the FBI lab in Washington D.C. found that 90% of bills tested were positive for cocaine.

Tom Jourdan stated that it is his belief that "mechanical currency counters are homogenizing money." According to Jourdan, "one contaminated bill brushed through the counting machine at the bank can contaminate the entire stack"(p.84). The last paragraph in the article Filthy Lucre states exactly, "So money isn't exactly squeaky clean. But it isn't exactly going to do us in either. If there's a lesson here, it is that money reflects whatever activity, and mischief, that human hands get up to-and the activity and occasional mischief of all the microscopic organisms along for the ride on our skin" (pg 84). This last statement could prove to be more prophetic than the author ever intended, with the exception of the "isn't exactly going to do us in" part, which may prove one day to be overly optimistic. It would certainly seem feasible that if cocaine hydrochloride could "homogenize" money, then anthrax ought to be able to as well. Perhaps the greater concern here is not the possibility that anthrax can cross-contaminate money, but that the FBI was apparently unable to deduce the commonalities between currency, and envelopes.

The U.S. Government's Secret Testing of Radioactive, Chemical and Biological Weapons and Substances on Humans

As we travel through a period of increasing government secrecy, it is worth taking a second look at these books that document secret U.S. government radioactive, chemical and biological weapons and substances testing on U.S. citizens.
On this page:
Clouds of Secrecy: The Army's Germ Warfare Tests Over Populated Areas,
The Biology of Doom: The History of America's Secret Germ Warfare Project,
Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans,
The Plutonium Files: America's Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War

Clouds of Secrecy: The Army's Germ Warfare Tests Over Populated Areas by Leonard A. Cole
From Publishers Weekly
This disturbing study, based on government records, courtroom testimony and interviews, focuses on biological-warfare testing and the U.S. Army's expanding program to develop cheaper and more effective biological weapons. Cole traces the growth of the biological arsenal during World War II, reviews the scientific literature (which questions the Army's contention that bacteria used in tests are harmless) and assesses the spraying of several American locales, including San Francisco and the New York subway system. Cole charges that the Army failed to monitor the health of the targeted population, and quotes from a 1981 trial in a case brought by a San Francisco family, one of whose members is believed to have died as a result of the 1950 test in that city. Reflecting on ``the human capacity to confuse good intentions with harmful actions,'' the author, who teaches at Rutgers University, concludes with a discussion of the ethics of spraying unsuspecting citizens with bacteria and the need for protection against such experiments.

Learn More and/or Purchase Online

The Biology of Doom: The History of America's Secret Germ Warfare Project by Ed Regis
Scientific American: The Editors Recommend: December
Regis ... interested himself in what the U.S. and other countries did during and after World War II to develop methods of biological warfare. With the aid of the Freedom of Information Act, he obtained more than 2,000 pages of formerly secret U.S. government documents on the subject. They form the foundation of this account, which traces the U.S. biological weapons program from its inception in 1942 to its termination by President Richard Nixon in 1969 ... By then, according to Regis, "the U.S. Army had officially standardized and weaponized two lethal biological agents, Bacillus anthracis and Francisella tularensis, and three incapacitating biological agents, Brucella suis, Coxiella burnetii, and Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus. The Army had also weaponized one lethal toxin, botulinum, and one incapacitating toxin, staphylococcal enterotoxin B." ...
Notwithstanding all this activity ... nations have so far avoided serious biological warfare. Regis thinks the reason is that biological weapons lack "the single most important ingredient of any effective weapon, an immediate visual display of overwhelming power and brute strength."

Learn More and/or Purchase Online

Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans by Jonathan D. Moreno
The New York Times Book Review, Daniel J. Kevles
...the historical record he presents in Undue Risk strongly supports his contention that the rights of human subjects deserve to be held paramount over any needs of national security.
From Scientific American
The infamous Nazi medical experiments on human subjects represent an extreme of government arrogance. But many other nations, including the U.S., have done similar if less egregious things, usually in the name of national security. Radiation, chemical agents and disease-causing agents are tested on people who have not given informed consent and may not even know they were test subjects.

Learn More and/or Purchase Online

Humans Used as Guinea Pigs
By US Government and Military

Dear friends,

Below is a comprehensive list of the use of humans as guinea pigs in biological experiments. Unfortunately, there are no links to confirm the information presented. However, having researched this subject quite thoroughly, I can tell you that I have read about almost all of these experiments in reliable books with footnotes providing information on how to verify these facts. The three books mentioned in the mind control section of our resources list at www.WantToKnow.info/resources#mindcontrol contain most of this information, which you can verify using the relevant footnotes.

Many in the government and military sadly feel no compulsion to inform us of when they use us in experiments. Note that a number of these experiments specifically targeted minorities and those in poor areas. By exposing this information, we can help to build the critical mass necessary to put a stop to all of this. Please help to spread the word.

With very best wishes,
Fred Burks for the WantToKnow.info team

History of Experimentation on Human Guinea Pigs

1931 - Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. While there, he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.

1932 - The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated.

1935 - The Pellagra Incident. After millions of individuals die from pellagra over a span of two decades, the U.S. Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease. The director of the agency admits it had known for at least 20 years that Pellagra is caused by a niacin deficiency but failed to act since most of the deaths occurred within poverty-stricken black populations.

1940 - Four hundred prisoners in Chicago are infected with malaria in order to study the effects of new and experimental drugs to combat the disease. Nazi doctors later on trial at Nuremberg cite this American study to defend their own actions during the Holocaust.

1942 - Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on approximately 4,000 servicemen. The experiments continue until 1945 and made use of Seventh Day Adventists who chose to become human guinea pigs rather than serve on active duty.

1943 - In response to Japan's full-scale germ warfare program, the U.S. begins research on biological weapons at Fort Detrick, MD.

1944 - U.S. Navy uses human subjects to test gas masks and clothing. Individuals were locked in a gas chamber and exposed to mustard gas and lewisite.

1945 - Project Paperclip is initiated. The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence, and the CIA recruit Nazi scientists and offer them immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top secret government projects in the United States.

1945 - "Program F" is implemented by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). This is the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoride, which was the key chemical component in atomic bomb production. One of the most toxic chemicals known to man, fluoride, it is found, causes marked adverse effects to the central nervous system but much of the information is squelched in the name of national security because of fear that lawsuits would undermine full-scale production of atomic bombs.

1946 - Patients in VA hospitals are used as guinea pigs for medical experiments. In order to allay suspicions, the order is given to change the word "experiments" to "investigations" or "observations" whenever reporting a medical study performed in one of the nation's veteran's hospitals.

1947 - Colonel E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission issues a secret document (Document 07075001, January 8, 1947) stating that the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects.

1947 - The CIA begins its study of LSD as a potential weapon for use by American intelligence. Human subjects (both civilian and military) are used with and without their knowledge.

1950 - Department of Defense begins plans to detonate nuclear weapons in desert areas and monitor downwind residents for medical problems and mortality rates.

1950 - In an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria from ships over San Francisco. Monitoring devices are situated throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms.

1951 - Department of Defense begins open air tests using disease-producing bacteria and viruses. Tests last through 1969 and there is concern that people in the surrounding areas have been exposed.

1953 - U.S. military releases clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, Virginia. Their intent is to determine how efficiently they could disperse chemical agents.

1953 - Joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in which tens of thousands of people in New York and San Francisco are exposed to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii.

1953 - CIA initiates Project MKULTRA. This is an eleven year research program designed to produce and test drugs and biological agents that would be used for mind control and behavior modification. Six of the subprojects involved testing the agents on unwitting human beings.

1955 - The CIA, in an experiment to test its ability to infect human populations with biological agents, releases a bacteria withdrawn from the Army's biological warfare arsenal over Tampa Bay, Fl.

1956 - U.S. military releases mosquitoes infected with yellow fever over Savannah, Ga and Avon Park, Fl. Following each test, Army agents posing as public health officials test victims for effects.

1960 - The Army Assistant Chief-of-Staff for Intelligence (ACSI) authorizes field testing of LSD in Europe and the Far East. Testing of the European population is code named Project THIRD CHANCE; testing of the Asian population is code named Project DERBY HAT.

1965 - Project CIA and Department of Defense begin Project MKSEARCH, a program to develop a capability to manipulate human behavior through the use of mind-altering drugs.

1965 - Prisoners at the Holmesburg State Prison in Philadelphia are subjected to dioxin, the highly toxic chemical component of Agent Orange used in Viet Nam. The men are later studied for development of cancer, which indicates that Agent Orange had been a suspected carcinogen all along.

1966 - CIA initiates Project MKOFTEN, a program to test the toxicological effects of certain drugs on humans and animals.

1966 - U.S. Army dispenses Bacillus subtilis variant niger throughout the New York City subway system. More than a million civilians are exposed when army scientists drop lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto ventilation grates.

1967 - CIA and Department of Defense implement Project MKNAOMI, successor to MKULTRA and designed to maintain, stockpile and test biological and chemical weapons.

1968 - CIA experiments with the possibility of poisoning drinking water by injecting chemicals into the water supply of the FDA in Washington, D.C.

1969 - Dr. Robert MacMahan of the Department of Defense requests from congress $10 million to develop, within 5 to 10 years, a synthetic biological agent to which no natural immunity exists.

1970 - Funding for the synthetic biological agent is obtained under H.R. 15090. The project, under the supervision of the CIA, is carried out by the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, the army's top secret biological weapons facility. Speculation is raised that molecular biology techniques are used to produce AIDS-like retroviruses.

1970 - United States intensifies its development of "ethnic weapons" (Military Review, Nov., 1970), designed to selectively target and eliminate specific ethnic groups who are susceptible due to genetic differences and variations in DNA.

1975 - The virus section of Fort Detrick's Center for Biological Warfare Research is renamed the Fredrick Cancer Research Facilities and placed under the supervision of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) . It is here that a special virus cancer program is initiated by the U.S. Navy, purportedly to develop cancer-causing viruses. It is also here that retrovirologists isolate a virus to which no immunity exists. It is later named HTLV (Human T-cell Leukemia Virus).

1977 - Senate hearings on Health and Scientific Research confirm that 239 populated areas had been contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969. Some of the areas included San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Key West, Panama City, Minneapolis, and St. Louis.

1978 - Experimental Hepatitis B vaccine trials, conducted by the CDC, begin in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men.

1981 - First cases of AIDS are confirmed in homosexual men in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, triggering speculation that AIDS may have been introduced via the Hepatitis B vaccine.

1985 - According to the journal Science (227:173-177), HTLV and VISNA, a fatal sheep virus, are very similar, indicating a close taxonomic and evolutionary relationship.

1986 - According to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (83:4007-4011), HIV and VISNA are highly similar and share all structural elements, except for a small segment which is nearly identical to HTLV. This leads to speculation that HTLV and VISNA may have been linked to produce a new retrovirus to which no natural immunity exists.

1986 - A report to Congress reveals that the U.S. Government's current generation of biological agents includes: modified viruses, naturally occurring toxins, and agents that are altered through genetic engineering to change immunological character and prevent treatment by all existing vaccines.

1987 - Department of Defense admits that, despite a treaty banning research and development of biological agents, it continues to operate research facilities at 127 facilities and universities around the nation.

1990 - More than 1500 six-month old black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given an "experimental" measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected to their children was experimental.

1994 - With a technique called "gene tracking," Dr. Garth Nicolson at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX discovers that many returning Desert Storm veterans are infected with an altered strain of Mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe commonly used in the production of biological weapons. Incorporated into its molecular structure is 40 percent of the HIV protein coat, indicating that it had been man-made.

1994 - Senator John D. Rockefeller issues a report revealing that for at least 50 years the Department of Defense has used hundreds of thousands of military personnel in human experiments and for intentional exposure to dangerous substances. Materials included mustard and nerve gas, ionizing radiation, psychochemicals, hallucinogens, and drugs used during the Gulf War.

1995 - U.S. Government admits that it had offered Japanese war criminals and scientists who had performed human medical experiments salaries and immunity from prosecution in exchange for data on biological warfare research.

1995 - Dr. Garth Nicolson, uncovers evidence that the biological agents used during the Gulf War had been manufactured in Houston, TX and Boca Raton, Fl and tested on prisoners in the Texas Department of Corrections.

1996 - Department of Defense admits that Desert Storm soldiers were exposed to chemical agents.

1997 - Eighty-eight members of Congress sign a letter demanding an investigation into bioweapons use & Gulf War Syndrome.

Note: For more information on these important matters, see our two-page mind control summary at http://www.WantToKnow.info/mindcontrol or even better, the information-packed 10-page summary at http://www.WantToKnow.info/mindcontrol10pg. By informing your friends and colleagues of these little-reported facts, you can help to build the critical mass necessary to force the media to give adequate coverage and stop these abuses. Let us work towards ever greater transparency both in government and in our own personal lives. Thanks for caring.

See our archive of revealing news articles at www.WantToKnow.info/indexnewsarticles

Your tax-deductible donations, however large or small, help greatly to support this important work.
To make a donation by credit card, check, or money order: www.WantToKnow.info/donationswtk

Explore the mind and heart expanding websites managed by the nonprofit PEERS network:

http://www.peerservice.org/ - PEERS websites: Spreading inspiration, education, & empowerment
http://www.momentoflove.org/ - Every person in the world has a heart
http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/ - Dynamic online courses powerfully expand your horizons
http://www.wanttoknow.info/ - Reliable, verifiable information on major cover-ups
http://www.weboflove.org/ - Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all

For experiments on non-human subjects, see Animal testing.

Human subject research includes experiments (formally known as interventional studies) and observational studies. Human subjects are commonly participants in research on basic biology, clinical medicine, psychology, and all other social sciences. Humans have been participants in research since the earliest studies. As research has become formalized the academic community has developed formal definitions of "human subject research", largely in response to abuses of human subjects.

[edit] Definition of a human subject

In biostatistics or psychological statistics, a research subject is any object or phenomenon that is observed for purposes of research. In survey research and opinion polling, the subject is often called a respondent. In the United States Federal Guidelines a human subject is a living individual about whom an investigator conducting research obtains 1) Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or 2) Identifiable private information (32 CFR 219.102.f). (Lim,1990)

[edit] History

[edit] Roman

Aulus Cornelius Celsus, author of an encyclopedia which survived in part as De Medicina, which introduced the Latin term cancer, discussed at length the pros and cons of human and animal medical experimentation.

[edit] Middle Ages

This section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies. (help, talk, get involved!) (September 2010)

The influential Persian Muslim physician, Avicenna (Ibn Sina) introduced the use of biomedical research,^[1] clinical trials,^[2] randomized controlled trials,^[3]^[4] drug tests^[1] and efficacy tests^[5]^[6] on human subjects.
Human dissections were carried out by Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar),^[7] who introduced the use of experimentation in surgery during the 12th century,^[8]^[9] as well as Ibn Tufail^[10] and Saladin's physician Ibn Jumay in the 12th century, Abd-el-latif in 1200,^[11] and Ibn al-Nafis in the 13th century.^[12]

[edit] Early Modern Times

HSR experiments were recorded during vaccination trials in the 18th century. In these early trials, physicians used themselves or their slaves as test subjects. Experiments on others were often conducted without informing the subjects of dangers associated with such experiments.
A famous example of such research were the Edward Jenner experiments. where he tested smallpox vaccines on his son and neighbourhood children. In an instance of self-experimentation, Johann Jorg swallowed 17 drugs in various doses to record their properties. Conversely, the famous scientist Louis Pasteur "agonized over treating humans" and consented to treat a human only when he was convinced that the death of his first test subject, the child Joseph Meister, "appeared inevitable."^[13]

[edit] Early 20th Century

In the 20th century, as the progress of medicine began to accelerate, the concept of the various codes of ethics of scientific disciplines changed dramatically, and the treatment of research subjects along with it.
Walter Reed's experiments to develop an inoculation for yellow fever led these advances. Reed's vaccine experiments were carefully scrutinized, however, unlike earlier trials.^[14]

[edit] Modern Era

Infamous cases of human subjects abuse in the 20th century were conducted by Imperial Japan and the Nazis during World War II, an example of research involving prisoners which came to light in the Nuremberg Doctors' Trial and led to the Nuremberg Code of ethical conduct for human subjects research. Research in the second half of the 20th century has been characterized by increasing attempts to protect human subjects through national agencies, institutional ethical review boards, and informed consent.

[edit] History of human subjects abuses

Strict policies now exist when a human being is the subject of an experiment. These evolved over time after particularly horrid abuses (and even atrocities) on human subjects: such as research involving prisoners, research on slaves and servants, and research on family members. In some notable cases, doctors have performed experiments on themselves when they have been unwilling to risk the well-being of others. This is known as self-experimentation.

[edit] World War II

Unit 731, a department of the Imperial Japanese Army located near Harbin (Manchukuo), experimented with prisoner vivisection, dismemberment, bacteria inoculation and induced epidemics on a very large scale from 1932 onward through the Second Sino-Japanese war. With the expansion of the empire during World War II, many other units were implemented in conquered cities such as Nanking (Unit 1644), Beijing (Unit 1855), Guangzhou (Unit 8604) and Singapore (Unit 9420). After the war, Supreme commander of occupation Douglas MacArthur gave immunity in the name of the United States to Shiro Ishii and all members of the units in exchange for all of the results.^[15] The United States blocked Soviet access to this information. However, some unit members were judged by the Soviets during the Khabarovsk War Crime Trials.
At the end of war, 23 Nazi doctors and scientists were put on trial for the unethical treatment of concentration camp inmates, often used as research subjects with fatal consequences (see Nazi human experimentation). Out of those 23, 15 were convicted, 7 were condemned to death by, 8 received prison sentences from 10 years to life, and 8 were acquitted (see the Doctors' Trial).^[16]
De-classified documents of the National Archives revealed that during the 1930s and 1940s, the British Army allegedly used hundreds of British and native British Indian Army soldiers as “guinea pigs” in their experiments to determine if mustard gas inflicted greater damage on Indian skin compared to British skin. It is unclear whether the trial subjects, some of whom were hospitalised by their injuries, were all volunteers.^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]
Fort Detrick in Maryland was the headquarters of US biological warfare experiments. Operation Whitecoat involved the injection of infectious agents to observe their effects in human subjects.^[21]

[edit] After World War II

In Sweden, the Vipeholm experiments were conducted, where retarded test subjects were exposed to large amounts of sugar to induce dental caries. In the United Kingdom (voluntary) human experimentation at Porton Down in the 1950s, led to the death of Ronald Maddison.
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer came under fire in 2001 for allegedly testing meningitis drugs on Nigerian children.^[22]
In Israel, a former worker of Negev Nuclear Research Center filed lawsuit, claiming that employees of the Center were given drinks with uranium without medical supervision and without obtaining written consent.^[23]

[edit] United States

Main article: Human experimentation in the United States

There have been numerous human experiments performed in the United States, which have been considered unethical, and were often performed illegally, without the knowledge, consent, or informed consent of the test subjects.
Many types of experiments were performed including the deliberately infecting people with deadly or debilitating diseases, exposing people to biological and chemical weapons, human radiation experiments, injecting people with toxic and radioactive chemicals, surgical experiments, interrogation/torture experiments, tests involving mind-altering substances, and a wide variety of others. Many of these tests were performed on children and mentally disabled individuals. In many of the studies, a large number of the subjects were poor racial minorities or prisoners.
Often, subjects were sick or disabled people, whose doctors told them that they were receiving "medical treatment", but instead were used as the subjects of harmful and deadly experiments, without their knowledge or consent. The ethical, professional, and legal implications of this in the United States medical and scientific community were quite significant, and led to many institutions and policies which attempted to ensure that future human subject research in the United States would be ethical and legal.
Public outcry over the discovery of government experiments on human subjects led to numerous congressional investigations and hearings, including the Church Committee, Rockefeller Commission, and Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, amongst others. These inquiries have not resulted in prosecutions and not all subjects involved in the trials have been compensated or notified of their participation.

[edit] Guatemalans used for STD experiments

Main article: Syphilis experiments in Guatemala

U.S. scientific researchers infected hundreds of Guatemalan mental patients with sexually transmitted diseases from 1946 to 1948. Researchers from the U.S. Public Health Service conducted experiments on 696 male and female patients housed at Guatemala's National Mental Health Hospital. The scientists injected the patients with gonorrhea and syphilis—and even encouraged many of them to pass the disease on to others. The experiments were done in conjunction with the Guatemalan government. The US Public Health Service carried out the experiments under the guise of syphilis inoculations. When some of the inmates did not contract the disease, the researchers created abrasions on the inmate's body and poured the bacteria into the abrasion. When that failed, they injected the disease straight into the inmates' spines. In 2010 these experiments were revealed by Susan Reverby of Wellesley College who was researching a book on Tuskegee experiments. This lead to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issuing an official apology.^[24] President Barack Obama apologized to President Álvaro Colom who had called these experiments 'a crime against humanity'.^[25]

[edit] Surgical research

Herophilos, the "father of anatomy" and founder of the first medical school in Alexandria, was described by the church leader Tertullian as having performed surgery on at least 600 live prisoners.^{[citation needed]} In recent times, the wartime programs of Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele, Shiro Ishii, founder of the Japanese military Unit 731, and Dr. Fukujiro Ishiyama at Kyushu Imperial University Hospital, conducted surgery on concentration camp prisoners in their respective countries during World War II.^[26]
In November 2006, Doctor Akira Makino confessed to Kyodo news having performed surgery and amputations on condemned prisoners, including women and children in 1944 and 1945 while he was stationed on Mindanao.^[27] In 2007, Doctor Ken Yuasa testified to The Japan Times that he believes at least 1,000 persons working for the Shōwa regime, including surgeons, did surgical research in mainland China.^[28]
The use of the term vivisection when referring to procedures performed on humans almost always implies a lack of consent. Human volunteers can consent to be subjects for invasive experiments which may involve, for example, the taking of tissue samples (biopsies), or other procedures which require surgery on the volunteer. These procedures must be approved by ethical review, and carried out in an approved manner that minimizes pain and long term health risks to the subject.^[29] Despite this, the term is generally recognized as pejorative: one would never refer to life-saving surgery, for example, as "vivisection."^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Questionable psychological experiments

Several experiments have been conducted on consenting volunteers whose ethical nature is now considered questionable. Following exposure of these experiments, rules regarding informed consent have been tightened.

The Milgram experiment, in which many subjects were shown they were capable of inflicting discomfort (by electric shock) on other humans if under orders to do so
The Stanford prison experiment, in which many participants became violent and abusive of each other.
The Monster Study that was conducted on orphans in 1939 in an attempt to induce stuttering.

[edit] Ongoing human subject abuse

North Korea: Alleged North Korean human experimentation

[edit] Human Subjects Guidelines

This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this section if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (February 2010)

[edit] Declaration of Helsinki

Main article: Declaration of Helsinki

In 1964, the World Medical Association published a code of research ethics, the Declaration of Helsinki. It was based on the Nuremberg Code, focusing on medical research with therapeutic intent. Subsequently, medical professionals and researches begun requiring that research follows the principles outlined in the Declaration. This document was one of the milestones towards the implementation of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process.^[30]

[edit] Beecher Article

In 1966, anesthesiologist Dr. Henry K. Beecher published an article, "Ethics and Clinical Research". Beecher estimated that "unethical or questionably ethical procedures are not uncommon" and in detail outlined 22 examples of controversial studies that have been published in major journals. Beecher wrote, "Medicine is sound, and most progress is soundly attained..." He believed that unethical research is not "sound" and instead it can "do great harm to medicine."^[31]

[edit] Belmont Report

The Tuskegee syphilis experiment was among the most influential in shaping public perceptions of research involving human subjects. When the press exposed the study, the US Congress appointed a panel that determined that the PHS Syphilis Study should be stopped immediately and that overseeing of human research was inadequate. The panel recommended that federal regulations be designed and implemented to protect human research subjects in the future. Subsequently, the National Research Act of 1974 led to regulations now referred to as the "common rule," a group of similar requirements that cover the various forms of clinical research.
In 1974, the United States Congress ordered the creation of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Its goal was to identify the basic ethical principles that affect the decision to use human research subjects and to develop guidelines to assure that human research is conducted in accordance with those principles.
The result of the National Commission's work was the Belmont Report published in 1979. It identifies three basic ethical principles that underlie human experimentation (the Belmont Principles):

Respect for persons
Beneficence
Justice

[edit] CIOMS

The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) has written an International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. .....

[edit] APA Ethics Code

The American Psychological Association (APA) has a documented ethics code pertaining to the practice of Psychology and associated research. This document contains great guidelines for the use of deception in research. For members of the APA, these are hard requirements levied against their membership. They are also requirements for any research project conducted, funded, or managed by the APA.

[edit] Requirements and Guidelines for US Federal Research

The following policies codify requirements that must be followed for any research conducted or supported by the US Federal Government.

[edit] Common Rule

This is the US codifitation of regulated policy based on the guidelines of the Belmont Report. It combines and supersedes previous disparate regulatory codes.

45 CFR 46: Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 46 (45 CFR 46) is the primary set of Federal regulations regarding the protection of human subjects in research and is often referred to as the Common Rule. It defines the laws, criteria for exemption, as well as definition and formulation of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Some Government agencies (e.g., DoD, FDA, etc.) have established their own implementation of this code that supersedes portions or all of 45 CFR 46.
32 CFR 219: This is the Department of Defense (DoD) implementation of 45 CFR 46, Subpart A. Subparts B, C, and D of 45 CFR 46 still apply to DoD supported research. It differs from 45 CFR 46 in the criteria for exemptions.
21 CFR 50: This is the implementation of the Common Rule by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). It applies to research associated with the development of any food, drug, or medical device.

[edit] US Department of Defense Research

DoD Directive 3216.02: This document defines additional requirements for HSR supported by the Department of Defense.
10 USC 980: Title 10, United States Code, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 49, Section 980 (10 USC 980) addresses the limitations on use of humans as experimental subjects. It basically states that funds cannot be deployed prior to obtaining informed consent.

[edit] Scope of Guidelines

Just because a project involves the use of human participants does not mean it constitutes human subject research. The activities must meet the definition of research, and the use of the human participants must meet the definition of human subjects. The definitions are written as such to include situations where the human is the subject of the experiment, their environment is manipulated by the researchers, and data regarding their responses are collected. If the project does not meet the definition of Human Subject Research, then the requirements do not apply, and the project does not require an IRB review or informed consent. However, it is best to have an IRB make this determination and document the decision.
If a project is defined as Human Subject Research, it may still be considered Exempt. This generally means that the project is minimal risk, and the requirements do not apply. The protocol for the project must meet one of the exempt categories defined in the Common Rule. By definition then, an IRB does not need to perform a full review on the project, and informed consent is not required. However, again, an IRB needs to make this determination and document the decision. In these situations, the guidelines in the Belmont Report should still be followed since it is still Human Subject Research.

[edit] US Federal Terminology

Engaged: An institution is engaged in human subjects research when its employees or agents either:

intervene or interact with living individuals for research purposes; or
obtain individually identifiable private information for research purposes (32 CFR 219.102.d-f).

Exempt: Not subject to HSU policies because it meets one or more of the exemption criteria defined in 32 CFR 219.101.b.

Human Subject: A living individual about whom an investigator conducting research obtains:

Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or
Identifiable private information (32 CFR 219.102.f).

Interaction: Communication or interpersonal contact between investigator and subject (32 CFR 219.102.f).

Intervention: Physical procedures by which data are gathered as well as manipulations of the subject or the subject’s environment that are performed for research purposes (32 CFR 219.102.f).

Minimal Risk: The probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests (32 CFR 219.102.i).

Private Information: Individually identifiable information about behavior that occurs in a context in which an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or recording is taking place, and information which has been provided for specific purposes by an individual and which the individual can reasonably expect will not be made public (32 CFR 219.102.f).

Research: A systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge (32 CFR 219.102.d).

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

^ ^a ^b Huff, Toby (2003). The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China, and the West. Cambridge University Press. pp. 218. ISBN 0521529948
^ David W. Tschanz, MSPH, PhD (August 2003). "Arab Roots of European Medicine", Heart Views 4 (2).
^ Jonathan D. Eldredge (2003), "The Randomised Controlled Trial design: unrecognized opportunities for health sciences librarianship", Health Information and Libraries Journal 20, p. 34–44 [36].
^ Bernard S. Bloom, Aurelia Retbi, Sandrine Dahan, Egon Jonsson (2000), "Evaluation Of Randomized Controlled Trials On Complementary And Alternative Medicine", International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 16 (1), p. 13–21 [19].
^ D. Craig Brater and Walter J. Daly (2000), "Clinical pharmacology in the Middle Ages: Principles that presage the 21st century", Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 67 (5), p. 447-450 [449].
^ Walter J. Daly and D. Craig Brater (2000), "Medieval contributions to the search for truth in clinical medicine", Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 43 (4), p. 530–540 [536], Johns Hopkins University Press.
^ Islamic medicine, Hutchinson Encyclopedia.
^ Rabie E. Abdel-Halim (2005), "Contributions of Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) to the progress of surgery: A study and translations from his book Al-Taisir", Saudi Medical Journal 2005; Vol. 26 (9): 1333-1339.
^ Rabie E. Abdel-Halim (2006), "Contributions of Muhadhdhab Al-Deen Al-Baghdadi to the progress of medicine and urology", Saudi Medical Journal 27 (11): 1631-1641.
^ Jon Mcginnis, Classical Arabic Philosophy: An Anthology of Sources, p. 284, Hackett Publishing Company, ISBN 0872208710.
^ Emilie Savage-Smith (1996), "Medicine", pp. 951-2, in (Morelon & Rashed 1996, pp. 903–962)
^ Dr. Sulaiman Oataya (1982), "Ibn ul Nafis has dissected the human body", Symposium on Ibn al-Nafis, Second International Conference on Islamic Medicine: Islamic Medical Organization, Kuwait (cf. Ibn ul-Nafis has Dissected the Human Body, Encyclopedia of Islamic World).
^ Rothman 1993
^ Brady 1982
^ Hal Gold, Unit 731 Testimony, 2003, p. 109
^ Mitscherlich, Alexander and Mielke, Fred. "Epilogue: Seven Were Hanged." Ed. Annas, George J and Grodin, Michael A. The Nazi Doctors And The Nuremberg Code - Human Rights in Human Experimentation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. 105 - 107
^ Report: Britain Tested Chemical Weapons on Indian Colonial Troops Voice of America 2 September 2007
^ Indian soldiers used as guinea pigs during British Raj September 2, 2007 The News, International, Pakistan
^ When Indians were guinea pigs The Hindu Times September 2, 2007
^ Indian Troops Were Part of WWII Gas Tests UPI September 1, 2007
^ "Hidden history of US germ testing". BBC News. February 13, 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/4701196.stm. Retrieved May 4, 2010.
^ "Nigerians angered by drugs trial delay". BBC News. July 30, 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1465532.stm. Retrieved May 4, 2010.
^ "Ex-staffer at Dimona nuclear reactor says made to drink uranium". Haaretz.com. 2009-01-01. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1107980.html.
^ "U.S. Apologizes for Syphilis Experiment". The New York Times. 1 October 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/10/01/world/americas/news-us-usa-guatemala-experiment.htm. Retrieved 2 October 2010.
^ "US medical tests in Guatemala 'crime against humanity'". BBC News. 1 October 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11457552. Retrieved 2 October 2010.
^ Barenblatt, Daniel (2003). A Plague Upon Humanity. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 0060933879.
^ "Japanese doctor admits POW abuse", BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6185442.stm
^ "I was afraid during my first vivisection, but the second time around, it was much easier. By the third time, I was willing to do it." "Vivisectionnist recalls his day of reckoning", The Japan Times, http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20071024w1.html
^ http://www.health.vic.gov.au/ethics/downloads/module1f_march05.doc
^ Shamoo & Irving 1993
^ Beecher 1966

[edit] References

Beecher, Henry K. "Ethics And Clinical Research". The New England Journal of Medicine. Vol 274 No. 24, June 16, 1966, 1354–1360
Brady, Joseph V. and Jonsen, Albert R. "The Evolution of Regulatory Influences on Research with Human Subjects". Human Subjects Research: A Handbook for Institutional Review Boards. Ed. Greenwald, Robert A. et al. New York: Plenum Press, 1982. 3–18
Fisher, Jill A. (2007). "Governing Human Subjects Research in the USA: Individualized Ethics and Structural Inequalities". Science & Public Policy 34 (2): 117–126. doi:10.3152/030234207X190973.
Mitscherlich, Alexander and Mielke, Fred. "Epilogue: Seven Were Hanged". Ed. Annas, George J and Grodin, Michael A. The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code: Human Rights in Human Experimentation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. 105–107
Morelon, Régis; Rashed, Roshdi (1996). Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science. 3. Routledge. ISBN 0415124107
Rothman, David J. "Ethics and Human Experimentation: Henry Beecher Revisited". The New England Journal of Medicine. Vol. 317, No. 19, Nov.5, 1987 - Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research, Boston, April 1–2, 1993
Shamoo, Adil E. and Irving, Dianne N. "Accountability in Research". 1993 in press - Public Responsibility in M

[edit] Further reading

Goliszek, Andrew. In the Name of Science: A History of Secret Programs, Medical Research, and Human Experimentation, St. Martin's Press 2003, ISBN 0-312-30356-4
Hornblum, Allen. Acres of Skin: Human Experiments at Holmesburg Prison: A True Story of Abuse and Exploitation in the Name of Medical Science. Routledge, 1998.
Kevorkian, Jack: A brief history of experimentation on condemned and executed humans. JAMA 77 (1985) pp. 215–226
Lederer, Susan: Subjected to science. Human experimentation in America before the Second World War Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press 1995
Moreno, Jonathan D. Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans. W H Freeman 1999, Routledge 2001.
Welsome, Eileen. The Plutonium Files: America's Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War. Dell Publishing (Random House), 1999.

[edit] External links

In Focus "Medical Research involving Minors: Medical, legal and ethical aspects" (German Reference Centre for Ethics in the Life Sciences)
Alliance for Human Research Protection
Four Docs Busted For Performing Human Experiments On Elderly Patients
The Dark History of Medical Experimentation from the Nazis to Tuskegee to Puerto Rico - video report by Democracy Now!
Ethical Practice: Principles and Guidelines for Research with Vulnerable Individuals and Families and ethical protocol for social science research developed by the Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System
An Apology 65 Years Late
BZ Timeline
ResearchEthics.ca
Belmont Report
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_09_050503/letters_050503-10.html
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/10817.html
http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opbooks.jsp?id=ns24356

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research"

Hidden categories: Articles lacking sources from September 2010 | All articles lacking sources | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from February 2008 | Wikipedia articles needing cleanup from February 2010 | All articles needing cleanup

Personal tools

Interaction

Toolbox

Print/export

Languages

This page was last modified on 10 November 2010 at 02:47.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

muntants or non mutants ??

'Montauk Monster' Mystery Gets More Mysterious

Related Coverage

New Montauk Monster sighting? Bizarre creature washes up in small Ontario town

HUMAN VOLUNTEER SELECTION

DRUG COMBINATIONS

PRINCIPLES OF ABUSE-LIABILITY TESTING

DEVELOPMENT OF ABUSE-LIABILITY TESTING PROCEDURES

EFFECTIVENESS OF ABUSE-LIABILITY TESTING

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Part 1: H1N1 weapon of mass destruction vaccine and human experimentation

Part II: Squalene laced H1N1 vaccination ‘pharmacological warfare’

The U.S. Government's Secret Testing of Radioactive, Chemical and Biological Weapons and Substances on Humans

Contents

[edit] Definition of a human subject

[edit] History

[edit] Roman

[edit] Middle Ages

[edit] Early Modern Times

[edit] Early 20th Century

[edit] Modern Era

[edit] History of human subjects abuses

[edit] World War II

[edit] After World War II

[edit] United States

[edit] Guatemalans used for STD experiments

[edit] Surgical research

[edit] Questionable psychological experiments

[edit] Ongoing human subject abuse

[edit] Human Subjects Guidelines

[edit] Declaration of Helsinki

[edit] Beecher Article

[edit] Belmont Report

[edit] CIOMS

[edit] APA Ethics Code

[edit] Requirements and Guidelines for US Federal Research

[edit] Common Rule

[edit] US Department of Defense Research

[edit] Scope of Guidelines

[edit] US Federal Terminology

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

[edit] External links

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

Actions

Search

Navigation

Interaction

Toolbox

Print/export

Languages

A SHORT HISTORY OF US GOVERNMENT RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE

How to Get Thousands Of Dollars From Government Testing

Instructions

Things You'll Need:

Tips & Warnings

\

Bigfoot

Contents

Description

History

Before 1958

After 1958

Prominent reported sightings

Proposed explanations for sightings

Misidentification

Hoaxes

Gigantopithecus

Extinct hominidae

View among the scientific community

See also

Footnotes

Incoming search terms: