# In my case, it was/is the GOVERNMENT



## walkingdead (Jan 28, 2006)

Google "targeted individual", "electronic harassment", "mk ultra", " cia mind control", and you could have your answers, and it is really unbelievable. But it is true! You have to decide for yourself, I have given you the key. 
God Bless All Our Tortured Souls!


----------



## man63 (Jan 26, 2010)

Yeah I have done a bit of research into that. Your guess is just as good as mine.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

.......


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

I don't find this funny. This goes into 3rd party PI, ex-military, private defense, other groups, etc.


----------



## meekah (Sep 28, 2015)

looooooooooooooooooooooooool, schizo


----------



## Alan (Jan 26, 2015)

scrappy said:


> looooooooooooooooooooooooool, schizo


Really?


----------



## Queen Frick (Jun 17, 2014)

I can't believe in these things. I've requested to be in the Illuminati many times to no avail.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

*.......*


----------



## dpsucks (Sep 7, 2012)

Threads like this have no place in a dp discussion forum. Could be triggering for some people.


----------



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

The fact that it could be triggering for some people is all the more reason why this topic should be discussed.


----------



## AClayP95 (Mar 31, 2015)

Can you please tell me some of the main reasons you believe your theory is true?


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

dpsucks said:


> Threads like this have no place in a dp discussion forum. Could be triggering for some people.


This thread has a place in this forum. The reason I believe this thread has a place in a 'DP' discussion forum is because I truly believe many people here are Targeted Individuals.

I think the onset of dissociative disorders, early in life, is very common. But no one really cares about helping these people.

Instead the doctors, and other authorities involved, have turned it into an abnormal trauma disorder and then it becomes a disorder of, perhaps, people who may cause trauma.

There is mainly only involuntary help for 'people who may cause trauma'. According to contemporary moral code, these 'people who may cause trauma' are a threat to society.

Gangstalking is a means to 'disable' the 'people who may cause trauma'.

THEREFORE, the cause and effect of DP/DR Disorders of these 'people who cause trauma' becomes a vehicle for doctors and authorities to engage in Behavioral Correction, outside the right to process.

This ends up being why people are medicated improperly.

This ends up not helping the young people who have DP disorder from no cause at all.

This ends up the reason you see very few articles about the medical treatments of DP/DR disorders (in comparison to other mental ailments).

Such that, if a young person develops DP/DR from the social alienation and the social exclusion in High Schools and Colleges (which reflects the concepts of politics, political-science, and the evils of Alpha-Beta evolutionary psychological mechanics), these aforementioned doctors and authorities neither make an effort to help (with the patient's desires and best interest in mind) nor do they properly treat DP disorder (usually disregarding the patients' liberties and request), because there is more of a focus on aberrant trauma, and the act of negatively 'pacifying' these 'people who cause trauma', detrimentally affecting the patients' mental health.

Though, the alienation and exclusionary feelings of young people in High Schools are not issues that are addressed and dealt with in a way that is reverent to fair personal liberties of the patient, as these social mechanics still operate strongly within these institutions, and do not offer a threat to society, other than the effect of creating young people who, in the eyes of these politicos, may pose a danger to National Security later in life.

Instead, the focus is on eliminating free-thinkers and eliminating young people who don't follow social norms, and the focus is on young people who reconstruct reality and cyclical-societal moral code, through a change in socio-ethical doctrine; that is that the aforementioned doctors, authorities, politicos look at these young people as a threat to the status quo and a threat to the security of the Homeland.

And THEREFORE, the people deemed 'people who may cause trauma' become Targeted Individuals.

Some of these people end up on this site!

This is the reason this topic is quite pertinent and necessary to express to the world , and necessary to express to the DP/DR community.


----------



## apoplexy (Jan 4, 2013)

NOBLE VICTORY said:


> This thread has a place in this forum. The reason I believe this thread has a place in a 'DP' discussion forum is because I truly believe many people here are Targeted Individuals.
> 
> I think the onset of dissociative disorders, early in life, is very common. But no one really cares about helping these people.
> 
> ...


"Instead, the focus is on eliminating free-thinkers and eliminating young people who don't follow social norms, and the focus is on young people who reconstruct reality and cyclical-societal moral code, through a change in socio-ethical doctrine; that is that the aforementioned doctors, authorities, politicos look at these young people as a threat to the status quo and a threat to the security of the Homeland."

???


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

'Cyclical-societal moral code' could be going from Ancient Rome's views on Sex to the View of Sex During the Victorian Age to Views of Sex in the 1950's to the 2000's Sex in The City mentality. This is just an example; it can be applied to any subject.

'Socio-ethical doctrine' is what is expected (Right vs. Wrong) in a tribe or group or society, as a norm.

Any sort of radical thinking poses a threat to the status quo.


----------



## Surfingisfun001 (Sep 25, 2007)

I have actually thought about this. I highly doubt it's true but 'dp' would be a great weapon.


----------



## dpsucks (Sep 7, 2012)

Zed said:


> The fact that it could be triggering for some people is all the more reason why this topic should be discussed.


Triggering dp issues should be discussed, but not this. This isnt related to dp at all and is actually related to symptoms of something else that people with dp/dr usually find triggering and harmful to talk about.


----------



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

dpsucks said:


> Triggering dp issues should be discussed, but not this. This isnt related to dp at all and is actually related to symptoms of something else that people with dp/dr usually find triggering and harmful to talk about.


How do you know none of the topics raised in the OP aren't related to DP at all?

I know for a fact that there's been at least one MK ultra survivor on these boards. His experiences directly relate to the OP. Why should he be denied the opportunity to talk of his experiences?

Maybe one of the mods can put a trigger warning on the title to warn others of the potential of triggering content? That should be enough.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

..........


----------



## dpsucks (Sep 7, 2012)

Zed said:


> How do you know none of the topics raised in the OP aren't related to DP at all?
> 
> I know for a fact that there's been at least one MK ultra survivor on these boards. His experiences directly relate to the OP. Why should he be denied the opportunity to talk of his experiences?
> 
> Maybe one of the mods can put a trigger warning on the title to warn others of the potential of triggering content? That should be enough.


thinking that the government is controlling your mind is typical of psychosis. Gang stalking is also very closely linked with psychotic illnesses.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Tom, No one is saying the government is controlling anyone's mind.

This is an old thread that interested me only for the fact that it mentioned Targeted Individuals.

One point I would like to make:

If I told you in 1971/1972, that President Nixon would have people illegally break into the Watergate Building [in Washinton DC] to obtain secrets from the Democratic National Committee, you would tell me that I was psychotic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_of_Richard_Nixon


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2016)

This whole thread seems like ravings, and not very helpful to anyone.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

UK journals are the worst rags in the world. I figured you'd be used to rubbish.

-------------

Facts:


The CIA had force-fed some prisoners orally and/or anally in order to establish "total control over the detainee."[32]
The Committee found that "[a]t least five CIA detainees were subjected to 'rectal rehydration' or rectal feeding without documented medical necessity."[33]
At least one prisoner was "diagnosed with chronic hemorrhoids, an anal fissure and symptomatic rectal prolapse," symptoms normally associated with a violent rape.[34]
CIA officials Scott Miller and James Pavitt were told that rectal exams of at least two prisoners had been conducted with "excessive force."[34]
Threats were made to rape and murder children and/or family members of prisoners.[1]:4[35][36]
In November 2002 the CIA killed at least one prisoner during interrogation by hypothermia.[35][36] No CIA employees were disciplined as a result of his death.[35]
At least four prisoners with injuries to their legs (two with broken feet, one with a sprained ankle and one with an amputated leg) were forced to stand on their injuries.[35]
Prisoners were told that they would be killed. (For example: one prisoner was told "We can never let the world know what I have done to you", another was told that the only way he would be allowed to leave the prison would be in a coffin.)[35]
One CIA interrogator who was subsequently sent home early threatened a prisoner with a gun and power drill and played Russian Roulette with him.[34]
At least two prisoners were victims of "mock executions."[34]
Several prisoners almost died and became completely unresponsive or nearly drowned during waterboarding.[35]
Abu Zubaydah's eye was so badly damaged during his time in prison that it was surgically removed.[35]
Prisoners were kept awake for over one week (180 hours) causing at least five to experience "disturbing" hallucinations.[35]
One prisoner was psychologically traumatized to the point of being "a broken man" but CIA operatives stopped short of "complete[ly] break[ing] [him]."[35]
Prisoners were forced to use buckets for toilets.[34] As punishment, the waste bucket could be removed from a prisoner's cell.[37]
A report by the Federal Bureau of Prisons found that "they [had] never been in a facility where individuals were so sensory deprived i.e., constant white noise, no talking, everyone in the dark, with the guards wearing a light on their head when they collected and escorted a detainee to an interrogation cell, detainees constantly being shackled to the wall or floor, and the starkness of each cell (concrete and bars). There is nothing like this in the Federal Bureau of Prisons... detainees were not being treated... humanely."[34]
Janat Gul was tortured for months based on false accusations made by an informant.[1][34]
One prisoner was placed in a box the size of a coffin for over 11 days and was also placed for 29 hours in a box 21 inches (53 cm) wide, 2.5 feet (76 cm) deep and 2.5 feet (76 cm) high.[10]
CIA interrogators used unauthorized forms of torture such as forcing a prisoner to stand with his hand over his head for 2 1/2 days, putting a pistol next to his head and bathing him with a stiff brush.[10]
One detainee was subjected to "ice water baths" and 66 hours of standing sleep deprivation. He was later released as the CIA had mistaken his identity.[38]
Torture of prisoners led to serious mental harm (e.g. dementia, paranoia, insomnia, and attempts at self-harm [including suicide])[32]
Of the 119 known detainees, at least 39 were tortured by the CIA.[1] In at least six cases, the CIA used torture on suspects before evaluating whether they would be willing to cooperate.[1][35]

Unethical human experimentation in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about U.S. medical experiments that are alleged to be unethical, non-consensual, or illegal. For the consensual, ethical, and legal use of human beings in medical research, see Human subject research.

*Unethical human experimentation in the United States* describes numerous experiments performed on human test subjects in the United States that have been considered unethical, and were often performed illegally, without the knowledge, consent, or informed consent of the test subjects. Such tests have occurred throughout American history, but particularly in the 20th century.

The experiments include: the deliberate infection of people with deadly or debilitating diseases, exposure of people to biological and chemical weapons, human radiation experiments, injection of people with toxic and radioactive chemicals, surgical experiments, interrogation and torture experiments, tests involving mind-altering substances, and a wide variety of others. Many of these tests were performed on children,[1] the sick, and mentally disabled individuals, often under the guise of "medical treatment". In many of the studies, a large portion of the subjects were poor, racial minorities, or prisoners.

Funding for many of the experiments was provided by United States government, especially the United States military, Central Intelligence Agency, or private corporations involved with military activities. The human research programs were usually highly secretive, and in many cases information about them was not released until many years after the studies had been performed.

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 that attempted to ensure that future human subject research in the United States would be ethical and legal. Public outrage in the late 20th century over the discovery of government experiments on human subjects led to numerous congressional investigations and hearings, including the Church Committee and Rockefeller Commission, both of 1975 and the 1994Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, among others.

Contents
[hide]​
1Surgical experiments
2Pathogens, disease, and biological warfare agents
2.1Late 19th century
2.2Early 20th century
2.31940s
2.41950s
2.51960s

3Human radiation experiments
3.1Radioactive iodine experiments
3.2Uranium experiments
3.3Plutonium experiments
3.4Experiments involving other radioactive materials
3.5Fallout research
3.6Irradiation experiments

4Chemical experiments
4.1Nonconsensual tests
4.2Operation Top Hat
4.3Holmesburg program

5Psychological and torture experiments
5.1U.S. government research
5.1.1Truth serum
5.1.2Drug deaths
5.1.3MKULTRA
5.1.3.1Founding
5.1.3.2Concerns
5.1.3.3Shutdown

5.1.4Experiments on patients with schizophrenia
5.1.5Torture experiments

5.2Academic research

6Pharmacological research
7Other experiments
8Legal, academic and professional policy
9See also
10References
10.1Notes
10.2Bibliography

11Further resources
11.1General
11.2Biological warfare and disease/pathogen experiments
11.3Human radiation experiments
11.3.1Books
11.3.2Government documents
11.3.3Journals

11.4Psychological/torture/interrogation experiments
11.5Video


Surgical experiments[edit]

Throughout the 1840s, J. Marion Sims, who is often referred to as "the father of gynecology", performed surgical experiments on enslaved African women, without anaesthesia. The women-one of whom was operated on 30 times-eventually died from infections resulting from the experiments.[2] In order to test one of his theories about the causes of trismus in infants, Sims performed experiments where he used a shoemaker's awl to move around the skull bones of the babies of enslaved women.[3][4] He also addicted the women in his surgical experiments to morphine, only providing the drugs after surgery was already complete, in order to make them more compliant.[5]

In 1874, Mary Rafferty, an Irish servant woman, came to Dr. Roberts Bartholow of the Good Samaritan Hospital in Cincinnati for treatment of her cancer. Seeing a research opportunity, he cut open her head, and inserted needle electrodes into her exposed brain matter.[6]He described the experiment as follows:



> When the needle entered the brain substance, she complained of acute pain in the neck. In order to develop more decided reactions, the strength of the current was increased ... her countenance exhibited great distress, and she began to cry. Very soon, the left hand was extended as if in the act of taking hold of some object in front of her; the arm presently was agitated with clonic spasm; her eyes became fixed, with pupils widely dilated; lips were blue, and she frothed at the mouth; her breathing became stertorous; she lost consciousness and was violently convulsed on the left side. The convulsion lasted five minutes, and was succeeded by a coma. She returned to consciousness in twenty minutes from the beginning of the attack, and complained of some weakness and vertigo.
> 
> - Dr. Bartholow's research report[6]


In 1896, Dr. Arthur Wentworth performed spinal taps on 29 young children, without the knowledge or consent of their parents, at the Children's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts to discover whether doing so would be harmful.[7]

From 1913 to 1951, Dr. Leo Stanley, chief surgeon at the San Quentin Prison, performed a wide variety of experiments on hundreds of prisoners at San Quentin. Many of the experiments involved testicular implants, where Stanley would take the testicles out of executedprisoners and surgically implant them into living prisoners. In other experiments, he attempted to implant the testicles of rams, goats, and boars into living prisoners. Stanley also performed various eugenics experiments, and forced sterilizations on San Quentin prisoners.[8] Stanley believed that his experiments would rejuvenate old men, control crime (which he believed had biological causes), and prevent the "unfit" from reproducing.[8][9]

Pathogens, disease, and biological warfare agents[edit]



A subject of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment has his blood drawn, c. 1953

Late 19th century[edit]

In the 1880s, in Hawaii, a California physician working at a hospital for lepers injected six girls under the age of 12 with syphilis.[7]

In 1895, New York City pediatrician Henry Heiman intentionally infected two mentally disabled boys-one four-year-old and one sixteen-year-old-with gonorrhea as part of a medical experiment. A review of the medical literature of the late 19th and early 20th centuries found more than 40 reports of experimental infections with gonorrheal culture, including some where gonorrheal organisms were applied to the eyes of sick children.[7][10][11]

U.S Army doctors in the Philippines infected five prisoners with bubonic plague and induced beriberi in 29 prisoners; four of the test subjects died as a result.[12][13] In 1906, Professor Richard Strong of Harvard University intentionally infected 24 Filipino prisoners with cholera, which had somehow become contaminated with plague. He did this without the consent of the patients, and without informing them of what he was doing. All of the subjects became sick and 13 died.[13][14]

Early 20th century[edit]

In 1908, three Philadelphia researchers infected dozens of children with tuberculin at the St. Vincent's House orphanage in Philadelphia, causing permanent blindness in some of the children and painful lesions and inflammation of the eyes in many of the others. In the study, they refer to the children as "material used".[15]

In 1909, F. C. Knowles released a study describing how he had deliberately infected two children in an orphanage with _Molluscum contagiosum_-a virus that causes wartlike growths-after an outbreak in the orphanage, in order to study the disease.[7]

In 1911, Dr. Hideyo Noguchi of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research injected 146 hospital patients (some of whom were children) with syphilis. He was later sued by the parents of some of the child subjects, who allegedly contracted syphilis as a result of his experiments.[16]

The Tuskegee syphilis experiment[17] was a clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama, by the U.S. Public Health Service. In the experiment, 400 impoverished black males who had syphilis were offered "treatment" by the researchers, who did not tell the test subjects that they had syphilis and did not give them treatment for the disease, but rather just studied them to chart the progress of the disease. By 1947, penicillin became available as treatment, but those running the study prevented study participants from receiving treatment elsewhere, lying to them about their true condition, so that they could observe the effects of syphilis on the human body. By the end of the study in 1972, only 74 of the test subjects were alive. 28 of the original 399 men had died of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children were born with congenital syphilis. The study was not shut down until 1972, when its existence was leaked to the press, forcing the researchers to stop in the face of a public outcry.[18]

1940s[edit]

In 1941, at the University of Michigan, virologists Thomas Francis, Jonas Salk and other researchers deliberately infected patients at several Michigan mental institutions with the influenza virus by spraying the virus into their nasal passages.[19] Francis Peyton Rous, based at the Rockefeller Institute and editor of the _Journal of Experimental Medicine,_ wrote the following to Francis regarding the experiments:



> "It may save you much trouble if you publish your paper... elsewhere than in the _Journal of Experimental Medicine_. The _Journal_ is under constant scrutiny by the anti-vivisectionists who would not hesitate to play up the fact that you used for your tests human beings of a state institution. That the tests were wholly justified goes without saying."[20]


Rous closely monitored the articles he published since the 1930s, when revival of the anti-vivisectionist movement raised pressure against certain human experimentation.[21]

In 1941 Dr. William C. Black inoculated with herpes a twelve-month-old baby "offered as a volunteer". He submitted his research to _The Journal of Experimental Medicine_ and it was rejected on ethical grounds. The editor of the _Journal of Experimental Medicine_, Francis Peyton Rous, called the experiment "an abuse of power, an infringement of the rights of an individual, and not excusable because the illness which followed had implications for science."[22][23][24] The study was later published in the _Journal of Pediatrics_.[25]

The Stateville Penitentiary Malaria Study was a controlled study of the effects of malaria on the prisoners of Stateville Penitentiary near Joliet, Illinois, beginning in the 1940s. The study was conducted by the Department of Medicine at the University of Chicago in conjunction with the United States Army and the State Department. At the Nuremberg trials, Nazi doctors cited the precedent of the malaria experiments as part of their defense.[26][27] The study continued at Stateville Penitentiary for 29 years. In related studies from 1944 to 1946, Dr. Alf Alving, a professor at the University of Chicago Medical School, purposely infected psychiatric patients at the Illinois State Hospital with malaria, so that he could test experimental treatments on them.[28]

In a 1946 to 1948 study in Guatemala, U.S. researchers used prostitutes to infect prison inmates, insane asylum patients, and Guatemalan soldiers with syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases, in order to test the effectiveness of penicillin in treating the STDs. They later tried infecting people with "direct inoculations made from syphilis bacteria poured into the men's penises and on forearms and faces that were slightly abraded . . . or in a few cases through spinal punctures". Approximately 700 people were infected as part of the study (including orphan children). The study was sponsored by the Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health and the Pan American Health Sanitary Bureau (now the World Health Organization's Pan American Health Organization) and the Guatemalan government. The team was led by John Charles Cutler, who later participated in the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. Cutler chose to do the study in Guatemala because he would not have been permitted to do it in the United States. In 2010 when the research was revealed, the US officially apologized to Guatemala for the studies.[29][30][31][32] A lawsuit has been launched against Johns Hopkins University, Bristol-Myers Squibb and the Rockefeller Foundation for alleged involvement in the study.[33]

1950s[edit]

In 1950, in order to conduct a simulation of a biological warfare attack, the U.S. Navy sprayed large quantities of the bacteria _Serratia marcescens_ - considered harmless at this time - over the city of San Francisco during a project called Operation Sea-Spray. Numerous citizens contracted pneumonia-like illnesses, and at least one person died as a result.[34][35][36][37][38][39] The family of the man who died sued the government for gross negligence, but a federal judge ruled in favor of the government in 1981.[40] _Serratia_ tests were continued until at least 1969.[41]

Also in 1950, Dr. Joseph Stokes of the University of Pennsylvania deliberately infected 200 female prisoners with viral hepatitis.[42]

From the 1950s to 1972, mentally disabled children at the Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, New York were intentionally infected with viral hepatitis, for research whose purpose was to help discover a vaccine.[43] From 1963 to 1966, Saul Krugman of New York University promised the parents of mentally disabled children that their children would be enrolled into Willowbrook in exchange for signing a consent form for procedures that he claimed were "vaccinations." In reality, the procedures involved deliberately infecting children with viral hepatitis by feeding them an extract made from the feces of patients infected with the disease.[44][45]

In 1952, Chester M. Southam, a Sloan-Kettering Institute researcher, injected live cancer cells into prisoners at the Ohio State Prison. Also at Sloan-Kettering, 300 healthy women were injected with live cancer cells without being told. The doctors stated that they knew at the time that it might cause cancer.[46]

In 1953 Frank Olson died after a fall from a hotel building after being unknowingly doped with LSD by the CIA nine days prior.

The San Francisco Chronicle, December 17, 1979, p. 5 reported a claim by the Church of Scientology that the CIA conducted an open-air biological warfare experiment in 1955 near Tampa, Florida and elsewhere in Florida with whooping cough bacteria.[47] It was alleged that the experiment tripled the whooping cough infections in Florida to over one-thousand cases and caused whooping cough deaths in the state to increase from one to 12 over the previous year. This claim has been cited in a number of later sources, although these added no further supporting evidence.[48][49][50]

During the 1950s the United States conducted a series of field tests using entomological weapons. Operation Big Itch, in 1954, was designed to test munitions loaded with uninfected fleas (Xenopsylla cheopis). In May 1955 over 300,000 uninfected mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti) were dropped over parts of the U.S. state of Georgia to determine if the air-dropped mosquitoes could survive to take meals from humans. The mosquito tests were known as Operation Big Buzz. The U.S. engaged in at least two other EW testing programs, Operation Drop Kick and Operation May Day.[48]

1960s[edit]

In 1963, 22 elderly patients at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in Brooklyn, New York were injected with live cancer cells by Chester M. Southam, who in 1952 had done the same to prisoners at the Ohio State Prison, in order to "discover the secret of how healthy bodies fight the invasion of malignant cells". The administration of the hospital attempted to cover the study up, but the New York medical licensing board ultimately placed Southam on probation for one year. Two years later, the American Cancer Society elected him as their Vice President.[51]

From 1963 to 1969 as part of Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD), the U.S. Army performed tests which involved spraying several U.S. ships with various biological and chemical warfare agents, while thousands of U.S. military personnel were aboard the ships. The personnel were not notified of the tests, and were not given any protective clothing. Chemicals tested on the U.S. military personnel included the nerve gases VX and Sarin, toxic chemicals such as zinc cadmium sulfide and sulfur dioxide, and a variety of biological agents.[52]

In 1966, the U.S. Army released the harmless _Bacillus globigii_ into the tunnels of the New York City Subway system, as part of a field study called _A Study of the Vulnerability of Subway Passengers in New York City to Covert Attack with Biological Agents_.[48][53][54][55][56]The Chicago subway system was also subject to a similar experiment by the Army.[48]

Human radiation experiments[edit]
Main article: Human radiation experiments

Researchers in the United States have performed thousands of human radiation experiments to determine the effects of atomic radiation and radioactive contamination on the human body, generally on people who were poor, sick, or powerless.[57] Most of these tests were performed, funded, or supervised by the United States military, Atomic Energy Commission, or various other US federal government agencies.

The experiments included a wide array of studies, involving things like feeding radioactive food to mentally disabled children or conscientious objectors, inserting radium rods into the noses of schoolchildren, deliberately releasing radioactive chemicals over U.S. and Canadian cities, measuring the health effects of radioactive fallout from nuclear bomb tests, injecting pregnant women and babies with radioactive chemicals, and irradiating the testicles of prison inmates, amongst other things.

Much information about these programs was classified and kept secret. In 1986 the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a report entitled _American Nuclear Guinea Pigs : Three Decades of Radiation Experiments on U.S. Citizens_.[58] In the 1990s Eileen Welsome's reports on radiation testing for _The Albuquerque Tribune_ prompted the creation of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments by executive order of president Bill Clinton, to monitor government tests. It published results in 1995. Welsome later wrote a book called _The Plutonium Files._

Radioactive iodine experiments[edit]

In a 1949 operation called the "Green Run," the AEC released iodine-131 and xenon-133 to the atmosphere near the Hanford site in Washington, which contaminated a 500,000-acre (2,000 km2) area containing three small towns.[59]

In 1953, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) ran several studies at the University of Iowa on the health effects of radioactive iodine in newborns and pregnant women. In one study, researchers gave pregnant women from 100 to 200 microcuries (3.7 to 7.4 MBq) of iodine-131, in order to study the women's aborted embryos in an attempt to discover at what stage, and to what extent, radioactive iodine crosses the placental barrier. In another study, they gave 25 newborn babies (who were under 36 hours old and weighed from 5.5 to 8.5 pounds (2.5 to 3.9 kg)) iodine-131, either by oral administration or through an injection, so that they could measure the amount of iodine in their thyroid glands, as iodine would go to that gland.[60]

In another AEC study, researchers at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine fed iodine-131 to 28 healthy infants through a gastric tube to test the concentration of iodine in the infants' thyroid glands.[60]

In 1953, the AEC sponsored a study to discover if radioactive iodine affected premature babies differently from full-term babies. In the experiment, researchers from Harper Hospital in Detroit orally administered iodine-131 to 65 premature and full-term infants who weighed from 2.1 to 5.5 pounds (0.95 to 2.49 kg).[60]

From 1955 to 1960, Sonoma State Hospital in northern California served as a permanent drop-off location for mentally handicapped children diagnosed with cerebral palsy or lesser disorders. The children subsequently underwent painful experimentation without adult consent. Many were given spinal taps "for which they received no direct benefit." Reporters of _60 Minutes_ learned that in these five years, the brain of every child with cerebral palsy who died at Sonoma State was removed and studied without parental consent. According to the CBS story, over 1,400 patients died at the clinic.[61]

In an experiment in the 1960s, over 100 Alaskan citizens were continually exposed to radioactive iodine.[62]

In 1962, the Hanford site again released I-131, stationing test subjects along its path to record its effect on them. The AEC also recruited Hanford volunteers to ingest milk contaminated with I-131 during this time.[60]

Uranium experiments[edit]

"It is desired that no document be released which refers to experiments with humans and might have adverse effect on public opinion or result in legal suits. Documents covering such work should be classified `secret'."

April 17, 1947 Atomic Energy Commission memo from Colonel O.G. Haywood, Jr. to Dr. Fidler at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee[63]

Between 1946 and 1947, researchers at the University of Rochester injected uranium-234 and uranium-235 in dosages ranging from 6.4 to 70.7 micrograms per kilogram of body weight into six people to study how much uranium their kidneys could tolerate before becoming damaged.[64]

Between 1953 and 1957, at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Dr. William Sweet injected eleven terminally ill, comatose and semi-comatose patients with uranium in an experiment to determine, among other things, its viability as a chemotherapy treatment against brain tumors, which all but one of the patients had (one being a mis-diagnosis). Dr. Sweet, who died in 2001, maintained that consent had been obtained from the patients and next of kin.[65][66]

Plutonium experiments[edit]

From April 10, 1945 to July 18, 1947, eighteen people were injected with plutonium as part of the Manhattan Project.[67] Doses administered ranged from 95 to 5,900 nanocuries.[67]

Albert Stevens, a man misdiagnosed with stomach cancer, received "treatment" for his "cancer" at the U.C. San Francisco Medical Center in 1945. Dr. Joseph Gilbert Hamilton, a Manhattan Project doctor in charge of the human experiments in California[68] had Stevens injected with Pu-238 and Pu-239 without informed consent. Stevens never had cancer; a surgery to remove cancerous cells was highly successful in removing the benign tumor, and he lived for another 20 years with the injected plutonium.[69] Since Stevens received the highly radioactive Pu-238, his accumulated dose over his remaining life was higher than anyone has ever received: 64 Sv (6400 rem). Neither Albert Stevens nor any of his relatives were told that he never had cancer; they were led to believe that the experimental "treatment" had worked. His cremated remains were surreptitiously acquired by Argonne National Laboratory Center for Human Radiobiology in 1975 without the consent of surviving relatives. Some of the ashes were transferred to the National Human Radiobiology Tissue Repository at Washington State University,[69] which keeps the remains of people who died having radioisotopes in their body.

Three patients at Billings Hospital at the University of Chicago were injected with plutonium.[70] In 1946, six employees of a Chicago metallurgical lab were given water that was contaminated with plutonium-239, so that researchers could study how plutonium is absorbed into the digestive tract.[64]

An eighteen-year-old woman at an upstate New York hospital, expecting to be treated for a pituitary gland disorder, was injected with plutonium.[71]

Experiments involving other radioactive materials[edit]

Immediately after World War II, researchers at Vanderbilt University gave 829 pregnant mothers in Tennessee what they were told were "vitamin drinks" that would improve the health of their babies. The mixtures contained radioactive iron and the researchers were determining how fast the radioisotope crossed into the placenta. At least three children are known to have died from the experiments, from cancers and leukemia.[72][73] Four of the women's babies died from cancers as a result of the experiments, and the women experienced rashes, bruises, anemia, hair/tooth loss, and cancer.[57]

From 1946 to 1953, at the Walter E. Fernald State School in Massachusetts, in an experiment sponsored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and the Quaker Oats corporation, 73 mentally disabled children were fed oatmeal containing radioactive calcium and otherradioisotopes, in order to track "how nutrients were digested". The children were not told that they were being fed radioactive chemicals; they were told by hospital staff and researchers that they were joining a "science club".[72][74][75][76]

The University of California Hospital in San Francisco exposed 29 patients, some with rheumatoid arthritis, to total body irradiation (100-300 rad dose) to obtain data for the military.[77]

In the 1950s, researchers at the Medical College of Virginia performed experiments on severe burn victims, most of them poor and black, without their knowledge or consent, with funding from the Army and in collaboration with the AEC. In the experiments, the subjects were exposed to additional burning, experimental antibiotic treatment, and injections of radioactive isotopes. The amount of radioactive phosphorus-32 injected into some of the patients, 500 microcuries (19 MBq), was 50 times the "acceptable" dose for a _healthy_individual; for people with severe burns, this likely led to significantly increased death rates.[78][79]

Between 1948 and 1954, funded by the federal government, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Hospital inserted radium rods into the noses of 582 Baltimore, Maryland schoolchildren as an alternative to adenoidectomy.[80][81][82] Similar experiments were performed on over 7,000 U.S. Army and Navy personnel during World War II.[80] Nasal radium irradiation became a standard medical treatment and was used in over two and a half million Americans.[80]

In another study at the Walter E. Fernald State School, in 1956, researchers gave mentally disabled children radioactive calcium orally and intravenously. They also injected radioactive chemicals into malnourished babies and then pushed needles through their skulls, into their brains, through their necks, and into their spines to collect cerebrospinal fluid for analysis.[76][83]

In 1961 and 1962, ten Utah State Prison inmates had blood samples taken which were mixed with radioactive chemicals and reinjected back into their bodies.[84]

The Atomic Energy Commission funded the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to administer radium-224 and thorium-234 to 20 people between 1961 and 1965. Many were chosen from the Age Center of New England and had volunteered for "research projects on aging". Doses were 0.2-2.4 microcuries (7.4-88.8 kBq) for radium and 1.2-120 microcuries (44-4,440 kBq) for thorium.[58]

In a 1967 study that was published in the _Journal of Clinical Investigation_, pregnant women were injected with radioactive cortisol to see if it would cross the placental barrier and affect the fetuses.[85]

Fallout research[edit]



Cover of the final report of Project 4.1, which examined the effects ofradioactive fallout on the natives of theMarshall Islands

In 1957, atmospheric nuclear explosions in Nevada, which were part of Operation Plumbbob were later determined to have released enough radiation to have caused from 11,000 to 212,000 excess cases of thyroid cancer among U.S. citizens who were exposed to fallout from the explosions, leading to between 1,100 and 21,000 deaths.[86]

Early in the Cold War, in studies known as Project GABRIEL and Project SUNSHINE, researchers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia tried to determine how much nuclear fallout would be required to make the Earth uninhabitable.[87][88] They realized that atmospheric nuclear testing had provided them an opportunity to investigate this. Such tests had dispersed radioactive contamination worldwide, and examination of human bodies could reveal how readily it was taken up and hence how much damage it caused. Of particular interest was strontium-90 in the bones. Infants were the primary focus, as they would have had a full opportunity to absorb the new contaminants.[89] [90] As a result of this conclusion, researchers began a program to collect human bodies and bones from all over the world, with a particular focus on infants. The bones were cremated and the ashes analyzed for radioisotopes. This project was kept secret primarily because it would be a public relations disaster; as a result parents and family were not told what was being done with the body parts of their relatives.[91]

Irradiation experiments[edit]

Between 1960 and 1971, the Department of Defense funded non-consensual whole body radiation experiments on poor, black cancer patients, who were not told what was being done to them. Patients were told that they were receiving a "treatment" that might cure their cancer, but the Pentagon was trying to determine the effects of high levels of radiation on the human body. One of the doctors involved in the experiments, Robert Stone, was worried about litigation by the patients. He referred to them only by their initials on the medical reports. He did this so that, in his words, "there will be no means by which the patients can ever connect themselves up with the report", in order to prevent "either adverse publicity or litigation".[92]

From 1960 to 1971, Dr. Eugene Saenger, funded by the Defense Atomic Support Agency, performed whole body radiation experiments on more than 90 poor, black, terminally ill cancer patients with inoperable tumors at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. He forged consent forms, and did not inform the patients of the risks of irradiation. The patients were given 100 or more rads (1 Gy) of whole-body radiation, which in many caused intense pain and vomiting. Critics have questioned the medical rationale for this study, and contend that the main purpose of the research was to study the acute effects of radiation exposure.[93][94]

From 1963 to 1973, a leading endocrinologist, Dr. Carl Heller, irradiated the testicles of Oregon and Washington prisoners. In return for their participation, he gave them $5 a month, and $100 when they had to receive a vasectomyupon conclusion of the trial. The surgeon who sterilized the men said that it was necessary to "keep from contaminating the general population with radiation-induced mutants". Dr. Joseph Hamilton, one of the researchers who had worked with Heller on the experiments, said that the experiments "had a little of the Buchenwald touch".[95]

In 1963, University of Washington researchers irradiated the testes of 232 prisoners to determine the effects of radiation on testicular function. When these inmates later left prison and had children, at least four of them had offspring born with birth defects. The exact number is unknown because researchers never followed up on the status of the subjects.[96]

Chemical experiments[edit]

Nonconsensual tests[edit]

From 1942 to 1944, the U.S. Chemical Warfare Service conducted experiments which exposed thousands of U.S. military personnel to mustard gas, in order to test the effectiveness of gas masks and protective clothing.[97][98][99][100]

From 1950 through 1953, the U.S. Army sprayed chemicals over six cities in the United States and Canada, in order to test dispersal patterns of chemical weapons. Army records stated that the chemicals which were sprayed on the city of Winnipeg, Canada, includedzinc cadmium sulfide, which was not thought to be harmful.[101] A 1997 study by the US National Research Council found that it was sprayed at levels so low as not to be harmful; it said that people were normally exposed to higher levels in urban environments.

To test whether or not sulfuric acid, which is used in making molasses, was harmful as a food additive, the Louisiana State Board of Health commissioned a study to feed "***** prisoners" nothing but molasses for five weeks. One report stated that prisoners didn't "object to submitting themselves to the test, because it would not do any good if they did."[14]

A 1953 article in the medical/scientific journal _Clinical Science_[102] described a medical experiment in which researchers intentionally blistered the skin on the abdomens of 41 children, who ranged in age from 8 to 14, using cantharide. The study was performed to determine how severely the substance injures/irritates the skin of children. After the studies, the children's blistered skin was removed with scissors and swabbed with peroxide.[85]

Operation Top Hat[edit]

In June 1953 the United States Army formally adopted guidelines regarding the use of human subjects in chemical, biological, or radiological testing and research, where authorization from the Secretary of the Army was now required for all research projects involving human subjects. Under the guidelines, seven research projects involving chemical weapons and human subjects were submitted by the Chemical Corps for Secretary of the Army approval in August 1953. One project involved vesicants, one involved phosgene, and five were experiments which involved nerve agents; all seven were approved.[103][104]

The guidelines, however, left a loophole; they did not define what types of experiments and tests required such approval from the Secretary. Operation Top Hat was among the numerous projects not submitted for approval. It was termed a "local field exercise"[103] by the Army and took place from September 15-19, 1953 at the Army Chemical School at Fort McClellan, Alabama. The experiments used Chemical Corps personnel to test decontamination methods for biological and chemical weapons, including sulfur mustard and nerve agents. The personnel were deliberately exposed to these contaminants, were not volunteers, and were not informed of the tests. In a 1975 Pentagon Inspector General's report, the military maintained that Operation Top Hat was not subject to the guidelines requiring approval because it was a line of duty exercise in the Chemical Corps.[103][104]

Holmesburg program[edit]



Chloracne resulting from exposure to dioxins, such as those that Albert Kligman injected into prisoners at theHolmesburg Prison

From approximately 1951 to 1974, the Holmesburg Prison in Pennsylvania was the site of extensive dermatological research operations, using prisoners as subjects. Led by Dr. Albert M. Kligman of the University of Pennsylvania, the studies were performed on behalf of Dow Chemical Company, the U.S. Army, and Johnson & Johnson.[105][106][107] In one of the studies, for which Dow Chemical paid Kligman $10,000, Kligman injected dioxin - a highly toxic,carcinogenic compound found in Agent Orange, which Dow was manufacturing for use in Vietnam at the time - into 70 prisoners (most of them black). The prisoners developed severe lesions which went untreated for seven months.[12] Dow Chemical wanted to study the health effects of dioxin and other herbicides, and how they affect human skin, because workers at their chemical plants were developing chloracne. In the study, Kligman applied roughly the same amount of dioxin as that to which Dow employees were being exposed. In 1980 and 1981, some of the people who were used in this study sued Professor Kligman for a variety of health problems, including lupusand psychological damage.[108]

Kligman later continued his dioxin studies, increasing the dosage of dioxin he applied to the skin of 10 prisoners to 7,500 micrograms of dioxin, which is 468 times the dosage that the Dow Chemical official Gerald K. Rowe had authorized him to administer. As a result, the prisoners developed inflammatory pustules and papules.[108]

The Holmesburg program paid hundreds of inmates a nominal stipend to test a wide range of cosmetic products and chemical compounds, whose health effects were unknown at the time.[109][110] Upon his arrival at Holmesberg, Kligman is claimed to have said, "All I saw before me were acres of skin ... It was like a farmer seeing a fertile field for the first time."[111] A 1964 issue of _Medical News_ reported that 9 out of 10 prisoners at Holmesburg Prison were medical test subjects.[112] In 1967, the U.S. Army paid Kligman to apply skin-blistering chemicals to the faces and backs of inmates at Holmesburg, in Kligman's words, "to learn how the skin protects itself against chronic assault from toxic chemicals, the so-called hardening process."[108]

Psychological and torture experiments[edit]

U.S. government research[edit]

The United States government funded and performed numerous psychological experiments, especially during the Cold War era. Many of these experiments were performed to help develop more effective torture and interrogationtechniques for the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, and to develop techniques for Americans to resist torture at the hands of enemy nations and organizations.

Truth serum[edit]

In studies running from 1947 to 1953, which were known as Project Chatter, the U.S. Navy began identifying and testing truth serums, which they hoped could be used during interrogations of Soviet spies. Some of the chemicals tested on human subjects includedmescaline and the anticholinergic drug scopolamine.[113]

Shortly thereafter, in 1950, the CIA initiated Project Bluebird, later renamed Project Artichoke, whose stated purpose was to develop "the means to control individuals through special interrogation techniques", "way to prevent the extraction of information from CIA agents", and "offensive uses of unconventional techniques, such as hypnosis and drugs".[113][114][115] The purpose of the project was outlined in a memo dated January 1952 that stated, "Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self preservation?" The project studied the use of hypnosis, forced morphine addiction and subsequent forced withdrawal, and the use of other chemicals, among other methods, to produce amnesia and other vulnerable states in subjects.[116][117][118][119][120] In order to "perfect techniques ... for the abstraction of information from individuals, whether willing or not", Project Bluebird researchers experimented with a wide variety of psychoactive substances, including LSD, heroin,marijuana, cocaine, PCP, mescaline, and ether.[121] Project Bluebird researchers dosed over 7,000 U.S. military personnel with LSD, without their knowledge or consent, at the Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland. Years after these experiments, more than 1,000 of these soldiers suffered from several illnesses, including depression and epilepsy. Many of them tried to commit suicide.[122]

Drug deaths[edit]

In 1952, professional tennis player Harold Blauer died when injected by Dr. James Cattell with a fatal dose of a mescaline derivative at the New York State Psychiatric Institute of Columbia University. The United States Department of Defense, which sponsored the injection, worked in collusion with the Department of Justice and the New York State Attorney General to conceal evidence of its involvement for 23 years. Cattell claimed that he did not know what the army had given him to inject into Blauer, saying: "We didn't know whether it was dog piss or what we were giving him."[123][124]

On November 19, 1953 Dr. Frank Olson was without his knowledge or consent given an LSD dosage before his death 9 days later. For 22 years this was covered up until the Project MKUltra revelations.[125]

MKULTRA[edit]

Founding[edit]

In 1953, the CIA placed several of its interrogation and mind-control programs under the direction of a single program, known by the code name MKULTRA, after CIA director Allen Dulles complained about not having enough "human guinea pigs to try these extraordinary techniques".[126] The MKULTRA project was under the direct command of Dr. Sidney Gottlieb of the Technical Services Division.[126] The project received over $25 million, and involved hundreds of experiments on human subjects at eighty different institutions.

In a memo describing the purpose of one MKULTRA program subprogram, Richard Helms said:



> We intend to investigate the development of a chemical material which causes a reversible, nontoxic aberrant mental state, the specific nature of which can be reasonably well predicted for each individual. This material could potentially aid in discrediting individuals, eliciting information, and implanting suggestions and other forms of mental control.
> 
> - Richard Helms, internal CIA memo[127]


In 1954, the CIA's Project QKHILLTOP was created to study Chinese brainwashing techniques, and to develop effective methods of interrogation. Most of the early studies are believed to have been performed by the Cornell University Medical School's human ecology study programs, under the direction of Dr. Harold Wolff.[113][128][129] Wolff requested that the CIA provide him any information they could find regarding "threats, coercion, imprisonment, deprivation, humiliation, torture, 'brainwashing', 'black psychiatry', and hypnosis, or any combination of these, with or without chemical agents." According to Wolff, the research team would then:



> ...assemble, collate, analyze and assimilate this information and will then undertake experimental investigations designed to develop new techniques of offensive/defensive intelligence use ... Potentially useful secret drugs (and various brain damagingprocedures) will be similarly tested in order to ascertain the fundamental effect upon human brain function and upon the subject's mood ... Where any of the studies involve potential harm of the subject, we expect the Agency to make available suitable subjects and a proper place for the performance of the necessary experiments.
> 
> - Dr. Harold Wolff, Cornell University Medical School[129]


"... it was fun, fun, fun. Where else could a red-blooded American boy lie, kill, cheat, steal, rape and pillage with the sanction and bidding of the All-highest?"

George Hunter White, who oversaw drug experiments for the CIA as part ofOperation Midnight Climax[130]

Another of the MKULTRA subprojects, Operation Midnight Climax, consisted of a web of CIA-run safehouses in San Francisco, Marin, and New York which were established in order to study the effects of LSD on unconsenting individuals. Prostitutes on the CIA payroll were instructed to lure clients back to the safehouses, where they were surreptitiously plied with a wide range of substances, including LSD, and monitored behind one-way glass. Several significant operational techniques were developed in this theater, including extensive research into sexual blackmail, surveillance technology, and the possible use of mind-altering drugs in field operations.[130]

In 1957, with funding from a CIA front organization, Donald Ewen Cameron of the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal, Canada began MKULTRA Subproject 68.[131] His experiments were designed to first "depattern" individuals, erasing their minds and memories-reducing them to the mental level of an infant-and then to "rebuild" their personality in a manner of his choosing.[132] To achieve this, Cameron placed patients under his "care" into drug-induced comas for up to 88 days, and applied numerous high voltage electric shocks to them over the course of weeks or months, often administering up to 360 shocks per person. He would then perform what he called "psychic driving" experiments on the subjects, where he would repetitively play recorded statements, such as "You are a good wife and mother and people enjoy your company", through speakers he had implanted into blacked-out football helmets that he bound to the heads of the test subjects (for sensory deprivation purposes). The patients could do nothing but listen to these messages, played for 16-20 hours a day, for weeks at a time. In one case, Cameron forced a person to listen to a message non-stop for 101 days.[132]Using CIA funding, Cameron converted the horse stables behind Allan Memorial into an elaborate isolation and sensory deprivation chamber where he kept patients locked in for weeks at a time.[132] Cameron also induced insulin comas in his subjects by giving them large injections of insulin, twice a day, for up to two months at a time.[113] Several of the children who Cameron experimented on were sexually abused, in at least one case by several men. One of the children was filmed numerous times performing sexual acts with high-ranking federal government officials, in a scheme set up by Cameron and other MKULTRA researchers, to blackmail the officials to ensure further funding for the experiments.[133]

"The frequent screams of the patients that echoed through the hospital did not deter Cameron or most of his associates in their attempts to depattern their subjects completely."

John D. Marks, _The Search for the Manchurian Candidate_, Chapter 8[134]

Concerns[edit]

The CIA leadership had serious concerns about these activities, as evidenced in a 1957 Inspector General Report, which stated:



> 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 ...
> 
> - 1957 CIA Inspector General Report[135]


In 1963, CIA had synthesized many of the findings from its psychological research into what became known as the KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation handbook,[136] which cited the MKULTRA studies and other secret research programs as the scientific basis for their interrogation methods.[132] Cameron regularly traveled around the U.S. teaching military personnel about his techniques (hooding of prisoners for sensory deprivation, prolonged isolation, humiliation, etc.), and how they could be used in interrogations. Latin American paramilitary groups working for the CIA and U.S. military received training in these psychological techniques at places such as the School of the Americas. In the 21st century, many of the torture techniques developed in the MKULTRA studies and other programs are being used at U.S. military and CIA prisons such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.[132][137] In the aftermath of the Congressional hearings, major news media mainly focused on sensationalistic stories related to LSD, "mind-control", and "brainwashing", and rarely used the word "torture". This suggested that CIA researchers were, as one author put it "a bunch of bumbling sci-fi buffoons", rather than a rational group of men who had run torture laboratories and medical experiments in major U.S. universities; they had arranged for torture, rape and psychological abuse of adults and young children, driving many of them permanently insane.[132]

Shutdown[edit]

MKULTRA activities continued until 1973 when CIA director Richard Helms, fearing that they would be exposed to the public, ordered the project terminated, and all of the files destroyed.[126] But, a clerical error had sent many of the documents to the wrong office, so when CIA workers were destroying the files, some of them remained. They were later released under a Freedom of Information Act request by investigative journalist John Marks. Many people in the American public were outraged when they learned of the experiments, and several congressional investigations took place, including the Church Committee and the Rockefeller Commission.

On April 26, 1976, the Church Committee of the United States Senate issued a report, _Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operation with Respect to Intelligence Activities_,[138] In Book I, Chapter XVII, p. 389, this report states:



> LSD was one the materials tested in the MKULTRA program. The final phase of LSD testing involved surreptitious administration to unwitting non-volunteer subjects in normal life settings by undercover officers of the Bureau of Narcotics acting for the CIA.
> 
> A special procedure, designated MKDELTA, was established to govern the use of MKULTRA materials abroad. Such materials were used on a number of occasions. Because MKULTRA records were destroyed, it is impossible to reconstruct the operational use of MKULTRA materials by the CIA overseas; it has been determined that the use of these materials abroad began in 1953, and possibly as early as 1950.[116][139][140][141][142]
> 
> Drugs were used primarily as an aid to interrogations, but MKULTRA/MKDELTA materials were also used for harassment, discrediting, or disabling purposes.[116][139][140][141][142]


 Experiments on patients with schizophrenia[edit]

Dr. Robert Heath of Tulane University performed experiments on 42 patients with schizophrenia and prisoners in the Louisiana State Penitentiary. The experiments were funded by the U.S. Army. In the studies, he dosed them with LSD and Bulbocapnine, and implanted electrodes into the septal area of the brain to stimulate[143] it and take EEG readings.[144][145]

Torture experiments[edit]

From 1964 to 1968, the U.S. Army paid $386,486 to professors Albert Kligman and Herbert W. Copelan to perform experiments with mind-altering drugs on 320 inmates of Holmesburg Prison. The goal of the study was to determine the minimum effective dose of each drug needed to disable 50 percent of any given population. Kligman and Copelan initially claimed that they were unaware of any long-term health effects the drugs could have on prisoners; however, documents later revealed that this was not the case.[108]

Medical professionals gathered and collected data on the CIA's use of torture techniques on detainees during the 21st century war on terror, in order to refine those techniques, and "to provide legal cover for torture, as well as to help justify and shape future procedures and policies", according to a 2010 report by Physicians for Human Rights. The report stated that: "Research and medical experimentation on detainees was used to measure the effects of large-volume waterboarding and adjust the procedure according to the results." As a result of the waterboarding experiments, doctors recommended adding saline to the water "to prevent putting detainees in a coma or killing them through over-ingestion of large amounts of plain water." Sleep deprivation tests were performed on over a dozen prisoners, in 48-, 96- and 180-hour increments. Doctors also collected data intended to help them judge the emotional and physical effects of the techniques so as to "calibrate the level of pain experienced by detainees during interrogation" and to determine if using certain types of techniques would increase a subject's "susceptibility to severe pain." In 2010 the CIA denied the allegations, claiming they never performed any experiments, and saying "The report is just wrong"; however, the U.S. government never investigated the claims.[146][147][148][149][150][151] The psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen ran a company that was paid $81 million by the CIA, that, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, developed the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used.[152] In November 2014, the American Psychological Association announced that they would hire a lawyer to investigate claims that they were complicit in the development of enhanced interrogation techniques that constituted torture.[153]

In August 2010, the U.S. weapons manufacturer Raytheon announced that it had partnered with a jail in Castaic, California in order to use prisoners as test subjects for its Active Denial System that "fires an invisible heat beam capable of causing unbearable pain."[154]The device, dubbed "pain ray" by its critics, was rejected for fielding in Iraq due to Pentagon fears that it would be used as an instrument of torture.[155]

Academic research[edit]

In 1939, at the Iowa Soldiers' Orphans' Home in Davenport, Iowa, twenty-two children were the subjects of the so-called "monster" experiment. This experiment attempted to use psychological abuse to induce stuttering in children who spoke normally. The experiment was designed by Dr. Wendell Johnson, one of the nation's most prominent speech pathologists, for the purpose of testing one of his theories on the cause of stuttering.[156]

In 1961, in response to the Nuremberg Trials, the Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram performed his "Obedience to Authority Study", also known as the Milgram Experiment, in order to determine if it was possible that the Nazi genocide could have resulted from millions of people who were "just following orders". The Milgram Experiment raised questions about the ethics of scientific experimentation because of the extreme emotional stress suffered by the participants, who were told, as part of the experiment, to apply electric shocks to test subjects (who were actors and did not really receive electric shocks).[_citation needed_]

In 1971, Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford prison experiment in which twenty-four male students were randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison situated in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The participants adapted to their roles beyond Zimbardo's expectations with prison guards exhibiting authoritarian status and psychologically abusing the prisoners who were passive in their acceptance of the abuse. The experiment was largely controversial with criticisms aimed toward the lack of scientific principles and a control group, and for ethical concerns regarding Zimbardo's lack of intervention in the prisoner abuse.

Pharmacological research[edit]

At Harvard University, in the late 1940s, researchers began performing experiments in which they tested diethylstilbestrol, a synthetic estrogen, on pregnant women at the Lying-In Hospital of the University of Chicago. The women experienced an abnormally high number of miscarriages and babies with low birth weight (LBW). None of the women were told that they were being experimented on.[157]

In 1962, researchers at the Laurel Children's Center in Maryland tested experimental acne medications on children. They continued their tests even after half of the children developed severe liver damage from the medications.[85]

In 2004, University of Minnesota research participant Dan Markingson committed suicide while enrolled in an industry-sponsored pharmaceutical trial comparing three FDA-approved atypical antipsychotics: Seroquel (quetiapine), Zyprexa (olanzapine), and Risperdal (risperidone). Writing on the circumstances surrounding Markingson's death in the study, which was designed and funded by Seroquel manufacturer AstraZeneca, University of Minnesota Professor of Bioethics Carl Elliott noted that Markingson was enrolled in the study against the wishes of his mother, Mary Weiss, and that he was forced to choose between enrolling in the study or being involuntarily committed to a state mental institution.[158] Further investigation revealed financial ties to AstraZeneca by Markingson's psychiatrist, Dr. Stephen C. Olson, oversights and biases in AstraZeneca's trial design, and the inadequacy of university Institutional Review Board (IRB) protections for research subjects.[159] A 2005 FDA investigation cleared the university. Nonetheless, controversy around the case has continued. A _Mother Jones_ article resulted in a group of university faculty members sending a public letter to the university Board of Regents urging an external investigation into Markingson's death.[160]

Other experiments[edit]

The 1846 journals of Walter F. Jones of Petersburg, Virginia, describe how he poured boiling water onto the backs of naked slaves afflicted with typhoid pneumonia, at four-hour intervals, because he thought that this might "cure" the disease by "stimulating the capillaries".[161][162][163]

From early 1940 until 1953, Lauretta Bender, a highly respected pediatric neuropsychiatrist who practiced at Bellevue Hospital in New York City, performed electroshock experiments on at least 100 children. The children's ages ranged from 3-12 years. Some reports indicate that she may have performed such experiments on more than 200. From 1942 to 1956, electroconvulsive treatment was used on more than 500 children at Bellevue Hospital, including Bender's experiments; from 1956 to 1969, ECT was used at Creedmoor State Hospital Children's Service. Publicly, Bender claimed that the results of the "therapy" were positive, but in private memos, she expressed frustration over mental health issues caused by the treatments.[164] Bender would sometimes shock children with schizophrenia (some less than 3 years old) twice per day, for 20 consecutive days. Several of the children became violent and suicidal as a result of the treatments.[165]

In 1942, the Harvard University biochemist Edward Cohn injected 64 Massachusetts prisoners with cow blood, as part of an experiment sponsored by the U.S. Navy.[166][167][168]

In 1950, researchers at the Cleveland City Hospital ran experiments to study changes in cerebral blood flow: they injected people with spinal anesthesia, and inserted needles into their jugular veins and brachial arteries to extract large quantities of blood and, after massive blood loss which caused paralysis and fainting, measured their blood pressure. The experiment was often performed multiple times on the same subject.[85]

In a series of studies which were published in the medical journal _Pediatrics_, researchers from the University of California Department of Pediatrics performed experiments on 113 newborns ranging in age from 1-hour to 3 days, in which they studied changes in blood pressure and blood flow. In one of the studies, researchers inserted a catheter through the babies' umbilical arteries and into their aortas, and then submerged their feet in ice water. In another of the studies, they strapped 50 newborn babies to a circumcision board, and turned them upside down so that all of their blood rushed into their heads.[85]

The San Antonio Contraceptive Study was a clinical research study published in 1971 about the side effects of oral contraceptives. Women coming to a clinic in San Antonio to prevent pregnancies were not told they were participating in a research study or receivingplacebos. 10 of the women became pregnant while on placebos.[169][170][171]

During the decade of 2000-2010, artificial blood was transfused into research subjects across the United States without their consent by Northfield Labs.[172] Later studies showed the artificial blood caused a significant increase in the risk of heart attacks and death.[173]

Legal, academic and professional policy[edit]
Main article: Human subject research legislation in the United States

During the Nuremberg Medical Trials, several of the Nazi doctors and scientists who were being tried for their human experiments cited past unethical studies performed in the United States in their defense, namely the Chicago malaria experiments conducted by Dr.Joseph Goldberger.[12][51] Subsequent investigation led to a report by Andrew Conway Ivy, who testified that the research was "an example of human experiments which were ideal because of their conformity with the highest ethical standards of human experimentation".[174] The trials contributed to the formation of the Nuremberg Code in an effort to prevent such abuses.[175]

A secret AEC document dated April 17, 1947, titled _Medical Experiments in Humans_ stated: "It is desired that no document be released which refers to experiments with humans that might have an adverse reaction on public opinion or result in legal suits. Documents covering such fieldwork should be classified Secret."[60]

At the same time, the Public Health Service was instructed to tell citizens downwind from bomb tests that the increases in cancers were due to neurosis, and that women with radiation sickness, hair loss, and burned skin were suffering from "housewife syndrome".[60]

In 1964, the World Medical Association passed the Declaration of Helsinki, a set of ethical principles for the medical community regarding human experimentation.

In 1966, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office for Protection of Research Subjects (OPRR) was created. It issued its _Policies for the Protection of Human Subjects,_ which recommended establishing independent review bodies to oversee experiments. These were later called institutional review boards.

In 1969, Kentucky Court of Appeals Judge Samuel Steinfeld dissented in _Strunk v. Strunk, 445 S.W.2d 145._ He made the first judicial suggestion that the Nuremberg Code should be applied to American jurisprudence.

In 1974 the National Research Act established the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects. It mandated that the Public Health Service come up with regulations to protect the rights of human research subjects.

Project MK-ULTRA was first brought to wide public attention in 1975 by the U.S. Congress, through investigations by the Church Committee, and by a presidential commission known as the Rockefeller Commission.[176][177]

In 1975, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW) created regulations which included the recommendations laid out in the NIH's 1966 _Policies for the Protection of Human Subjects_. Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, known as "The Common Rule," requires the appointment and use of institutional review boards (IRBs) in experiments using human subjects.

On April 18, 1979, prompted by an investigative journalist's public disclosure of the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (later renamed to Health and Human Services) released a report entitled _Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research_, written by Dan Harms. It laid out many modern guidelines for ethical medical research.

In 1987 the United States Supreme Court ruled in _United States v. Stanley,_ 483 U.S. 669, that a U.S. serviceman who was given LSD without his consent, as part of military experiments, could not sue the U.S. Army for damages. Dissenting the verdict in _U.S. v. Stanley_, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated:



> No judicially crafted rule should insulate from liability the involuntary and unknowing human experimentation alleged to have occurred in this case. Indeed, as Justice Brennan observes, the United States played an instrumental role in the criminal prosecutionof Nazi scientists who experimented with human subjects during the Second World War, and the standards that the Nuremberg Military Tribunals developed to judge the behavior of the defendants stated that the 'voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential ... to satisfy moral, ethical, and legal concepts.' If this principle is violated, the very least that society can do is to see that the victims are compensated, as best they can be, by the perpetrators.


On January 15, 1994, President Bill Clinton formed the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE). This committee was created to investigate and report the use of human beings as test subjects in experiments involving the effects of ionizing radiation in federally funded research. The committee attempted to determine the causes of the experiments and reasons that the proper oversight did not exist. It made several recommendations to help prevent future occurrences of similar events.[178]

As of 2007, not a single U.S. government researcher had been prosecuted for human experimentation. The preponderance of the victims of U.S. government experiments have not received compensation or, in many cases, acknowledgment of what was done to them.[179]

See also[edit]










United States portal


Belmont Report
Eugenics in the United States
Henry Cotton (doctor)
Unethical human experimentation
Human rights in the United States
Japanese human experimentation
Nazi human experimentation
North Korean human experimentation
Operation Big Buzz
Operation Crossroads
Operation Dew
Operation Drop Kick
Operation LAC
Operation May Day
Project MKUltra
Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret services
Research involving prisoners


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Bruce Jessen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



SERE training camp at Fort Bragg. Captain Michael Kearns, Psychologist Bruce Jessen (right)

*John Bruce Jessen* (born July 28, 1949)[1] is a psychologist, Air Force retiree, and former Mormon bishop who, with James Elmer Mitchell, created the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were used in the torture and interrogation of CIA detainees, as outlined in the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report on CIA torture.[2] In that report, he was mentioned under the pseudonym "Hammond Dunbar." His company,Mitchell Jessen and Associates earned US$81 million for its work.[3]

Contents
[hide]​
1Career
2Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture
3See also
4References
5External links

Career[edit]

A United States Air Force retiree, Jessen and James Mitchell were hired in 2002 by the Central Intelligence Agency to design the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" program.[4][5] The objectives of the program were not just to obtain intelligence, but to also break down detainees in order to get them to be compliant and submissive to authority.[6]

In 2005, Jessen and Mitchell formed a company called Mitchell Jessen and Associates, with offices in Spokane and Virginia.[7]

On October 15, 2012, Jessen was sustained as bishop of the Spokane 6th Ward of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[8] He resigned as bishop one week later.[9]

Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture[edit]
Main article: Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture



The US Senate Report on CIA Detention Interrogation Program that details the use of torture during CIA detention and interrogation.

On December 9, 2014 the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a report confirming the use of torture and SERE tactics in interrogations.[10] The contractors that developed the "enhanced interrogation techniques" received US$81 million for their services, out of an original contract worth more than US$180 million. _NBC News_ identified the contractors, who were referred to in the report via pseudonyms, as Mitchell, Jessen & Associates from Spokane, Washington, which was run by two psychologists, John "Bruce" Jessen and James Mitchell. The report states that the contractor "developed the list of enhanced interrogation techniques and personally conducted interrogations of some of the CIA's most significant detainees using those techniques. The contractors also evaluated whether the detainees' psychological state allowed for continued use of the techniques, even for some detainees they themselves were interrogating or had interrogated." Mitchell, Jessen & Associates developed a "menu" of 20 enhanced techniques including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and stress positions. John Rizzo, CIA acting general counsel, described in his book _Company Man_, that the techniques were "sadistic and terrifying."[11]

In 2014, _The New York Times_ Editorial board called for the investigation and prosecution of Mitchell and Jessen for their role in developing the torture practices used by the CIA.[12] In 2015, Human Rights Watch called for the prosecution of Jessen "for [his] alleged direct participation in torture, often applied in ways beyond how it was authorized, but also for [his] role in the initial conspiracy to torture as well."[13]


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2016)

Well, obviously I'm not actually going to read any of that, but I suppose there might be an audience for this kind of thing I guess, so it's not for me to say, ya know...

You might try condensing a subject in your mind before you post it though


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

.,,,


----------



## Chicane (Oct 8, 2015)

I did think it was just a little funny that Phantasm mentioned this sounded like rambling and was immediately followed up by probably the longest post I've ever seen on this site. But I suppose we'll never really know. Talking about it sounds whacko but then if there is something to this, that's precisely how it would work by design I suppose. It's easy to label something as crazy and put it down to conspiracy if a person discussing it has been diagnosed with a mental health disorder. Hell, it's easy to call it crazy no matter whose mouth it comes out of. I guess the only reason I'd entertain this theory even for a moment is because I emigrated to the US two years ago and developed DPDR while in my home country awaiting my paperwork and immigration interview. That doesn't really explain the multitude of other cases of DPDR though. But then I guess there are a whole multitude of causes, ranging from drug abuse to anxiety. This could simply be another of them, even though it does sound far-fetched.


----------



## Alex617 (Sep 23, 2015)

Yeah well:

1. I don't live in America, so CIA would have no jurisdiction here

2. MK ultra was used during the cold war, they had a legitimate reason for wanting to test LSD on people

3. No one gains anything by me being crippled with depression/anxiety sitting at home playing video games. I was doing the same thing before, I just do it a bit more when I had my issues.

People just need something to obsess over to give meaning to their mundane lives and health issues.


----------



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

Alex617 said:


> Yeah well:
> 
> 1. I don't live in America, so CIA would have no jurisdiction here


It would be very naive to believe this sort of experimentation on humans only happens in America. MKultra survivors have come from many countries my friend, including Australia. After all, the Aust government is an ally of the US and co-operate in any way to maintain that partnership.



Alex617 said:


> 2. MK ultra was used during the cold war, they had a legitimate reason for wanting to test LSD on people


That's the tip of the iceberg.. They've never ceased this program. Why would they? It's a program that was developed partly to gain an upper hand in warfare and espionage. When it comes to warfare - there are no morals. The program will carry on and will continue to stay under the radar within the black ops budgets of every country participating just as they have for the last 60 or 70 years.



Alex617 said:


> 3. No one gains anything by me being crippled with depression/anxiety sitting at home playing video games. I was doing the same thing before, I just do it a bit more when I had my issues.


Well yes 'they' do actually gain something by having people like you sitting at home medicated, crippled with anxiety and depression playing video games triggered out of their minds. If for example you were put through a program like MKultra (which heavily relies on the use of induced dissociation), living in a state of medicated helplessness would render you virtually unable to heal and therefore remember what had happened to you. If you can't remember what happened, you can't tell anybody obviously.. and that keeps the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes against humanity safe from too many prying eyes...

However... There're a lot of people in this world speaking out about being survivors of these government/CIA programs - far too many to be a coincidence. The thing is, the dissociative walls don't last forever. Eventually they begin to crumble and people start to remember what really happened in their lives.

There're a lot of released declassified CIA documents which quite clearly explain some of the torture and experimentation carried out on humans, children and adults alike. It's a fact the program/s existed. And there's certainly no reason they would ever stop.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Alex617 said:


> Yeah well:
> 
> 1. I don't live in America, so CIA would have no jurisdiction here
> 
> ...


Presidential election of 2004[edit]

Main article: Ukrainian presidential election, 2004










Dioxin Poisoning[edit]



Yushchenko at the University of Amsterdam, with chloracne from TCDDdioxin poisoning (2006).

The campaign was often bitter and violent. Yushchenko became seriously ill in early September 2004. He was flown to Vienna's Rudolfinerhaus clinic for treatment and diagnosed with acute pancreatitis, accompanied by interstitial edematous changes, due to a serious viral infection and chemical substances that are not normally found in food products. Yushchenko claimed that he had been poisoned by government agents. After the illness, his face was greatly disfigured: jaundiced, bloated, and pockmarked.

British toxicologist Professor John Henry of St Mary's Hospital in London declared the changes in Yushchenko's face were due to chloracne, which results from dioxin poisoning.[16] Dutch toxicologist Bram Brouwer also stated his changes in appearance were the result of chloracne, and found dioxin levels in Yushchenko's blood 6,000 times above normal.[17]

On December 11, Dr. Michael Zimpfer of the Rudolfinerhaus clinic declared that Yushchenko had ingested TCDD dioxin and had 1,000 times the usual concentration in his body.[18] Not all in the medical community agreed with this diagnosis,[16] including the clinic's own chief medical director, Dr. Lothar Wicke, who stated there was no evidence of poisoning other than the severe chloracne visible on Yushchenko's face, and claimed to have been forced to resign because of his disagreement.[19] Wicke also claimed to have been threatened by Yushchenko's associates.[20] Wicke's claims led some to question Yushchenko's truthfulness and motives.[21][22][23]

Many have linked Yushchenko's poisoning to a dinner with a group of senior Ukrainian officials (including Volodymyr Satsyuk) that took place on 5 September.[16][17][18]

Since 2005, Yushchenko has been treated by a team of doctors led by Professor Jean Saurat at the University of Geneva Hospital.[24] Analysis of Yushchenko's body fluids and tissues provided useful information on the human toxicokinetics of TCDD and its metabolites.[25]

In June 2008, David Zhvania, a former political ally of Yushchenko and an ex-minister in the first Tymoshenko Government, claimed in an interview with the BBC[26] that Yushchenko had not been poisoned in 2004 and that laboratory results in the case had been falsified.

Yushchenko himself implicated David Zhvania, the godfather of one of his children, of involvement in his dioxin poisoning.[27]

In August 2009, _The Lancet_ published a scientific paper by Swiss and Ukrainian researchers on the monitoring, form, distribution, and elimination of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) in Yushchenko in relation to his severe poisoning. The 2004 TCDD levels in Yushchenko's blood serum were 50,000-fold greater than those in the general population.[25] This new study also concluded that the dioxin "was so pure that it was definitely made in a laboratory".[28]

In September 2009, Larysa Cherednichenko, former head of the department for supervision over investigations into criminal cases of the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office, said high-ranking officials from the presidential secretariat and family members of Yushchenko falsified evidence in his poisoning case, with dioxin being added to Yushchenko's blood samples. Cherednichenko claims she was warned that she would be dismissed from her office immediately after she wrote her report on August 26, 2009 and said she was offered two positions, which she refused, and contested her dismissal in court.[29]

Also in September 2009, a special commission, created by the Verkhovna Rada, came to a conclusion that the Yushchenko dioxin poisoning was falsified to strengthen his positions during 2004 presidential elections. The commission demanded to bring to justice those guilty in fabrication of blood tests.[30] To date, no one has been identified. There were allegations US intelligence services injected blood samples taken from Yushchenko with dioxin to feign poisoning.[_citation needed_] These allegations were dismissed by Ukraine's Office of the Prosecutor General.[31]

On September 27, 2009 Yushchenko said in an interview aired on Channel 1+1 that the testimony of three men who were at a dinner in 2004 at which he believes he was poisoned is crucial to finishing the investigation, and he claimed these men were in Russia. Ukrainian prosecutors said Russia has refused to extradite one of the men, the former deputy chief of Ukraine's security service, Volodymyr Satsyuk, because he holds both Russian and Ukrainian citizenship.[32] After arriving in Russia Satsyuk was granted Russian citizenship protecting him from extradition.[33]


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

......


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Typical antipsychotic (Wikipedia)

----------------------------

"Some of the high-potency antipsychotics have been formulated as the decanoate ester (e.g. fluphenazine decanoate) to allow for a slow release of the active drug when given as a deep, intramuscular injection. This has the advantage of providing reliable dosing for a person who doesn't want to take the medication. [These] injections can also be used for involuntary community treatment patients to ensure compliance with a community treatment order when the patient would refuse to take daily oral medication. [This] preparations were limited to high-potency antipsychotics so choice was limited.

The oldest [of this injection type] available were haloperidol and fluphenazine, with flupentixol and zuclopenthixol as more recent additions. All have a similar, predominantly extrapyramidal, side effect profile though there are some variations between patients. More recently, long acting preparations of the atypical antipsychotic, risperidone, and its metabolite paliperidone, have become available thus offering new choices. However, Risperidone tends to have a higher incidence of extrapyramidal effects when compared to the tricyclic and tetracyclicatypical antipsychotics, such as quetiapine, clozapine, olanzapine, etc.[_citation needed_]"

----------------------------------------

Note: *involuntary community treatment*


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

When you click on involuntary community treatment, it brings you here:

Outpatient commitment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - (source)

Outpatient commitment (more commonly known as Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT)) refers to state mental health laws that create civil 

court procedure wherein a judge orders a person with severe mental illness to adhere to an outpatient treatment plan designed to prevent relapse and 

dangerous deterioration. Assisted Outpatient Commitment allows the assisted involuntary treatment of individuals diagnosed with severe mental 

disorders who are living in the community and experiencing a mental illness crisis that requires intervention to prevent further deterioration that is 

harmful to themselves or others, rather than detained in hospital or incarcerated. The individual may be subject to rapid recall to hospital, including medication over objection, if the conditions of the plan/order are broken, and the person's mental health deteriorates. This generally means taking psychiatric medication as directed and may also include attending appointments with a mental health professional, and sometimes even not to take non-prescribed illicit drugs and not associate with certain people or in certain places deemed to have been linked to a deterioration in mental health in that individual.

In the United States the term "*assisted outpatient treatment*" or "AOT" is often used and refers to a process whereby a judge orders a qualifying person with 

symptoms of severe untreated mental illness to adhere to a mental health treatment plan while living in the community. The plan typically includes medication and may 

include other forms of treatment as well. In England the Mental Health Act 2007 introduced "*community treatment orders* (CTOs)".[1]

In Australia they are also called community treatment orders and last for a maximum of twelve months but can be renewed after review by a tribunal. Criteria for outpatient commitment are established by law, which vary among nations and, in the U.S., from state to state. Some require court hearings and others require that treating psychiatrists comply with a set of requirements before compulsory treatment is instituted.

When a court process is not required, there is usually a form of appeal to the courts or appeal to or scrutiny by tribunals set up for that purpose. Community treatment laws have generally followed the worldwide trend of community treatment. See mental health law for details of countries which do not have laws that regulate compulsory treatment.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

When you click on involuntary treatment, it brings you here:

(source: Wikipedia)

*Involuntary treatment* (also referred to by proponents as *assisted treatment* and by critics as *forced drugging*) refers to medical treatment undertaken without the consent of whomever is treated. In almost all circumstances, involuntary treatment refers to psychiatrictreatment administered despite an individual's objections. These are typically individuals who have been diagnosed with a psychiatric disease and are deemed by a court to be a danger to themselves or others.

Contents
[hide]​
1United States
2Proponents and detractors
3Mental health law
4Effects of involuntary medication
5See also
6Selected bibliography
7References
8External links

United States[edit]

In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in _O'Connor v. Donaldson_ that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual's civil rights. The individual must be exhibiting behavior that is a danger to themselves or others and a court order must be received for more than a short (E.g. 72-hour) detention. The treatment must take place in the least restrictive setting possible. This ruling has severely limited involuntary treatment and hospitalization in the United States. The statutes vary somewhat from state to state.

In 1979, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit established in _Rogers v. Okin_ that a competent patient committed to a psychiatric hospital has the right to refuse treatment in non-emergency situations. The case of _Rennie v. Klein_ established that an involuntarily committed individual has a constitutional right to refuse psychotropic medication without a court order. _Rogers v. Okin_ established the patient's right to make treatment decisions.

Additional U.S. Supreme Court decisions have added more restraints to involuntary commitment and treatment. _Foucha v. Louisiana_ established the unconstitutionality of the continued commitment of an insanity acquittee who was not suffering from a mental illness. In_Jackson v. Indiana_ the court ruled that a person adjudicated incompetent could not be indefinitely committed. In _Perry v. Louisiana_ the court struck down the forcible medication of a prisoner for the purposes of rendering him competent to be executed. In _Riggins v. Nevada_the court ruled that a defendant had the right to refuse psychiatric medication while he was on trial, given to mitigate his psychiatric symptoms. _Sell v. United States_ imposed stringent limits on the right of a lower court to order the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication to a criminal defendant who had been determined to be incompetent to stand trial for the sole purpose of making them competent and able to be tried. In _Washington v. Harper_ the Supreme Court upheld the involuntary medication of correctional facility inmates only under certain conditions as determined by established policy and procedures.[1]

Proponents and detractors[edit]



Protest graffiti against Involuntary treatment, Turin; _TSO = MORTE_means _Involuntary treatment = Death_

Supporters of involuntary treatment include organizations such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), the American Psychiatric Association, and the Treatment Advocacy Center.

Some civil and human rights activists, Anti-psychiatry groups, and members of the psychiatric survivors movement, vigorously oppose involuntary treatment on human rights grounds. Critics, such as the New York Civil Liberties Union, have denounced the strong racial and socioeconomic biases in forced treatment orders.[2][3]

The Church of Scientology is also aggressively opposed to involuntary treatment. In the United States case law rulings have almost eliminated the legal right to involuntarily treat a patient or incarcerated inmate in non-emergency situations[_dubious - discuss_], starting in 1975 with _O'Connor v. Donaldson_, _Rennie v. Klein_ in 1978 and _Rogers v. Okin_ in 1979, to name a few.

Mental health law[edit]

All states in the U.S. allow for some form of involuntary treatment for mental illness for short periods of time under emergency conditions, although criteria vary. Since the late 1990s, a growing number of states have adopted_Assisted Outpatient Commitment (AOC)_ laws.

Under assisted outpatient commitment, people committed involuntarily can live outside the psychiatric hospital, sometimes under strict conditions including reporting to mandatory psychiatric appointments, taking psychiatric drugs in the presence of a nursing team, and testing medication blood levels. Forty-five states presently allow for outpatient commitment. [4]

Effects of involuntary medication[edit]

In a review of the literature on involuntary hospital admission, it was found that as many as 48% of respondents did not agree with their treatment,[5] though a majority of people retrospectively agreed that involuntary medication had been in their best interest. Anecdotal reports[_citation needed_] from opponents of involuntary medication indicate that involuntary treatment has widespread, devastating, and lasting effects. These claims are refuted by studies cited by supporters.

See also[edit]

Coerced abstinence
Anti-psychiatry
Giorgio Antonucci
E. Fuller Torrey
Involuntary commitment - a long and detailed article dealing also with political imprisonment
Medical ethics
Medical law
MindFreedom International
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health
Outpatient commitment
Social control
DSM-IV Codes
Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV _(SCID)_
Citizens Commission on Human Rights


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Involuntary Community Treatment of People Who Are Violent and Mentally Ill: A Legal Analysis

Christopher Slobogin

Published online: April 01, 2006 | http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/ps.45.7.685


Abstract
 
PDF
 
PDF Plus

Abstract

Three major legal mechanisms exist for providing involuntary community treatment to people who are violent and mentally disabled: outpatient commitment, preventive commitment, and conditional release from a hospital. In most states, predicted deterioration is either the explicit or the de facto criterion for involuntary community treatment. However, the constitutionality of this standard has been the subject of considerable debate, centering on whether involuntary treatment in the community requires a showing of imminent dangerousness and an overt act of dangerousness and whether a person who is not dangerous solely because of treatment may be committed. The author suggests that the predicted deterioration standard is constitutional, but only if it is accompanied by limitations on the duration of commitment and proof that involuntary treatment is necessary to prevent danger to self or others. The author also discusses whether a person committed under the predicted deterioration standard has the right to refuse treatment and whether persons hospitalized after being committed to involuntary community treatment should receive a hearing.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Involuntary community treatment
M. Hotopf, G. Dunn, G. Owen, R. Churchill
The British Journal of Psychiatry Sep 2007, 191 (4) 358; DOI: 10.1192/bjp.191.4.358


Article
Info & Metrics
eLetters
 PDF

Swanson et al (2000) reanalysed the results of the North Carolina trial (Swartz et al, 1999) and their findings are becoming increasingly influential in current debates about mental health legislation in the UK. Our recent systematic review (Churchill et al, 2007), which included these articles, demonstrated that there was no robust evidence to indicate that community treatment orders are associated with either significant benefit or harm. The secondary analyses performed by Swansonet al are, we believe, misleading for two reasons.

First, based on everyone in the trial the intention-to-treat (ITT) effect of randomisation to an involuntary out-patient commitment (OPC) was of a modest and non-significant reduction in violence (risk difference of 4.5%). This overall ITT effect of OPCs is a weighted average of the ITT effects in the two subgroups of participants defined by their post-randomisation management (those who received short-term OPCs and those who eventually received long-term OPCs). These two subgroups would exist in the control arm had they been placed on OPCs. Assuming that there was no benefit in those who received the short-term OPCs (i.e. risk difference 0), the results of Swansonet al suggest that the reduction in violence in those with long-term OPCs would be 12.4%. However, even if considered clinically significant, this finding would still not be statistically significant because the overall ITT effect was not significant (assuming a zero ITT effect in those receiving short-term OPCs implies that a test of the hypothesis concerning those receiving long-term OPCs is equivalent to the test for the overall ITT effect). The only way in which there could have been a beneficial effect in those receiving long-term OPCs is if the effects in those receiving short-term OPCs were actually detrimental (i.e. increased the rate of violence). It is improbable that they would be, and in policy terms it would be unacceptable to impose OPCs in the knowledge that they would cause harm to those in whom they are only applied for a short period.

Second, a post hoc comparison of the outcomes in groups defined by management decisions or patient behaviour following randomisation is potentially subject to selection effects (hidden confounding). That this is in fact the case is illustrated by the results of other subgroup analyses by the same research group (Swartz et al, 1999: Fig. 1). The group destined to be on long-term OPC have a better clinical outcome in the first 1-2 months. In other words there is evidence that the group destined to receive long-term OPCs have a favourable clinical profile before the OPC is renewed. We believe that it is likely that long-term OPCs will only be contemplated under certain circumstances, such as when the short-term OPC has apparently made a difference. Those who have intractable problems or in whom a short-term OPC has failed to make any change might not have their OPC renewed.

The investigators responsible for the North Carolina trial accomplished one of the most extraordinary trials ever performed and as such deserve enormous praise. However, the results described in these and similar secondary analyses are, we believe, flawed and misleading, and should not be taken as evidence for a beneficial effect of OPC. We made a similar point (Szmukler & Hotopf, 2001) following the publication of the original trial. The trial data are best interpreted using the main ITT analyses, which show no evidence of benefit or harm.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

American Civil Liberties Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Washington's Horrible Mental Health Legislation (Source: Huffington Post)

*Promotes unproven, coercive approaches to care.*
One of the most controversial provisions in H.R. 2646 would provide an increase in federal funding to states implementing so-called "Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT)" programs. Despite what the bill's supporters say, AOT is not a "community-based alternative" to incarceration and institutionalization. AOT is a euphemistic term used to describe involuntary outpatient commitment ordered by a judge, with the threat of involuntary inpatient hospitalization for those who do not comply with their treatment orders. H.R. 2646 dramatically lowers the current standard for involuntary treatment -danger to self or others- to include people with a history of hospitalization or a history of not complying with treatment.

As noted in a 2005 report by New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI), "the orders can control very fundamental aspects of life in which we traditionally expect to have freedom - not only how and where one is treated, but also by whom and with whom one must discuss deeply personal matters - and including where and with whom one lives." This erosion of rights can be a slippery slope, and for this reason the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes the bill.

The two most significant, randomized controlled trials conducted on AOT, in New York and North Carolina, both reached the same conclusion: there is no evidence that mandating outpatient treatment is more effective than providing such treatment on a voluntary basis. Any positive outcomes from AOT appear to result not from the court order, but from accompanying investments in comprehensive community-based services.

Most of us, however, live in the opposite environment, where many local and statemental health budgets have not returned to prerecession levels, much less increased. As Congressman Joe Kennedy (D-MA) noted: "This bill makes it easier to involuntarily commit the mentally ill into a system unequipped to provide them with the treatment that they need."

Proponents of forced treatment point to "lack of insight" among people with serious mental illness diagnoses as a rationale for mandating care. But this approach undermines trust between patients, their families, and their care providers, harming the therapeutic alliance. There is a better way: reform can and should include funding for increased outreach to engage our most vulnerable populations into services that actually work for them. If people are found to lack capacity to make informed treatment decisions, there are other models, such assupported decision making and Open Dialogue, which do not impinge on civil liberties.

There is no question that America's mental health care system is in dire need of an overhaul. But the "Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act" (H.R. 2646), introduced by Congressman Tim Murphy (R-PA), represents the worst, most regressive possible direction for reform. Its passing would mean the erosion of key civil and health privacy rights for people living with psychiatric disabilities, and an increase in punitive, institutional approaches to care. The bill does little to encourage the implementation of the evidence-based supports that allow many people to live successfully in the community - including supported housing, case management, rehabilitation services, job training and placement, and peer supports.

H.R. 2646 passed out of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee earlier this month after a marathon ten-hour markup process. It appears, however, that the full committee markup of the bill will be delayed until 2016, due to Republican concerns with its price tag and some of its more controversial provisions.

While this delay is a positive development for the bill's opponents, advocates must continue to ensure that reform is based on compassion and solid science, not ignorance and fear. The fight must occur in both houses of Congress, given that acompanion bill has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA), which lifts many of H.R. 2646's provisions verbatim.

*Rationale for H.R. 2646*
To understand why this legislation is so horrible, despite its helpful sounding title, it's important to understand its history. A previous, not-so-different version of H.R. 2646 was introduced in 2013 as a direct response to the unspeakable mass shooting that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut in December 2012. Following every mass shooting that has occurred since, Representative Murphy has taken to the media and promises Americans that if his bill passes, these kinds of senseless massacres will end.

We all want to see an end to mass shootings. But H.R. 2646 is predicated on a big lie: that mental illness is the primary cause of these crimes. In February of this year,Jonathan Metzl, a professor of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University, conducted a comprehensive review of the research on mass shootings and mental illness in apaper published in the American Journal of Public Health. Dr. Metzl highlights a series of studies indicating that people with mental illness are more likely to be victims - not perpetrators - of violence. He notes that "persons with mental illness are far more likely to be shot by someone else than to be the shooters."

Research indicates that people with psychiatric diagnoses are responsible for only3-5 percent of gun violence. While H.R. 2646 focuses exclusively on mental illness, much stronger predictors of gun violence include: access to guns, substance use, poverty, and a history of violence.

Congressman Murphy's approach is not surprising: as a conservative Republican, he has received an A rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) for his voting record on gun control. The NRA was even registered to lobby for the 2013 version of the bill. H.R. 2646 serves to keep the public and policymakers distracted from understanding and addressing the root causes of gun violence. By scapegoating people with mental health conditions, it increases the serious stigma and discrimination already faced by this population.

Because H.R. 2646 is inspired and driven by fear, it adopts punitive, authoritarian,public safety approaches to mental health reform, rather than sound public healthapproaches employing the latest findings in science and medicine. Below is just a sampling of the serious problems with H.R. 2646.

*Incentivizes institutionalization at the expense of community-based services.*

In addition to providing incentives for AOT, the bill tinkers with a Medicaid funding restriction known as the Institutions for Mental Diseases (IMD) exclusion, which prohibits the use of Medicaid financing for adult psychiatric hospitalizations and residential facilities larger than 16 beds. This restriction was put in place for a reason: to compel states to invest in their community-based systems instead of unnecessarily warehousing people in segregated institutional settings that are breeding grounds for abuse, neglect, and death.

"Funding" is a dirty word in mental health policy. But we need to increase the capacity of community services to prevent crises. And that takes money, or at the very least, not incentivizing institutions over community. Where authorities have put accessible, comprehensive community-based supports into place, like Bexar County in Texas and the state of Delaware, they have seen significant drops in the need for both incarceration and long-term inpatient hospitalization.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

H.R. 2646 Bill - United States of America Congress

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2646/text


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)




----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Can Involuntary Outpatient Commitment Reduce Arrests among Persons with Severe Mental Illness?

http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/28/2/156.abstract


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

https://books.google.com/books?id=XWcgBAAAQBAJ&pg=PR15&lpg=PR15&dq=When+Push+Comes+to+Shove+Aggressive+Community+Treatment+and+the+Law&source=bl&ots=XnTtbkBLTe&sig=4KAGNI62a00uymZGjYSI9BrTnEM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR9Y2iy-jOAhWE7SYKHWwFAjUQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=When%20Push%20Comes%20to%20Shove%20Aggressive%20Community%20Treatment%20and%20the%20Law&f=false


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Mandated Community Treatment: Beyond Outpatient Commitment

http://www.macarthur.virginia.edu/article.pdf


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Community treatment orders are not a good thing.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/193/2/96


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Involuntary community treatment.
Hotopf M, Dunn G, Owen G, Churchill R. Br J Psychiatry. 2007 Oct;191:358

Comment

Involuntary out-patient commitment and reduction of violent behaviour in persons with severe mental illness. [Br J Psychiatry. 2000]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17906252


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Cultural cognition and public policy: The case of outpatient commitment laws.

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/lhb/34/2/118/


----------



## Alex617 (Sep 23, 2015)

Zed said:


> That's the tip of the iceberg.. They've never ceased this program. Why would they? It's a program that was developed partly to gain an upper hand in warfare and espionage. When it comes to warfare - there are no morals. The program will carry on and will continue to stay under the radar within the black ops budgets of every country participating just as they have for the last 60 or 70 years.
> 
> Well yes 'they' do actually gain something by having people like you sitting at home medicated, crippled with anxiety and depression playing video games triggered out of their minds. If for example you were put through a program like MKultra (which heavily relies on the use of induced dissociation), living in a state of medicated helplessness would render you virtually unable to heal and therefore remember what had happened to you. If you can't remember what happened, you can't tell anybody obviously.. and that keeps the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes against humanity safe from too many prying eyes...
> 
> ...


What evidence do you have that they never ceased the program? This is all speculation, and you are very much overestimating the intelligence of the government.

Also, why would I be put through MKultra? Why would I be a target? You think they come to my house when I'm asleep and kidnap me for experimentation? How do you know blue disc aliens from the planet p-543z don't do the same thing to you every night?

Sure, fucked up experiments have and still do exist, but to relate this to a mental disorder is absolutely absurd. Dp/dr stems from anxiety disorder, usually triggered by stress, panic attacks, weed etc. I have healed from it myself, and I understand how it works better than most people.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Court-Ordered Insanity: Interpretive Practice and Involuntary Commitment

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wJS7WwXPzqoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=dissociation+and+%22involuntary+treatment%22&ots=fbZYY5P0Og&sig=v5FxfoeCXj6scLDJPl8Qx1Iszpg#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Foucault- Interview


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

https://books.google.com/books/about/Handbook_of_Community_Psychiatry.html?id=WmTlw-5V3s4C&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Engaging Terror: A Critical and Interdisciplinary Approach

By Marianne Vardalos

https://books.google.com/books?id=rq6c2PCK7g0C&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323&dq=%22involuntary+community+treatment%22&source=bl&ots=xqrcDR9J-t&sig=rgtRRboVna9cVmgvP6AEzp5jdys&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrvc_xv-nOAhVG92MKHaOuAfI4MhDoAQgdMAA#v=onepage&q=%22involuntary%20community%20treatment%22&f=false


----------



## Queen Frick (Jun 17, 2014)

Mods, Y'all should probably check o these people.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/new-rubber-film-could-harvest-energy-from-breathing-walking-to-power-gadgets.html

http://www.KineticRFID.com


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

http://www.takepart.com/most-violent-year


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

TakePart is a subsidiary of Participant Media, which produced, SPOTLIGHT, the 2016 Academy Award (OSCAR) Best Film Winner.

Jeff Skoll is a Canadian billionaire communist executive movie producer who is the driving force behind Participant Media, LLC.

The *Skoll Foundation* is a social entrepreneurship foundation based in Palo Alto, California, with a mission to drive large-scale change by investing in, connecting, and celebrating social entrepreneurs and other innovators dedicated to solving the world's most pressing problems. It invests in social entrepreneurs through its annual 'Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship' and makes grants to support the ecosystem around social entrepreneurs, including the 'Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship' at Oxford. It connects social entrepreneurs through the annual 'Skoll World Forum' on Social Entrepreneurship in Oxford, as well as the online content platform of the Skoll World Forum. It celebrates social entrepreneurs through media projects such as its 'Uncommon Heroes' short films; a four-part 'New Heroes' public television documentary (broadcast in 2004); partnerships with other media outlets, including The Sundance Institute, NPR, PBS and Public Radio International; and the Skoll Awards ceremony at the Skoll World Forum each spring. It was founded by Jeff Skoll who was the first employee and first president of eBay and makes grants in excess of $40M per year


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

http://www.mayo.edu/people/gary-slutkin-md

Gary Slutkin is the Founder and Executive Director of CureViolence.

*Notice: Many of the articles on the CureViolence webpage are written by Ann Coulter. *

http://www.cureviolence.org


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

I am a Leftist, though.....

Michael Morgan from Cornell

http://www.academia.edu/503208/_Liberalism_and_Governmentality_in_the_War_on_Terror_in_Engaging_Terrorism_A_Critical_and_Interdisciplinary_Approach_pages_75-92


----------



## apoplexy (Jan 4, 2013)

meekah said:


> looooooooooooooooooooooooool, schizo





Alan said:


> Really?


Just another example of Alan's fine work as a moderator. A user makes fun of someone who very clearly has mental health issues and he goes "Really?" and then goes and watches Bob Ross paint for 3 hours. Awesome.


----------



## babybowrain (Aug 24, 2010)

i don't believe in this. i just had mild abuse and i'm a hypnotic. sometimes i become easily hypnotised. so i dissappear into my imagination. as a child i loved imagining things and now i'm an adult...and i like just day dreaming. i don't know why.


----------



## 99880 (Mar 17, 2016)

babybowrain said:


> i don't believe in this. i just had mild abuse and i'm a hypnotic. sometimes i become easily hypnotised. so i dissappear into my imagination. as a child i loved imagining things and now i'm an adult...and i like just day dreaming. i don't know why.


That's an interesting comment, if you ever feel able to elaborate, I would be interested to learn more.


----------



## devin44 (Nov 19, 2014)

hidden, I think you need to go to the doctor and talk very seriously about paranoia. You're obviously very bright judging from the articles you're posting - and yes, the government does do surveillance on a lot of its citizens. But causing DP? Very unlikely.


----------

