Experiments + No.’s

Note: It is our understanding that over 36,000 citizens were experimented on in these non-consensual experiments. The number may be larger than that.

From MKUltra Documents
(Cryptome site (URL is at end of article))

[Folder 0000146167; 8 pages.]

[TSD is the CIA’s Technical Services Division, which conducts scientific and technical research in-agency and through outside contracts.]

[Report paginated as 199-206]

417

[By hand:]

Excerpt from 1957 IG Report “Operations of TSD”

7. Influencing Human Behavior

. . .

h. At the present time, there are a substantial number of active projects concerned with substantive research in the behavioral field. Since many of them include other activities, it is not practical to try to segregate those contracts which have direct application or to apportion those with multiple objectives. The total extent of the effort, however, can be fairly described.

i. Extensive research is being conducted by two organizations in which the Agency has substantial interests. One is the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx a research foundation with headquarters in Washington. It is supported in part by the Agency and is used principally as a funding mechanism to finance research projects. In addition to its use as a cover facility, it provides useful information in several areas of medical research and permits the inclusion of areas of special interest in research sponsored by xxxxxxxxxx. The medical member of CD [Chemical Division] Staff is accredited to [one-half line redacted]. The other organization is the [one line redacted]. This is wholly supported by the Agency as a cover facility. The Society has two full-time employees and a high-level Board of Directors who ostensibly provide funds for research in the lesser known ecological aspects of humanity. As a cover facility, it is more effective and less costly than xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

j. Substantive research in the behavioral field is being conducted under contract at several universities throughout the country. The xxxxxxx University xxxxxxxxxxxx is exploring the effects on human tissue of lysergic acid, the principal ingredient of P1. xxxxxxxxx University is searching for antidotes for similar materials. At xxxxxx University, researchers are seeking an antagonist for ethyl alcohol to provide a defense against intoxication. At the University xxxxxxx some of the country’s foremost authorities on hypnotism is examining the validity of the hypnotic state and measuring the effect of hypnosis on the human mind. A project at xxxxxx University is concerned with research in neurology to determine the effect of emotional stress and the resulting structural damage to the brain on other tissue of the human body.

k. A major problem in the behavioral program is that of arranging for and conducting the essential tests and experimentation which produce the basic data for the development of techniques and the application of the end product to operational use. This is a time-consuming and costly process but one which must be accomplished carefully and thoroughly. There are no short cuts or substitutes which can be applied. Because of the unconventional use of the materials involved, CD has had added difficulty in obtaining expert services and facilities to conduct tests and experiments. Some of the activities are considered to be professionally unethical and in some instances border on the illegal. These difficulties have not been entirely surmounted but good progress is being made. Another problem is raised by the lack of professional knowledge of lysergic acid, the basic substance with which CD is concerned. Very little research has been done by the medical profession and CD is breaking new ground in its efforts to develop this material for operational use.

Read more:

http://cryptome.org/mkultra-0001.htm

periments and Directives

(1947)   Col. E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issues a top-secret document (707075) dated Jan. 8. In it, he writes that “certain radioactive substances are being prepared for intravenous administration to human subjects as a part of the work of the contract” (Goliszek).

A secret AEC document dated April 17 reads, “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,” revealing that the U.S. government was aware of the health risks its nuclear tests posed to military personnel conducting the tests or nearby civilians (Goliszek).

______________________

MKUltra Experiments of the CIA

by Colin Ross, Psychiatrist

Psychiatrist Exposes Psychiatric CIA   Mind Control Experiments

A video interview by Dr. Ross can be seen on the expanding web site of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights of British Columbia.
PRLog (Press Release)Sep 12, 2009 – Psychiatrist Colin Ross, author of The CIA Doctors and Military Mind Control, exposes the longstanding relationship between the CIA, the military and psychiatry in mind control experiments including the use of LSD, psychiatric drugs, hypnosis, radiation, brain electrode implants and torture. experiments  which are verified through declassified CIA documents.

A video interview by Dr. Ross can be seen on the expanding web site of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights of British Columbia. There is also a new video which exposes that all the side effects of antidepressant drugs are documented by the US FDA; including suicidal and homicidal ideation, mania, psychosis, worsening depression, panic attacks, emotional numbing, hallucinations and delusions.

The web site allows individuals to view a riveting video documentary, “Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psycho tropic Drugging”, which exposes the field of psychiatry as a money-grubbing industry dedicated to making a profit at the expense of the mental heath of their own patients.

Brian Beaumont, the president of the Vancouver chapter of CCHR and webmaster said, “We are very proud of our expanding web site with its new adverse reaction search engine and two new videos and other documentaries.

In navigating the site, one can find  how normal active children are forced into taking mind altering and addictive drugs with damaging and sometimes fatal consequences and their parents are powerless against the coercive onslaught of falsehoods opinions and the “chemical imbalance” hoax which is foisted on them as.”fact”.  In addition, there are the elderly who are treated with drugs so powerful that it leaves many with permanent physiological damage. Some drug treatments are flanked with the infamous ECT treatments which leave the patients – the ones that survive – with permanent brain and neurological damage.

As a workable alternative, the site has a solutions section where individuals can learn that there are better ways of dealing with life’s problems than being falsely labeled and drugged. Thousands of people around the world have recovered from mental disorders and now enjoy the simple pleasures of a drug-free life. Most were told this was impossible.

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights was established by the Church of Scientology to investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights. View the new website at http://www.psychharm.ca


# # #

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights was established by the Church of Scientology to investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights.

(Psychiatrist Exposes Psychiatric CIA Mind Control Experiments.htm)

_______________________________

http://www.wariscrime.com/2009/05/28/news/scientist-frank-olson-killed-by-the-cia/

______________________________________

Fifty Year Later, The Significance of the Nuremberg Code
Evelyne Shuster, Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 1997; 337:1436-1440November 13, 1997
Nuremberg Code

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.   .    .     .

The Nuremberg Code is the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research.1-6 The Code was formulated 50 years ago, in August 1947, in Nuremberg, Germany, by American judges sitting in judgment of Nazi doctors accused of conducting murderous and torturous human experiments in the concentration camps (the so-called Doctors’ Trial).7 It served as a blueprint for today’s principles that ensure the rights of subjects in medical research. Because of its link with the horrors of World War II and the use of prisoners in Nazi concentration camps for medical experimentation, debate continues today about the authority of the Code, its applicability to modern medical research, and even its authorship.1,2,4,5,8 The chief prosecutor at the Doctors’ Trial, General Telford Taylor, believed that one of the three U.S. judges, Harold Sebring, was the author of the Code.2 Two American physicians who helped prosecute the Nazi doctors at Nuremberg, Leo Alexander and Andrew Ivy, have each been identified as the Code’s author.5,8-11 A careful reading of the transcript of the Doctors’ Trial, background documents, and the final judgment reveals that authorship was shared and that the famous 10 principles of the Code grew out of the trial itself.

In this article I will explain the important role that physicians had in the prosecution of the Nazi doctors and in the formulation of the Nuremberg Code and summarize how medical researchers have used the Code as a guide over the past five decades.

The Doctors’ Trial

The main trial at Nuremberg after World War II was conducted by the International Military Tribunal. The tribunal was made up of judges from the four allied powers (the United States, Britain, France, and the former Soviet Union) and was charged with trying Germany’s major war criminals. After this first-of-its-kind international trial, the United States conducted 12 additional trials of representative Nazis from various sectors of the Third Reich, including law, finance, ministry, and manufacturing, before American Military Tribunals, also at Nuremberg. The first of these trials, the Doctors’ Trial, involved 23 defendants, all but 3 of whom were physicians accused of murder and torture in the conduct of medical experiments on concentration-camp inmates.7

The indictment of the defendants was filed on October 25, 1946, 25 days after the conclusion of the first Nuremberg trial by the International Military Tribunal.
The Doctors’ Trial began on December 9, 1946, and ended on July 19, 1947. The case was heard by three judges and one alternate. Thirty-two prosecution witnesses and 53 defense witnesses, including the 23 defendants, testified. A total of 1471 documents were introduced into the record. Sixteen of the 23 defendants were found guilty; 7 of them were sentenced to death by hanging, 5 to life imprisonment, 2 to imprisonment for 25 years, 1 to imprisonment for 15 years, and 1 to imprisonment for 10 years. Seven were acquitted. The sentences were confirmed by the military governor, and, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case, the executions were carried out at the Landsberg prison.For the United States and its chief prosecutor, Telford Taylor, the trial was a murder trial (and murder had been identified by the International Military Tribunal as a crime against humanity). Nonetheless, as Taylor pointed out in his opening statement, this was “no mere murder trial,” because the defendants were physicians who had sworn to “do no harm” and to abide by the Hippocratic Oath.12 He told the judges that the people of the world needed to know “with conspicuous clarity” the ideas and motives that moved these doctors “to treat their fellow human beings as less than beasts,” and that “brought about such savageries” so that they could be “cut out and exposed before they become a spreading cancer in the breast of humanity.”12 One recurring theme was the relevance of Hippocratic ethics to human experimentation and whether Hippocratic moral ideals could be an exclusive guide to the ethics of research without risk to the human rights of subjects. In the trial’s exploration of ideas that shaped medical-research ethics, three physicians had central roles: Leo Alexander, an American neuropsychiatrist, Werner Leibbrand, a German psychiatrist and medical historian, and Andrew Ivy, a renowned American physiologist.

Leo Alexander

Leo Alexander, a Viennese-born American physician, had joined the U.S. Army Medical Corps in 1942, before being stationed in England at the American Eighth Air Force base. At the end of the war, Alexander was sent on a special mission under the Combined Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee, an intelligence organization with members from several nations, and charged by orders from Supreme Headquarters of Allied Expeditionary Forces to gather evidence for the Nuremberg trials. Two days before the opening of the Doctors’ Trial, Alexander gave Taylor a memorandum entitled “Ethical and Non-Ethical Experimentation on Human Beings,” in which he identified three ethical, legal, and scientific requirements for the conduct of human experimentation.9 The first requirement established the right of the competent experimental subject to consent or refuse to participate in these terms: “the subject should be willing to undergo the experiment of his own free will. . . .” The second focused on the duty of physicians as expressed in the Hippocratic Oath, which Alexander restated in research terms: “the medical Hippocratic attitude prohibits an experiment if the foregone conclusion, probability or a priori reason to believe exists that death or disabling injury of the experimental subject will occur.” The third characterized good  research practices.

On April 15, 1947, Alexander gave Taylor a second memorandum.9,11 In it he set forth in greater detail six specific conditions for ethically and legally permissible experiments on human beings. The first stated that

the legally valid voluntary consent of the experimental subject is essential. This requires specifically the absence of duress, sufficient disclosure on the part of the experimenter and sufficient understanding on the part of the experimental subject of the exact nature and consequences of the experiment for which he volunteers, to permit an enlightened consent.

The five other conditions established the humanitarian nature and purpose of the experiment and the scientific integrity and obligations of the investigator to the welfare of the subject.

Read this pertinent article in its entirety at:

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RADIATION EXPERIMENTS
(PUBLIC MEETING)
Executive Chambers
The Madison Hotel
15th and M Streets, NW
Washington, D.C.
Wednesday,
March 15, 1995
1:00 p.m.

Advisory Committee Members:
RUTH R. FADEN, PH.D., M.P.H. – CHAIR
KENNETH R. FEINBERG, J.D.
ELI GLATSTEIN, M.D.
DR. JAY KATZ
PATRICIA A. KING, J.D.
SUSAN E. LEDERER, PH.D.
RUTH MACKLIN, PH.D.
LOIS L. NORRIS
NANCY L. OLEINICK, PH.D.
HENRY D. ROYAL, M.D.
DUNCAN C. THOMAS, PH.D.
REED V. TUCKSON, M.D.
Staff Members:
DAN GUTTMAN
ANNA MASTROIANNI

A G E N D A
AGENDA ITEM:                                 PAGE:
Opening Remarks                                 3
Ruth Faden, Chair
Approval of Minutes of February 15-17,          7
1995 Meeting
Public Comment                                  9
Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass                        9
University of Pittsburgh
Elmerine Whitfield Bell                        25
Dallas, Texas
Steve Schwartz                                113
Washington, D.C.
Cooper Brown                                   36
National Association of Radiation Victims
Dr. Oscar Rosen                                46
National Association of Atomic Veterans
Glenn Alcalay                                  61
New York, New York
Denise Nelson                                  70
Bethesda, Maryland
Chris DeNicola, Valerie Wolf                   77
Claudia Mullen, New Orleans, Louisiana
Suzzanne Starr                                102
Chimayo, New Mexico
Update on Knoxville Small Panel Meeting       124
Nancy Oleinick
Approach to the Final Report                  133
Dan Guttman
Meeting Adjourned
P R O C E E D I N G S
1:00 p.m.
Opening Remarks
DR. FADEN:  Good morning.  Excuse me.  I’m used to the
meeting starting in the morning.  Good afternoon.
We have Phil Caplan from the White House to open the
meeting, please, officially.

MR. CAPLAN:  Good afternoon.  As the designated federal
official for the Advisory Committee, I declare this meeting open.

DR. FADEN:  Thank you.  Thank you, Phil.
I can’t decide if we’re happier to see him in the beginning,

.     .      .   (text omitted)

Statement of Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass
University of Pittsburgh

DR. STERNGLASS:  Dr. Faden and distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.  My remarks will address primarily the question of radiation doses and health effects of the radiation exposures documented in your work so far, which is the area in which I’ve learned — carried out extensive research during the past three decades as indicated in my vitae.
In fact, I spent essentially the last 30 years of my
life trying to reduce doses in medical procedures, including
radioisotope and x-ray procedures, at the University of
Pittsburgh, School of Medicine.
This subject is relevant to the question of
compensation for both individuals who were exposed in individual experiments as well as for large groups of people living near the facilities from which experimental releases took place.
My testimony also bears on the policy recommendations
your committee has been asked to make with regard to future actions by our government involving both individual human experiments and releases of radioactivity into the environment, since there’s evidence, as I will present, that government agencies have continued to cover up the three — the actual true doses from environmental releases, and the serious effects of such low-dose exposures.  I will not try to read the entire testimony.

DR. FADEN:  We have it as part of the record.

DR. STERNGLASS:  Right.  And I will just simply
summarize the essential points for you, using a few overhead projections to do this in a few minutes.
Basically, the argument that I’ll be presenting is that
we have grossly under-estimated without realizing it how chronic exposure over long periods of time due to internal doses from long-lived Radium class, not the ones we use in medicine, which are extremely short-lived and mainly give off penetrating radiation, but beta emitters that stay in the bone like Strontium 90 for a long, long time, have an enormously greater effect than we were led to believe on the basis of our experience with Radium, which was the only material for which we had any human  data from the Dial workers that you know about back in the early
’20s and ’30s.
The trouble is that Alpha particles have a very short
range of bone, and therefore stick in the bone and do not reach the bone marrow to the same degree as has been experimentally observed as a beta rate from fusion products, and these did not exist on earth before the bomb, and this is really the basic reason why we under-estimated the effect.
We thought we knew what Radium was doing.  We thought
we knew what Cosmic rays were doing.  We thought we knew what x- rays were doing, and we even thought we knew what the short flash of the bomb at Hiroshima had done.
All those studies, including hundreds of studies on
animals, all those studies have to be done at high enough doses to be able to see an effect.  You cannot have a million mice and give them a hundredth of a rad and expect to see anything.
So, of necessity, all work had to be done at high doses
and high dose rates, and not until 1972 was it discovered quite by accident, by a Canadian physician and researcher by the name of Dr. Abraham Petgow, working in Penowa, Manitoba, for the Atomic Energy establishment of Canada, working on radio-protection, and he discovered that cell membranes, fatty cell  membranes of all types, break at much lower doses when the dose is prolonged over a long period of time given in a short x-ray, and that is only in 1972, 30 years after the first fusion process
and long after the bomb testing had begun, in fact ended,
atmospheric tests and long after all the nuclear facilities in
the world had constructed, and then only did we learn that the chronic exposures to membranes dominate at low doses whereas the DNA damage to the cell nuclei and to the genetic information dominates at high doses, and therefore the repair mechanism of DNA, which are very efficient, led us to believe mistakenly that doses, if you extrapolate them down linearly, you would expect to
have practically no detectable effects from environmental
releases or tiny doses given in the course of diagnostic
procedures and so on, and that has in fact, if it hadn’t been for the fact that x-rays and gamma rays given in short intense bursts have little effect, we could never have used radiology as a diagnostic tool in medicine or could we have used radiation as a way of treating tumors, because we would have killed everybody whom we gave x-rays at these high doses.
It is fortunate, however, that cell membranes are very
strongly protected by enzymes in the body and the fact that the free radicals, which are created, bump into each other and de-activate each other at high doses, and therefore we can use medical x-rays.  We can use and we’re tricked into believing that the same thing is true for environmental and tiny doses given over very long periods of time.
I want to emphasize this because I myself have worked
in the field of diagnostic medicine for 40 years and helped to develop instruments that expose people deliberately to radiation, but, of course, there was a very clear benefit to the individual involved, and this, I think, is the important point; that when you do individual, you know, treatment or diagnosis of an ill person, then this individual receives both the risk and the benefit.

But when you carry out an experiment in which you
release radioactivity into the environment for some experimental purposes just to satisfy some instrumentalist desire to find out how well he can read the meter at 50 miles away, then you see you’re exposing people who are not ill.  You are exposing women during pregnancy, and since Dr. Alice Stewart had already shown in 1958 that the fetus is extremely sensitive, then we were
exposing the most sensitive members of the population for no benefit to them whatsoever, without their consent and without their ability to even know what was happening to them or to take precautions or protect themselves or their children, and that, I think, is the difference between the medical use on an individual who is ill and the deliberate or often accidental distribution of radio-activity in the environment for some purpose other than to
benefit the individual who receives the radiation.
Now, the tragedy is that during the Cold War, and
especially as you have already found with all your
investigations, there was great concern that the fact of fall-out should not become too well known for all the military security reasons that you know about.  I don’t have to go into that, but it’s evident that what happened is that the scientific community as a whole, people like me, my friends, people who worked on equipment and designed reactors, worked on the design of nuclear reactors for space propulsion.  I participated in many, you know,
developments of nuclear instrumentation.
We had no idea that early, already in 1945-46-47, at
the Argonne National Lab in Chicago, metallurgical lab, animals were exposed to small doses of Strontium 90 during pregnancy, and they knew that the dogs that were being examined were not able to walk, and they died of pneumonia and cancers and all this in a very short time.  Sometimes it was five or 10 years before it showed, but because all this was kept secret, we could not benefit from it, and therefore what I have done here is to provide you with the documentation that show the history of what
happened now, and now I can just explain to you what the latest development is, because Dr. Petgow’s findings mean that the dose response curve — in other words, the shape of the dose response curve is not a straight line all the way down, and these graphs are taken mainly from the ma  terial I’m showing

5 Responses to Experiments + No.’s

  1. Gregory Wayne Cox says:

    I live in portland oregon, I have had some kind of implant on the left side of my head since waking at a hospital in south east portland on oct. 31 2005, My life has become a living nightmare since that day. I’ve been experimented on and torchered. I’m manipulated so badly I have a hard time just functioning much less investigating an issue myself as our government would rather accuse you of being crazy than acnowledge technology that it holds pattents on as being a problem used to terrorize its citizens. So mean while they have the millitary chasing evil up a goat trail into cave half way around the world and do nothing about a real problem right here at home. I need help with scanning for an implant and getting detailed imaging, and going over the information I’ve compiled over the last seven years.
    I seem to have a similar issue as Jesse Beltran from sacramento. If anyone is close and knows this sort of thing is real and can help I could sure use the help.
    Gregory wayne cox
    5142 SE 86th ave
    portland, oregon 97266

    503 446 9851

  2. Greate post. Keep posting such kind of info on your site.
    Im really impressed by your site.
    Hello there, You’ve performed an incredible job. I’ll certainly digg it
    and for my part suggest to my friends. I am
    confident they’ll be benefited from this web site.

    • keepkelb says:

      Thank you. Glad you like our site. Please keep accessing and reading. This is important information. We will be updating our pages, as events happen. All my best, Lynn Co-Director, Kelb, Inc.

  3. keepkelb says:

    Dear Gregory,
    What has happened is a terrible abuse of power. It never should have happened to you or to the many who are suffering similar abuses. I am sorry for what you are experiencing. I will send you some of our literature. Please keep connected to us and our site. I wish you the courage and strength in survival as we work towards an end to this and to the justice we deserve.
    Please stay strong
    and survive,
    all my best, Lynn Co-President, Kelb,Inc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s