Skip to main content

"Unless the law winks occasionally, you have no progress in medicine "

These telling words written by Dr. John C. Cutler, a high-ranking Public Health Service employee, are memorable because Dr. Cutler was intimately involved in the Tuskegee and Guatemala syphilis experiments. Without compunction, Dr. Cutler and his team deliberately harmed unwitting and conscripted subjects by withholding curative penicillin treatments or by infecting selected individuals with various pathogens.

The Tuskegee observational initiative spanned 30 years [1942-1972] and involved hundreds of black observees and their families who were told that they had bad blood. In Guatemala, U.S. medical researchers used children from the Sisters of Charity orphanage, prostitutes, mental patients, members of the U.S. Air Force stationed in-county and Guatemala service men as resources. There were 5,500 individuals in the Guatemala [1946-1948] STD offensive and Dr. Cutler continued follow up studies until 1953.

For a description of the Public Health Service project please read "Guatemala victims of US syphilis study still haunted by the 'devil's experiment.'"

The secret Tuskegee operation was disclosed by a whistleblower; Guatemala, by an archivist. Dr. Cutler and other civil servant participants were not prosecuted for their malfeasance.

From Dr. Cutler's Guatemala research papers on the subject of Berta, a mental health patient:

She was first deliberately infected with syphilis and, months later, given penicillin. After that, Dr. John C. Cutler of the Public Health Service, who led the experiments, described her as so unwell that she ‘appeared she was going to die.’ Nonetheless, he inserted pus from a male gonorrhea victim into her eyes, urethra and rectum. Four days later, infected in both eyes and bleeding from the urethra, she died.
(NYT 4/30/2011 - “Panel Hears Grim Details of Venereal Disease Tests")
and "Ethically Impossible" STD Research in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948—President's Commission September 2011

The Tuskegee and Guatemala experiments were not unusual enterprises. During the 20th century Congress funded numerous conscience-shocking medical procedures on 
U. S. citizens, some of them involved institutionalized children.

American jurists during the Nuremberg Doctors' Trial severely criticized German scientists for their conduct during WW II but U.S. practices during the Cold War—4,000 radiation experiments—were similarly egregious. Some examples are: unsuspecting hospital patients injected with either plutonium, uranium or polonium, mentally handicapped state custody children fed irradiated Quaker Oats cereal [Fernald School Experiment]  and 200,000 servicemen deliberately exposed to harmful radiation. 

There were no research boundaries on the part of the government as evidenced by the aforementioned and Operation Delirium, a psychochemical study involving 7,000 military personnel. For further information on the radiation experiments please refer to Congressman Ed Markey's "American Nuclear Guinea Pigs: Three Decades of Radiation Experiments on U.S. Citizens. "

The committees investigating these and other covert medical experiments inform that these activities will continue because national security and scientific interests supersede civil rights.

Human research can still be conducted in secret today, and under some conditions informed consent in secret research can be waived. ( The Advisory Committee Report on Human Radiation Experiments 1944-1974)
Furthermore the ACHRE Committee found that predicated on its review there are:
no subjects of biomedical experiments for whom there is a need to provide notification and medical follow-up for the purpose of protecting their health.

...the Committee does not recommend notification or medical follow-up for descendants of subjects of human radiation experiments. (page 807)

Foster Children as Test Subjects

Recognizing the shortage of volunteers, Congress authorized the use of state wards for research purposes in 1989. For the past twenty-five years millions of foster children from birth to age 18 have served as pharmaceutical/medical device test vessels. It was HHS Secretary Otis R. Bowen who recommended these practices:

State and local child welfare agencies should create systems to manage the participation of children in foster care in special medical treatment and experimental trials. (HHS/ASPE, 1989, p. 60).
Secretary Bowen's proposal was adopted and as a result the scientific community gained a perpetual pool of non-consenting research subjects. Justina Pelletier was one of these children.

Foster Child Justina Pelletier

Justina Pelletier is an example of medical child abuse on the part of the state of Massachusetts. Without her consent this fourteen year old was enrolled in a psychiatric experiment initiated by Dr. Alice Newton of Boston Children's Hospital. In Dr. Newton's opinion Justina's condition would improve if she were separated from her parents.

Justina endured a sixteen-month psychiatric clinical study while a state ward. The adverse publicity surrounding her case has opened a congressional debate on current practices. If enacted as proposed the new law would constrain the employment of foster children in clinical trials deemed greater than minimal risk and that are not relevant to the enrollees' health.

H. R. 4989, also known as Justina's Law offers protection for some foster children but would leave the majority to the whim of Institutional Review Boards. There are more than 3,000 Institutional Review Boards overseeing government-funded human medical experiments. Members of Congress and the General Accounting Office have faulted IRB methodology but nevertheless these entities control the clinical trial environment. Janet Woodcock, director of CDER at the FDA, has reported that "the agency inspects at most 1 percent of all clinical trials".

Unstated in the pending rule change is the reality that clinical trials are by and of themselves perilous propositions. This is true because more than 70% of the experiments fail to meet intended goals by the conclusion of Phase II. Clinical trial death and injury data are not published because this information would challenge long-established government practices.

Foster children are entitled to equal protection and that means no enrollment in superfluous clinical trials. This issue is ripe for Supreme Court review for many reasons but primarily because wards of state are non-consenting participants.

Originally posted to Lynne Vogel on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 01:51 PM PDT.

Also republished by PostHuffPost: Connection-Conversation-Community and Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Institutional Review Boards are numerous (10+ / 0-)

    and I suppose among so many, some will be sloppy or OK questionable proceedings.   But I can tell you that nowadays,  most IRBs cast extremely strict scrutiny on ANY study that impacts vulnerable populations, including pediatric patients, prisoners, and wards of the state.  

     Huge systems of policy, law, and paperwork are in place for oversight now -- not that they are foolproof, and there is always room for vigilance -- but there is an entire apparatus in place intended exactly to prevent Tuskegee-style abuses.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 02:56:04 PM PDT

    •  I think it's also worthwhile to point out that (7+ / 0-)

      the material in this diary supporting the Michelle Bachman assertion of nefarious non-consensual experimental testing on foster children is rather weak.

      The link in the diary for the practices attributed to HHS Sec. Bowen (1989) points to oral testimony given by Donald Young made in 2005.  During that testimony he specifically highlights the protections available for children within the foster care system.  It should also be noted that the diarist is very selective about what she chose to quote.  Extending it a bit further to include the
      Dr. Young's testimony provides some important context.

      The report prepared in response to this congressional mandate found that, in 1989, the states were aware of 804 current and 979 cumulative cases of HIV positive children in foster care nationally, most of them concentrated in just a few states. By that year only 6 states had seen at least 50 cumulative cases of HIV among children in foster care, and 20 states had never cared for a foster child with HIV. At the time, most state laws allowed only for “standard medical treatment” for children in foster care. But because there were no standard treatments for HIV-infected children, this limitation represented a critical barrier to medical care for children with HIV. The report recommended that “State and local child welfare agencies should create systems to manage the participation of children in foster care in special medical treatment and experimental trials”
      AZT was not approved for the treatment of pediatric AIDS until 1990.

      The report referenced in the quote above, as well as the source of the quote provided in the diary, is an HHS/ASPE report titled, "A Report on Infants and Children with HIV Infection in Foster Care."  The report clearly acknowledges both the potential risks and benefits for enrolling such children in clinical trials.

      There are benefits and risks to be considered in involving a child in a treatment or experimental protocol. The drugs and biologics administered in these trials are on the cutting edge of AIDS research and medical treatment, and participation in the protocols is required to receive the agents. In addition, the medical centers carrying out the treatment and experimental protocols are also primary AIDS resource centers, with additional funds from Federal, state, and private agencies. Enrollment in a protocol guarantees the availability of many health and social service services and benefits, e.g, respite care, day care, travel allowances, support groups, comprehensive medical care, case management, and family-focused services. A primary risk of involving HIV-infected children in foster care is the potential toxicity of the administered agent or of children receiving only placebo or non-therapeutic doses of the agent and, thus, receiving little or no benefit from participation. In addition, the schedule related to a child's participation in a protocol can create a significant time and logistical burden for the foster parent. Finally, there is a fear of racial or ethnic stigmatization, namely that these children, who are overwhelmingly from minority communities, will be enrolled in studies and protocols as "guinea pigs" and have no guardianship protection from abuse during the studies.
      The quote provided in the diary is a part of the recommendations section provided in the report.  The entirety of this section is provided below.
      State and local child welfare agencies should create systems to manage the participation of children in foster care in special medical treatment and experimental trials. These systems should address the rights of the biologic parent(s), methods of protocol review, ongoing evaluation of the protocols, privacy, methods to safeguard children from potential abuse, guardianship responsibilities, and reduction of liability issues. Ideally, a broad coalition of representatives from AIDS and child welfare organizations should approve protocols and create exemplary approaches for the participation of children in protocols and experimental trials.
  •  Quick math check (4+ / 0-)

    In your second paragraph you say the initiative spanned 40 years, but parenthetically say 1942-1972, which is 30 years.

  •  Speaking as a former IRB admin: (26+ / 0-)

    Although Igmcp is correct that many IRBs are quite careful about vulnerable populations (often because their institutions have been sanctioned in the past), others -- those that have never had their fingers slapped by the FDA, for instance -- continue with Business As Usual.  And it IS business.  Research is a medical institution's cash cow; Outside Funding is the main criteria by which faculty are retained and promoted and executives are retained or removed.  Naturally, if an unsavory experiment gets publicized the investigators will be hung out to dry, but the system is designed to prevent that, with much confidentiality due to "patient privacy" (irrelevant if they're the ones who want the data).  Institution-specific IRBs are subordinate to the need of the institution for ever-more Funding.  While required to have at least one non-affiliated member on the Board, in practice they often have ONLY one non-affiliated member, who can count on being outvoted (or replaced) if they object too strenuously.

    Secondly, most industry-sponsored clinical trials throughout the country are reviewed and approved by ONE, count-em ONE private, for-profit IRB, the Western IRB.  This outfit openly reviews and approves industry studies for cash (and significant cash, too). Because these studies are multicenter studies performed at dozens of institutions under the same rules, the local institutions defer to the review of the Western IRB for the study as a whole.  They must approve the entire study design, protocol, and consent form as presented, or else lose the Funding.  They very seldom choose to do that.  Only genuine fear of discovery and public outcry would be likely to cause a research university or hospital to reject the generous stipends involved.  This is how they pay salaries.

    As for children, foster-care or not, they have no rights.  Oh, certainly the importance of respect for their autonomy, freedom, and safety is written into all the ethical documentation and policy statements.  But in practice, Doctors Know Best, and even adults are usually considered too ignorant, stupid, and emotional to be fully informed about the specifics of clinical research (or even ordinary treatment).  Consent forms are written to downplay risks and emphasize (often non-existent) benefits.  And children aren't asked, they're told that their Legal Guardian has made the decision.

    Pardon my cynicism, but seven years of taking the minutes about what the IRBs REALLY discuss during their meetings left me rigid with disgust at times.

  •  link? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marykk, gramofsam1
    Justina endured a sixteen-month psychiatric clinical study while a state ward.
    Got a link documenting the study?
    •  no link? (0+ / 0-)

      I will just assume that you are also a scientologist.  

      The case of this girl has spawned CT diaries on this site before.  

      Ethics rules are so strict that something as innocuous as changing lunch time may need to go through an IRB, if data was being collected.  

      Massachusetts did not start this girl on medication, they stopped medication.  

      •  Withholding treatment (3+ / 0-)

        can also be part of a study methodology.  See Tuskegee.

        Banana Republic: it's not just a clothing store.

        by northbronx on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 03:43:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  thanks (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It was the state of Massachusetts which stopped experiments on this girl.

          Would you treat someone with diabetes who didn't have diabetes?  Would you treat someone with mitochondrial disease who didn't have a mitochondrial disease?

          This girl was being given an experimental drug, that is still in the testing phase, midodrine.  It raises blood pressure and heart rate.

          To counter the effects of midodrine, she was being given metoprolol, which lowers blood pressure and heart rate.

          Neither of these drugs have been approved to treat mitochondrial disease, and no scientist or physician has ever even suggested a theoretical pathway through which these drugs can treat a mitochondrial disease.

          She was also given tegretol, a potentially toxic anti-epileptic medication, the side effects of which could cause all of this patient's symptoms.  Also, never been approved to treat mitochondrial disease, and no pathway suggested.

          But this diary is not about the dangerous medications that the state stopped.

          It is about the claim that this patient was enrolled in a 16 month long study that required IRB approval.  This is a lie.  There was no study.  Scientologist are on a crusade to destroy psychiatry and there is no lie they are above telling.  

      •  They stopped medicating her (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        for her documented physical problems.

    •  She was not part of an organized study (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Winston Sm1th

      According to the Boston Globe, this was not a case in which a foster child was enrolled in an organized psychiatric clinical study without parental consent, as the diary presumes and argues. Instead, this was a case where doctors and parents disagreed about the child's medical condition and need for treatment, and the state sought legal custody in order to override the parents. (It's legally similar to cases where the state takes charge to override parental objections to blood transfusions or chemotherapy.) That has its own problems, as the case showed -- the medical people ended up thinking maybe the parents weren't as wrong-headed as they had believed -- but it has nothing to do with the requirements for formal clinical research studies.


  •  Thank you... (5+ / 0-)

    For shining light on just one of the many injustices children in the system face.  Alone and vulnerable, these children are most in need of protection and advocacy, but are often abandoned by the very entity charged with their well-being.  As a former DCS casemanager and current foster parent, I have of course heard of this despicable practice of using wards in medical experiments.  But, I can honestly say that none of the wards in my charge has ever been a victim of this.  (And, yes, I would consider it victimization to use children who are in such a vulnerable position as lab rats.)  Until such time as we are willing to change the law (and, what are the odds, given the deep pockets of big pharma?), The only hope for these children is foster parents and case managers who are willing and able to truly advocate for the children in their charge.

    •  Would your position be the same if your foster ... (6+ / 0-)

      Would your position be the same if your foster had an incurable illness and the research involved a promising cure?

      •  "your foster" and "your child" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It should be the same standard, but sadly it is not always so.

        •  Yes, it would be... (0+ / 0-)

          Whether or not a parent chooses to enroll their biological child in a medical trial is for them to decide.  Hopefully, they make an informed decision that is in the best interest of their children.  However, there are a few reasons why I feel that foster children are ill-suited for such trials.  The first is that the goal of the child welfare system, at least initially, should in all but the extreme cases (abandonment, murder, etc) be reunification of the child with their biological family.  This gets tricky in the middle of a drug trial.  In fact, few of the biological parents I worked with would have followed through with a voluntary medical trial for their children (Many don't follow through on free immunizations).  Here you run the risk of either skewing the trial, or worse, postponing reunification for the sake of medical research.  This is detrimental to everyone involved.  Also, unlike children whose biological parents put them into medical trials, foster children don't feel free to speak out if they object.  Foster kids learn pretty quickly that things can always get worse.  (Don't like this foster home?  The next one may be way worse.  Hate it there?  Wait till you spend time in a group home).  These kids are already at higher risk of being victims of physical and sexual abuse in placement.  Most of them have damaged self-esteems.  Their very survival depends upon their ability to get along with total strangers (foster parents, case managers, etc.).  Using them for medical experiments could leave them with the impression that there should be nothing they are prepared to sacrifice for a safe place to live.

          As for your question about how I would feel if one of my kids were left out of consideration for a treatment just because he or she is a ward, that, unfortunately, happens.  Our kids are routinely left off of transplant lists.  The post-op regime necessary to ensure success is rigorous and time-consuming, and it is most often believed these children lack a consistent adult presence in their lives who can ensure that success.  There are countless other (though less deadly) ways that my wards are slighted all the time; from missing party invites to obvious bias from teachers and school administrators.  When you consider all of the baggage these kids bring with them, and all of the turmoil in their lives, the last thing they need is to participate in medical trials.

    •  Take a look, that at Guyeda's long comment above (5+ / 0-)

      It's easy to say that involuntarily conducting  "medical experiments" on foster children is reprehensible.  

      But it's also easy to say the EXCLUDING foster children from recently-developed HIV treatments, when those are really the ONLY treatments available, is reprehensible.  
      You wouldn't want wards of the state to NOT have access to the HIV or oncology care that well-heeled private patients are getting, right?  

      So the devil is always in the details.  

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 08:58:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This statement in the diary is a complete (7+ / 0-)


        For the past twenty-five years millions of foster children from birth to age 18 have served as pharmaceutical/medical device test vessels.
        The link is to children entering and exiting foster care, nothing to do with medical trial.
      •  Thank you! (5+ / 0-)

        Your response is especially heartening because you work with an IRB.

        I manage HIV education/prevention studies. Most of our studies prioritize older teens and young adults (all or part of the 15-25 age range). Kids in the system are at undue risk compared to similar aged peers in parental custody. Categorically excluding foster children seems wrong, especially when the primary risk in our case is violation of confidentiality, and we go to great pains to protect against that.

        Unfortunately, the IRB here is overly influenced by the Office of Legal Counsel. The consent forms are full of gobbledygook standard verbiage that I as a research professional with 17 years of experience and two master's degree sometimes cannot understand without requesting clarification.

        It also results in the Board getting hung up on the risks and ethics of inclusion without ever stopping to consider ... exclusion also carries risk and ethical concerns. They wail and gnash teeth over whether $25 is "too much" to pay folks from disadvantaged neighborhoods for an hour of their time. But they approve that much and more, without batting an eyelash, for similar time commitments from general population or mostly middle class respondents.

        Just because you're not a drummer doesn't mean that you don't have to keep time. -- T. Monk

        by susanala on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 10:15:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting. I know that payments (5+ / 0-)

          must be modest in relation to impact in order to qualify as not economically coercive.  Nobody should want to be in the position of tempting people to sell their souls (or their health) for cash.  But LOWERING the hourly payments if the subjects are poor?!  Hours on a bus coming and going has got to render a study visit more impactful than it was for the person who jumps in their car and parks in convenient paid parking.

          "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

          by lgmcp on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 10:25:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think I need to clarify (4+ / 0-)

            I don't mean that our IRB wants differential payment according to income within the same study. That's verboten under 45 CFR 46 and rightly so.

            But if a study aims to enroll a specific high-risk group, oftentimes such groups are disproportionately poor. So you get this wailing and the teeth-gnashing over incentives that is not seen when a different study with similar time commitments enrolls (for example) anyone between the ages of X and Y who is mentally competent to consent.

            Just because you're not a drummer doesn't mean that you don't have to keep time. -- T. Monk

            by susanala on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 12:58:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I knew what you meant (3+ / 0-)

              I can totally see that visits for things like, say, chronic kidney disease, might end up being  less compensated than visits for, say, ACL knee repairs, and how that subtly creates a class disparity.  

              "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

              by lgmcp on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:15:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Just so everyone knows (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, saluda, thanatokephaloides, guyeda

    Justina Pelletier is a girl who was removed from her parent's custody because they were abusing her.

    They are convinced that she has a make-believe disease, and cited as evidence the fact that she didn't want to wake up in the morning to go to school.

    They took her out of her home state to find a doctor who would treat this fake disease.

    The treatment consisted of giving her cardiac medications.  One medication lowered her heart rate and blood pressure, and the other medication raised her heart rate and blood pressure.

    Plus they insisted that she be given a toxic anti-epileptic medication despite the fact that she doesn't have epilepsy.  

    Boston Children's Hospital documented these facts, and Justina was made a ward of the state, to protect her from her parents, and to protect her from the quack medicine that she was being abused with.

    She was held in a psychiatric unit, because the only problems the doctors at Boston Children's could find were psychiatric, and she became a cause celebre for scientologists.

    You know, because there is no such thing as psychiatric illnesses, but rather the souls of aliens brought to earth 75 million years ago onboard DC-9 spaceships, and murdered by galactic president Xenu, who gathered them around a supervulcano and blew it up with nuclear bombs, and now these disembodied souls occasionally travel from Venus, where they have taken up residence, and fix themselves to living human bodies, and the only way to treat mental illness is to pay a third-rate scifi writer's cult money in installments over decades, duh.

    So, just to be clear, this girl was not being given dangerous medications, or being infected with syphilis and gonorrhea as implied in the diary.  The state of Massachusetts, rather, stopped the inappropriate administration of dangerous medications.  

    Considering how closely this very public case was being followed, I find it somewhat incredulous that the state would consent to any controversial experimental treatment.  What exactly was this treatment?

    •  Just to point out (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mntleo2, Schneewolfe, Metric Only

      Boston's Childrens Hospital has a whole program for this "made up disease".

      The practice of medicine is not an exact science. Just this year 2 new parts of the body were found, one in the eye and one in the knee. It is 2014 and you would think that ALL parts of the body had been identified already.

      Just a few years ago autism was blamed on a mothers parenting.

      The person at Boston's childrens who had this girl placed in a pych unit did so without ever meeting her, examining her, talking with her current MDs, talking with the parents.

      She walked in the hospital and 16 months later had 'improved" so much she was confined to a wheelchair.

      Did they experiment with her? IMO, yes. They removed her meds to see what would happen. That is experimenting.

      •  i treated mitochondrial diseases in children (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The fact that this patient was proven not to have a mitochondrial disease is relevant here.  Boston Children's, with their expertise in treating pediatric mitochondrial disease, would be able to determine that.

        Her medications were a cocktail of experimental drugs, including midodrine, which was about to be removed from the market in 2010 due to its experimental nature, and has never been approved to treat children.

        August 2010, the FDA proposed withdrawing this approval because the manufacturer, Shire plc, has failed to complete required studies after the medicine reached the market.
        I could go into a discussion about why the medications that she was being abuse with were contraindicated, but because you don't know what you are talking about, that would be a waste of time.

        The fact is that Boston is infested with scientologists, and they have been trying to mobilize public support in attacking Boston Children's in order to further discredit psychiatry.

        •  You're right about one thing (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          thanatokephaloides, mntleo2

          You don't want to discuss this with me.
          I am not into CT.
          I am a nurse.
          She was never proven not to have mitochondrial disease.
          In fact BCH never ever tested her for mitochondrial disease.

          As the mother of a child with a severe mental illness I have no problems with pych treatment.
          But I also get a front row seat to the quacks to be found in pych hospitals.

          •  you have access to her medical records? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            She was never proven not to have mitochondrial disease.
            In fact BCH never ever tested her for mitochondrial disease.
            You probably don't access to her medical records and are just talking out of your ass.  

            The patient's medical records are confidential.  But a clinical study which requires IRB approval is not.  The diarist asserts that there was such study, and that the patient was enrolled.

            That is what this diary is about.  Prove it.

      •  Well, this was educational (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I just went through and read up on this case, because I was curious.

        All I can say is 'wow'. It seems very clear to me that there are some people here who are taking very careful advantage of a lot of other people. But I think you and the diary's author both have not figured out exactly who those manipulators actually are.

        It surprises me that a nurse would be taken in by this sort of thing, but I suppose if you have never seen it before, as I have in a very close, intimate way, then it can be hard to believe that parents would do things like that to their children.

    •  Actual facts not clear (7+ / 0-)

      The Commonwealth, and Childrens' Hospital, allege that the parents were making up her condition.  But there was a dispute between her doctors.  She was taken away from her parents when her gastroenterologist switched hospitals from Tufts Medical Center to Children's, and the doctors at Children's immediately decided that she didn't have mitochondrial disease, just somatoform disorder (i.e., it's all in her head).  They blamed the parents and locked her up.  Those of us with some experience with Children's recognize that they can be arrogant and less than fully cooperative.

      Exactly what the truth is remains to be seen.

      But it has nothing to do with experimentation, Tuskeegee, Guatemala, or the other crazy shit in the diary.  That's just hard-core CT.

    •  Sorry (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lgmcp, elmo, thanatokephaloides

      but in this case I think YOU are the one who has it wrong. First of all, mitochondrial disease is not a "made-up disease". Justina's older sister has a milder form of it and has been treated for it by the same doctors. The reason the parents took her to BCH was because the doctor who had been treating her had transferred from Tufts to BCH. However, when she got to BCH, the psych department immediately (within less than 24 hours) swooped down on her, removed all her doctors from her case, and declared that she was suffering from "medical child abuse". Speaking of made-up diseases! Oh, and by the way, BCH has a history of this kind of behavior, particularly with out-of-state patients. This is well documented at

      Now I can understand you not liking Lou Pellitier's politics, or the fact that he took Justina's story to right-wing  talk radio…but did you ever stop to think that he took the story to whoever would LISTEN? I was pretty appalled that we on the left didn't pick up on it at all. You would think that we, who are all about civil liberties, would have cared what was done to this child. I know I did.

      Or perhaps you are blinded by that famous "Harvard connection" and the "Harvard medical degrees" mystique. I'm not. My brother has one of those, and much as I love him and respect his knowledge, I recognize that he can be as fallible as any human being.

      One other thing, and this I do know something about…parents who have a child with a rare disease, or a condition that isn't clear, are prone to go looking for a doctor who will sort things out for them. They want answers and will try various treatments and discard those that don't seem to work until they find something that does. Do not judge or call names if you haven't walked in their shoes.

      Being "pro-life" means believing that every child born has a right to food, education, and access to health care.

      by Jilly W on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 09:25:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know of Justina only what's in this diary (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pizzapotamus, Metric Only

        so your points provide valuable counterpoint.  Mitochondrial disease is quite real -- and so is medical child abuse.  Neither is particularly common and neither is particularly easy to deal with.  It's not entirely clear to me which was really the case here but I would lean towards believing overly-heavy-handed treatment by the psychiatry department, probably based in good part on their somewhat-understandable skepticism of parents with Scientology beliefs.  Of course even people who are a little crazy can have children who are legitimately ill, and the choice of treatment for the kid was not necessarily determined in a crazy way.  

        However, to general from one screwed-up case, to the diary's vision of an entire contemporary apparatus of enslaving foster children is a little wild--eyed.  

        Bad things may have unnecessarily happened to Justina due to heavy-handed intervention.  However, we must also keep in mind that bad things happen to some children because of LACK of intervention.  Systems are always flawed, but we still have good reasons for trying to have them.  

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 09:40:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lgmcp, Chameo, Metric Only

          that the diary is pretty wild. But foster kids do get the short end of the stick in a lot of cases, medically as well as in many other ways. I did quite a bit of research into Justina's case because I was outraged, both as the parent of a child (now grown) who had a very difficult to diagnose autistic-spectrum condition, and as a nurse. The blog I cited is quite well-researched and cites a great deal of very damning evidence against BCH and the judge in the case. Justina's case, believe it or not, is not unique. She just happened to get the publicity because her parents were loud and insistent.

          Being "pro-life" means believing that every child born has a right to food, education, and access to health care.

          by Jilly W on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 10:39:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I will ask again (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pizzapotamus, riprof

            The diary alleges that this girl was enrolled in some kind of experimental trial.

            What was that trial?

            All the history aside, this diary is about two things.  

            First that this child was experimented on without informed consent.  That is a lie.  As a ward of the state, informed consent could be provided by the commonwealth, as would be required.

            Second, that there was a study in which she was enrolled.  Fine, show me the study.  If the diarist is unable to document that the patient was enrolled in a study that required IRB consent, then the entire diary is a lie and conspiracy theory.  

            •  I'm not supporting the diary in the least. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I'm telling you that you are dead wrong about Justina Pellitier's case, calling her disease "made up" and taking the side of BCH. As for experimenting, I would say that removing all her doctors from her case and taking her off all her medications without even talking with those doctors is pretty experimental, whether it was a study or not.

              Being "pro-life" means believing that every child born has a right to food, education, and access to health care.

              by Jilly W on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:35:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "study or not" whole point of diary! (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                susanala, Winston Sm1th

                If the issue in the Pellitier case is basically a doctor-vs-doctor fight, that's one thing.  Potentially a terrible thing, in fact almost certainly so since clearly one of her medical teams was drastically wrong.  But that doesn't speak at all to the diarist's argument.

                The diarist is stating though, that the Pellitier girl was involuntarily enrolled into a study, specifically a clinical trial of some sort.  The diarist strongly implies that her case is simply one example in a whole pattern of hospitals doing this, in the interests of drug companies or the FDA or someone.  

                If the diarist is claiming there is a problem with current informed consent rules for enrolling children into clinical trials, and the Pellitier case did not involve a clinical trial, then how does it advance the argument?

                •  Once again, (0+ / 0-)

                  I was speaking to your comments about Justina, not about the diary. I have already said I did not support the diary's conclusions in the least. Now stop obfuscating.

                  Being "pro-life" means believing that every child born has a right to food, education, and access to health care.

                  by Jilly W on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 10:09:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My what? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    My comments?  What are you talking about?  What you just responded to was my only comment in the diary.

                    •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

                      Didn't read your name. I thought your comment was more of the acrimonious exchange I've been having with one Winston Smith. I apologize. But I have already said several times that I did not support the diary's conclusion, and I was addressing myself solely to comments about the Justina Pelllitier case.

                      Being "pro-life" means believing that every child born has a right to food, education, and access to health care.

                      by Jilly W on Sun Aug 24, 2014 at 10:00:43 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Made up disease (0+ / 0-)

                I really was going to go into an in depth explanation of the difference between actual mitochondrial diseases, and the fake "mitochondrial disease" alleged in this case, but you wouldn't be able to understand it.  

                The fake "mitochondria disease" doesn't have anything to do with mitochondria, has never been documented scientifically, and there are no standards of care to treat it.  

                Therefore, any treatment for a condition for which there are not standards of care, is by definition experimental.  

                Experimental does not mean harmless.  In this case, a 14 yo girl, with no medical findings to suggest disease except psychiatric symptoms, was being given an experimental drug, midodrine, also metoprolol (which does nothing except reverse the effects of midodrine), and a toxic medication tegretol, which is known to produce side effects which matched all her symptoms.  

                Am I going to fast for you.  Toxic medications were being prescribed outside of standards of care.  Boston Children's stopped this dangerous practice.  

                This diary alleges the opposite.  The liar scientologist cult member who wrote the dairy states that the dangerous experimental "treatments" were standard of care, and that stopping these experiments means that she was enrolled in and tortured in a clinical experimental trail.

                And why do you scientologists advance these lies?  Because your cult instructs you to destroy psychiatry.  Its not a secret.

                •  I am not (0+ / 0-)

                  and never have been a scientologist, and I resent your implication that I am. Do not ever presume to slander me again. I will contact the Daily Kos editors if you do.

                  I am also not going to be sucked into your pseudo-medical explanations, which I doubt you have backup for. Mitochondrial disease is a recognized medical disorder, actually an umbrella term used for a group of disorders. You might do some research if you are so inclined rather than going off and calling names. Good day to you.


                  Being "pro-life" means believing that every child born has a right to food, education, and access to health care.

                  by Jilly W on Sun Aug 24, 2014 at 10:12:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I am physician (0+ / 0-)

                    Who has treated mitochondrial diseases in pediatric patients.

                    Thank you for the links.  The first link lists mitochondrial diseases.  They are all real and can be diagnosed through testing.  The patient doesn't have any of these.

                    The condition that scientologists allege that this patient suffers from is not a real mitochondrial disease.  It is a condition that they dubbed "mitochondrial disease."  It has nothing to do with mitochondria, and nothing to do with the links you have provided.

                    This made-up condition is not recognized as a disease process by the medical community.  It exists outside of the parameters of evidence-based medicine.  Specifically, there are not established parameters by which this theoretical condition can be diagnosed, and no established standard of care treatment.

                    The fact that you linked to a website that explains actual mitochondrial diseases proves that you don't understand the difference between actual mitochondrial diseases, and the made-up "mitochondrial disease" of scientology.  

                    Any treatment for a condition that cannot be proven to exist and which has no established parameters for treatment is experimental by definition.  The state was so worried about this girl due to dangerous aspect of the medications with which she was being treated.

                    The question about whether there is a real disease process here that has not yet been elucidated by modern medicine is an issue that can be discussed rationally and respectfully.   That is not what this diary is about.  

                    This diary is about a false claim that this patient was used as a subject in experimental research.  This is a blatant lie.  Scientologists have been spreading this lie in order to mobilize public support against the commonwealth of Massachusetts because they ordered this patient to undergo psychiatric evaluation and treatment.  

                    Scientologist believe all psychiatry is evil and the tenets of their cult require them to attack all psychiatry, but they only attempt to mobilize public pressure in cases of court-ordered psychiatric treatment.  

                    This diary also alleges that no informed consent is required when foster children are enrolled in a scientific study.  This is also a lie, informed consent is always required.  

                    I don't know what is more pathetic, you being a scientologist and lying about it, or you not being a scientologist, but manipulated by their propaganda.  

                    •  Goddamn it (0+ / 0-)

                      I am fucking NOT a scientologist and I seriously doubt that you are a physician! Not only do you slander me, you accuse me of lying. You are beneath contempt.

                      Being "pro-life" means believing that every child born has a right to food, education, and access to health care.

                      by Jilly W on Sun Aug 24, 2014 at 01:47:49 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  In sum, Pelletier's case (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              riprof, Winston Sm1th

              involved no research, evil or otherwise.  Though it may indeed have involved poor decisions and poor treatment.

              "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

              by lgmcp on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:37:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  horrible that foster kids can be forced research (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FarWestGirl, lgmcp

    subjects.They have no one to protect them. The abuse of the uniformed institutionalized, including prisoners, shares the similarity of betrayal of trust by those who are responsible for their lives.

    And also, perhaps it can be tweeked as it is not exactly like Nazi experimentation. Not "similarly egregious". Nazi experimentation often the desired end effect of killing the "subject", which is only one difference..  That is not the end goal with even the cold war radiation experiments. What they did was outrageous and wrong but very likely was not aimed to cause death. Intent matters...that's why we have first degree murder, second degrww murder, and manslaughter even though the result to the victim is the same.

    "It is reminicent of Nazi atrocities in experimentation. .It approaches the horror of Nazi experimentation, with perhaps the only difference being..." It is important not to dlute the tactics of genocide, any genocide. I repeat, any genocide. Even when passionately writing about deeds so so heinous as these. This is my opinion.

    •  what is this diary about? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marykk, Schneewolfe, gramofsam1
      It is reminicent of Nazi atrocities in experimentation.
      Does anyone actually know what this forced clinical trial without consent consisted of?  That's the whole point of the diary, right?  Except it is never documented or described.
    •  So you think that foster children should not have (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marykk, lgmcp

      access to experimental drugs that could save their lives?

      I guess you just consider them to be disposable rejects, right?

      See?  It goes both ways...

    •  Nor do the parents have any say (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Schneewolfe, OldDragon, elmo

      ...after the state takes their children parents are ignored who are supposed to have rights but are not given any say.

      I work with families with stories about the abuse their kids have endured against their will ~ mostly low income families. Since the state can take kids for any reason (they call it "in the best interest of the child, which can mean anything), case managers actually get away with lying in court about the 'abuse' because they have given themselves "absolute immunity".  There are no rights for the birth families of this child ~ foster families have more rights than the family ~ and also the right to legal protection that no family member could ever dream possible.  

      Then when the child is traumatized from being ripped from their family's arms and acts up because of it, they deem the child "disturbed" ~ because this brings in more federal and state funding. If a child is 'normal" DSHS agencies rake in between $8,000-10,000 per month per child. If they are deemed "disabled" they get even more money for "special needs" children. Case mangers actually get up to a $5000 bonus for every child they take.

      By the states putting these"disturbed" kids under clinical care, with mental health "experts" who get money for promoting psychiatric drugs, they make even more money. When a 7 year old kid commits suicide as what occurred in Florida is when these "child savers" were embarrassed into admitting, oh you know, perhaps they made a little mistake ..."

      This is because of ironically named "American Safe Families Act" (AFSA), which is anything but safe! It funds this stuff out of Title IV Social Security. It is mandated by Congress to fund states for the sole endeavor to remove kids from their families. The caveats in this act says in essence, "the more kids you take, the more money you will make. If you return these kids to their families, you will LOSE all present and future funding for any returned kids..."

      Thank-you Lynne for telling the truth about the routine and often needless abuse imposed on legally kidnapped kids beginning with the ironically named "Child Protection Services" and all their contracted agencies!  I cannot tell you how many families I have encountered in agony because of the terrible damage their children undergo. They watch their decline into automatons and they have absolutely nothing to say about it.

      Cat in Seattle
      Activist for family preservation

      First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they hurt you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

      by mntleo2 on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 02:56:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This sounds way over the top... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Bonuses for removing children?  Come on now.

        I have intimate direct knowledge of how Federal funding works ( title IV-E ).

        The states get some money, for some kids.  There is NO 'profit'.

        The states ALWAYS pay some portion of the tab.

        Caseworkers are in an impossible position.  Legislatures never fund the work adequately, so there aren't enough of them - their case loads are too high.

        Then we don't pay them well.  A little better than convenience store clerk.  College degree required!

        Then they burn out and quit after a few years.

        Blame the voters who allow this, in the end.  You get what you vote for.

        The Fail will continue until actual torches and pitchforks are set in motion. -

        by No one gets out alive on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 07:24:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Indeed bonuses do exist and ... (0+ / 0-)

 is under The ASFA- Public Law 105-89,Public Law 96-272 known as the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act. As in most cases, in order to figure out why something happens the way is it in spite of the damage being done, is to follow money. Remember the caveats for these entities ~ all of them to get funding: "The more kids you take, the more money you make. If you return those kids home, you will LOSE that present and future funding ..." Ask any policy wonk, DSHS suit or the legislators both state and federal and they will (reluctantly) admit the same.

          I have myself proved that case managers and their contracted entities have outright lied in court  They violated laws for which they should have faced the legal consequences, which are fines of up to $250,000, up to 20 years in prison, under US code, which overrides any state law and six years later they are still employed there without so much as a slap on the wrist.

          Some of these entities involved in this cases contracted entities such as approved "non-profits" receive over $5,000,000 per year like the CASA program ~who are supposed to represent kids ~ but the only lawyer they bring in court is to defend THEM, not the kid. These people admit going  CPS over 97% of the time as if almost 100% of the time the family deserves to lose their children. Meanwhile I have myself seen CPS workers go into court not even knowing the kid's name while making recommendations.  If these case managers and their compatriots are so underpaid, why are they still there even after committing fraud and violating RiCO laws clearly stating what they are doing is illegal?

          Like all things that are done illegally under the law, there is a simple way to cure it ~ just make illegal acts legal.  These case managers and all their contracted allies are considered "immune" so they can do say whatever they desire ~ and why would that be? Because there is a pot of gold of funding at the end of the rainbow. As long as they follow the guidelines for getting that pot of gold, they are going to receive whatever they seek at any cost, even at the cost of destroying families to get it. since these mandates require it.

          I have had lawyers tell me they are afraid of CPS themselves  because if they actually do their job and defend the defenseless, CPS will come after them and take their kids ~and have. This is also true of the case managers. For instance the only consequences that ensued after the Wenatchee Witch Hunt cases, later proved to be nothing but in the imagination of the accusers, were promotions and secure employment. But for the case managers who as required, tried to report the kids were recanting their original stories, well THEY were fired and one was accused of child abuse with their own children.

          This was one of the most expensive cases in the history of WA State ~ as was the McMartin case in California and the Witch hunt in MA. These cases were all based on quack psychology, later proven to be false that they used in court as "fact".  Not one of these accusers faced so much as a day in court after sending many innocents to prison who they permanently labeled as "child abusing sex offenders"and scattering hundreds of children into where? ...Why they sent those kids into foster care and adoption, of course!

          Nothing has changed in the ensuing years, even though it is admitted that many of these cases could easily and far less expensively be solved if they simply provided resources to the families instead of pouring much more money into the courts, case management, contracted private companies and mega- non-profits. Not only that, but they know that if they did these things, over 85% of the kids they take would thrive better if left in the home with services  

          All I am saying is follow the money, read the law,ask the questions nobody asks, and you will find that somebody is making money somewhere ...

          My (more than) 2 cents,

          Cat in Seattle  ~ who has lived the words of the Mahatma Gandhi's words below for speaking of what i know:

          First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they hurt you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

          by mntleo2 on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 11:26:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your state must be very different than mine.... (0+ / 0-)

            Every kid in care costs the state money here.  The only choice is whether we spend a little, or spend a lot.  We are not worried about losing any money, because all we do is lose money.  There is no 'profit' anywhere in our system.  That's what government services are for, after all...

            Good luck on your coast.  It sounds pretty messed up!

            The Fail will continue until actual torches and pitchforks are set in motion. -

            by No one gets out alive on Sun Aug 24, 2014 at 04:52:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  This is a very one-side view. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Susan G in MN, Metric Only, guyeda

        Yes, child welfare agencies can be quite dysfunctional and those agencies fuck up a lot. I'm sure you have indeed worked directly with families where the child might have been better off not removed and where the natural guardians have been unfairly shut out.

        But.  Not all the disfunction is in the department of over-zealously persecuting impoverished parents for small mistakes.  

        Just yesterday on this site there was story of egregious disfunction where a young child with EIGHT rejected cps referrals ended up dead.  

        So the fuckups go both ways.  The systems aren't working very well and I'm not sure how to fix them (other than, tax the rich and keep Republicans out of office).  

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 09:14:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Since you're clearly very knowledgeable about (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lgmcp, guyeda

          this (and I'm not), how does this square with the diarist's claim that foster children are the "exception to the informed consent rule"?

          Additional Protections for Children Who are Wards
          The HHS and FDA regulations also include a provision in subpart D that provides additional protections for children who are wards of the State or any other agency, institution, or entity. These special protections for wards apply to two categories of research or clinical investigations: 1) research or clinical investigations that involve greater than minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit to the individual child subjects involved in the research or clinical investigation (research/clinical investigations approved under 45 CFR 46.406 or 21 CFR 50.53); or 2) research or clinical investigations determined by the IRB not to meet the conditions of the HHS regulations at 45 CFR 46.404, 46.405, or 46.406, or FDA’s regulations at 21 CFR 50.51, 50.52, or 50.53, but found to present a reasonable opportunity to further the understanding, prevention, or alleviation of a serious problem affecting the health or welfare of children (research/clinical investigation approved under 45 CFR 46.407 or 21 CFR 50.54).

          Before children who are wards of the State or any other agency, institution, or entity can be included in either of the two categories of research or clinical investigations described above, the research must meet the following conditions:

              the research must be either related to the children’s status as wards; or conducted in schools, camps, hospitals, institutions, or similar settings in which the majority of children involved as subjects are not wards; and

              the IRB must require appointment of an advocate for each child who is a ward, in addition to any other individual acting on behalf of the child as guardian or in loco parentis.

          One individual may serve as advocate for more than one child, and must be an individual who has the background and experience to act in, and agrees to act in, the best interests of the child for the duration of the child’s participation in the research. The advocate should represent the individual child subject's interests throughout the child's participation in the research. The HHS and FDA regulations further require that the advocate not be associated in any way (except in the role as advocate or member of the IRB) with the research, the investigator(s), or the guardian organization.

          •  The sections you cite show that vulnerability (4+ / 0-)

            is taken seriously, as it should be.  The diarist is taking a grain of truth (certain rules were relaxed to allow foster children to be enrolled in certain clinical trials) and running much too far with it while ignoring the context (it was a good idea to make early HIV antivirals available).  

            However the timing and details of all this competing policy would have to be closely inspected to determine exactly what was in force where at what time.  I work closely with IRBs but don't have that level of detail.  Conceivably the relaxations created for benign reasons could fail to be limited always to benign uses, especially if the language was poorly tailored.

            "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

            by lgmcp on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 10:19:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  This diary is a little odd. It generalizes from... (5+ / 0-)

    This diary is a little odd. It generalizes from a single case. In that case the diarist has not identified the IRB or the study but claims the ward is the subject of "research." She then leaps from that to the conclusion that wards if the state are subject to mass experimentation. Where is the evidence for that?

  •  regardless of what the authorites say (0+ / 0-)

    Holy Shite, this is going back to the Eugenics Experiments of the 30's and borders on Dr. Josef Mengele's medical experiments at Auschwitz-Birkenau!!!

    Once you open the door, the genie is out of the bottle and eventually you get abuse. This should NOT be happening at all to children. This is Big Pharma and Medicine gone crazy. And people post on here that it is still going on, but with "Oh, so many guarantees of doing it right!!" RIGHT BY WHOSE ESTIMATION!!! The Perpetrators.... Find your own lab rats that are willing patients!!! This is just sick!!! No wonder America is so F#cked Up!!!! Your Laws abrogate your oh so valuable Constitution... and you want the rest of the World to believe you when you tell us how great America is... Give me a Baptist Break!!! Get over yourselves, you no better than the worst of us.... Yeah!! I am PO'd...

    For Michael Brown, etal, RIP: #STAYWOKE #Ferguson RT @jasinreverie: @elonjames That nice, but how do we keep it from going back to business as USUAL?

    by Schneewolfe on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:05:08 AM PDT

    •  Addendum (0+ / 0-)

      just to add to your diary, here is something your Gov't did in another country. CIA conducting brainwashing experiments on unsuspecting private patients in Montreal, Canada.
        If they would do that to foreigners, what were they doing to their own people?

      For Michael Brown, etal, RIP: #STAYWOKE #Ferguson RT @jasinreverie: @elonjames That nice, but how do we keep it from going back to business as USUAL?

      by Schneewolfe on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:12:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  links further reading (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    No one gets out alive
    Like the quinuclidinyl benzilate, or BZ comment
    During the early 1960s the CIA and the military began to phase out their in-house acid tests in favor of more powerful chemicals such as BZ, which became the army's standard incapacitating agent. By this time the superhallucinogen was ready for deployment in a grenade, a 750-pound cluster bomb, and at least one other large-scale bomb. In addition the army tested a number of other advanced BZ munitions, including mortar, artillery, and missile warheads. The superhallucinogen was later employed by American troops as a counterinsurgency weapon in Vietnam, and according to CIA documents there may be contingency plans to use the drug in the event of a major civilian insurrection. As Major General William Creasy warned shortly after he retired from the Army Chemical Corps, "We will use these things as we very well see fit, when we think it is in the best interest of the US and their allies."

    For Michael Brown, etal, RIP: #STAYWOKE #Ferguson RT @jasinreverie: @elonjames That nice, but how do we keep it from going back to business as USUAL?

    by Schneewolfe on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 06:10:54 AM PDT

  •  HR'd for CT (7+ / 0-)

    The diary is over the top, alleging what is in effect a conspiracy to perform experiments on children.  The truth is rather different. Doctors disagreed with her diagnosis.  The parents and her original GI at  Tufts said mitochondrial disease, which is serious.  Dr. Newton decided it was purely parent-caused somatoform (in her head) so she had the state take away custody, even though she didn't even live in Massachusetts.  This was not an experiment at all, just a disagreement over diagnosis and treatment that got carried away.

    •  Isn't this statement in the diary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Winston Sm1th, riprof

      a complete lie?

      Clinical trial death and injury data are not published because this information would challenge long-established government practices.
      I'm not an expert, but I've always seen these results published.
      •  To be publicly reported (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Metric Only

        takes a long time, I think, and occurs at several removes.  Adverse events must be IMMEDIATELY reported to oversight bodies.   But  naturally nobody is in a big hurry to broadcast to the general public that bad things happened.  It comes out ... eventually.

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 09:17:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Click here for the mobile view of the site