Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0/Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0 (L0pht Heavy Industries, Inc.)(1997).ISO/tezcat/Health/Nazi_Doctors.txt

Text File | 1996-07-08 | 49KB | 889 lines

From the Radio Free Michigan archives

ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot

If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to
[e-mail].
------------------------------------------------

NAZI DOCTORS Directed by Government, Medicine and Academia, by Gary Null



    I made the following transcript from a tape recording
    of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station:

        WBAI-FM (99.5)
        505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
        New York, NY 10018       [phone]

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

GARY NULL:

    On today's program, we'll be continuing with the ongoing series
    entitled, "Hidden Agendas." In this series, we are focusing on a
    lot of different issues that, generally speaking, are kept from the
    Public. In other words, we are told one thing .... whether it be
    that our genetically-altered crops are safe, and therefore, require
    no inspection and no labeling; or we're told that the latest in
    vaccines for different diseases, including AIDS, are and should be
    supported by all of our tax dollars, and not to challenge the
    institutions that are doing the research -- that they're objective,
    fair and honest. Likewise, we've been told that the best medical
    care in the world is available right here; that we are the
    healthiest people in the world, the longest-lived people in the
    world; that we have it all.

    Now, how is it then, that we can reconcile the fact that this
    eight-hundred-billion-dollar-a-year industry has NOT been able to
    tame a SINGLE major disease?  There has been no statistically
    significant reduction in arthritis, cancer, AIDS and any other
    condition that debilitates, including mental illnesses. To the
    contrary -- they are escalating. And yet, no one seems to be paying
    attention to their words not matching their deeds. As a result, we
    feel that there ARE agendas that should be explored.

    In the last two programs, I was focusing specific attention on the
    fact that many people have been exposed to contaminants, including
    low-level radiation and live cancer cell injections; these they
    were not informed of, and no one did follow-up studies. We do not
    know enough about the immune system to know whether or not a person
    exposed to low-level radiation or cancerous tissue, or if viruses
    that were in that cancerous tissue could have some long-term
    effect.  Yet, they give us assurances that, firstly: no such
    [secret experimental] studies were done.  Wrong! There are
    documents that prove otherwise.  Secondly: if they were done, no
    harm came to people.  Wrong again!  We can establish that nine
    million people have died from low-level radiation exposure in the
    last forty-five years.

    After yesterday's program, a professor at one of the leading
    universities in the New York area called my office. I was just
    coming into the office when I heard him on my answering machine. He
    said:

        "Well, once again you have taken one isolated example of one
        person, and you've tried to show that this is common in the
        Scientific Establishment. Speaking as a researcher with a
        respected institution, I can assure you that these major
        institutions would not engage in any such kind of activity, nor
        have they done so in the past."

    Really?  Today's program is devoted to this person and the
    institution where he has researched. He will find something out
    about his institution and the history of research done there. Until
    recently, few of us would have believed that our own Government
    would pay respected scientists at leading academic institutions to
    conduct harmful medical experiments on human subjects; few of us
    would have believed that the Military regularly uses American
    soldiers as human guinea pigs; few of us would have believed that
    Government officials prey on subjects who have few resources to
    refuse such testing: poor people, service people, the terminally
    ill, prisoners.  It would have been even more difficult to imagine
    that the Government DELIBERATELY exposed the Public to open-air
    contaminants DESIGNED for chemical and biological warfare.

    However, with growing Public awareness of Government corruption,
    profiteering, vested interests and cover-ups, many Americans would
    not be too surprised to learn that experiments such as these WERE
    conducted throughout the forties, fifties, sixties, seventies,
    eighties, and are ongoing. Those like this gentleman calling
    yesterday -- who cynically shrug their shoulders with a we-don't-
    believe-it, or a what-else-is-new attitude -- may not be aware that
    experiments such as these are not isolated events of the past, but
    rather, they continue to provide the modus operandi for MOST of
    Science and for MOST of Medicine in this country today.

    Today I'd like for you to think for a moment about chemotherapy,
    radiation, unproven surgical techniques, programs in mass-
    vaccination, and ask: If you had been so open to accepting both the
    benefit of these and the lack of toxicity of these, have you been
    equally concerned about asking for the documentation -- the hard
    data, and then looking at the epidemiological evidence to see if it
    is born out by what is [the actual results]?

    I'm going to document, today and for the next few days, how we are
    routinely exposed to human experimentation by this nation's
    Scientific and Medical communities, and by the Government and the
    Military. In my personal opinion, the results of these experiments
    and the minds that conceived them are comparable to the human
    experiments conducted in dictator-controlled Third World countries
    and in Nazi concentration camps by people of that ilk.

    Dozens, hundreds of physicians, thousands of people, including
    scientists, have been involved in these experiments. I have
    interviewed many of them. Some of them revealed the weaknesses in
    their character and judgment. Others, to this day, still deny that
    they were anything but ethical, legal and moral. Because they felt
    that as long as something advances the body of scientific
    knowledge, then ALL means should be justified toward that end.

    I'll explore experimentation conducted by different agencies -- in
    particular, the Atomic Energy Commission which is now part of the
    Department of Energy -- as well as the more subtle forms of
    experimentation that pervade the practice of Medicine today. The
    massive skill with which these experiments were undertaken
    necessitated the participation of vast numbers of people in
    Medicine, Media, bureaucracies and the scientific institutions.
    Administrators, scientists, planners and academics had to be
    willing participants. In fact, many of this nation's most
    prestigious universities were, and continue to be involved, in one
    way or another. The basic judgment, that in the interest of science
    human beings are dispensable, had to be accepted unconditionally by
    all participants in the experiments. From the biologists examining
    the slides to the doctors administering the radiation to the peer
    reviewers who read and published the results of each experiment --
    all had to be able, in absolute accord, to accept that THEIRS was
    the objective and ethical consideration.  Otherwise, they could
    have deemed these studies inappropriate.  Accordingly, when one
    looks merely at the experiments conducted over the last forty
    years, literally thousands of people had to have been involved.
    Not ONE SINGLE WORD has come from these people to take
    responsibility for their actions. NO major mainstream media has
    ever exposed these. Information about these experiments became
    available only with a great deal of effort on the part of myself
    and a few other investigative reporters for different publications:
    MOTHER JONES Magazine, THE VILLAGE VOICE -- over the past several
    years.

    By the way, let's make one thing very, very clear. And I hope  that
    this message reaches the ears of the executive and on-line
    producers of 20/20 and SIXTY MINUTES. For these shows which make
    tens of millions of dollars, and Emmy Awards, and which catapult
    their interviewers to stardom: How many of those research pieces
    that they do did they go out and get all the material themselves;
    versus, how many of them, as has happened so frequently in the past
    where producers for these shows would call me and have lunch with
    me and say: "We'd like to look at this file and that file and that
    file and this file and this box and that box" .... and you give
    them so much of your material, and they take YEARS of work of other
    reporters and then go and interview your sources that you've
    uncovered, that you've dug up, and then make it THEIR piece,
    without attribution.  I call that "midnight journalism." And yet,
    even THEY haven't done enough on the subject.

    A great number of these experiments were meaningless, quite simply,
    like most of what our Federal Government funds -- certainly, in the
    Military -- a colossal, intellectually dumbfounded way of doing
    anything. I'm ashamed at the lack of intellectual acumen of the
    people in bureaucracies who make policy decisions in our
    experimental community. You have NO idea of the stupidity that goes
    on every day. I can't imagine where they get these scientists.  I
    can't imagine where these policy-makers come from.  A Star Wars
    Program?  What lunacy! Intellectually, it is not a concept that can
    be fathomed to work. And yet, it was sponsored.  Tens of billions
    of dollars were spent on it. The C-5A [aircraft] Scandal, with five
    or six more billion [dollars squandered]. These are legion.
    Hundreds of projects -- hundreds of billions of dollars wasted! And
    not a single wimper from the American Community at large.  And in
    science, even more experiments and wasted money.  Sixty or seventy
    times, people would do the same experiment because they knew that
    they could get money for it. Doing new things in nutrititon,
    health, science is hard to get funding on.

    Our very peer review system is flawed. We would not be willing to
    pardon over-zealous researchers for unethical conduct, but we
    could, at least, understand their motives if the results of their
    work truly contribute to improving the quality of life and health
    of all people, with minimum negative results. But this has not been
    the case. The results of MOST of the studies in science, in the
    projects I'm mentioning, were published in scientific journals and
    couched in technical jargon. But they led to nothing beneficial.  A
    trend that continues today is the prevalence of scientific studies
    that serve no definable purpose, except to keep research grants
    alive, promote connections with Government agencies that allot the
    funds, and secure the tenure of the individuals supervising the
    studies.  Scientific literature is replete with useless studies.
    The vast majority is useless or repetitive.

    I recently did a study conducting a literature search of every
    abstract on anti-oxidants. I found sixty percent to be absolutely
    worthless and duplicitous. But they were still published. And
    someone funded them. And peer-reviewers had to approve them. Even
    the Government's own Office of Technology Assessment reveals that
    ninety percent of the studies supported by the Government are
    seriously flawed. Ninety percent!

    Because science is guided, not by one, but by all three of this
    country's most powerful entitites: the Government, Defense and
    Medicine, parts of these articles, that we now see in the
    literature, overlap. For instance, the radiation experiments may be
    justified as medical therapy, when, in fact, these experiments are
    funded by Government agencies and the Military to further warfare
    technology. The same holds true with studies in chemotherapy, since
    these substances were originally derived from chemical weapons
    during World War Two.

    Let me share something very specific with you. This comes from
    documents that were obtained from the Energy and Commerce
    Subcommittee.  Now, I will only share with you thirty-one of what I
    would call "human guinea pig experiments," to give you an idea of
    what the Public is NOT aware of. These involved over seven hundred
    people over thirty years. And this is a frequent and systematic use
    of human beings as guinea pigs.

    For example, from 1945 to 1947, as part of the Manhattan Project --
    a project that you never have read about, that you have never seen
    depicted in any film, including the one with Paul Newman on the
    Manhattan Project or any other film -- eighteen patients, believed
    to have limited life spans, were injected with plutonium.  That's
    correct. They were dispensable, so our Government injected them,
    secretly, with plutonium.  Needless to say, they all died.  That
    report was never made public. It was kept secret.

    >From 1961 to 1965, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
    twenty elderly subjects were injected or fed radium or thorium,
    without consent.

    During 1946 and 1947, at the University of Rochester, six patients
    with GOOD kidney functions were injected with uranium salts to
    determine the concentration that would produce kidney disease.
    Again: six people, who had completely perfect kidneys, had their
    kidneys destroyed, just to see how much it would take to do it --
    all in the name of science.

    >From 1953 to 1957, at the Massachusetts General Hospital in
    Boston, approximately twelve brain tumor patients were injected
    with uranium to determine the dose at which kidney damage began to
    occur.

    >From 1963 to 1971, sixty-seven inmates at Oregon State Prison and
    sixty-four inmates at Washington State Prison received X-rays to
    their testicles to determine the effects of radiation on fertility
    and testicular function.

    >From 1963 to 1965, at the Atomic Energy Commission's National
    Reactor Testing Station in Idaho, radioactive iodine was PURPOSELY
    released on seven separate occasions. In one, seven human subjects
    purposely drank [were purposely given] milk from cows that had
    grazed on iodine-contaminated land. At the University of Chicago
    and at Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, Illinois, one
    hundred-and-two human subjects were fed REAL radioactive fallout
    from the Nevada test site -- radioactive simulated fallout
    particles or solutions of radioactive cesium and strontium -- to
    see what it would do to them.

    At Columbia University Hospital, Presbyterian Hospital and
    Montefiore Hospital in New York [City], during the late 50s, twelve
    cancer patients were injected with radioactive calcium and
    strontium -- to see what it would do.

    These experiments and others -- many others -- have to raise some
    questions. Did Government agencies fund or sponsor programs which
    cross the line that no scientific researcher can ever be permitted
    to traverse?  Did American scientists mimic the kind of demented
    human experiments conducted by the Nazis?  Unfortunately, the
    answer is yes. But nothing will happen to them -- then or today.
    The nuclear medical experiments fell into two general categories.
    In the first group, human subjects were injected or fed radioactive
    material in order that its passage through the body could be
    monitored. The major objective of these experiments was to compare
    the physiological reactions with computer-generated mathematical
    models that estimate the effect of various doses of radiation on
    the body.

    Now, although these experiments did provide information on the
    retention and absorption of radioactive material by the human body,
    the experiments were nonetheless repugnant because human subjects
    were essentially used as guinea pigs and as calibration devices.

    In the second group of experiments, radioactive material was
    actually INTENDED to cause damage to the human body, and the
    experimenters sought to correlate the amount of damage done with
    the dose received. In many of these experiments, the human subjects
    were captive populations or a group of individuals whom
    experimenters might frighten by having considered them expendable:
    the elderly and the hospital patients. In other experiments, the
    subjects were volunteers. But they were unaware of what they were
    doing. They were not given full information.  For most, informed
    consent was absent. Also, according to a Government report:

        "The Government covered up the nature of the experiments and
        deceived the families of dead victims as to what had
        transpired."

    There's a chilling lack of humanity in the Department of Energy
    documents reporting these experiments. For example, if you were to
    look at the actual document that I have in my possession, here's
    how it reads; and this shows you the impersonality of it:

        "Category 1.001, Number 1:  Subjects were diagnosed as within
        ten years of death. One subject was a child. No evidence of
        informed consent. Potential doses of radiation much greater
        than occupational limits."

    Now what does that say beyond what it says.  First, it's just
    "Category 1.001, Number 1". And it talks about a child, but there
    were many subjects, one of which was a child. And they're
    estimating that the child has ten years to live?  There's no way
    that any human being on Earth can tell you that you have ten years
    to live. Therefore, they didn't have any informed consent -- and
    they INTENTIONALLY exposed this child to FAR greater doses of
    radiation than what would be considered occupational limits which,
    in itself, was considered high. And, of course, a child's body is
    not that of an adult; and the occupational limit is based upon an
    adult threshold. A child's threshold is much, much smaller. So, for
    the child, they were giving, in effect, lethal doses of radiation.
    They KILLED the child !

    But, again -- anything you do in the United States Government, in
    the name of security or science, is forgiven. You will not and
    cannot, by law, be held accountable.  You're indemnified.

        "Category 1.003, Number 119:  Subjects were hospital patients.
        Some doses of radiation produced kidney damage."

        "Category 11.001, Number 173:  Radioactive iodine was
        INTENTIONALLY released into the environment."

    Mind you -- these are SECRET Government reports that I managed to
    get from the different agencies, and I have independently verified
    them.  Here they're admitting that they INTENTIONALLY released
    radiation into the environment -- to see what happens.

    Now, the details beyond the "Category and Number" classifications
    are even less reassuring.  Just what does "Category 1.001, Number
    1" mean?  In the body of the text, we read, under the heading
    "Plutonium Injections Into Humans", that during a two-year period,
    eighteen patients were injected with plutonium. Now these
    experiments were carried out under the "Manhattan Project", a
    consortium of American scientists, military and Government
    officials who gave us the atomic bomb. A number of well-known
    hospitals were involved, including Strong-Moore[sp] Hospital in
    Rochester, New York, Billings Hospital, the University of Chicago,
    University Hospital, University of California, San Francisco.

    So, as you see -- and to the gentleman who called yesterday -- your
    hospital was one!  You wouldn't have known that. But I'm showing
    you what the actual documents say.

    The rationale for these experiments was that accurate information
    was supposedly needed on the retention and excretion of

        "internally-deposited plutonium"

    so that the researchers could set some standards. The information
    was supposedly needed because workers at the "Manhattan Project"
    handled plutonium and, therefore, they wanted to know what amount
    would affect them. Animal experiments had produced conflicting
    data, and they felt that they needed to have humans to have the
    right data.  Alright. If you're going to conduct experiments on
    humans, then who do you choose to inject with deadly, radioactive
    plutonium?  Now, the original criteria -- according to the
    documents that I've obtained -- specify that subjects

        "should be older, with relatively shorter life expectancies."

    Well, who determines that?  There's no way of determining that.
    Yet, all subjects chosen were diagnosed as having diseases that
    gave them an expected survival rate of at least ten years. Most of
    the subjects were over forty-five, but one was only five-years-old.

    I found another subject in here who was eighteen-years-old. And the
    oldest subject was sixty-eight. So if, on the one hand, they're
    saying that their criteria is to select old Americans, in their
    opinion, but then they start selecting middle-aged Americans, then
    they're going against their own criteria. By the way, this is
    accepting that it's okay to select Americans, and kill them in
    order to get some results so that other people can know about how
    much you can take of a radioactive poison before it affects you.

    The quantities of plutonium injected ranged to

        "ninety-eight times the body burden value recognized as
        LETHAL."

    And in one Atomic Energy Commission report I have, it was
    determined that informed consent had not been obtained from anyone.
    Zero.  No one was told that they were being killed -- that they
    were being sacrificed.  That's correct.  Let's be very clear on
    what I'm saying. Scientists in our Government, under the Atomic
    Energy Commission and the Department of Defense, decided to
    sacrifice a lot of human beings without their knowledge or consent
    -- so that they could have some data.  And they did it!  And they
    got away with it !

    The Government was unaware of the consequences of their actions,
    verbal games and misrepresentations. And, of course -- consistent
    with everything else that comes from our Government -- lies and
    more lies were employed in an effort to avoid unfavorable
    publicity.  One of the first steps was to forbid the use of certain
    words.  For instance, in one document that I have, they say

        "Do not use the word `plutonium'."

    In a memo circulated at the Argonne National Laboratory, the
    following instructions were spelled out. I'm reading verbatim.

        "Please note that, outside of the Center for Human
        Radiobiology, we will never use the word `plutonium' in regard
        to these cases.  `These individuals are of interest to us
        because they may have received a radioactive material at some
        time' is the kind of statement to be made if we need to say
        anything at all."

    Obviously, if any patients were still alive when this memo was
    written, they were not informed that they had been injected with
    plutonium by their Government. At best, they might have been told
    that

        "they may have received a radioactive material at some time"

    in their past. Relatives of deceased patients were told that
    exhuming the patients' bodies was necessary to determine

        "the composition of the unknown mixture of injected radioactive
        isotopes."

    The families were informed that these injections were part of

        "experimental treatments for the patients' DISEASES."

    That, of course, was an out-and-out LIE !  We have the documents.

    I'm going to work on a screenplay of this. Since justice will not
     be served on any other level -- since they control it all, maybe we
    might raise the consciousness of the American Public by doing it as
    a movie.  Because I don't think that people would understand or
    believe that so many human beings were simply used as experiments,
    and killed -- and then it was covered up.

    In another experiment with radioactive substances that took place,
    six patients with perfect kidney function were

        "injected, in increasing doses, with uranium-nitrate, enriched
        in uranium-234 and uranium-235."

    The objective of this experiment was to determine the dose of
    uranium salt that would produce kidney injury, and to measure the
    rate of excretion of uranium salts.  The experiment, an Atomic
    Energy Commission project, was carried out at the University of
    Rochester in New York. A later study by the Atomic Energy
    Commission stated that

        "Human subjects received no medical benefits from these
        experiments, and, in fact, the treatment seemed designed to
        induce kidney injury in at least one patient."

    It was recognized at the time that uranium salts WOULD damage the
    kindney. The experimenters

        "planned to identify the concentration that would produce
        detectable renal injury."

    The subjects were chosen from a body of hospital patients. Those
    selected had normal kidney function.  One was in the hospital
    because of rheumatoid arthritis.  One had pneumonia.  Another
    patient was a young woman in

        "fairly good physical condition, except for a mild case of
        under-nutrition."

    So when the Government later said that they had diseases that they
    could justify giving this uranium to them, when we look at the
    actual medical records, they show that these people had no disease
    for which they would have benefited from these injections.  Persons
    in a hospital: a young woman, 22-years-old, who has a little bit of
    a vitamin B-12 and an iron deficiency. So they say:  "Okay. She
    makes a good subject. Let's kill her kidneys. Kill her off. See how
    long it takes, and at what dosage." And THAT'S WHAT THEY DID!

    Uranium doses were successively increased with each patient.  The
    pneumonia patient showed trace amounts of protein in his urine, a
    sign of kidney dysfunction, on the last day before leaving the
    hospital. And, like the young woman with undernutrition and the
    patient with arthritis, the man received NO follow-up attention.
    None.  No one knows exactly how much damage was done to their
    kidneys. No one knows how the other patients fared with veins full
    of radioactive plutonium. In fact, according to the summary fact
    sheet that I have, which the Department of Energy submitted in
    their final report,

        "No follow-up on the experimental subjects was ever done."

    You shoot someone up with toxic amounts, deadly amounts of uranium
    to destroy their kidneys.  You watch them for a week or two in the
    hospital. And then you take some notes and you send them home.  No
    treatment. No disclosure. You don't tell them what you're giving
    them. You tell them they're just getting an injection.  And this
    was done!

    At Oregon State Prison, sixty-four volunteers were subjected to
    irradiation of their testicles. Radiation doses ranged from six
    hundred roentgens in single exposures ..... By the way, the present
    recognized safe limit for exposure to reproductive organs is five
    roentgens per year. And they were given six hundred. And then they
    were given it again. That's twelve hundred roentgens. The purpose
    of this experiment was:

        "to obtain data on the effects of ionizing radiation on human
        fertility and on the function of testicular cells."

    It included examination of testicular tissues, sperm counts, and
    evaluation of urinary or blood steroids and hormones. According to
    the Energy Research and Development Administration, the successor
    agency to the Atomic Energy Commission:

        "Records suggest that the prime incentive to participate was
        the feeling that they were making important contributions to
        the state of medical knowledge."

    Prisoners were from 25 to 52 years-old. All the prisoners went
    through the same experiments. They all were given vasectomies.  In
    a peculiar deference to religious sensibilities, there were no
    Catholic subjects because the radiation would, no doubt, affect the
    man's fertility. That the scientists considered potential
    participants' religious faith in performing vasectomies on all
    subjects is a clear indication that they knew that substantial
    damage would result from the administration of such massive doses
    of radiation. Hence, little credence can be given to apologists who
    say that these experiments could only have been conducted in an
    atmosphere of ignorance of the effects of radiation. In fact, when
    these experiments were conducted, almost twenty years had passed
    since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, events which had
    shown that exposure to even low levels of radiation could result in
    cancer.

    I called Dr. John Goffman, M.D. Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of
    Medical Physics at the University of California at Berkeley.  He
    says:

        "We have very well documented studies on Hiroshima and
        Nagasaki.  There is no question as to what's going on there. In
        fact, there is evidence that low levels of radiation -- under
        ten rads -- have caused a major increase in cancer in those
        places."

    Most of the shocking things about these experiments -- from my
    perspective, at least -- is that there was no medical follow-up to
    check the long-term effects of irradiation on the test subjects.
    This failure to follow-up is prevalent in experiments of this
    nature, and is often used to deny any long-term effects. According
    to Dr. Goffman:

        "The issue is: How did the scientists look for effects? Had
        they followed them for twenty years when they say that they
        didn't see any effects?  No! What happens is that they look at
        them for a few months and say, `Nothing happened.'"

    Military personnel have long been used as human guinea pigs without
    adequate follow-up. We see this today. In the VERY high incidence
    of illnesses -- of people coming back, who have been back now from
    the Persian Gulf War for over a year -- exotic illnesses that
    initially, and until recently, and until it was made an election
    issue, no agency of Government wanted to focus on it: not the
    Center for Disease Control, the National Cancer Institute, the
    Center for Allergy and Infection, the Department of Defense; no one
    wanted to touch it.

    Then again, just imagine how many military personnel over the years
    have been conditioned to become automated killers, but never
    brought back to what they were before they were conditioned. Think
    of the post-war trauma syndrome of HUNDREDS of thousands of people,
    to this day, who cannot function in a healthy way. And their
    dysfunction is directly related to the fact that they were never
    helped after coming back from Vietnam. But because these people
    "don't count", then they don't exist.

    You have to understand something. It becomes ultimately immaterial
    whether it's Democrat or Republican. And anyone who knows anything
    about the larger issues of political debate understands that. Those
    who don't will rally around their respective candidate and think
    that that will make the issue.  It hasn't! It won't! Both parties
    are the parties of Special Interests." But any interest that does
    not align itself with votes becomes invisible. And when people feel
    that anything they've gained can be threatened by making a
    challenge, they make themselves invisible. So think of all the
    people who have suffered because of Agent Orange and dioxin because
    there was not a groundswell of support for them; only later. Today,
    we see tens of thousands of Vietnam veterans suffering from a wide
    range of physical disorders. The only common denominator was their
    exposure to Agent Orange. They settled a class-action lawsuit, of
    course, but the Government has NEVER acknowledged any complicity in
    the Agent Orange fiasco or the Los Alamos fiasco.

    The Government's position has always been to deny any
    responsibility for its actions; to cover up -- always -- and to go
    so far as to initiate harrassment and surveillance, by the FBI and
    the CIA, of any individual or any group that chooses to bring
    claims against the Government. If you, as an individual, or if you
    belong to a group, and if you take a political position opposite
    that of Those in Power -- watch how fast the FBI opens a file on
    you.  Before you can hang-up the phone, they're on you!   That's
    the way it works.  That will not change.

    The importance of follow-up is evident by a statement made the
    ERDA, in which it was noted that:

        "There is a need for continued medical surveillance of
        prisoners involved in both sets of experiments. Among the
        health effects that should be monitored is the possibility of
        testicular cancer occurring after a long latentcy period of
        twenty to thirty years."

    But this follow-up never happened.

    Another method used to determine the effects of radiation was the
    release of radioactive gas into the environment. This type of
    experiment has been funded by the Atomic Energy Commission which
    INTENTIONALLY released radioactive iodine over a LARGE area
    designated as (quote) "hot pastures" (unquote).  They did this on
    -- at least we know, up to this point -- SEVEN separate occassions;
    and just from one facility. And also, what they never told people
    was that human subjects were PURPOSELY exposed during three of
    these releases.  The experiments were designed to trace radioactive
    iodine as it moved through the air and vegetation and the cow and
    the milk sequence of the human food-chain. Researchers felt that
    they wanted this information so that they could develop better
    "siting criteria".  That means, where to locate a nuclear plant
    when building nuclear reactors. Monitors in the "pasture"
    determined when and how much of the radioactive iodine was
    deposited.

    A herd of cows was then led into the pasture to graze for several
    days.  The cows were then milked and the milk was monitored for
    radioactive iodine. Perfectly healthy humans were PURPOSELY exposed
    by being given the milk to drink. And at one point, three people
    were placed in the pasture during the iodine release, even though
    radioactive iodine is known to be toxic.  There was no medical
    follow-up, of any type, on those people.

    This again indicates to me that the purported objective of the
    experiment had little or nothing to do with the real purpose, about
    which we can only conjecture. This conclusion is borne out by the
    disregard for human safety and health apparent in the locating of
    nuclear reactors in densely populated areas. When reaactors are
    "sited" in less-populated areas, it is usually because of strong,
    organized community opposition, and not because of the Government's
    concern for public safety -- or because of experiments used to
    deteremine proper "siting" criteria.

    Now, while we're able to track down the names of the persons
    involved in almost all of the experiments documented in today's
    report .... because I've tracked them down for a year-and-a-half,
    and I have been reaching people at all levels, although it's not
    easy. But I will tell you about one person I spoke to: a professor
    of biology at a Texas university.

    At the time of the experiments, he was a young research biologist
    working for an organization funded by the Atomic Energy Commission.
    He told me -- and I have it on tape, and witnessed .... He affirms
    that serious ethical considerations were continuously raised about
    the nature of the experiments. He said -- and I am quoting him from
    my interview with him:

        "I attended several meetings where informed consent was a big
        issue. Supposedly, if you informed these people of what was
        happening to them, that made everything okay. I don't want
        anyone to think that ethics was not considered. But it happened
        that there were some people in the Atomic Energy Commission who
        thought that this was an important piece of work to do. And
        they thought that they had developed an avenue to do it.  And
        they did it."

    He said that he was told to work primarily on the tissue samples
    that he received from the experiments, and he admits that that may
    have been one of the reasons he left his job.

    [JD: Some scientific and medical researchers may twinge at this.]

        "I wasn't too happy doing that -- obviously, for ethical
        reasons.  I raised ethical questions. In fact, I really didn't
        care to do the work myself. But, you understand? .... somebody
        tells you to go in and do something -- if you want to get a pay
        check, you go ahead and do it.  I still feel uncomfortable that
        I did it.  At the time, I got wrapped up. I was a young Ph.D.
        and I had my first job, and I didn't want to lose it."

    He and other scientists who dare to question the ethics of their
    superiors are exceptions to the general rule of unconditional
    compliance that allows studies such as these to take place. Today,
    experiments like that would ethically create problems if they were
    publicly known. You have to get informed consent today. Has science
    suddenly become ethical? Ha!  Hardly. Are researchers more
    concerned with the welfare of the Public than they were ten, twenty
    years ago?

    A recent PBS broadcast entitled "The Pentagon and the Professor"
    revealed that Pentagon spending for university research has
    increased by more than fifty percent in the past five years. Today,
    the Defense Department provides more than three quarters of ALL
    research funding available to universities. This militarization of
    science raises serious questions as to the independence of research
    at the recipient universities. This association between academia
    and the Pentagon is not new. It started with the Manhattan Project,
    and by the 1950s it was established as a fact. Many professors
    voiced concern that the ever increasing presence of the Government
    or special industries that, in effect, CONTROL the Department of
    Defense and other governmental agencies, are on American campuses,
    and it is resulting in a form of faustian bargaining. Not only do
    the universities need the money, but aspiring Ph.D.s need to
    conduct research in order to become full professors. And for their
    research they need grants. While the Pentagon insists that it is
    merely funding basic research, one professor I interviewed said:

        "Why is the Department of Defense funding these projects?  Out
        of the goodness of its heart?   It has a purpose in mind."

    Critics of the military's increased presence on campus believe that
    science will naturally gravitate to where the money is, and that
    the role of the university as an objective gatherer of knowledge is
    threatened when university administrators are forced to woo money
    from special businesses, corporations and the Pentagon. In an
    environment such as this, it is unlikely that scientific ethics
    will be any more evolved than they were years ago. In fact, the
    relative decrease in funding from sources other than the Pentagon
    STRONGLY  suggests that today's scientists may be forced to make
    more difficult ethical decisions.

    Some of the experiments detailed in my discussion today were
    conducted solely to enable scientists to (quote) "calibrate"
    (unquote) instruments that measure radioactive substances in the
    body. Over almost a decade, subjects either inhaled argon-41 or
    swallowed capsules of other radioactive materials so that
    scientists could set their instruments.

    One of the most startling things about these series of radiation
    experiments is the relative apathy in which we, as a country,
    accept them, even when they are exposed. In fact, there is very
    little in the news about the death or harm from radiation today.
    The nuclear industry is on the rebound. This seems unusual in a
    medium that is characterized by its aggressive investigation of the
    sex lives of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen, or those of other people.
    Who cares!  All that headline and all that news over domestic
    squabbling and emotional issues -- the family effect of a private
    couple, irrespective of their public personna.  They still have a
    right to settle the issue as they see fit, in court or in hearings.

    But where are the headlines about investigating multiple hundreds
    of thousands of diseased people by the things in our environment?
    Where  Are  Those  Headlines  Screaming ?     They are silent.
    People know how many pairs of shoes Imelda Marcos had. People know
    about Jimmy Bakker's secret sex affairs.  People know about Bill
    Clinton's alleged mistress.  But what about $125 hammers purchased
    by the Pentagon? Or a $13,000 coffee machine for an airplane?  Why
    don't we hear about radiation and its risks to human health?  Is it
    just that it's not newsworthy enough?  CONSERVATIVELY, Doctor John
    Goffman estimates that fifty thousand people develop cancer
    ANNUALLY as a result of their exposure to X-rays, in excess of what
    is needed for good diagnostic pictures.   Why Isn't That Reported ?
    I think that fifty thousand people getting cancer every year from
    unnecessary X-rays is important -- certainly as important as
    whether or not Tammy Bakker is happy with her eyebrows 3 inches, 4
    inches or 8 inches up on her forehead.    Dr. John Goffman says:

        "There are very, very powerful Interests who do not want that
        information to get out. One is the radiology profession.
        Another is the nuclear medicine profession. These people make
        their livelihoods by conducting these types of experiments. And
        still other even more powerful Interests are the Government and
        the nuclear industry. To all of these groups, the amount of
        harm done by radiation is acceptable.  The media can count on
        this."

        "I've seen them descend on the radio commentator who was
        covering the story at the Chernobyl disaster. What happened was
        that he mentioned that there had been an explosion at the Three
        Mile Island [nuclear] plant. The next day, four officials from
        the Public Utility Commission descended on his station manager
        and claimed that he had falsely reported an explosion at Three
        Mile Island.  Of course, it was documented. You just had to
        look at the Presidential Commmission Report which says that
        there were TWO explosions at Three Mile Island. But the four
        Public Utility Commission officials harrassed the station
        manager, anyway, thinking that they could con him into
        suppressing the information."

        "If you think that you're dealing with objectivity and honesty,
        let me tell you that you are dealing outside of the real world
        when you say:  `Gosh. This ought to be news.' Remember, there
        are big vested Interests on the part of the United States
        Government, the nuclear industry and the medical profession's
        radiology branches to keep this news from surfacing.  So, don't
        be surprised when you go to a nuclear medicine specialist and
        he says: `Oh, this is all nonsense about low-level doses of
        radiation causing cancer. We've been using these doses for
        years. I've been taking X-rays for a long time and I've never
        seen them causing cancer.'"

        "These people are then put ON THE AIR, written about in the
        newspapers with articles that say: `Radiologist Finds That
        Radiation Effects Have Been Overblown.' But you never see the
        Press doing an analysis of the real evidence."

    That was from Dr. John Goffman in an interview with me. Dr. Goffman
    says that he is so fed up with the manner in which the Press
    reports, or rather, fails to report on the devastating effects of
    radiation, which kill thousands of Americans each year, that he:

        "would not bother with the Media if I didn't feel it to be part
        of my human duty, as a physcian. There are people out there who
        will kill other people for a price.  Murder is not restricted
        to the Mafia or Murder Incorporated. It's alive and well in the
        Medical Profession where they are killing people for a fee."

    The Government and the Medical Profession have not confined their
    crimes against the American People to radiation exposure.

    More on tomorrow's program when I continue to explore other ways in
    which hidden agendas have caused Americans to be used as human
    guinea pigs. And to those who would suggest that it is an isolated
    case here and there: You continue to suggest it is, and I'll
    continue to share information that it is not.

    Ultimately, the Public can make up its own mind.  It can be
    completely indifferent, as 95 percent are, or it can be somewhat
    concerned or very concerned. It's not that we're going to change
    them.  We won't. What we can do is we can change OUR design to be
    part of their experiments. WE don't have to be unwitting victims if
    we choose not to. That is a perceptual change.

    I'm Gary Null.  This has been a part of our continuing series on
    Hidden Agendas.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

If we seriously listen to this "God within us" ["conscience",
if you will], we usually find ourselves being urged to take the
more difficult path, the path of more effort rather than less.
.... Each and every one of us, more or less frequently, will hold
back from this work. .... Like every one of our ancestors before
us, we are all lazy. So original sin does exist; it is our laziness.

                                        M. Scott Peck
                                   THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED

If you agree that this information is vital to the defense and the
preservation of our free society, please help to disseminate it by
posting it to other bulletin boards and by posting hardcopies in public
places, both on and off campus.

John DiNardo

The episodes of this series can be retrieved via anonymous ftp from the
site:

    red.css.itd.umich.edu

Log in with name "anonymous" or "ftp" and supply your e-mail address as
the password.  The files are kept in the directory
/poli/Essays/Conspiracy (Instructions for ftp retrieval are dependent
upon what sort of system the user is on. On a UNIX machine, at the
command prompt, type the following:  ftp red.css.itd.umich.edu    This
may be different on IBMs and Vax systems.)

Archivist: Paul Southworth,  [e-mail]

------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer.


All files are ZIP archives for fast download.

 E-mail [e-mail])