“…and she told the other nurse, “Oh my God, I’ve given him too much!” —from “Hole in the Head: A Life Revealed”
Greg Reese at Antelope Valley News has written about the early radiation experiments conducted in 1927 on black children at Lyles Station, Indiana. These hideous experiments are part of a largely unexamined legacy of illegal human experimentation, much of it conducted on African-Americans, and other minorities, and also on prisoners.
A 2009 documentary tells the story of one of these children, now deceased, Vertus Hardiman. These experiments took off Hardiman’s scalp… literally. But Hardiman wasn’t the only victim, nor the Lyles Station experiments the last. As Reese tells it:
One cannot help but be repulsed by the cruelty of such procedures, especially their application to young children, but this was not an isolated case. Similar research occurred in 1951 on a much larger scale has been uncovered in the then-fledgling state of Israel. Like the Lyles Station incident, where all the affected children were Black, racial overtones abounded since fair-skinned Ashkenazi Jews of European origin administered radiation to upwards of 100,000 Sephardic Jewish children who were refugees from Morocco.
The Ashkenazis served as proxies for Robert Oppenheimer, his Manhattan Project, and the U.S. government, who underwrote the program because they were eager to utilize a convenient pool of guinea pigs for further testing in the wake of their successful atomic bombings at the close of World War II. Sephardic Jews differ visually from their Ashkenazi brethren by virtue of their darker, olive skin tone.
Still more episodes of radiation bombardment were conducted throughout the 1960s at what is now the University of Cincinnati on some 90 working-class citizens, of which two-thirds were Black. During the Clinton Administration these and other Cold War experiment programs were reviewed to determine restitution suitability and the need for formal apologies.
The following is a trailer from Brett Leonard’s documentary, “Hole in the Head: A Life Revealed” (h/t Russ Baker at whowhatwhy.com)
For more information on the U.S. history on human experiments, see Eileen Welsome’s The Plutonium Files; Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present by Harriet Washington; and Acres of Skin: Human Experiments at Holmesburg Prison by Allen M. Hornblum.
Hornblum wrote an op-ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer last March after President Obama’s commission on bioethics, hastily assembled last year after the scandals over U.S. health department experiments on syphilis conducted on Guatemalan subjects in the 1940s, began their meetings. [See update below] Hornblum, who is an expert on the history of unethical human research wrote:
Medical excesses and breaches of research ethics are not just things of the distant past. They still occur and will continue until the penalties exceed the incentives to cut corners and break the rules. The national bioethics commission can foster that goal by not only explaining what went wrong 60 years ago, but by also aggressively pushing recommendations that punish transgressors, keep a vigilant eye on clinical trials both here and abroad, and encourage medical schools and others to bring research ethics out of the basement and into the classroom.
I wrote a letter to the Inquirer in response to Hornblum’s op-ed. It was never published, but here it is in its entirety:
Dear Editor,
As someone who has been investigating research ethics issues involving the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community, I wish to applaud Mr. Hornblum’s excellent op-ed (“Research ethics require action and vigilance,” March 20, 2011) concerning the deliberations of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. He makes a number of important points, noting particularly that “Medical excesses and breaches of research ethics are not just things of the distant past.”
In an investigatory piece last year with the journalist Jason Leopold, I documented threats by the Defense Research and Engineering component of the Department of Defense to shut down all DoD-related research by the end of 2004 if the requisite assurances of adherence to ethical guidelines were not submitted to it by the end of that year. We do not know what precipitated this threat and DRE review, and attempts to find out from DoD elicited only a “no comment.”
But we do know that in 2002 Paul Wolfowitz had loosened the requirements for waivers of informed consent among DoD researchers. Between that time and 2004, there was little or no oversight over DoD research policies at exactly the time when both DoD and CIA were engaged in an experimental torture program, using detainee prisoners as human guinea pigs for the study of the effects of torture and harsh detention.
Any serious government review of bioethical issues would certainly include a look at government-related research, which also has a long history of serious ethical breaches, from the CIA MKULTRA experiments of the 1950s and 1960s, through the Department of Energy’s radiation experiments, and the Defense Deparment’s Project SHAD nerve gas experiments. It would also include a look at possible experiments done on detainees in the past ten years.
I hold out little hope that the government will address these issues seriously, and share Mr. Hornblum’s concern that the results of this commission will be yet another whitewash and blue ribbon attempt to stuff these serious issues back into the closet of public ignorance and governmental indifference.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Kaye, Ph.D.
Amy Gutmann, Ph.D., Chair of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, told the press they believe they will have a report ready for the President this summer. The commission met on May 18-19, and their next meeting is slated for Aug. 29-30, 2011 (though no agenda for that meeting is yet posted).
More coverage on commission hearings can be found at PrisonPlanet, which has been following the earlier Commission meetings.
Update, 5/27/11: Jonathan Moreno, Professor of Medical Ethics and of History and Sociology of Science, and a part-time staffer for the Presidential Bioethics Commission, writes to correct my notion, and that of others who have written on the Commission, that it was “hastily assembled” after the revelations on the Guatemalan syphilis experiments. According to Dr. Moreno, “Actually the commission was in operation for a nearly year before that project started, working on the synthetic biology report, and was then assigned the Guatemala issue.”
Indeed, the Commission was enabled via executive order in November 2009 (PDF of Executive Order). The Commission has a webpage describing the history of bioethics commissions in general.
The following is from a FAQ page the Commission has posted (PDF) describing “FAQ about the Commission’s Investigation into U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) supported research on sexually transmitted diseases in Guatemala from 1946-1948 involving the intentional infection of vulnerable human populations.” As explained in the FAQ, an international research panel was established on March 1, 2011 that will report to the Commission. It is this panel that was, in my opinion, and evidently, as a response to the Guatemalan scandal.
On November 24, 2010, President Obama directed his Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (PCSBI), beginning in January, to “oversee a thorough fact-finding investigation into the specifics” of the USPHS supported research. A copy of the President’s charge to the Commission can be seen here: http://www.bioethics.gov/documents/Human-Subjects-Protection-Letter-from-President-Obama-11.24.10.pdf
The Commission’s fact-finding review is underway….
Records are being examined in archives across the United States, including the National Archive and Records Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention archives at Morrow, Georgia, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), successor organization to the Pan American Sanitary Bureau, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Virginia, the National Library of Medicine, and the National Academies. Records are being sought also from relevant agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and State. An independent physician will review individual medical records. Records from the Government of Guatemala may also be requested in the near future….
President Obama also asked the Bioethics Commission to conduct a review of the adequacy of human subjects protection across the international field of research. Specifically, he asked PCSBI to convene an international panel to review current U.S. Government regulations and international standards and consider if they adequately guard the health and well-being of participants in scientific studies supported by the U.S. Government.
The International Research Panel was announced on March 1 and it will report to the Commission. It includes 14 leaders from the bioethics and medical/science communities. A majority of members come from outside the U.S., including one person from Guatemala. Amy Gutmann, Ph.D., Chair of PCSBI, will lead the International Research Panel. The Panel will meet at least 2-3 times in the next five months and at least once overseas. A copy of the press release announcing the Panel can be seen here: http://www.bioethics.gov/news/2011/03/presidentsbioethics- commission-names-international-research-panel.html



17 Comments

I received an email a few weeks back from someone with interest in the commission, which read:
Thanks for doing this very important work, Jeff. It’s too bad , but not surprising your letter was not published. The PTB want to make sure the people stay as ignorant as possible…or maybe the paper will use your work [hopefully attributed] as a spring board for their own exhaustive investigation? Probably not.
Too depressing for words.
Typo?- “But Reese wasn’t the only victim” sb: “Hardiman”?
JK, excellent research as usual.
This issue of nonconsensual human subjects research – and the bases upon which and for which it is conducted – is interwoven with so many other power imbalance issues in our democracy.
Informed Consent, Social Contract, Vulnerable Populations and Public Trust of Professionals, while primarily constituting scientific research community vernacular, are concepts and terms equally germane to other arenas of citizen rights and responsibilities, (e.g., consumers creating and operating within a “free market,” voters creating and operating within a participative democracy).
Similarly, just as there is a push for Elizabeth Warren and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to mitigate and remedy of abuses in the financial sector, the Commission on Bioethics has become a focal point for complaints re: mitigation and remedy of abuses in emergent biotechnologies research sector (on behalf of DHHS, OHRP). The transcripts read very much like similar hearings in 1972 and 1995 wrt each iteration of the same research pursuits and how it is rolled out, and for what purpose).
Those on the left and right who are aware of civil rights watch in disbelief:
-as the Supremes dismiss an extraordinary rendition case based on state secrets, though the airline carrier admitted involvement,
-as Drake’s case comes up next month wrt warrantless wiretapping, and as citizens observe the tipping of scales against whistle blowers & activists,
-as GTMO remains open and lawyer after lawyer throws their arms up after sifting through disorganized piles of inadmissable evidence, in labyrinth constructed of epistemic relativism.
The problem with most of these cases wrt garnering public involvement via their own self-interest and level of outrage is a) no smoking gun (which creates a sense of haplessness and dubiousness of further pursuit) or b) litigation undertaken re: the violations of civil rights thus far, have not largely involved persons of US origin (with a few exceptions).
Those conscientious of (and with expertise about the history of) civil rights abuses in the US are at an important threshold to engage a push for government accountability and to catalyze an overall turnabout in the political power balance. What the nonconsensual human subjects experimentation issue offers, that is not found in any other civil rights issue currently at the fore, is manifold:
-the smoking gun of biotech devices left behind on non-consenting persons
-the perpetration of civil rights violations vs. US citizens on US soil (set against a backdrop of an apparent world wide rollout of these technologies including citizens in other UN countries. Side note: The last BioEthics comm hearing will be held abroad.)
-the advantage of the WWW to raise awareness & provide accurate information, which was not enjoyed at the time of previous commissions (such a Church or Nuremberg).
Lastly, while some of those concerned about civil rights abuses seem to be equally concerned about the notion that fixing the dam might cause it to burst, (i.e., cause a panic on either side of the issue), the time is now, when the numbers involved, though eye-opening, are not staggering to the cause, should the cause be taken up by others so far unaffected. Please continue in this pursuit, to which you have dedicated your considerable investigative talents. Democracy, if it is to survive, needs you and everyone like you, on board for this very issue.
Trace the History:
Title: Individual Rights and the Federal Role in Behavior Modification; A Study Prepared by the Staff of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-third Congress, Second Session [NOV1974]
http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED103726&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED103726
Pages of Note
The PREFACE (pp iii-v) is prepared by the Committee of the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Sen. Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (Chairman)
INTRODUCTION covers historic case law PDF p. 23 Dr. Jay Katz, Adjunct Prof of Law and Psychiatry at Yale Law School, specific remarks on revising existing protections for human subjects, (re: Tuskeegee) “Three important lines of criticism” Followed by descriptions of various studies through universities, the VA, etc. CONCLUSION on PDF p. 54. Cites creation of Natl Comm for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research
WHERE IT GETS REAAAAAALY INTERESTING is in the APPENDIX, (PDF p. 56, etc.) documentation of correspondence:
PDF p. 62-63 Letter from Chalkey, Institutional Relations Branch, Div of Rsch Grants written to Sen. Ervin (Chmn, Subcmte Constit Rts) Re: Codifying the 1971 policy on Human Subject Protections into law as 45 CFR 46. (First mention within this trove of corres).
PDF p. 71 Sen. Ervin to Caspar Weinberger, Scty Health Educ & Welfare (HEW) on 1/30/1974 (keep reading keep reading)
PDF p. 74 (Letter dated 2/22/1974, also to Scty Weinberger from Sen. Ervin. Look at Ervin’s request for information (“List each research project by…”) The response continues on PDF p. 74 (bottom) to p. 75 (top).
PDF p. 75 (middle) (Letter dated July 12, 1974) from Charles C. Edwards, Asst Scty for Health confirms that the Federal Register printed on May 30, 1974 set forth Protections for Human Subjects: 45 CFR 46 (Title 45, part 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations), enacted into law, effective July 1, 1974.
PDF p. 78-107 Institutional Guide to DHEW Policy on Protection of Human Subjects
PDF p. 123-132 Critique of DHEW Policy Vagueness, Invisibility (IRBs), Subject Consent, Continuing Review, Structure and Composition of Institutional Committee, Enforcement
Starting at PDF p. 132 Recommendations “Freedom of Inquiry” v. Individual Freedoms, proposed Natl Human Inv Board, protocol review group (PDF p. 139), subject advisory group, PDF p. 148 See list of recs #1-4
PDF p. 172 Specific HEW Projects
Also of interest, section called “Additional Information”
PDF p. 514 Nuremburg Code
PDF p. 610 Electronic Techniques for Observing and Controlling Behavior in Humans
PDF p. 613 Delgado’s research
PDF p. 637 The torture cure
PDF p. 645 The pacification of the brain
PDF p. 76
July 29, 1974
C.W. Weinberger, Scty HEW to
Hon. Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Chmn SubCmte on Constitutional Rts, Cmte on the Judiciary
in relevant part:
(full para 3)
Let me stress again [....]
However the department does not, nor will we in the foreseeable future, support research efforts involving surgery on the human brain solely for the treatment of
psychiatric or behavioral problems.
(begin para 4)
P.L. 93-348, “The National Research Act” provides for a national commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. One of the duties of that commission is to consider the use of psychosurgery, evaluate the need for it, and recommend to me policies defining the circumstances (if any) under which its use may be appropriate. [....]
Thanks so much for highlighting the dark and racist side of medical research in the past. Education is something that can advise the future and prevent other occurrances.
Oops. Thanks!
Thanks for your excellent comment above re how this issue is an important civil and human rights issue linked to others, and for your laying out some very interesting references.
recommended reading!
Yes, I know how hard it is to get a letter to the editor published. I live in a red state and promised Bill Moyers a letter to the editor. Well, ya know how that goes.
People, remember there is no safe level of radiation on humans and your children’s tiny bodies that are not fully developed are getting the same levels you as an adult are.
Being from the south we have always had a big mosquito problem. When I was a small child the city would send big trucks around the neighborhoods to spray insecticides to combat the bugs. These trucks would come through at unannounced times and spray regardless of the children outside playing. Parents had no idea what their kids were getting in their lungs or skin. To this day, we still don’t know!
Thank you, Jeff.
The last paragraph of your letter to the editor of the Philadelphia
Inquirer, a letter which, clearly, should have been published, unfortunately predicts the future, “looking forward”.
The current administration is headed by a man who is perfectly happy to simply mark time playing footsie with fascism until he can happily follow along in Bill Clinton’s and George W’s lucrative footsteps rather than actually engage in the process of true leadership or sincerely seek to help develop ways to provide American society the historical and Constitutional perspective which these times and “the people” most desperately need.
Apparently, nothing of what you and others are revealing holds any real interest for a man who drones on mercilessly in the pursuit of a ruthless and deadly expediency which he, his legion of followers, and his fellow elites have the smug and celebrated gall to term “pragmatic”.
Machiavelli would certainly approve, and would agree with the PTB that torture and “experimentation” are not only quite all right, but fundamentally necessary …
My sense is that, at THIS moment, many “Americans”, including very many of Obama’s most ardent supporters, would readily and easily agree.
DW
I want folks reading this, afterward, to think for a minute, and ask, “What kind of mind, what kind of human being, even THINKS of this kind of shit?”
Think what evil and hate filled heart and mind it must take. I mean surely we all understand the desire for answers. It would’ve been perfectly natural for people at the beginning of the discovery of radiation to wonder about it’s effects on humans. In fact, there would be something wrong with you if you DIDN’T wonder that.
But then what kind of person, what kind of mind and heart, comes up with the idea that to answer those questions (and many just like it in other areas like druges or bioengeneered foods perhaps) we will simply carry out tests on this minority, or that group of people.
It is a sick, uncivilized, and purely evil mind that would think of that as a solution to the problem. These types of people don’t deserve to live free lives in a civilized society because they cannot, DO NOT, have the ability to comprehend empathy and thus cannot be allowed to live in a way where their acts might hurt others. These kinds of people should be put away, either in some sort of prison or perhaps a hospital setting where they may be helped, if possible. In short, these kinds of people are sociopaths.
Now, you want to know what’s really discouraging?? THese are the people that control all the levers of power in the world then, AND now.
Thanks Jeff for bringing my attention to another sick and disgusting detail I was completely unaware of. It’s days like this when I soooooooooo wish there were a just, and omnipotent God, because goddammit I wish I myself had the power to strike these disgusting “people” from our midst. That s/he doesn’t is just one more piece of evidence to me that any God out there is either not-omnipotent, or a cruel asshole. Neither of those is deserving of worship.
Sorry for the rant, but this really hurt and pissed me off. Disgusting.
Thank you for this post, Jeff.
I’ve always wondered about why it was that Appalachia had a high rate of birth defects.
(excerpt from “The True Meaning of Pictures: Shelby Lee Adams’ Appalachia,” by Dennis Harvey, Variety.Com, Feb. 2, 2003)
“The True Meaning of Pictures” (trailer, 2002) featuring documentary photography from the work of American photographer Shelby Lee Adams.
Years ago I received a tip that the FBI had run a program on elementary aged children via a free school lunch doped with nuclear product and offered to Appalachian children in Catholic-run schools. I was told that this was done in at least Kentucky and the timing was the early/mid 1960s (recall that this time was coincident with the Vatican II progressive reforms by a short-lived Pope). I noted that there were still cross-burnings in that area directed toward this group of people. I remember the segregated Southwest as a kid and I even heard the discussion myself among the adults about why a Catholic should never be a US President.
Just as there are survivors of antebellum style violence (Mississippi, 1964) and exploitation that occurred in the 1960s who have stepped forward (see Jim White’s excellent post, “A Mother’s Message to Baby Sold Fifty-two Years Ago: Barbara Weeks Had Three Children” from Dec. 5, 2010), if there are witnesses of the above, now would be a great time to bring those facts forward.
I saw a documentary aqbout Adams and the folks in Appalachia. It is hard to believe that this level of poverty has been allowed to fester in this country,with the billions spent for foreign “aid” -while its own people live in less than third world conditions.
Here is a timely and interesting excerpt. I highly recommend reading the entire piece for valuable info,btw:
Obama Administration Seeks to Test Anthrax Vaccine in Children|
May 25, 2011
Source: AHRP.org
Whose children will be sacrificed in an illegal and unethical experiment in the name of Biodefense Preparedness?
According to BioPrepWatch.com , the Obama administration is seeking to obtain a green light to conduct an anthrax vaccine safety experiment on US children. The stated rationale for such a trial, articulated by Dr. Nicole Lurie, US Dept. of Health and Human Services, is that there are no data about the safety of exposing children to the anthrax vaccine. And if an emergency arises, a trial “would present an array of logistical, clinical and communication challenges during a public health crisis.”
Current law allows the FDA to issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for “protections against biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear agents that may be used to attack the American people.” The FDA Commissioner “may allow countermeasures to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by such agents, when there are no adequate, approved and available alternatives.”
In the absence of a national emergency from an anthrax bioterrorist attack, an anthrax vaccine trial in children would violate federal legal and ethical standards which prohibit exposing children to greater than minimal risk if a child does not have a condition that would benefit from the experimental intervention. 45 CFR 46 Subpart D
The Anthrax vaccine is highly controversial and US courts prohibited mandatory vaccination of the military from 2004-2006:
tw:
Obama Administration Seeks to Test Anthrax Vaccine in ChildrenMay 6, 2011 … Obama Administration Seeks to Test Anthrax Vaccine in Children … Bill First, a doctor, criticized the anthrax vaccine on CNN stating, …
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/802/52/ – Cached►Obama
Administration Seeks to Test Anthrax Vaccine in Children …May 24, 2011 … by Alliance for Human Research Protection Whose children will be sacrificed in an illegal and unethical experiment in the name of Biodefense …
healthimpactnews.com/…/obama-administration-seeks-to-test-anthrax-vaccine -in-children/ – Cached
NOTE: Jeff, what a pity I can’t re -recommend this piece you’ve authored. I don’t know how you have maintained your sanity with all the inhumanity you deal with. KUDOS of the highest order,my friend.
You know, Gitchee, one of the very few things which I “hoped” might cause Obama to have or acquire some actual empathy, way back when he was “running” for President, was the fact that he had two children in this world.
And, you may recall, that Obama made a huge deal
about “quitting” smoking, that his daughters might not see their father engage in bad example …?
Somehow, one imagines that the daughters Obama will never be subject to the experimental whims of pious tyranny.
The children of other, lesser, parents will, obviously, not have such protections or considerations as surround the First Daughters, the “other” children, the least and the last, ah well, the devil take them … to do as pleases the heartless, conscienceless, and powerful beyond the law, elite ones …
DW
I’ve been trying to find out if Dr. Lurie has children whom she might allow to be test-”vaccinated”…doesn’t look like it.
My compliments to Jeff Kaye for the above article and for his questioning of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues as yet another whitewash attempt. To show just how far that Commission goes to cover up current medical crimes while making a big ado about investigating those from 60 years ago, I posted on their site at http://blog.bioethics.gov/2011/05/19/could-another-guatemala-case-happen/ the following comment about a recent medical experiment that killed 23 premature babies to protect them from blindness and did so without even telling the parents that their children were enrolled in this cruel suffocation experiment. My posting there is in limbo pending their moderation and will probably be deleted because the Commission does not like to be questioned:
I just sent the following alert about bypassing the “Informed Consent” rules to the Office for Human Research Protections since the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues has chosen to ignore this documentation of current research abuses which it had in its possession since February 22:
To the Division of Compliance Oversight,
Office for Human Research Protections
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
In a blog post at the bioethics.gov website under the title “Could another Guatemala case happen?”, John Donnelly cited one of the speakers at the 5/19 meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues as saying that such a patient-abusing study “could not happen again because of informed consent”.
I want therefore to alert you to a recent unethical study in the US of blinding premature babies that severely reduced the usual oxygen breathing help for half of its subjects to try and reduce their blinding, despite the known increase in the babies’ risk of death from this tight rationing of the life-saving gas. That study violated all the codes of medical ethics with its unsuccessful attempt to reduce the combined incidence of death and blinding among these preemies although blindness is a non-fatal condition and cannot justify the intentional increase in those babies’ risk of death. Predictably, this study killed 23 “extra” children with this attempt to protect their eyes from getting damaged, as if intact eyes were of any use to a dead child.
Moreover, the authors of this grotesque baby-killing experiment appear to have conducted their trial without the informed consent of the parents. When I asked for details about the U.S.-based part of that international experiment, the Freedom of Information Coordinator at the NICHD/OSPAC-PICB wrote to me on 2/23/2011 that
“the NICHD Neonatal Research Network Pregnancy and Perinatology Branch searched its files and no records regarding Informed Consent Forms (…) were located”.
I filed a FOIA Appeal and received an acknowledgment of receipt for my appeal with the Request Number PHS – 11-0303 – AA. That receipt was dated 3/23/2011, but I have not heard any further reaction to my appeal and must suspect that the longer it takes them to send me those legally mandated but apparently unavailable forms the more likely it is that these will be fabricated post facto to try and cover up the crime of intentional medical murder.
Indeed, those “Informed Consent” forms are unlikely to exist because no properly informed parent would ever have agreed to volunteer their child for this baby-suffocating experiment. And even if any parent could have been talked into signing a form that honestly described the known risks from that experiment, that parent could not have legally consented on behalf of their child for a potentially lethal experiment that was not in the best interest of the child and offered him or her no compensating benefit.
This patient-abusing experiment is part of a wider trial with the acronym SUPPORT that was conducted in the US by the Support Study Group of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. The oxygen-withholding part of that SUPPORT study enrolled 1316 preemies from 2005 to 2009, and its preliminary results were published in the May 16, 2010, online issue of the New England Journal of Medicine under the title “Target Ranges of Oxygen Saturation in Extremely Preterm Infants” at http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0911781.
The SUPPORT study is one of five parallel studies around the world that are all based on the same knowingly baby-killing and -harming protocol of oxygen withholding to try and prevent retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). These studies were conceived in 2003 by “an eminent international group of over 30 trialists, bio-statisticians, neonatologists, ophthalmologists, and developmental pediatricians” with the goal to evaluate their results not only individually but also together in a pooled meta-analysis, called NeOProM, for greater statistical discerning power. The other four studies of this group are currently going on in Australia, New Zealand, England, and Canada. The Canadian study recruited subjects not only in its own country but also in the US, Argentina, Germany, Israel, and Finland. The NeOProM study is posted at http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2431-11-6.pdf [2].
You will find at http://retinopathyofprematurity.org/BioethicsSUPPORT.htm a detailed discussion of this knowingly patient-killing experiment in my letter of 2/22/2011 to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues in which I tried to alert that Commission to this ongoing patient abuse. Because this study killed some of its subjects instead of “only” infecting them with a less lethal condition, the abuse in this recent experiment is even worse than in the much mentioned syphilis study in Guatemala from 65 years ago. That study in Guatemala led to President Obama’s request for that Commission to reassure him about the current protections for participants in federally funded medical research projects. Unfortunately, his instructions to that Commission asked them to investigate only that Guatemala study but not the current protections for research subjects about which he asked them only to reassure him without specifically mentioning that obviously these reassurances should be based on an investigation.
It seems that this Commission took these instructions literally because it did not investigate the above alert about an obvious breach of those alleged protections although it had in its possession for more than three months a full documentation of the patient-killing SUPPORT medical experiment. Contrary to that documented evidence, its members still assert that the present rules on informed consent prevent a repetition of past abuses although the current abuses are even worse.
I hope therefore that you will be able to do a better job than this falsely reassuring Commission and actually investigate the reckless baby-killing in that consent-less suffocating experiment, as well as the even more lethal rigged trial of oxygen withholding from premature babies 55 years ago that misled intensive care nursery doctors ever since into falsely believing that suffocating preemies would protect them from going blind.
Please see the admission in the SUPPORT paper at the above link that the results of that earlier study killed about 16 infants for each case of blindness prevented, and led to an estimated 150,000 preemie deaths in the first 20 years after its never replicated bogus results became instantly a central part of the neonatologist doctrine.
You find that initial bogus study described at http://retinopathyofprematurity.org/Bioethics1955oxygen.htm, and another rigged as well as patient-abusing study of blinding premature babies in the mid-1990s at http://retinopathyofprematurity.org/BioethicsLIGHT-ROP.htm plus at the supporting pages mentioned in its links.
Thank you in advance for your urgent attention to these ongoing abuses of human research subjects in unethical medical experiments, and for protecting future preemies from their nursery doctors’ misled and patient-harming beliefs about the cause of their continued blinding epidemic.
Sincerely,
Peter Aleff
prevent@retinopathyofprematurity.org