• Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

You Might Be In A Medical Experiment And Not Even Know It

haidut

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
18,407
Location
USA / Europe
I guess Big Pharma is reaching new lows in its quest for turning all of us into guinea pigs. This article gives a few striking examples on how the medical industry manages to circumvent the golden rule of "informed consent" in order to draw more people into studies that would otherwise probably not attract enough participants due to their risks. In many cases the people running the trial flat out lie in order to obtain consent. What's worse, the very government agency tasked with oversight of ethic in medical research has been repeatedly intimidated to retract its criticism by an agency that was supposed to be one of the overseen ones! And if this was not enough, the major medical journals appear to be in on the scam too. The editor of NEJM actively colluded with the managers of one of the clinical trials to publish only their point of view while stifling any attempt for criticism from the public or other scientists.
So, this is what the medical industry has devolved into. When people start suspecting that doctors do not really provide much benefit and are suspicious of any medical claims the medical industry will get them involved against their will and will actively lie every step of the way, AND get paid for doing so.
Frankly, considering events like this I am surprised anybody still goes to the doctor, and would not be too surprised if going to the doctor becomes mandatory when the the majority of the population wisens up about what the medical profession has become.

You might be in a medical experiment and not even know it | Aeon Ideas
"...In the long view, modern history is the story of increasing rights of control over your body – for instance, in matters of reproduction, sex, where you live and whom you marry. Medical experimentation is supposed to be following the same historical trend – increasing rights of autonomy for those whose bodies are used for research. Indeed, the Nuremberg Code, the founding document of modern medical research ethics developed after the Second World War in response to Nazi medical experiments, stated unequivocally that the voluntary, informed consent of the human subject is essential. Every research ethics code since then has incorporated this most fundamental principle. Exceptions to this rule are supposed to be truly exceptional. Yet today, more and more medical experimenters in the United States appear to circumvent getting the voluntary, informed consent of those whose bodies are being used for research. What’s more, rather than fighting this retrograde trend, some of the most powerful actors in medical research are defending it as necessary to medical progress."

"...In 2009, colleagues alerted me that a group of parents judged ‘at risk’ of having a child born with a particular genetic intersex condition appeared to be unwitting subjects in a medical experiment. A major researcher and physician was promoting the prenatal use of a drug (dexamethasone) aimed at preventing intersex development. Targeting would-be parents who knew they had this condition running in their families, the researcher told them that the ‘treatment’ had been ‘found safe for mother and child’. In fact, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved dexamethasone for preventing intersex development, much less found it ‘safe’ for this use. Indeed, the FDA has noted dexamethasone causes harm in foetal animals exposed to it. No one seems to have told the parents that this ‘treatment’ had not gone through anything like the normal route of drug approval: there has been no animal modelling of this use, no blinded control trial for effectiveness, and no long-term prospective safety trials in the US, where thousands of foetuses appear to have been exposed. Shockingly, at the same time that this researcher was pushing the ‘treatment’ as ‘safe’, she was obtaining grants from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to use the same families in retrospective studies to see if it had been safe. A Swedish research group has recently confirmed – through fully consented, prospective studies – that this drug use can cause brain damage in the children exposed prenatally."

"...Recently, Public Citizen, together with the American Medical Student Association, sounded an alarm about two clinical trials, one called iCOMPARE, the other FIRST. In these studies, researchers extended the working hours of newly trained physicians to see if these physicians and their patients were better or worse off with the most inexperienced doctors working longer, more tiring shifts. The young doctors used in these studies were not given the option of not participating. If their residency programmes participated, they were in. More concerning, their patients were never informed that they were experimental subjects, even though a primary research goal was to see if patients treated by residents working longer shifts would experience higher rates of harm. Some studies tracked by Public Citizen reveal downright bizarre ethical mistakes. A recent study funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services, led by a US Department of Veterans Affairs researcher, sought to determine whether, if brain-dead kidney donors’ bodies were cooled after brain death, living recipients of the transplanted kidneys did better. The researchers decided they didn’t need to get voluntary consent to the experiment from the living kidney recipients. They simply maintained the dead donors were the experimental subjects. The largest contemporary fight over failure to obtain informed consent has been over the Surfactant Positive Airway Pressure and Pulse Oximetry Trial (or SUPPORT). This was a large NIH-funded study meant to determine, in part, whether higher or lower levels of oxygen after birth provided very premature babies with benefit or harm. The consent forms for this study did not inform the parents that the experiment’s purpose was to see if, by being randomly assigned to one of two experimental oxygen ranges, babies end up more likely to be blind, neurologically damaged or die. Most parents also weren’t informed that the researchers would use experimental measuring devices meant to ‘blind’ professional caregivers to the babies’ real oxygen levels to try to make the study more rigorous. Researchers told many parents that the study involved no special risks because all the procedures in the research were supposedly standard of care. This was a demonstrably untrue claim. In this case, the US Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) – an agency meant to protect the rights of people in federally funded research – agreed with Public Citizen and an allied group of more than 40 of us in medicine and bioethics that the informed consent for this trial was seriously inadequate. But in a series of emails meant to stay private, top NIH officials pressured the OHRP to back off its criticisms. OHRP is supposed to oversee NIH’s work, not the other way around! NIH leaders also partnered with the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine to publicly defend this study. The journal’s editor-in-chief tried actively to limit the ability of us critics to respond. Meanwhile, the parents were never officially informed of what happened to their babies."
 

Vinero

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
1,533
Age
30
Location
Netherlands
It's scary how many small children are already hooked on powerful immunosuppressive drugs like dexamethason and other corticosteroids.
 

haidut

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
18,407
Location
USA / Europe
It's scary how many small children are already hooked on powerful immunosuppressive drugs like dexamethason and other corticosteroids.

No doubt dangerous but those are usually short-term treatments. The scarier ones are the ones given for life like PPI, SSRI, benzos, or even blood pressure and cholesterol drugs which have now been approved for children as young as 3 months old.
 

Vinero

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
1,533
Age
30
Location
Netherlands
No doubt dangerous but those are usually short-term treatments. The scarier ones are the ones given for life like PPI, SSRI, benzos, or even blood pressure and cholesterol drugs which have now been approved for children as young as 3 months old.
This is child abuse. Metabolically damaging children without their consent.
 

haidut

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
18,407
Location
USA / Europe
This is child abuse. Metabolically damaging children without their consent.

Yep, and it can get much worse than that. Did you see the SUPPORT study from the article above? They were basically lying to parents about safety of withholding oxygen treatment for newborn babies and thus sentencing some babies who do not get the proper treatment to neurological disability or death. And not only did this not stop when the story got out, NIH went behind the scenes to tell the OHRP agency to "tone down" their criticism because "this is how medicine is done", and the journal editor colluded with NIH to shut down criticism of the SUPPORT study when it was published in NEJM. If something so blatantly illegal can be done and covered then prescribing SSRI and other poison to babies is peanuts in comparison because the SSRI and other drugs have been officially approved as safe for babies.
 
L

lollipop

Guest
Yep, and it can get much worse than that. Did you see the SUPPORT study from the article above? They were basically lying to parents about safety of withholding oxygen treatment for newborn babies and thus sentencing some babies who do not get the proper treatment to neurological disability or death. And not only did this not stop when the story got out, NIH went behind the scenes to tell the OHRP agency to "tone down" their criticism because "this is how medicine is done", and the journal editor colluded with NIH to shut down criticism of the SUPPORT study when it was published in NEJM. If something so blatantly illegal can be done and covered then prescribing SSRI and other poison to babies is peanuts in comparison because the SSRI and other drugs have been officially approved as safe for babies.
This is simply depressing. How can we have gotten to this?
 

TreasureVibe

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Messages
1,941
There was once a researcher from Germany, who moved to the US to work with Linus Pauling, his name is Matthias Rath, and he gave several lectures and made some YouTube videos explaining how IG Farben, the original big pharma, vowed around 1900 to take over the world with patents and drugs that people would be dependent on. He also stated how IG Farben played a big role in the start of WW2.

Here's the video explaining the roots of big pharma, from his YouTube channel:

 

haidut

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
18,407
Location
USA / Europe
There was once a researcher from Germany, who moved to the US to work with Linus Pauling, his name is Matthias Rath, and he gave several lectures and made some YouTube videos explaining how IG Farben, the original big pharma, vowed around 1900 to take over the world with patents and drugs that people would be dependent on. He also stated how IG Farben played a big role in the start of WW2.

Here's the video explaining the roots of big pharma, from his YouTube channel:



This is a great video. Thanks for posting!
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
There was once a researcher from Germany, who moved to the US to work with Linus Pauling, his name is Matthias Rath, and he gave several lectures and made some YouTube videos explaining how IG Farben, the original big pharma, vowed around 1900 to take over the world with patents and drugs that people would be dependent on. He also stated how IG Farben played a big role in the start of WW2.

Here's the video explaining the roots of big pharma, from his YouTube channel:


yes good video. He is absolutely right that the EU was a Nazi creation and has always been led by Nazis. However IMO he is overly focused on IG Farben and ignores the rest of the players. The truth is that the ruling elite of the entire world were behind the world wars and acted in unison. As a couple of examples, Rockefeller's Standard Oil had secretly merged with IG Farben by the start of WWII. While IBM, Ford and many other American companies helped build up the Nazi war machine as well as the Soviet Union. The World Wars were not wars of conquest but rather tremendous feats of social engineering to bring about the unification Europe and eventually world government. The extermination of undesirables was just a bonus in their eyes.
 

TreasureVibe

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Messages
1,941
yes good video. He is absolutely right that the EU was a Nazi creation and has always been led by Nazis. However IMO he is overly focused on IG Farben and ignores the rest of the players. The truth is that the ruling elite of the entire world were behind the world wars and acted in unison. As a couple of examples, Rockefeller's Standard Oil had secretly merged with IG Farben by the start of WWII. While IBM, Ford and many other American companies helped build up the Nazi war machine as well as the Soviet Union. The World Wars were not wars of conquest but rather tremendous feats of social engineering to bring about the unification Europe and eventually world government. The extermination of undesirables was just a bonus in their eyes.
So did Hitler just happen to be there at the right moment and the right time for these nefarious elites? Or was he a part of them?
 

Owen B

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2016
Messages
310
The informed consent problem is all over psychology, psychotherapy and psychiatry as well.

Psychoactive drugs undoubtedly have some biological effect on the body and the brain but I don't think researchers have a very good idea of what the scientific basis for those effects are.

The patient is presented with a range of scientific metaphors, "chemical imbalance", "side effects", and is, in effect, gulled into believing those metaphors are predominantly biological in nature.

In reality, those metaphors - though they may be biological on the face - are predominantly cultural and linguistic narratives. No one has ever discovered a "chemical imbalance" in biological terms. If you didn't know what a pill was, it's name or it's purpose, and were asked sight unseen to take the pill and report your response, would you be in any position to say you were having a "side effect"?

And if the "action" of the medicine is largely a cultural interpretation - essentially advertising, what would prevent a doctor/therapist from giving the patient a language of his own with which to converse - critically - with the professional? Shouldn't that be informed consent?

But it's nowhere to be found because the metaphors are designed to be an advantage for the doctor. Most "side effects" of psychoactive drugs are negative effects. How many times do you see a positive "side effect"? I'd be interested in one of those. But if a patient is having negative effects (and most of the drugs have a lot of negative effects) he's induced into believing he's having an officially sanctioned scientific "good effect" and the negative effects are "side effects". But in reality if he's having a lot of negative effects, he's simply having a lot of negative effects.

So the professional is right even when he's wrong. Nice work if you can get it.
 

Dhair

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
880
The informed consent problem is all over psychology, psychotherapy and psychiatry as well.

Psychoactive drugs undoubtedly have some biological effect on the body and the brain but I don't think researchers have a very good idea of what the scientific basis for those effects are.

The patient is presented with a range of scientific metaphors, "chemical imbalance", "side effects", and is, in effect, gulled into believing those metaphors are predominantly biological in nature.

In reality, those metaphors - though they may be biological on the face - are predominantly cultural and linguistic narratives. No one has ever discovered a "chemical imbalance" in biological terms. If you didn't know what a pill was, it's name or it's purpose, and were asked sight unseen to take the pill and report your response, would you be in any position to say you were having a "side effect"?

And if the "action" of the medicine is largely a cultural interpretation - essentially advertising, what would prevent a doctor/therapist from giving the patient a language of his own with which to converse - critically - with the professional? Shouldn't that be informed consent?

But it's nowhere to be found because the metaphors are designed to be an advantage for the doctor. Most "side effects" of psychoactive drugs are negative effects. How many times do you see a positive "side effect"? I'd be interested in one of those. But if a patient is having negative effects (and most of the drugs have a lot of negative effects) he's induced into believing he's having an officially sanctioned scientific "good effect" and the negative effects are "side effects". But in reality if he's having a lot of negative effects, he's simply having a lot of negative effects.

So the professional is right even when he's wrong. Nice work if you can get it.
Great post, Owen.
 

Lilac

Member
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
401
Good video and posts.

Tip: Speed up the sound on the video if you are short on time.
 

Owen B

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2016
Messages
310
The instance that Haidut gives here is so blatantly fraudulent and corrupt that it makes it almost easy to overlook the painful reality.

That the lack of informed consent in medicine is baked into the cake. It's not even on the radar screen. It's an invisible, unconscious part of the whole operating system of medicine.

Informed consent is supposed to be about a contractual relationship between the professional and the client. That relationship is therefore about parity.

But the social and economic entitlement that medicine enjoys is monarchical. It occupies the same space that was vacated by dogmatic religion. Unfortunately, in the long run emotions don't change that much so the scientific worldview succeeds only because it provides "answers" to people who are already accustomed to think of themselves as deficient. Read "organic defect" or "structural deficit" rather than sin.

This is a system that doesn't think it owes anything to the patient (customer, client) of a contractual nature. We're supposed to be in awe of it.
 

smith

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Messages
386
Morgellon's is another one that comes to mind considering it's not taken seriously at all in medicine
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
4,010
Location
Chicago
The instance that Haidut gives here is so blatantly fraudulent and corrupt that it makes it almost easy to overlook the painful reality.

That the lack of informed consent in medicine is baked into the cake. It's not even on the radar screen. It's an invisible, unconscious part of the whole operating system of medicine.

Informed consent is supposed to be about a contractual relationship between the professional and the client. That relationship is therefore about parity.

But the social and economic entitlement that medicine enjoys is monarchical. It occupies the same space that was vacated by dogmatic religion. Unfortunately, in the long run emotions don't change that much so the scientific worldview succeeds only because it provides "answers" to people who are already accustomed to think of themselves as deficient. Read "organic defect" or "structural deficit" rather than sin.

This is a system that doesn't think it owes anything to the patient (customer, client) of a contractual nature. We're supposed to be in awe of it.
Great stuff Owen. Like lawyers--usually they won't even take things on continguency. What if doctors had to bill patients on continguency only basis. lol
The authoritarian fraudulance is everywhere. And those "professionals" are incensed. I've recently had contractors say they won't work with residential clients anymore. "I'm done with you!" How dare you question my billing! They will only work with city coffers.
 

Similar threads

Top