Site Index Page

## Roy Bercaw's Newsletter

Roy Bercaw of Cambridge, MA publishes ENOUGH ROOM to raise awareness of marginalized subjects in the media. He is the founder of the Anti Censorship and Deception Union.

    ***************************************************************************
    *                                                                         *
    *                               ENOUGH ROOM                               *
    *                                                                         *
    * Volume Three Number One                                   February 1999 *
    ****************************************************************************
    "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only those who own one." Abbott Joseph
    Liebling (1904-63) (New Yorker May 14 '60) Enough Room, Porter Square PO Box
    400297 Cambridge MA 02140 Email enufroom@hotmail.com All rights reserved 617-
    499-7965 þ 1999 Anti Censorship and Deception Union. Roy Bercaw, Publisher.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION
         In Oct 1998, the World Organization Against Torture, Washington DC,
    published "Torture in the United States." In "Involuntary Human Scientific
    Experimentation" it says:
         "Similar concerns also are being raised about involuntary human
    experimentation involving new forms of classified research and testing of
    high technology military weaponry including microwave and laser equipment.
    Groups working on these issues cite, among other evidence of the existence of
    these unauthorized testing procedures, a White House inter-governmental
    memorandum dated March 27, 1997, establishing stronger guidelines prohibiting
    non-consensual testing for classified research, but suggesting, by implica-
    tion, that this type of human subject research may, in fact, be taking place.
    Because of the classified nature of these activities, it is very difficult to
    confirm or disprove that they are taking place. Given the serious negative
    impacts on non-consensual human subjects that classified research of this
    type is capable of producing, and given the past history of secret experimen-
    tation by the government, these allegations of continuing improprieties
    involving secret government sponsored human testing should not be dismissed
    without more thorough, impartial investigation."
         Participating was the American Friends Service Committee, the American
    Civil Liberties Union, and Amnesty International. +  +  +
         On Nov 15-18, 1998 the Boston Globe published four articles about human
    experimentation. The focus is indicative of the problem with many reports of
    consent through deception. If the subject was deceived there is no informed
    consent. The experiments were non consenting, involuntary, illegal, and
    criminal. The customary refusal of researchers to divulge records of such
    questionable experiments is attributed to protecting patient privacy.
         Though a welcome beginning of much needed and long overdue scrutiny of
    experimentation abuses by prominent professionals at prestigious institu-
    tions, the series does not mention two widespread abuses in this area. They
    focused on testing new drugs. They omit the growing field of new high
    technology devices for cutting-edge treatment. Earlier perversions began in
    the 1930's with the untreated syphilis experiments on prisoners. In the
    1950's, experiments using LSD on unsuspecting civilians were common. Since
    about 1970 intelligence agencies began testing and developing microwave
    technologies, lasers, and electromagnetic radiation devices for use on humans
    to control behavior. Researchers can create symptoms of mental illness, can
    and do provoke violence in their test subjects.
         Unlike talk the-rapists, behaviorist psychiatrists and psychologists
    consider man a piece of meat. By pushing and shoving the meat in desired
    directions, they believe they can obtain their desired results of controlling
    human behavior. (John Marks, Search for the Manchurian Candidate) Using drugs
    and high tech devices they can achieve their objectives without the subject
    knowing he is being manipulated.
         It is possible to condition a subject as portrayed in Stanley Kubrick's
    film of Anthony Burgess' novel, A Clockwork Orange. This book is banned in
    England. In Nicholas Begich and Jeane Manning, Angels Don't Play this HAARP,
    it is explained how these weapons were originally developed by and for the
    military. The International Red Cross reported in July, 1994 these electronic
    weapons are prohibited under international law.
         The US government transferred development and testing to the Department
    of Justice under the guise of law enforcement. They are authorized for use on
    "domestic adversaries," defined as "those who are not declared enemies but
    who are engaged in activities we wish to stop." (Begich and Manning)
         In view of the difficulty finding humans to volunteer to be tormented
    and sleep deprived intentionally, this is being done without the consent of
    the subjects. Customarily they choose persons who are unlikely to mount a
    defense to being a non consenting human subject. The usual categories of
    mental patients, prisoners, persons with AIDS, and/or HIV are chosen today.
         Treatment without consent and experimentation on humans without consent
    is battery, a crime in all fifty states. Assaults using electronic devices
    are no less a crime. But getting evidence of the assaults is difficult. It is
    no different than battery with no bruises showing. It is trespass on the
    person a tort in all fifty states. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment
    to the US Constitution.
         The Globe series failed to state that federal laws concerning experimen-
    tation using human subjects have no penalties for non compliance. The authors
    describe some abuses and a few deaths.
         Three states have laws to cover federal loopholes. New York, California
    and Virginia. California regulates behavior conditioning and experimentation
    on prisoners. Mass does neither.
         Harvard University, MIT, Mass General Hospital and McLean's Hospital
    conduct substantial amounts of human research. There is no accountability for
    the abuses of misguided doctors who conduct such research. One might conclude
    from the Globe series that the technology used on civilians is not available
    in this state; that the gene pool in this area was cleansed of evil resear-
    chers, misguided doctors, dishonest leaders, mendacious academics and
    lawyers. Do you believe that?
         Doctors and researchers earn substantial fees and prestige in the name
    of science and benefitting humanity. There are many people who love humanity
    but hate people. Some of them are medical researchers.      Like the Nazi
    doctors before them, contemporary medical researchers believe they do no
    wrong. They believe the benefit to society outweighs the irreparable harm to
    individuals used as guinea pigs. Lawyers seldom litigate these abuses except
    where death or severe injury leaves the subject in a vegetative state.
         The pattern is that 40 or 50 years after the fact the government admits
    what they did. The survivors are awarded money. Lawyers earn substantial fees
    for doing no more than reading government documents. They denounce human
    rights violations.
         The human guinea pigs get a portion of the award. They did the
    suffering, not the reading. In George Annas and Michael Grodin's book, The
    Nuremberg Code and the Nazi Doctors, they explain one defense of the Nazi
    doctors was that they did no wrong. Seven of the Nazi doctors were hanged.
         Another defense was that they got their ideas from American doctors who
    were conducting their own human experimentation in the 1930's on prisoners.
         Some states extend protections to prisoners. Persons with disabilities
    have no protections. Pharmaceutical companies offer substantial rewards for
    doctors to recruit persons with disabilities.
         I petitioned Mr. Thomas Birmingham, President of the Mass State Senate
    from May to Dec, 1998. I made 23 phone calls, sent five lengthy letters with
    copies of laws from other states and four personal visits to his offices. I
    cited substantial literature on government deceptions and coverups of human
    experimentation abuses.
         In Nov, 1998 Mr. Birmingham's aide spoke to me at the Cambridge City
    Hall. He told me he thought I was "extreme." I proposed that state laws are
    needed to cover the federal loopholes. He told me that President Birmingham's
    "initial reaction [to a new law] was negative."
         Why are doctors and researchers unaccountable for irreparable harm to
    citizens? Why are there no penalties for non compliance with federal laws on
    human experimentation?
         Perhaps Mr. Birmingham's aide called me "extreme" because I want to make
    the doctors and researchers who conduct such experiments liable. In Mass eli-
    tists believe that some people are "more equal than others."     "A
    bureaucracy is an organization in which people get paid a salary for
    following routines and not getting caught violating the rules. What the
    actual consequences of their actions are for other people matters very
    little." (Thomas Sowell, NYPost Nov 27 '98)
         The Boston Globe deserves praise for their series. In May, 1998 I
    contacted radio and television stations in Mass. Only one news director,
    Peter Brown at WBZ-TV, responded to my letter with a phone call. He admitted
    that experimentation was a difficult subject.
         The Boston Phoenix wrote an article about sleep experiments going on in
    the Boston area. The NYPost ran a series of nine articles about human e-
    xperimentation abuses in New York in Apr 1998. I wrote to the executive edi-
    tor of The NYTimes in May a month after the Post series asking why they
    omitted it. They ran six articles about the subject in May and June 1998.
         The Mollen Commission investigated police corruption in New York City.
    One conclusion was that the nature of police require perpetual scrutiny to
    root out corruption. Unless it is under such scrutiny corruption will take
    over the entire force.
         In New York City the police are investigated every 20 or 25 years. About
    100 to 200 police officers are put in jail or dismissed from the force. In
    Boston the police are never scrutinized. In the suburbs of the rest of the
    country there is no watchdog for the local police departments. In recent
    years some chiefs-of-police ran drug rings. The pattern described in the
    films, The Usual Suspects, L.A. Confidential apply to most police depart-
    ments.
         Doctors and researchers who conduct human experimentation need at least
    as much scrutiny as police departments. Police are sometimes held accountable
    for their errors. If not by their own departments, by federal agencies or
    private attorneys. When humans are abused by researchers and misguided
    doctors, there is no accountability.
         The Globe authors report that private corporations exist to oversee
    ethical violations of such research. They operate outside of an academic com-
    munity which is required to have an Institutional Review Board to oversee
    federally funded human experiments. State and private funded experiments have
    no regulations except in NY, VA and CA.
         But even under federal law there are no penalties for non compliance.
    All laws on human experimentation are useless without severe penalties for
    the doctors and the researchers. After the trial in Nuremberg, seven of the
    Nazi doctors were hanged. But unless the laws are enforced, they will remain
    useless.
         Pervasive bias against persons with disabilities is why they are chosen
    as non consenting subjects. The President of the United States and Harvard
    University promote white racism as the highest priority of all discriminat-
    ion. Most people are unaware of prejudice against persons with disabilities,
    or they enjoy it. Laws do not discriminate among kinds of bias. Prioritizing
    one form of bias is itself a violation of anti discrimination laws.
         Laws discriminate against persons with disabilities. They are denied the
    right to access to the courts to get relief from many abuses including
    discrimination itself. This is a First Amendment right. The Americans with
    Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and state anti discrimina-
    tion laws make lawyers, courts and legislators liable for their bias. Without
    an attorney laws remain a paper tiger.
         In Nov, 1998 the Human Rights Commission in Cambridge, Mass. refused to
    take complaints about persons with disabilities who were denied access to po-
    lice protection and relief from abuses by medical and legal professionals.
    Judges openly express their bias in court. One US judge openly insulted me in
    a landlord tenant case in 1985, 13 years after the Rehabilitation Act became
    law. In order to end this bias such persons need access to the courts.
    Attorneys and judges must be punished for their bias. Researchers using human
    subjects must be held accountable for harm done.
         This is a radical notion for those in power unable to see their own
    biases. In 1998 Acres of Skin by Allen H. Hornblum was published. It is about
    human experiments conducted at the University of Pennsylvania by Dr. Albert
    Kligman on prisoners at Holmesburg State prison. When he was told that what
    he did was like what the Nazi doctors did, he said, "How can you say I am
    like the Nazi doctors? I am Jewish." Kligman would say his questioner was
    "extreme."
         Experiments using human subjects is a multi-billion-dollar-a-year
    business with no regulation.  According to the fundedresearch website dated
    Nov 4, 1998, Boston area colleges get the following amounts from the National
    Science Foundation:        (More than)
    Harvard University    $230 million
    MIT                   $460 million
    Boston University     $94 million
    Woods Hole Ocean Inst $319 million
    Univ of Mass Amherst  $132 million
    Northeastern Univ      $53 million
         The Boston Phoenix runs regular ads seeking human subjects. Radio spots
    are broadcast and signs are on MBTA vehicles. Bulletin boards solicit
    subjects frequently.
         Journalists rely on self-serving statements by persons who conduct and
    benefit from human experimentation. Quoting from members of the National
    Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), the Globe team omitted that all of the
    members are academics, Phds. or MD's with an interest in relaxed standards.
    One member is the "chief business officer" of a pharmaceutical company. That
    is an ethics commission.
         The chairman is the President of Princeton University one of many
    prestigious institutions which get billions of dollars each year in federal
    grants to conduct human experimentation. Is this a disinterested party? Is it
    "extreme" to question the bona fides of the president of a major research
    institution whose primary role is to raise funds for his institution?
         This is like asking prison guards to write regulations protecting the
    rights of prisoners. It is like asking the KKK to write laws regulating
    racism and anti Semitism. Or like allowing prisoners to write rules for their
    own deportment.
         In 1978 the US Senate investigated abuses by CIA researchers and doctors
    who conducted involuntary LSD experiments on human subjects. The intelligence
    community regularly and openly lied to the oversight committee about what
    they did. (See John Marks' Search for the Manchurian Candidate)
         Considering the makeup of the NBAC, and those who testified before the
    US House Subcommittee on Human Resources, the medical profession, the
    pharmaceutical industry, and the academic community control the legislative
    process regarding their own conduct. Where is the oversight? Only the most
    egregious abuses are noted, addressed or investigated, and only some of them!
         Recognizing that there are no penalties for non compliance with federal
    laws on human experimentation is one thing. Why they were written in that
    manner is another issue. Considering the makeup of the NBAC it is obvious.
    All 12 persons who testified before the US House of Representatives subcom-
    mittee on Human Resources Chaired by US Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) in
    June, 1998 were all from the same groups.    Why were no persons harmed by
    human experiments invited to testify? Why no persons opposed to such
    research? Or why no person from other industries? Do carpenters and plumbers
    have less common sense or morality? The NBAC supports the status quo with no
    accountability for abusive researchers, negligent doctors and incompetent
    students.
         Alleged advocates for persons with disabilities, who they call mentally
    ill, prevent real advocates from being heard. How can you treat a person said
    to be ill, normally? Do we call others the physically ill? The National
    Alliance for the Mentally Ill conducts exacerbation studies on mental
    patients. They are funded by the NIMH and the pharmaceutical industry. Yet
    they claim to be advocates for the mentally ill.
         Why do only three states have such laws to protect their citizens from
    federally funded abuses? "The one thing that all bureaucrats have in common
    is the notion that the bureaucracy is never wrong. If anything has gone
    wrong, it had to be someone else's fault, preferably the fault of whoever
    complains about the bureaucracy. Evidence that would prove them wrong is
    likely to be kept under wraps." (Thomas Sowell, NYPost, Nov 27 '98) The
    United States is a large bureaucracy.
         Why were no local institutions studied by the authors of the Boston
    Globe series? Kong said their focus was on exacerbation studies because they
    are intentionally abusive. Robert Whitaker said, "That's just how it worked
    out."
         On Dec 31, '98 Ms. Kong wrote "such studies do not appear to have been
    done in Mass ... " Perhaps, but no other kinds of experiments were mentioned.
         There are several national and international groups which denounce
    experiments on animals. They are silent about the same abuses on humans. The
    level of acceptance of abuses by professionals on persons with disabilities
    is outrageous. Is that an "extreme" position?
         The reasoning process of those who defend the present system of
    unaccountability is worrisome. The Globe series reports Gary Ellis, director
    of the Office of Protection from Research Risks, who testified before the
    Human Resources subcommittee, said that because there are "six or more
    layers" of review boards, that insures that there will be no "failure[s] in
    human judgment." If you cannot trust one level, why can you trust six? In
    spite of these six layers, human subjects still get harmed, and still die
    from abuses.
         On Nov 15, 1998 the Globe reported that psychiatric researchers "are
    being asked to account for how that knowledge [in-sights into the biology of
    psychotic illnesses] was gained." The authors refer to "the remarkable
    achievements of US medical researchers in the 20th century." Were the
    achievements of the Nazi doctors any less remarkable? Were their methods any
    different?
         The authors mention the Tuskegee untreated syphilis experiments and the
    World War II radiation experiments. They do not mention the CIA LSD
    experiments, nor the Ewen Cameron brainwashing experiments at McGill
    University funded by the CIA through the Human Ecology Society at Cornell
    University. They do not mention involuntary experiments, nonconsenting ex-
    periments, those done without any volunteering on the part of subjects at
    all.
         This series focuses on "symptom-exacerbation and medication withdrawal
    experiments." The Globe found that research at the NIMH and "close to a dozen
    leading medical schools, [drew] their subjects largely from out patient
    clinics, Veteran's Affairs hospitals, state mental institutions and emergency
    rooms[,]" places that provide services to poor and uninsured persons. These
    institutions "have routinely failed to fully disclose the true purposes of
    their experiments, and withheld information about risks." US government
    consent forms were deceptive.
         George Annas at Boston University's School of Public Health, said, "We
    let researchers do things to people with mental illnesses that we would never
    let them do to people with physical illnesses." Franklin Marquit, founder of
    the National Artists for Mental Health said, "Someone who doesn't experience
    this traumatizing feeling, how would they know? ... If a person had an ar-
    rhythmia problem, would you speed up the heart and say that it is OK because
    they are used to it?"
         Persons with physical disabilities and advocates for persons with phys-
    ical disabilities openly discriminate against persons alleged to have a non
    physical disability. This is true not only in medical research but also in
    law enforcement, the courts and the law itself.
         Dr. Peter Breggin said, "If they are mentally unbalanced, and their
    condition is worsened by doctors for the purpose of serving the doctors'
    scientific careers, of course that is going to make it harder for them to
    trust anyone again." The Globe says, "The voices that are hardest to find are
    those that matter the most: the mentally ill patients who have been the sub-
    jects of these ... experiments." (Nov 15 '98) One reason persons with
    disabilities are "hard to find" is that journalists too are biased and use
    their words for the purpose of serving the journalists careers. Exploitative
    persons are everywhere.  A University of Maryland Professor of Biochemistry
    asks, "How could people give informed consent if they are psychotic and
    delusional? ... It is an oxymoron." When admitted, one patient was said to
    "have illogical thoughts." What about researchers who say that such persons
    gave informed consent? Isn't that illogical? Most elected officials,
    psychologists, psychiatrists, journalists, judges and lawyers make such
    statements every day and are not thought be mentally ill. What is the
    standard?
         Some researchers say "they can tell the difference between psychotic
    patients who are able to give informed consent and those who cannot." Dr.
    Jeffrey Lieberman now at the University of North Carolina says, "If you have
    psychotic symptoms, it doesn't mean incompetence. They can still have the
    necessary cognitive wherewithal to understand what is being communicated to
    them and to determine the meaning of things on a factually-accurate basis,
    even though they are undergoing symptoms that affect their attention and
    judgment. It is a matter of magnitude." Huh? This is Clintonian.      Dr.
    Paul Appelbaum of the University of Mass Medical School reports that he "has
    researched the ability of psychotic patients to consent." He said, "patients
    who are having psychotic symptoms often can function 'quite well' in many
    areas of their lives."
         "They may have delusions and odd ideas about the CIA investigating their
    backgrounds, or the FBI trailing them on .... [but that does not prevent]
    them from understanding what they need to buy at the supermarket that night
    to make dinner, from understanding what is being proposed regarding their en-
    tering into a research study." (Nov 16, 1998)
         If he made that statement while being interviewed for admission to a
    hospital would that be noted as an illogical statement? I think so. Dr.
    Appelbaum equates shopping for dinner which persons with an IQ of 50 can do.
    But can they also understand the unknown risks of taking drugs and not taking
    drugs? This is another case of wishful thinking on the part of researchers.
    Is this a case of neurosis on the part of Dr. Appelbaum? Or full blown
    psychosis?
         George Annas said, "Physicians who are doing this stuff don't think
    they're doing bad things to people, ... They want to do good." That is the
    same attitude held by the Nazi doctors. They also believed they did no wrong.
    They were helping their war effort, being patriotic. The same was said of the
    researchers at MIT who conducted non consenting radiation experiments on
    retarded students for 30 years. MIT President Charles Vest said, "They think
    they did no wrong."
         George Bernard Shaw said, "The road to hell is paved with good
    intentions." Pre-Homeric Greek philosopher Cleobulos said, "The chief source
    of evil among men is excessive good." Fifty five years after the Nuremberg
    Code was written there are still no penalties for non compliance with US
    federal laws on human experimentation. Contemporary doctors and researchers
    are not identified after doing irreparable harm to their defenseless
    subjects.
         Annas added, "when scientists get caught up in the lofty goal of
    advancing research to benefit humankind, 'they forget about the humans right
    in front of them. They're overly enthusiastic. They can't do both -- research
    and protect human subjects. They just can't do it." Some people love mankind
    but hate people. This applies to researchers who do human experiments.
         On Jan 10 '99 in the NYPost Doug Montero reported the death of Joseph
    Santana while in custody of the Bronx Psychiatric Center. He was used as a
    guinea pig for an experimental drug.
         Though considered schizophrenic Santana "gave informed consent"
    according to the researchers who used him as a guinea pig for an experimental
    drug. They said, "federal guidelines [which require informed consent] were
    followed." But even if there was no consent at all, present laws impose no
    penalties for the researchers who cause irreparable harm to their subjects.
         Edward Dolnick, in Madness on the Couch states that since 1910 a parade
    of saviors claimed cures for schizophrenia. None of the barbaric attempts
    including lobotomy and electro-shock have done anything but destroy the minds
    of their subjects. That does not stop contemporary researchers from
    continuing the brutish behavior on defenseless patients like Mr. Santana.
         Another remarkable (illogical?) pleading in the Globe is that "Resea-
    rchers say that the omission or minimizing of risk in consent forms during
    the 1980's was in keeping with standards of the day ..." But the Nuremberg
    Code was written and well publicized in 1943 at the end of the Doctor's
    Trial.
         As he was about to be discharged, a doctor said, 'Andy holds the record.
    We have done more procedures on him in 13 months [than ever before]. His
    veins were good, his arteries were good, his spine was good.'" The next day
    the doctor said to him, "Thanks for your time, and thanks for your body flu-
    ids." + + +
         One fabulous statement in the Dec 31st Globe is, "The mentally ill, at
    least in theory would be aided by any knowledge gained about the biology of
    psychosis." Ms. Kong does not explain this. I suspect she believes that
    because she was told that by a researcher.
         Subjects in a ketamine study reported feelings "of having a transistor
    radio implanted in the ear." This is a symptom psychiatrists attribute to
    schizophrenia. But it can also be the use of a neurophone or similar device
    on subjects.
         The Globe focused on drug abuses. None in Mass nor any involving the use
    of less-than-lethal technology or electronic medical devices which have been
    used by researchers for at least 30 years.
         One humorous observation is the comment that "social withdrawal is a
    symptom of schizophrenia." A more accurate explanation is people shun such
    persons. Her sources on mental illness are normal persons who create diseases
    by consensus. They pre-tend to be scientists. Two books give insight into the
    research industry; John Marks, Search for the Manchurian Candidate; Margaret
    Hagen's Whores of the Court.
         Laws in America are about one generation behind technology being used in
    this country. The mainstream media is about one generation plus ten years
    behind technology. Few journalists report on human experimentation. They
    accept information unquestioningly from persons who conduct and benefit from
    experimentation, the medical professionals, the academic community and the
    pharmaceutical industry. Journalists seldom report personal accounts from
    persons harmed by human experimentation. Is that objective reporting? Is that
    fairness in reporting?
         Anyone who justifies using persons with disabilities for human ex-
    perimentation without informed consent belongs in jail not in universities or
    hospitals. That they excuse it in the name of science shows that they are no
    different than the Nazi doctors who conducted medical experiments on
    concentration camp prisoners in the 1930's and the 1940's.
         If they dehumanize persons with disabilities and prey on them due to
    their indigence they are depraved. Institutionalized abuse must end. But it
    will not end until the laws passed to end discrimination against persons with
    disabilities are enforced as strongly as discrimination due to race, religion
    and sexual preference. Why are persons with disabilities denied access to the
    courts and to police protections?+++
         On Dec 2 '98 I filed a bill in the Mass House of Representatives,  after
    six months of being ignored by the leadership of the Mass legislature and my
    representatives.
         One of US Senator John Kerry's aides tried to have me committed to a
    hospital. At US Senator Edward Kennedy's office they looked at me as if I had
    three heads. Supporters of US Rep. Joseph Kennedy not only ignored my
    complaints but joined in the harassment and the campaign to discredit me.
         Congressional protocol requires seeking relief from one's represen-
    tative. The US House subcommittee which studies human experimentation laws
    refused to respond to my complaints without being asked to do so by Rep.
    Kennedy. They demand "credible evidence."
         I spoke with aides of Congressman-elect Capuana outlining the years of
    abuse asking that they contact US Rep. Christopher Shays. Shays can order an
    investigation by the General Accounting Office for abuse, fraud, and waste of
    taxpayer funds used for illegal experimentation. I also asked the Cambridge
    City Council to have the Human Rights Commission refer my concerns to Rep.
    Shays, as allowed by the Municipal Code. I still wait for a response.
         After I wrote to Richard Cole, the assistant Mass attorney general for
    civil rights, a man chased me from the state McCormack office building. He
    said he was a state police officer but was unable to produce identification.
    What is ironic is that Mr. Cole is one of a group of attorneys who argued a
    Mass case before the US Supreme Court making treatment without consent
    illegal, even for patients in a hospital.
         I called to and wrote to the US Attorney in Boston, Mr. Donald K. Stern.
    A paralegal, Ms. Mary Ann Casoli called me admitting that she knew nothing
    about human experimentation. I told her there are books about it. She said to
    me, "I don't have time to read books."
         After being rebuffed by local police, state and federal officials to
    gain relief from non consenting human experimentation, I sought relief from
    the Cambridge Human Rights Commission. The Municipal Code empowers the
    Commission to investigate and to litigate an end to unlawful practices. One
    unlawful practice is denying persons access to city services due to a
    perceived disability.
         In 1993 and again in 1998 the Director and the Acting Director refused
    to take and to investigate my inability to get relief from human experimen-
    tation without any consent or volunteering on my part. I addressed the City
    Council in Dec '98 and Jan '99 asking the City Council to conduct public
    hearings on this issue.
         The Commission can file any complaints "that relate to acts of discrim-
    ination [received], with other government agencies [which are] under the
    jurisdiction of such agencies." + + +
         From a story in the Boston Herald Associated Press Dec 11 '98, page 42.
    Eric Brown was accused of murdering two men. A psychiatrist diagnosed him as
    "a paranoid schizophrenic." "He was sent to Bridgewater (Mass) State Hospital
    where medication and group therapy rendered him competent to stand trial."
         Brown's attorney asked to allow the defendant to be taken off his
    medications, "so a jury can observe him in a psychotic state on videotape."
    Even among professional participants in the legal process there is little
    understanding of the issues of insanity, competency and law. Perhaps it is
    money. That makes sense. Billable hours is the key.
         Brown's psychiatrist, Ingunn Hodgkins, testified that "it would be wrong
    to withhold treatment from a patient who might ... require chemical
    restraints." Exacerbation studies and withholding medication
    studies are common.
         Even with no benefit to the subject. Even when consent was at best
    deceptive. Here is a man at risk of substantial loss of freedom or worse.
    Seeing him in his state of mental illness would eliminate liability for his
    acts.
         Isn't it curious that the issue of ethics is raised when a potential
    benefit to the individual is present? The author of this report confusedly
    writes, "If he recovers from his illness, then he stands trial. But if he
    stands trial, then the odds are strong a jury will convict him of murder
    because they don't believe he had been ill."
         This is flawed reasoning. What happened to the presumption of innocence?
    Does this show the pervasive prejudice toward persons with disabilities?
         This kind of biased reporting is not unique. One requirement for a
    person to be acquitted due to a mental disability at the time of the offense
    is that his state of mind be proved to the trier of fact. His lawyer wants to
    show that if his medication is removed now, he may be mentally ill. But what
    does that have to do with his state of mind at the time of the offense?
    Nothing.
         There are two distinct determinations to be made by the trier of fact.
    Psychiatrists are expert witnesses, not the triers of fact. It is the judge
    or jury that makes the decisions. But for some reason, judges, juries and the
    Nevada Boxing Commission give up their duty to professional pretenders who
    claim more common sense than you or I.
         They give their personal opinions as if they were science. When will
    this madness end allowing the mental health cartel to earn lucrative fees
    while making a mockery of the justice system?
         What does the proposed test of withholding medication imply? That the
    medication simply covers up the illness? That it is a restraint itself, no
    different than chains or a billy club. Could it be that the administration of
    drugs is also a business with no benefit to the taker of drugs? +  +  +
         [Following reports are from the NYPost Jan '99] NY State Senator Efraim
    Gonzales (D-Bronx) introduced a bill to restrict experiments using human
    subjects. Columbia University Medical School Dean Herbert Pardes, chaired a
    NY State Health Department Task Force on experimentation. It recommended
    allowing researchers to use mental patients for risky and harmful experiments
    without having to obtain their consent.
         If the task force recommended using blacks or women for experiments what
    would be the reaction? Would the NYTimes limit reporting to two inches as
    they did with this report?
         At St. Patrick's Cathedral John Cardinal O'Connor said, "every one of us
    perhaps could profit by a periodic reminder that much of what was done under
    the Nazi regime under Hitler began long before with the experiments of
    psychiatrists and other medical professionals on people who are psychologi-
    cally incapacitated or otherwise vulnerable."
         NY State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) said, "It seems
    to me that this is a total violation of people's rights and an invasion of
    their life."
         A Post editorial said, "In this republic, each citizen is guaranteed his
    sovereign right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And though the
    mentally ill cannot always exercise those rights, they still have them."
         NY Governor George Pataki said, "What the ultimate decisions will be, I
    can't tell you." If he doubts that experimentation on persons who cannot give
    consent is an abomination, he is either asleep, sedated, or getting money to
    allow these vile activities. + + +
         The London Times reports (Jan 21 '99) Queen Noor of Jordan backs a cam-
    paign to end the "honour killings" "of women in the Arab world for alleged
    sexual impropriety." "Male relations encouraged by lax laws ... take the
    lives of these women" due to suspected involvement in affairs. The Queen
    joined the campaign of Rana Husseini, an Arab woman crime reporter for the
    Jordan Times.    +   +   +
         Joanna Bale (London Times Jan 21 '99) reports "There is no immunity for
    those who use torture as an instrument of state policy, which is banned under
    international law." +++  NYTimes Jan 21 '99 reports "An outsider breached the
    Internet security of the" USIA knocking its website out of action "diverted
    users to other locations and then dismantled the site."
         Experts "thought they had repaired the damage, but the saboteur had
    planted a 'Trojan Horse' that repeated the destruction" later.+++
         Lawyer's Weekly Jan 11 '99 reports new Rule 6.1 of the Supreme Judicial
    Court of Mass. "A lawyer should provide annually at least 25 hours of pro
    bono publico legal services for the benefit of persons of limited means."
    Camille Sarrouf, current Mass Bar President and "82 percent of the members"
    oppose the rule which takes effect Feb. 1,  1999. No surprise there.   + + +
         Joseph White, exposed by the NYPost scamming kind hearted folks by using
    crutches he doesn't need was nabbed by cops. They gave him a summons for pan-
    handling. + + +
         Clinton is a wuss compared to Lord Bristol who died at age 44. His
    debauchery includes arrests for drug possession, stealing traffic bollards,
    and blasting a door with a shotgun to get to a bottle of champagne. (London
    Times)   +   +   +
         Liz Smith NYPost: "Kissinger stared into his cocktail and said slowly,
    'Mr. Clinton does not have the strength of character to be a war criminal.'"
      +   +   +
         David Gelenter NYPost: "Where
    art is concerned, bizarre behavior is (unfortunately) a [NY] tradition. Much
    of the century's greatest art was produced in [that] city ..."+++
         NYPost: "Bill Gates' $100 million donation to charity pales in
    comparison with Andrew Carnegie's $350 million ($6.5 billion today)
    gift to Carnegie Institute."
      +   +   +

Site Index Page