Experimentação médica em humanos nos Estados Unidos: A história chocante da verdade da medicina moderna e psiquiatria (1833-1965 a parte de 1965-2005). Os riscos e perigos ‘a saúde de quem utiliza drogas psiquiatricas. Vale lembrar que as mulheres que abortam comumente tém, entre as sequelas fisico-psiquicas e o cancer, doenças psiquiatricas alem da perda da fecundidade.

Experimentação médica em humanos nos Estados Unidos: A história chocante da verdade da medicina moderna e psiquiatria (de 1833-1965 a parte de 1965-2005). Os riscos e perigos ‘a saúde de quem utiliza drogas psiquiatricas. Vale lembrar que as mulheres que abortam comumente tém, entre as sequelas fisico-psiquicas e o cancer, doenças psiquiatricas alem da perda da fecundidade.

Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1833-1965)

http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html

Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1965-2005)

http://www.naturalnews.com/019187.html

Monday, March 06, 2006 by: Dani Veracity

http://www.naturalnews.com/019187.html

Introduction by the Health Ranger: The United States claims to be the world leader in medicine. But there’s a dark side to western medicine that few want to acknowledge: The horrifying medical experiments performed on impoverished people and their children all in the name of scientific progress. Many of these medical experiments were conducted on people without their knowledge, and most were conducted as part of an effort to seek profits from newly approved drugs or medical technologies.

This is part two of a two-part series on human medical experimentation. Click here to read part one and the introduction.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html#ixzz3Ho2D5cgV

Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1833-1965)

http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html

AND

Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1965-2005)

http://www.naturalnews.com/019187.html

Monday, March 06, 2006 by: Dani Veracity

Today, the medical experiments  continue on the U.S. population  and its children. From the mass drugging of children  diagnosed with fictitious behavioral disorders invented by psychiatry  to the FDA’s approval of mass-marketed drugs  that have undergone no legitimate clinical trials, our population is right now being subjected to medical experiments  on a staggering scale. Today, nearly 50% of Americans are on a least one prescription drug , and nearly 20% of schoolchildren are on mind-altering amphetamines like Ritalin or antidepressants like Prozac. This mass medication  of our nation is, in every way, a grand medical experiment taking place right now.

But to truly understand how this mass experimentation on modern Americans came into being, you have to take a close look at the horrifying history  of conventional medicine’s exploitation of people for cruel medical experiments.

WARNING: What you are about to read is truly shocking. You have never been told this information  by the American Medical Association, nor drug companies , nor the evening news. You were never taught the truth about conventional medicine  in public school, or even at any university. This is the dark secret of the U.S. system of medicine, and once you read the true accounts reported here, you may never trust drug companies again. These images are deeply disturbing. We print them here not as a form of entertainment, but as a stern warning against what might happen to us and our children if we do not rein in the horrifying, inhumane actions of Big Pharma and modern-day psychiatry.

Now, I introduce this shocking timeline, researched and authored by Dani Veracity, one of our many talented staff writers here at Truth Publishing.

Read at your own risk . – The Health Ranger

The true U.S. history of human medical experimentation

Human experimentation — that is, subjecting live human beings to science  experiments that are sometimes cruel, sometimes painful, sometimes deadly and always a risk — is a major part of U.S. history that you won’t find in most history or science books. The United States  is undoubtedly responsible for some of the most amazing scientific breakthroughs. These advancements, especially in the field of medicine, have changed the lives of billions of people around the world — sometimes for the better, as in the case of finding a cure  for malaria and other epidemic diseases, and sometimes for the worse (consider modern “psychiatry” and the drugging of schoolchildren)

.

However, these breakthroughs come with a hefty price tag: The human beings used in the experiments that made these advancements possible. Over the last two centuries, some of these test subjects have been compensated for the damage done to their emotional and physical health , but most have not. Many have lost their lives because of the experiments they often unwillingly and sometimes even unwittingly participated in, and they of course can never be compensated for losing their most precious possession of all: Their health.

As you read through these science experiments, you’ll learn the stories of newborns  injected with radioactive substances, mentally ill people placed in giant refrigerators, military  personnel exposed to chemical weapons by the very government  they served and mentally challenged children being purposely infected with hepatitis . These stories are facts, not fiction: Each account, no matter how horrifying, is backed up with a link or citation to a reputable source.

These stories must be heard because human experimentation  is still going on today. The reasons behind the experiments may be different, but the usual human guinea pigs  are still the same — members of minority groups, the poor and the disadvantaged. These are the lives that were put on the line in the name of “scientific” medicine.

(1833)

Dr. William Beaumont, an army surgeon physician, pioneers gastric medicine with his study of a patient with a permanently open gunshot wound to the abdomen and writes a human medical experimentation  code that asserts the importance of experimental treatments, but also lists requirements stipulating that human subjects must give voluntary, informed consent and be able to end the experiment when they want. Beaumont’s Code lists verbal, rather than just written, consent as permissible (Berdon ).

(1845)

(1845 – 1849) J. Marion Sims, later hailed as the “father of gynecology,” performs medical experiments on enslaved African women without anesthesia . These women would usually die of infection  soon after surgery. Based on his belief that the movement of newborns’ skull bones  during protracted births causes  trismus, he also uses a shoemaker’s awl, a pointed tool shoemakers use to make holes in leather, to practice moving the skull bones of babies  born to enslaved mothers (Brinker ).

(1895)

New York pediatrician Henry Heiman infects a 4-year-old boy whom he calls “an idiot with chronic epilepsy” with gonorrhea as part of a medical experiment (“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After” ).

(1896)

Dr. Arthur Wentworth turns 29 children at Boston’s Children’s Hospital into human guinea pigs when he performs spinal taps on them, just to test whether the procedure is harmful (Sharav ).

(1900)

U.S Army doctors working in the Philippines  infect five Filipino prisoners  with plague and withhold proper nutrition  to create Beriberi in 29 prisoners; four test subjects die (Merritte, et al. ; Cockburn and St. Clair, eds. ).

Under commission from the U.S. surgeon general, Dr. Walter Reed goes to Cuba and uses 22 Spanish immigrant workers to prove that yellow fever  is contracted through mosquito bites. Doing so, he introduces the practice of using healthy  test subjects, and also the concept of a written contract to confirm informed consent of these subjects. While doing this study, Dr. Reed clearly tells the subjects that, though he will do everything he can to help them, they may die as a result of the experiment. He pays them $100 in gold for their participation, plus $100 extra if they contract yellow fever (Berdon , Sharav ).

(1906)

Harvard professor Dr. Richard Strong infects prisoners in the Philippines with cholera to study the disease ; 13 of them die. He compensates survivors with cigars and cigarettes. During the Nuremberg Trials, Nazi doctors  cite this study to justify their own medical experiments (Greger , Sharav ).

(1911)

Dr. Hideyo Noguchi of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research publishes data on injecting an inactive syphilis preparation into the skin of 146 hospital patients  and normal children in an attempt to develop a skin  test for syphilis. Later, in 1913, several of these children’s parents  sue Dr. Noguchi for allegedly infecting their children with syphilis (“Reviews and Notes: History of Medicine: Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America before the Second World War” ).

(1913)

Medical experimenters “test” 15 children at the children’s home  St. Vincent’s House in Philadelphia with tuberculin, resulting in permanent blindness in some of the children. Though the Pennsylvania House of Representatives records the incident, the researchers are not punished for the experiments (“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After” ).

(1915)

Dr. Joseph Goldberger, under order of the U.S. Public Health Office, produces Pellagra, a debilitating disease that affects the central nervous system , in 12 Mississippi inmates to try to find a cure for the disease. One test subject later says that he had been through “a thousand hells.” In 1935, after millions die from the disease, the director of the U.S Public Health Office would finally admit that officials had known that it was caused by a niacin deficiency for some time, but did nothing about it because it mostly affected poor African-Americans. During the Nuremberg Trials, Nazi  doctors used this study to try to justify their medical experiments on concentration camp inmates (Greger ; Cockburn and St. Clair, eds. ).

 (1918)

In response to the Germans’ use of chemical weapons  during World War I, President Wilson creates the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) as a branch of the U.S. Army. Twenty-four years later, in 1942, the CWS would begin performing mustard  gas and lewisite experiments on over 4,000 members of the armed forces (Global Security , Goliszek).

(1919)

(1919 – 1922) Researchers perform testicular transplant experiments on inmates at San Quentin State Prison in California , inserting the testicles of recently executed inmates and goats into the abdomens and scrotums of living prisoners (Greger ).

(1931)

Cornelius Rhoads, a pathologist from the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, purposely infects human test subjects in Puerto Rico with cancer cells ; 13 of them die. Though a Puerto Rican doctor  later discovers that Rhoads purposely covered up some of details of his experiment and Rhoads himself gives a written testimony stating he believes that all Puerto Ricans should be killed, he later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland , Utah and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, where he begins a series of radiation  exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients (Sharav ; Cockburn and St. Clair, eds. ).

(1931 – 1933) Mental patients  at Elgin State Hospital in Illinois  are injected with radium-266 as an experimental therapy  for mental illness (Goliszek).

(1932)

(1932-1972) The U.S. Public Health Service in Tuskegee, Ala. diagnoses 400 poor, black sharecroppers with syphilis but never tells them of their illness  nor treats them; instead researchers use the men as human guinea pigs to follow the symptoms  and progression of the disease. They all eventually die from syphilis and their families are never told that they could have been treated (Goliszek, University of Virginia Health System Health Sciences Library ).

(1937)

Scientists at Cornell University Medical School publish an angina drug study that uses both placebo  and blind assessment techniques on human test subjects. They discover that the subjects given the placebo experienced more of an improvement in symptoms than those who were given the actual drug. This is first account of the placebo effect  published in the United States (“Placebo Effect” ).

(1939)

In order to test his theory on the roots of stuttering, prominent speech pathologist Dr. Wendell Johnson performs his famous “Monster Experiment” on 22 children at the Iowa  Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home in Davenport. Dr. Johnson and his graduate students  put the children under intense psychological pressure, causing them to switch from speaking normally to stuttering heavily. At the time, some of the students reportedly warn Dr. Johnson that, “in the aftermath of World War II, observers might draw comparisons to Nazi experiments on human subjects, which could destroy his career” (Alliance for Human Research Protection ).

 (1941)

Dr. William C. Black infects a 12-month-old baby with herpes as part of a medical experiment. At the time, the editor of the Journal of Experimental Medicine, Francis Payton Rous, calls it “an abuse of power, an infringement of the rights of an individual, and not excusable because the illness which followed had implications for science” (Sharav ).

An article in a 1941 issue of Archives of Pediatrics describes medical studies  of the severe gum disease Vincent’s angina in which doctors transmit the disease from sick children to healthy children with oral swabs (Goliszek).

Drs. Francis and Salk and other researchers at the University of Michigan spray large amounts of wild influenza  virus directly into the nasal passages of “volunteers” from mental institutions in Michigan. The test subjects develop influenza within a very short period of time (Meiklejohn ).

Researchers give 800 poverty-stricken pregnant women  at a Vanderbilt University prenatal clinic “cocktails” including radioactive iron  in order to determine the iron requirements of pregnant women (Pacchioli ).

 (1942)

The United States creates Fort Detrick, a 92-acre facility, employing nearly 500 scientists  working to create biological weapons and develop defensive measures against them. Fort Detrick’s main objectives include investigating whether diseases are transmitted by inhalation, digestion or through skin absorption ; of course, these biological warfare  experiments heavily relied on the use of human subjects (Goliszek).

U.S. Army and Navy doctors infect 400 prison inmates in Chicago with malaria to study the disease and hopefully develop a treatment  for it. The prisoners are told that they are helping the war effort, but not that they are going to be infected with malaria. During Nuremberg Trials, Nazi doctors later cite this American study to defend their own medical experiments in concentration camps like Auschwitz (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds. ).

The Chemical Warfare Service begins mustard gas and lewisite experiments on 4,000 members of the U.S. military. Some test subjects don’t realize they are volunteering  for chemical exposure experiments, like 17-year-old Nathan Schnurman, who in 1944 thinks he is only volunteering to test “U.S. Navy summer clothes” (Goliszek).

In an experiment sponsored by the U.S. Navy, Harvard biochemist Edward Cohn injects 64 inmates of Massachusetts state prisons with cow’s blood (Sharav ).

Merck Pharmaceuticals President George Merck  is named director of the War Research Service (WRS), an agency designed to oversee the establishment of a biological warfare program (Goliszek).

 

(1943)

In order to “study the effect of frigid temperature on mental disorders ,” researchers at University of Cincinnati Hospital keep 16 mentally disabled patients in refrigerated cabinets for 120 hours at 30 degrees Fahrenheit (Sharav ).

(1944)

As part of the Manhattan Project that would eventually create the atomic bomb, researchers inject 4.7 micrograms of plutonium into soldiers at the Oak Ridge facility, 20 miles west of Knoxville, Tenn. (“Manhattan Project: Oak Ridge” ).

 

Captain A. W. Frisch, an experienced microbiologist, begins experiments on four volunteers from the state prison at Dearborn, Mich., inoculating prisoners with hepatitis-infected specimens obtained in North Africa . One prisoner dies; two others develop hepatitis but live; the fourth develops symptoms but does not actually develop the disease (Meiklejohn ).

Laboratory workers at the University of Minnesota and University of Chicago inject human test subjects with phosphorus-32 to learn the metabolism of hemoglobin (Goliszek).

(1944 – 1946) In order to quickly develop a cure for malaria — a disease hindering Allied success in World War II — University of Chicago Medical School professor Dr. Alf Alving infects psychotic patients at Illinois State Hospital with the disease through blood  transfusions and then experiments malaria cures on them (Sharav ).

A captain in the medical corps addresses an April 1944 memo to Col. Stanford Warren, head of the Manhattan Project’s Medical Section, expressing his concerns about atom bomb component fluoride’s central nervous system (CNS) effects and asking for animal research  to be done to determine the extent of these effects: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect … It seems most likely that the F

component rather than the T

is the causative factor … Since work with these compounds is essential, it will be necessary to know in advance what mental effects may occur after exposure .” The following year, the Manhattan Project would begin human-based studies on fluoride’s effects (Griffiths and Bryson ).

The Manhattan Project medical team, led by the now infamous University of Rochester radiologist Col. Safford Warren, injects plutonium into patients at the University’s teaching hospital , Strong Memorial (Burton Report ).

(1945)

Continuing the Manhattan Project, researchers inject plutonium into three patients at the University of Chicago’s Billings Hospital (Sharav ).

The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence  and the CIA begin Operation Paperclip, offering Nazi scientists immunity  and secret identities in exchange for work on top-secret government projects on aerodynamics and chemical warfare medicine in the United States (“Project Paperclip” ).

Researchers infect 800 prisoners in Atlanta with malaria to study the disease (Sharav ).

(1945 – 1955) In Newburgh, N.Y., researchers linked to the Manhattan Project begin the most extensive American study ever done on the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water (Griffiths and Bryson ).

(1946)

Gen. Douglas MacArthur strikes a secret deal with Japanese physician Dr. Shiro Ishii to turn over 10,000 pages of information gathered from human experimentation in exchange for granting Ishii immunity from prosecution for the horrific experiments he performed on Chinese , Russian and American war prisoners, including performing vivisections on live human beings (Goliszek, Sharav ).

Male and female test subjects at Chicago’s Argonne National Laboratories are given intravenous injections of arsenic-76 so that researchers can study how the human body  absorbs, distributes and excretes arsenic  (Goliszek).

Continuing the Newburg study of 1945, the Manhattan Project commissions the University of Rochester to study fluoride’s effects on animals  and humans in a project  codenamed “Program F.” With the help of the New York  State Health Department, Program F researchers secretly collect and analyze blood and tissue samples from Newburg residents. The studies are sponsored by the Atomic Energy Commission and take place at the University of Rochester Medical Center’s Strong Memorial Hospital (Griffiths and Bryson ).

(1946 – 1947) University of Rochester researchers inject four male and two female human test subjects with uranium-234 and uranium-235 in dosages ranging from 6.4 to 70.7 micrograms per one kilogram of body  weight in order to study how much uranium they could tolerate before their kidneys become damaged (Goliszek).

Six male employees  of a Chicago metallurgical laboratory are given water  contaminated with plutonium-239 to drink so that researchers can learn how plutonium is absorbed into the digestive tract (Goliszek).

Researchers begin using patients in VA hospitals as test subjects for human medical experiments , cleverly worded as “investigations” or “observations” in medical study reports to avoid negative connotations and bad publicity (Sharav ).

The American public finally learns of the biowarfare experiments being done at Fort Detrick from a report released by the War Department (Goliszek).

(1946 – 1953)

The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission sponsors studies in which researchers from Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital and the Boston  University School of Medicine feed mentally disabled students at Fernald State School Quaker Oats breakfast cereal spiked with radioactive tracers every morning so that nutritionists can study how preservatives move through the human body and if they block the absorption of vitamins and minerals. Later, MIT  researchers conduct the same study at Wrentham State School (Sharav , Goliszek).

Human test subjects are given one to four injections of arsenic-76 at the University of Chicago Department of Medicine. Researchers take tissue biopsies from the subjects before and after the injections (Goliszek).

(1947)

Col. E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issues a top-secret document (707075) dated Jan. 8. In it, he writes that “certain radioactive substances are being prepared for intravenous administration to human subjects as a part of the work of the contract” (Goliszek).

A secret AEC document dated April 17 reads, “It is desired that no document be released which refers to experiments with humans that might have an adverse reaction on public opinion or result in legal suits,” revealing that the U.S. government was aware of the health risks its nuclear tests  posed to military personnel conducting the tests or nearby civilians (Goliszek).

The CIA  begins studying LSD’s potential as a weapon by using military and civilian test subjects for experiments without their consent or even knowledge. Eventually, these LSD studies will evolve into the MKULTRA program in 1953 (Sharav ).

(1947 – 1953) The U.S. Navy begins Project Chatter to identify and test so-called “truth serums,” such as those used by the Soviet Union to interrogate spies. Mescaline and the central nervous system depressant scopolamine are among the many drugs tested on human subjects (Goliszek).

(1948)

Based on the secret studies performed on Newburgh, N.Y. residents beginning in 1945, Project F researchers publish a report in the August 1948 edition of the Journal of the American Dental Association, detailing fluoride’s health dangers. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) quickly censors it for “national security” reasons (Griffiths and Bryson ).

(1950)

(1950 – 1953) The CIA and later the Office of Scientific Intelligence begin Project Bluebird (renamed Project Artichoke in 1951) in order to find ways to “extract” information from CIA agents, control individuals “through special interrogation techniques,” “enhance memory ” and use “unconventional techniques, including hypnosis  and drugs” for offensive measures (Goliszek).

(1950)

(1950 – 1953) The CIA and later the Office of Scientific Intelligence begin Project Bluebird (renamed Project Artichoke in 1951) in order to find ways to “extract” information from CIA agents, control individuals “through special interrogation techniques,” “enhance memory ” and use “unconventional techniques, including hypnosis  and drugs” for offensive measures (Goliszek).

(1950 – 1953) The U.S. Army releases chemical clouds over six American and Canadian cities . Residents in Winnipeg, Canada, where a highly toxic  chemical called cadmium is dropped, subsequently experience high rates of respiratory illnesses (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds. ).

In order to determine how susceptible an American city could be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of Bacillus globigii bacteria  from ships over the San Francisco  shoreline. According to monitoring devices situated throughout the city to test the extent of infection, the eight thousand residents of San Francisco inhale five thousand or more bacteria particles, many becoming sick with pneumonia-like symptoms (Goliszek).

Dr. Joseph Strokes of the University of Pennsylvania infects 200 female prisoners with viral hepatitis to study the disease (Sharav ).

Doctors at the Cleveland City Hospital study changes in cerebral blood flow  by injecting test subjects with spinal anesthesia, inserting needles in their jugular veins and brachial arteries , tilting their heads down and, after massive blood loss causes paralysis and fainting, measuring their blood pressure . They often perform this experiment multiple times on the same subject (Goliszek).

Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, later of MKULTRA infamy due to his 1957 to1964 experiments on Canadians , publishes an article in the British Journal of Physical Medicine, in which he describes experiments that entail forcing schizophrenic patients at Manitoba’s Brandon Mental Hospital to lie naked under 15- to 200-watt red lamps for up to eight hours per day. His other experiments include placing mental patients in an electric cage that overheats their internal body temperatures to 103 degrees Fahrenheit, and inducing comas by giving patients large injections of insulin  (Goliszek).

(1951)

The U.S. Navy’s Project Bluebird is renamed Project Artichoke and begins human medical experiments that test the effectiveness of LSD, sodium pentothal and hypnosis for the interrogative purposes described in Project Bluebird’s objectives (1950) (Goliszek).

The U.S. Army secretly contaminates the Norfolk Naval Supply Center in Virginia and Washington , D.C.’s National Airport with a strain of bacteria chosen because African-Americans were believed to be more susceptible to it than Caucasians. The experiment causes food poisoning , respiratory problems and blood poisoning (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds. ).

(1951 – 1952) Researchers withhold insulin from diabetic patients for up to two days in order to observe the effects of diabetes; some test subjects go into diabetic comas (Goliszek).

(1951 – 1956) Under contract with the Air Force’s School of Aviation Medicine (SAM), the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston begins studying the effects of radiation on cancer  patients — many of them members of minority groups or indigents, according to sources — in order to determine both radiation’s ability to treat cancer and the possible long-term radiation effects of pilots  flying nuclear-powered planes. The study lasts until 1956, involving 263 cancer patients. Beginning in 1953, the subjects are required to sign a waiver form, but it still does not meet the informed consent guidelines established by the Wilson memo released that year. The TBI studies themselves would continue at four different institutions — Baylor University College of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda and the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine — until 1971 (U.S. Department of Energy , Goliszek).

American, Canadian and British military and intelligence officials gather a small group of eminent psychologists to a secret meeting at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Montreal about Communist “thought-control techniques.” They proposed a top-secret research program on behavior  modification — involving testing drugs, hypnosis, electroshock and lobotomies on humans (Barker ).

(1952)

Military scientists use the Dugway Proving Ground — which is located 87 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, Utah — in a series of experiments to determine how Brucella suis and Brucella melitensis spread in human populations. Today, over a half-century later, some experts  claim that we are all infected with these agents as a result of these experiments (Goliszek).

In a U.S. Department of Denfense-sponsored experiment, Henry Blauer dies after he is injected with mescaline at Columbia University’s New York State Psychiatric Institute (Sharav ).

At the famous Sloan-Kettering Institute, Chester M. Southam injects live cancer cells into prisoners at the Ohio State Prison to study the progression of the disease. Half of the prisoners in this National Institutes of Health-sponsored (NIH) study are black, awakening racial suspicions stemming from Tuskegee, which was also an NIH-sponsored study (Merritte, et al. ).

(1953)

(1953 – 1970) The CIA begins project MKNAOMI to “stockpile incapacitating and lethal materials, to develop gadgetry for the disseminations of these materials, and to test the effects of certain drugs on animals and humans.” As part of MKNAOMI, the CIA and the Special Operations Division of the Army Biological Laboratory at Fort Detrick try to develop two suicide  pill alternatives to the standard cyanide suicide pill given to CIA agents and U-2 pilots. CIA agents and U-2 pilots are meant to take these pills when they find themselves in situations in which they (and all the information they hold in their brains ) are in enemy hands. They also develop a “microbioinoculator” — a device that agents can use to fire small darts coated with biological agents that can remain potent for weeks or even months. These darts can be fired through clothing  and, most significantly, are undetectable during autopsy. Eventually, by the late 1960s, MKNAOMI enables the CIA to have a stockpile of biological toxins  — infectious viruses, paralytic shellfish toxin, lethal botulism toxin, snake venom and the severe skin disease-producing agent Mircosporum gypseum. Of course, the development of all of this “gadgetry” requires human experimentation (Goliszek).

(1953 – 1974) CIA Director Allen Dulles authorizes the MKULTRA program to produce and test drugs and biological agents that the CIA could use for mind control  and behavior modification. MKULTRA later becomes well known for its pioneering studies on LSD, which are often performed on prisoners or patrons of brothels set up and run by the CIA. The brothel experiments, known as “Operation Midnight Climax,” feature two-way mirrors set up in the brothels so that CIA agents can observe LSD’s effects on sexual behavior. Ironically, governmental figures sometimes slip LSD into each other’s drinks as part of the program, resulting in the LSD psychosis-induced suicide of Dr. Frank Olson indirectly at the hands of MKULTRA’s

MKULTRA’s infamous key player Dr. Sidney Gottlieb. Of all the hundreds of human test subjects used during MKULTRA, only 14 are ever notified of the involvement and only one is ever compensated ($15,000). Most of the MKULTRA files are eventually destroyed in 1973 (Elliston ; Merritte, et al. ; Barker ).

The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) sponsors iodine studies at the University of Iowa. In the first study, researchers give pregnant women 100 to 200 microcuries of iodine-131 and then study the women’s aborted embryos in order to learn at what stage and to what extent radioactive iodine crosses the placental barrier. In the second study, researchers give 12 male and 13 female newborns under 36 hours old and weighing between 5.5 and 8.5 pounds iodine-131 either orally or via intramuscular injection, later measuring the concentration of iodine in the newborns’ thyroid glands (Goliszek).

Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson issues the Wilson memo, a top-secret document establishing the Nuremberg Code as Department of Defense policy on human experimentation. The Wilson memo requires voluntary, written consent from a human medical research subject after he or she has been informed of “the nature , duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.” It also insists that doctors only use experimental treatments when other methods have failed (Berdon ).

As part of an AEC study, researchers feed 28 healthy infants at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine iodine-131 through a gastric tube and then test concentration of iodine in the infants’ thyroid glands 24 hours later (Goliszek).

Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1965-2005)

http://www.naturalnews.com/019187.html

Monday, March 06, 2006 by: Dani Veracity

This is part two of a two-part series on human medical experimentation. Click here to read part one and the introduction.

(1966)

The CIA continues a limited number of MKULTRA plans by beginning Project MKSEARCH to develop and test ways of using biological, chemical and radioactive materials in intelligence operations, and also to develop and test drugs that are able to produce predictable changes in human behavior and physiology (Goliszek).

Dr. Henry Beecher writes, “The well-being, the health, even the actual or potential life of all human beings, born or unborn, depend upon the continuing experimentation in man. Proceed it must; proceed it will. ‘The proper study of mankind is man,'” in his “exposé” on human medical experimentation Research and the Individual (“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After”).

U.S. Army scientists drop light bulbs filled with Bacillus subtilis through ventilation gates and into the New York City subway system, exposing more than one million civilians to the bacteria (Goliszek).

The National Commission for the Protection of Research Subjects issues its Policies for the Protection of Human Subjects, which eventually creates what we now know as institutional review boards (IRBs) (Sharav).

(1967)

Continuing on his Dow Chemical Company-sponsored dioxin study without the company’s knowledge or consent, University of Pennsylvania Professor Albert Kligman increases the dosage of dioxin he applies to 10 prisoners’ skin to 7,500 micrograms, 468 times the dosage Dow official Gerald K. Rowe had authorized him to administer. As a result, the prisoners experience acne lesions that develop into inflammatory pustules and papules (Kaye).

The CIA places a chemical in the drinking water supply of the FDA headquarters in Washington, D.C. to see whether it is possible to spike drinking water with LSD and other substances (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, researchers inject pregnant women with radioactive cortisol to see if the radioactive material will cross the placentas and affect the fetuses (Goliszek).

The U.S. Army pays Professor Kligman to apply skin-blistering chemicals to Holmesburg Prison inmates’ faces and backs, so as to, in Professor Kligman’s words, “learn how the skin protects itself against chronic assault from toxic chemicals, the so-called hardening process,” information which would have both offensive and defensive applications for the U.S. military (Kaye).

The CIA and Edgewood Arsenal Research Laboratories begin an extensive program for developing drugs that can influence human behavior. This program includes Project OFTEN — which studies the toxicology, transmission and behavioral effects of drugs in animal and human subjects — and Project CHICKWIT, which gathers European and Asian drug development information (Goliszek).

Professor Kligman develops Retin-A as an acne cream (and eventually a wrinkle cream), turning him into a multi-millionaire (Kaye).

Researchers paralyze 64 prison inmates in California with a neuromuscular compound called succinylcholine, which produces suppressed breathing that feels similar to drowning. When five prisoners refuse to participate in the medical experiment, the prison’s special treatment board gives researchers permission to inject the prisoners with the drug against their will (Greger).

(1968)

Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Central Texas and the Southwest Foundation for Research and Education begin an oral contraceptive study on 70 poverty-stricken Mexican-American women, giving only half the oral contraceptives they think they are receiving and the other half a placebo. When the results of this study are released a few years later, it stirs tremendous controversy among Mexican-Americans (Sharav, Sauter).

(1969)

President Nixon ends the United States’ offensive biowarfare program, including human experimentation done at Fort Detrick. By this time, tens of thousands of civilians and members of the U.S. armed forces have wittingly and unwittingly acted as participants in experiments involving exposure to dangerous biological agents (Goliszek).

The U.S. military conducts DTC Test 69-12, which is an open-air test of VX and sarin nerve agents at the Army’s Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland, likely exposing military personnel (Goliszek, Martin).

Experimental drugs are tested on mentally disabled children in Milledgeville, Ga., without any institutional approval whatsoever (Sharav).

Dr. Donald MacArthur, the U.S. Department of Defense’s Deputy Director for Research and Technology, requests $10 million from Congress to develop a synthetic biological agent that would be resistant “to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease” (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

Judge Sam Steinfield’s dissent in Strunk v. Strunk, 445 S.W.2d 145 marks the first time a judge has ever suggested that the Nuremberg Code be applied in American court cases (Sharav).

(1970)

A year after his request, under H.R. 15090, Dr. MacArthur receives funding to begin CIA-supervised mycoplasma research with Fort Detrick’s Special Operations Division and hopefully create a synthetic immunosuppressive agent. Some experts believe that this research may have inadvertently created HIV, the virus that causes AIDS (Goliszek).

Under order from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which also sponsored the Tuskegee Experiment, the free childcare program at Johns Hopkins University collects blood samples from 7,000 African-American youth, telling their parents that they are checking for anemia but actually checking for an extra Y chromosome (XYY), believed to be a biological predisposition to crime. The program director, Digamber Borganokar, does this experiment without Johns Hopkins University’s permission (Greger, Merritte, et al.).

(1971)

President Nixon converts Fort Detrick from an offensive biowarfare lab to the Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, now known as the National Cancer Institute at Frederick. In addition to cancer research, scientists study virology, immunology and retrovirology (including HIV) there. Additionally, the site is home to the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute, which researches drugs, vaccines and countermeasures for biological warfare, so the former Fort Detrick does not move far away from its biowarfare past (Goliszek).

Stanford University conducts the Stanford Prison Experiment on a group of college students in order to learn the psychology of prison life. Some students are given the role as prison guards, while the others are given the role of prisoners. After only six days, the proposed two-week study has to end because of its psychological effects on the participants. The “guards” had begun to act sadistic, while the “prisoners” started to show signs of depression and severe psychological stress (University of New Hampshire).

An article entitled “Viral Infections in Man Associated with Acquired Immunological Deficiency States” appears in Federation Proceedings. Dr. MacArthur and Fort Detrick’s Special Operations Division have, at this point, been conducting mycoplasma research to create a synthetic immunosuppressive agent for about one year, again suggesting that this research may have produced HIV (Goliszek).

(1972)

In studies sponsored by the U.S. Air Force, Dr. Amedeo Marrazzi gives LSD to mental patients at the University of Missouri Institute of Psychiatry and the University of Minnesota Hospital to study “ego strength” (Barker).

(1973)

An Ad Hoc Advisory Panel issues its Final Report on the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, writing, “Society can no longer afford to leave the balancing of individual rights against scientific progress to the scientific community” (Sharav).

(1974)

Congress enacts the National Research Act, creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research and finally setting standards for human experimentation on children (Breslow).

(1975)

The Department of Health, Education and Welfare gives the National Institutes of Health’s Policies for the Protection of Human Subjects (1966) regulatory status. Title 45, known as “The Common Rule,” officially creates institutional review boards (IRBs) (Sharav).

(1977)

The Kennedy Hearing initiates the process toward Executive Order 12333, prohibiting intelligence agencies from experimenting on humans without informed consent (Merritte, et al.).

The U.S. government issues an official apology and $400,000 to Jeanne Connell, the sole survivor from Col. Warren’s now-infamous plutonium injections at Strong Memorial Hospital, and the families of the other human test subjects (Burton Report).

The National Urban League holds its National Conference on Human Experimentation, stating, “We don’t want to kill science but we don’t want science to kill, mangle and abuse us” (Sharav).

(1978)

The CDC begins experimental hepatitis B vaccine trials in New York. Its ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men. Professor Wolf Szmuness of the Columbia University School of Public Health had made the vaccine’s infective serum from the pooled blood serum of hepatitis-infected homosexuals and then developed it in chimpanzees, the only animal susceptible to hepatitis B, leading to the theory that HIV originated in chimpanzees before being transferred over to humans via this vaccine. A few months after 1,083 homosexual men receive the vaccine, New York physicians begin noticing cases of Kaposi’s sarcoma, Mycoplasma penetrans and a new strain of herpes virus among New York’s homosexual community — diseases not usually seen among young, American men, but that would later be known as common opportunistic diseases associated with AIDS (Goliszek).

(1979)

The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research releases the Belmont Report, which establishes the foundations for research experimentation on humans. The Belmont Report mandates that researchers follow three basic principles: 1. Respect the subjects as autonomous persons and protect those with limited ability for independence (such as children), 2. Do no harm, 3. Choose test subjects justly — being sure not to target certain groups because of they are easily accessible or easily manipulated, rather than for reasons directly related to the tests (Berdon).

(1980)

A study reveals a high incidence of leukemia among the 18,000 military personnel who participated in 1957’s Operation Plumbbob (a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob”>”Operation Plumbob”).

According to blood samples tested years later for HIV, 20 percent of all New York homosexual men who participated in the 1978 hepatitis B vaccine experiment are HIV-positive by this point (Goliszek).

American doctors give experimental hormone shots to hundreds of Haitian men confined to detention camps in Miami and Puerto Rico, causing the men to develop a condition known as gynecomastia, in which men develop full-sized breasts (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

The CDC continues its 1978 hepatitis B vaccine experiment in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, St. Louis and Denver, recruiting over 7,000 homosexual men in San Francisco alone (Goliszek).

The FDA prohibits the use of prison inmates in pharmaceutical drug trials, leading to the advent of the experimental drug testing centers industry (Sharav).

The first AIDS case appears in San Francisco (Goliszek).

(1981)

(1981 – 1993) The Seattle-based Genetic Systems Corporation begins an ongoing medical experiment called Protocol No. 126, in which cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle are given bone marrow transplants that contain eight experimental proteins made by Genetic Systems, rather than standard bone marrow transplants; 19 human subjects die from complications directly related to the experimental treatment (Goliszek).

A deep diving experiment at Duke University causes test subject Leonard Whitlock to suffer permanent brain damage (Sharav).

The CDC acknowledges that a disease known as AIDS exists and confirms 26 cases of the disease — all in previously healthy homosexuals living in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles — again supporting the speculation that AIDS originated from the hepatitis B experiments from 1978 and 1980 (Goliszek).

(1982)

Thirty percent of the test subjects used in the CDC’s hepatitis B vaccine experiment are HIV-positive by this point (Goliszek).

(1984)

SFBC Phase I research clinic founded in Miami, Fla. By 2005, it would become the largest experimental drug testing center in North America with centers in Miami and Montreal, running Phase I to Phase IV clinical trials (Drug Development-Technology.com).

(1985)

A former U.S. Army sergeant tries to sue the Army for using drugs on him in without his consent or even his knowledge in United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669. Justice Antonin Scalia writes the decision, clearing the U.S. military from any liability in past, present or future medical experiments without informed consent (Merritte, et al..

(1987)

Philadelphia resident Doris Jackson discovers that researchers have removed her son’s brain post mortem for medical study. She later learns that the state of Pennsylvania has a doctrine of “implied consent,” meaning that unless a patient signs a document stating otherwise, consent for organ removal is automatically implied (Merritte, et al.).

(1988)

The U.S. Justice Department pays nine Canadian survivors of the CIA and Dr. Cameron’s “psychic driving” experiments (1957 – 1964) $750,000 in out-of-court settlements, to avoid any further investigations into MKULTRA (Goliszek).

(1988 – 2001) The New York City Administration for Children’s Services begins allowing foster care children living in about two dozen children’s homes to be used in National Institutes of Health-sponsored (NIH) experimental AIDS drug trials. These children — totaling 465 by the program’s end — experience serious side effects, including inability to walk, diarrhea, vomiting, swollen joints and cramps. Children’s home employees are unaware that they are giving the HIV-infected children experimental drugs, rather than standard AIDS treatments (New York City ACS, Doran).

(1990)

The United States sends 1.7 million members of the armed forces, 22 percent of whom are African-American, to the Persian Gulf for the Gulf War (“Desert Storm”). More than 400,000 of these soldiers are ordered to take an experimental nerve agent medication called pyridostigmine, which is later believed to be the cause of Gulf War Syndrome — symptoms ranging from skin disorders, neurological disorders, incontinence, uncontrollable drooling and vision problems — affecting Gulf War veterans (Goliszek; Merritte, et al.).

The CDC and Kaiser Pharmaceuticals of Southern California inject 1,500 six-month-old black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles with an “experimental” measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. Adding to the risk, children less than a year old may not have an adequate amount of myelin around their nerves, possibly resulting in impaired neural development because of the vaccine. The CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected into their children was experimental (Goliszek).

The FDA allows the U.S. Department of Defense to waive the Nuremberg Code and use unapproved drugs and vaccines in Operation Desert Shield (Sharav).

(1991)

In the May 27 issue of the Los Angeles Times, former U.S. Navy radio operator Richard Jenkins writes that he suffers from leukemia, chronic fatigue and kidney and liver disease as a result of the radiation exposure he received in 1958’s Operation Hardtack (Goliszek).

While participating in a UCLA study that withdraws schizophrenics off of their medications, Tony LaMadrid commits suicide (Sharav).

(1992)

Columbia University’s New York State Psychiatric Institute and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine give 100 males — mostly African-American and Hispanic, all between the ages of six and 10 and all the younger brothers of juvenile delinquents — 10 milligrams of fenfluramine (fen-fen) per kilogram of body weight in order to test the theory that low serotonin levels are linked to violent or aggressive behavior. Parents of the participants received $125 each, including a $25 Toys ‘R’ Us gift certificate (Goliszek).

(1993)

Researchers at the West Haven VA in Connecticut give 27 schizophrenics — 12 inpatients and 15 functioning volunteers — a chemical called MCPP that significantly increases their psychotic symptoms and, as researchers note, negatively affects the test subjects on a long-term basis (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

(1994)

In a double-blind experiment at New York VA Hospital, researchers take 23 schizophrenic inpatients off of their medications for a median of 30 days. They then give 17 of them 0.5 mg/kg amphetamine and six a placebo as a control, following up with PET scans at Brookhaven Laboratories. According to the researchers, the purpose of the experiment was “to specifically evaluate metabolic effects in subjects with varying degrees of amphetamine-induced psychotic exacerbation” (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

Albuquerque Tribune reporter Eileen Welsome receives a Pulitzer Prize for her investigative reporting into Col. Warren’s plutonium experiments on patients at Strong Memorial Hospital in 1945 (Burton Report).

In a federally funded experiment at New York VA Medical Center, researchers give schizophrenic veterans amphetamine, even though central nervous system stimulants worsen psychotic symptoms in 40 percent of schizophrenics (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

Researchers at Bronx VA Medical Center recruit 28 schizophrenic veterans who are functioning in society and give them L-dopa in order to deliberately induce psychotic relapse (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

President Clinton appoints the Advisory Commission on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), which finally reveals the horrific experiments conducted during the Cold War era in its ACHRE Report.

(1995)

A 19-year-old University of Rochester student named Nicole Wan dies from participating in an MIT-sponsored experiment that tests airborne pollutant chemicals on humans. The experiment pays $150 to human test subjects (Sharav).

In the Mar. 15 President’s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), former human subjects, including those who were used in experiments as children, give sworn testimonies stating that they were subjected to radiation experiments and/or brainwashed, hypnotized, drugged, psychologically tortured, threatened and even raped during CIA experiments. These sworn statements include:

• Christina DeNicola’s statement that, in Tucson, Ariz., from 1966 to 1976, “Dr. B” performed mind control experiments using drugs, post-hypnotic injection and drama, and irradiation experiments on her neck, throat, chest and uterus. She was only four years old when the experiments started.

• Claudia Mullen’s testimony that Dr. Sidney Gottlieb (of MKULTRA fame) used chemicals, radiation, hypnosis, drugs, isolation in tubs of water, sleep deprivation, electric shock, brainwashing and emotional, sexual and verbal abuse as part of mind control experiments that had the ultimate objective of turning her, who was only a child at the time, into the “perfect spy.” She tells the advisory committee that researchers justified this abuse by telling her that she was serving her country “in their bold effort to fight Communism.”

• Suzanne Starr’s statement that “a physician, who was retired from the military, got children from the mountains of Colorado for experiments.” She says she was one of those children and that she was the victim of experiments involving environmental deprivation to the point of forced psychosis, spin programming, injections, rape and frequent electroshock and mind control sessions. “I have fought self-destructive programmed messages to kill myself, and I know what a programmed message is, and I don’t act on them,” she tells the advisory committee of the experiments’ long-lasting effects, even in her adulthood (Goliszek).

President Clinton publicly apologizes to the thousands of people who were victims of MKULTRA and other mind-control experimental programs (Sharav).

In Dr. Daniel P. van Kammen’s study, “Behavioral vs. Biochemical Prediction of Clinical Stability Following Haloperidol Withdrawal in Schizophrenia,” researchers recruit 88 veterans who are stabilized by their medications enough to make them functional in society, and hospitalize them for eight to 10 weeks. During this time, the researchers stop giving the veterans the medications that are enabling them to live in society, placing them back on a two- to four-week regimen of the standard dose of Haldol. Then, the veterans are “washed-out,” given lumbar punctures and put under six-week observation to see who would relapse and suffer symptomatic schizophrenia once again; 50 percent do (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

President Clinton appoints the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (Sharav).

Justice Edward Greenfield of the New York State Supreme Court rules that parents do not have the right to volunteer their mentally incapacitated children for non-therapeutic medical research studies and that no mentally incapacitated person whatsoever can be used in a medical experiment without informed consent (Sharav).

(1996)

Professor Adil E. Shamoo of the University of Maryland and the organization Citizens for Responsible Care and Research sends a written testimony on the unethical use of veterans in medical research to the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Governmental Affairs, stating: “This type of research is on-going nationwide in medical centers and VA hospitals supported by tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers money. These experiments are high risk and are abusive, causing not only physical and psychic harm to the most vulnerable groups but also degrading our society’s system of basic human values. Probably tens of thousands of patients are being subjected to such experiments” (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

The Department of Defense admits that Gulf War soldiers were exposed to chemical agents; however, 33 percent of all military personnel afflicted with Gulf War Syndrome never left the United States during the war, discrediting the popular mainstream belief that these symptoms are a result of exposure to Iraqi chemical weapons (Merritte, et al.).

In a federally funded experiment at West Haven VA in Connecticut, Yale University researchers give schizophrenic veterans amphetamine, even though central nervous system stimulants worsen psychotic symptoms in 40 percent of schizophrenics (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

President Clinton issues a formal apology to the subjects of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and their families (Sharav).

(1997)

In order to expose unethical medical experiments that provoke psychotic relapse in schizophrenic patients, the Boston Globe publishes a four-part series entitled “Doing Harm: Research on the Mentally Ill” (Sharav).

Researchers give 26 veterans at a VA hospital a chemical called Yohimbine to purposely induce post-traumatic stress disorder (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

In order to create a “psychosis model,” University of Cincinnati researchers give 16 schizophrenic patients at Cincinnati VA amphetamine in order to provoke repeats bouts of psychosis and eventually produce “behavioral sensitization” (Sharav).

National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) researchers give schizophrenic veterans amphetamine, even though central nervous system stimulants worsen psychotic symptoms in 40 percent of schizophrenics (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

In an experiment sponsored by the U.S. government, researchers withhold medical treatment from HIV-positive African-American pregnant women, giving them a placebo rather than AIDS medication (Sharav).

Researchers give amphetamine to 13 schizophrenic patients in a repetition of the 1994 “amphetamine challenge” at New York VA Hospital. As a result, the patients experience psychosis, delusions and hallucinations. The researchers claim to have informed consent (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

On Sept. 18, victims of unethical medical experiments at major U.S. research centers, including the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) testify before the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (Sharav).

(1999)

Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D. testifies on “The Unethical Use of Human Beings in High-Risk Research Experiments” before the U.S. House of Representatives’ House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, alerting the House on the use of American veterans in VA Hospitals as human guinea pigs and calling for national reforms (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

Doctors at the University of Pennsylvania inject 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger with an experimental gene therapy as part of an FDA-approved clinical trial. He dies four days later and his father suspects that he was not fully informed of the experiment’s risk (Goliszek)

During a clinical trial investigating the effectiveness of Propulsid for infant acid reflux, nine-month-old Gage Stevens dies at Children’s Hospital in Pittsburgh (Sharav).

(2000)

The Department of Defense begins declassifying the records of Project 112, including SHAD, and locating and assisting the veterans who were exposed to live toxins and chemical agents as part of Project 112. Many of them have already died (Goliszek).

President Clinton authorizes the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act, which compensates the Department of Energy workers who sacrificed their health to build the United States’ nuclear defenses (Sharav).

The U.S. Air Force and rocket maker Lockheed Martin sponsor a Loma Linda University study that pays 100 Californians $1,000 to eat a dose of perchlorate — a toxic component of rocket fuel that causes cancer, damages the thyroid gland and hinders normal development in children and fetuses — every day for six months. The dose eaten by the test subjects is 83 times the safe dose of perchlorate set by the State of California, which has perchlorate in some of its drinking water. This Loma Linda study is the first large-scale study to use human subjects to test the harmful effects of a water pollutant and is “inherently unethical,” according to Environmental Working Group research director Richard Wiles (Goliszek, Envirnomental Working Group).

(2001)

Healthy 27-year-old Ellen Roche dies in a challenge study at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland (Sharav).

On its website, the FDA admits that its policy to include healthy children in human experiments “has led to an increasing number of proposals for studies of safety and pharmacokinetics, including those in children who do not have the condition for which the drug is intended” (Goliszek).

During a tobacco industry-financed Alzheimer’s experiment at Case Western University in Cleveland, Elaine Holden-Able dies after she drinks a glass of orange juice containing a dissolved dietary supplement (Sharav).

Radiologist Scott Scheer of Pennsylvania dies from kidney failure, severe anemia and possibly lupus — all caused by blood pressure drugs he was taking as part of a five-year clinical trial. After his death, his family sues the Institutional Review Board of Main Line Hospitals, the hospital that oversaw the study, and two doctors. Investigators from the federal Office for Human Research Protections, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, later conclude in a Dec. 20, 2002 letter to Scheer’s oldest daughter: “Your father apparently was not told about the risk of hydralazine-induced lupus … OHRP found that certain unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others were not promptly reported to appropriate institutional officials” (Willen and Evans, “Doctor Who Died in Drug Test Was Betrayed by System He Trusted.”)

In Higgins and Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute The Maryland Court of Appeals makes a landmark decision regarding the use of children as test subjects, prohibiting non-therapeutic experimentation on children on the basis of “best interest of the individual child” (Sharav).

(2002)

President George W. Bush signs the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA), offering pharmaceutical companies six-month exclusivity in exchange for running clinical drug trials on children. This will of course increase the number of children used as human test subjects (Hammer Breslow).

(2003)

Two-year-old Michael Daddio of Delaware dies of congestive heart failure. After his death, his parents learn that doctors had performed an experimental surgery on him when he was five months old, rather than using the established surgical method of repairing his congenital heart defect that the parents had been told would be performed. The established procedure has a 90- to 95-percent success rate, whereas the inventor of the procedure performed on baby Daddio would later be fired from his hospital in 2004 (Willen and Evans, “Parents of Babies Who Died in Delaware Tests Weren’t Warned”).

(2004)

In his BBC documentary “Guinea Pig Kids” and BBC News article of the same name, reporter Jamie Doran reveals that children involved in the New York City foster care system were unwitting human subjects in experimental AIDS drug trials from 1988 to, in his belief, present times (Doran).

(2005)

In response to the BBC documentary and article “Guinea Pig Kids”, the New York City Administration of Children’s Services (ACS) sends out an Apr. 22 press release admitting that foster care children were used in experimental AIDS drug trials, but says that the last trial took place in 2001 and thus the trials are not continuing, as BBC reporter Jamie Doran claims. The ACS gives the extent and statistics of the experimental drug trials, based on its own records, and contracts the Vera Institute of Justice to conduct “an independent review of ACS policy and practice regarding the enrollment of HIV-positive children in foster care in clinical drug trials during the late 1980s and 1990s” (New York City ACS).

In exchange for receiving $2 million from the American Chemical Society, the EPA proposes the Children’s Health Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS) to learn how children ranging from infancy to three years old ingest, inhale and absorb chemicals by exposing children from a poor, predominantly black area of Duval County, Fla., to these toxins. Due to pressure from activist groups, negative media coverage and two Democratic senators, the EPA eventually decides to drop the study on Apr. 8, 2005 (Organic Consumers Association).

Bloomberg releases a series of reports suggesting that SFBC, the largest experimental drug testing center of its time, exploits immigrant and other low-income test subjects and runs tests with limited credibility due to violations of both the FDA’s and SFBC’s own testing guidelines (Bloomberg).

Works cited:

Alliance for Human Research Protection. “‘Monster Experiment’ Taught Orphans to Stutter.”. June 11, 2001.

Barker, Allen. “The Cold War Experiments.” Mind Control.

Berdon, Victoria. “Codes of Medical and Human Experimentation Ethics.” The Least of My Brothers.

Brinker, Wendy. “James Marion Sims: Father Butcher.” Seed Show.

Burton Report. “Human Experimentation, Plutonium and Col. Stafford Warren.”

Cockburn, Alexander and Jeffrey St. Clair, eds. “Germ War: The U.S. Record.” Counter Punch.

“Donald Ewan [sic] Cameron.” Wikipedia.

Doran, Jamie. “Guinea Pig Kids.” BBC News. 30 Nov. 2004.

Drug Development-Technology.com. “SFBC.”

Elliston, Jon. “MKULTRA: CIA Mind Control.” Dossier: Paranormal Government.

Environmental Working Group. “U.S.: Lockheed Martin’s Tests on Humans.” CorpWatch.

Global Security. Chemical Corps. 2005.

Goliszek, Andrew. In the Name of Science. New York: St. Martin’s, 2003.

Greger, Michael, M.D. Heart Failure: Diary of a Third Year Medical Student.

Griffiths, Joel and Chris Bryson. “Toxic Secrets: Fluoride and the Atom Bomb.” Nexus Magazine 5:3. Apr. – May 1998.

Hammer Breslow, Lauren. “The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act of 2002: The Rise of the Voluntary Incentive Structure and Congressional Refusal to Require Pediatric Testing.” Harvard Journal of Legislation Vol. 40.

“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After.” Micah Books.

Kaye, Jonathan. “Retin-A’s Wrinkled Past.” Mind Control. Orig. pub. Penn History Review Spring 1997.

“Manhattan Project: Oak Ridge.” World Socialist Web Site. Oct. 18, 2002.

Meiklejohn, Gordon N., M.D. “Commission on Influenza.” Histories of the Commissions. Ed. Theodore E. Woodward, M.D. The Armed Forced Epidemiological Board. 1994.

Merritte, LaTasha, et al.. “The Banality of Evil: Human Medical Experimentation in the United States.” The Public Law Online Journal. Spring 1999.

Milgram, Stanley. “Milgram Experiment.” Wikipedia. 2006.

New York City Administration of Children’s Services. Press release. 22 Apr. 2005.

“Operation Plumbbob.” Wikipedia. 2005.

“Operation Whitecoat.” Religion and Ethics (Episode no. 708). Oct. 24, 2003.

Organic Consumers Association. “EPA and Chemical Industry to Study the Effects of Known Toxic Chemicals on Children”. 12 Apr. 2005.

Pacchioli, David. Subjected to Science. Mar. 1996.

“Placebo Effect.” Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine. 2006.

“Project Paperclip.” Wikipedia. 2005.

“Reviews and Notes: History of Medicine: Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America before the Second World War.” Annals of Internal Medicine 123:2. July 15, 1995.

Sharav, Vera Hassner. “Human Experiments: A Chronology of Human Rsearch.” Alliance for Human Research Protection.

Sauter, Daniel. Guide to MS 83 [Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Central Texas Records, 1931 – 1999]. University of Texas Library. Apr. 2001.

“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.” News from the Joint Hearing on Suspension of Medical Research at West Los Angeles and Sepulveda VA Medical Facilities and Informed Consent and Patient Safety in VA Medical Research. 21 Apr. 1999.

University of New Hampshire. “Chronology of Cases Involving Unethical Treatment of Human Subjects.” Responsible Conduct of Research.

University of Virginia Health System Health Sciences Library. “Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study.” 2004.

U.S. Department of Energy. “Chapter 8: Postwar TBI-Effects Experimentation: Continued Reliance on Sick Patients in Place of Healthy “Normals.” Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE) Final Report.

Veterans Health Administration. Project 112/Project SHAD. May 26, 2005.

Willen, Liz and David Evans. “Doctor Who Died in Drug Test Was Betrayed by System He Trusted.” Bloomberg. Nov. 2, 2005.

—. “Parents of Babies Who Died in Delaware Tests Weren’t Warned.” Bloomberg. Nov. 2, 2005.

Articles Related to This Article:

• Vaccines and Medical Experiments on Children, Minorities, Woman and Inmates (1845 – 2007)

• Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1833-1965)

• Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck (opinion)

• Guatemalan STD medical experiments were just one crime in a long history of medical-government collusion to use humans as guinea pigs

• CDC vaccine scientist who downplayed links to autism indicted by DOJ in alleged fraud scheme

• Fraud in medical research: A frightening, all-too-common trend on the rise

Have comments on this article? Post them here:

This is part two of a two-part series on human medical experimentation. Click here to read part one and the introduction.

(1966)

The CIA continues a limited number of MKULTRA plans by beginning Project MKSEARCH to develop and test ways of using biological, chemical and radioactive materials in intelligence operations, and also to develop and test drugs that are able to produce predictable changes in human behavior and physiology (Goliszek).

Dr. Henry Beecher writes, “The well-being, the health, even the actual or potential life of all human beings, born or unborn, depend upon the continuing experimentation in man. Proceed it must; proceed it will. ‘The proper study of mankind is man,'” in his “exposé” on human medical experimentation Research and the Individual (“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After”).

U.S. Army scientists drop light bulbs filled with Bacillus subtilis through ventilation gates and into the New York City subway system, exposing more than one million civilians to the bacteria (Goliszek).

The National Commission for the Protection of Research Subjects issues its Policies for the Protection of Human Subjects, which eventually creates what we now know as institutional review boards (IRBs) (Sharav).

 (1967)

Continuing on his Dow Chemical Company-sponsored dioxin study without the company’s knowledge or consent, University of Pennsylvania Professor Albert Kligman increases the dosage of dioxin he applies to 10 prisoners’ skin to 7,500 micrograms, 468 times the dosage Dow official Gerald K. Rowe had authorized him to administer. As a result, the prisoners experience acne lesions that develop into inflammatory pustules and papules (Kaye).

The CIA places a chemical in the drinking water supply of the FDA headquarters in Washington, D.C. to see whether it is possible to spike drinking water with LSD and other substances (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, researchers inject pregnant women with radioactive cortisol to see if the radioactive material will cross the placentas and affect the fetuses (Goliszek).

The U.S. Army pays Professor Kligman to apply skin-blistering chemicals to Holmesburg Prison inmates’ faces and backs, so as to, in Professor Kligman’s words, “learn how the skin protects itself against chronic assault from toxic chemicals, the so-called hardening process,” information which would have both offensive and defensive applications for the U.S. military (Kaye).

The CIA and Edgewood Arsenal Research Laboratories begin an extensive program for developing drugs that can influence human behavior. This program includes Project OFTEN — which studies the toxicology, transmission and behavioral effects of drugs in animal and human subjects — and Project CHICKWIT, which gathers European and Asian drug development information (Goliszek).

Professor Kligman develops Retin-A as an acne cream (and eventually a wrinkle cream), turning him into a multi-millionaire (Kaye).

Researchers paralyze 64 prison inmates in California with a neuromuscular compound called succinylcholine, which produces suppressed breathing that feels similar to drowning. When five prisoners refuse to participate in the medical experiment, the prison’s special treatment board gives researchers permission to inject the prisoners with the drug against their will (Greger).

(1968)

Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Central Texas and the Southwest Foundation for Research and Education begin an oral contraceptive study on 70 poverty-stricken Mexican-American women, giving only half the oral contraceptives they think they are receiving and the other half a placebo. When the results of this study are released a few years later, it stirs tremendous controversy among Mexican-Americans (Sharav, Sauter).

(1969)

President Nixon ends the United States’ offensive biowarfare program, including human experimentation done at Fort Detrick. By this time, tens of thousands of civilians and members of the U.S. armed forces have wittingly and unwittingly acted as participants in experiments involving exposure to dangerous biological agents (Goliszek).

The U.S. military conducts DTC Test 69-12, which is an open-air test of VX and sarin nerve agents at the Army’s Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland, likely exposing military personnel (Goliszek, Martin).

Experimental drugs are tested on mentally disabled children in Milledgeville, Ga., without any institutional approval whatsoever (Sharav).

Dr. Donald MacArthur, the U.S. Department of Defense’s Deputy Director for Research and Technology, requests $10 million from Congress to develop a synthetic biological agent that would be resistant “to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease” (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

Judge Sam Steinfield’s dissent in Strunk v. Strunk, 445 S.W.2d 145 marks the first time a judge has ever suggested that the Nuremberg Code be applied in American court cases (Sharav).

(1970)

A year after his request, under H.R. 15090, Dr. MacArthur receives funding to begin CIA-supervised mycoplasma research with Fort Detrick’s Special Operations Division and hopefully create a synthetic immunosuppressive agent. Some experts believe that this research may have inadvertently created HIV, the virus that causes AIDS (Goliszek).

Under order from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which also sponsored the Tuskegee Experiment, the free childcare program at Johns Hopkins University collects blood samples from 7,000 African-American youth, telling their parents that they are checking for anemia but actually checking for an extra Y chromosome (XYY), believed to be a biological predisposition to crime. The program director, Digamber Borganokar, does this experiment without Johns Hopkins University’s permission (Greger, Merritte, et al.).

(1971)

President Nixon converts Fort Detrick from an offensive biowarfare lab to the Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, now known as the National Cancer Institute at Frederick. In addition to cancer research, scientists study virology, immunology and retrovirology (including HIV) there. Additionally, the site is home to the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute, which researches drugs, vaccines and countermeasures for biological warfare, so the former Fort Detrick does not move far away from its biowarfare past (Goliszek).

Stanford University conducts the Stanford Prison Experiment on a group of college students in order to learn the psychology of prison life. Some students are given the role as prison guards, while the others are given the role of prisoners. After only six days, the proposed two-week study has to end because of its psychological effects on the participants. The “guards” had begun to act sadistic, while the “prisoners” started to show signs of depression and severe psychological stress (University of New Hampshire).

An article entitled “Viral Infections in Man Associated with Acquired Immunological Deficiency States” appears in Federation Proceedings. Dr. MacArthur and Fort Detrick’s Special Operations Division have, at this point, been conducting mycoplasma research to create a synthetic immunosuppressive agent for about one year, again suggesting that this research may have produced HIV (Goliszek).

(1972)

In studies sponsored by the U.S. Air Force, Dr. Amedeo Marrazzi gives LSD to mental patients at the University of Missouri Institute of Psychiatry and the University of Minnesota Hospital to study “ego strength” (Barker).

(1973)

An Ad Hoc Advisory Panel issues its Final Report on the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, writing, “Society can no longer afford to leave the balancing of individual rights against scientific progress to the scientific community” (Sharav).

 (1974)

Congress enacts the National Research Act, creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research and finally setting standards for human experimentation on children (Breslow).

(1975)

The Department of Health, Education and Welfare gives the National Institutes of Health’s Policies for the Protection of Human Subjects (1966) regulatory status. Title 45, known as “The Common Rule,” officially creates institutional review boards (IRBs) (Sharav).

(1977)

The Kennedy Hearing initiates the process toward Executive Order 12333, prohibiting intelligence agencies from experimenting on humans without informed consent (Merritte, et al.).

The U.S. government issues an official apology and $400,000 to Jeanne Connell, the sole survivor from Col. Warren’s now-infamous plutonium injections at Strong Memorial Hospital, and the families of the other human test subjects (Burton Report).

The National Urban League holds its National Conference on Human Experimentation, stating, “We don’t want to kill science but we don’t want science to kill, mangle and abuse us” (Sharav).

(1978)

The CDC begins experimental hepatitis B vaccine trials in New York. Its ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men. Professor Wolf Szmuness of the Columbia University School of Public Health had made the vaccine’s infective serum from the pooled blood serum of hepatitis-infected homosexuals and then developed it in chimpanzees, the only animal susceptible to hepatitis B, leading to the theory that HIV originated in chimpanzees before being transferred over to humans via this vaccine. A few months after 1,083 homosexual men receive the vaccine, New York physicians begin noticing cases of Kaposi’s sarcoma, Mycoplasma penetrans and a new strain of herpes virus among New York’s homosexual community — diseases not usually seen among young, American men, but that would later be known as common opportunistic diseases associated with AIDS (Goliszek).

(1979)

The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research releases the Belmont Report, which establishes the foundations for research experimentation on humans. The Belmont Report mandates that researchers follow three basic principles: 1. Respect the subjects as autonomous persons and protect those with limited ability for independence (such as children), 2. Do no harm, 3. Choose test subjects justly — being sure not to target certain groups because of they are easily accessible or easily manipulated, rather than for reasons directly related to the tests (Berdon).

 

 (1980)

A study reveals a high incidence of leukemia among the 18,000 military personnel who participated in 1957’s Operation Plumbbob (a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob”>”Operation Plumbob”).

According to blood samples tested years later for HIV, 20 percent of all New York homosexual men who participated in the 1978 hepatitis B vaccine experiment are HIV-positive by this point (Goliszek).

American doctors give experimental hormone shots to hundreds of Haitian men confined to detention camps in Miami and Puerto Rico, causing the men to develop a condition known as gynecomastia, in which men develop full-sized breasts (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

The CDC continues its 1978 hepatitis B vaccine experiment in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, St. Louis and Denver, recruiting over 7,000 homosexual men in San Francisco alone (Goliszek).

The FDA prohibits the use of prison inmates in pharmaceutical drug trials, leading to the advent of the experimental drug testing centers industry (Sharav).

The first AIDS case appears in San Francisco (Goliszek).

(1981)

(1981 – 1993) The Seattle-based Genetic Systems Corporation begins an ongoing medical experiment called Protocol No. 126, in which cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle are given bone marrow transplants that contain eight experimental proteins made by Genetic Systems, rather than standard bone marrow transplants; 19 human subjects die from complications directly related to the experimental treatment (Goliszek).

A deep diving experiment at Duke University causes test subject Leonard Whitlock to suffer permanent brain damage (Sharav).

The CDC acknowledges that a disease known as AIDS exists and confirms 26 cases of the disease — all in previously healthy homosexuals living in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles — again supporting the speculation that AIDS originated from the hepatitis B experiments from 1978 and 1980 (Goliszek).

 (1982)

Thirty percent of the test subjects used in the CDC’s hepatitis B vaccine experiment are HIV-positive by this point (Goliszek).

(1984)

SFBC Phase I research clinic founded in Miami, Fla. By 2005, it would become the largest experimental drug testing center in North America with centers in Miami and Montreal, running Phase I to Phase IV clinical trials (Drug Development-Technology.com).

(1985)

A former U.S. Army sergeant tries to sue the Army for using drugs on him in without his consent or even his knowledge in United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669. Justice Antonin Scalia writes the decision, clearing the U.S. military from any liability in past, presen

Introduction by the Health Ranger: The United States claims to be the world leader in medicine. But there’s a dark side to western medicine that few want to acknowledge: The horrifying medical experiments performed on impoverished people and their children all in the name of scientific progress. Many of these medical experiments were conducted on people without their knowledge, and most were conducted as part of an effort to seek profits from newly approved drugs or medical technologies.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html#ixzz3Ho2D5cgV

Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1833-1965)

http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html

AND

Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1965-2005)

http://www.naturalnews.com/019187.html

 

Monday, March 06, 2006 by: Dani Veracity

This is part two of a two-part series on human medical experimentation. Click here to read part one and the introduction.

(1966)

The CIA continues a limited number of MKULTRA plans by beginning Project MKSEARCH to develop and test ways of using biological, chemical and radioactive materials in intelligence operations, and also to develop and test drugs that are able to produce predictable changes in human behavior and physiology (Goliszek).

Dr. Henry Beecher writes, “The well-being, the health, even the actual or potential life of all human beings, born or unborn, depend upon the continuing experimentation in man. Proceed it must; proceed it will. ‘The proper study of mankind is man,'” in his “exposé” on human medical experimentation Research and the Individual (“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After”).

U.S. Army scientists drop light bulbs filled with Bacillus subtilis through ventilation gates and into the New York City subway system, exposing more than one million civilians to the bacteria (Goliszek).

The National Commission for the Protection of Research Subjects issues its Policies for the Protection of Human Subjects, which eventually creates what we now know as institutional review boards (IRBs) (Sharav).

(1967)

Continuing on his Dow Chemical Company-sponsored dioxin study without the company’s knowledge or consent, University of Pennsylvania Professor Albert Kligman increases the dosage of dioxin he applies to 10 prisoners’ skin to 7,500 micrograms, 468 times the dosage Dow official Gerald K. Rowe had authorized him to administer. As a result, the prisoners experience acne lesions that develop into inflammatory pustules and papules (Kaye).

The CIA places a chemical in the drinking water supply of the FDA headquarters in Washington, D.C. to see whether it is possible to spike drinking water with LSD and other substances (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, researchers inject pregnant women with radioactive cortisol to see if the radioactive material will cross the placentas and affect the fetuses (Goliszek).

The U.S. Army pays Professor Kligman to apply skin-blistering chemicals to Holmesburg Prison inmates’ faces and backs, so as to, in Professor Kligman’s words, “learn how the skin protects itself against chronic assault from toxic chemicals, the so-called hardening process,” information which would have both offensive and defensive applications for the U.S. military (Kaye).

The CIA and Edgewood Arsenal Research Laboratories begin an extensive program for developing drugs that can influence human behavior. This program includes Project OFTEN — which studies the toxicology, transmission and behavioral effects of drugs in animal and human subjects — and Project CHICKWIT, which gathers European and Asian drug development information (Goliszek).

Professor Kligman develops Retin-A as an acne cream (and eventually a wrinkle cream), turning him into a multi-millionaire (Kaye).

Researchers paralyze 64 prison inmates in California with a neuromuscular compound called succinylcholine, which produces suppressed breathing that feels similar to drowning. When five prisoners refuse to participate in the medical experiment, the prison’s special treatment board gives researchers permission to inject the prisoners with the drug against their will (Greger).

(1968)

Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Central Texas and the Southwest Foundation for Research and Education begin an oral contraceptive study on 70 poverty-stricken Mexican-American women, giving only half the oral contraceptives they think they are receiving and the other half a placebo. When the results of this study are released a few years later, it stirs tremendous controversy among Mexican-Americans (Sharav, Sauter).

(1969)

President Nixon ends the United States’ offensive biowarfare program, including human experimentation done at Fort Detrick. By this time, tens of thousands of civilians and members of the U.S. armed forces have wittingly and unwittingly acted as participants in experiments involving exposure to dangerous biological agents (Goliszek).

The U.S. military conducts DTC Test 69-12, which is an open-air test of VX and sarin nerve agents at the Army’s Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland, likely exposing military personnel (Goliszek, Martin).

Experimental drugs are tested on mentally disabled children in Milledgeville, Ga., without any institutional approval whatsoever (Sharav).

Dr. Donald MacArthur, the U.S. Department of Defense’s Deputy Director for Research and Technology, requests $10 million from Congress to develop a synthetic biological agent that would be resistant “to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease” (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

Judge Sam Steinfield’s dissent in Strunk v. Strunk, 445 S.W.2d 145 marks the first time a judge has ever suggested that the Nuremberg Code be applied in American court cases (Sharav).

(1970)

A year after his request, under H.R. 15090, Dr. MacArthur receives funding to begin CIA-supervised mycoplasma research with Fort Detrick’s Special Operations Division and hopefully create a synthetic immunosuppressive agent. Some experts believe that this research may have inadvertently created HIV, the virus that causes AIDS (Goliszek).

Under order from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which also sponsored the Tuskegee Experiment, the free childcare program at Johns Hopkins University collects blood samples from 7,000 African-American youth, telling their parents that they are checking for anemia but actually checking for an extra Y chromosome (XYY), believed to be a biological predisposition to crime. The program director, Digamber Borganokar, does this experiment without Johns Hopkins University’s permission (Greger, Merritte, et al.).

(1971)

President Nixon converts Fort Detrick from an offensive biowarfare lab to the Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, now known as the National Cancer Institute at Frederick. In addition to cancer research, scientists study virology, immunology and retrovirology (including HIV) there. Additionally, the site is home to the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute, which researches drugs, vaccines and countermeasures for biological warfare, so the former Fort Detrick does not move far away from its biowarfare past (Goliszek).

Stanford University conducts the Stanford Prison Experiment on a group of college students in order to learn the psychology of prison life. Some students are given the role as prison guards, while the others are given the role of prisoners. After only six days, the proposed two-week study has to end because of its psychological effects on the participants. The “guards” had begun to act sadistic, while the “prisoners” started to show signs of depression and severe psychological stress (University of New Hampshire).

An article entitled “Viral Infections in Man Associated with Acquired Immunological Deficiency States” appears in Federation Proceedings. Dr. MacArthur and Fort Detrick’s Special Operations Division have, at this point, been conducting mycoplasma research to create a synthetic immunosuppressive agent for about one year, again suggesting that this research may have produced HIV (Goliszek).

(1972)

In studies sponsored by the U.S. Air Force, Dr. Amedeo Marrazzi gives LSD to mental patients at the University of Missouri Institute of Psychiatry and the University of Minnesota Hospital to study “ego strength” (Barker).

(1973)

An Ad Hoc Advisory Panel issues its Final Report on the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, writing, “Society can no longer afford to leave the balancing of individual rights against scientific progress to the scientific community” (Sharav).

(1974)

Congress enacts the National Research Act, creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research and finally setting standards for human experimentation on children (Breslow).

(1975)

The Department of Health, Education and Welfare gives the National Institutes of Health’s Policies for the Protection of Human Subjects (1966) regulatory status. Title 45, known as “The Common Rule,” officially creates institutional review boards (IRBs) (Sharav).

(1977)

The Kennedy Hearing initiates the process toward Executive Order 12333, prohibiting intelligence agencies from experimenting on humans without informed consent (Merritte, et al.).

The U.S. government issues an official apology and $400,000 to Jeanne Connell, the sole survivor from Col. Warren’s now-infamous plutonium injections at Strong Memorial Hospital, and the families of the other human test subjects (Burton Report).

The National Urban League holds its National Conference on Human Experimentation, stating, “We don’t want to kill science but we don’t want science to kill, mangle and abuse us” (Sharav).

(1978)

The CDC begins experimental hepatitis B vaccine trials in New York. Its ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men. Professor Wolf Szmuness of the Columbia University School of Public Health had made the vaccine’s infective serum from the pooled blood serum of hepatitis-infected homosexuals and then developed it in chimpanzees, the only animal susceptible to hepatitis B, leading to the theory that HIV originated in chimpanzees before being transferred over to humans via this vaccine. A few months after 1,083 homosexual men receive the vaccine, New York physicians begin noticing cases of Kaposi’s sarcoma, Mycoplasma penetrans and a new strain of herpes virus among New York’s homosexual community — diseases not usually seen among young, American men, but that would later be known as common opportunistic diseases associated with AIDS (Goliszek).

(1979)

The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research releases the Belmont Report, which establishes the foundations for research experimentation on humans. The Belmont Report mandates that researchers follow three basic principles: 1. Respect the subjects as autonomous persons and protect those with limited ability for independence (such as children), 2. Do no harm, 3. Choose test subjects justly — being sure not to target certain groups because of they are easily accessible or easily manipulated, rather than for reasons directly related to the tests (Berdon).

(1980)

A study reveals a high incidence of leukemia among the 18,000 military personnel who participated in 1957’s Operation Plumbbob (a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob”>”Operation Plumbob”).

According to blood samples tested years later for HIV, 20 percent of all New York homosexual men who participated in the 1978 hepatitis B vaccine experiment are HIV-positive by this point (Goliszek).

American doctors give experimental hormone shots to hundreds of Haitian men confined to detention camps in Miami and Puerto Rico, causing the men to develop a condition known as gynecomastia, in which men develop full-sized breasts (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

The CDC continues its 1978 hepatitis B vaccine experiment in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, St. Louis and Denver, recruiting over 7,000 homosexual men in San Francisco alone (Goliszek).

The FDA prohibits the use of prison inmates in pharmaceutical drug trials, leading to the advent of the experimental drug testing centers industry (Sharav).

The first AIDS case appears in San Francisco (Goliszek).

(1981)

(1981 – 1993) The Seattle-based Genetic Systems Corporation begins an ongoing medical experiment called Protocol No. 126, in which cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle are given bone marrow transplants that contain eight experimental proteins made by Genetic Systems, rather than standard bone marrow transplants; 19 human subjects die from complications directly related to the experimental treatment (Goliszek).

A deep diving experiment at Duke University causes test subject Leonard Whitlock to suffer permanent brain damage (Sharav).

The CDC acknowledges that a disease known as AIDS exists and confirms 26 cases of the disease — all in previously healthy homosexuals living in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles — again supporting the speculation that AIDS originated from the hepatitis B experiments from 1978 and 1980 (Goliszek).

(1982)

Thirty percent of the test subjects used in the CDC’s hepatitis B vaccine experiment are HIV-positive by this point (Goliszek).

(1984)

SFBC Phase I research clinic founded in Miami, Fla. By 2005, it would become the largest experimental drug testing center in North America with centers in Miami and Montreal, running Phase I to Phase IV clinical trials (Drug Development-Technology.com).

(1985)

A former U.S. Army sergeant tries to sue the Army for using drugs on him in without his consent or even his knowledge in United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669. Justice Antonin Scalia writes the decision, clearing the U.S. military from any liability in past, present or future medical experiments without informed consent (Merritte, et al..

(1987)

Philadelphia resident Doris Jackson discovers that researchers have removed her son’s brain post mortem for medical study. She later learns that the state of Pennsylvania has a doctrine of “implied consent,” meaning that unless a patient signs a document stating otherwise, consent for organ removal is automatically implied (Merritte, et al.).

(1988)

The U.S. Justice Department pays nine Canadian survivors of the CIA and Dr. Cameron’s “psychic driving” experiments (1957 – 1964) $750,000 in out-of-court settlements, to avoid any further investigations into MKULTRA (Goliszek).

(1988 – 2001) The New York City Administration for Children’s Services begins allowing foster care children living in about two dozen children’s homes to be used in National Institutes of Health-sponsored (NIH) experimental AIDS drug trials. These children — totaling 465 by the program’s end — experience serious side effects, including inability to walk, diarrhea, vomiting, swollen joints and cramps. Children’s home employees are unaware that they are giving the HIV-infected children experimental drugs, rather than standard AIDS treatments (New York City ACS, Doran).

(1990)

The United States sends 1.7 million members of the armed forces, 22 percent of whom are African-American, to the Persian Gulf for the Gulf War (“Desert Storm”). More than 400,000 of these soldiers are ordered to take an experimental nerve agent medication called pyridostigmine, which is later believed to be the cause of Gulf War Syndrome — symptoms ranging from skin disorders, neurological disorders, incontinence, uncontrollable drooling and vision problems — affecting Gulf War veterans (Goliszek; Merritte, et al.).

The CDC and Kaiser Pharmaceuticals of Southern California inject 1,500 six-month-old black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles with an “experimental” measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. Adding to the risk, children less than a year old may not have an adequate amount of myelin around their nerves, possibly resulting in impaired neural development because of the vaccine. The CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected into their children was experimental (Goliszek).

The FDA allows the U.S. Department of Defense to waive the Nuremberg Code and use unapproved drugs and vaccines in Operation Desert Shield (Sharav).

(1991)

In the May 27 issue of the Los Angeles Times, former U.S. Navy radio operator Richard Jenkins writes that he suffers from leukemia, chronic fatigue and kidney and liver disease as a result of the radiation exposure he received in 1958’s Operation Hardtack (Goliszek).

While participating in a UCLA study that withdraws schizophrenics off of their medications, Tony LaMadrid commits suicide (Sharav).

(1992)

Columbia University’s New York State Psychiatric Institute and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine give 100 males — mostly African-American and Hispanic, all between the ages of six and 10 and all the younger brothers of juvenile delinquents — 10 milligrams of fenfluramine (fen-fen) per kilogram of body weight in order to test the theory that low serotonin levels are linked to violent or aggressive behavior. Parents of the participants received $125 each, including a $25 Toys ‘R’ Us gift certificate (Goliszek).

(1993)

Researchers at the West Haven VA in Connecticut give 27 schizophrenics — 12 inpatients and 15 functioning volunteers — a chemical called MCPP that significantly increases their psychotic symptoms and, as researchers note, negatively affects the test subjects on a long-term basis (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

(1994)

In a double-blind experiment at New York VA Hospital, researchers take 23 schizophrenic inpatients off of their medications for a median of 30 days. They then give 17 of them 0.5 mg/kg amphetamine and six a placebo as a control, following up with PET scans at Brookhaven Laboratories. According to the researchers, the purpose of the experiment was “to specifically evaluate metabolic effects in subjects with varying degrees of amphetamine-induced psychotic exacerbation” (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

Albuquerque Tribune reporter Eileen Welsome receives a Pulitzer Prize for her investigative reporting into Col. Warren’s plutonium experiments on patients at Strong Memorial Hospital in 1945 (Burton Report).

In a federally funded experiment at New York VA Medical Center, researchers give schizophrenic veterans amphetamine, even though central nervous system stimulants worsen psychotic symptoms in 40 percent of schizophrenics (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

Researchers at Bronx VA Medical Center recruit 28 schizophrenic veterans who are functioning in society and give them L-dopa in order to deliberately induce psychotic relapse (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

President Clinton appoints the Advisory Commission on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), which finally reveals the horrific experiments conducted during the Cold War era in its ACHRE Report.

(1995)

A 19-year-old University of Rochester student named Nicole Wan dies from participating in an MIT-sponsored experiment that tests airborne pollutant chemicals on humans. The experiment pays $150 to human test subjects (Sharav).

In the Mar. 15 President’s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), former human subjects, including those who were used in experiments as children, give sworn testimonies stating that they were subjected to radiation experiments and/or brainwashed, hypnotized, drugged, psychologically tortured, threatened and even raped during CIA experiments. These sworn statements include:

• Christina DeNicola’s statement that, in Tucson, Ariz., from 1966 to 1976, “Dr. B” performed mind control experiments using drugs, post-hypnotic injection and drama, and irradiation experiments on her neck, throat, chest and uterus. She was only four years old when the experiments started.

• Claudia Mullen’s testimony that Dr. Sidney Gottlieb (of MKULTRA fame) used chemicals, radiation, hypnosis, drugs, isolation in tubs of water, sleep deprivation, electric shock, brainwashing and emotional, sexual and verbal abuse as part of mind control experiments that had the ultimate objective of turning her, who was only a child at the time, into the “perfect spy.” She tells the advisory committee that researchers justified this abuse by telling her that she was serving her country “in their bold effort to fight Communism.”

• Suzanne Starr’s statement that “a physician, who was retired from the military, got children from the mountains of Colorado for experiments.” She says she was one of those children and that she was the victim of experiments involving environmental deprivation to the point of forced psychosis, spin programming, injections, rape and frequent electroshock and mind control sessions. “I have fought self-destructive programmed messages to kill myself, and I know what a programmed message is, and I don’t act on them,” she tells the advisory committee of the experiments’ long-lasting effects, even in her adulthood (Goliszek).

President Clinton publicly apologizes to the thousands of people who were victims of MKULTRA and other mind-control experimental programs (Sharav).

In Dr. Daniel P. van Kammen’s study, “Behavioral vs. Biochemical Prediction of Clinical Stability Following Haloperidol Withdrawal in Schizophrenia,” researchers recruit 88 veterans who are stabilized by their medications enough to make them functional in society, and hospitalize them for eight to 10 weeks. During this time, the researchers stop giving the veterans the medications that are enabling them to live in society, placing them back on a two- to four-week regimen of the standard dose of Haldol. Then, the veterans are “washed-out,” given lumbar punctures and put under six-week observation to see who would relapse and suffer symptomatic schizophrenia once again; 50 percent do (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

President Clinton appoints the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (Sharav).

Justice Edward Greenfield of the New York State Supreme Court rules that parents do not have the right to volunteer their mentally incapacitated children for non-therapeutic medical research studies and that no mentally incapacitated person whatsoever can be used in a medical experiment without informed consent (Sharav).

(1996)

Professor Adil E. Shamoo of the University of Maryland and the organization Citizens for Responsible Care and Research sends a written testimony on the unethical use of veterans in medical research to the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Governmental Affairs, stating: “This type of research is on-going nationwide in medical centers and VA hospitals supported by tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers money. These experiments are high risk and are abusive, causing not only physical and psychic harm to the most vulnerable groups but also degrading our society’s system of basic human values. Probably tens of thousands of patients are being subjected to such experiments” (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

The Department of Defense admits that Gulf War soldiers were exposed to chemical agents; however, 33 percent of all military personnel afflicted with Gulf War Syndrome never left the United States during the war, discrediting the popular mainstream belief that these symptoms are a result of exposure to Iraqi chemical weapons (Merritte, et al.).

In a federally funded experiment at West Haven VA in Connecticut, Yale University researchers give schizophrenic veterans amphetamine, even though central nervous system stimulants worsen psychotic symptoms in 40 percent of schizophrenics (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

President Clinton issues a formal apology to the subjects of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and their families (Sharav).

(1997)

In order to expose unethical medical experiments that provoke psychotic relapse in schizophrenic patients, the Boston Globe publishes a four-part series entitled “Doing Harm: Research on the Mentally Ill” (Sharav).

Researchers give 26 veterans at a VA hospital a chemical called Yohimbine to purposely induce post-traumatic stress disorder (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

In order to create a “psychosis model,” University of Cincinnati researchers give 16 schizophrenic patients at Cincinnati VA amphetamine in order to provoke repeats bouts of psychosis and eventually produce “behavioral sensitization” (Sharav).

National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) researchers give schizophrenic veterans amphetamine, even though central nervous system stimulants worsen psychotic symptoms in 40 percent of schizophrenics (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

In an experiment sponsored by the U.S. government, researchers withhold medical treatment from HIV-positive African-American pregnant women, giving them a placebo rather than AIDS medication (Sharav).

Researchers give amphetamine to 13 schizophrenic patients in a repetition of the 1994 “amphetamine challenge” at New York VA Hospital. As a result, the patients experience psychosis, delusions and hallucinations. The researchers claim to have informed consent (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

On Sept. 18, victims of unethical medical experiments at major U.S. research centers, including the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) testify before the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (Sharav).

(1999)

Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D. testifies on “The Unethical Use of Human Beings in High-Risk Research Experiments” before the U.S. House of Representatives’ House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, alerting the House on the use of American veterans in VA Hospitals as human guinea pigs and calling for national reforms (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

Doctors at the University of Pennsylvania inject 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger with an experimental gene therapy as part of an FDA-approved clinical trial. He dies four days later and his father suspects that he was not fully informed of the experiment’s risk (Goliszek)

During a clinical trial investigating the effectiveness of Propulsid for infant acid reflux, nine-month-old Gage Stevens dies at Children’s Hospital in Pittsburgh (Sharav).

(2000)

The Department of Defense begins declassifying the records of Project 112, including SHAD, and locating and assisting the veterans who were exposed to live toxins and chemical agents as part of Project 112. Many of them have already died (Goliszek).

President Clinton authorizes the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act, which compensates the Department of Energy workers who sacrificed their health to build the United States’ nuclear defenses (Sharav).

The U.S. Air Force and rocket maker Lockheed Martin sponsor a Loma Linda University study that pays 100 Californians $1,000 to eat a dose of perchlorate — a toxic component of rocket fuel that causes cancer, damages the thyroid gland and hinders normal development in children and fetuses — every day for six months. The dose eaten by the test subjects is 83 times the safe dose of perchlorate set by the State of California, which has perchlorate in some of its drinking water. This Loma Linda study is the first large-scale study to use human subjects to test the harmful effects of a water pollutant and is “inherently unethical,” according to Environmental Working Group research director Richard Wiles (Goliszek, Envirnomental Working Group).

(2001)

Healthy 27-year-old Ellen Roche dies in a challenge study at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland (Sharav).

On its website, the FDA admits that its policy to include healthy children in human experiments “has led to an increasing number of proposals for studies of safety and pharmacokinetics, including those in children who do not have the condition for which the drug is intended” (Goliszek).

During a tobacco industry-financed Alzheimer’s experiment at Case Western University in Cleveland, Elaine Holden-Able dies after she drinks a glass of orange juice containing a dissolved dietary supplement (Sharav).

Radiologist Scott Scheer of Pennsylvania dies from kidney failure, severe anemia and possibly lupus — all caused by blood pressure drugs he was taking as part of a five-year clinical trial. After his death, his family sues the Institutional Review Board of Main Line Hospitals, the hospital that oversaw the study, and two doctors. Investigators from the federal Office for Human Research Protections, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, later conclude in a Dec. 20, 2002 letter to Scheer’s oldest daughter: “Your father apparently was not told about the risk of hydralazine-induced lupus … OHRP found that certain unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others were not promptly reported to appropriate institutional officials” (Willen and Evans, “Doctor Who Died in Drug Test Was Betrayed by System He Trusted.”)

In Higgins and Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute The Maryland Court of Appeals makes a landmark decision regarding the use of children as test subjects, prohibiting non-therapeutic experimentation on children on the basis of “best interest of the individual child” (Sharav).

(2002)

President George W. Bush signs the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA), offering pharmaceutical companies six-month exclusivity in exchange for running clinical drug trials on children. This will of course increase the number of children used as human test subjects (Hammer Breslow).

(2003)

Two-year-old Michael Daddio of Delaware dies of congestive heart failure. After his death, his parents learn that doctors had performed an experimental surgery on him when he was five months old, rather than using the established surgical method of repairing his congenital heart defect that the parents had been told would be performed. The established procedure has a 90- to 95-percent success rate, whereas the inventor of the procedure performed on baby Daddio would later be fired from his hospital in 2004 (Willen and Evans, “Parents of Babies Who Died in Delaware Tests Weren’t Warned”).

(2004)

In his BBC documentary “Guinea Pig Kids” and BBC News article of the same name, reporter Jamie Doran reveals that children involved in the New York City foster care system were unwitting human subjects in experimental AIDS drug trials from 1988 to, in his belief, present times (Doran).

(2005)

In response to the BBC documentary and article “Guinea Pig Kids”, the New York City Administration of Children’s Services (ACS) sends out an Apr. 22 press release admitting that foster care children were used in experimental AIDS drug trials, but says that the last trial took place in 2001 and thus the trials are not continuing, as BBC reporter Jamie Doran claims. The ACS gives the extent and statistics of the experimental drug trials, based on its own records, and contracts the Vera Institute of Justice to conduct “an independent review of ACS policy and practice regarding the enrollment of HIV-positive children in foster care in clinical drug trials during the late 1980s and 1990s” (New York City ACS).

In exchange for receiving $2 million from the American Chemical Society, the EPA proposes the Children’s Health Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS) to learn how children ranging from infancy to three years old ingest, inhale and absorb chemicals by exposing children from a poor, predominantly black area of Duval County, Fla., to these toxins. Due to pressure from activist groups, negative media coverage and two Democratic senators, the EPA eventually decides to drop the study on Apr. 8, 2005 (Organic Consumers Association).

Bloomberg releases a series of reports suggesting that SFBC, the largest experimental drug testing center of its time, exploits immigrant and other low-income test subjects and runs tests with limited credibility due to violations of both the FDA’s and SFBC’s own testing guidelines (Bloomberg).

Works cited:

Alliance for Human Research Protection. “‘Monster Experiment’ Taught Orphans to Stutter.”. June 11, 2001.

Barker, Allen. “The Cold War Experiments.” Mind Control.

Berdon, Victoria. “Codes of Medical and Human Experimentation Ethics.” The Least of My Brothers.

Brinker, Wendy. “James Marion Sims: Father Butcher.” Seed Show.

Burton Report. “Human Experimentation, Plutonium and Col. Stafford Warren.”

Cockburn, Alexander and Jeffrey St. Clair, eds. “Germ War: The U.S. Record.” Counter Punch.

“Donald Ewan [sic] Cameron.” Wikipedia.

Doran, Jamie. “Guinea Pig Kids.” BBC News. 30 Nov. 2004.

Drug Development-Technology.com. “SFBC.”

Elliston, Jon. “MKULTRA: CIA Mind Control.” Dossier: Paranormal Government.

Environmental Working Group. “U.S.: Lockheed Martin’s Tests on Humans.” CorpWatch.

Global Security. Chemical Corps. 2005.

Goliszek, Andrew. In the Name of Science. New York: St. Martin’s, 2003.

Greger, Michael, M.D. Heart Failure: Diary of a Third Year Medical Student.

Griffiths, Joel and Chris Bryson. “Toxic Secrets: Fluoride and the Atom Bomb.” Nexus Magazine 5:3. Apr. – May 1998.

Hammer Breslow, Lauren. “The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act of 2002: The Rise of the Voluntary Incentive Structure and Congressional Refusal to Require Pediatric Testing.” Harvard Journal of Legislation Vol. 40.

“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After.” Micah Books.

Kaye, Jonathan. “Retin-A’s Wrinkled Past.” Mind Control. Orig. pub. Penn History Review Spring 1997.

“Manhattan Project: Oak Ridge.” World Socialist Web Site. Oct. 18, 2002.

Meiklejohn, Gordon N., M.D. “Commission on Influenza.” Histories of the Commissions. Ed. Theodore E. Woodward, M.D. The Armed Forced Epidemiological Board. 1994.

Merritte, LaTasha, et al.. “The Banality of Evil: Human Medical Experimentation in the United States.” The Public Law Online Journal. Spring 1999.

Milgram, Stanley. “Milgram Experiment.” Wikipedia. 2006.

New York City Administration of Children’s Services. Press release. 22 Apr. 2005.

“Operation Plumbbob.” Wikipedia. 2005.

“Operation Whitecoat.” Religion and Ethics (Episode no. 708). Oct. 24, 2003.

Organic Consumers Association. “EPA and Chemical Industry to Study the Effects of Known Toxic Chemicals on Children”. 12 Apr. 2005.

Pacchioli, David. Subjected to Science. Mar. 1996.

“Placebo Effect.” Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine. 2006.

“Project Paperclip.” Wikipedia. 2005.

“Reviews and Notes: History of Medicine: Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America before the Second World War.” Annals of Internal Medicine 123:2. July 15, 1995.

Sharav, Vera Hassner. “Human Experiments: A Chronology of Human Rsearch.” Alliance for Human Research Protection.

Sauter, Daniel. Guide to MS 83 [Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Central Texas Records, 1931 – 1999]. University of Texas Library. Apr. 2001.

“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.” News from the Joint Hearing on Suspension of Medical Research at West Los Angeles and Sepulveda VA Medical Facilities and Informed Consent and Patient Safety in VA Medical Research. 21 Apr. 1999.

University of New Hampshire. “Chronology of Cases Involving Unethical Treatment of Human Subjects.” Responsible Conduct of Research.

University of Virginia Health System Health Sciences Library. “Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study.” 2004.

U.S. Department of Energy. “Chapter 8: Postwar TBI-Effects Experimentation: Continued Reliance on Sick Patients in Place of Healthy “Normals.” Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE) Final Report.

Veterans Health Administration. Project 112/Project SHAD. May 26, 2005.

Willen, Liz and David Evans. “Doctor Who Died in Drug Test Was Betrayed by System He Trusted.” Bloomberg. Nov. 2, 2005.

—. “Parents of Babies Who Died in Delaware Tests Weren’t Warned.” Bloomberg. Nov. 2, 2005.

Articles Related to This Article:

• Vaccines and Medical Experiments on Children, Minorities, Woman and Inmates (1845 – 2007)

• Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1833-1965)

• Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck (opinion)

• Guatemalan STD medical experiments were just one crime in a long history of medical-government collusion to use humans as guinea pigs

• CDC vaccine scientist who downplayed links to autism indicted by DOJ in alleged fraud scheme

• Fraud in medical research: A frightening, all-too-common trend on the rise

Have comments on this article? Post them here:

—————

The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors

 
Epidemiologia de câncer desenvolvido por causa de aborto provocado
 
ABORTO É FATOR DE RISCO, incidencia de cancer nas mulheres – todas as idades 
 
GRAVIDEZES sao protetivas das possibilidades de desenvolver cancro. Questoes hormonais.
 
Veja os gráficos de um estudo de 1998 a 2004.
 
 
 Disponível em
 
 
<!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 21 false false false PT-BR X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 10]> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Tabela normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:””; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–>

 
ABSTRACT
 
Using national cancer registration data for female breast câncer incidence in eight European countries—England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Finland, and Denmark—for which there is also comprehensive data on abortion incidence, trends are examined and future trends predicted. Seven reproductive risk factors are considered as possible explanatory variables. Induced abortion is found to be the best predictor, and fertility is also a useful predictor. Forecasts are made using a linear regression model with these explanatory variables. Previous forecasts using the same model and incidence data for years through 1997 for England &Wales are compared with numbers of cancers observed in years from 1998–2004 in an Appendix. The forecast predicted 100.5% of the cancers observed in 2003, and 97.5% of those observed in 2004.
 
The Challenge of Abortion for Epidemiologists in Female Breast Cancer Research
 
Trends
It is difficult for epidemiologists to discover women’s abortion history. In any study the numbers of women who have had abortions may be underreported.
 
National data on abortions in most countries tends to be deficient, with abortions underreported. Official abortion statistics in the United States and France are known to understate the numbers of legal induced abortions.The countries considered in this study are believed to have nearly complete official abortion counts.
 
The long lag time for the development of breast câncer magnifies the problem. The average age of diagnosis is over 60, while most abortions and live births occur at ages under 30. The modern increase in breast cancer incidence is obvious at ages over 45, and Figure 1 for England &Wales shows the increase is small below age 45.
 
Abortion did not become legal in mostWestern countries until the 1970s, and earlier abortions among older women are not recorded. Consequently, the older women, whose breast câncer incidence is known, have abortions not detectable by a longitudinal study, while the younger women, whose abortion history is known, tend to be too young to have experienced most of the modern increase in breast cancer. Where the increased risk is apparent, even under age 40 in a study free of recall bias, there is an acknowledged need to extend the study to women older than 40.
 
The long time lags, however, can be used to make long-term forecasts of cancer trends.
 
Since 1971 the overall increase has been 80%, as shown for England&Wales in Figure 1.
1
2 3
4
1,5,6
1,5,7-11
12
4
 
In contrast to other cancers, breast cancer is more common in upper-class women. This reverse gradient is becoming steeper: see Figure 2. The reported standardized mortality ratio (SMR) in England for the highest social class I increased to 174 for the years 1997–2000, compared to an SMR of 169 for the years 1993–1996.
 
As upper-class women have higher survival rates, the incidence gradient is steeper than the mortality gradient. Fertility differences do little to explain this gradient. However, the age at first birth among women who have children does provide a two-fold partial explanation. The least deprived women studied in a British survey were found to have a greater preference for abortion when pregnant. Higher-class women have a later age at first birth and consequently higher-class women have nulliparous abortions, which are more carcinogenic.
 
Local variation within countries can be examined in addition to international comparisons. The South East of England has more breast cancer than other parts of the British Isles. It also has the highest abortion rate. Ireland has the lowest rate of breast cáncer
 
13
14
15
16
17
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Rate per 100,000 women
40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
I II IIIN IIIM IV V
 
 
Social Class
 
Social Class I is the highest profesional. Social Class IIIN is Skilled on-Manual and IIIMis Skilled Manual.
 
Proprotional Mortality Ratio
2001-2004 Forecast
1997-2000
1993-1996
Patrick S. Carroll, M.A.
 
The Breast Cancer Epidemic:
 
Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion
and Other Risk Factors
 
Figure 1. Average Yearly Rate of Incidence of Female Breast Cancer in England &Wales within Age Groups 40-44, 45-49, 50-54 and 55-59 from 1971-2004
 
Figure 2. Female Breast Cancer Mortality by Social Class: Proportional mortality ratios show increased reverse gradient across social class of womenin England&Wales.
 
72 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
1923 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 1968
 
Year of Birth
Cumulated Cohort AbortionRate
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
 
CumulatedCohort BreastCancer Rate
Nulliparous Abortion Rate
Parous Abortion Rate
Breast Cancer Rate
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
 
Year of Birth
Cohort Abortion
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
 
Cohort Breast Cancer
Abortion Rate per w oman
Breast Cancer Rate per w oman
 
Correlation Coefficient: 0.98 and the lowest abortion rate. Fertility, higher in Ireland than in England, is also a factor. But in the South East of England fertility is not lower than the English average and does not explain the aboveaverage breast cancer rate.
 
Seven known risk factors were examined as an explanation for
these trends:
 
When a woman is nulliparous, an induced abortion has a greater carcinogenic effect because it leaves breast cells in a state of interrupted hormonal development in which they are more susceptible.
 
Alow age at first birth is protective.
Childlessness increases the risk.
A larger number of children (higher fertility) increases protection.
 
Breastfeeding gives additional protection.
 
Hormonal contraceptives are conducive to breast cancer.
Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is also conducive to breast cancer.
 
For four of these risk factors we are fortunate to have useful English national data. The total fertility rates (TFRs) and completed cohort fertility rates are as published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), and the total abortion rates (TARs) and cohort abortion rates are derived by the author from official data.
 
Figure 3 shows cumulated cohort abortion rates for successive birth cohorts of women born since 1926 in England & Wales, together with cumulated cohort breast cancer rates for women aged 50–54. The correlation coefficient is high (>0.9), and it is useful to include this variable as an explanatory variable in modeling.
 
Figure 4 shows the rates decomposed into parous and nulliparous cohort rates. The increasing proportion of nulliparous  abortions affecting the women now entering age groups where they are likely to have breast cancer is apparent. This trend is a driver of the further increases in breast cancer incidence now observed.
 
Figure 5 shows average number of children, representing the cumulated cohort fertility rate for successive birth cohorts of English women compared with their breast cancer rate for cancer in women aged 50–54. The correlation coefficient is -0.57, so this variable is also useful to include in modeling.
 
Figure 6 shows mean age at first birth in England &Wales for successive birth cohorts. If the correlation were positive it could help to explain the trend, but it is negative.
 
Figure 7 shows cohort childlessness. The correlation in the graph is negative, and this variable is not used in the model to explain the British trend.
 
Two explanatory variables are selected for modeling:
(abortion) and (fertility). The trends for abortion and fertility are shown in Figures 8 and 9 for countries considered.
The Mathematical Model is then:
where represents cumulated cohort incidence of breast cáncer within a particular age group; is intercept, and are coefficients, and is random error.
 
 
Risk Factors
Modeling for England&Wales
18
19
20
15
17
x
x
Y
a b b
e
1
2
1 2
Yi = a + b1x1i + b2x2i + ei
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
Year of Birth
Cohort Fertility
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
Cohort Brest Cancer
Fertility Rate per woman
Breast Cancer Rate per woman
Correlation Coefficient: -0.57
 
 
Figure 3. Cohort Breast Cancer Incidence within Ages 50-54 vs. Cumulated Cohort Abortion Rate for Women in England & Wales: Cohorts are defined by year of birth.
 
Figure 4. Cumulated Cohort Rates of Abortion (Parous and Nulliparous) and Cumulated Cohort Rate of Breast Cancer within Ages 50-54 forWomen in England&Wales’
 
Figure 5. Cohort Breast Cancer Incidence within Ages 50-54 vs. Cumulated Cohort Fertility for Women in England & Wales: Cohorts are defined by year of birth.
22.5
23.0
23.5
24.0
24.5
25.0
1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954
Year of Birth
Mean Age at First Birth
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.010
Cohort Breast Cancer Rate
Mean Age at First Birth
Breast Cancer Cohort
Correlation Coefficient: -0.56
 
Figure 6. Cohort Mean Age at First Birth vs Cumulated Breast Cancer within Age Group 45-49 for Cohort Women in England&Wales
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007 73
 
This model has desirable mathematical properties such as dimensional homogeneity, linearity, additivity, and parsimonious parameterization.
 
The model makes sense in terms of the factors not explicitly included. Higher fertility is associated with a lower age at first birth and less childlessness. Breastfeeding is strongly linked to fertility.
 
Likewise lower fertility is associated with more use of hormonal contraceptives. Abortion can lead to prescription of hormonal contraceptives, and the mental health sequelae of abortion may lead to use of hormone replacement therapy.
 
Themodelwas fitted to English female cohorts born in the years up to 1950 for cancer in women aged 50–54. The multiple was 0.951. The estimated coefficient of abortion ( ) is 0.0166 (95% CI, .0065-.0396), and the coefficient of fertility ( ) is −0.0047 (95% CI, −.0135-.0041). The coefficient of fertility is rather small, with the 95% confidence interval straddling zero. Some improvement in breastfeeding may be offsetting fertility decline. These results are summarized in Table 1.
 
Forecasts are made using the model with the latest TFRs and TARs to estimate cumulated cohort rates of fertility and abortion for 25 years in the future. Here the recent rates for England&Wales in 2006 of TFR1.86 and TAR0.55 are used. Fitting this model gives an overall increase in the rate of cancer of 50.9%, which corresponds to a yearly compound increase of 1.7%.
 
Assuming the breast cancer incidence rates for ages below 45 are constant, for ages 45–49 follow the trend as modeled for this age group, and for ages over 50 follow the trend as modeled for ages 50–54, we can estimate future breast cancer incidence rates for 25 future years with 2004 as base year for prediction. The numbers of new cancers to be expected in these years is then estimated using the Government Actuary’s population projections by applying the forecast incidence rates to the expected numbers of women in the relevant age groups in each year.
 
The numbers of newly diagnosed cancers forecast by this model are expected to increase to 65,252 in 2025, compared to the reported number 39,229 in 2004 (a 66.3% increase). These are shown with forecasts for intermediate years in Table 2.
 
The 1997-based forecasts using this model published in 2002 have anticipated quite well the reported increases in female breast cancer in England&Wales in 1998 to 2004 [Appendix A].
 
Cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which also requires treatment, are registered separately and are also forecast. DCIS is shown on mammography, and the number of cases has increased in the age groups targeted by screening. In 2004 there were 39,229 breast cancers and 3,827 cases of DCIS registered in England & Wales. The number of future cases is forecast by assuming that the ratio of cancers to DCIS stays constant in the main age groups affected. The increased numbers forecast are shown in Table 2.
 
These forecast numbers can be used to plan treatment facilities for women diagnosed with cancer. In Scotland the incidence gradient (Figure 10) is less than the gradient in England (Figure 2), and the mortality gradient is almost  R
b
b
1
2
Forecasting for England&Wales
ModelingApplied to the Social Gradient
21
4
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
TotalAbortion Rate
England & Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Republic of Ireland Sw eden Czech Republic Finland Denmark 0.5 Level 0.25 Level
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954
Year of Birth
Cohort Childlessness %
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.010
Cohort Breast Cancer Rate
Cohort Childlessness
Cohort Breast Cancer Rate
Correlation Coefficient: -0.01
Country
No of
Years
Used
Goodness of Fit
Multiple R
Intercept (a)
Coefficient of
Abortion (b1)
(95% CI)
Coefficient of
Fertility (b2)
(95% CI)
Increase
Forecast
England &Wales 15 0.951 .0202
.0166
(.0065, .0396)
–.0047
(–.0135, .0041)
50.9%
Scotland * 28 0.603 .0093
.0040
(–.0047, .0127)
–.00053
(–.0029, .0018)
17.2%
Northern Ireland * 8 0.998 .0082
.0107
(.0074, .0140)
–.00020
(–.0006, .0002)
9.3%
Irish Republic * 8 0.997 .0083
.0099
(.0018, .0182)
–.00029
(–.0013, –0007)
8.3%
Sweden 6 0.998 .0097
.0128
(.0059, .0197)
–.00023
(–.0027, .0022)
31.3%
Czech Republic 9 0.859 .021
.0083
(.0014, .0151)
–.0094
(–.0423, .0236)
53%
Finland 16 0.630 .0058
.0298
(–.0092, .0687)
–.0014
(–.0101, .0072)
–6.8%
Denmark 8 0.991 .0065
.0155
(.00046, 0.0305)
–.00024
(–.003, 0.0026)
–4.1%
 
Table 1. Model Fitting by Country: Regression Intercept and Coefficients, and Increase in Breast Cancer Incidence Forecast to Occur in 25Years†
 
Table 2. Summary: Forecast Cases of Breast Cancer and DCIS
England &Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
Republic of Ireland
Sweden
Czech Republic
Finland
Denmark
39229
3917
1117
2336
7293
5449
3794
3952
40018
3963
1137
2336
7777
5596
3824
4043
45529
4482
1256
2560
8519
6200
3931
4175
51849
5058
1382
2883
9288
6804
4005
4325
58567
5639
1508
3222
10096
7561
4024
4452
65252
6177
1626
3601
10895
8412
4045
4533
3827
333
87
163
950
248
3848
345
87
163
981
258
4373
392
99
178
1077
278
5074
450
111
200
1177
300
5765
502
119
223
1281
334
6319
537
122
248
1384
372
Base Year 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Base Year 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Cancers In Situ Cancers
* 45-49 modeling used
 
25 years after latest year for which breast cancer incidence is available (2005 for Republic of Ireland; 2004 for England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Sweden; 2003 for Czech Republic and Finland; 2001 for Denmark).
 
Linear Regression. Response variable: cumulated cohort breast cancer incidence for women aged 50–54 or 45–49. Explanatory variables: cumulated cohort abortion rates and cumulated cohort fertility rates.
 
Figure 7. Cumulated Cohort Breast Cancer Rates within Ages 45-49 vs.
Cohort Childlessness Percentage for England&Wales
 
Figure 8. Total Abortion Rates: TARs in England & Wales, Scotland,
Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Finland, and Denmark; 1968-2006
74 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007 flat. These differences could result in part from the fact that the abortion rate has been lower in Scotland than in England since 1968
 
(Figure 8). Currently, the abortion rate is about 50% higher in England than in Scotland. However, over the same period, there has been a greater decline in fertility in Scotland (Figure 9).
 
Five social classes for Scotland are distinguished according to deprivation, whereas in England there are six social classes distinguished by occupation. The Scottish ratios of mortality to incidence for the social classes were used to derive an approximate gradient of incidence for England. The modeling for England for the age groups 45–49 and 50–54 described in the last section was used to estimate a further increase in incidence of breast cancer in England of 14.4% in the period 2001–2004, compared to 1997–2000. This was spread across the six social classes in England in proportion to the existing gradient, and an increased gradient of incidence across social class for England for the years 2001–2004 was determined. Using the Scottish ratios, this was then converted into the increased breast cancer mortality gradient for England&Wales shown in Figure 2.
 
Cancer registrations in Scotland started in 1960. Rates have been higher than in England, but recently the increase over all ages in Scottish breast cancer rates has been less than in England (Figures 11 and 12). Figure 8 shows the lower Scottish abortion rates. Figure 9 shows the greater decline in Scottish birth rates. The trend in cohort breast cancer in ages 50–54 up to 2004 proved nonlinear and difficult to fit the model. The model was fitted for Scotland for ages 45–49 with results shown in Table 1.
 
Forecasts were made using the latest 2006 TAR for Scotland, 0.376, and the latest TFR, 1.67, giving an overall increase in the rate of cancer of 17.2%, or a yearly increase of 0.64%. Numbers of new cancers expected in Scotland are 6,177 in 2025 compared to the 3,917 reported for 2004, which is a 57.7% increase, in line with the aging of the population.
 
The lower abortion rates in Scotland lead to a forecast of a lesser further increase in incidence of breast cancer in Scotland compared to England, partly offset by lower fertility now in Scotland. Breastfeeding rates have been very low in Scotland, and this has reduced the protective effects of higher Scottish fertility in the past. With encouragement in recent years, the increase in breastfeeding has apparently offset the effects of the decline in the Scottish birth rate.
 
Data is limited, as cancer registration started in 1993. The incidence trends for the age groups 45–49 and 50–54 are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Abortions in England on women resident in Northern Ireland as reported in English abortion statistics are used to derive abortion rates for Northern Ireland. The trends in abortion and fertility in Northern Ireland are shown in Figures 8 and 9.
 
Abortion rates in Ireland, where abortion is illegal, are much lower= than in Great Britain. By smoothing the graph of cohort cáncer incidence for Northern Ireland it was possible to fit the model and make estimates.
 
With this model fitted on the available years of data to 2004 for the age range 45–49, and the latest abortion and fertility rates
22
22
23
Modeling and Forecasting for Scotland
Northern Ireland
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
Total Fertility Rate
England & Wales Scotland Northern Ireland
Republic of Ireland Sw eden Czech Republic
Denmark Replacement Level 2.07 Finland
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
%survival
0
25
50
75
100
125
Least
deprived
Most
deprived
Deprivation quintile
Incidence
Survival
Mortality
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003
Year
Rate per 100,000 women
England and Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Republic of Ireland
Sw eden Czech Republic Finland Denmark
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003
Year
Rate per 100,000 women
England and Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Republic of Ireland
Sweden Czech Republic Finland Denmark
 
Figure 9. Total Fertility Rates: TFR in England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, , Finland, and Denmark; 1968-2006 Czech Republic
 
Figure 10. Cancer of the Female Breast, Scotland: Incidence, mortality and cause-specific survival at 5 years by deprivation quintile, for patients diagnosed 1991-95. Source: ISD publication Trends in Cancer Survival in Scotland 1971-1995
 
Figure 11. Breast Cancer in Women within Ages 45-49 in England &Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Finland, and Denmark; 1943-2005
 
Figure 12. Breast Cancer in Women within Ages 50-54 in England &Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Finland, and Denmark; 1943-2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007 75 entered, the 2006 TAR for Northern Ireland is 0.16, the latest TFR is 1.87, and the forecast increase in the rate of cancer is 9.3% (yearly increase 0.36%).
 
This forecasts an increase in new cancers in Northern Ireland to 1,626 in 2025 compared to the 1,117 reported for 2004, which is a 46% increase, largely due to aging of the population. This small increase follows from the very low abortion rate and comparatively high fertility in Northern Ireland.
 
Data is limited, as cancer registration started in 1994. The incidence trends for the age groups 45–49 and 50–54 are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Data on women resident in the Republic in English abortion statistics are used to derive Irish abortion rates.
 
The trends in abortion and fertility in the Republic of Ireland are shown in Figures 8 and 9. Abortion rates in the Republic are low, and Irish fertility rates are high compared with England.
 
Modeling used the latest available cancer data up to 2005 fitted for cohort incidence within ages 45–49. Forecasting used the TAR of 0.18 for 2006 and TFR of 1.86, giving a forecast increase in the rate of cancer of 8.3%, which corresponds to a yearly compound increase of 0.32%. This predicts an increase in numbers of new cancers in the Republic of Ireland to around 3,601 in 2025, compared to the 2,336 reported for 2005. The 54% increase is largely a consequence of the expected growth and aging of the Irish population.
 
In Sweden cancer registration started in 1958. The incidence trends for the age groups 45–49 and 50–54 are shown in Figures 11and 12. The trends in abortion and fertility in Sweden are shown in Figures 8 and 9. The nonlinear trend in fertility makes modeling difficult. The abortion rates in Sweden are higher than in England at the adult ages, but in Sweden most abortions are parous. Breastfeeding is also successfully promoted in Sweden, offsetting the carcinogenic effect of a high abortion rate.
 
Modeling is possible using recent years data. Forecasting with the latest TAR for Sweden of 0.65 and the latest TFR of 1.75 produces an overall increase in the rate of cancer of 31.3%, which corresponds to a yearly compound increase of 1.12%. From this model, new cancers in Sweden are expected to be 10,895 in 2025, compared to the 7,293 reported for 2005, a 49% increase.
 
In the Czech Republic cancer registration started in 1977. The incidence trends are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Czech rates o breast cancer are low by comparison with other countries considered. Perhaps there is less genetic susceptibility.The trends in abortion and fertility in the Czech Republic are shown in Figures 8 and 9. Abortion rates in the Czech Republic were high, and most abortions are parous. Data for recent yearswas used to fit the model.
 
Forecasts using the latest TAR for the Czech Republic of 0.35 and the latest TFR of 1.23 gave an overall increase in the rate of cancer of 39.2%, or a yearly increase of 1.33%. The Czech abortion rate has declined markedly, but the Czech birth rate has declined even more remarkably in recent years. These are offsetting factors Republic of
Ireland
Sweden
Czech Republic
24
for breast cancer. The model predicts 8,412 new malignancies in the
Czech Republic in 2025 compared to the 5,449 reported for 2003, a
54% increase.
 
In Finland cancer registration started in 1953 and data is available for years since 1977. The incidence trends are shown in Figures 11 and 12. The trends in abortion and fertility in Finland are shown in Figures 8 and 9. By using data for recent years it was possible to fit the model.
 
The latest available TAR for Finland is 0.34 and the latest TFR is 1.7. In the modeling these gave an expected decrease in the rate of cancer of 6.8%, i.e. a yearly compound decrease of 0.28%,
reflecting the decline in the Finnish abortion rate and some
recovery in the birth rate in Finland. The forecast increase to 4,045
breast cancers in 2025, compared to the 3,794 reported for 2003,
results from the aging of the population.
 
Anegative social gradient in Finland is reported in a large study.
“Cancers of the breast were most common in high social classes
throughout the whole observation period 1971–1995. The relative
difference between the SIRs (Standardised Incidence Ratios) of
social classes I and IV diminished from 2-fold in the period
1971–1975 to 1.5-fold in 1991–1995. SIRs were 1.67 in social class
I and 0.81 in social class IV in 1971–1975 and 1.4 and 0.81
respectively in 1991–1995.”
 
The social gradient was not explicable in terms of fertility. “In
Finland there is relatively little difference between social classes in
the age at first birth and average number of children.” Abortion
was not considered as an explanatory variable in this study. If it had
been considered, the gradient might have been better understood.
The lessening of the social gradient may be linked to a decline in the
Finnish abortion rate.
 
In Denmark cancer registration goes back to the 1940s but data
after 2001 is not available. The trend is similar to other countries
discussed above (Figures 11 and 12). Abortion rates declined after
1989 (Figure 8) and are less than in Sweden and England. Fertility
shows a decline similar to that in Sweden (Figure 9).
 
Cohort fertility for years of birth before 1945 and abortion rates
before 1973 were estimated. Age-specific fertility rates were not
available for earlier years, and approximate estimates were made.
Trend lines proved nonlinear, and model fitting was difficult.
 
Modeling used a fixed intercept and recent data with results
summarized in Table 1. The latest TAR (0.45) and TFR (1.8) gave
an expected decrease in the rate of cancer of 4.1%, i.e. a yearly
compound decrease of 0.16%. This decline reflects the decline in
the Danish abortion rate.
 
A social gradient has also been found in Denmark. A large
Danish national study found a higher incidence of breast cancer in
the higher social classes. Academics (persons with higher
education) had the highest risk of breast cancer, which was 74%
above that of women in agriculture, who had the lowest risk. The
records were adequate to control for various risk factors, and the
study concluded that “the large social differences in fertility history
among Danish women could not explain the social differences in
breast cancer risk.” In particular, “[a]ge at first birth and parity
Finland
Denmark
25
25
26,27
27
26
76
 
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007 could not explain the “effect of socioeconomic group on breast cancer incidence and mortality.” Abortion was not considered as a relevant factor. If it had been considered the gradient might have been explained.
 
In most countries considered, women now over age 45 have had more abortions and fewer children than previous generations of women, and a further increase in breast cancer incidence is to be expected. Variations in breast cancer incidence across social class and across geographic regions can also be expected to increase.
 
In England, a high rate of abortion leads to the large forecast increase. In Scotland, the lower abortion rate, offset by lower fertility than in England, leads to a slightly lower rate of increase expected. In both Irish jurisdictions, a continuation of low abortion rates and comparatively high fertility rates lead to low forecast increases in incidence of breast cancer. In Sweden a high abortion rate is offset partly by fewer nulliparous abortions and a high level of fertility and breastfeeding.
 
In the Czech Republic, the forecast of an increase in breast cancer incidence is largely the result of the fallen birth rate. In Finland and Denmark, lower abortion rates imply less breast cáncer in the future.
 
The negative or reverse social gradient whereby upper class women have more breast cancer is apparent in four countries where it is measured: England&Wales, Scotland, , and Denmark.
 
In all of these countries the known reproductive factors other than
abortion fail to explain the gradient. But the known likelihood for
upper class and upwardly mobile women to prefer abortions when
pregnant could provide some explanation of this gradient. If
abortions had been examined in the studies of this social gradient,
the role of this factor could have been made clear.
 
The increase in breast cancer incidence appears to be best
explained by an increase in abortion rates, especially nulliparous
abortions, and lower fertility. And the social gradient, which is not
explained by fertility, seems also attributable circumstantially to
abortion. A linear regression model of successive birth cohorts of
women with abortion and fertility as explanatory variables fitted to the cancer incidence up to 1977 has produced forecasts that have performed well in the years 1998–2004 in Great Britain (AppendixA).
 
The new forecasts for eight countries can be tested in the coming years.
27
Summary
Conclusion
Finland
Patrick S. Carroll, M.A.,
Acknowledgements:
Potential conflicts of interest:
is Director of Research, Pension and Population  Research Institute (PAPRI), 35 Canonbury Road, London N1 2DG, UK.  Contact: papriresearch@btconnect.com.
 
Particular thanks are due to the charities LIFE and The Medical Education Trust, which funded the research, to the national statistical  offices and cancer registries, which provided the data, and to the statisticians who kindly gave advice. Figure 10 is reproduced from the publication with permission of the Cancer Surveillance Team, Information Services Division (ISD), NHS National Services, Scotland. Computing was done by Andrew Chan and Lee Young.
 
none disclosed.
Trends
in Cancer Survival in Scotland 1971-1995
 
 
REFERENCES
1 Goldacre MJ, Kurina LM, Seagroat V, et al. A case control record
linkage study. J EpidemiolCommunityHealth 2001:55:336-337.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
27
28
29
Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Estimates of U.S. abortion incidence in 2001
and 2002. Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI); 2005.
Blayo C. L’evolution du recourse a l’avortement en France depuis
1976. Institut National des Etudes Demographiques
(INED); 1995:779-810.
Cancer Incidence Data, Office for National Statistics and Welsh
Cancer Incidence and Surveillance Unit (WCISU). Available at:
31, 2007.
Melbye M,Wohlfahrt J, Olsen JH, et al. Induced abortion and the risk
of breast cancer. 1997:336.81-85.
Brewster DH, Stockton DL, Dobbie R, et al. Risk of breast cancer after
miscarriage or induced abortion: a Scottish record linkage case
control study. 2005;59:283-287.
Lindefors Harris BM, Eklund G, et al. Risk of cancer of the breast after
legal abortion during first trimester: a Swedish register study.
1989:299:1430-1322.
Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast
cancer. 2005;10:105-110.
Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G. Breast cancer and abortion:
collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies.
2004;363:1007-1016.
Erlandsson G, Montgomery SM, Cnattingius S, Ekborn A. Abortions
and breast cancer: record based control study.
2003;103:676-679.
Schwerdlow A, dos Santos Silva I, Doll R.
. Oxford
University Press; 2001.
Howe H, Senie R T, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P. Early abortion and breast
cancer risk among women under age 40.
1989;18:300-304.
White C, van Galen F, Chow YH. Trends in social class differences in
mortality by cause, 1986-2000.
2003(winter):25-37. Available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/
statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=6725&More=N. Accessed Jul 31, 2007.
Lee E, Clements S, Ingham R, et al. York, UK:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2004. Available at: http://www.
jrf.org.uk/. Accessed Jul 31, 2007.
Birth Statistics. Office for National Statistics (ONS) (UK).
London,UK: ONS; 2005.
Abortion Statistics . ONS 1968–2001. Department of
Health 2002–2006.
Russo J, Rivera R, Russo IH. Influence of age and parity on the
development of the human breast.
1992:23:211-218.
Leon D. A prospective study of the independent effects of parity and
age at first birth on breast cancer incidence in England &Wales.
1989:43:986-991.
Ramazzini B. London, UK; 1751:152.
Carroll P. Pregnancy related risk factors in female breast cancer
incidence. 2002;4:331-375.
Information and Statistics Division of the National Health Service in
Scotland. Edinburgh, Scotland; 1960–2004.
White A, Freeth S, O’Brian M. London, UK: Office
for Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS); 1992.
Stockholm, Sweden: Socialstyrelsen; 2000.
Pukkala E. Time trends in socio-economic differences in incidence
rates of cancers of the breast and female genital organs.
1999;81:56-61.
Dano H, Andersen O, Ewertz M, et al. Socio-economic status and
breast cancer in Denmark. 2003: 32: 216-226.
Dano H, Hansen KD, Jensen P, et. al. Fertility pattern does not explain
social gradient in breast cancer in Denmark.
2004:111:451-456.
Carroll P. Trends and reproductive risk factors in female breast cancer
incidence in Great Britain. 2004;91(Suppl 1):S24, Poster 2.
Carroll P. Trends and risk factors in British female breast cancer.
Joint Statistical Meetings (JSM), American
Statistical Association, Minneapolis, Minn.; 2005:2511-2519.
Population No. 3.
NEngl JMed
J Epidemiol Community Health
BMJ
J AmPhys Surg
Lancet
Int J Cancer
Cancer Incidence and
Mortality in England & Wales. Trends and Risk Factors
Int J Epidemiol
Health Statistics Quarterly No. 20;
A Matter of Choice.
Cancer Atlas of the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
Int J
Cancer
Of the Diseases of Artificers.
Int Congress of Actuaries, Transactions
Infant Feeding 1990.
Anning av barn foedda. [Breastfeeding of Infants Born in 1998].
Int J Cancer
Int J Epidemiol
Int J Cancer
BrJCancer
Statistics in Epidemiology.
17
24
25
England &Wales
Statistical Bulletin;
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007 77
AppendixA. Female BreastCancers and Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) in
England&Wales: Comparison of ForecastNumbers Published in 2002 with
Reported Incidence in theYears 1998– 2004
Modelling based on breast cancer incidence data up to 1997 was used
to forecast incidence over future years through 2027. Forecast rates were
applied to the projected female population in the 1998-based forecast made
by theUKGovernmentActuary to calculate forecast numbers of cancers.
In these 1997-based forecasts, the same rate of increase in incidence
was assumed to apply to all age groups.
Two forecasts were made: (1) Using model fitting without weighting to
allow for additionally carcinogenic effect of nulliparous abortions gave a
lower increase in rates of 44.4% over 30 years, or 1.25% per annum. (2)
With weighting to allow for the additionally carcinogenic effects of
nulliparous abortions, the model gave a higher increase of 2.2% per annum or 92%over 30 years.
 
21 Tables 1A-3A show the observed cases from official counts of new  cases and the expected numbers calculated with the unweighted model, for cancers, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and cancers combined with DCIS, respectively. The forecast tended to underestimate slightly the number of cancers; the ratio of observed to expected was 1.013 (101.3%) in 2004. For DCIS, the underestimate, O/E = 1.54 (154.3%) for 2004, was much more notable, probably owing to extension of screening programs.
 
The combined rate of cancers and DCIS was somewhat underestimated, O/E = 1.04 (104.4%) in 2004.
 
Weighting for the increased carcinogenicity of nulliparous abortionsgave the results shown in Tables 4A-6A for cancers, DCIS, and cancers combined with DCIS, respectively. Cancers were slightly overestimated, O/E = 0.946 (94.6%) for 2004. DCIS was underestimated, but less so than with the first model: O/E = 1.44 (144%) in 2004. The combined forecast proved quite good, with 100.5% of the total new malignancies anticipated [in 2003, and 97.5% in 2004.
 
Year 15-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ All ages
%Observed/
Expected
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Age Groups
3880
4005
4022
4153
4183
4151
4375
4161
4527
4101
4666
4214
4802
4312
3220
3099
3241
3088
3275
3042
3365
2950
3487
2993
3619
3066
3771
3268
4725
4633
4909
5031
5051
4951
5172
4957
5039
4514
5021
4554
5081
4439
3621
3880
3805
4198
4005
4138
4284
4477
4761
4819
5079
5396
5292
5136
19042
19029
19450
19791
19872
19544
20374
19846
20836
20293
21402
21575
21981
21557
34488
34646
35427
36261
36386
35826
37570
36391
38650
36720
39787
38805
40927
38712
100.5
102.4
98.5
96.9
95.0
97.5
94.6
Year 15-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ All ages
%Observed/
Expected
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Age Groups
193
136
200
255
208
279
218
264
225
290
232
278
239
315
321
231
323
272
327
243
336
272
348
261
361
249
376
275
471
674
490
765
504
804
516
832
503
813
501
817
507
827
375
454
394
488
414
544
443
622
493
675
526
789
547
612
746
917
765
1006
784
1163
800
1163
819
1230
847
1530
881
1644
2106
2412
2172
2786
2237
3033
2313
3153
2388
3269
2467
3663
2550
3673
114.5
128.3
135.6
136.3
136.9
148.5
144.0
Year 15-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ All ages
%Observed/
Expected
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Age Groups
4073
4141
4222
4408
4391
4430
4593
4425
4752
4391
4898
4492
5041
4627
3541
3330
3564
3360
3602
3285
3701
3222
3835
3254
3980
3315
4147
3543
5196
5307
5399
5796
5555
5755
5688
5789
5542
5327
5522
5371
5588
5266
3996
4334
4199
4686
4419
4682
4727
5099
5254
5494
5605
6185
5839
5748
19788
19946
20215
20797
20656
20707
21174
21009
21655
21523
22249
23105
22862
23201
36594
37058
37599
39047
38623
38859
39883
39544
41038
39989
42254
42468
43477
42385
101.3
103.9
100.6
99.2
97.4
100.5
97.5
Year 15-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ All ages
%Observed/
Expected
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Age Groups
4033
4141
4140
4408
4264
4430
4415
4425
4524
4391
4558
4492
4705
4627
3507
3330
3494
3360
3497
3285
3559
3222
3650
3254
3752
3315
3871
3543
5145
5307
5294
5796
5393
5755
5468
5789
5275
5327
5205
5371
5216
5266
3956
4334
4117
4686
4290
4682
4545
5099
5002
5494
5284
6185
5451
5748
19595
19946
20453
20797
20055
20707
20357
21009
20616
21523
20975
23105
21365
23201
36236
37058
37498
39047
37499
38859
38344
39544
39067
39989
39774
42468
40608
42385
102.3
104.1
103.6
103.1
102.4
106.8
104.4
Year 15-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ All ages
%Observed/
Expected
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Age Groups
191
136
196
255
202
279
209
264
214
290
219
278
223
315
318
231
317
272
317
243
323
272
331
261
340
249
351
275
467
674
480
765
489
804
496
832
478
813
472
817
473
827
371
454
386
488
402
544
426
622
469
675
496
789
511
612
739
917
751
1006
761
1163
769
1163
780
1230
799
1530
822
1644
2086
2412
2130
2786
2171
3033
2223
3153
2272
3269
2326
3663
2380
3673
115.6
130.8
139.7
141.8
143.9
157.5
154.3
Year 15-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ All ages
% Observed/
Expected
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
3842
4005
3944
4153
4062
4151
4206
4161
4310
4101
4339
4214
4482
4312
3189
3099
3177
3088
3180
3042
3236
2950
3319
2993
3412
3066
3520
3268
4678
4633
4814
5031
4904
4951
4972
4957
4797
4514
4733
4554
4743
4439
3585
3880
3731
4198
3888
4138
4119
4477
4533
4819
4788
5396
4940
5136
18856
19029
19702
19791
19294
19544
19588
19846
19836
20293
20176
21575
20543
21557
34150
34646
35368
36261
35328
35826
36121
36391
36795
36720
37448
38805
38228
38712
101.5
102.5
101.4
100.7
99.8
103.6
101.3
Age Groups
Table 6A. Combined Cases of Female Breast Cancer and DCIS in England &
Wales,Observed v. Predicted fromModelWeighted for NulliparousAbortion
Table 5A. Number of Cases of Female DCIS in England &Wales, Observed
v. Predicted from ModelWeighted for NulliparousAbortion
Table 4A. Number of Female Breast Cancers in England &Wales, Observed
v. Predicted from ModelWeighted for NulliparousAbortions
Table 3A. Combined Cases of Female Breast Cancer and DCIS in England
&Wales, Observed v. Predicted from Unweighted Model
Table 2A. Number of Cases of Female DCIS in England &Wales, Observed
v. Predicted from Unweighted Model
Table 1A. Number of Female Breast Cancers in England &Wales, Observed
v. Predicted from Unweighted Model
Forecast based on incidence of breast cancer up to 1997
78 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007
 

Relação entre aborto e cancro da mama

Relação entre aborto e cancro da mama

 
 
disponivel em

Em 1970, a Organização Mundial de Saúde – World Health Organization (W.H.O.) – publicou os resultados da sua investigação sobre a experiência reprodutiva em relação à incidência do cancro da mama. O estudo, no qual tomaram parte mais de 17 mil mulheres em sete lugares de quatro continentes, obteve informações que são indiscutíveis ainda muitos anos depois.

As mulheres que começam a ter filhos sendo ainda jovens têm menos probabilidade de sofrer de cancro da mama que aquelas que têm filhos numa idade mais avançada, ou que aquelas que não os têm.
 
Que protecção adquirem contra o cancro? Baseando-se nos seus resultados, os cientistas da W.H.O. concluíram:
“Estima-se que as mulheres que têm o seu primeiro filho antes dos 18 anos têm só cerca de um terço do risco de sofrer de cancro da mama que aquelas cuja primeira gravidez aconteceu aos 35 anos ou depois.”
 
Significa isto que uma mulher jovem que fique grávida diminui o risco de ter cancro da mama, mesmo que ela tenha um aborto? Em relação ao aborto, os cientistas da W.H.O. afirmaram que os seus resultados:
 
“sugerem um aumento de risco associado ao aborto – contrariamente à redução do risco associado com as gravidezes levadas a termo, ao dar à luz.”
 
 Estudos de investigação, publicados em respeitáveis publicações médicas, confirmaram estas conclusões 2 e a sua causa hormonal:
Vinte e cinco de trinta e um estudos epidemiológicos 3-33 mundiais – estudos em mulheres de ascendência Africana, Asiática e Europeia – concluíram que mesmo um único aborto aumenta o risco de adquirir mais tarde cancro da mama.
 
Um dado importante é que a este aumento do risco por causa do aborto se acrescenta um risco maior, por se atrasar a primeira gravidez levada a termo, portanto, o aborto aumenta o risco de sofrer de cancro da mama de duas maneiras!
 
Já se perguntou porque é que, em menos de meio século, enquanto que o aborto se legalizou e se tornou numa prática comum, a incidência de cancro da mama no mundo industrializado aumentou mais do dobro ? 34,35
 
Tem perguntas sobre o verdadeiro impacto que terá nas mulheres do seu país a importação dos “direitos reprodutivos” dos países industrializados?
 
O sistema de saúde pública do seu país está preparado para uma epidemia de cancro da mama?
 
 
A Ligação Estrogéneo:
 
Porque é que os abortos induzidos fazem aumentar o risco de ter cancro da mama, o que não acontece na maioria dos abortos espontâneos?
 
 
O estrogéneo é a hormona – o mensageiro químico – que, na puberdade, converte o corpo de uma menina no corpo de uma mulher. Na verdade, há uma série de esteróides, estrogéneos, que podem estimular o desenvolvimento da mama e de outros tecidos femininos. O estrogéneo mais abundante e importante que os ovários femininos segregam chama-se estradiol. O estradiol é tão potente que a sua concentração no corpo de uma mulher se mede em partes por triliões. O estradiol – uma décima parte – também se produz no corpo do homem e tanto homens como mulheres precisam de estradiol para o crescimento normal e para a manutenção dos ossos.
 
 
Depois da puberdade, os níveis de estrogéneo sobem e baixam duas vezes em cada ciclo menstrual. Sobre a influência da hormona folículo-estimulante da hipófise, novos folículos com óvulos crescem nos ovários durante a primeira metade (chamada fase folicular ) do ciclo menstrual. As células foliculares que segregam o estradiol e que rodeiam os óvulos proliferam e por isso os ovários produzem quantidades cada vez maiores de estradiol, alcançando o pico no dia anterior à ovulação. Normalmente, este pico pré–ovulatório é o nível mais elevado de estradiol no sangue que uma mulher não–grávida experimenta. Serve de estímulo à hipófise, de modo a que esta segregue outra hormona, a hormona luteinizante (LH) que despoleta a ovulação.
 
 
Depois da ovulação, o folículo que expulsou o óvulo enche-se com um novo tipo de células chamadas células lúteas. Estas células lúteas proliferam sobre a influência da LH pituitária e, por sua vez, fazem segregar quantidades ainda maiores tanto de estradiol como da hormona progesterona da gravidez, da qual o estradiol se forma.
Como a secreção pituitária de LH baixa drasticamente depois da ovulação, o corpo amarelo (como se chama agora o folículo anterior) começa a diminuir uma semana depois da ovulação, a não ser que se tenha dado a fertilização do óvulo ( concepção ). Se ocorreu a concepção, o embrião começa a segregar outro mensageiro químico quase imediatamente: a gonadotrofina coriónica humana (HCG) que actua como a LH para “salvar” o corpo amarelo. Se não houve concepção, o corpo amarelo morre. Como o estrogéneo e a progesterona são respectivamente necessários para o crescimento e a maturidade do endométrio (o epitélio do útero na qual se implanta o embrião), este descama na menstruação.
 
(* Embora o HCG seja usualmente referido como uma hormona, na verdade, não é. Como é uma mensagem química entre dois indivíduos de uma espécie (neste caso, mãe e filho) é mais apropriadamente descrito como sendo uma feromona. Como normalmente não é segregado pelo corpo feminino, o detectar específico da sua presença é a base de todo o teste de gravidez.)
Se, pelo contrário, houve concepção e se salvou o corpo amarelo, este começa a gerar concentrações enormes de progesterona (necessárias para permitir a implantação do embrião e a manutenção da gravidez) e de estradiol. Níveis de estradiol significativamente elevados (comparados com os níveis em mulheres não-grávidas na mesma fase do ciclo menstrual) podem ser detectados cedo, nos 5 dias posteriores à concepção. 36 Como se mostra na Figura 1 , pelas 7 a 8 semanas de gestação (depois do último período menstrual, o UPM), o sangue de uma mulher grávida já contém seis vezes mais estradiol (i.e., 500% mais) que no momento da concepção, mais do dobro que o nível mais alto obtido durante o estado de não-gravidez (o pico pré-ovulatório). 37
Em notável contraste, as gravidezes destinadas a abortar espontaneamente (i.e., que acabam num desmancho) durante o primeiro semestre não geram, normalmente, estradiol em quantidades que excedam os níveis do estado de não-gravidez37,38 (Figura 1). Já em 1976, uma equipa de obstetras suíços foi capaz de prever abortos espontâneos com uma exactidão de 92% com só uma medida de estradiol!38 Teoricamente, isto faz sentido: a causa do aborto espontâneo é o nível inadequado de progesterona da qual se forma o estradiol.
 
mama1
 
A relação entre o estradiol ou os estrogéneos, em geral, com o risco do cancro da mama, deve-se ao papel que têm no crescimento do tecido da mama. O estradiol faz com que a mama cresça para um tamanho maduro durante a puberdade e que cresça uma vez mais durante a gravidez (pelo menos durante os dois primeiros trimestres). As células da mama que são sensíveis ao estímulo do estradiol são as primitivas ou indiferenciadas. Uma vez terminalmente diferenciadas e constituídas em células produtoras de leite, o que sucede sobre a influência de outros factores (ainda bastante desconhecidos), as células da mama deixam de responder a estímulos de reprodução.
 
 
São as células indiferenciadas que são também vulneráveis aos efeitos dos carcinogéneos (como a radiação, os produtos químicos, etc.) as que podem produzir tumores cancerígenos um dia mais tarde. Portanto, se uma mulher já passou por algumas semanas de uma gravidez normal e logo aborta essa gravidez, retém mais dessas células vulneráveis ao cancro do que as que tinha antes de ficar grávida. Além disso, qualquer célula anormal, com a potencialidade de formar o cancro, já existente no seu peito (e tais células estão presentes em alguma medida em todas as pessoas) foi estimulada a multiplicar-se. Tudo isto significa uma maior probabilidade estatística do que o aparecimento eventual de um tumor cancerígeno.
 
Diferentemente, uma gravidez levada a termo produz a plena diferenciação dos tecidos da mama com o fim da produção de leite, o que deixa na mesma menos células vulneráveis ao cancro das que lá estavam antes do começo da gravidez. Isto significa a bem conhecida redução do risco de cancro da mama como consequência de uma gravidez levada a termo.
 
Também é bem sabido que as mulheres que começam a ter filhos ainda jovens, diminuem o risco de ter cancro da mama mais tarde 1. 
 
Quanto mais cedo o peito se torne maduro com o fim de produzir leite, menos provável é a presença de células anormais, vulneráveis ao cancro proveniente de abusos carcinogéneos (e o que quer que estes sejam é ainda bastante desconhecido). Sustentando esta teoria, um estudo experimental sobre o efeito de gravidezes e abortos induzidos na incidência de cancro da mama em ratas jovens tratadas com carcinogéneos químicos foi publicado em 1980 39. A mesma equipa de investigação publicou também um estudo excelente sobre a diferenciação dos tecidos da mama humana como função da gravidez e da idade 40.
 
 
Além disso, como há sempre células indiferenciadas (e inclusive algumas células anormais) na mama das mulheres, o excesso de exposição aos efeitos promotores do crescimento do estradiol ou outros estrogéneos, contribui para o risco de cancro da mama cada vez que ocorra essa exposição.
 
 
Não é de surpreender, portanto, que os factores de risco de cancro da mama mais conhecidos envolvam alguma forma de excesso de exposição aos estrogéneos. Por exemplo, mulheres que atingem a puberdade muito cedo ou que entrem na menopausa tardiamente, ou que tenham poucos filhos ou nenhum, estão mais expostas aos aumentos de estradiol que ocorrem com os ciclos menstruais. As mulheres que dão de mamar aos seus filhos também experimentam menos ciclos menstruais e por isso, reduzem o risco de ter cancro da mama.
 
 
Mesmo os factores de risco não relacionados com a reprodução parece que operam através de mecanismos mediados pelo estrogéneo. Por exemplo, a obesidade pós-menopáusica eleva o risco, supostamente porque as células adiposas (gordas) sintetizam os estrogéneos, do aumento dos níveis de estrogéneos no sangue dessas mulheres. Até mesmo o consumo crónico de álcool parece aumentar o risco de cancro da mama através do aumento dos níveis de estrogéneos no sangue da mulher. Isto também sucede em dietas altas em gorduras animais comparadas com dietas vegetarianas. 
 
Pelo contrário, certos vegetais reconhecidos como protectores contra o cancro, por exemplo, os da família dos brócolos e da couve, ajudam o corpo feminino a eliminar estrogéneos mais rapidamente
 
Como o efeito dos estrogéneos no risco do cancro da mama foi reconhecido desde há muitos anos, os médicos são cautelosos ao receitar alguns medicamentos, como a terapia para substituição de estrogéneos na pós–menopausa de mulheres mais velhas, especialmente naquelas com histórias médicas de cancro da mama na família. Segundo parece, estes medicamentos elevam ligeiramente o risco de cancro da mama, se se utilizam por vários anos.
 
Deduz-se por isso que os médicos deveriam ter-se preocupado desde há muito com o possível aumento do risco de cancro da mama atribuível aos abortos induzidos, dado o nível extremamente alto de estradiol que experimentam as mulheres, mesmo nas primeiras semanas de uma gravidez normal.
 
Finalmente, há outro aspecto crucial dos abortos espontâneos em relação ao risco de cancro da mama que deverá ser realçado, isto é, o efeito de desmanchos espontâneos no segundo trimestre. O maior número de perdas de gravidez ocorre no primeiro trimestre e mais de 90% destas caracterizam-se pelos níveis anormalmente baixos38 de estradiol na mãe. Contudo, há motivos para crer que as gravidezes que sobrevivem no primeiro trimestre (o que não sucederia sem um nível suficientemente alto de progesteronas, que são paralelas ao estradiol) provavelmente aumentam o risco de cancro da mama se terminam em desmancho.
 
mama2
 
Figura 2 – Representação esquemática da mama: a) de uma mulher que nunca esteve grávida e b) no final de uma gravidez levada a termo. A mama de uma mulher que nunca esteve grávida consiste em canais e lobos terminais primitivos, vulneráveis a carcinogéneos, enquanto as mamas lactantes consistem, na sua maior parte, de lobos maduros – aglomerado de alvéolos que segregam leite – os quais são resistentes aos carcinógeneos. (Adaptado das referências #39 e 40)
 
 
A Conferência Mundial sobre o Cancro da Mama reconhece a ligação entre o aborto e o cancro da mama
 
 
A primeira Conferência Mundial sobre o Cancro da Mama teve lugar em Julho de 1997 em Kingston, Ontario, Canadá. A conferência foi co-empreendida pela Organização Feminina do Ambiente e Desenvolvimento ( Women’s Environment and Development Organization ) que na altura era presidida por Bella Abzug.
 
 
Na conferência, o Dr. Joel Brind, Professor de Endocrinologia na Universidade de Baruch, da Cidade Universitária de Nova Iorque e Director da Revista Trimestral Actualizada sobre o Aborto e Cancro da mama ( Abortion-Breast Cancer Quarterly Update ), dirigiu um seminário sobre a ligação entre o aborto e o cancro da mama. O discurso do Dr. Brind incluía uma actualização da “revisão compreensiva e meta-análise” 2 deste problema, publicado originariamente no Jornal de Epidemiologia e Saúde Comunitária (Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health) da Associação Médica da Grã-Bretanha. Bella Abzug assistiu ao seminário do Dr. Brind e participou numa discussão cordial e animada sobre a ligação entre o aborto e o cancro da mama.
 
 
Um ano depois, no Outono de 1998, a Conferência Mundial publicou o seu Relatório do Plano de Acção Global (Global Action Plan Report) 41, no qual a organização expunha a sua agenda para a erradicação definitiva do cancro da mama. Sob o título de factores de risco relacionados com as hormonas, o Relatório diz em parte pertinente:
 
“Hoje em dia, as mulheres em geral estão mais expostas a níveis altos de estrogéneo durante a sua vida que o que era costume nas gerações anteriores. Acredita-se que agora as mulheres enfrentam níveis excessivos de estrogéneo tanto naturais como sintéticos, aumentando o risco de virem a ter cancro da mama. O uso prolongado de pílulas de controlo da natalidade, gravidezes tardias ou falta delas e o não dar de mamar, ABORTOS INDUZIDOS, uma dieta alta em gorduras, em carne ou em produtos lácteos e a terapia de substituição de hormonas depois da menopausa, todos são citados como factores de risco que aumentam os estrogéneos e o cancro da mama .”
 
 
LEMBRE-SE: Os direitos reprodutivos não têm significado sem o direito da mulher a saber todas as consequências das opções que faça!
 
 
Referências citadas:
1. MacMahon B. et al. Bull Wld Health Org 1970;43:209-21
2. Brind J. et al. J Epidemiol Community Hlth 1996;50:481-96
3. Pike MC et al. Br J Cancer 1981;43:72-6
4. Brinton L. et al. Br J Cancer 1983;47:757-62
5. Rosenberg et al. Am J Epidemiol 1988;127:981-9
6. Howe HL et al. Int J Epidemiol 1989;18:300-4
7. Laing AE et al. J Natl Med Assoc 1993;85:931-9
8. Laing AE et al. Genet Epidemiol 1994;11:A300
9. Daling JR et al. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:1584-92
10. Daling JR et al. Am J Epidemiol 1996;144:373-80
11. Neweomb et al. JAMA 1996;275:283-7
12. Wu AH et al. Br J Cancer 1996;73:680-6
13. Palmer JR et al. Cancer Causes Control 1997;8:841-9
14. Moseson M et al. Int J Epidemiol 1993;22:1000-9
15. Segi M et al. GANN 1957;48(Suppl):1-63
16. Watanabe H., Hirayama T. Nippon Rinsho 1968;26:1853-9 (em Japonês)
17. Dvoirin VV, Medvedev AB Meth Progr Breast Cancer EpidemiolRes, Tallin, 1978, Moscow Oncol Sei Otr USSR Acad Sci 1978;58-63
18. Burany B. Jugosl Ginekol Opstet 1979;19:237-47 (em sérvio-croata)
19. Nishiyama F. Shikoku Ichi 1982;38:333-43
20. Le M-G In Wolff J-P, Scott JS, eds. Hormones and Sexual Factors in Human Cancer Aetiology, Amsterdam: Elsevier 1884;139-47
21. Hirohata et at. NCI Monogr 1985;69:187-90
22. Ewertz M, Duffy SW Br J Cancer 1988;58:99-104
23. Adami HO et al. Br J Cancer 1990;62:122-6
24. La Vecchia C et al. Int J Epidemiol 1993;53:215-9
25. Andrieu N et al. Cancer Detect Prev 1994;18:51-5
26. Lipworth L et al. Int J Cancer 1995;61:181-4
27. Rookus M, van Leeuwen FE JNCI 1996;88:1759-64
28. Bu L et al. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141-885
29. Talamini R et al. Eur J Cancer
1996;32A:303-10
30. Melbye M et al. N Engl J Med 1997;336:81-5
31. Luporsi F in Andrieu N et al. Br J Cancer 1995;72:744-51
32. Rohan TE and 33. Zaridze DG, in #31 above
34. Harris JR et al N Engl J Med 1992;327:319-28
35. Remennick LI Int J Epidemiol 1989;18-498-510
36. Stewart et al. J Clin Endo Metab 1993;76:1470-6
37. Witt et al. Fertil Steril 1990;53:1029-36
38. Kunz J, Keller PJ Br J Ob Gyn 1976;83:640-4
39. Russo J, Russo III Am J Path 1980;100:497-512
40. Russo J et al. Brst Cancer Res Trt 1992;23:211-8
41.1997 World Conference on Breast Cancer – Global Action Plan Report, Kingston, ON, Canada, 1998, p.15
 
 
 
Estas informações foram produzidas num esforço conjunto do Endeavour Forum, Inc., 12 Denham Place, Toorak, Victoria 3142, Austrália; telefone: +613-9822-5218; faxe: +613-9822-3069, Prof.ª Doutora Babette Francis, Coordenadora Nacional e Internacional e também da Revista Abortion-Breast Cancer Quarterly Update, P.O. Box 3127, Poughkeepsic, NY, 12603 EUA; telefone & faxe: 914-463-3728.
e-mail: jbrind@abortioncancer.com, Prof. Doutor Joel Brind, Director e Editor.
 
(Traduzido por Joana Godinho, que teve a gentileza de nos enviar esta colaboração)

 

Aborto: a quem interessa?

Aborto: a quem interessa?

Aborto: a quem interessa?
 
Dra. Maria José Miranda Pereira
Promotora de Justiça do Tribunal do Júri de Brasília (DF), membro da Associação Nacional Mulheres pela Vida.
 
“Certos fatos sobre o aborto precisam ser entendidos: nenhum país já reduziu o crescimento de sua população sem recorrer ao aborto” (Relatório Kissinger, p. 182).
Uma pesquisa da Sensus realizada em abril de 2005 a pedido da Confederação Nacional de Transportes (CNT) revelou que 85% dos brasileiros são contrários à prática do aborto. Mesmo em caso de violência sexual, 49,5% são contrários, enquanto 43,5% são favoráveis e 7% não responderam [1].
A Folha de S. Paulo recentemente mostrou sua admiração pela “queda abissal” (sic) da aprovação pública ao aborto:
“Um dos aspectos que mais atraíram a atenção das pessoas ouvidas pela Folha a respeito dos resultados das chamadas ´questões morais´ da pesquisa Datafolha foi a queda abissal no índice de moradores de São Paulo que apóiam a legalização do aborto. Saiu de 43% em 1994, quando a maioria da população se declarava a favor da descriminalização, para 21% em 1997, já em segundo nas opções, para apenas 11% na pesquisa atual…” [2].
Paradoxalmente, estamos vendo parte do governo e de ONGs feministas numa busca frenética da liberação total do aborto. Por iniciativa do governo federal, foi instalada uma Comissão Tripartite para rever a legislação punitiva de tal crime. A Comissão foi composta por três partes: a primeira, abortistas do Poder Executivo; a segunda, abortistas do Poder Legislativo; a terceira, abortistas das ONGs financiadas com muitos dólares “representando” (?) a sociedade civil. Lamentavelmente, a Associação Nacional Mulheres pela Vida não foi convidada. O anteprojeto (ou “proposta normativa”) resultante do trabalho de tal Comissão dificilmente poderia ter saído pior. No dia 27 de setembro de 2005, a secretária especial de políticas para mulheres Nilcéia Freire, diretamente subordinada ao Presidente da República, entregou à Câmara dos Deputados a “proposta normativa” que “estabelece o direito à interrupção voluntária da gravidez, assegura a realização do procedimento no âmbito do sistema único de saúde, determina a sua cobertura pelos planos privados de assistência à saúde e dá outras providências” [3].
Segundo o texto da justificação, “a grande inovação da proposta […] diz respeito à consagração da interrupção voluntária da gravidez como um direito inalienável de toda mulher [grifo nosso], prevista no primeiro artigo da proposição”. Diz o mesmo texto que o anteprojeto “propõe ampla descriminalização do procedimento [grifamos], com exceção daquele provocado contra a vontade da mulher. Dessa forma, revoga os artigos 124 a 128 do Código Penal, exceto o art. 125…” Em outras palavras: o anteprojeto revoga todas as hipóteses de crime de aborto previstas no Código Penal, com apenas duas exceções: quando o aborto é praticado contra a vontade da gestante e quando do aborto resulta lesão corporal ou morte da gestante. De acordo com a proposta, a criança por nascer deixa de ter qualquer proteção penal. Só a gestante é considerada sujeito de direitos.
O artigo 3° estabelece condições para que o aborto seja feito: até doze semanas de gestação (três meses) por simples deliberação da gestante; até vinte semanas de gestação (cinco meses) se a gravidez resultou de crime contra a liberdade sexual (entre os quais, o estupro); até nove meses, se houver “grave risco à saúde da gestante”; também até nove meses em caso de má-formação fetal. As previsões, portanto, são amplíssimas.
E se alguém descumprir essas condições? Por exemplo: se uma gestante de oito meses decidir esquartejar seu bebê simplesmente porque não quer dar à luz, o que acontecerá? Nada. Absolutamente nada. Desde que o aborto seja feito com seu consentimento, nem ela nem o médico responderão criminalmente. Ou seja: as pouquíssimas restrições impostas pelo artigo 3° na verdade são nulas. Sabedores de que a população repudia com mais veemência o aborto quando feito contra um bebê no final da gestação, querem enganar a sociedade, deixando-a acreditar que o aborto por livre vontade da mãe só poderia ser feito até três meses, quando, em verdade, sua inobservância não trará qualquer sanção penal. Em outras palavras: o anteprojeto libera totalmente o aborto no País.
A quem isso interessa?
É de causar perplexidade o que está no artigo 4°: os planos privados de saúde serão obrigados a cobrir as despesas com aborto. Poderão eles excluir procedimentos obstétricos, mas não poderão excluir “os necessários à interrupção voluntária da gravidez realizada nos termos da lei” (sic). Pasmem! Para o governo, o aborto provocado é mais importante que o nascimento! A morte tem prioridade sobre a vida! A quem isso interessa?
Mortes maternas
Uma das fraudes mais utilizadas para defender a legalização do aborto é dizer que muitas gestantes morrem por causa de “abortos mal feitos”. A solução seria legalizar tal prática, que garantiria às grávidas o acesso ao “aborto seguro”. Raciocínio análogo levaria à conclusão de que seria necessário legalizar o roubo, a fim de evitar que ladrões inexperientes, atuando à margem da lei, acabassem morrendo em “roubos mal feitos”. Por uma questão de isonomia, todos teriam direito a um “roubo seguro”.
Deixando de lado, porém, o mérito de tal argumento pró-aborto, examinemos quantas mulheres morrem a cada ano em decorrência de abortos. Centenas de milhares? Dezenas de milhares? Alguns milhares? Nada disso. Veja-se a tabela abaixo, extraída do Departamento de Informação e Informática do SUS – DATASUS [4]:
Número de mulheres mortas em gravidez que terminou em aborto:
Ano
1996: 146
1997: 163
1998: 119
1999: 147
2000: 128
2001: 148
2002: 115
Como se percebe, o número anual de mortes maternas em decorrência do aborto não chega a duzentos! E este número pode ser reduzido a zero se o governo, ao invés de incentivar, combater a prática do aborto.
Uma outra fraude correlata é a afirmação de que, nos países em que o aborto é legal, a morte materna é bem menor do que nos outros, onde ele é proibido. Ora, “mais de 59% das mortes maternas do mundo ocorrem nos países que têm as leis menos restritivas. Na Índia, por exemplo, onde existe uma legislação que permite o aborto em quase todos os casos desde 1972, é onde mais mortes maternas ocorrem. A cada ano, registram-se cerca de 136.000 casos, equivalentes a 25% do total mundial, que para o ano 2000 se calculou em 529.000″ [5].
“Nos países desenvolvidos também se pode ver que não há uma correlação entre a legalidade do aborto e os índices de mortalidade materna. A Rússia, com uma das legislações mais amplas, tem uma taxa de mortalidade materna alta (67 por 100.000 nascidos vivos), seis vezes superior à média. Em contraste, a Irlanda, onde o aborto é ilegal praticamente em todos os casos, possui uma das taxas de mortalidade materna mais baixas do mundo (5 por 100.000 nascidos vivos), três vezes inferior à do Reino Unido (13 por 100.000 NV) e à dos Estados Unidos (17 por 100.000 NV), países onde o aborto é amplamente permitido e os padrões de saúde são altos” [6].
A quem, portanto, interessa legalizar o aborto?
Para esclarecer o que está por trás de tudo isso, convém que leiamos um documento, hoje não mais confidencial, de 10 de dezembro de 1974, de autoria do então secretário de Estado Henry Kissinger, intitulado National Security Study Memorandum 200 (abreviadamente NSSM 200): Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests . Em bom português: Memorando de Estudo de Segurança Nacional 200: Implicações do Crescimento Populacional Mundial para a Segurança e os Interesses Ultramarinos dos Estados Unidos.

O documento, conhecido como Relatório Kissinger, foi entregue pelo Conselho Nacional de Segurança dos Estados Unidos ao presidente americano Gerald Ford. Somente em 1989 a Casa Branca desclassificou o documento, que agora é de domínio público. Nesse relatório afirma-se que o crescimento da população mundial é uma ameaça para os Estados Unidos, e que é preciso controlá-la por todos os meios: anticoncepcionais, esterilização em massa, criação de mentalidade contra a família numerosa, investimento maciço de milhões de dólares em todo o mundo.

Henry Kissinger percebeu o que há quatro milênios o Faraó do Egito já percebera: a população é fator de poder. Seu simples crescimento numérico já é assustador: “Eis que o povo dos filhos de Israel tornou-se mais numeroso e mais poderoso do que nós. Vinde, tomemos sábias medidas para impedir que ele cresça´. […]. Então o Faraó ordenou a todo o seu povo: ´Jogai no Rio [o Nilo] todo menino que nascer. Mas deixai viver as meninas´” [7].
Para tentar impedir o crescimento demográfico dos países pobres, mantendo-os sob o domínio econômico e político dos países desenvolvidos, já se realizaram várias Conferências Mundiais: em Bucareste, Romênia (1974), na cidade do México (1984) e no Cairo (Egito, a terra do Faraó!) em 1994.
“A condição e a utilização das mulheres nas sociedades dos países subdesenvolvidos são de extrema importância na redução do tamanho da família. Para as mulheres, o emprego fora do lar oferece uma alternativa para o casamento e maternidade precoces, e incentiva a mulher a ter menos filhos após o casamento… As pesquisas mostram que a redução da fertilidade está relacionada com o trabalho da mulher fora do lar…” [10].
Na Conferência de Pequim (ou Beijing) sobre a Mulher, de 1995, investiu-se enormemente, em nível internacional, para compelir os países a legalizarem o aborto, reconhecendo-o como um “direito da mulher”. De fato, o Relatório Kissinger considera o aborto como crucial para o controle demográfico. Eis suas palavras textuais: “Certos fatos sobre o aborto precisam ser entendidos: nenhum país já reduziu o crescimento de sua população sem recorrer ao aborto” [11].
Em Brasília, atua um eficiente “lobby” pró-aborto chamado CFEMEA (Centro Feminista de Estudos e Assessoria). Essa ONG monitora cuidadosamente as proposições legislativas do Congresso Nacional e está sempre alerta para as estratégias mais favoráveis para a aprovação de projetos pró-aborto. Vejamos o que o CFEMEA diz de si mesmo: “Desde 1992, o Centro Feminista desenvolve o Programa Direitos da Mulher na Lei e na Vida, […]. O Programa assumiu a feição de Implementação das Plataformas de Beijing´95 e Cairo´94 no Brasil em 1995. Para realizar este trabalho, o CFEMEA conta com o apoio de organizações da cooperação internacional” [12] (grifo nosso).
As organizações da cooperação internacional que financiam o CFEMEA – e também vários outros grupos pró-aborto – são, entre outras, a Fundação Ford, a Fundação Mac Arthur, o Fundo das Nações Unidas para a População (FNUAP) e o Fundo das Nações Unidas para a Mulher (UNIFEM). Isso explica porque as feministas, embora em número reduzidíssimo, conseguem tanto espaço nos meios de comunicação social, dando a entender que representam o pensamento “da mulher”. O imenso empenho do governo em favorecer o aborto pode ser explicado, em parte, pela submissão aos organismos multilaterais de crédito, como o Banco Mundial e o Fundo Monetário Internacional. De fato, tais instituições financeiras “condicionam toda ajuda econômica externa ao cumprimento de metas demográficas pautadas em cada empréstimo” [13].
Está em julgamento perante o Supremo Tribunal Federal a famosa Argüição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental n. 54 (ADPF 54), que pretende que a Suprema Corte declare, com eficácia contra todos e efeito vinculante, que o aborto de bebês anencéfalos não constitui aborto, mas mera “antecipação terapêutica de parto” (ATP, na linguagem dos abortistas). Convém lembrar que, em tal ação, o Instituto ANIS, uma ONG pró-aborto muito atuante, já na petição inicial, oferece-se para ser admitido no feito como “amicus curiae”. Por coincidência, o ANIS [14], dirigido pela antropóloga Débora Diniz, é financiado pelas Fundações Ford e Mac Arthur, que também financiam o CFEMEA.
O plano de se obter a liberação do aborto eugênico (apelidado, eufemisticamente, de ATP) por via judicial não é novo. Periodicamente o Fundo das Nações Unidas para a População (FNUAP) publica um relatório (“inventory”) acerca dos projetos de população (“population projects”) em todo o mundo, na edição de 1996, na seção relativa ao Brasil, tal documento relatava uma doação da Fundação Mac Arthur de US$ 72.000 para “promover a discussão e demonstrar, com base em julgamentos anteriores, que se pode obter decisão da Justiça para interromper a gravidez no caso de sérias anomalias do feto. Duração: três anos. 1996-1999″ [15].
É impossível, nesse curto espaço, enunciar todas as estratégias e desmascarar todas as fraudes empregadas para obter o domínio político de nosso país, impedindo que o Brasil gere brasileiros. Aos interessados em aprofundar o tema, recomendo o excelente livro do jurista argentino Jorge Scala, intitulado “IPPF: a multinacional da morte”, recentemente traduzido para o português. A IPPF (Federação Internacional de Planejamento familiar) é a maior rede privada de controle de natalidade, com sede em Londres e filiais espalhadas em cerca de 180 países, entre os quais o Brasil, cuja filial chama-se BEMFAM. A IPPF dispõe no Brasil de um braço legislativo chamado Grupo Parlamentar de Estudos em População de Desenvolvimento (GPEPD), um poderoso – e bem financiado – lobby composto de parlamentares encarregados de transformar em lei os planos antinatalistas.
De lege ferenda
Na qualidade de mulher e de promotora de justiça, constato que, de todos os crimes contra a vida, o aborto é o mais paradoxal, o mais covarde de todos os assassinatos. Os meios empregados são insidiosos ou cruéis, Incluindo envenenamento, tortura ou asfixia (art. 121, §2°, III, CP). O ofendido sempre é absolutamente indefeso (art, 121, §2°, IV, CP). É praticado contra um descendente (art. 61, II, e, CP), contra uma criança (art. 61, II, h, CP) e, muitas vezes, por um médico que tem por ofício o dever de defender a vida (art. 61, II, g, CP). No entanto, a pena é ridiculamente pequena. Tão pequena que o autor pode beneficiar-se da suspensão condicional do processo (art. 89 da Lei 9099/1995). Embora o aborto seja a violação do mais precioso bem jurídico – a vida – praticado contra o mais inocente e indefeso dos entes humanos – a criança por nascer – ele não foi até hoje colocado na lista dos crimes considerados hediondos (Lei 8072/1990).
Se as feministas, instruídas por seus financiadores, têm sua “proposta normativa” para a revisão da lei penal do aborto, eu também tenho a minha. É uma sugestão simples que, se acolhida, colocará o Brasil na vanguarda da defesa dos direitos humanos: os artigos que incriminam o aborto (124 a 128) poderiam todos ser excluídos do Código Penal sem nenhum prejuízo para a tutela do nascituro, contanto que o caput do artigo 121 sofresse uma ligeira alteração:
Art. 121- Matar alguém, fora ou dentro do organismo materno.
Assim haveria total equiparação entre nascidos e nascituros quanto à violação do direito à vida, acabando-se, de uma vez por todas, com qualquer forma de preconceito de lugar (dentro ou fora do organismo materno). Essa nova redação incriminaria também quem concorresse, por ação ou omissão, para a morte do bebê. A modalidade culposa do aborto seria também punível, admitindo-se, porém, o perdão judicial (art. 121, §5°, CP). Obviamente qualquer aborto doloso seria, então, homicídio qualificado, o que desestimularia os matadores de criancinhas a abrir o lucrativo negócio de uma clínica de abortos. O que vem ocorrendo, entretanto, é uma extrema eficiência das estratégias dos aguerridos lutadores pelo “direito” ao aborto, que tão bem dissimulam o verdadeiro propósito, propagandeando a “nobre intenção de ajudar a mulher”.
Notas
2- DÁVILA, Sérgio. MANIR, Mônica. Posições extremadas sobre aborto e maconha surpreendem estudiosos. Folha de S. Paulo. São Paulo, 25 jan. 2004, Folha Especial.
3- A íntegra do anteprojeto está disponível em http://200.130.7.5/spmu/docs/proposta%20normativa.pdf
4- Acessível a qualquer internauta em http://www.datasus.gov.br
5- Observatorio Regional para la Mujer de América Latina y el Caribe (ORMALC). Falsas creencias sobre el aborto y su relación con la salud de la mujer. Septiembre 2005. p. 3. Tradução nossa. Disponível em http://www.lapop.org/pdf/dossieraborto.pdf
6- Idem.
7- Êxodo 1,8-10.22.
8- NSSM 200, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests, páginas 14 e 15, parágrafo 30. Tradução nossa.
9- NSSM 200, p. 115. Tradução nossa.
10- NSSM 200, p. 151. Tradução nossa.
11- NSSM 200, p. 182. Tradução nossa.
13- SCALA, Jorge. IPPF: a multinacional da morte. Anápolis: Múltipla Gráfica, 2004. p.16.
15- Fonte oficial: FNUAP – Inventory of Population Projects in Developing Countries Around the World – 1996. Tradução nossa.
***
08/07/06 – Publicação relacionada:
 
Disponível em:

%d blogueiros gostam disto: