U.S. Conducted Syphilis Experiments in Guatemala Without Consent

by Karen Hatter | October 2, 2010 at 02:24 pm
721 views | 6 Recommendations | 6 comments

Videos

US Tuskegee and Guatemala Syphilis Experiments Compared

see larger video

sourced by Karen Hatter

US Tuskegee and Guatemala Syphilis Experiments Compared

Photos

Big Profit for Big Pharma

Big Profit for Big Pharma

see larger image

uploaded by Pharmastorm

Beginning in 1946 through 1948, an experiment funded and conducted by the United States' National Institutes of Health (NIH), infecting those in the study without their knowledge with syphilis and, in some cases, gonorrhea, was conducted on nearly 700 Guatemalan men and women without their consent.

It is believed the study was designed to test the effectiveness of penicillin, a relatively new drug that had been recently developed.

This disturbing study relied on prostitutes for transmission of the disease as well as infection through inoculation when sexual contact did not infect enough people.

At some point, penicillin was offered to those infected. It is unclear how many accepted treatment and how many were or were not cured of the diseases.

Apologies have been offered to representatives of the Guatemalan government. President Obama spoke to President Alvaro Colom of Guatemala. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has also made contact with Guatemalan officials.

While secretly trying to infect people with serious diseases is abhorrent today, the Guatemalan experiment isn't the only example from what Collins on Friday called "a dark chapter in the history of medicine." Forty similar deliberate-infection studies were conducted in the United States during that period, Collins said.

"We've made some obvious moral progress" in protecting the poor and powerless, said Dr. Arthur Caplan, a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist. "The sad legacy" of past unethical experiments is that "they still shape who it is that we can get to trust medical researchers."

A continuing ethical dilemma in developing countries is what Caplan calls the "left-behind syndrome," when the people who helped test a treatment can never afford the resulting care.

"It's still ethically contentious as to how we ought to conduct, or whether we ought to conduct, certain forms of research in poor nations today," he said.

In her book, Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present, Harriet Washington provides painful documentation of a number of experiments that assuredly would be declared unethical by today's medical community.

Ms. Washington points out, post the period of slavery, during the times when these types of experiments were conducted, there was a prevailing attitude of indifference that allowed the use of people referred to as minorities and in general, the use of the poor of all races.

During an interview with Democracy Now! in 2007, Ms. Washington discussed what arguably has come to be known as one of the United States' worst examples of the medical community's domestic misstep off the path of ethical treatment of its patients, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, also known as the infamous Tuskegee Experiment.

This experiment was conducted by one of the precursors to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS). The experiment continued for over 40 years, more than 20 of those years after a cure had been found.


AMY GOODMAN: Talk about Tuskegee, the Tuskegee Experiment, though you write about how it obscures all others. A lot of people don’t even know about Tuskegee.

HARRIET WASHINGTON: That’s true. That’s true. Tuskegee is, you know, the icon of abusive experimentation of black people, but it’s true, many people still don’t know what happened, and there are a lot of misconceptions floating about, as well. So that’s a really good question, Amy.

What happened was that about 400 black men in Macon County, Alabama, with syphilis—who had been diagnosed with syphilis, at least—were studied over a period of forty years by the United States Public Health Service. There were 200 men who were not infected who were held as a control group, also black men. Over the course of forty years, these men were duped into thinking that they were in a treatment program. But they weren’t. They were given pain pills, which, as it transpired, were simply aspirin. They were given spinal taps, which, as it transpired, were not for the good of their health or to monitor their health, but rather to ensure a supply of sera for the development of a syphilis test. So they were used over forty years, even after the advent of penicillin. When penicillin was recognized as a cure, it was withheld from these men.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And this was between—what was the forty-year span?

HARRIET WASHINGTON: 1932 to 1972.

AMY GOODMAN: How many people knew about this at the time? How did it stop?

HARRIET WASHINGTON: Hundreds of people knew about it, because there were regular reports in the medical journals, and it was actually presented at an American Medical Association meeting in 1965. There were also numerous meetings of governmental agencies, where they periodically would ask, "Should we continue the experiment or not?" And the decision was always, "Yes, we should continue the experiment." It’s worth noting that the surgeon general, Thomas Parran, had taken on syphilis eradication as his mission, and yet when penicillin was devised and he had the cure, he made the decision to continue the experiment, because he said they represent an opportunity that will never come again.

 

Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
YankeeJim

What this historical circumstance demonstrates is that the USA was run by callous and inhumane people who were every bit as bad as Nazis in Germany. Permitted to operate inside our government, the experimenters attacked a foreign nation and people while at the same time it inflicted harm at home on minorities. This happened on my father's generation in charge, one generation from me. I am certain that atrocities happened with my generation in charge as well: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.

Wake up America. People are not reacting to America because we are sweetness and light and practice what we preach. They are reacting to breaches in our ideals by evil people who gain authority and are sanctioned by government.

Vigilance and attention are essential by We the People to keep government responsive to our needs and ideals.


0
Karen Hatter

I concur, Jim but, I'm sure many conservatives and Republicans will disagree with you on your analysis. 

1
David Marshall

U.S. experiments continue?“[ Footnote 4 ] The intelligence community believed that it was necessary "to conceal these activities from the American public in general," because public knowledge of the "unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of its mission." Id., at 394 (quoting CIA Inspector General's Survey of the Technical Services Division, p. 217 (1957)).”  See [Footnote 4 of IV] U.S. 709 U.S. Supreme Court 1987 STANLEY military experiment case. [3]   The "Veterans Right to Know Act" to establish the Veterans' Right to Know Commission was proposed in the 2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress.[9]  In accordance with the ongoing greater good necessity “to conceal these activities...” a veteran's right to get the U.S. Senate’s “designed to harm” needed for treatment, and experiment identifying, evidence never became law.  To-date rejected is the U.S. Senate 1994 Report’s, “The Feres Doctrine should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate human experimentation when informed consent has not been given.”[8]  Despite the 16 of 66 year efforts of some, the U.S. Congress has failed to protect service personnel from “to harm” experiments.  Therefore, do not the U.S. Senate’s reported Department of Defense (DOD)  “EXPERIMENTS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO HARM” [8] continue?  All conducted under the cover of Patriotism!  Please have your members in the U.S. Congress give back to service personnel and veterans those rights that convicted rapists and murderers keep, e.g., “Written policy and practice prohibit the use of” [prison] “inmates for medical.....experiments.”!  See page 13 of 14, REF: [6]  The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1987 STANLEY [3] “to harm” DOD experiment is approved by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1950 FERES [1] ‘can do no wrong, ends justify the means’ Doctrine.  The STANLEY case is one of the U.S. Senate’s 1994 “During the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel” were subjected to “experiments that were designed to harm”, e.g., the reported biological and chemical agents, radiation exposure, hallucinogenic and investigational drugs, experimental vaccines and behavior modification projects.[8]  It is a dereliction of duty in direct disobedience of the DOD Secretary's 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiments.[2]  During the U.S. Senate’s reported past 50 years, most of the "to harm" service records were destroyed in a 1973 National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) fire.  Congress’s 1974 Privacy Act censored experiment verifying witnesses from any surviving records!After the 1987 STANLEY, Congress passed the 1988 Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (VJRA).[4]  Established was the Legislative, Article I severely restricted, U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals.  In 1994 its Chief Judge stated, "The Court simply identifies error made below by a failure to adhere, in individual cases, to the Constitution, statutes, and regulations which themselves reflect policy -- policy freely ignored by many initial adjudicators whose attitude is, "I haven't been told by my boss to change. If you don't like it -- appeal it."[7]  Congress dictated that, "The court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule."[4]  Given to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is the Judicial Branch’s final authority on "the policies underlying the schedule" questions of law![5]  Each "to harm" experiment completes a Research and Development (R&D) process. Prior R&D is reviewed.  The resulting Scope of Work defines what each experiment is "designed" to accomplish.  The how, where, when and who is identified.  The conducted RESEARCHED cause and effects are closely followed and recorded.  From the results are DEVELOPED safe production, use, victim treatment and protection.  Accordingly, at the time known are the recorded and withheld “designed to harm” resultant “schedule” disabilities with their identifying symptoms and treatment.  Ignored by the U.S. Congress is the service personnel rights lost vs. prison inmate kept!Overlooked by many in Congress is our “Pledge of Allegiance” “with liberty and justice for all" and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ignored own, carved in stone over its entrance, “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”!REFERENCES: [1] 1950 - Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950). supreme.justia.com/us/340/135/case.html [2] 1953 - DOD Secretary's 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiment’s Memo pages 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, "The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).[3] 1987 - U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY , 107 S. CT.. 3054 (VOLUME 483 U.S., SECTION 669, PAGES 699 TO 710). supreme.justia.com/us/483/669/case.html[4] 1988 - Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (VJRA), Pub. L. No. 100-687, Div. A, 102 Stat. 4105 (8 December 1988) DVA-Chapter 4 and law.jrank.org/pages/6784/Federal-Courts-Court-Appeals-Veterans-Claims.html#ixzz0MIKbF8ND [5] "United States Code (USC) Title 38, 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality." US CODE: Title 38511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality.[6] 1994 - U.S. State Dept., "U.S. Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Article 7 - Freedom from Torture, or Cruel, Inhumanor Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” Electronic Research Collections (ERC) [7] 1994 - Chief Judge and colleague statements, Court of Veterans Appeals, Annual Judicial Conference, Fort Meyer, VA., 17 & 18 October 1994. Chief Judge Frank Nebeker's Statement STATE OF COURT - - - URL: www.firebase.net/state_of_court_brief.htm[8] 1994 - December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 "Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans' Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century." Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session. [9] 2005 & 2006 - "Veterans Right to Know Act" to establish the Veterans' Right to Know Commission was proposed in the 2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress. H. R. 4259.

2
Karen Hatter

Under the cover of national security, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency (BARDA) was created in 2005.

Seemingly as a reward for creating products to combat the possible effects of biological weapons, in the event U.S. citizens may be exposed, this agency protects all involved in the creation of any such products, shielding the identity(ies) of any and all involved in their creation from the public.

The bill S. 1873, the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005, would create a new Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency (BARDA). Under the bill cosponsored by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TENN), BARDA would be assigned to assist and encourage private industry in developing medical countermeasures for bioterrorism agents and natural outbreaks such as a possible avian flu pandemic.

Even more unique than the bills’ stated purpose, “to prepare and strengthen the biodefenses of the United States against deliberate, accidental, and natural outbreaks of illness,” is S. 1873’s clause granting BARDA a total categorical exemption from the requirements of FOIA:

“(2) FOIA - Information that relates to the activities, working groups, and advisory boards of the BARDA shall not be subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code [Freedom of Information Act], unless the Secretary or Director determines that such disclosure would pose no threat to national security. Such a determination shall not be subject to judicial review,” the bill states.

While FOIA already exempts certain categories of information from disclosure, like properly classified information that could compromise national security, S. 1873 goes well above-and-beyond those exemptions by stating that a decision by BARDA to withhold information could not even be overturned by the courts.

Also at NowPublic:

Top Secret America: Health/Safety in the Age of Homeland Security

0
David-Phillips

I read about this the other day, and while I learned something new, I was not surprised to read about this. Our government has conducted hundreds if not thousands of tests on Americans without their knowledge over the last 60-70 years. And they are still using citizens and non citizens in tests without their knowledge.  

Prison inmates are used as guinea pigs for pharmaceutical companies, US Troops were used in tests as recent as the two current wars.

No, I am not surprised by this revelation, just disgusted when I learn of these things.



2
Karen Hatter

Sadly, as you say, David, it isn't surprising at all, including some of the experiments conducted with what can only be called partially informed consent; you know, where participants are only told part of what is REALLY going on.

As far as testing conducted on prison inmates, Holmesburg Prison in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was such a lucrative site for testing, the architect of the research program at the prison, Dr. Albert M. Kligman, recalling when he visited the prison, expressing his excitement at the opportunity for use of the imprisoned population, stated, "All I saw before me were acres of skin. It was like a farmer seeing a fertile field for the first time".

Investigation and documentation of the experiments conducted at Holmesburg Prison by Allen M. Hornblum resulted in his book, Acres of Skin: Human Experiments at Holmesburg Prison.

In 'da hood', it was known that inmates could pick up some money doing 'studies' while imprisoned.

Most old timers knew to steer clear since they had lived to see some of the 'studies' weren't exactly what they had been represented to be.

When Dr. Kligman entered the aging prison, he was awed by the bare torsos of hundreds of inmates walking aimlessly before him and by the potential they held for his research. In 1966, he recalled in a newspaper interview: "All I saw before me were acres of skin. It was like a farmer seeing a fertile field for the first time." Hence the book's title.


But prisoners were also used in eye drop, toothpaste, liquid diet, and regeneration ointment studies and exposed to more hazardous and potentially lethal substances such as psychotropic drugs, radioactive isotopes and chemical warfare agents, often without being informed of the risks, nature and purpose of the experiments.


Other experiments involved testicular radiation at Oregon and Washington state prisons (a total of more than 130 prisoners were irradiated), live cancer cell injection at the Ohio state prison, mind control performed by [End page 5] the CIA during World War II, antidotes for influenza, malaria, typhus, and dysentery, skin graft techniques, and exotic blood tests.


Hornblum reports that in blood test experiments, for example, 64 volunteers were injected with an ounce of purified fraction of beef blood before the experiment was stopped. Twenty of the men became ill from serum sickness, eight seriously, "with high fever, rashes, and joint pain. One died."


Hornblum has first-hand knowledge of all these research activities carried out on willing but poorly informed prisoners from the early 1950's to the mid- l970's. He writes clearly and passionately about the extent and quality (or lack of it) of this clinical research.


A former member of the Board of Trustees of the Philadelphia Prison System and the Pennsylvania Crime Commission, Hornblum makes good use of his friendship with the former prisoners he interviewed.


Through extensive review of records, obtained thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, and hundreds of interviews of doctors, medical personnel, and prison officials, the author compiles an incredible document on prison research and gives ample examples of moral indifference and greed.


Eager doctors, seeking fame and fortune, saw in prisoners the ideal subjects for their experimental works because prisoners were less expensive, more expendable, and more willing to accept risks than free individuals.


Moreover, life in prison is subject to few variations so "healthy inmates were under perfect control conditions." Hornblum explains that "for the nascent medical-pharmaceutical industry, the appeal of penal institutions became overwhelming . . . . Public outcries against these experiments were few."

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

NowPublic on Facebook

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

YankeeJim
First Flagged at 6:00 AM, Oct 3, 2010 by YankeeJim
These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

Recommendations (6)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from